Does 1 Corinthians 8:6 prove Unitarianism? yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all  , things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist. 1 Corinthians 8:6 ESV

To me it looks like Paul is saying that the one being of God is shared only by the Father.

The fact that Jesus is called the one Lord can be hard to reconcile with the rest of the Scripture if Unitarianism is true. Let's propose that only Jesus is the lord of the Christians (and not God The Father) how can we as Trinitarians reconcile the fact that "there is one God, the Father" with the doctrine of the trinity (One BEING of God shared by Three distinct PERSONS) Is the term God used here for a being or a person?

I don't see how we can argue that the one Lord here is meant to be understood as "one YHWH" (See the idea that Paul expanded Deutronomy 6:4 in 1 Corinthians 8:6) because it is clear that Paul is drawing a line between the the lords/gods from 1 Corinthians 8:5 and we can't say that 1 Corinthians 8:5 should be understood as "many YHWH's and many gods".

Does the context and origianl language allow for the translation "one God the Father...and one Lord Jesus Christ? (Without the commas)

I looked to many commentaries and no one gave me a satisfying answer, please help!

P.S. I believe the doctrine of the Trinity

You ask how is 1 Corinthians 8:6

  yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live.

to be understood with Trinitarian theology? In particular, you state "Paul is saying that the one being of God is shared only by the Father." Trinitarians have never seen 1 Corinthians 8:6 that way. They have focused on the unity of the Father and the Son, the Logos, in their action in creation. What was shocking to both the Jewish and pagan converts was not that Paul placed the Father and the Son/Logos on equal level but that he identified the Logos with the man Jesus Christ.  Trinitarians do not understand 1 Corinthians 8:6 as separating the Father from the Son, but rather believe that Paul is placing the Lord Jesus Christ on equal footing with the one God, the Father by identifying Him with the Logos.

The Nicene Creed

You asked

  how can we as Trinitarians reconcile the fact that "there is one God, the Father" with the doctrine of the trinity

There is no need to reconcile it with Trinitarian theology since it is the correct expression of Trinitarian theology. In particular the Church Fathers gathered at Nicaea for the First Ecumenical Council felt this was the most appropriate way to refer to the Father and the Son. Notice the how the original 325 version of the Nicene Creed lines up with 1 Corinthians 8:6:

    1 Corinthians 8:6               Nicene Creed (325)
There is one God, the Father    We believe in one God, the Father Almighty
of whom are all things          Maker of all things visible and invisible.
and we for Him
and one Lord Jesus Christ       And in one Lord Jesus Christ
                                the Son of God,
                                begotten of the Father
                                the only-begotten
                                that is, of the essence of the Father,
                                God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God,
                                begotten, not made,
                                being of one substance with the Father
through whom are all things,    By whom all things were made both in heaven and on earth
and through whom we live.
                                Who for us men, and for our salvation,
                                came down and was incarnate and was made man.
                                He suffered, and the third day he rose again, ascended into heaven
                                From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
                                And in the Holy Ghost.

While the Nicene Fathers apparently felt that words of 1 Corinthians 8:6 accurately stated their position, they did find in necessary to clarify the relationship between the Father and the Son. Why? Because the Arians presented this same verse as a proof text. They asserted, somewhat like your question implies, that only the Father is God and that Christ something else, something lesser, a Lord. But this in no way implies that they held a Unitarian understanding of 1 Corinthians 8:6. Arius and his followers believed that Christ was God as well. Arius himself wrote in a letter to his fellow Arian Eusebius, Bishop of Nicomedia:

  But we say and believe, and have taught, and do teach, that the Son is not unbegotten, nor in any way part of the unbegotten; and that He does not derive His subsistence from any matter; but that by His own will and counsel He has subsisted before time, and before ages, as perfect God, only begotten and unchangeable, and that before He was begotten, or created, or purposed, or established, He was not. For He was not unbegotten. We are persecuted, because we say that the Son has a beginning, but that God is without beginning. [Emphasis mine]

Both the Arian and the Nicene Christians believed that 1 Corinthians 8:6 taught that Christ is God -- certainly not a Unitarian interpretation. The Nicene Trinitarians made many arguments as to why the Son is of the essence of the Father, of one substance with the Father, but we will focus on the ones that address 1 Corinthians 8:6. The positions of the Trinitarians as they address Arianism will illustrate that they did not even consider a Unitarian understanding of 1 Corinthians 8:6 to be possible.

Countering Arianism

John Chrysostrom

John Chrysostrom lived shortly after the Council of Nicaea. In his 20th Homily on Corinthians (I recommend you read the entire homily) he writes about 1 Corinthians 8:6

  "yet to us there is One God, the Father." In the first instance [1 Corinthians 8:4] having expressed it without the word "Father," and said, "there is no God but one," he now adds this also, when he had utterly cast out the others. Next, he adduces what indeed is the greatest token of divinity; "of Whom are all things." For this implies also that those others are not gods. For it is said, "Let the gods who made not the heaven and the earth perish. [Jeremiah 10:11]"

So Chrysostrom has established that creatio ex nihilo is the 'is the greatest token of divinity', and he goes on to apply that to the Son:

  And in regard to Christ again, we must conceive of this in like manner. For through Him the race of men was both produced out of nothing into existence, and returned from error to truth. So that as to the phrase "of Whom" it is not to be understood apart from Christ. For of Him, through Christ, were we created.

Chrysostrom understands this verse to mean that Father's action in creation (of Whom) 'is the greatest token of divinity' and can not be separated from Christ's participation (through whom) in the act of creation. This unequivocally places Christ at the same level as the Father and rules out either a Unitarian or Arian interpretation.

You state

  Let's propose that only Jesus is the lord of the Christians (and not God The Father)

There is no basis for this in the text and is not consistent with Trinitarian tradition. As if anticipating your question by some 1600 years Chrysostrom points out that if you say that 1 Corinthians 8:6 applies the word God to the Father only and exclude the Son, then you must exclude the one God, the Father from being Lord. Chrysostrom dismisses such an idea out of hand as it is obvious to him that the One God is Lord:

  And this is not all, but there is another remark to make: that if you say, "Because it is said 'One God,' therefore the word God doth not apply to the Son" observe that the same holds of the Son also. For the Son also is called "One Lord," yet we do not maintain that therefore the term Lord applies to Him alone. So then, the same force which the expression "One" has, applied to the Son, it has also, applied to the Father. And as the Father is not thrust out from being the Lord, in the same sense as the Son is the Lord, because He, the Son, is spoken of as one Lord; so neither does it cast out the Son from being God, in the same sense as the Father is God, because the Father is styled One God.

