Why are only some predestined? Specifically with respect to the Westminster Confession of Faith (1646)...

Chapter 3, paragraph 3 and 4, where it states:

  III. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and
      angels are predestinated unto everlasting life; and others foreordained to
      everlasting death.

  IV. These angels and men, thus predestinated, and foreordained, are
      particularly and unchangeably designed, and their number so certain and
      definite, that it cannot be either increased or diminished.

Why or how would they justify that by using the scriptures? Having justified that, why are only some people predestined for certain salvation and some others for certain damnation, with presumably the rest being left for fate or whatever choice those people decide to make (A concession for Arminianism)?

Note that this response has been divided into two parts: the first is the original response, and the second tries to elaborate based on a comment from the OP.
Part 1
Great question. This response includes a very brief description of some of the basic points of predestination/election, and some references with in-depth, historic information.

Here are a few main points of predestination/election, which it sounds like you may already be aware of. Again, these points are part of Reformed/"Calvinist" theology, and there are many that would disagree.

Reformed theology emphasizes God's motivation to glorify himself, to "bring glory to his name." Note that, according to reformed theology, this does not make him selfish, because man was designed and created to worship God, so glorifying God is what is best for man. (See John Piper, & what is sometimes called "Christian Hedonism." Resources at DesigingGod.org).
All are considered guilty in Adam, and therefore "deserve" the torment of hell (see the doctrine of "original sin").
Because God is sovereign, he does not "owe" salvation to anyone, and would be justified in sending all of humanity to hell.
God is glorified in the greatness of his mercy by electing some to salvation, which they cannot earn.
God is glorified in the greatness of his wrath, by sending others to hell -- either those who are "not elect" or who are "elected to damnation" (see the doctrine of "double predestination").

Again, from the perspective of reformed theology, it is important to note that those who are predestined for salvation are in no way "deserving" of God's mercy, and there is no way to "earn" or "merit" redemption. (See the doctrines of "monergistic" vs "synergistic" regeneration).
How God has decided specifically which individuals will go to heaven is explained either as "random" or as one of the "mysteries" not revealed to man.

Some brief history and additional reference material. Your question is about the Westminster Confession and what it says about predestination; the Confession was published in 1646, but the question of predestination had been ongoing for sometime. One important document where it is addressed directly is the Canons of Dordt (sometimes "Dort"). Several followers of Arminius published a "Remonstrance" in 1610 in Holland, refuting some elements of reformed doctrine, and the Synod of Dordt was created to respond to their assertions. The Synod published their conclusions in a document called the Canons of Dordt in 1618. It is generally considered the source of the "five points of Calvinism," or "T.U.L.I.P." -- Calvin himself never actually outlined the five points in that form -- and addresses predestination in some detail, with scripture proofs. Here are two links to the Canons of Dordt, with scripture proofs: Reformed.org; CCEL. See here for a quick explanation of the history of the five points of Calvinism.
As to your question about "[w]hy or how would they justify that by using the scriptures,"
the Westminster Assembly included extensive scripture proofs that, in their interpretation, justified all of the statements in the Standards. A full copy of the Confession, with the original proofs, can be found on the Reformed.org page linked in your question.
Note also that you can find an in-depth, detailed discussion of the creation of the Westminster Standards in the History of the Westminster Assembly of Divines, published in 1853 by William Maxwell Hetherington.
There is also a very detailed chapter on the Westminster Standards in Philip Schaff's "Creeds of Christendom," published 1876.
Schaff's Creeds is a widely regarded, historically important book, one that is likely to be found on the bookshelves of many historians and theologians. Hetherington's work is new to me, but I see that it is linked alongside other important historical titles by sources I have found to be credible.

Part 2
In the OP's comment on 'Part 1' of this response, he gives an analogy to further clarify the question, which I'll paraphrase here: 'if, for example, 1/3 of the people on earth are predestined for heaven, why are the other 2/3 not predestined?' I've added this "Part 2" in an attempt to better address the question.
As a preface, please note that I don't claim to be an expert on predestination, but I'll try to share what I've learned.
There is what could be described as a 'subtle' difference in two basic forms of the doctrine of predestination, with the variant being described as 'double predestination,' or 'reprobation.' This doctrine says that God has predestined some to go to heaven, and others to go to hell, and that all people are predestined for one or the other. Another version is that God has predestined some to go to heaven, and has simply "passed over" the others, leaving them to be condemned by their own guilt, which they inherited from Adam and compounded through their own actions, since "all have sinned" (Rom 3:23). The end result is the same, from the perspective of the individuals and where they spend eternity; anyone who is not elected to salvation doesn't make it to heaven, according to the doctrine of predestination. Also, note that in neither case is there a "third category." In predestination, every person is either elected to salvation, or "passed over." In double predestination, every person is elected to either salvation or reprobation. Here's a work from John Bunyan that examines the doctrine of reprobation in detail.
I realize that you've stated that your question is not about predestination, but, since these matters are all intertwined, a thorough understanding of it may help to resolve your question. This C.SE post by Caleb does a great job of explaining things, and I think it's relevant to our discussion here. He also does a good job of explaining the role of substitutionary atonement, in a very concise manner -- that is, how God can offer salvation to guilty sinners who are deserving of punishment, without being unjust, although you may already understand all of that.
The question of why God has chosen a certain number of people to be saved is a matter of his sovereign will. Since he doesn't owe salvation to anyone, and no one besides Christ is capable of "earning" salvation, God can choose to have mercy on as many or as few as he chooses -- it's a free gift that he is not required to offer. An interesting reference here is Matthew 7:13-14, which tells us that "many" [ESV] will go to hell, and "few" will go to heaven, although I haven't checked the original languages on that verse. OTOMH, that's the only reference that I know of that suggests the numbers/ratios involved in who will go to heaven and who won't, although I expect there are likely references to be found in Revelation.
You might enjoy a read of Romans 9, esp. v. 19-29, and Romans 8:29.
I suppose God could have chosen to apply Christ's atonement to everyone. (Edit: See 1 Tim 2:3, a verse sometimes seen as complicating defenses of predestination). No doctrinal references that discuss the matter come to mind, and I generally seek to avoid providing my own exposition. I do know that there is nothing that would obligate him to apply Christ's atonement to all people, and that the consistent teaching is that God did not create sin, and that he remains perfectly holy and free of all guilt in choosing to bar unforgiven sinners from his paradise. Christ's atonement is sometimes described as being "sufficient" for all, but "efficient" only for the elect -- so, the infinite merit of Christ's sacrifice means that God could justly elect to salvation as many as he willed, and he chose to save a certain number, which is not disclosed to us.
This might seem to conflict with many people's understanding of God's character. It is important to remember that Reformed theology, in an effort to accurately reflect the teachings of the bible, emphasizes God's sovereignty, as well as his motivation to glorify himself.

I hope this response doesn't seem unnecessarily complicated; your question, as I understand it, seems fairly simple at first, but it actually addresses some very contentious areas of theology that have been debated for centuries. Countless sermons, treatises, and expositions have been written on the matter. I encourage you to consult some of the sources I've linked to, especially those in the second section of part 1; I'm sure they can explain things more clearly than I can, though I suppose I could still try to revise -- and hopefully shorten! -- this answer. Cheers.

This is a bit of a long response -- please read it to the end as I realize I appear to be derailing from the original question at first.

In terms of who goes to heaven, and who goes to hell, Jesus made it very clear that it comes down to John 3:16.

  John 3:16 (NLT): "For God loved the world so much that he gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life.

In essence, it comes down to the following: Man chooses where they go based on their decision to believe in Jesus Christ and repent of his sins.

God has foreknowledge of all things, as he is the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. Therefore, he knows who will choose to pick up his cross and follow Christ, and who will not.

Biblically, there are verses that use the term 'predestined', however, it should be looked at more as 'foreknowledge'. God is not willing that any should perish (2 Peter 3:9), and as such he has given everyone the ability to come to Jesus in repentance and accept him as their saviour.

That being said: There is no justification for those scriptures. While it's true that God has chosen key people in history to do his will, even those people had a choice. God did not bend their will to move them towards his will. Just as it's possible now, back in the biblical times there were people who said 'no' to God's plan for their life.

This isn't a matter of "I guess" or "in my opinion" -- the simple truth is that it's not written anywhere in the Hebrew and/or Greek biblical texts that God has explicitly created someone with the intent to send them to hell. We have 100% free will -- we can make any decision we want without him twisting our will. He may convict you and/or call you to do the right thing (he also may not), but he will never use his sovereign authority over us to bend our will. (As then it's no longer free will)

That being said, we are all born into sin and as such must seek out Jesus, or fall victim to our sin.


According to the penal substitutionary atonement view, why was Jesus' punishment not eternal? Given Christianity believes that the "punishment for sin is death" (Rom. 6:23, etc.) and that punishment is eternal (2 Thes. 1:9, Matt. 25:41, Rev. 20:10, etc.), how was Christ's punishment a satisfactory punishment when it wasn't eternal?

I realize that Jesus was perfect and didn't deserve death Himself, but since He was/is the Lamb of God (John 1:29,36) how is the eternal punishment of our sin is satisfied in a non-eternal way through Him?

