Into whose name should Christians be baptised? Jesus said, "...go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."

However, the early church apparently baptised in the name of Jesus:

Acts 8:16
Acts 10:48
Acts 19:5

Which is correct? Or is there a way to combine these?

From this article,

  The reason they were baptizing "in the name of Jesus" is not because
  it was a formula, but because the phrase, "in the name of" means "in
  the authority of.

They were baptizing with his authority. They were using his authority to baptize believers into a new life.

Another quote from that same site:

  Therefore, when someone is properly baptized, they are baptized in the
  name of Jesus; that is, by the authority of Jesus.  Therefore, when
  they are properly baptized in the name of Jesus, they should say, "I
  baptize you in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit,"
  just as Jesus commanded us to do.

If we should baptise only in the name of Jesus then why Jesus say to baptise in the name of the Father and the Holy Spirit too? –  curiousdannii

Because he wanted to determine who actually understood the keys to the kingdom. Recall he asked his disciples in Matthew 16:13 who people of the day thought he was. A lot of titles were rattled off, but Peter was the only one who got it right when he said, "Thou art the Christ, the son of the living God." But the best part is what Jesus said following that statement: "Blessed are you Simon....for flesh and blood hath not revealed this to you but my Father in heaven." The actual Greek text transliterated reads, "the Father of me who is in the heavens." And this is very important and something that the KJV really does not do justice in transition. Recall the "father" of Jesus was actually the Holy Ghost because Matthew 1:18 indicates the Holy Ghost (the Spirit of God) conceived a child in Mary. But God's Spirit was "locked" up in heaven as John 7:39 indicates, "But this He spake of the Spirit, which the that believe on Him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified."

Returning to Peter's revelation of who Jesus really was, Jesus follows himself and says in Matthew 16:18, "...you are Peter and upon this rock will I build my church..." Now fast forward to Acts chapter 2, Jesus had ascended back into heaven after his resurrection (thus making the pouring out of the Holy Ghost possible -John 7:39), and the day of Pentecost was fully come. Those in the upper room were baptized with the Spirit of God, evidenced by their speaking in languages they didn't learn, and Peter rose to the occasion and declared Acts 2:38, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."

It was the revelation of who Jesus was that prompted Jesus to declare that His church would be built upon that revelation, and it would be Peter who would start the construction, the most important element of which is found in Acts 2:38.

When the great commission is written, Jesus already knows "the name of the Father, the name of the Son, and the name of the Holy Ghost" because it's His name. And when the revelation of who Jesus really was (100% God, 100% man) was given to Peter, it marked the pathway to salvation.

This is why you wont find any account of baptism after John's baptism of faith that uses anything other than the name of Jesus. And since we will all be judged by our obedience to God's Word, not any "church's" word, I would follow the Word over any church.

I'll also add that anyone who is baptized as an infant is not being baptized according to scriptural teachings. Recall Jesus said in Mark 16:16, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." An infant can't believe because it doesn't understand, and it doesn't matter whether or not mom and dad believe. Jesus is crystal clear when he says you must believe and be baptized. This is an individual requirement and each of us will stand alone on the day of judgement to determine whether the actions we took in this life line up with the requirements dictated in God's Word. So the formula of salvation according to the Bible appears to be: believe in the power of the blood of Jesus to remit your sins, find someone who will baptize you as Peter commanded, and seek the infilling of God's Spirit because it is promised to you after repenting and surrendering your life to God's purpose.

  I've never heard this before. So, you're saying the Holy Spirit is Jesus' Father. So, Jesus returned to heaven and then sent His Father to us. Who, then, is the First Person of the Trinity? Is He "Our Father" or "The Father"? And is Jesus the name of all Three? What did Jesus mean when He said to baptize in the name of the Father--but not His Father--the Son--Himself--and the Holy Spirit--His Father, but not ours. Which tradition believes this? –  Narnian

According to Matthew 1:18, the Holy Ghost conceived in Mary. That's scripture, not tradition. To respond to your comment about tradition, I don't care about tradition because the Bible is pretty clear about tradition: "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ." (Col 2:8)

Perfect example: the concept of the Trinity - nowhere to be found in scripture, an idea purely conceived out of convenience by the First Council of Nicaea in AD 325.

My God is a single deity, not three different persons. Paul made this very clear when he wrote to the Colossians: "For in him (speaking of Jesus) dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily." (Col 2:9)  Notice he used the word "dwelleth" not "dwelt"...indicating it is a continuous dwelling, even to this day. So when the day of judgement occurs, there's only going to be one entity sitting on the thrown that day and his name is Jesus.

Regarding your question about Jesus' return to heaven and His Spirit returning to Earth: "But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." (John 14:26) Recall earlier in John where the Holy Ghost/Holy Spirit/Comforter - all the same characteristic nomenclature of God's Spirit - could not be poured out on mankind because Jesus was still on Earth and 100% of that Spirit (as Paul mentioned) was dwelling in His physical body.  Once the transfiguration occurred and the flesh of Jesus was converted back into Spirit during His ascent into Heaven, it freed up that Spirit to become omnipresent once again - which was made manifest on the day of Pentecost as written in Acts 2.

@bruised reed: "Would it be fair to say this is an example of Oneness Theology?"

Personally, I'm not big on titles or categorizations. All that's important to me is what saith the Word of the Lord. And my Bible tells me that there's one God, not three distinct persons.  As the scripture I quoted says the fullness of the Godhead dwelt in Jesus. Further Jesus said in John 10:30, "I and my Father are one." And He goes one step further in response to Philip in John 14:9, "...Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?"

Clearly, Jesus was pretty disappointed in that question, but then we know that Peter was apparently the only one who received the revelation of who He was as I mentioned earlier.

Ignore the traditions of men, pick up the original Greek text with an interlinear, and just discover the truth for yourself by reading the Word for yourself.

@Narnian

I wasn't attacking you - just encouraging you to not take any tradition as gospel as Paul cautioned. Regarding to whom Jesus was praying...Paul provides insight into this in Romans 8:26, "Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered."

Did Jesus need to pray? No, because He was 100% God; but He was also 100% flesh.  And that flesh was just like ours (yet without sin - conceived out of perfection via the Spirit of God) complete with the potential to fall and also with the same desire to LIVE. The Spirit within Him was making intercession on behalf of the flesh to help Him overcome His own fleshly desires, set them aside, and die on a cross for my salvation.


Where in the bible explicitly did Jesus say he is God? It is known to all that back then there are people that worship (non)living things such as the sun/moon or a dead notable person. It is also known that most if not all, of those things/person never even claimed to be the God, however, their followers do.
Did Jesus every say explicitly that he is God? I do not accept statements that are not explicit because

It's of the words of the writer or other people.

or

It can be interpreted in a different way.

Unlike explicit statements, it can't interpreted in a different way and it doesn't require you to know the context and stuff.

We see Jesus telling the High Priest before the public at Mk 41:62=63 that He is indeed the Son of God :
"Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?”   Jesus said, “I am; and
‘you will see the Son of Man
seated at the right hand of the Power,’
and ‘coming with the clouds of heaven.’”


What does it mean to "flee to the mountains" as writen in Mark? Mark 13:14
  New International Version (NIV)
  14 “When you see ‘the abomination that causes desolation’ standing where it does not belong—let the reader understand—then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains."

First off, is this meant figuratively or literally? I lean towards believing it is literal. But then it specifically mentions that it is those in Judea that should flee... is this also literal Judea? What about those of us in the nations, now?

I do not like Jehovah's Witnesses' explanation that they are the symbolic mountains and that by joining them we are already 'safe'; I believe there is more to it than that. For instance it is only when we see the abomination causing desolation that we are meant to flee, so that does not make sense if you compare it to joining a religious group.

And what of people living far from any mountains? This is where it is difficult to believe that it is literal, yet the detail of the rest of the verses in Mark do suggest that actual fleeing is necessary.

I'm a little stumped. What does "fleeing to the mountains" actually mean in this context?

You get the sense of literal fulfillment by reading the verses before and after. Jesus is not switching back and forth between the two in the chapter when He talks about what will happen in the last days. When Jesus told His disciples that the temple will be torn down (13:1-2), the disciples wanted to know when that would happen, and what the sign will be for it's fulfillment (13:4). In other words, Jesus was talking about a real temple (the one they were looking at, that Herod built), and real, discoverable signs concerning its end.

The events in the verses immediately after that are easily discoverable in our literal world and relationships. In verse 14, Jesus starts answering the second part of the disciple's question about signs of the fulfillment. That sign refers to an event mentioned in Daniel 9:27, from which Jesus gets the phrase, "abomination that causes desolation." Some pretribulation groups claim that this event will take place when an antichrist figure will set himself up as a god to be worshiped (taking their text as 2 Thess. 2:3-4). When the Jews see that literal sign, they are to flee out of Judea, which is surrounded by hilly, mountainous terrain. Read again verses 15-18; Jesus indicates in these verses that the fleeing is literal, and extremely urgent. If you are on your housetop, don't stop to pick up stuff on your way out (v15), if you are in the field, don't stop to pick up your garment (v16); if you are pregnant or care for little ones, it will be hard for you (v17); and "pray that your flight may not be in winter" (v18). All of these details emphasize the literalness of the event in question, of the urgency of fleeing when the sign is seen.