Gregory of Nyssa

Gregory of Nyssa also lived shortly after Nicea. In the treatise Against Eunomius Gregory argued against an the Anomoeanism/Eunomians lead by Eunomius. They professed an extreme version of Arianism (beyond what Arius taugh) that taught that Christ was neither of the same substance (homoousia) as the Father (the Nicene position) nor a similar substance (homoiousia) as the Father (the neo/semi-Arian position) Like Chrysostrom, Gregory argues that the Son is fully separate from the creation in the same way that Father is and cites 1 Corinthians 8:6 as proof:

  And let no one think it unreasonable that the creature should be set in opposition to God, but have regard to the prophets and to the Apostles. For the prophet says in the person of the Father, "My Hand made all these things" [Isaiah 66:2]  meaning by "Hand," in his dark saying, the power of the Only-begotten. Now the Apostle says that all things are of the Father, and that all things are by the Son,[1 Corinthians 8:6] and the prophetic spirit in a way agrees with the Apostolic teaching, which itself also is given through the Spirit. For in the one passage, the prophet, when he says that all things are the work of the Hand of Him Who is over all, sets forth the nature of those things which have come into being in its relation to Him Who made them, while He Who made them is God over all, Who has the Hand, and by It makes all things. And again, in the other passage, the Apostle makes the same division of entities, making all things depend upon their productive cause, yet not reckoning in the number of "all things" that which produces them: so that we are hereby taught the difference of nature between the created and the uncreated, and it is shown that, in its own nature, that which makes is one thing and that which is produced is another.

Thus the Trinitarians saw 1 Corinthians 8:6 teaching that the one God, the Father, and the One Lord Jesus Christ to be united in substance because their action in creation. Though they made these arguments against the Arians, they apply equally as well, if not more so, to Unitarians. And this was not unique to the Christians of the Nicene era. The line of thought goes back well before them.

Ante-Nicene Examples.

Athenagoras of Athens

Athenagoras was born around AD 133 He wrote A Plea for the Christians to the Roman emperors Marcus Aurelius and Commodus to explain and defend Christianity. In trying to prove the reasonableness of Christianity, Athenagoras [argues that the Father and the Son are one] in a manner similar to Chrysostrom and Gregory. He does not directly cite 1 Corinthians 8:6 as there would be no reason to expect the emperors to be familiar with it, but he may be alluding to it.

  That we are not atheists, therefore, seeing that we acknowledge one God, uncreated, eternal, invisible, impassible, incomprehensible, illimitable, who is apprehended by the understanding only and the reason, who is encompassed by light, and beauty, and spirit, and power ineffable, by whom the universe has been created through His Logos, and set in order, and is kept in being—I have sufficiently demonstrated. I say "His Logos", for we acknowledge also a Son of God... But the Son of God is the Logos of the Father, in idea and in operation; for after the pattern of Him and by Him were all things made, the Father and the Son being one. And, the Son being in the Father and the Father in the Son, in oneness and power of spirit, the understanding and reason of the Father is the Son of God.

Athenagoras argues that Son is the Logos of the Father and one with the Father because of their action in creation. This foreshadows the later arguments of the Nicene and Post-Nicene fathers.

Justin Martyr

Justin was born around AD 100. He wrote Dialogue with Trypho a long treatise (but worth reading in full) dedicated to showing the superiority of Christianity to Judaism. It is presented as a discussion between Justin and and a Jew named Trypho. Trypho is said to have studied under Corinthus the Socratic in Argos, but now mainly lives in Corinth. In the 61st chapter, Justin writes

  "I shall give you another testimony, my friends," said I, "from the Scriptures, that God begat before all creatures a Beginning, [who was] a certain rational power [proceeding] from Himself, who is called by the Holy Spirit, now the Glory of the Lord, now the Son, again Wisdom, again an Angel, then God, and then Lord and Logos; and on another occasion He calls Himself Captain, when He appeared in human form to Joshua the son of Nave (Nun). For He can be called by all those names, since He ministers to the Father’s will, and since He was begotten of the Father by an act of will; just as we see happening among ourselves: for when we give out some word, we beget the word; yet not by abscission, so as to lessen the word [which remains] in us, when we give it out: and just as we see also happening in the case of a fire, which is not lessened when it has kindled [another], but remains the same; and that which has been kindled by it likewise appears to exist by itself, not diminishing that from which it was kindled.

Now, the Trinitarian might object to the Son being called the Holy Spirit, but that is not relevant to why Justin's comments are important. Justin asserts the unity of the Logos/Son with the Father. Further, he expects a Jew educated in Greek philosophy (and living in Corinth) to be familiar with and even accept this idea. That is, both Hellenized Jews and educated Greeks of the time would be familiar with the concept of the Logos being from God, but also God, and God/Father's partner in creation. And this idea was not foreign to Hellenized Jews.

Philo of Alexandria

Philo of Alexandria, a Hellenized Jew who was roughly a contemporary of Christ, wrote of the Logos, identifying it with the image of God (Compare with Colossians 1:15 and John 1:3),

  Now the image of God is the Word, by which all the world was made

I should like to have more time to expand on this, but what should be apparent by now is that not just Trinitarians but Greeks and Hellenized Jews (or at least some of them) were familiar with and accepting of the concept that the Logos was God and by whom God made all things yet without sacrificing the unity of God. Where Christianity becomes scandalous is when it identifies the Logos, which is of God and is God, with the man Jesus.

But what about Paul?

If we ignore the ignore what Trinitarians have taught on the matter and the cultural context of the time (probably not a good idea, either of them), what can we see just from the epistles? When Paul wrote,

  yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live.

did he intend separate the Father from the Son? Paul opens the 1 Corinthians placing the Father and the Son on the same level:

  To the church of God which is at Corinth, to those who are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all who in every place call on the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours. Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. [1 Corinthians 1:2-3 NKJV]

Paul places the Father and Christ side-by-side and presents them as both being the source of grace and peace. (Romans, Galatians, Ephesians ... the open the same way) He states that the saints are to call on the name of Jesus Christ. Paul, the Pharisee of Pharisees, is familiar with Joel 2:32 (He quotes it in Romans 10:13):

  And it shall come to pass
  That whoever calls on the name of the Lord
  Shall be saved.
  For in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there shall be deliverance,
  As the Lord has said,
  Among the remnant whom the Lord calls.

Either Paul is being rather sloppy with the Lord's name or he intends to place his readers in the mindset that the Lord Jesus Christ is to be identified with if not identical to the Lord God of Israel.

Given this, it is difficult to believe Paul intends to separate the Father and the Son and place them on separate levels in 1 Corinthians 8:6 why describing them in parallel terms.

Conclusion

Paul knows that his audience is familiar with concept of the Logos. In 1 Corinthians 8:6 Paul brings up the Logos implicitly by saying "through whom are all things" and expects that they will understand the the Lord is of God and is God. And if Paul had left it as this,  "the Father, of whom are all things, ... and one Logos, through whom are all things," you could read it as a Unitarian text. However, Paul goes further. He places the Lord Jesus Christ in the role of the Logos, making the man Jesus of God and God. This can not be read in a Unitarian manner.