Reformed theologians who hold to penal substitutionary atonement emphasize a) the divine nature of Christ and the increased capacity for suffering that that implies and b) the intensity of God's wrath against him.
Louis Berkhof, in his Systematic Theology (3.2.1.B), writes:

[Christ's] capacity for suffering was commensurate with the ideal character of His humanity, with His ethical perfection, and with His sense of righteousness and holiness and veracity.  No one could feel the poignancy of pain and grief and moral evil as Jesus could.
[Christ] was subject not only to physical, but also to eternal death, though He bore this intensively and not extensively, when He agonized in the garden and when He cried out on the cross, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" In a short period of time He bore the infinite wrath against sin to the very end and came out victoriously. This was possible for Him only because of His exalted nature.

The Heidelberg Catechism, answer 37, reads:

That during his whole life on earth, but especially at the end, Christ sustained
in body and soul the wrath of God against the sin of the whole human race. This he did in order that, by his suffering as the only atoning sacrifice, he might deliver us, body and soul, from eternal condemnation, and gain for us God’s grace, righteousness, and eternal life.

Wayne Grudem, in chapter 27 of his Systematic Theology, emphasizes the meaning of Christ's words on the cross as signifying the completion of his suffering and his victory:

Jesus was able to bear all the wrath of God against our sin and to bear it to the end.  No mere man could ever have done this, but by virtue of the union of divine and human natures in himself, Jesus was able to bear all the wrath of God against sin and bear it to the end. [...] When Jesus knew that he had paid the full penalty for our sin, he said, "It is finished" (John 19:30).  If Christ had not paid the full penalty, there would still be condemnation left for us. (p578)

Other views of the atonement
Grudem notes that Roman Catholic teaching on the completion of Christ's sacrifice is different.  He quotes Ludwig Ott's Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma:

In the Sacrifice of the Mass and in the Sacrifice of the Cross the Sacrificial Gift and the Primary Sacrificing Priest are identical; only the nature and the mode of the offering are different.... according to the Thomistic view, in every Mass Christ also performs an actual immediate sacrificial activity.

Protestants and others who reject the theory of penal substitution also answer this question differently.  Proponents of the moral influence theory, for example, do not suggest that Christ was "paying for our sins" at all, and that therefore punishment of eternal length was not required.
Similarly, under the governmental theory, Christ suffers to show that a penalty must be paid for lawlessness, but he does not pay the penalty for all the sins of the elect, so again, full payment is not required.  More on these and other theories of the atonement can be found on the corresponding Wikipedia articles, and analysis of them is found in both works of Grudem's and Berkhof's that I've quoted.

Quite simply... The death of Christ for sin was His body of flesh only. He can not die spiritually because God is Eternal... from everlasting to everlasting, Ps.90:2. In the Old Testament we read all about blood sacrifices of animals performed by the priests which were given to typify the atoning death of Christ yet to play out in history.

The requirement of law for transgression against God is death, Ro.6:23a. That's what Christ did... He died... the requirement of death was satisfied, justice is served. Now, the guilty can go free providing God has ordained to remit the sins of the sinner due to Christs dying in the sinners stead as in Acts 13:14-48 for example.


Why would Fundamentalists think Set Theory is anti-Christian? I read this article entitled "What do Christian fundamentalists have against set theory" and was shocked since I grew up (Grade 1 - 8) in several (what could be described as) fundamentalist/evangelical private schools, and I majored in Computer Science / Discrete Math in college and if the two concepts had some sort of conflict I'd be the person to know. However, I had never heard of a Christian objecting to set theory on religious grounds.

To summarize the article he basically cites this by a christian textbook publisher:

  "Unlike the "modern math" theorists, who believe that mathematics is a creation of man and thus arbitrary and relative, A Beka Book teaches that the laws of mathematics are a creation of God and thus absolute....A Beka Book provides attractive, legible, and workable traditional mathematics texts that are not burdened with modern theories such as set theory." — ABeka.com

Then he explains set theory and goes on a rant (which may or may not be derived) against fundamentalists who object to modernism and all things tainted my modernism. Then talks a little tiny bit about how they may be offended by any type of theory that can contain infinities.

If this is actually a valid portrayal of fundamentalist belief, why would they object to set theory?

"Is it anti Christian" is a Truth question. Answering in such a way as to avoid that...

From a doctrinal or even denominational perspective, the answer is "no".  Do some Christians think this way?  Yes.

The author of the article does, however, quite accurately describe the mindset of certain types of individuals within more conservative, fundemantalist Churches like those that I favor and prefer.  I am personally friends  who share the type of mindset he describes.  In some of the examples, I fit the stereotype he's describing.

One of the relevant statements made in the article is this:

  I can tell you from experience that A Beka (and Bob Jones University
  Press) are stridently against modernism in all its forms. (I'm
  assuming they're against post-modernism, too, but you have to
  understand that the opinions and perspectives this sort of Christian
  fundamentalism has about society and culture were formed between the
  late 1920s and early 1970s and, because of this, the culture wars that
  they are fighting often come across as confusingly antiquated.)

He's dead-on there.  There is a culture of anti-modernism inherent in Fundamentalist culture and the Fundamentalist mindset.

And there are certainly individuals that I know that would say, "Amen, brother!" to the A Beka statements.  But none of them would confuse such a thing as a Doctrinal issue. Another hallmark of Fundamentalism is a strong belief in Sola Scriptura, and a rabid belief in sound doctrine. This isn't to say that they wouldn't argue that such things are true. Certainly, there are, as I said, those who believe such, but they know the difference between  such beliefs and doctrine.

Rather they might say that their opposition to modernism is an application of doctrine. They believe x is evil, dangerous, wrong, etc, because of doctrine y.

So they might argue that set theory is anti-Christian, but that is a personal interpretation and application of doctrine, not a doctrinal statement in and of itself.

Personally, I believe that there is no such thing as infinity in the rational material world. When used as mathematical concepts, they are ok, for Mathematics are a rational science. But I as an (Eastern Orthodox) Christian, admit that many concepts that Maths admit are not possible in real material life.

Also this case is with the number Pi, which is not only irrational, but transcendental. This means that in the material world, it is not possible to construct a perfect circle out of anything. Nevertheless, equations and formulae with Pi which involve perfect circles exist and will continue to exist...

I believe, but I don't hold this is the ultimate truth, that it's ok to imagine that infinity and other ideas related to perfection exist within Mathematics for the good flow of our work, but we should say they are not really possible in the 'worldly' world.


According to Catholicism, do evil spirits need bodies to manifest themselves to people? Can the Devil and his followers communicate to people without the intermediary of someone in a bodily form?

I would appreciate a response that quotes Scripture, Tradition and examples of the Saints if at all possible.

If the demons cannot speak directly to people, how can they manifest themselves to mankind?

Demons can communicate with humans without bodily intermediaries

(My source throughout will be the First Part of St. Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica)

Although spiritual creatures can take on a bodily form, they are able to influence humans and creation without doing so.  First consider that the assaults of demons consist primarily in temptation and instigation to sin, and that this can be achieved through evil thoughts or near occasions of sin apart from bodily mediation.

Secondly, consider the fact that demons can work miracles (cf. ST Ia, Q. 110, A. 4; and ST Ia, Q. 114, A. 4).  St. Thomas defines the miracles that demons are able to work in a particular sense:

  But sometimes miracle may be taken in a wide sense, for whatever exceeds the human power and experience. And thus demons can work miracles, that is, things which rouse man's astonishment, by reason of their being beyond his power and outside his sphere of knowledge. (ST Ia, Q. 114, A. 4, corpus)

  So when the demons do anything of their own natural power, these things are called "miracles" not in an absolute sense, but in reference to ourselves. In this way the magicians work miracles through the demons; and these are said to be done by "private contracts"... (ST Ia, Q. 110, A. 4, ad 2)

Such a miracle could obviously include a communication with man apart from the mediation of a bodily form.  For example, a demon could tempt man by placing an evil thought into his mind.  This is an example of a "miracle" (in the broad sense) that a demon is capable of working, and the demon can do this directly, without the mediation of a bodily form.

According to Catholicism, do evil spirits need bodies to manifest themselves to people?

The answer is NO!

A good example is when Satan tempted Jesus Christ in the desert;

  Matthew 4:1-11 New International Version (NIV)
  Jesus Is Tested in the Wilderness
  4 Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted[a] by the devil. 2 After fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry. 3 The tempter came to him and said, “If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread.”

  4 Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.’[b]”

  5 Then the devil took him to the holy city and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. 6 “If you are the Son of God,” he said, “throw yourself down. For it is written:

  “‘He will command his angels concerning you,
      and they will lift you up in their hands,
      so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.’[c]”

  7 Jesus answered him, “It is also written: ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the test.’[d]”

  8 Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. 9 “All this I will give you,” he said, “if you will bow down and worship me.”

  10 Jesus said to him, “Away from me, Satan! For it is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.’[e]”

  11 Then the devil left him, and angels came and attended him.

We can see from above gospel narration that Satan did not indwelt any human bodies to manifest and communicate himself to Jesus Christ the Son of Man.