The literalism comes to an end in the chapter when Jesus deliberately injects a parable, and says He does so ("Now learn this parable from the fig tree"). Once the brief parable is over, He goes back to using terms that can be understood literally.

In some cases of prophecy, they have a near fulfillment and far fulfillment. It is so with this prophecy. In its near fulfillment, the temple was indeed torn down as He said it was, in 70 A.D. by the Roman armies of Titus, and those Jews who fled when they saw the armies surrounding the city (a detail recorded in Luke's version of this chapter of Mark, Luke 21:20-21) escaped to safety, and were spared the grievous horrors suffered by the Jews left behind recorded by Josephus.

However, the Abomination of Desolation was not set up at that time. That will be left for a future day, which must take place after another literal temple is built in Jerusalem. After that event, according to the sequence of events in Mark 13:24-27, Jesus will come again.

It is both literal and figurative.  On the one hand Romans destroyed the Temple in 70 AD and the people fled to the mountains.  It is also something that is foretold to happen in Revelation that was prefigured in the Book of Maccabees.

"Abomination" is a similar word to mockery or sacrilege
"Desolation" means emptiness, a place where no one is present

It is the emptiness of the New Mass.  It is a mockery of the Tridentine Mass.  God is not present because the sacrament is not confected. It was cursed by Pope St. Pius V.

  Pope St. Pius V, Quo Primum Tempore, July 14, 1570:

  “Now, therefore, in order that all everywhere may adopt and
  observe what has been delivered to them by the Holy Roman Church,
  Mother and Mistress of the other churches, it shall be unlawful
  henceforth and forever throughout the Christian world to sing or to
  read Masses according to any formula other than this Missal published
  by Us… Accordingly, no one whosoever is permitted to infringe or
  rashly contravene this notice of Our permission, statute, ordinance,
  command, direction, grant, indult, declaration, will, decree, and
  prohibition.  Should any venture to do so, let him understand that he
  will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the blessed Apostles Peter
  and Paul.


Is the Number of The Beast 666 OR 616? The actual Number of The Beast is only mentioned in Revelation 13:18;  In the Greek manuscripts, the  number is rendered  as χξϛ  or "six hundred and sixty-six".

In 2005 Oxford University's Ashmolean Museum revealed the discovery of the oldest manuscript (about 1,700 years old) of Revelation 13 which gave The Beast's number as 616 χιϛ.

What is the more common belief between the two? What are some examples of Churches that belief in 666 and some in 616? Are there other interpretations this question does not consider?

The Scripture actually reads:

  Revelation 13:18 KJV  Here is wisdom. Let him who has understanding calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man: His number is 666.

This in turn refers back to:

  Revelation 13:1 NKJV  Then I stood on the sand of the sea. And I saw a beast rising up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and on his horns ten crowns, and on his heads a blasphemous name.

George Moorish in his Bible dictionary says:

  Besides the ordinary use of this word — such as distinguishing all animals from man, Exodus 9:10; Psalms 36:6; and as specifying quadrupeds from fowls and creeping things, Genesis 8:19 — the word is used symbolically for:

b. Great worldly powers, cheyva, qhrion, having different characters according to the symbolic creature specified, but signifying in each case the absence of all moral connection with God: used by Daniel for the four great kingdoms, Daniel 7:3-23; and in Revelation 13:1 to Revelation 20:10 for the revived Roman empire and for the Antichrist.

Taking a look back at Daniel chapter 7 we find a description of his vision of a similar beast:

  Daniel 7:7 NKJV  "After this I saw in the night visions, and behold, a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, exceedingly strong. It had huge iron teeth; it was devouring, breaking in pieces, and trampling the residue with its feet. It was different from all the beasts that were before it, and it had ten horns.

Taken together many have concluded that This refers to a resurgent Roman Empire, and that Revelation 13:18 refers to the succession of rulers.

Others have concluded it refers to the Roman Catholic church and the Papacy.

Even others have taken:

  Daniel 7:4 NKJV  The first was like a lion, and had eagle's wings. I watched till its wings were plucked off; and it was lifted up from the earth and made to stand on two feet like a man, and a man's heart was given to it.

To mean that it is a completely new World order which will rise up out of the sea of humanity.

So in answer to your question the number itself, which is the number of his name, and not the number of the beast is no consequence until we know what that name is. The name itself is unknown as far as Scripture is concerned, The book of the Revelation is purposely vague in that it is a revelation of the future; and some if not most of the book is yet to be revealed, and the reason for giving it to the Apostle John may well have been to warn us that we should be ever vigilant.

The fact that there are contradictory references as to what that number actually is; is further evidence God is more interested in our being constantly vigilant that what the details of the Scripture are.

If we look at the opening of chapter 13 verse 18 we find that it says let he who has understanding do the calculation, and who fits that requirement?


What is baptism by Desire? Again, this is one I've never heard of.  Inspired by Peter Turner's comment.

  If you had a plane full of people's consent to be baptized if they
  miraculously survived the flight but they died anyway then water
  baptism wouldn't be necessary, it would be baptism by desire.

I'd never heard of "baptism by desire".  What is it, who believes in it, and how does it relate to "traditional" baptism as far as legitimacy/effectiveness goes?  (Is it considered inferior or equivalent to traditional baptism?)  I assume that "by desire" means that no ordained minister/priest/pastor is involved, hence the question of legitimacy/effectiveness.

It's not just that no priest is involved -- after all, anyone with the correct intention is able to perform a valid baptism, though it is forbidden, except in cases of emergency, to just "do it yourself". It's that no other persons at all are involved. Just the person undergoing a baptism by desire, and God. (Not to imply that God is one person; He is three Persons, one Being).
The Baltimore Catechism addresses this question directly:

Q. 650. What is Baptism of desire?
A. Baptism of desire is an ardent wish to receive Baptism, and to do all that God has ordained for our salvation.

Further:

Q. 653. Is Baptism of desire or of blood sufficient to produce the effects of Baptism of water?
A. Baptism of desire or of blood is sufficient to produce the effects of the Baptism of water, if it is impossible to receive the Baptism of water.
Q. 654. How do we know that the baptism of desire or of blood will save us when it is impossible to receive the baptism of water?
A. We know that baptism of desire or of blood will save us when it is impossible to receive the baptism of water, from Holy Scripture, which teaches that love of God and perfect contrition can secure the remission of sins ; and also that Our Lord promises salvation to those who lay down their life for His sake or for His teaching.

So it is as effective as baptism by water. God is always effective.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church gives further details:

1259 For catechumens [catechumens are those who are in the process of joining the Church] who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament.
1260 "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery." Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.

Note that in the above, "will of God" means will of God, not the will of a god. 1260 is of special relevance to those who are wondering whether, for example, people in uncontacted tribes can be saved. Short answer: yes, they absolutely can.

The Catholic Church professes one Baptism of water.  Many people today believe that there are two other types of Baptisms: a Baptism of Desire, and a Baptism of Blood.  Its proponents believe that BoD and BoB have the same effect as the normal Baptism, specifically removing original sin and mortal sins.

Baptism of Desire is condemned here:

  Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Can. 2 on the Sacrament of
  Baptism, Sess. 7, 1547,
       “If anyone shall say that real and natural water is not necessary for baptism, and on that account those words of Our Lord Jesus Christ:
  ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit’ [John 3:5],
  are distorted into some sort of metaphor: let him be anathema.”

Baptism of Blood is condemned here:

  Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441,  “The
  Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all
  those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also
  Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will
  go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his
  angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end
  of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such
  importance that only for those who abide in it do the Church’s
  sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other
  works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal
  rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given
  away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ,
  unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic
  Church.”

Traditionally the Catholic Church taught that after the promulgation of the Gospel only Catholics could get into Heaven as Pope Eugene IV indicates above.  However these days, if you ask someone:

"Did the Muslim/Jew/Pagan/Atheist get into Heaven?"  They will say, "I cannot judge, even though the person rejected the Gospel for their entire life, he could have received a Baptism of Desire."   Then if you want to really make them mad ask if the person needs to actually desire Baptism to get a "Baptism of Desire", they will usually say "No."

Baptism of Desire was the key to the promotion of universal salvation:

  “Cardinal” Joseph Ratzinger, Truth and Tolerance, 2004, p. 207: “The
  fact that in every age there have been, and still are, ‘pagan saints’
  is because everywhere and in every age – albeit often with difficulty
  and in fragmentary fashion – the speech of the ‘heart’ can be heard,
  because God’s Torah may be heard within ourselves

I expect to get a bunch of comments that the Council of Florence isn't infallible.

If you would like more references please consult this document.


What is stopping Christians from having just one doctrine/interpretation? As far as I know, there is only one God, one Jesus, and one Holy Spirit, and they are ONE. But, what we have here is dozens of different doctrines (I'm not sure if "doctrine" is the right word for this). Catholics, Protestants, Mormons etc.