Afterthoughts

You ask

  (One BEING of God shared by Three distinct PERSONS) Is the term God used here for a being or a person?

One Being of God shared by Three Persons is not quite the Trinitarian formula. I wonder if you are are using 'being' here similar to 'human being'.

There is, per the Nicene Creed, one God, the Father. The Son and the Spirit are of the same essence/substance/being with the Father because the Father is the source of their essence/substance/being, the Son begotten and the Spirit proceeding. This could easily lead to the another question about the Monarchy of the Father.

You state

  I don't see how we can argue that the one Lord here is meant to be understood as "one YHWH" (See the idea that Paul expanded Deutronomy 6:4 in 1 Corinthians 8:6) because it is clear that Paul is drawing a line between the the lords/gods from 1 Corinthians 8:5 and we can't say that 1 Corinthians 8:5 should be understood as "many YHWH's and many gods".

It is not clear that Paul draws a line or parallel between verse 5 and 6. Rather, he could be drawing a contradiction. The pagans have many false gods and  lords. We have One True God and Lord and they are one. If Paul is drawing a parallel and separating God the Father from the Lord, then he is teaching outright ditheism. In verse 5, he makes no distinction between god and lords, only saying they have many false gods and lords. Have you read Bauckham's God Crucified: Monotheism & Christology in the New Testament? He addresses this fully.

This question only makes sense if you have a "limited" viewpoint of who God is. That is not me being petty, I actually didn't understand this concept til' quite recently.

What I mean is, if our God has no limitations, then 1 Corinthians 8:6 is not a problem, even for trinitatians. Let me explain.

1 John 5:7 KJV
[7] For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these THREE are ONE.
(emphasis added)

The trinitarian viewpoint does not deny that there is one God, nor does it object to that one God being The Father. It also agrees that that one Lord is Jesus Christ. This is because there are three people in the Godhead, AND there is one God (Jesus). Another great verse that reveals Jesus Christ and the Father being the same person is Isaiah 9:6, where Jesus is actually called The Everlasting Father.

Jesus is also SEPERATE from the Father at the same time.

John 1:1 KJV
[1] In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

If Jesus (the Word) is WITH God, then there is a clear separation made. It is also made again when the Son is sitting/standing at the right hand of the Father in Acts 7:55-56, Romans 8:34, Ephesians 1:20 and in many other verses.

This all sounds very contradictory, if we use the limitations on God that we have as His creations. However, all of us who believe in the perfect, inerrant word of God should also agree that God is Omnipotent (all powerful), Omnicient (all knowing), and OMNIPRESENT (everywhere). If we do truly believe this, coming to the conclusion that God IS THREE, and IS ONE, is really not a stretch. In fact, 1 John 5:7 and 1 Corinthians 8:6 make complete sense, along with John 1:1 and many other verses.

If God can be anywhere at any time, why is it strange that he is manifested in 3 different ways? In fact, to become 100% human, it is actually necessary. This way, the Father (who is God) can limit the Son (who is God) while He is on earth. If God knew everything, and didn't limit Himself, He wouldn't have been fully human. Just like how Jesus needed to eat and sleep, even tho He is all powerful, and He needed to stay in one body, even tho He is everywhere, He also needed to limit His knowledge while here on earth. Therefore, God must be manifested in 3, so that He is in us (the Holy Ghost) with us (the Son) and seated on the throne in Heaven (the Fatehr).

Our God has no limits, therefore He is fully three seperate beings, and fully one person all at the same time. This does not contradict trinitarianism, it supports it. God is three. God is one. The end.


Why does God use an army of Angels to fight against evil when he could do it himself? Many places in the Bible talk about a heavenly host or army of angels. Why does God use an army to fight against devil and evil spirits, when he is the powerful creator? Matthew 19:26 says, all things are possible with God. It really makes me to think "are Devils equal to God in power"?.

Here are a few examples that speak about the army of God (Angels):

Psalm 35:5-6, Matthew 13:41, II Kings 6:14-17, Revelation 12:7-8

God graciously allows the Angels to fight the battles with the Devil and his demons. God is omniscient and already knows who will be successful in every battle between The Arch Angel Michael and Satan and his rebellious Angels.

If God himself were to oppose Satan it would not be a battle since God is omnipotent. There are other factors which need be considered also, God does not unleash all of his Angels against them either. We know this because only one third of the Angels rebelled with Satan.

  Revelation 12:4 KJV  And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born.

With a two to one advantage it would have been a short war.

So it seems that God is even gracious to his enemies, which may give some insight to:

  Matthew 5:43 and 44 KJV have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

and also:

  Luke 10:19  Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you.

Unless I am mistaken when Jesus refers to the enemy he is referring to the Devil.

God uses angels for this heavenly battle because he is in his rest day, the seventh creative day, which he ordained as holly and a sabbath. So his angels have carried out his work. He couldn't break his own law that he expected man to follow.


According to the Bible, what kind of debt, if any, is lawful? The Bible has some strong things to say about debt. In the total witness of the Bible, is all debt considered sinful? Or can we differentiate between types of debt, and say that some are lawful while others are not? If there is debt that is considered lawful, can we further distinguish a type of debt that would also be wise (or at the very least, not unwise) to engage in, given the right circumstances?

See related questions on Biblical Hermeneutics: Does Romans 13:8 include a prohibition of taking loans? and What are the proverbs about giving collateral for someone else teaching about loans?

This is a very large subject that might be too big for an answer but I will make an attempt anyway. I apologize for the length.

I think the answer to the question can be almost fully derived by this fairly long section of scripture, so I quote it all:

  1At the end of every seven years you must cancel debts. 2This is how it is to be done: Every creditor shall cancel any loan they have made to a fellow Israelite. They shall not require payment from anyone among their own people, because the Lord’s time for cancelling debts has been proclaimed. 3You may require payment from a foreigner, but you must cancel any debt your fellow Israelite owes you. 4However, there need be no poor people among you, for in the land the Lord your God is giving you to possess as your inheritance, he will richly bless you, 5if only you fully obey the Lord your God and are careful to follow all these commands I am giving you today. 6For the Lord your God will bless you as he has promised, and you will lend to many nations but will borrow from none. You will rule over many nations but none will rule over you.
  7If anyone is poor among your fellow Israelites in any of the towns of the land the Lord your God is giving you, do not be hardhearted or tightfisted toward them. 8Rather, be openhanded and freely lend them whatever they need. 9Be careful not to harbor this wicked thought: “The seventh year, the year for cancelling debts, is near,” so that you do not show ill will toward the needy among your fellow Israelites and give them nothing. They may then appeal to the Lord against you, and you will be found guilty of sin. 10Give generously to them and do so without a grudging heart; then because of this the Lord your God will bless you in all your work and in everything you put your hand to. 11There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward your fellow Israelites who are poor and needy in your land. (Deuteronomy 15:1-11, NIV)

It may seem odd to appeal to Mosaic legislation to understand the Christian view of debts and our obligations under them, but in many ways all Christian principles are first inlaid in the Old Testament.  From the verses above we can conclude two principle aspects about debts under a Biblical framework:

Both lending and borrowing are not condemned, but actually encouraged when the poor need temporary help. This is a peculiar case of a law for an agricultural society who shared the land God was giving them.  Therefore, we can imagine if a neighbor suffered providential loss, due to bad weather affecting their crops, etc., a neighbor might loan his own seeds, tools, etc., recognizing that he may too need help at another time.
It is not moral to take advantage of the poor through a loan, as the principle was to forgive the whole loan, where it could not be repaid after seven years.