A lot of examples can be found in the Mystics of the Church wherein demons manifest themselves in their horrible form to some victim souls. A good one is St. Gemma Galgani.
See this link;

  MYSTICS OF THE CHURCH

  THIS WEBSITE IS DEVOTED TO THE EXTRAORDINARY MYSTICS AND VISIONARIES OF THE CHURCH, ESPECIALLY THOSE WHO ARE LESSER KNOWN, SUCH AS ST GEMMA GALGANI, BLESSED ALEXANDRINA DA COSTA, SR CONSOLATA BETRONE, THERESE NEUMANN, REV. PERE LAMY, GABRIELLE BOSSIS, JOSEFA MENENDEZ, MARTHE ROBIN, SERVANT OF GOD LOUISE LATEAU, BLESSED ANNA MARIA TAIGI, SISTER MARY OF THE HOLY TRINITY, SISTER MARIA ANTONIA AND OTHERS. THE AUTHOR ENDEAVORS ALWAYS TO BE IN COMMUNION WITH THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND ITS TEACHINGS.

The only mysterious question is, in the Garden of Eden why would Satan opted to indwelt the serpent if he can manifest himself even without a body?

The answer is, Satan had opted to hide from the serpent because appearing as a fallen angel will find himself inferior to Adam & Eve who were both cloth with the Light of God.

Satan if he opted to appear in his angelic state as cast out, will only have a "false light".

  "And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light." (2Corinthian11:14)


Why is Saint Paul considered gnostic? (by some) I read that these verses (over other texts that are clearly gnostic but not attributed as such) are considered gnostic:

ST. PAUL TO THE EPHESIANS - Third letter

  For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood; but against
  principalities and power, against the rulers of the world of this
  darkness

ST. PAUL TO THE CORINTHIANS (2, 6 - 8)

  Yet we do speak wisdom among those who are mature; a wisdom, however,
  not of this age nor of the rulers of this age, who are passing away;
  but we speak God's wisdom in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God
  predestined before the ages to our glory;  the wisdom which none of
  the rulers of this age has understood; for if they had understood it
  they would not have crucified the Lord of glory;

My question: Why is Saint Paul considered gnostic?

Consider these various examples of people forwarding or confronting the idea:

The Gnostic Paul - Book by Elaine Pagels
Was the Apostle Paul a Gnostic?
The Gnostic Paul - Random Blog post
Paul the Gnostic Opponent of Peter Not an Apostle of Historic Christianity (PDF)

It seems as though many that assert the possibility are either looking at why the Gnostics believed that Paul was a member of such, as Pagels, they are not Christian, as Massey, or are either mysticism or on the periphery of accepted or mainstream Christianity.

Pseudo-Apocrypha like The Apocalypse of Paul  and other Gnostic documents from Nag Hammadi seem to sway non-conventional or liberal leaning theologies to consider the possibility of Pauls Gnosticism.

  What Muhammad 'All discovered at Nag Hammadi is, apparently, a library of writings, almost all of them gnostic. Although they claim to offer secret teaching, many of these texts refer to the Scriptures of the Old Testament, and others to the letters of Paul and the New Testament gospels. Many of them include the same  dramatic personae as the New Testament--Jesus and his disciples. Yet the differences are striking.

  Orthodox Jews and Christians insist that a chasm separates humanity from Its creator: God is wholly other. But some of the gnostics who wrote these gospels contradict this: self-knowledge is knowledge of God; the self and the divine are identical.
  - Pagels

In the Tekton article you listed Pagel even declines to declare if Paul is or is not gnostic.

  Was Paul actually a Gnostic? The idea is taken seriously by no one in NT scholarship today; even Elaine Pagels, the Gnostic-promoter premier, declines in her book The Gnostic Paul to say yea or nay to whether Paul was actually a Gnostic, instead concentrating on how the Gnostics interpreted Paul's letters.
  - Tekton Apologetics

I would struggle to take Freke & Gandy, authors of 'The Jesus Mysteries: Was The Original Jesus A Pagan God?' as serious Christian theologians and would classify them more toward mysticism.

As for the Apocalypse of Paul, Augustine considered it bunk.

  St. Augustine laughs at the folly of some who had forged an Apocalypse of Paul, full of fables, and pretending to contain the unutterable things which the apostle had heard. This is, I doubt not, our book.
  - (Aug. on John, Tract 98.)

The 'Nazirene'  seems to be in the fringe and misrepresents Origins "Gospel  of God" as support for Paul's 'mysteries, of God.  Origen in fact fought against the gnostic heresies.

Massey, I believe I could say is not a Christian because he believes it is a myth and our gospels as a product of Gnosticism.

  It has been shown in previous lectures that the matter of our Canonical Gospels is, to a large extent, mythical, and that the Gnosis of Ancient Egypt was carried into other lands by the underground passage of the Mysteries, to emerge at last as the literalised legend of Historic Christianity.
  - Massey

So, as far as the scripture verses you listed above, personally I don't see a gnostic connection with the Ephesians verse.  The 1 Corinthians verse and others, if taken in context with all of Paul's writing and the totality of all of scripture, would not justify a gnostic connection either.

The answer to your question would be then that the reason 'some' believe Paul was a Gnostic is due to using non-canonical writings, non credible resources, or taking Pauls words out of context.  When theologians such as Augustine, Tertullian, Origin, etc. discredit inferences of any Gnostic bent of the Apostle Paul I've yet to see credible commentary on the contrary.  If I read some commentary from credible, even critical sources I may alter my answer.

"Paul" is unquestionably a gnostic in my view. I began reading the Bible, Authorized King James Version, as a young child. I received a call from the Lord in my salvation. I was called to read the Bible for myself with one of the goals to see the eternal whole counsel plan of God for myself through my own Bible study. So, this was my vocation from salvation before I was of age to read.

With a reading gift given me, I read perhaps 5x the speed of average. With my life dedicated to my vocation: I have literally read the Bible thousands of times cover to cover.

These are my qualifications. They're not the credentials man gives.

"Paul's" systematic theology declares that he is God and Christ; and all men are Gods and Christs. This is gnosticism. "Paul" declares that Adam was God and Christ whom Eve was created to subject to and worship as God and Christ. "Paul's" entire "headship" doctrine is GNOSTICISM: declaring men are "in the office" of "God and Christ" and women are to subject to and worship men as Gods and Christs.

The "blind spot" of men is pride in relation to women; and a desire by sin to be worshipped by women as Gods and Christs.

It is this weakness that blinds the whole church to the GNOSTICISM of "Paul".

Men have a real "skin in the game" to desire for "Paul's" false characterization of the relationship dynamic he teaches of same "to be true". Because it elevates them as "the rulers" over women. Which gives men a real turn on of the feeling of sexual power.

So, for Jesus Christ to "break that power": it's akin to taking a bone from the mouth of a dog with jaw clenched.

"Paul" states that men are the image and glory of God whileas women are the glory of man.

1 Corinthians 11:7
For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.

That's full fabrication.

Genesis 1:26-27 declares Adam and Eve/male and female created in the image of God; jointly blessed equally as one given shared dominion over the rest of creation.

"Paul" rewrites the story stripping from Eve her creation in the image of God. Thus denying that woman is personally indwelt by the Holy Spirit. That's utter, complete denunciation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ: making woman a "lower being" who has no direct personal relationship with God. Which effectually strips women of personal salvation in personal direct relationship with Jesus Christ.

In other words, "Paul" denies throughout his "epistles" that women have the same salvation as men.

Perhaps some "think" that "Paul" said women and men "have the same salvation" as they read letters they imagine were written to both women and men. However, all of "Paul's" letters are written addressed specifically and exclusively to men. In those letters, he assigns "salvation" in status of Gods and Christs solely to men.

Because in "Paul's" gnostic theological system: all men are Gods and Christs; and women are body parts created to worship men as Gods and Christs.

When, for example "Paul" declares men are the image and glory of God: he does not say men are "created in" the image and glory of God; but rather that men "ARE" the image and glory of God. This makes men equal to God and Christ. This declares men to be God and Christ.

1 Corinthians 11:7
For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.

Jesus Christ in born again faith is God Incarnate in Spirit: meaning that Jesus Christ is literally the Image and Glory of God as God in Spirit in Person made a man. Image and Glory is Personhood. God is Spirit. To say that Jesus Christ is, for example, the Express Image of God the Father is to declare that Jesus Christ is God the Son. To declare that Jesus Christ is the Express Image of God the Father is to declare Jesus to be God; and to thus declare the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Spirit.

When we say "Jesus is the Express Image and Glory of God" we are saying, "Jesus is God". We don't have to say "Express" because if we say, "Jesus is the Image and Glory of God" Personally Himself, we are declaring Jesus Christ Himself to be God Himself in Person made a man.

"Paul" is using sophistry when he speaks of his hidden knowledge of gnosticism. If persons do not read carefully, they will "read in" what they "expected" a born again saint to say doctrinally; rather than reading what "Paul" actually communicated as a gnostic in doctrine.

When "Paul" said man is the image and glory of God, "Paul" literally declared all men to be God and Christ in Person in Spirit even as Jesus Christ is God and Christ in Person.