And, the driving force of understanding the Bible comes from the guidance of Holy Spirit. And the Bible of course is the best place to learn about God's will. Since there is only one Holy Spirit that is teaching us all,

Why can't we have a universal belief and practice? What creates this different bible interpretations from the spiritual point of view?
Is it possible to have just one universal doctrine/belief/practice?

The answer is "sin".  The only thing stopping us from having one doctrine is sin.  If sin didn't enter into the equation, we would agree.
God wants us to agree.

Now I exhort you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all agree and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be made complete in the same mind and in the same judgment. - 1 Corinthians 1:10

But because of sin, we don't agree.  Sin can be summarized as lust...

"In the last time there will be mockers, following after their own ungodly lusts." These are the ones who cause divisions, worldly-minded, devoid of the Spirit. - Jude 1:18-19

...and pride.

As I urged you upon my departure for Macedonia, remain on at Ephesus so that you may instruct certain men not to teach strange doctrines  - 1 Timothy 1:3
For some men, straying from these things, have turned aside to fruitless discussion, wanting to be teachers of the Law, even though they do not understand either what they are saying or the matters about which they make confident assertions.  - 1 Timothy 1:6-8

Example
Suppose I am doing ok financially, and I read a passage indicating that I should provide for my brothers who are in need, and for those who minister to me.  Buuut... something inside me tells me "Nah... that money is yours!  You worked hard for it.  Forget those lazy people... they can go get a job and make their own money!"  Well, such a person would be inclined to have a "different interpretation" of those passages I linked.
It's a sad reality... difficult to accept; difficult to consider a possibility in our own lives... but reality none the less.

There are two main reasons: sin and ignorance.

Sin: Some people don't like what the Bible says, and so insist on "re-interpreting" it to conform to what they prefer to believe. Some people want to use the Bible to advance some cause of their own and so pervert and corrupt it.

But even without that, even if everyone genuinely sought the truth, we would still have disagreements because humans are fallible. I've had plenty of disagreements about doctrine with other believers whom I am sure are completely sincere. I don't think they're lying or deliberately distorting scripture and I don't think they suppose I am. We just disagree.

Why doesn't the Holy Spirit prevent such disagreements by miraculously causing us all to have the correct understanding of scripture? Free will, for one. God is not going to dictate to us what we must believe: he gives us the freedom to come to our own conclusions. Also, why would God bother to create billions of human beings if he was then going to insure that they all thought exactly the same?


Are there truths that can only be known through spiritual means? The motivation for this question basically comes from reading the discussion around the question Is it necessary to Biblically support arguments within discussions about Christianity? and a question at Philosophy Stack Exchange, Kierkegaard and the Tripartite Theory of Man in which the bipartite view (only mind and body) of man is distinguished from the tripartite view (spirit, soul and body).

In science, we know things through empirical methods, and in logic/mathematics, we know things through logical proofs. We use combinations of these methods to know various facts in daily life. Yet 1 Corinthians 2:14 says that "...the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God..." and uses the phrase "spiritually discerned" in reference to the things of the Spirit of God. Now in the book "The Spiritual Man" by Watchman Nee, which takes the tripartite view, there is reference made to "The Soul's Faculty of Intellect or Mind" (in Volume 1, Part 1, Chapter 2), hence apparently making a connection between "mind" and "soul".

Hence all this leads to the obvious question: Are there true statements that inherently are unknowable by empirical means or logic and simply require "spiritual discernment"?

Perhaps the second question is: What is a man to do then?

Of course, I realize that this whole tripartite view might not even be widely accepted in the first place, nor might the book I mentioned be well-known. I myself do not claim expertise in all these matters. I'd just be happy to hear views and generate discussion. Thanks!

The short answer to your question is yes.
Matthew 7:28-29

28 And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine:
29 For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.

What do you suppose it means, "as one having authority, and not as the scribes"? (Think how the scribes learned what they knew of the law.)
Galatians 1:12

12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

Cool how Paul learned the gospel, isn't it? The disciples describe similar experiences thus:
Luke 24:32

And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?

The burning of the bosom is a sensation described multiple times in scripture as a possible way to know/recognize spiritual truth.
Paul describes the process of revelation by spiritual means to know God:
Ephesians 1:17-18

17 That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him:
18 The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints,

Clearly, it is by spiritual means that a personal testimony is gained.
Jesus directly told the disciples that the Holy Ghost will teach them/us all things:
John 14:26

26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

Also, Romans is instructive:
Romans 8:16

16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:

How is this spiritual truth learned? Spirit to spirit. I believe this is the only way to gain a true understanding and/or testimony of certain doctrines.
So what are we to do?
Jeremiah 29:13

12 Then shall ye call upon me, and ye shall go and pray unto me, and I will hearken unto you.
13 And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart.

This promise is perhaps one of the most oft-repeated promises in all of holy scripture (for example, see Luke 11:9 or Matthew 7:7), and I think many, if not all, Christian faiths abide by this.

Yeah, there are truths that can be known through spiritual discernment.

If you've ever been asked, "what do you want to do when you grow up?" you may have encountered this.

The question is about vocation (calling), and it hits to the core of what it is to be a human being.  Everyone is called by God to do something with their lives.  Everyone is called to figure out what that thing is.  If it truly is what your calling is, then you've discovered it and it is wholly the Spirit leading you to that place.

Priests have to answer this call, some do, some don't some never were called and respond, some only find their calling after years and years of searching, some might even say they "lost their calling".

At Mass a priest says the following:

  Peace be with you

to which the people respond

  And with your spirit

The reason behind this (it is a very recent change in the English translation, but consistent with ancient texts and modern Latin), is because it is the Spirit with which the Priest received his orders which we greet.  This isn't something you should say in a prayer service with a lay person... There is a Spirit which rests on each priest and gives him the power to consecrate the Body and Blood of Christ.  I don't know what it means, but this is certainly a spiritual reality and so are the rest of the sacraments.

Those are all private spiritual truths, subjective and not really an answer to this question.  But it does lead to one big spiritual truth (at least for Catholics).  How is the Pope determined?

Dastardly masonic plot
Darts
Popular vote in college of Cardinals.
Holy Spirit

If you answered 4.) then you may believe what I'm about to say...  The Pope is a man who truly has a calling.  In almost 2000 years of the papacy, he's never managed to subvert the Catholic Church's teaching on faith and morals.  This isn't a proof, it's only an example - because there is no proof only staggering hosts of counter examples.

The entire field of apologetics is to mass the counter examples to those who deny dogmas.  Unfortunately you said "are" in your question, which means skepticism is the only concrete answer and faith is the conciliatory answer.  But, if you had asked, "has anyone ever been able to refute the existence of spiritual truth?" I could say, "not if it's Catholic dogma".


What does being lukewarm mean in contrast with being hot or cold for the church of Laodicea? From Rev. 3:14-22(ESV)

  14 “And to the angel of the church in Laodicea write: ‘The words of
  the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of God's
  creation.

  15 “‘I know your works: you are neither cold nor hot. Would that you
  were either cold or hot! 16 So, because you are lukewarm, and neither
  hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth. 17 For you say, I am
  rich, I have prospered, and I need nothing, not realizing that you are
  wretched, pitiable, poor, blind, and naked. 18 I counsel you to buy
  from me gold refined by fire, so that you may be rich, and white
  garments so that you may clothe yourself and the shame of your
  nakedness may not be seen, and salve to anoint your eyes, so that you
  may see. 19 Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline, so be zealous
  and repent. 20 Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears
  my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him,
  and he with me. 21 The one who conquers, I will grant him to sit with
  me on my throne, as I also conquered and sat down with my Father on
  his throne. 22 He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to
  the churches.’”

Basically, Jesus Christ wanted the church to be either hot or cold, but never lukewarm. So my question is what does hot, cold, and lukewarm represent for this verse?

In addition to what was said before hot and cold being opposites one a passionate for God and another being cool. Both hot and warm water were considered luxuries during the days in which the epistles were written and both had positive qualities. Stagnant lukewarm water however had a special meaning to the Laodicean's as is related in the following explanation from March 5 2013 Sparking Gem From the Greek by Rick Renner:

The city of Laodicea was built in a region that was full of seismic activity and had experienced many earthquakes. As often happens in a seismic area, vents came up from the depths of the earth, allowing boiling hot water to reach the surface. In the nearby city of Hierapolis, these hot springs were famous. People came from great distances to bathe in those waters, believing they had medicinal powers. An experience in those waters was viewed to be therapeutic and effective in improving one's health.
Another city named Colosse was not too far away. As Hierapolis was known for its hot springs, Colosse was known for its cold waters. Just as people journeyed to Hierapolis to bathe in the hot springs for health purposes, people would travel great distances to vacation in Colosse, where they could invigorate themselves by taking frequent dips into the famous, refreshing, cool-to-freezing waters of that city.
Laodicea may have been the biggest and richest city in the area, but it had neither hot nor cold water. Therefore, the people of Laodicea had to leave their luxurious homes and travel to Colosse if they wanted to enjoy fresh, cool water. On the other hand, those who desired to soak in the hot springs had to travel six miles to Hierapolis.
Once in an attempt to bring the hot water from Hierapolis to Laodicea, a huge construction project was commenced. The goal of those who initiated the project was to build pipes that would channel the hot water six miles from Hierapolis to the city of Laodicea. The pipes effectively delivered the water - a real feat of construction at that time. Sadly, however, the water lost its heat along the way. By the time the water reached Laodicea, it was not only lukewarm, but it had developed a sickening, nauseating taste. The taste was so revolting that no one wanted to drink it!