From these two aspects the church at a very early age condemned what was called 'usury'. Usury did not mean a high interest loan, but almost any kind of interest on 'money'.  Interest was not the same thing as 'usury' but if the lender did not in some way take on risk in a loan, then it was considered usury.  An excellent article on the history of interest including church views can be found at A Brief History of Interest, Dr. Jurg Conzett.  The basic idea that has floated around the subject relates to the history of the world changing from an agrarian society to a capitalist trading society.  When we think about it it makes sense.  In the early days, such as under Moses, if you needed some seed to survive, a neighbor might lend some of his seed, or land. They did not necessarily have silver coins, so the payment for seeds would be seeds from a successful crop.  It would be easy to pay a bit of interest as one seed would produce hundreds of seeds.  In this way early lending was fair and the lender assumed risk, because if there was no crop, a payment could not be made, and after seven years the whole thing must be forgiven.  Even Aristotle argued against interest on silver, saying that it did not naturally increase as did seed.

We can see these principles applied under the Mosaic law for among brother 'no interest was allowed' but interest was allowed for loans to foreigners:

  Do not charge a fellow Israelite interest, whether on money or food or anything else that may earn interest. You may charge a foreigner interest, but not a fellow Israelite, so that the Lord your God may bless you in everything you put your hand to in the land you are entering to possess. (Deuteronomy 23:19-20, NIV)

However, even for a foreigner the interest could not be a kind of 'usury' that exploited the poor, as:

  “Do not mistreat or oppress a foreigner, for you were foreigners in Egypt. (Exodus 22:21, NIV)

To apply this basic ethic to today, or with the New Testaments command that
'Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another' (Romans 13:8) we can draw the same principles under the gospel light.

First, any loan by a person in need is lawful, in order to help the person make a living and take care of his own family.  Second, such a loan should be provided for without exploitation. Yet we live in a wicked world, so this is not always possible as that would pretty much end all credit-card usage today as they all charge high interest especially among the poor!

As the New Testament is not under a government of God's people following God's laws in Canaan but an invisible church in a wicked world, the New Testament seems to focus more on charity, rather than loans by Christian love, as well as Christian duties for those who have debts in this wicked world. Therefore, for those with debts, the command is to not forsake the obligation of paying them, but work hard at being faithful to our commitments.  It also implies that we must not enter into debt unless necessary:

  The wicked borrow and do not repay, but the righteous give generously (Psalms 37:21, NIV)

The only way we can really determine what debts or lawful, is not under a legalistic rule, but under the rule of love, which must define all principles of godliness. The question we should ask ourselves when entering into a debt obligation is: 'Can we truly incur and repay this loan, without causing anyone harm?' If the answer is no, then the debt is not lawful, for love is the law.

A student loan, to become employed and a productive member of society would naturally be a good debt, for without such many could not earn income for a family or support church ministries and other charities later in life.  A loan to borrow from your next years predicted savings, to go on a vacation because you are stressed might not pass the rule.  The New Testament drives the idea of obtaining an 'independence' and respect from the outside world, which is included in working towards having no debts, where possible:

  And to make it your ambition to lead a quiet life: You should mind your own business and work with your hands, just as we told you, so that your daily life may win the respect of outsiders and so that you will not be dependent on anybody. (1 Thessalonians 4:11-12, NIV)

I myself once took a loan to pay for expenses necessary to adopt an orphan.  I would consider that a good loan.  The question we must ask ourselves when considering to take on a loan, is: 'Do we really need now what we want the loan for, for the benefit of ourself, our family and our brother?'

When you assume debt, you make a repayment promise to the lender.
If you paint yourself into a financial corner, whether it be with too much debt or too much spending, you put your ability to fulfill that promise at risk.
So in a sense, barring exceptional circumstances, if you default on debt or compromise your financial situation to a point where you may not be able to repay that debt, then you are bearing false witness and violating the 9th Commandment.

Otherwise, there's nothing inherently sinful about debt.


Does God create some people Heterosexual and others Homosexual? It is quite common for people who identify themselves as homosexual to say that God created them this way. Some way even go so far as to say it was a misfortune that they were born into:

  "Unfortunately for me, God made me gay."

This line of reasoning usually continues with
- "so I can't do anything about it"
- "it's not my fault, it's God's fault that I sin"

Others claim that since they were created that way it must not be a sin.

What does Christianity hold about the way people were created? Does having something in our natures make it not a sin?

As homosexuality is a sin, it is safe to conclude that God did not "create them this way". Just like God didn't create thieves as such, murderers as such, liars as such, etc.

It is as a byproduct of the fallen world in which we live that Romans 1:26-27 was written:

  For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.

Whether there are genetic mutations (errors resulting from Adam's first sin) that contribute to some people's homosexual tendencies may be debated. But as to it being God's purpose, intent, or design? No - He did not create them that way.

Genesis 1:26-27 also indicates that it is not God's intent:

  Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

Breifly, to answer questions posed.

God created me this way. No. No one is created gay.

It was misfortune that they were born into:  We are all born in corruption.

Unfortunately God made me gay. No. God did not make you gay.

I can't do anything about it. Yes. You may receive a new birth.

Its God's fault that I sin.  No. One makes a choice to sin.

Since they were created that way,it must not be a sin.  It is a sin because it transgresses the law.

What does Christianity hold about the way people are created?  I would like to believe that they hold to the bible account. However, honestly, I have no idea

Does having something in our nature make it not a sin?  No.  A sin is a sin, until such time that the law is changed, it  remains a sin.

How were we created?  All scripture taken from KJV

Genesis 1;27
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Genesis 2;7
And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrills the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Genesis 2;22
And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

Genesis 1;31
And God saw every thing that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

I believe that the creation as God said, was very good.

The Fall
Genesis 3;13
And the Lord God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.

Genesis 3;15
And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

Genesis 3;16
Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

Genesis 3;19
In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

We have three involved in the fall, Adam, Eve, and the serpent.

The family after the fall is corrupt, it no longer is pure, but now has the taint of sin.

Genesis 4;1,2
And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the Lord. 2 And she again bare his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of the sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground

Hebrews 11;4
By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained  witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and being dead yet speaketh.

I John 3;12
Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother's righteous.