Aka. Jesus is the Image and Glory of God as God Incarnate in Spirit Being Christ; and man is, all men are, equally the Image and Glory of God as God Incarnate in Spirit Being Christ.

This is gnosticism.

Gnosticism can be defined at one level as denying the Exclusivity of Jesus Christ Being the only man who is God Incarnate in Spirit made flesh  = Christ (or as "Paul" in gnostic docetism declares "in the form of") and instead declares all men to be God Incarnate in Spirit in human form = Christs.

This is the basis and foundation of all of "Paul's" declaration of the spiritual inferiority of women and the necessity of women to subject to and worship men as Gods and Christs.

We are not dealing with "just a few" gnostic books forged and implanted into the New Testament.

We are dealing with mostly gnostic epistles, books, and forgeries whose mission is to exalt "Paul" and promote the gnostic heresy and apostacy that men are Gods and Christs whom women were created to subject to and worship as Gods and Christs.

The very core of the sinful nature of man in fall is to exalt himself in the place of God falsely believing he is a God and Christ entitled to the worship and subjection of women.

The temptation, seduction, and deception of "Paul's" gnosticism is aimed at and grounded in the greatest temptation and seduction and deception man faces: the root and core of original sin.

"Paul's" entire systematic theology in foundation is gnosticism.

And the flattery that men are "just like Jesus" in the role of false gods ruling over women.

When, really, it's narcissism, the spiritual and narcissist abuse of women, and sin. It takes true growth by the Holy Spirit for men to outgrow the deception that their self-centeredness and self-exaltation in relation to women is "noble" rather than the sinful nature justifying pride while degrading, oppressing, using and abusing women in motives much less than pure.

And nothing like Jesus.

So, it's throughout all "Paul's" epistles. The systematic theology.

Much more I could point out.

But, how willing are men to see the truth? That they are abusive to women? Not chivalrous? Following 'Paul'? Receiving "Paul's" double standard salvation and spiritual state lies? That declare men the spiritual superiors of women?


Did God still dwell in the temple while Jesus was on Earth? This is just a question that has intrigued me and I can't think of a definite answer.

I understand that the presence of God dwelt first in the Tabernacle and then in Solomon's temple in Jerusalem. God promised to dwell with His people as long as they were faithful to Him, but Israel rebelled.

God allowed them to be taken captive by the Babylonians who then destroyed the temple as well. Also, Ezekiel talks about God's presence leaving the temple due to Israel's unfaithfulness.

Israel is eventually restored and the priesthood continues, as well as the temple and sacrificial system. God promises countless times about the full restoration of the temple, obviously pointing forward to Jesus.

So my question: Did God's presence ever return to the temple in post-exile Israel?

If so Was God's presence still dwelling in the temple while Jesus was on Earth?

I'm sorry my Scripture references are lacking, I hope this question makes sense.

If I read this passage in the Book of Exodus correctly, the presence of God was not connected to the Temple, but rather to the Mercy seat, which appears to be the top of the Ark of the Covenant.

All Scripture is quoted from the King James translation.

  Exodus 25:10  through 22And they shall make an ark of shittim wood: two cubits and a half shall be the length thereof, and a cubit and a half the breadth thereof, and a cubit and a half the height thereof. And thou shalt overlay it with pure gold, within and without shalt thou overlay it, and shalt make upon it a crown of gold round about. And thou shalt cast four rings of gold for it, and put them in the four corners thereof; and two rings shall be in the one side of it, and two rings in the other side of it. And thou shalt make staves of shittim wood, and overlay them with gold. And thou shalt put the staves into the rings by the sides of the ark, that the ark may be borne with them. The staves shall be in the rings of the ark: they shall not be taken from it. And thou shalt put into the ark the testimony which I shall give thee. And thou shalt make a mercy seat of pure gold: two cubits and a half shall be the length thereof, and a cubit and a half the breadth thereof. And thou shalt make two cherubims of gold, of beaten work shalt thou make them, in the two ends of the mercy seat. And make one cherub on the one end, and the other cherub on the other end: even of the mercy seat shall ye make the cherubims on the two ends thereof. And the cherubims shall stretch forth their wings on high, covering the mercy seat with their wings, and their faces shall look one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubims be. And thou shalt put the mercy seat above upon the ark; and in the ark thou shalt put the testimony that I shall give thee. And there I will meet with thee, and I will commune with thee from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubims which are upon the ark of the testimony, of all things which I will give thee in commandment unto the children of Israel.

Also if I am reading this passage correctly:

  1st Kings 8:1 through 10  Then Solomon assembled the elders of Israel, and all the heads of the tribes, the chief of the fathers of the children of Israel, unto king Solomon in Jerusalem, that they might bring up the ark of the covenant of the LORD out of the city of David, which is Zion. And all the men of Israel assembled themselves unto king Solomon at the feast in the month Ethanim, which is the seventh month. And all the elders of Israel came, and the priests took up the ark. And they brought up the ark of the LORD, and the tabernacle of the congregation, and all the holy vessels that were in the tabernacle, even those did the priests and the Levites bring up. And king Solomon, and all the congregation of Israel, that were assembled unto him, were with him before the ark, sacrificing sheep and oxen, that could not be told nor numbered for multitude. And the priests brought in the ark of the covenant of the LORD unto his place, into the oracle of the house, to the most holy place, even under the wings of the cherubims. For the cherubims spread forth their two wings over the place of the ark, and the cherubims covered the ark and the staves thereof above. And they drew out the staves, that the ends of the staves were seen out in the holy place before the oracle, and they were not seen without: and there they are unto this day. There was nothing in the ark save the two tables of stone, which Moses put there at Horeb, when the LORD made a covenant with the children of Israel, when they came out of the land of Egypt. And it came to pass, when the priests were come out of the holy place, that the cloud filled the house of the LORD,

The Lord's presence in Solomon's Temple began with the Mercy seat upon the Ark of the Covenant being placed in its spot in the Temple, and the exit of the Priests.

As to the question about God being in the Temple during Jesus lifetime the answer is not definitive, but Since that presence appears to be firmly attached to the Ark of the Covenant; and the incidents taking place in the Temple of Baal while the Philistines were in possession of the Ark of the Covenant, seem to validate that; the answer would appear to be no.

The basis for that assumption lies in the fact that the whereabouts of the  Ark of the covenant including the Mercy seat, has not been known since the Ravaging of the Temple, when Israel went into exile in Babylon.

At any rate neither the Ark of the covenant nor the Mercy seat were in the Temple when Jesus was alive, and since if the basic idea that Jesus is a part of the triune God held by many Christian denominations is true there would be no need for the voice of God in the Temple since the word of God was living among man in the form of a man. And since Jesus we have the word of God in the form of the Bible.

The answer is Yes, God's presence was in fact in the Second Temple, while Jesus was alive, and I'll give evidence, but there's an asterisk.
Wspier got it part right, but contradicts himself.
-- "I disagree with those who say God did indwell the second temple and cite as evidence the temple veil rending in two, claiming that indicates God's departure from the second temple."  Here he says God did not indwell, inhabit the 2nd temple.

"Rather, taking the temple veil at it's basic purpose, we realize the veil's purpose was not to "hold God in" the holy of holies, but rather to keep man out, lest anyone who enters dies. Even the chief priest, selected once a year by lottery, had much ritual cleansing (ablution) to perform so he would not be killed by entering into God's presence with any uncleanness."  Here he says God did inhabit the Temple.
The point being that Christ himself taught in the Temple and he explicitly said that the 2nd Temple in Jerusalem was His Father's House.
Up until Christ's death on the cross for all humanity, the sacrificial system, and the Holy Place was still valid and in use, and the means by which sins were forgiven on the day of atonement.
In fact, at the exact time the lambs were being slaughtered in the temple on Passover, Christ was crucified, - and he became our perfect spotless Passover lamb.  Remember, that the curtain was torn, while Jesus Christ was on the cross- perfectly fulfilling Passover, on the very day. It was because Christ paid the ransom for all with his atoning death, that the curtain was torn, thereby giving us all- Christians - direct access to God, - so that we don't have to go through the Priests.
The 3rd temple will be built in the tribulation but it will be the Anti-Christ there, not God.  The 4th Temple will be built by Christ and all the nations of the world - Jew and Gentile will celebrate Feast of Booths/ Sukkot every year - according to Zechariah, and this is very very significant because Sukkot/ Feast of Booths is God dwelling with us, and the booths were a reminder of the temporary shelters the children had when they wandered in the dessert for 40 years.


How should we interpret Leviticus 18, 19? Leviticus 18 talks about sexual morality, whereas Leviticus 19 talks about food and what to eat and what not to eat. It is quite difficult to read these two passages together. Modern Christians seem to obey the sexuality commands in chapter 18, but not 19. But if we really believe in Bible is the word of God, we need to read them consistently, not intepreting one chapter according to one set of rules and another, another set of rules.

How should we interpret Leviticus 18 and 19? Should we obey both? Or should we obey none? If we obey only chapter 18, but not 19, what is the hermeneutical ground for this?