The best way to take this is the way it is written.

“To the angel of the church in Laodicea write:”

It was written to the angel of the church, not to the individual believer.

Rom 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

Jhn 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

The description of the people does not sound like believers in Christ, but unbelievers who made a good portion of the membership.

17  You say, ‘I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.’ But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked.

A true believer would never be described this way.


Did Jesus mean that heaven and earth would actually pass away in Matthew 24:25? In Matthew 24:35 (KJV) Jesus says:

  "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away."

How can heaven pass away, since it is the abode of God? (See, for example, 1 Kings 8:49; Psalm 123:1.)

Are there any other Scripture passages that can help to clarify this saying?

Heaven can mean several things:

The abode of God/angels/righteous
The firmament (sky)
State of utmost happiness

These are related concepts, and even in ancient languages, these meanings are conflated.
When heaven and hell are used together, #1 or #3 make the most sense.
When heaven and earth are used together, #2 probably makes the most sense.
So

The sky and the earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

or

The universe will pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

This isn't hypothetical; this event will happen, on the "day of the Lord",

the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up
2 Peter 3:10

Now, maybe God lives in a new place too -- I don't know any reason why that couldn't be true -- but the point isn't that God gets a new house, so much as it is that all creation will pass away, but not God's word.

Yes he did. Revelation and an epistle by Peter confirm this:

Revelation 21:1

  And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the
  first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.

2 Peter 3:10

  But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the
  which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements
  shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are
  therein shall be burned up.

This is reported in those locations as a literal event, not figurative.


Why did Daniel feel the need to pray towards Jerusalem, even at the cost of his own life? After Darius signed a decree which said that anyone praying to any god but Darius should be thrown into the Lion's den, Daniel goes and prays anyway.

  Daniel 6:10-11 ESV When Daniel knew that the document had been signed, he went to his house where he had windows in his upper chamber open toward Jerusalem. He got down on his knees three times a day and prayed and gave thanks before his God, as he had done previously. Then these men came by agreement and found Daniel making petition and plea before his God.

The author seems to go to great effort to show that Daniel didn't care about being caught, and that he may have even been encouraging it. Why else would the author state that Daniel knew the decree had been signed and that he went to a room that had windows opened towards Jerusalem, apparently to pray towards it.

What was the big deal about praying towards Jerusalem, and why was it so important that Daniel would be willing to die for it?

He could have prayed silently, or towards Jerusalem with the windows closed, or any other combination of non-law breaking things.

Daniel had been a fantastic rule follower up until that point, and he had proved himself to be smart to enough to work his way around the rules, and he certainly had the power and authority to do what he wanted. He seems to draw some sort of line here and state "I would rather die than pray in any way other than towards Jerusalem with the window open." Why?

To prevent this question from being opinion based I want to know what popular Christendom has had to say about this. Sole biblical basis is preferred.

I can think of at least one good reason why Daniel faced towards Jerusalem while praying.

Solomon made this prayer as part of the dedication of the temple -

  "And hearken thou to the supplication of thy servant and of thy people
  Israel, when they pray toward this place; yea, hear thou in heaven thy
  dwelling place; and when thou hearest, forgive" - 1 Kings 8:30

Well to me it's just simple that he wanted to be as open as possible about his faith and as an appointed Leader, by God, he knew he needed to represent other Christians. It's as simple as why did the chicken cross the road.


Debtors vs. Trespassers I converted to the Presbyterian faith from a Catholic upbringing a while back and have always wondered - but never had anyone to ask - why Catholics use "Trespassers" in the Lord's prayer (Please forgive our trespasses, as we forgive our Trespassers) and the Presbyterians use "Debtors".  I'm sure someone has to have asked this question somewhere before me :-)

There's a great analysis by Dave Armstrong that goes into a lot more detail, but it comes from trying to best capture the point of the Lord's Prayer—as it's rendered in the Bible—in English.

There are two forms of the Lord's Prayer found in the Bible: one in Matthew and another in Luke.

In Matthew 6:9–13, the Lord's Prayer is rendered as (emphasis mine):

  9“This is how you are to pray:

  Our Father in heaven,
  hallowed be your name,
  10your kingdom come,
  your will be done,
  on earth as in heaven.
  11Give us today our daily bread;
  12and forgive us our debts,
  as we forgive our debtors;
  13and do not subject us to the final test,
  but deliver us from the evil one.

But in Luke 11:2–4, it's rendered as (emphasis mine):

  2He said to them, “When you pray, say:

  Father, hallowed be your name,
  your kingdom come.
  3Give us each day our daily bread
  4and forgive us our sins
  for we ourselves forgive everyone in debt to us,
  and do not subject us to the final test.”

Given it's more fleshed out, most Christians favor Matthew's version. In the original Greek, the word used in Matthew 6:12 is ὀφειλήματα, which means "debts". The word used in Luke 11:4 is ἁμαρτίας, which means "sins".

So, to be in line with the original manuscript, "debts" is the correct word, and indeed, most Christians (including all non-English Catholics) use "debts".

In English, however, "debts" and "debtors" usually refer to a loan: a monetary debt to a bank, for example. But later on in Matthew, it says:

  14If you forgive others their transgressions1, your heavenly Father will forgive you
  15But if you do not forgive others, neither will your Father forgive your transgressions1.

So while the actual word is "debts", it's clear the point of the Lord's Prayer is to say that one ought to forgive those who wrong us, just as God forgives us our sins and transgressions, not that we ought to forgive loans made upon us (i.e., God doesn't "loan" us sins).

To make clear the point of the prayer,"debts" was replaced with "trespasses". This translation became popular in 16th century England, even making it into the Book of Common Prayer. The Roman Catholic version of the Lord's Prayer is almost identical to the Book of Common Prayer's version at the time, and has not been changed since then.

Interestingly, the English version of the Missal recently underwent a fairly dramatic change as things were retranslated to better correspond to the original meaning of words, but the Lord's Prayer was skipped. I could not find any explicit justification for the omission, which suggests to me that the Vatican still considers the use of "trespasses" to accurately convey the intent of the prayer.

Note 1: Also translated as trespasses, depending on the translation.

The answer to this question, and it is a very good question, requires a deep understanding of the social, economic, and theological history of Europe. The key question to ask is the difference in meaning between debtors and trespasses.

Usury was against church law, and so Christians were barred from charging interest. Judaism had no such law, so European monarchs and rulers encouraged Jews to immigrate to their areas of control as far back at the 12th Century to better facilitate commerce, and so Jews became the banking class across Europe. Indeed, the Age of Exploration could not have happened but for the Jewish diaspora.

The Enlightenment and the rise of Liberalism brought about significant change, especially the dramatic rise of the Merchant Class. Usury laws were challenged to free the emerging industrial class in their pursuit of profit, and "debtors" was changed to "trespasses."  The idea of forgiving debts was an anathema to Christians seeking monetary wealth, and the desire to protect and make sacred private property drove this change.

I am providing a very superficial account that led to the change, and it was a change to Protestantism in particular. One needs to understand the impact of the Black Death upon Europe, the impact of the Reformation, the impact of the Age of Exploration, the impact of the Enlightenment, and several other factors.

The bottom line is that the change was made to allow Protestants to increase their wealth. It's a fascinating evolution, but understanding requires a great deal of study, but study that is worth the effort.


Is there a prayer to rebuke storms at sea? My mom comes from a family of fishermen and ship captains, the vast majority of all men in her city are still doing of those professions, I live in Lebanon, middle east.

She told me more than once that her grandpa used to rebuke or let waterspout or sea tornadoes disappear by prayer to a saint some special prayer, maybe saint George. The grandpa is Catholic Maronite, which is in essence just Catholic.

I googled it, I got nothing, I just want to know if such prayers exist in Christianity and if people used to say them historically, I found few videos like this:

Man Rebukes Tornado in the Name of Jesus Christ (Youtube)

In fact if you google something like "Prayers Rebukes a Tornado" you'll see plenty of videos, most of them are just

'In the name of Jesus I command you to go'

But that's not what my question is about, nor whether these videos are fake or not. My question is this:

Is there a special prayer that only few people know, that people used to pray to a saint in order to rebuke a tornado or a waterspout? My mom is pretty certain of it, all her family are certain too, it's just that, her grandpa never told the prayer to anyone and passed away.

The particular prayer that your grandfather once prayed to calm storms at sea will be rather hard to pinpoint as there are many saints invoked against storms and this list is not a complete one. Both St. Michael the Archangel and St. Nicholas of Myra are traditionally invoked against storms at sea. St. Peter is one of the patron saint of fishermen. As you see there is a large list in play and we may never know for sure.