The two offspring of Adam and Eve, represent good(righteous), and evil(unrighteous).  One is not corrupt, and one is corrupt.

The Heart. We are guided by the characteristics of our heart.

Jeremiah 17;9,10
The heart is deceitful above all things, who can know it. 10 I the Lord search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways,nd according to his doings.

As long as the heart remains tainted, we are all susceptible to the wickedness therein.

Romans Chapter 1, verses 18-32 provides some description of homosexual acts as well as other perversions. Leviticus Chapter 18 speaks of homosexuality and other sexual sins. Satan has had great success in infiltrating the world with evil. As noted in the bible, good is being called evil and evil is being called good. The truth of homosexuality is not happiness as promoted, but eternal death

Ephesians 2;10
For we are his worhmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath ordained that we should walk in them.

Romans 7;18,19
For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. 19 For the good that I would, I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.

Believers are a product of the Holy Spirit, unbelievers remain tainted.

Matthew 7;17,18

Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit: but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.


What is an overview of the similarities and differences between the Catholic doctrine of Original Sin and the Reformed doctrine of Total Depravity? Upon a cursory examination, both the Catholic doctrine of Original Sin and the Reformed doctrine of Total Depravity seem to say that mankind is by default separated from God.

What is an overview of how these doctrines are alike and how they differ?

The Catechism of the Catholic Church deals with this subject in §385–412.  A couple sections in particular reveal several significant contrasts between Catholic and Reformed theology:

§405: Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence". Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ's grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.
§407: The doctrine of original sin, closely connected with that of redemption by Christ, provides lucid discernment of man's situation and activity in the world. By our first parents' sin, the devil has acquired a certain domination over man, even though man remains free.

Key points:

Original sin "is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is [...] inclined to sin" (405)
Through Adam's sin, "the devil has acquired a certain domination over man, even though man remains free." (407)
"Baptism [...] erases original sin and turns a man back towards God." (405)

Now, representing Reformed theology, we turn to the Westminster Larger Catechism:

A25: The sinfulness of that estate whereinto man fell, consisteth in the guilt of Adam's first sin, the want of that righteousness wherein he was created, and the corruption of his nature, whereby he is utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite unto all that is spiritually good, and wholly inclined to all evil, and that continually; which is commonly called original sin, and from which do proceed all actual transgressions.
A32: The grace of God is manifested in the second covenant, in that he freely provideth and offereth to sinners a mediator, and life and salvation by him; and requiring faith as the condition to interest them in him, promiseth and giveth his Holy Spirit to all his elect, to work in them that faith, with all other saving graces; and to enable them unto all holy obedience, as the evidence of the truth of their faith and thankfulness to God, and as the way which he hath appointed them to salvation.
A165: Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, wherein Christ hath ordained the washing with water in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, to be a sign and seal of ingrafting into himself, of remission of sins by his blood, and regeneration by his Spirit; of adoption, and resurrection unto everlasting life; and whereby the parties baptized are solemnly admitted into the visible church, and enter into an open and professed engagement to be wholly and only the Lord's.

Corresponding to the points above:

As a result of Adam's sin, man is "utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite unto all that is spiritually good, and wholly inclined to all evil." (25)
God "promiseth and giveth his Holy Spirit to all his elect, to work in them that faith, with all other saving graces; and to enable them unto all holy obedience" (32)
Baptism is a "sign and seal of ingrafting into [Christ], of remission of sins by his blood" (165)

Thus we see three significant differences, briefly summarized:

In Catholicism, man is "wounded," under a "certain domination" of Satan, and "inclined to sin."  But in Reformed theology, man is "wholly inclined to all evil" and "utterly indisposed [...] unto all that is spiritually good."
In Catholicism, "man remains free" from complete domination by sin and Satan, but in Reformed theology, only God has the power to work faith and obedience in the elect.
In Catholicism, baptism  "erases original sin," but in Reformed theology, it is only a "sign and seal" of salvation, not in itself restorative.

As for similarities, we can see several from the context of these sections.  Both systems see original sin propagating to all mankind as a result of the sin of our first parents, and this sin has dire effects both on individuals and on the world at large.  And in both systems, Christ is the antidote, the New Adam who destroys sin and death.

The Protestant notion of "total depravity" goes further: It says that man's nature has been so completely destroyed by original sin that he cannot even know of God's existence with his natural reason.

The First Vatican Council's Dei Filius condemned the notation that God cannot be known by human reason without the gift of supernatural faith—e.g., II. canon 1.:

  If any one shall say that the one true God, our Creator and Lord, can not be certainly known by the natural light of human reason through created things: let him be anathema.

For Protestants faith is blind "leap" into the dark, without any rational grounding; this is fideism:

  A term applied to various theories that claim that faith is the only or ultimate source of all knowledge of God and spiritual things. The name was originally coined by followers of Kant (1724-1804) and Schleiermacher (1768-1834), both of whom [like other Protestants] denied the capacity of reason to know God or the moral law with certainty. (Etym. Latin fides, belief; habit of faith; object of faith.)

Cf. Dei Filius III. ("On Faith") canon 1:

  If any one [e.g., Protestants] shall say that human reason [e.g., because so destroyed by original sin] is so independent that faith can not be enjoined upon it by God: let him be anathema.


What is the Catholic belief concerning Deuteronomy 24:16 While preparing for a lesson this Sunday I came across Deuteronomy 24:16.

(KJV) The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.
(D-R) The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, nor the children for the fathers, but every one shall die for his own sin.

This piqued my interest, so I looked into the Catholic Catechism.

1250 Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all men are called.50 The sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation is particularly manifest in infant Baptism. The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth.51

Does Deut. 24:16 suggest that no one but Adam and Eve can be held responsible for their action? or are children considered sinful at birth? or is baptism in Catholocism seen as something more pre-emptive than the immediate cleansing of past actions as other churches believe?  How does the Catholic Church reconsile Catechism 1250 with Deut. 24:16?

Baptism is considered by the Catholic Church to be a cleansing not only of personal sin ("past actions", as you put it) but also original sin. Original sin, confusingly, is not "really" a sin. That is, it's not a sin in the same sense that adultery (for example) is a sin. It is a change in human nature that was brought on by the first sin, which has effects persisting for all humans:

Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin—an inclination to evil that is called "concupiscence". Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ's grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.
(Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraph 405)

Children are not seen as sinful at birth. Indeed, since sin is the result of a voluntary action, word, or thought, it is not possible for a child to sin until they are (as the saying goes) "old enough to know better". (The Church generally takes this to be about six or seven years old.)
Baptism, among other things, allows a person to be justified before God, and to receive again the strength to pursue holiness which original sin deprives us of. It also cleanses us of any previous personal sins we've committed.
Adam and Eve are the only ones responsible for their actions (and thus the passage from Deuteronomy applies to them, in that we are not condemned for what they did); but on the other hand, their actions changed human nature in such a way that it is, generally speaking, impossible for us not to be sinful to some extent. Thus, it is in a sense because of their actions that we can be sinful; but any condemnation that comes on us is because of our actual choices, not because of that first sin.