The Old Testament Law (Genesis-Deuteronomy) was effectively the constitution of the Israelite nation. It told their history, established them as a nation state, and gave them laws to obey individually and as a whole nation. The core of the law is the Sinai/Deuteronomy covenants. God made a contract with them that he would be their God if they would be his people, and they would show that by obeying the laws he set. Obeying the laws showed that they were God's people. But Christians are not citizens of the ancient Israelite state, and so are not bound by them. We look at the law like we look at the laws of other countries: sometimes interesting, sometimes containing laws we wish our own country had, and sometimes happy that we aren't bound by them.

All of God's laws are good, but they had purposes that do not apply to Christians. Some of them seem very strange, including the food laws which look very arbitrary, but even more some of the other ones, like not wearing clothes made to two types of fabric. God gave them these laws as lessons about how to show that they were different and separated from the nations around them.

We know that God no longer expects us to not eat any food we like because the New Testament specifically says so, such as in Matthew 15:16-20 and Acts 10. In contrast we know that God does still expect us to sexually pure, restricting sexual intercourse to heterosexual marriage, because the NT tells us that many times, such as in Romans 1 and 1 Corinthians 6-7. We don't obey the OT Laws because we're bound by them but because God has shown us that they were not culturally and time specific.

You seem to be making an error, common to most people who read the Bible. And that this is error is that they do not comprehend exactly what is going on at the time the Pentateuch was written. The nation of Israel had been in slavery in Egypt for over 400 years. During that time they had gotten away from serving their God, and had been under the influence of a nation which served multiple god's.
Some of the Roman gods were immoral gods, and Egypt at the time was a very immoral country. After God delivered the nation Israel from slavery in Egypt, he had to retrain them and teach them his laws and his ways anew.
The book of Genesis was given to remind Israel of their history up to the time of Joseph which they no longer remembered. Beginning in the book of Exodus, For the most part throughout the second part of Exodus through the book of Deuteronomy, God is giving them his laws and rules for living. Although there is some overlap between the laws and the rules for living for the most part the laws are given as commands. Rules for living have to do with normal day to day life.
Beginning in Exodus chapter twenty verse 1 God gave the nation of Israel his basic laws.
(note) All Scriptures are quoted from the King James translation.
Exodus 20:1  through 17

1 And God spake all these words, saying,
2  I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
3  Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
4  Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:
5  Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
6  And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
7  Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
8  Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
9  Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
10  But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
11  For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
12  Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.
13  Thou shalt not kill.
14  Thou shalt not commit adultery.
15  Thou shalt not steal.
16  Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
17  Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.

The same 10 Commandments are given again in Deuteronomy chapter 5, but some wording is changed in order to make it more understandable
Although these Commandments seems simple enough to us. It was difficult for the nation of Israel having been under the influence of the Egyptians for so many years to truly understand what that meant. For years under the Egyptian rule sexual promiscuity was the rule rather than the exception. What we find in the rest of the Pentateuch is God having to elaborate on the exact meaning of the 10 Commandments in order for the nation of Israel to understand.
In Leviticus, chapter 18 God is giving more explanation to his command that thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor anything that is thy neighbor's. He is also telling them that homosexuality and incest are against God's laws. In chapter 18 verses one through 30 God is defining unlawful marriage.(We must remember that in God eyes sexual intercourse constitutes Marriage.) In most religions that is known as consummating the marriage. We need only to look at the story of Joseph Leah, Rachel and their two maids beginning in Genesis chapter 29 to understand the permanence of that union in God's eyes. The children of all four comprises the nation of Israel.
In chapter 19 of Leviticus, we go to a completely different story, in Leviticus chapters 1 through 11 God is giving Israel a new set of commands about how he is to be served. He gives the rules for sacrifice. What animals are to be considered, clean and which are unclean, and he gives all of the instructions for the priest. What God is doing in chapter 19 is that after he has given them all of the laws and instructions on how to serve him; he is giving them a warning about not breaking these laws and instructions.
The laws which God gave always have and always will be in effect:
Matthew 5:17 and 18

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

The rules for worship that God gave to Israel. After bringing them out of Egypt do not apply to us, only in as much as we no longer have to sacrifice animals and we now have only one high priest which is Jesus Christ.
We are still bound by the law, even though Jesus fulfilled the law. Fulfilling the law is not the same as doing away with the law, every time that we break one of God's laws. It is one more sin that is piled onto Jesus at the cross. (I do not know if Jesus feels a new pain every time we sin, but it seems plausible to me that he would, or at least did at the cross.)
Remember what Jesus said to the woman caught in prostitution:
John 8:10 and 11

When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? She said, No man, And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

Jesus told her to go and sin no more, he did not add "if you do after I go to the cross; it won't matter anymore."
By these Scriptures. We should understand that even though Jesus paid our sin debt in full. That does not mean the Law has been done away with. Thou shalt not commit adultery is just as cogent now as it was when Moses told the people of Israel coming out of Egypt.
There is much truth in the old saying that no sin goes unpunished.


Did any other philosophical systems have as much influence on the early Church as Platonism and Stoicism? Many historians agree that the philosophical systems of Platonism and Stoicism had an important role in the efforts of the early Church to communicate the message of the Gospel to unbelievers, and even in informing some early Christians' interpretations of the writings of Paul and others.

According to historians, did any other philosophical systems have a similar level of influence early in the life of the Church?

Neo-Platonism. Augustine was influenced by Neo-Platonism, as well as other Christian writers. I think you will find Neo-Platonism to be more more influential than Platonism.

I am not expert in Philosophy enough to provide my own explanation. All I can do is provide some references. From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Augustine is described as a Christian Neoplatonist. Augustine is highly influential in later times as well and, as stated in the below, also being a main figure in the merging of Greek philosophical tradition and the Judeo-Christian religious and scriptural traditions. So, this would show influence of Neoplatonism on the early Church.

From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (bolding mine):

  Aurelius Augustinus [more commonly “St. Augustine of Hippo,” often simply “Augustine”] (354–430 C.E.): rhetor, Christian Neoplatonist, North African Bishop, Doctor of the Roman Catholic Church. One of the decisive developments in the western philosophical tradition was the eventually widespread merging of the Greek philosophical tradition and the Judeo-Christian religious and scriptural traditions. Augustine is one of the main figures through and by whom this merging was accomplished. He is, as well, one of the towering figures of medieval philosophy whose authority and thought came to exert a pervasive and enduring influence well into the modern period (e.g. Descartes and especially Malebranche), and even up to the present day, especially among those sympathetic to the religious tradition which he helped to shape (e.g. Plantinga 1992; Adams 1999).

Plotinus is generally regarded as the founder of Neoplatonism. His article says

  The term ‘Neoplatonism’ is an invention of early 19th century European scholarship and indicates the penchant of historians for dividing ‘periods’ in history. In this case, the term was intended to indicate that Plotinus initiated a new phase in the development of the Platonic tradition. What this ‘newness’ amounted to, if anything, is controversial, largely because one’s assessment of it depends upon one's assessment of what Platonism is. In fact, Plotinus (like all his successors) regarded himself simply as a Platonist, that is, as an expositor and defender of the philosophical position whose greatest exponent was Plato himself. Originality was thus not held as a premium by Plotinus. Nevertheless, Plotinus realized that Plato needed to be interpreted. In addition, between Plato and himself, Plotinus found roughly 600 years of philosophical writing, much of it reflecting engagement with Plato and the tradition of philosophy he initiated. Consequently, there were at least two avenues for originality open to Plotinus, even if it was not his intention to say fundamentally new things.

  ...

  The three basic principles of Plotinus' metaphysics are called by him ‘the One’ (or, equivalently, ‘the Good’), Intellect, and Soul (see V 1; V 9.). These principles are both ultimate ontological realities and explanatory principles. Plotinus believed that they were recognized by Plato as such, as well as by the entire subsequent Platonic tradition."

The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy say Plotinus was a synthesizer of various philosophical schools:

  In the last analysis, what stands as the most important and impressive accomplishment of Plotinus is the manner in which he synthesized the pure, ‘semi-mythical’ expression of Plato with the logical rigors of the Peripatetic and Stoic schools, yet without losing sight of philosophy’s most important task: of rendering the human experience in intelligible and analyzable terms. That Plotinus’ thought had to take the ‘detour’ through such wildly mystical and speculative paths as Gnosticism and Christian salvation theology is only proof of his clear-sightedness, thoroughness, and admirable humanism. For all of his dialectical difficulties and perambulations, Plotinus’ sole concern is with the well-being (eudaimonia) of the human soul. This is, of course, to be understood as an intellectual, as opposed to a merely physical or even emotional well-being, for Plotinus was not concerned with the temporary or the temporal. The striving of the human mind for a mode of existence more suited to its intuited potential than the ephemeral possibilities of this material realm, while admittedly a striving born of temporality, is nonetheless directed toward atemporal and divine perfection.