I will give here three hopeful possibilities, but before going into detail I would like to mention the Scriptures tell us that Our Lord (Matthew 8:24-28) and the Prophet Jonah (Jonah 1:11-12) both calmed storms at sea and could be invoked as the need presents. The Prophet Jonah is honoured on September 21 in the Roman Martyrology.

The most popular saint invoked against storms is St. Scholastica (February 10). In Malta, there is a unique feast in St. Paul the Apostle's honour known as the Shipwreck of St. Paul (Naufragium S. Pauli), which is also held on the 10th of February. How St. Scholastica became invoked against storms can be found here. In times of real necessity the short prayers are the easiest to recite.

St. Scholastica and St. Paul the Apostle, pray for us.

My second suggestion is the traditional prayer to repel dangerous storms taken from the missal of 1962. I personally use these sort of prayers in my own private devotional life accompanied with St. Scholastica.

  When a major storm is headed your way, you should prepare as much as you can. But you should also pray.

  Prayer is powerful, and it can change history. No, we don’t always get what we prayed for. But God always hears us – and sometimes he does grant us what we pray for.

  These prayers, titled “Ad Repellendas Tempestates” (“To Repel Storms”), are meant to be used in the extraordinary form of the Mass at their respective parts (and some people are using them!). But feel free to use them as inspiration for your own personal prayer.

  Here’s the original Latin:

  A domo tua, quǽsumus, Dómine, spiritales nequítiæ, repellantur: et aërearum discédat malígnitas tempestatum. Per Dóminum.

  And here’s an English translation:

  We beseech Thee, O Lord, that all wickedness being driven away from Thy house, the fury of the raging tempest may pass away. Through our Lord.

  The Traditional Catholic Mass Prayers to Repel Dangerous Storms

My last suggestion is a prayer to St. Medard.

  Prayer against tornadoes?

  I am not aware of any specific prayer against tornadoes, but I do know that St. Medard is traditionally regarded as the patron saint against bad weather. He was a bishop in France during the first half of the sixth century.

  Legend has it that when he was a child, he was once sheltered from a violent rainstorm by an eagle that hovered over his head. That is how he is commonly depicted in art, and Christians have long invoked his aid in stormy weather.

  The prayer that is said admits of different versions but generally goes something like this:

  “Lord Jesus, though the intercession of St. Medard, be with me during the storms of my life and the storms of nature. Protect the victims of hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes and other natural disasters. Send in helpers and multiply the supplies that are needed for their aid. You calmed the storm on the Sea of Galilee; deliver us now from the storms that rage around us. Amen.”

My grandfather told me a very similar story the other day. He lived in Sicily as a Shepard and told us that sailors would come to the main land during a storm and say a special prayer and use a black handled knife to cut the storm in half. Only a few knew the prayer and he was never taught it. I found it strange that such a power prayer was never taught to him. We live in Canada now as farmers and according to him a fellow farmer who also lived in Sicily knew the prayer but wouldn’t share it with him even going as far as saying he wouldn’t even teach his sons. He also mentioned that the prayer could only be taught to someone 3 times. If anyone knows of the prayer I’d like to be taught as it could be useful as I’m a farmer as well. Not to mention all the questions I have about said prayer and it’s secrecy.


Do any Protestant groups teach that Paul founded the Church and not Peter? I have always been told that Peter was the head of the entire Church at the time of Christ.  However, James was apparently leader of the Church in Jerusalem, and Paul started a number of churches outside the Holy Land. Who is considered to be the first leader of the Church established by Jesus according to the various Protestant denominations?

Protestants do not recognize the necessity of a single worldwide leader other than Christ. So it is not as if Peter is dethroned so that Paul can take his place. Both are recognized as important leaders, but not one over the other.

An example of this thinking can be found from John Calvin in the Institutes. In Book 4, Chapter 6, he writes:

  And yet, in truth, none can solve this question better than
     Scripture, if we compare all the passages in which it shows what office
     and power Peter held among the apostles, how he acted among them, how
     he was received by them (Acts 15:7). Run over all these passages, and
     the utmost you will find is, that Peter was one of twelve, their equal
     and colleague, not their master. He indeed brings the matter before the
     council when anything is to be done, and advises as to what is
     necessary, but he, at the same time, listens to the others, not only
     conceding to them an opportunity of expressing their sentiments, but
     allowing them to decide; and when they have decided, he follows and
     obeys. [...]

After a number of scriptural examples, Calvin concludes:

  All these things make it manifest, either that
     there was an equality between Paul and Peter, or, at least, that Peter
     had no more authority over the rest than they had over him. This point,
     as I have said, Paul handles professedly, in order that no one might
     give a preference over him, in respect of apostleship, to Peter or
     John, who were colleagues, not masters.

Πέτρος, Petrus -- the Greek name of Peter -- means little pebble.  But Jesus says that he will build his church on this rock (πέτρα, petra), so clearly this is not referencing Peter.  Protestants have always considered the first (and only true) leader of the Church to be Christ.

EDIT:

Sorry for the late response.  Your question, "Who is considered to be the first leader of the Church established by Jesus, according to the various Protestant religions?" I felt was more about finding secondary sources (non-scriptural) because you want to know how various Protestant denominations view scripture, rather than asking "Who does the scripture appoint as the leader?"

So I have found a few answers to your question:

  According to Presbyterians (http://www.pcanet.org/beliefs/):

    I. THE KING AND HEAD OF THE CHURCH
    Jesus Christ, upon whose shoulders the government rests, whose name is called Wonderful, Counselor, the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace; of the increase of whose government and peace there shall be no end; who sits upon the throne of David, and upon His kingdom to order it and to establish it with judgment and justice from henceforth, even forever (Isaiah 9:6-7); having all power given unto Him in heaven and in earth by the Father, who raised Him from the dead and set Him at His own right hand, far above all principality and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come, and has put all things under His feet, and gave Him to be the Head over all things to the Church, which is His body, the fullness of Him that filleth all in all (Ephesians 1:20-23); He, being ascended up far above all heavens, that He might fill all things, received gifts for His Church, and gave all offices necessary for the edification of His Church and the perfecting of His saints (Ephesians 4:10-13).
    Jesus, the Mediator, the sole Priest, Prophet, King, Saviour, and Head of the Church, contains in Himself, by way of eminency, all the offices in His Church, and has many of their names attributed to Him in the Scriptures. He is Apostle, Teacher, Pastor, Minister, Bishop and the only Lawgiver in Zion.
    It belongs to His Majesty from His throne of glory to rule and teach the Church through His Word and Spirit by the ministry of men; thus mediately exercising His own authority and enforcing His own laws, unto the edification and establishment of His Kingdom.
    Christ, as King, has given to His Church officers, oracles and ordinances; and especially has He ordained therein His system of doctrine, government, discipline and worship, all of which are either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary inference may be deduced therefrom; and to which things He commands that nothing be added, and that from them naught be taken away.
    Since the ascension of Jesus Christ to heaven, He is present with the Church by His Word and Spirit, and the benefits of all His offices are effectually applied by the Holy Ghost.

I tried to find more sources that were as clear and this, but I was not successful.  This is to say, while I know from experience that this is the opinion of all(most) Protestants, I could not find the wording as illuminating as it is in the excerpt from PCA's website.... Wow! Look the title of the section says everything!

Although, I'm tempted to believe that you are looking for some other type of answer; because you acknowledge that "the Church [was] established by Jesus", so you perhaps mean "were there any leaders of the various churches (not Churches)?"  I make the distinction between "Church" and "church" because for Protestants the leader of the Church is Christ (as I said above), whereas the leader of "a church" we might say is an ordinary man.  In the sense that, such a "leader" may have preached publicly and traveled, challenged the established norms of tradition and ultimately establish a new earthly church/denomination. For example, on the one hand many Lutherans may identify Martin Luther as the "earthly" leader/founder of the Lutheran church... on the other hand, these same Lutherans (and Luther himself) would say that Christ is the leader, of not only the Lutheran church but also the "Church" (that is all denominations).  The same could be said about Presbyterians and John Calvin, they would look at him historically as the "leader" but only in so far as an earthy leader orders below Christ himself.

So I hope this answers your question, and that it is evident that the term "leader" perhaps takes on many interpretations.


What is the basis that many mainstream Christian groups justify labeling groups like the Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses as Non Christians? If there is no clear definition stemming from the Bible of what makes one a Christian, how does mainstream Christianity justify labeling groups like the Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses as Non Christians?

Members from both groups seem to take a more active role in spreading Christ's message of salvation than do the most rooted mainstream Christian church members, based off of their missionary efforts even though some of their doctrines do not conform to the norms as held by most Christians. There is evidence enough to come to their doctrinal conclusions, even if we disagree with them.

So is non normative theology enough for mainstream Christianity to label others as non-Christian?

Before we start to answer this, a little history is needed. Both the Latter-Day Saints and Jehovah's Witnesses are Restorationist churches. That means that they were founded on the belief that all the other churches in the world had ceased to hold to the whole correct Christian doctrine, and that a direct revelation from God to the founders caused them to start an entirely new church, and to separate themselves from the 'corrupt' churches that were then in existence (yes, 'corrupt' was the word they used at the time. I'm aware it has a technical meaning that isn't the same as 'dishonest', but it's not very polite even in its technical meaning, which is essentially of a church that has stopped following God). Today both will attempt to convert members of other denominations to their own faith, and insist that people baptized in other Christian denominations are rebaptized to become members of their sects. Cooperation of any kind between Mormons and mainstream churches is extremely rare (compared with cooperation between other denominations), and the non-mainstream sects are at least as assiduous in rejecting it as the mainstream churches.