What is the "paradise" that Jesus references in Luke 23:43? Luke 23:43 - Jesus answered him, "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise."

At first glance, I casually assumed "paradise" was referring to heaven, but if Jesus was dead for 3 days after His crucifixion and didn't ascend to heaven until much later, what is He referring to here?

A prerequisite question may be: where was Jesus during the 3 days after crucifixion?

While this isn't a universal view, many traditions believe that Paradise is distinct from Heaven. Our Church (a Baptist Church) teaches that "Paradise" is a temporary holding place for those who have died and are awaiting Christ's return.

Some other references that point to Paradise being a temporary place, distinct from the final Heaven promised to those who have been saved:

http://www.bible-uk.com/paradise.htm

  So what IS Paradise?

  The concept of a place of limbo, somewhere between heaven and earth,
  some kind of celestial waiting room is not one that will be found in
  the pages of scripture. What about a park or garden? Now we are on a
  firm biblical path! We know of a garden from the early pages of
  Genesis, called the Garden of Eden. We know, because Adam and Eve were
  thrust out of it (Genesis 3:24) and were unable to get back in again,
  which fits well with original Persian concept of Paradise being an
  enclosed garden. Equating Paradise with Eden is not something new or
  unusual. It is the rationale behind Milton's book, "Paradise Lost",
  for instance.

Also:

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2003/november/24.79.html

http://www.wor.org/Books/p/Paraking.htm

There are many more, so I'll stop here. I'd also like to post a disclaimer that I don't agree with all of the things said in the last article linked to. It was included just to show that diverse traditions hold the view, and that it's not a "fringe" view.

Paradise is empty now.  Paradise is where Gods people went to when they died, before Jesus died on the cross and then came and let them free to go to Heaven. Paradise and Hell are both in the center of the Earth with a gulf between them called Abrahams bosom. The blood of animals couldn`t get people into Heaven, only the blood of Jesus can do that.


What specifically is in the Pentateuch that later writers could not have known? I have heard people say that the Five Books of Moses had to be divine and written 3-4 thousand years ago because there is content in it that later writers (a la Documentary Hypothesis) simply could not have known. I'm unsure what specifically that includes. Perhaps some details of culture of Bronze Age Ur or Egypt. Could it have been written by ordinary scribes in the Iron Age, or are there actually specific details that could have only been known at one point in time?

To head off non-constructive debate in comments, bear in mind that whether these are convincing arguments is off-topic for the site.  That sort of thing belongs in chat.

If I'm not mistaken, you're referring to the medical knowledge implicit in some of the Mosaic law.  The standard Apologetic argument goes that long before modern medical knowledge, God gave Laws relating to cleanliness and avoiding disease and other scientific knowledge that was well ahead of its time.

An example is found at bibleevidences.com

Sample:

  Sanitary Practices

  For centuries doctors denied the possibility that disease could be
  transmitted by invisible agents. However, in the late 19th century
  Louis Pasteur demonstrated in his Germ Theory of Disease that most
  infectious diseases were caused by microorganisms originating from
  outside the body. This new understanding of germs and their means of
  transmission led to improved sanitary standards that resulted in an
  enormous drop in the mortality rate. Yet these core principles of
  sanitation were being practiced by the Israelites thousands of years
  earlier.

  The Israelites were instructed to wash themselves and their clothes in
  running water if they had a bodily discharge, if they came in contact
  with another person's discharge, or if they had touched a dead human
  or animal carcass. They were also instructed to wash any uncovered
  vessels that were in the vicinity of a dead body, and if a dead
  carcass touched a vessel it was to be destroyed. Items recovered
  during war were also to be purified through either fire or running
  water. In addition, the Israelites were instructed to bury their human
  waste outside of camp, and to burn the waste of their animals (See
  Numbers 19:3-22, Lev. 11:1-47; 15:1-33, Deut 23:12).

  Circumcision and Blood Clotting

  For centuries scholars must have been perplexed by God's law of
  circumcision which required the procedure to be performed on the 8th
  day after birth (Gen 17:12, 21:14, Lev 12:3, Luke 2:21). Medical
  researchers recently discovered that the two main blood clotting
  factors, Vitamin K and Prothrombim, reach their highest level in life,
  about 110% of normal, on the 8th day after birth. These blood clotting
  agents facilitate rapid healing and greatly reduce the chance of
  infection. You can verify with any Obstetrician that the 8th day of
  life is the ideal time for a circumcision, and that any circumcision
  done earlier requires an injection of Vitamin K supplement.

If you move beyond the Pentateuch and into other Old Testament books, there are other scientific statements that don't match up with the beliefs of Pagan societies at the time.

  The Earth and Space

  The earth's shape is perhaps the most important to deal with first
  since many critics claim that the Bible portrays the earth as flat.
  This couldn't be farther from the truth and in my opinion is one of
  the most vaporous arguments used by skeptics against the Bible. There
  is not a single passage that plainly states that the earth is flat1.
  The groundswell of this criticism gets its roots from the inaccurate
  but common belief among many that the ancients on up through the
  middle ages believed that the earth was flat. The truth is, virtually
  all learned people have known for the last 2500 years that the earth
  is spherical [please see footnote 2].

  Before the learned ancients surmised that the earth was spherical, the
  divinely inspired Isaiah wrote "It is He who sits above the circle of
  the earth...(Isaiah 40:22)". In addition, from the Book of Job we have
  "He stretches out the north over empty space; he hangs the earth on
  nothing (Job 26:7)". It should be noted that just last century
  scientists believed space consisted of a hypothetical substance called
  Ether (not the chemical), which was the medium between the celestial
  bodies.  Also, the pagans of that time believed in such things as a
  mythical Atlas character who supported the pillars that held heaven
  and earth apart, and later carried the earth around on his shoulders.
  Another interesting tidbit that illuminates the divine nature of Job
  26:7 is the recent discovery of a huge hole in space in the direction
  of the northern hemisphere3.

and...

  The Hydrologic Cycle

  The circulation and conservation of earth's water is called the
  hydrologic cycle, which is accurately portrayed in several passages of
  the Bible, including the following: "For He draws up drops of water,
  which distill as rain from the mist, which the clouds drop down and
  pour abundantly on man. (Job 36:27-28)" . Centuries after the Book of
  Job was written, Aristotle demonstrated only a vague understanding of
  this process. Though he recognized that rain came from clouds, he
  incorrectly postulated that air turned into water and vice versa.

There are more, and the site I linked to covers them in more depth, as does this site.  Putting them all here would be counter-productive (and plagiarism) so I'll stop there.

Since the story of creation, and especially from creation in Genesis 1:1 until the sixth day; The only ones around were the three members of the Trinity; those revelations could only be divine.