New Advent's article on Neoplatonism describes it as:

  A system of idealistic, spiritualistic philosophy, tending towards mysticism, which flourished in the pagan world of Greece and Rome during the first centuries of the Christian era. It is of interest and importance, not merely because it is the last attempt of Greek thought to rehabilitate itself and restore its exhausted vitality by recourse to Oriental religious ideas, but also because it definitely entered the service of pagan polytheism and was used as a weapon against Christianity. It derives its name from the fact that its first representatives drew their inspiration from Plato's doctrines, although it is well known that many of the treatises on which they relied are not genuine works of Plato. It originated in Egypt, a circumstance which would, of itself, indicate that while the system was a characteristic product of the Hellenistic spirit, it was largely influenced by the religious ideals and mystic tendencies of Oriental thought.

Hopefully, the above will provide and idea that Neo-Platonism is not Platonism and that it had influence on early Christian writers most notably Augustine.

Did any other philosophical systems have as much influence on the
  early Church as Platonism and Stoicism?

When someone attempts to make Christianity into a system, it can be made to reflect or include various philosophic perspectives. More significantly you would find the imprint of a culture such as Hellenism. The derivation of catechetical schools from the concept of the Greek academy might be a more direct imprint than something as ephemeral as a philosophic perspective.

When philosophy gets more down to earth such as with sophistry, its manifestation can be more discernible. Clever and gifted speakers would naturally rise to the top of church systems.

Men of intellectual ability who see Christianity some deep mystery that only they can unfold are more likely to contribute their various philosophies to their descriptions of Christianity and they can easily be passed on as the doctrines of the church. However, this may not be the significant influence that it might at first appear.

Christianity has suffered at the hands of many who would systematize it, redirect it, redefine it, and even bury it. However, at its core it has never been so much about about teachings or doctrines, but about "Christ in you, the hope of glory".


What's the point of the second commandment? If the first commandment, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" means that God, and God alone is to be worshipped, why do we have the Second Commandment?

Aren't idols covered in the First Commandment? Worshiping an idol would be "having another god" before the Lord, and we don't have extra commandments covering lust (just the one general one on adultery) so why the extra commandment?

Note: I've answered this myself from a Protestant/Reformed view, but I'd love to hear what other traditions have to say and my answer is by no means an exhaustive one

The First Commandment covers who to worship, but the Second Commandment covers how.

Often when the Israelites worshiped idols they were actually trying to worship Yahweh[citation needed] and were going about it all wrong. In the Second Commandment, God was giving a clear explanation on what kind of worship was acceptable, and idolatrous worship was out.

From a reformed protestant point of view, I understand this to be forbidding prayer to or worship of images of God or Jesus.

Neil Postman, author of Amusing Ourselves to Death (and also Jewish, I believe) comments:

  I wondered...why the God of these people would have included
  instructions on how they were to symbolize, or not symbolize, their
  experience. It is a strange injunction to include as part of an
  ethical system unless its author assumed a connection between forms
  of human communication and the quality of a culture. We may hazard a
  guess that a people who are being asked to embrace an abstract,
  universal deity would be rendered unfit to do so by the habit of
  drawing pictures or making statues or depicting their ideas in any
  concrete, iconographic forms. The God of the Jews was to exist in the
  Word and through the Word, an unprecedented conception required the
  highest order of abstract thinking.

While Postman is using this as example of how different media affect their cultures, it's interesting to think about it in light of the New Testament and Paul's statements about faith and sight.

  For we walk by faith, not by sight. - 2. Cor. 5:7

and also

  For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at
  all. Who hopes for what they already have? - Romans 8:24

The idea seems to be that we are to walk by faith, trusting in the Word of God and not in the tangible images we might construct. We are to worship God by faith, not by sight.

In my point of view (that of a former Catho turned Christian), I think the commandment is as clear as crystal. Don't make pictures, movies, paintings, etc., of what's on earth.
Look what happens when we do and that has nothing to do with only idolatry. You can lie about the color of the people and make the worst abomination and enslave people out of these images. As a Black person, I realize how terrible the consequences were for us to have broken this commandment. Now, we make our kids look these shameless movies and images that tell them to feel ashamed of themselves because they don't live like what the images show them (which are more often than not altered to serve as devilish propaganda for an even more evil agenda) and we end up having them doing crazy things, wondering where they got those ideas. Well, the answer is simple. The images. Each of them speaks more than a thousand words, and we can make them say whatever!
So no, we should have never reproduced images and used them to create crazy stuff like racism. How many times do we see movies showing us White actors playing characters that lived in places where there was no such White people at the time. What is the real purpose of this use of imagery? And why God tried to protect us from all that?
See how they are turning a star down to represent baphomet (devil) with numbers, skulls and other signs and put that on kids/teenagers cloths, skates, etc. Without them knowing the meaning of what they are wearing. I had to explain that to one of them. And even their idols (the "stars" of hell-wood) are showcasing these awful symbols.

I mentioned I was in the Catholic cult before... well until I read the Bible and realized they didn't follow it. They are actually destroying the real spirituality that comes from the Scriptures. Their "Prions en Eglise" (the booklets they'll make you read instead of the Bible) are here to push the idea that we have to see those who oppress us as being closer to God... The Catholic dogma is to Christianity and the Scriptures, what the Talmud is to the Torah. Total BS. And no, they do not provide the interpretation, they rewrite the Scriptures for the convenience of some. I'm sorry but that's the truth. If I was ever to set a foot in a Catholic building (I can't call that a Church, sorry), I'd ask them how do they explain all that white Jesus pushed heavily on us (same for all the others characters names in the Bible) when the Scriptures are implying the exact opposite! How do you manage to fit that and God changing Moïse's hand in white as snow when he's supposedly already white??? And in so-called Africa/Middle East? Why God didn't just choose the Vikings then? Why don't we all pray druids and such??? Enough of the nonsense. The more we're following those who don't follow God, the more the earth suffers. Maybe we should do the opposite for a change... I'm not saying that to push a black supremacy agenda, here. The only supremacy I recognize is that of God. But I can't help to see the way this world is going is WRONG and I see who is pushing the insanity on us. So if you are really Christian yourself, you need to do some serious rethinking your ways. As I'm doing myself BTW.
So please, help stop pushing the tattoo, the gay thing, the gossiping, idolatry, ego, greed, fake "development" etc. on us all day every day! That's enough and stop the nonsensical debates as well... Is Sabbath Saturday or Sunday??? What stupidity is that! It's neither the day of Saturn nor the day of the Sun!!! It's God's day. Look how WE call the days of the week, just the way of the Bible: 1st day, 2nd day, etc. and finally the day of God! How simple is that!

Remember you can destroy a mind with images - think of the Nazis' experimentations. We can uplift too, but that's rarely how we use them and God knew everything we'd do in the future... That's why we are even asked something as simple as to honor our parents even in old age. God knew how important and difficult it would be for the human fools we are. The more we go, the less we respect our parents and the more troubles we are in.

We are asked very little and simple things: enjoy all God put on the earth for you: food, water, air, the soil/land, all the materials for our needs, wood, stone, real medicine, etc., are given for free; make babies for free; live happily and free alongside the other creatures God created FOR FREE! And then thank God for all we have. Just like babies/kids. Since we are God's children.
But some have decided we had to put a price tag on everything and that THEY would play God and decide who gets what and it what amount for what PRICE!!! Hence the "you cannot serve God and Mammon"...


Can Christians accept prayers from other religions? For example, can a Buddhist prays for a Christian and let the person know like health and peace? If yes/no, where is it written in the Bible.

First, I commend the goodwill you demonstrate toward your Christian friend.  You obviously want to give something that your friend can appreciate.
My answer below tries to orient you to make your prayer gift to be well suited to a Christian so it will be well received by a Christian, by considering who a Christian God is, who Jesus is, and what a Christian needs when others pray for them.
Orientation to Christian God and Prayer needs
The most important starting point to keep in mind is that in Christianity prayer is always directed to God who is a REAL, conscious being, separate from our own consciousness.  He is not a projection, not another modality of our consciousness / psychology, but a real being out there.

Christians believe there is One Supreme Creator God who is in control and more powerful than

all other gods (whether they exist or not),
all angels and demons and all other kinds of spiritual beings
all human beings (whether still living, or in between reincarnation, in heaven, in purgatory, etc.)

Christians believe this Supreme God knows all our thoughts, see Ps 139:2.  So of course He can hear all prayers by non Christians, whether addressed to a lesser god, or to Himself under another name (for example, Moslems call this God by the name "Allah").

There are several Old Testament examples of people who worship a lesser god BUT who acknowledged the existence of the God of Israel and even knew His name (YHWH, denoted as small caps Lᴏʀᴅ in English translations of the Bible).  Christians and Jews believe that sometimes this Supreme God stirred the hearts of those non-Israelites to pray, bless, or do good to the Israelites.  For example:

God moved the heart of Cyrus, king of Persia, to grant exiled Jews to return to Jerusalem.  See Ezra 1:2-3:

“This is what King Cyrus of Persia says: “The Lᴏʀᴅ, the God of heaven, has given me all the kingdoms of the earth. He has appointed me to build him a Temple at Jerusalem, which is in Judah. Any of you who are his people may go to Jerusalem in Judah to rebuild this Temple of the Lᴏʀᴅ, the God of Israel, who lives in Jerusalem. And may your God be with you!"