So in short, both Mormons and JWs stated for themselves that they are a completely different faith from the mainstream church, and continue to act in that way towards others.

Mormons hold to an additional revelation and additional scriptures, belief in which they consider essential to their own faith, and which are not accepted by other churches and in many cases contradict the tenets of other churches. JWs use a unique Bible translation which they hold to be authoritative and which disagrees in many places with all other translations. Both hold to unique doctrines, particularly about the person of Jesus,  which differ fundamentally from what mainstream churches believe and which they consider to be a non-negotiable part of their faith.

Given this, it is perhaps unsurprising that mainstream churches find it hard to accept churches which do not accept them as valid Christians. However this is by no means a fixed rule. Some denominations do accept Mormons and JWs as a valid form of Christianity.

I'm new here but for more than 45 yrs I have done extensive research on the Bible and related matters.

I. MAINSTREAM BASIS AGAINST LDS & JWs

Mainstream churches generally [very general usage here] believe that they are Bible based. The major reasons given are:

a. Most Mainstream churches believe in 1 God with 3 co-equal "heads".

b. LDS believes there are many Gods.

c. JWs believe that God & Jesus are separate Gods.
a. Most Mainstream churches beleves all believers go to Heaven.

b. LDS believes believers become Gods & some get their own planets.

c. JWs think only 144,000 go to Heaven, the rest stay on earth.
a. Most Mainstream churches believes Jesus is the Son of God.

b. LDS believes Satan is Jesus' brother.

c. JWs believe Jesus is a created being & is now Archangel Michael.
a. Most Mainstream churches hold that the Bible is from God (although some add the Apocrypha &/or oral traditions).

b. LDS's main book is the Book of Mormon along with other extra-biblical books.

c. JWs have their own Bible, the New World Translation in which verses have been altered or stressed to support their own beliefs.
a. Many Mainstream churches hold that Jesus is the only mediator between man and God.

b. LDS believes that Joseph Smith is a modern day "prophet" who restored the "church" back to its proper place with the truth restored.

c. JWs have their "Watchtower" Society **Governing Body" providing their scriptural interpretation. They made several wrong prophecies in the 20th century, which they explain away in one way or another.
a. The Catholic church (& some related churches) holds that other books and traditions are just as important or even more important to their worship, such as the Apocrypha or lost books and doctrines (i.e. Popes, Infallibility on the throne, Catechism, Assumption of Mary, Immaculate Conception, Veneration of Saints, Rosary, Creeds, etc.) that are beyond the reach of the 66 legitimate Bible books.

b. LDS beleifs also include books that go beyond the reach of the genuine 66 Bible books. Many of their beliefs have dependancy on the Book of Mormon, Pearls of Great Price and Documents & Covenants, in which it is claimed that gold plates were found in upstate New York, Jesus came to America, Adam & Eve and the Garden of Eden were in Missouri, etc.

c. JW's have their own Bible in which at least some verses have been altered to support their beliefs. A good deal of their beliefs are dependant on what is written in their Watchtower magazine.

II.  REAL BASIS AGAINST LDS & JWs

Actually, the "basis" for what is non Christian is clearly defined in the Bible. The problem is it takes a lot of work to find and lay out a proper, well-defined basis for determining what is and is not rightly Bible based. While many "mainstream" [general broad use here] have determined that neither Mormons (LDS) nor Jehovah Witnesses (JWs) are Christian, a number of them lack true understanding even of their own misinterpretation(s) of what is real Christian teaching (i.e. Trinity Doctrine error -See below under Comment 2).

I believe that to fully answer the posed question requires one to establish a basic set of facts, the Bible foudation & purpose and common sense rules for reasoning out what should be accepted as the truth. Our approach, coming from our human condition, experience from surrounding environmental events and our actions/reactions (cause & effect), our human imperfections (seen and unseen), etc., may make all the difference for drawing a "right" conclusion or failure thereof (we may have to set aside some preconceived ideas, notions, prejudices and/or assumptions). The following might help point us in the right direction:

Since the Bible is the primary reason and basis for Christianity's existence I believe we ought to turn to the Bible to see what it says:

1. BIBLE PROOF

Most important: Is the Bible true?

  (ESV) Prov. 30:5 Every word of God proves true; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him.

  6 Do not add to his words, lest he rebuke you and you be found a liar.

(most Christian [broad label usage here] and several other religions have stated (or implied) their claims/beliefs are based on, come from the Bible and/or they are associated with the Bible and/or the Bible can be used along with their beliefs/claims and practices but are they wrong? We need to go to the Bible to determine what is true.)

2. JESUS, THE SON of GOD?

The second most important question is: Is Jesus the Son of God or not? Jesus' statement:

  John 14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am  the way, and the truth, and  the life. No one comes to the Father except through me (see Acts 4:12; Jn 5:39).

Either this statement is true or there is no God (He either knows all or He can't be God). In this statement Jesus is making it quite clear that He is much more than just another great teacher. Since Jesus made this statement I thought it is more important to first find out if what He said is true rather than trying to sift through piles of information, books and statements made about Jesus and the Bible.

3. FALSE TEACHERS & PROPHETS

The Bible mentions false prophets (to be a false prophet you must also be a false teacher).

  Acts 13:6 When they had gone through the whole island as far as Paphos, they came upon a certain magician, a Jewish false prophet named Bar-Jesus.

  2 Peter 2:1 But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.

  Gal 1:8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.

4. JUDGMENT

A proper approach for establishing which is which requires one to find right teaching starting from no. 1 above and also by process of elimination to expose wrong Bible teaching as we find them (if we intend not to be mislead - false teaching has great consequences).

  John 7:24 Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment.”

Many believe the Bible says don't judge at all but when carefully read you will find the Bible message actually warns against making wrong or false judgments. Every time you go to cross a street you must judge where and when to cross. All day long we make many judgments as to what we should do.

5. DO NOT ADD OR OMIT THINGS

I found that many do not carefully read what is actually written in the Bible. For instance, many missed the fact that plants were created before the sun and stars. The reason is explained in other Bible text. For every claim made the whole Bible must be taken into context.

  1 Cor 4:6 I have applied all these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brothers, that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against another.

  Gal 3:15 To give a human example, brothers:   even with a man-made covenant, no one annuls it or adds to it once it has been ratified.

  Deut 4:2 You shall not add to the word that I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God that I command you.

6. MAN'S WAYS & IDEAS

I also observed that many make the mistake of believing what others claim is true especially if they have a position perceived as having authority to make such claims.

  Jer 10:23 I know, O Lord, that the way of man is not in himself, that it is not in man who walks to direct his steps.;

  Prov 14:12 There is a way that SEEMS right to a man, but its end is the way to death.;

  Hosea 4:6 My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge; because you have rejected knowledge, I reject you  from being a priest to me. And since you have forgotten the law of your God, I also will forget your children.;

  Micah 7:5 Put no trust in a neighbor; have no confidence in a friend; guard the doors of your mouth from her who lies in your arms;

  Matt 7:21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will  enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who  does the will of my Father who is in heaven.

  22 On that day  many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not  prophesy in your name, and cast out demons  in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’

  23 And then will I declare to them, ‘I  never knew you;  depart from me,  you workers of lawlessness.’

There is a number of other factors, etc. to add to the above but it would take many pages to go into exhaustive detail. I could have spent all my spare time studying all religions to the last detail but filling my head with volumes of useless information, I most likely would never have found out who our God actually is nor who His Son is. There is a verse (I can't remember where it is) that states something like: They gather much knowledge but they'll never find the truth.

Back to the original question: Mormons, JWs and other saw that there was to be a reformation but misunderstood that it was not the New Testament that was at fault (nor the Old Testament either). Mormons, JWs and others did not understand we cannot make up a new "covenant" and that God should honor it. They did not understand that the NT covenant is the final and eternal covenant, superseding all other covenants. Jesus is perfect and so is His new covenant, needing no changes - Both God and Jesus never change. God deliberately set up the old covenant with one major flaw, one that only sending His Son to earth could remedy.

While many "mainstream" churches can readily see the more blatant reasons, "a basis" for why something is wrong with the beliefs of Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses, many do not have a full understanding of why they and others have been and are wrong in many of their beliefs. Perhaps this is a subject for another discussion.

If any claimed "Christian" (again broad usage here) is coloring outside the Bible text and its parameters they are acting outside God's and Jesus' definition and instructions for how to be a genuine Christian in Their eyes. The Bible is all about right and wrong. The wise will keep making it their goal to better comply with its instruction while others will keep looking for justification for whatever suits them, what tickles their ear.

-Edits:

(For comments - Thanks Caleb -I hope this is OK. I added answers because I have a lot to say and some sites do not give one a lot of space to write, more being allowed in an answer.)