Several other incidents such as Cain slaying Able did not have a lot of eye witnesses.

Several pastors I have encountered have felt that these things were probably told to Moses during is first 40 day visit with God on the mountain.


Would God allow all of humanity to be celibate? God created the world with a process that involves sexuality to bring more people to existence to serve him. It doesn’t seem sustainable; if everyone achieved the degree of spirituality that the continent clergy has, then the population would decrease and no more people would serve God.

Why would God benefit from the prohibition of an act which gives existence to other humans that will potentially also serve Him?

I read the argument “better focus to serve God by ignoring sexual impulses and distractions,” but in that case having children while controlling sexual impulses and abstaining from time to time makes more sense.

Would God allow all of humanity to be celibate?

The short answer is no.

This goes directly against what God said to Adam:

  28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. - Genesis 1:28

God would not allow humanity to disappear by such an act to transpire.

Besides man has free will and as such it would be extremely doubtful that every man, woman and child would voluntarily remain celibate for life.

  The Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church asserts that "Freedom is the power, rooted in reason and will". It goes on to say that "God created man a rational being, conferring on him the dignity of a person who can initiate and control his own actions. God willed that man should be 'left in the hand of his own counsel,' so that he might of his own accord seek his Creator and freely attain his full and blessed perfection by cleaving to him."" The section concludes with the role that grace plays, "By the working of grace the Holy Spirit educates us in spiritual freedom in order to make us free collaborators in his work in the Church and in the world." - Free will in theology

The Fathers have opined on the question of whether God would allow the entire human race to become celibate.
St. Gregory of Nyssa (370 A.D.)
St. Gregory of Nyssa thought that if all of mankind embraced continence, then God would create new humans in a manner similar to how he created Adam, out of the earth. St. Thomas Aquinas summarizes St. Gregory's view in Summa Theologica I q. 98 a. 2 ("Whether in the state of innocence there would have been generation by coition?") co.:

Gregory of Nyssa says (De Hom. Opif. xvii) that in paradise the human race would have been multiplied by some other means, as the angels were multiplied without coition by the operation of the Divine Power. He adds that God made man male and female before sin, because He foreknew the mode of generation which would take place after sin, which He foresaw.

St. Thomas disagrees:

But this is unreasonable. For what is natural to man [e.g., sexual intercourse] was neither acquired nor forfeited by sin.

St. Ambrose (378 A.D.)
To the objection that St. Ambrose was depopulating the Roman Empire by his zealous advocacy of virginity and the religious life, he replied implying there will always be marrieds (On Holy Virginity ch. 7):

Finally, is it [virginity] inexpedient? The world is alarmed for itself, as though marriages are to be no more and the human race to be extinct. But what need of terror; has there ever in fact been a lack of persons willing to be brides? And as to ills arising from either state [virginity or marriage], broken wedlock has been the source of wars and destruction, but to none has consecrated virginity occasioned death, for it is higher than human law and beyond its sanctions; religion gives it its dignity, and its safeguard is the Faith.

and that the population actually grows where virginity is more highly esteemed (ibid.):

Nor is there fear of the extinction of mankind. Facts have proved the contrary, and shewn that where virginity has been most honoured, there most mankind has multiplied. What multitudes of virgins were yearly consecrated at Alexandria, in the African Church, and throughout the East [in the time of St. Ambrose]. Births were rarer in the West, than consecrations of virgins in the East. Even on this ground, then, let not virginity be thought unprofitable; yea, how profitable has it been, seeing that by a Virgin salvation came, to render fruitful the Roman world.
If ye will urge this futile argument, pause and see whither it will carry you. It will lead you to defend the violation of wedlock, if thereby mankind may be more multiplied.
The wedded need not be alarmed, they have their wives; for the unwedded man, whom has he to blame but himself, if he seek a maiden who he knows beforehand will not be a bride? Fathers need not fear, for if other maidens are consecrated, their daughters may be the sooner chosen.

St. John Chrysostom (381 A.D.)
In On Virginity ch. 15 ("Marriage does not increase the human race."), St. John argues that sin, not virginity, causes death:

And today our race is not increased by the authority of marriage but by the word of our Lord, who said at the beginning: "Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth." [Gen. 1:28] How did marriage help Abraham in the procreation of children? After participating in it for so many years, did he not finally cry out: "Master, what will you give me? Am I to die childless?" [Gen. 15:2] […] For marriage will not be able to produce many men if God is unwilling, nor will virginity destroy their number if he wishes there to be many of them.

St. Jerome (406 A.D.)
St. Jerome wrote against the heretic Vigilantius, who opposed virginity:

to follow out your [Vigilantius's] argument, virginity would not deserve our approbation. For if all were virgins, we should have no marriages; the race would perish […] The truth is, virtue is a rare thing and not eagerly sought after by the many. Would that all were as the few of whom it is said: “Many are called, few are chosen.” [Mt. 10:16, 22:14] The prison would be empty.

St. Thomas Aquinas, quoting what St. Jerome wrote here, agrees that virgins and others (e.g., the religious, bishops) living in a state of perfection will be rare (Contra impugnantes Dei cultum et religionem, An Apology for the Religious Orders II cap. 6 ad 12):

The works of perfection are so difficult that but very few attempt to accomplish them. There is, therefore, no grounds for fearing that the world will cease to exist on account of the perfection of its inhabitants.


How is Abraham able to speak to the rich man across the chasm of hell in Jesus' story in Luke 16? How is Abraham able to speak to the rich man in hell if there is a chasm between them? And Abraham is speaking with Lazarus who is in hell?  How is this possible since we have a great chasm between us?  Does God give efficacious grace for us to speak to people in hell?  I don't think so because than we'd be sad?  So why does Abraham speak to someone in hell?

  So it was that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels to Abraham's bosom. The rich man also died and was buried. And being in torments in Hades, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
  Then he cried and said,'Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.'
  But Abraham said, 'Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things; but now he is comforted and you are tormented. And besides all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed, so that those who want to pass from here to you cannot, nor can those from there pass to us.'
  Then he said, 'I beg you therefore, father, that you would send him to my father's house, 'for I have five brothers, that he may testify to them, lest they also come to this place of torment.'
  Abraham said to him, 'They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.'
  And he said, 'No, father Abraham; but if one goes to them from the dead, they will repent.'
  But he said to him, 'If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead.' (Luke 16:22-31, NKJV)

I am not claiming that this is orthodox, but it is the explanation I heard in a Baptist church. It was the pastor's explanation.

First, according to the pastor, this story is not a parable. Jesus never gives names in His parables (instead He uses descriptions such as a certain rich man).

Second, at the time the parable was told, Jesus had yet to be crucified, resurrected and ascended to the Father. So the sacrifice for sins had yet to be paid. Thus, the righteous souls from the old testament (those who looked forward to the sacrifice Christ would one day make) were also not yet ascended to the Father. Instead, they waited in Paradise, which was separated from the place of punishment, but in the same proximity (center of the earth?).