Babylon King Nebuchadnezzar acknowledged that Israel's God was more powerful than his god after his dream's interpretation by Daniel came true, in which Nebuchadnezzar was humbled and then restored by God, so he sent a message acknowledging Israel's God to all his subjects (at the time when this happened, around 600 BC, Babylon was the most powerful empire in the world).  See Daniel 4:34-36:

“After this time had passed, I, Nebuchadnezzar, looked up to heaven. My sanity returned, and I praised and worshiped the Most High and honored the one who lives forever: 'His rule is everlasting, and his kingdom is eternal.  All the people of the earth are nothing compared to him. He does as he pleases among the angels of heaven and among the people of the earth.
No one can stop him or say to him, ‘What do you mean by doing these things?’  When my sanity returned to me, so did my honor and glory and kingdom. My advisers and nobles sought me out, and I was restored as head of my kingdom, with even greater honor than before."

If the person you are praying for is a true Christian, this Christian will be under the protection of this supreme God and this Christian can be assured through faith that he/she is counted right now as one of His beloved sons/daughters who after death are eligible for eternal life in heaven if he/she perserves to the end.  Therefore:

A more helpful prayer for your Christian friend will then to wish what a Christian will need in his/her earthly journey.  If you pray for health or peace it will be much better if you understand what health or peace means to a Christian, which is different from what other religions understand them to be.  To Christians, there is a notion of spiritual health which is freedom from temptation to sin, which is much more critical than physical health.  Also the Christian notion of peace is a state of heart where there is no enmity between the individual and this Supreme God.

Even if your notion of peace or health are NOT yet Christian in concept, the goodwill expressed toward your Christian friend will not go unnoticed by this Supreme God and He can potentially reward you if we take this Abrahamic blessing (Gen 12:3a) as a hint:

I will bless those who bless you and curse those who treat you with contempt.

In a Christian understanding, Jesus is the incarnation of the aforementioned God of Israel himself, which means after Jesus's resurrection Christians no longer call him Teacher / Rabbi, but with titles appropriate for the Son of the living God such as Lord (King) and Saviour.  A Christian can also call Jesus a Friend or a Brother, whom Christians should imitate so we can also have His character, especially in His relationship to God the Father and to fellow human beings.  You can therefore pray so that Jesus will help your friend's heart to be more conformed with His.

Conclusion
In summary, here are 2 points to help make your prayer gift to be well received by your Christian friend:

address it properly: either to

God the Father (the Supreme God above all gods, Creator of the universe) or to the
Lord Jesus Christ (Lord over all human beings)

pray for what a Christian needs (by using Christian-specific concepts).  Examples:

Spiritual health: so God helps your friend fight temptation and to be more conformed to Jesus's character
Peace: so your friend confess all sins to God to be reconciled
Increase in love: so your friend improves spiritually by loving God and others more
Persevere in hard times: so your friend would not lose faith and hope
etc.

My answer is not going to give the reasons because they are too many, others have touched on some of them and they are not necessary to solve your problem. Just know they all stem from misunderstanding in one way or another but doesn't everything?
As a Buddhist, if you choose to pray for a Christian you must make it known that you are not praying to a god who exists as separate from their god. Buddhism is not a religion that worships Buddah as a god, but there are many people who think that it is.
Unfortunately, many of the members of every religion do not understand that "their" God is the same God, which should be evident because, as you mention, God's "commandments" are nearly identical in every source.
Having said that, here is your "answer":
Never allow a Christian to misunderstand you and think that you are praying to a God you think exists as both separate from and at the same time as "their" God.
Additionally, if you say your prayer out loud you should address it to "God" or to "Jesus" and end it with "amen" and there should be no misunderstanding.
Edit: I see that you asked for where in the bible it talks about this and it all stems from the commandment, one of the "Ten commandments" that says:
"You shall have no other god before me." [Exodus 20:3]


Catholics: how can the book of Wisdom be inspired if the author pretended to be Solomon? This is a sincere question, not one of those sneering ones that try to make the one being questioned look bad.

The church fathers unanimously considered the Book of Wisdom to be inspired and Dei Verbum (official teaching of the church) states that all inspired scripture is infallible. But when you read it, the author clearly pretends to be King Solomon even though the book was written many hundreds of years after Solomon was dead.

  You told me to build a temple on your sacred mountain, an altar in Jerusalem, the city you chose as your home. It is a copy of that temple in heaven, which you prepared at the beginning. (Wisdom 9:8)

The question has several underlying premises.

The Catholic Church considers the Book of Wisdom to be canonical, i.e. it belongs to the Scripture.

For Catholicism, infallibility of Scripture means "every part of Scripture is literally true".

In Wisdom 9:8 (or else) the author claims to be Solomon.

Premise 1 is of course true. Yet, notice that premises 2. and 3. imply that Catholicism must consider Solomon to be the author of the book. However, this clearly contradicts the "scholarly consensus" that Solomon did not authored the book (consensus which is actually the case, see below). Hence, one of the three above premises must be wrong. The OP seems to hold the idea (by the tone of the answer) that premise 1 the problem, i.e. that the Book of Wisdom should not be considered canonical, as many protestant denominations do.
The problem however is with premise 2. The Catholic Church does not ascribe to fundamentalism. The Catholic Church has never declared the Bible to be inerrant (a la Protestantism). In fact, this position is openly criticised. For instance, this 1993 document by the Pontifical Biblical Commission states:

The basic problem with fundamentalist interpretation of this kind is that, refusing to take into account the historical character of biblical revelation, it makes itself incapable of accepting the full truth of the incarnation itself. As regards relationships with God, fundamentalism seeks to escape any closeness of the divine and the human. It refuses to admit that the inspired word of God has been expressed in human language and that this word has been expressed, under divine inspiration, by human authors possessed of limited capacities and resources. For this reason, it tends to treat the biblical text as if it had been dictated word for word by the Spirit. It fails to recognize that the word of God has been formulated in language and expression conditioned by various periods. It pays no attention to the literary forms and to the human ways of thinking to be found in the biblical texts, many of which are the result of a process extending over long periods of time and bearing the mark of very diverse historical situations.
Fundamentalism also places undue stress upon the inerrancy of certain details in the biblical texts, especially in what concerns historical events or supposedly scientific truth. It often historicizes material which from the start never claimed to be historical. It considers historical everything that is reported or recounted with verbs in the past tense, failing to take the necessary account of the possibility of symbolic or figurative meaning.

In effect, the Catholic Church does not adhere and has never adhere to such "literalness" interpretation. In fact, another very important implied assumption of the question is that the Catholic Church does assert Solomon to be the author of the Book of Wisdom. This is also false.
Regarding the "scholarly consensus", in effect, the Book of Wisdom is considered to be written between in late 1st century B.C., and definitely not in the time of Solomon. This is for instance, expounded in this 2011's book (see section 2.3). The Catholic Church does not oppose this position. E.g. already in 1912 the Catholic Encyclopedia stated:

Of course the fact that the entire Book of Wisdom was composed in Greek rules out its Solomonic authorship. It is indeed true that ecclesiastical writers of the first centuries commonly assumed this authorship on the basis of the title of the book, apparently confirmed by those passages (ix, 7, 8, 12; cf. vii, 1, 5; viii, 13, 14, etc.) where the one speaking is clearly King Solomon. But this view of the matter never was unanimous in the Early Christian Church, and in the course of time a middle position between its total affirmation and its total rejection was suggested. The Book of Wisdom, it was said, is Solomon's inasmuch as it is based on Solomonic works which are now lost, but which were known to and utilized by a hellenistic Jew centuries after Solomon's death. This middle view is but a weak attempt at saving something of the full Solomonic authorship affirmed in earlier ages. "It is a supposition which has no positive arguments in its favour, and which, in itself, is improbable, since it assumes the existence of Solomonic writings of which there is no trace, and which would have been known only to the writer of the Book of Wisdom" (Cornely-Hagen, "Introd. in Libros Sacros, Compendium," Paris, 1909, p. 361). At the present day, it is freely admitted that Solomon is not the writer of the Book of Wisdom, "which has been ascribed to him because its author, through a literary fiction, speaks as if he were the Son of David" (Vigouroux, "Manuel Biblique", II, n. 868. See also the notice prefixed to the Book of Wisdom in the current editions of the Douai Version). [...] All these variations as to authorship prove that the author's name is really unknown (cf. the notice prefixed to Wisdom in the Douay Version).

The "freely admitted" can be understood, in the dogmatic sense, as being permitted within the boundaries of the Magisterium (i.e. not being a heresy).

The book of Wisdom is inspired because the One Holy and Apostolic Church declares it to be so.  What's more, the Catholic Church declares that the Book of Wisdom is in the Cannon and can and should be used in the Mass.

The two categories, being inspired by God and being in the Cannon are not Mutually inclusive. There are writings that are inspired by God that are not in the Cannon of Scripture. Many in fact.

The Question could easily be asked, "How can Genisis be inspired", The answer is the same, The One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, declares that it is part of the Canon of scripture and by virtue of its inclusion in the Bible, it is Inspired.


Are there one or two covenants in Exodus? Clarifying the role of the first set of laws compared to the second set Im a little confused by some commentaries as to how they describe the laws given to Moses.