Being new here, I can't post a comment so I'm posting more answers (in addition to my original answer) with regard to comments (disreqard -adding it to my original answer).

@ Nelson (1st comment):

I'm not new to LDS beliefs (also, I have even been to the Salt Lake City temple). Before you read my comments please take the time to carefully reread my previous list of Bible references.

Actually, most "standard" Bibles (some are better at doing it) have been mostly properly translated (for the most part, most discrepancies are relatively minor to very minor). Once you become somewhat familiar with the Bible you can compare verses from other versions. However, God is smarter than us and knew some would try to twist the meaning and/or the word itself so He protected His word. He used an unchangeable system (in redundancy) that forever binds the OT&NT truth that never changes.

Other than some mutilation of scripture text (which would make it too obvious that something was done to it at least to the wise), as long as properly translated Bible text exists to be compared to, the truth can't be obscured to those genuinely looking for it.

Whether Joseph Smith was well-meaning or not he added things that were never in the Bible (Jesus was never in America nor were Adam & Eve in Missouri). Any new "vision" must line up exactly with what was written in the Old & New Testament. It cannot vary even one degree. Apparently, Smith was unaware of this.

  Jer 23:28 Let the prophet who has a dream  tell the dream, but let him who has my word speak my word faithfully. What has straw in common with wheat? declares the Lord.

The fact that the Book of Mormon exists indicates to those who are wise and have even just a good knowledge of the Bible text that it does not conform to what is written in the Bible, that is it is non-Biblical by its very existence. There is no such thing as a God authorized "another testament" nor will there ever be.

The truth is complete, fully contained within the Bible itself. It is why we are warned and instructed to not go beyond what is already written in the Bible itself. Clearly, Smith proves by his writings, whether he intended to or not, that he went far beyond what he thought he perceived as misinterpretation of the Bible text.

The problem is that the more Smith got off in his own direction and misinterpretation the more he compounded the false claims he started with. Whereas, a true reformation would have come by starting with and staying with what was instructed in the Bible. In other words, misinterpretation was because of human error and by their relaxing their guard and/or becoming lazy instead of staying the course, making sure what they taught and did was securely in line with Biblical teaching.

It was not due to the Bible being wrongly translated or just being misinterpreted, which Smith did not understand. Just because you can confess with your lips that Jesus is our Redeemer it does not mean that your heart is not far away from the truth of who Jesus is nor how to follow Him (truly, from within your heart not by more of an outward or mechanical motion or what you think Jesus wants from you or wants you to do).

  Isaiah 29:13 And the Lord said: “Because this people draw near with their mouth and honor me with their lips, while their hearts are far from me, and their fear of me is a commandment taught by men,

These verses also apply to Isaiah 29:13:

  Matt 7:21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.

  22 On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’

  23 And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’

  James 2:19 You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder!

The point is that lots of people think that Jesus is the Son of God. It does not mean that they really know Him. Rather, they know of Him, that He probably existed or even that He did exist, not much else, especially on the proper personal level.

@ Nelson (2nd comment):

III. TRINITY DOCTRINE

At this point I think its best to put forth the actual God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit's correct relationship as the Trinitarian concept is in fact incorrect as are other concepts concerning this matter. Perhaps we can then more easily see whats wrong with other beliefs. These things are hard to understand. The correct relationship is as follows:

Jesus is the Son of God, Lamb of God and King of kings=He has Deity as His Father has =we are to also worship Him but Jesus isn't His Father: The Trinity Doctrine (TD) is wrong (NOTE [for those told otherwise]: the word Bible doesn't affect interpretation-the TD does). Unfortunately, people CONFUSE TRUTH (this offends many)/HATE.

The TD claims there are 3 CO-EQUAL heads=1 God. However, if the 3 are not equal the TD does not and cannot apply - its null and void. Sadly, people use only a few verses and/or are not careful to read verses in whole Bible context. 1 Cor 4:6 =don't add or omit things from the Bible text:

The TD (as are other concepts) is a roadblock to true Bible interpretation (In part the Catholic church got the TD idea from Pagans. Others [ie. JWs, lds, islam, moonies and others] figured out the TD is in error but they did not know our true God, Son and Holy Spirit relationship)=they didn't know Jesus (as their claims indicate). They never rightly went to nor learned to trust and rightly follow Jesus. Who knows more about a house, the Builder or people whom moved in later?

1. JESUS:

Jesus is God's Son [His Word not God's Body {Christ's Spiritual Body =believers in Him} =John 1:1], equals the pure essence of God [He was and is not an angel as JWs claim -Heb 1:2-6] neitehr when in flesh nor in Heaven. Jesus was not replacing nor was He ever equal to His Father (see John 5:30; Phlp 2:6-7; Col 2:9). Jesus (His Spirit existed with God from before the universe existed) is the closest we get to know infinite God in flesh (only a vessel =God's 1st creation part -something like being God's voice-box -not just some created being as LDS and JWs believe) to deliver eternal truth in person -John 14:7 (stoops to our level so to speak).

Born of human woman (for His earthly mission), Jesus is a separate person-entity (He has His own soul [what makes a person an individual] and given a human body -and Mary ISN'T God's mother) but God gave Jesus authority to be treated as His Father (conceived of God's Holy Spirit =fullness of DEITY [He deserves worship -Matt 14:33; 28:9] -SIR-NAME God =Jesus' birthright, reward as God's Son and to sit at God's right hand). In conception, God and Mary gave part of each to Jesus' life.

To rightly know Jesus starts at John 1:1. W/o a language God couldn't reason, know His thoughts, create a universe, life nor talk to others. So Jn 1:1 names Jesus as God's language. Created in God's image, man has the same limits. Despite how primitive most organisms need language to function and live with others.

Your language (always part of you) can't usurp your authority, act on its own and never tells you what to do. Therefore, Jesus' claims are true (Jn 5:19,30; 8:28) -a student is never greater than his teacher. Your words pass understanding of you to your son. If your son learns all you teach him, he in effect becomes like/is you for all intents and purposes. For obeying you, you can reward him the highest position, your authority.

A father owns a business and teaches his son to run his business. He goes away and puts his son in charge, trusting he'll run it just as he would. If the son obeys and runs the business as the father did, in effect he's his father and can claim to be his father =like father, like son -while exactly like his father he's never equal to him even thoegh he has his father's authority. The same is true for God and His Son, whom fully did God's will not His own so His Father gave Him right to also be worshiped:

  Rom 5:19 Adam's sin made many sinners but by Jesus' obedience many are to be righteous.

REF: Jn 12:49; 14:28-29; Lk 6:40; Col 1:15 -Jesus is in God's image by rightly obeying God; Heb 5:7-8; Lk 2:52 -Mk 13:32; 20:23; Phil 2:6; Jn 17; 15:1 =God NEVER BECAME His Son.

2. GOD:

Only one GOD can occupy infinity =God of Israel =no other legit gods exist (HE CAN'T DIE EVER and doesn't fit into an earthly body). God has ULTIMATE AUTHORITY Jesus and the Holy Spirit do not have. Only God knows the day and hour for the end -Mt 24:36 and appoints who sits with Him. God has a soul like us (makes Him an individual -ie. a cell nucleus only Spiritual). All 3 are 1 in Spirit [of God] but Jesus and the Holy Spirit submit fully to God. Being 1 doesn't apply to difference in authority =the TD does not apply.

As long as 1 true full 360 degrees (in all directions) infinity exists (which the Bible proves it exists) two or more full infinities cannot exist nor can two Gods occupy the same infinity. Only a Spirit can occupy true full infinity. Everything having physical properties is measurable. Infinity cannot be measured.

3. the HOLY SPIRIT:

The Holy Spirit is God's "Spiritual body" (God is Spirit -to be 100% pure the Holy Spirit [no form] MUST occupy true infinity (360 deg. in all directions) =no flaws, =always existed -you can move over or make a space within Yourself to create a univeerse separate from yourself and create borders & rules where you want them). The Holy Spirit acts on God's command:

  Jn 16:13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.

God's body, voice & ears act on God's will -same for our body). The Holy Spirit can be called "He" (generic) as you can be called he(even if your ID is known). The Holy Spirit is more than deliverer of God's power, works and the word through Jesus (Jn 1:1-5; 4:23). Only the eternal truth, forever unchanged keeps God perfect =SEAMLESS Garment.

The point is many religious people started off with wrong beliefs, trusted in misinterpretations told to them along the way. Some started religions, often never double or triple checking what they thought was true or they allowed their desires and agendas or other influences to rule their decisions, some intentionally. Many well-meaning people were taken in along the way. Over many centuries many followed suit. Many zeroed in on few wrong things and made the mistake of not making the Bible an every day guide for correction of things overlooked by those around them. Will we do the same or will we check everything even if we thought some things were right up to now?

Many a religious organization will continue down wrong paths no matter what is told or shown to them. Some stay their course and perhaps patch a few things or even claim they have received new light or revelations but the wise will find the real path to Jesus. The point is the truth is complete within the Bible. Anything extra-Biblical regarding changing God's and Jesus' actual Biblical teaching is wrong by its very existence.