We see a first set of commands listed in Exodus 20:1-17 and 20:22-23:33. These are then agreed upon by Israel in a ceremony of sorts in 24:3–8
In response to incident of the Golden Cow and the breaking of the first set of tablets, we see two things in chapter 34. 1. a replacement set of tablets and 2. some new regulations in 34:10-27, verse 10 and verse 27 naming these a covenant.

So the question is are there two separate covenants? Perhaps the second set "wraps" the first set? Or perhaps the second set amends the first?

I assume you are talking about the tablets of the Ten Commandments which Moses broke in Exodus 32:19, then the second set of tablets made in Exodus 34:4. You are wondering if God wrote something different on the second set.

Exodus 34:1 gives us the answer to your question: "Cut two tablets of stone like the first ones, and I will write on these tablets the words that were on the first tablets which you broke."

So the second set of laws was the same as the first set.

The consequences of not waiting are enormous and punishing. If they had waited quietly for Moses to come down and received the Ten Commandments, the additional 603 might never have been heard??? But no, God knew it all before hand. Romans 15:4 For whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction, that through endurance and through the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope. 5 May the God of endurance and encouragement grant you to live in such harmony with one another, in accord with Christ Jesus, 6 that together you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Apparently this was not in question. I know of no difference between the two sets of tablets, other than the stone they were written on. If there were  we could not know what they were as the first were destroyed.


What religious beliefs did the Galatians hold when Paul first preached the gospel to them? When Paul originally proclaimed the Gospel to the Galatians, were they at that time pagan, Jewish, or something else. Did they ever hear of Christ Jesus before Paul?
For reference:

You know that because of physical infirmity I preached the gospel to you at the first. And my trial which was in my flesh you did not despise or reject, but you received me as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus.
Galatians 4:13-14

The Wikipedia article on Galatia states that the Galatians were Celts who invaded the area about 275 BCE, and who were reported to be in the area until about 475 CE, or so. It is likely that the Celts would have been considered "pagans" by the local population as they seem to have taken some time to adopt local ways. However, the Galatians do not seem to have comprised the entire population of the area, but rather only a ruling class. And the reports of Paul's activity refer to "in Galatia", which seems to be the region, and in the absence of other evidence, does not seem to be any to prove that the Galatians were the primary group among which Paul was evangelizing.

Acts 18:23 relates that after spending time in Caesarea and Antioch, Paul traveled through Galatia "strengthening the disciples there" (RSV). The fact that Paul "strengthened", rather than "made" these disciples suggests that some had already been evangelized, but there is not enough information to determine whether the earlier evangelization was by Paul himself, or by someone else. We also don't know whether among those with whom Paul interacted, that there might not have been some who had heard of Jesus Christ, but were not yet believers. However, it is likely that Paul also interacted with non-Christians, and non-Jews in Galatia, so some of the people he evangelized may have not already have heard of Jesus, or if they had heard of him, may not have believed he was the Christ.

Galatians 4:13-14, seems to suggest that when Paul originally traveled through Galatia, he suffered some sort of unspecified infirmity; and seems to be an exhortation to some of the Galatians to maintain steadfast in faith.  We're not given enough information to determine what that infirmity might have been.

Galatians 4:8-11

  8 But then indeed, when you did not know God, you served those that were not gods by nature: 9 but since you now know God, or rather are known by God, how do you return again to be subjected to the weak and impoverished principles, or heavenly bodies which you want to serve over again?  10 You scrupulously observe days and months and seasons and years. 11 I fear for you lest I was toiling among you in vain.

This is a reference to the astrological foundation of their former religion. (verse 9)


How does repentance fit into the doctrine of sola fide ("by faith alone")? Sola fide (Latin for "by faith alone") is a defining doctrine of Protestantism. Wikipedia defines it as follows:

  The doctrine of sola fide asserts God's pardon for guilty sinners is granted to and received through faith alone, excluding all "works". All mankind, it is asserted, is fallen and sinful, under the curse of God, and incapable of saving itself from God's wrath and curse. But God, on the basis of the life, death, and resurrection of his Son, Jesus Christ alone (solus Christus), grants sinners judicial pardon, or justification, which is received solely through faith.

How does repentance fit into this doctrine? Is it possible to be unrepentant of sin (whether for some sins or all sins that one has committed) and yet still receive pardon for those sins? Is repentance considered a "work" in that it is ultimately unnecessary for justification?

There are two primary ways that sola fide theologians deal with this issue, and there is ongoing debate between them over it (cf. Lordship salvation controversy).  I'll first address the historical view (sometimes called "Lordship salvation") and the more recent view, called "free grace theology."
Lordship salvation
The name commonly applied to this view emphasizes that following Christ is not merely a matter of intellectual belief, but also accepting him as Lord and therefore turning away from the sin nature.  Thus its adherents see repentance and faith as inherently connected; as Wayne Grudem says, they are "two different sides of the same coin" (ST, 714) Louis Berkhof writes:

True repentance never exists except in conjunction with faith, while, on the other hand, wherever there is true faith, there is also real repentance. The two are but different aspects of the same turning, — a turning away from sin in the direction of God. (ST, 4.7.D.3)

Thus the two cannot be separated.  Where they are distinguished (as in Calvin, Institutes, 3.3.1; see curiousdannii's answer), the one necessarily follows the other, and thus in all cases faith is the only basis for the justification of the sinner.
Berkhof and Grudem are both Reformed theologians, as is John MacArthur, the author of the book The Gospel According to Jesus, which extensively defends this view.  But their analysis is shared by other Protestant traditions.  For example, Arminian John Miley writes:

While faith is the one and only condition of justification, yet a true repentance is always presupposed, because only in such a mental state can the proper faith be exercised. An impenitent soul cannot properly trust in Christ for the forgiveness of sin. (Systematic Theology, II, 323)

Lutheran John Mueller, summarizing Francis Pieper's work, uses the word contrition instead, but sees the two as synonyms in this sense:

The two essential elements in conversion are contrition and faith [...] Contrition belongs to conversion only for the reason that faith cannot find entrance into the proud and secure heart; it is "the indispensable preparation for conversion." (Christian Dogmatics, 338)

Repentance here is not assumed to be perfect or complete repentance, but rather a general turning away from sin.  Continued growth in faith and repentance is an important aspect of the Christian's sanctification, but a failure to perfectly repent of every sin does not lead to a loss of salvation.
Free grace theology
This view's name reflects its adherents' belief that repentance is a "work" that is not required for salvation – thus grace is more "free" than in a scheme were repentance and faith are aspects of conversion.  According to this view, intellectual faith alone, without any turning from sin, is sufficient for salvation.
In recent times the view is most commonly associated with evangelicals influenced by dispensationalism; Wayne Grudem identifies Lewis Sperry Chafer as its originator.  In Major Bible Themes, Chafer writes:

The Scriptures are violated and the whole doctrine of grace confused when salvation is made to depend on anything other than believing. The divine message is not "believe and pray," "believe and confess sin," "believe and confess Christ," "believe and be baptized," "believe and repent," or "believe and make restitution." (Chapter 28)

Bob Wilkin, founder of the Grace Evangelical Society, expounds:

There is no commitment, no decision of the will, no turning from sins, and no works that are part of faith in Christ. If you are convinced or persuaded that what He promised is true, then you believe in Him. Faith is passive. It is simply taking Jesus at His word.
Thus turning from sins, commitment, obedience, and perseverance are not faith and thus aren’t conditions of eternal life. Those are all types of works. Works have their proper place in the Christian life, but only after you have believed in Jesus. (source; emphasis in original)

Thus for the free grace theologian, repentance is distinct from faith and therefore comes after (and not necessarily immediately after) conversion and justification.
Summary
Thus we see two views in the sola fide camp with respect to this question.  Both agree that perfect repentance is not a requirement for salvation, but the majority view holds that in conversion faith and repentance are inseparable, though only faith is the basis of justification.  The "free grace" view holds that faith and repentance are distinct, with the latter being a work that is done after justification is accomplished.

Antinomianism states that your actions cannot matter as long as you believe rightly.

  2 Timothy 2:25 in humility correcting those who are in opposition, if
  God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the
  truth,

Repentance is no more of a work than is believing.  To ignore repentance is to ignore the very reason we believe rightly.  Without repentance you do not believe rightly.  You only believe in a license to sin and have purchased fire insurance.

Are we saved by grace alone?  Undoubtedly.
Acts 11:18

  When they heard these things they became silent; and they
  glorified God, saying, “Then God has also granted to the Gentiles
  repentance to life.”

2 Corinthians 7:10

  For godly sorrow produces repentance leading to
  salvation, not to be regretted; but the sorrow of the world produces
  death.

James 2:19

  You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons
  believe that--and shudder.

Those that believe repentance is a state of sinless perfection are those that do not believe rightly and look for justification of their sins.

Romans 6:1-2

  “What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may
  increase? By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any
  longer?”

Summary of my belief:  You cannot be saved without God's grace through God granted faith in Jesus Christ alone; but you cannot have true faith without God granted repentance.

-Repent and believe and you will be damned to hell for eternity
-Believe without repentance and you will be damned to hell