@ Nelson (3rd comment):

Again, because the Trinity Doctrine is wrong, it does not follow nor justify one making a whole new or different non-Biblical concept nor does it make them legitimate. Unfortunately for LDS, there are so many things that they believe and do that have nothing to do with actual Bible concepts, it makes LDS, in its entirety, false and fully beyond actual Biblical teaching.

The only way out of such a mess requires that those who want to follow our real God and Jesus get out of false religion and seek our real Jesus with all their heart and soul. Sadly, many will never do that, deciding not to step out of what has become a security and comfort zone for them (false though it is).

Jesus said, "Do not judge by appearances but judge with right judgment." (Jn 7:24). He did not say not to judge at all. The real Bible message is: Don't judge for wrong reasons nor judge to make yourself look better than another or for the purpose of lording it over others or for the sake of judging. There are those who will not make judgments simply because they do not want to upset the apple cart or buck the "status quo" but the wise want to learn the true purpose for what Jesus taught.

@ Daniel (4th comment):

Because someone's beliefs and claims are in part or in whole wrong does not mean they cannot see "holes" in another's beliefs or claims (and yes sometimes they may have their judgment wrong in whole or in part). It would be better if they would carefully examine their own beliefs to weed out what they got wrong from various sources but many won't. If one is wise, they won't allow themselves to get caught up in wrong teaching as they do not want to be mislead. Sadly, both the LDS and the JWs (and others) got so far away from what the Bible actually says I doubt that either would be willing to dump their entire teaching and start over. The same goes for many mainstream churches. Thanks for looking that verse up for me.


External reference of Jesus's resurrection? After that he appeared to more than 500 brothers at one time, most of
  whom are still with us, though some have fallen asleep in death. - 1
  Cor 15:6

I'm trying to find some external/non-biblical references about Jesus' resurrection. The quoted verse says there were a lot of witnesses to tell Jesus has been resurrected, so I'm wondering if any of them wrote something that referenced this event ?

According to The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell, p125, Josephus, who died after 100AD, wrote of Jesus in his Jewish Antiquities, "...for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and then thousand other wonderful things concerning him." (Antiquities, XVIII, 33).

However, those words are probably a later addition.

The same book notes several creedal formations mentioning Christ's resurrection that made their way into the epistles after first being passed around orally (same book, p127).

Ignatius, whom Christian tradition identifies as a disciple of Peter, Paul, and John, wrote about the resurrection of Jesus (same book, p131). The book goes on to cite several more early writers who wrote of Jesus' resurrection, like Quadratus, Aristides, Justin Martyr, Hegesipus.

Keep in mind that in Jesus' day, while nearly all Jewish men could read, writing was a skilled craft which was restricted to a relatively small group of people (the "scribes" in the New Testament). Keep in mind also, that in Jesus time, Christians drew most of their numbers from lower classes and were unlikely include scribes. Thus the group of 500 about whom Paul wrote to the Corinthians probably did not include many (if any) people who had the skills to record anything. And the materials with which they wrote were skins and plant fibers, which except for prime storage conditions, would not have lasted very long (that is, the length of time they would have lasted in ordinary circumstances would have been measured in decades, and the number of decades would have been small.

By comparison, serious efforts would have been made to preserve the official archives of the Roman Empire, which would have vastly outnumbered any output if there were scribes included among the 500 cited by Paul, and few (if any) of these documents survive today.


Are there Old Testament Scriptures that mention salvation for the Gentiles? I'm wondering if there are any passages/prophecies about salvation for the Gentile world in the Old Testament. If you know any, please share.

YES, there are!

The footnote in my NLT Bible for Acts 11:1 has a list of Old Testament verses that say that salvation is for all people, not just the Jews. Below, I've reproduced the list and for two of them, I've directly quoted them because they're the clearest and most direct with regards to this topic.

Genesis 12:3
Psalm 22:27
Isaiah 42:4
Isaiah 49:6

  Isaiah 49:6 (NLT)
  6      He says, “You will do more than restore the people of Israel to me.
               I will make you a light to the Gentiles,
               and you will bring my salvation to the ends of the earth.”

Isaiah 56:3-7
Isaiah 60:1-3
Jeremiah 16:19-21
Zechariah 2:11

  Zechariah 2:11 (NLT)

  11 Many nations will join themselves to the Lord on that day, and they, too, will be my people. I will live among you, and you will know that the Lord of Heaven’s Armies sent me to you.

Malachi 1:11
Romans 15:9-12 (These are different wordings of Psalm 18:49, Deuteronomy 32:43, Psalm 117:1, and Isaiah 11:10.)

Only the true children of Israel, in whom were of a dark skin or so called negroes in whom ONLY fit ALL the curses of Deut 28, will receive salvation. Until you understand the history of ISRAEL then you will think that salvation is for non israelite gentiles.  To avoid a lot of scriptures here are three that should cover everything. John 3:5-6 lets us know if you are not born of the Spirit you cannot see the Kingdom. Joel 2:28 states that he will pour out his spirit on all flesh referring to the Israel. If you don't believe the all flesh is Israel only here is an extra one to prove that. ACTS 2:39 is to Israel only and to all of Israel that was not there. Just do some homework and you will see that all the scriptures given above are not precepts just random scripts with no true understanding. Now the last script is Jer 31:31-37 in which the Most High made a covenant only with Israel and Judah not spiritual Israelites because there is no such thing. Now if you don't believe he is talking about Israelite strangers, Israelite gentiles, here is a bonus. Amos 9:9 lets us know that Israel is in every nation but he will keep track of each on of us. Shalom


Is punishment for sins forgiven by baptism? (Catholic perspective) After reading this question there is a notion that after the baptism of an adult person all sins are forgiven even all the punishments.

In the sacrament of penance, our sins are also forgiven but not our punishment. We still need to do reparation for our sins. http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c2a4.htm

Are the people who were baptized still required to do penance for their sins they committed before baptism? Does the baptism remove the punishment for sin too? Like indulgences remove all or partial punishment. Does the baptism remove all punishments and allow a person enter heaven directly if dies right away?

There is a story of a bad mafia guy who converts on deathbed and gets baptized. I heard that is believed he went directly to heaven which means all punishments were forgiven through the baptism. Is this the catholic teaching?

Yes, baptism removes all punishment for sin.  If a person died immediately after baptism they would enter heaven directly without a need for purification in purgatory.  They would not be required to do penance.  From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

  1263 By Baptism all sins are forgiven, original sin and all personal sins, as well as all punishment for sin. In those who have been reborn nothing remains that would impede their entry into the Kingdom of God, neither Adam's sin, nor personal sin, nor the consequences of sin, the gravest of which is separation from God.

The Catholic view: Yes, punishment for sins is removed by baptism. I don't know what proofs they have for this view, but they believe it.
The Protestant view: No, baptism does not remove punishment from sin. Take the thief on the cross for example; he believed, and Jesus said that he would see him soon in heaven, which means that he would not be punished for his sin. But notice this: he was not baptized. See Luke 23:39-43. This shows that punishment for your sins can be removed without baptism.
Note: I am talking about physical baptism, not 'spiritual baptism,' which is when you are saved or born again.


Is there any denomination that fully embraces Dispensational Premillennialism? I'm not a fan of dispensational premillennialism, but I don't know of any denominations that specifically hold to it. I'm just fairly curious. I've met individual people that believe it, but never an entire denomination that supports it. Do any such denominations exist?

Dispensationalism tends to be most prevalent in baptist, charismatic, and non-denominational churches.  However, the largest baptist and charismatic denominations (like the Southern Baptist Convention and the Assemblies of God) do not take a firm stance on a pre-tribulation, pre-millennial rapture.  Still, there are sizable denominations and associations of churches that specifically hold to this doctrine.

A full list is beyond the scope of this site, but one major charismatic denomination holding to this is the International Pentecostal Holiness Church (3.5 million members).  Its statement of faith reads:

  The second coming of Christ will occur in two stages; the first for the purpose of catching away His saints who are prepared for the Rapture before the Great Tribulation period; and the second at the end of the Great Tribulation, when He shall come back with His saints to destroy the armies of the Antichrist, to judge the nations of the world, and to inaugurate the millennial reign. (source)

Another group, perhaps not meeting your definition of "denomination," is Calvary Chapel, an association of churches with about 25 million members in total.  It, too, clearly describes dispensational eschatology in its statement of faith:

  We believe in the Pre-Tribulation Rapture of the Church through which all believers will be caught up to meet the Lord in the air, and be taken out of the world prior to the Tribulation that will then come upon the earth. (source)

So yes, not all denominations influenced by dispensationalism avoid clearly stating dispensational doctrine in their statements of faith: there are significant denominations and associations that specifically hold to the doctrine of a pre-tribulation, pre-millennial rapture.

Look up Dr Andy Woods from Sugar Land Bible Church www.slbc.org also Dr. Arnold Fruchtenbaum of Ariel Ministries. Be warned if you really desire to mature in Christ these people really have been raised by God in these last days to further reveal biblical truths that have been concealed until these times. Remember in scripture certain truths are further illuminated by the Sprit as we draw closer to the day of the Lord. Hope this helps and God Bless