After Jesus was resurrected, the graves were opened and many dead also arose. These were the souls from Paradise ascending to Heaven.

It is late and I don't have time to look up the scripture references that he used, but I will try to add them tomorrow. As I said at the beginning, I don't claim this to be orthodox, but it was the explanation given by a Baptist pastor.

This story in Luke was not about hell. In any study you care to do, you'll find that Hades is the grave; Gehenna and Tartarus are hell. The story of the rich man & Lazarus is not provided for us to understand the process of what happens when we die... in that way, it is not consistent or supportable by ANY other Scripture in the Bible, and we must always interpret Scripture with Scripture. We are informed by a truckload of other Scriptures about what happens to us when we die. I won't go into that here. This story might not have some of the usual hallmarks of a "parable"... Is it therefore an illustrative story, about an unnamed rich man (symbolic of the Pharisees who He'd just been condemning), and about an actual man named Lazarus (beggarly by the standard of the Pharisees)? Well, YES!!!! The best understanding, supportable by Scripture, is that it is both a PROPHECY, and WARNING (and don't take my word for it, go and study it and pray about it yourself: Be Berean). The story is a warning about materialism and hypocrisy (eg, Pharisaical 'wealth' and the spiritual hypocrisy that Jesus had just been condemning them for, has its reward on earth, xref Matt 6:5; Luke 16:11,13,15), and it is a warning about skepticism in the face of evidence (eg, if Lazarus was raised from the dead to warn the rich man's brethren, they would not believe), and thus it is also a PROPHECY!!!! Guess what happens soon after this story... go from Luke 16 to John 11... Jesus raises LAZARUS from the dead, and not only are the Pharisees NOT moved by it, they plot to kill Lazarus!!! Jesus prophesied that they would not heed the sign to change their ways! And indeed they did not. There is no coincidence that Jesus used the name Lazarus in His story!!! Why does nobody talk about this??


What exactly does it mean that Jesus Christ is the son of God? What does it mean to a Christian that Christ is the son of God? On the one hand, obviously, the normal biological meaning of son does not apply. On the other hand, "we are all children of God", but Jesus seems to be more so.

That God offered up His only son as a sacrifice for humanity's sins is often used as an argument to demonstrate God's love for humanity. This would imply that God loves Jesus more than His other children, that this sacrifice was particularly hard, indicating that Jesus has a filial relationship with God in a sense that we would understand. It implies that sending His son to his death was extremely painful to Him, more so than the deaths of His other children.

Now, these arguments seem to me to be a clear anthropomorphisation of God, Christians seem to be attributing human characteristics such as the love of a father --not metaphorically as when referring to humanity as God's children, but in a very literal way-- to God. This seems to clash with another central tenet of Christianity which states that God is beyond our understanding, that we cannot fathom His plan. If so, then any attribution of human emotion to Him would be wrong.

So, my question is how do Christians interpret Christ being the "Son of God"? What exactly does that mean? I realize the answer will depend on the particular denomination of Christianity whose views are being expressed. I am particularly interested in an overview of the more popular churches such as the Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox but welcome answers explaining the views of any group as long as the group in question is clearly stated.

NOTES

I have read the posts below, but though related, none of them addresses the same question:

If Christ is considered the 'Son of God' then how is He a part of a Trinity?
Does the Bible have any proof that Jesus Christ is the Only-begotten Son of God?

This one was quite interesting, and the accepted answer states that His "sonship" is unique, one-of-a-kind, and distinct from all others, which brings us straight back to my question, how is it distinct?
"Jesus Christ God's Only Son Our Lord"

Again, very interesting, but it while it explains the contradiction inherent in Christ being the only Son of God while we are all His children, it does not explain in what sense Christ is a son of God.

I'll try to answer this from several different views - the main three (Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox) and also the LDS view, since the LDS view is significantly different from the other three, and deserves a distinct treatment.

The mainstream Christian view (Protestant, Orthodox, Catholic) is covered by Apologetics Press in this article:  What Does it Mean to Say Jesus is the "Son of God"?.  The answer, for most Christians, has its roots in the Jewish understanding of the terms.  Bear in mind that this refers to the title "Son of God", and doesn't negate the teaching that Jesus is God.

An excerpt from the article:

  The earliest Christians were Jews who were familiar with at least two
  distinct applications of the term “son of God.” In the first place,
  the term had a general application to all Israelites. When their
  ancestors were held in Egyptian bondage, Moses was sent to Pharaoh
  with these words: “Thus says the Lord: Israel is My son, My firstborn.
  So I say to you, let My son go that he may serve Me” (Exodus 4:22-23;
  see also Hosea 11:1). Through the years, Yahweh loved, protected,
  comforted, and chastened Israel, just as a loving parent would nurture
  and discipline children (Malachi 2:10; Isaiah 66:13; et al.).

  The second usage was more specific. Historically, the term had a royal
  connotation for many nations of the Ancient Near East. It was
  commonplace for Egyptian, Babylonian, Canaanite, and Roman rulers to
  be called “son of God” (Fossum, 1992, pp. 128-137). These kings even
  were deified and surrounded by legends about their miraculous
  births—often including stories of gods copulating with humans
  (Sanders, 1993, pp. 243-245). This royal connotation also was known in
  Israel, although they did not deify their kings (O’Collins, 1995, p.
  117).

  When the New Testament writers referred to Jesus as “Son of God,” they
  sometimes employed the term in ways that echoed these two common uses.
  After those who threatened the life of the child Jesus died, Joseph
  was given instructions in a dream to return from Egypt to his
  homeland. When Matthew reported this event, he said it fulfilled Hosea
  11:1: “When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called
  my son” (see Matthew 2:15). In other words, Jesus was God’s Son as an
  Israelite, and in a real sense, the True Israelite.

The link above is a fair Protestant understanding.  The Catholic teaching is the same, and though I can't currently find a reference, i believe it is the same in Eastern Orthodoxy.

Also, in the mainstream Christian view, Jesus, in His human incarnation, was conceived supernaturally (without sex) in the womb of Mary, enabling her virgin birth.  This would certainly set Him apart as different from the rest of us.  In a sense, he is the Son of God because God was the one who caused Mary to conceive.  (I'm probably saying that badly).

As for God having a unique love toward Jesus, in Gill's commentary on Matthew 3:17

  in whom I am well pleased. Jehovah the Father took infinite delight
  and pleasure in him as his own Son, who lay in his bosom before all
  worlds; and was well pleased with him in his office relation, and
  capacity: he was both well pleased in him as his Son, and delighted in
  him as his servant, Isaiah 42:1 he was pleased with his assumption of
  human nature; with his whole obedience to the law; and with his
  bearing the penalty and curse of it, in the room and stead of his
  people: he was well pleased with and for his righteousness, sacrifice
  and atonement; whereby his law was fulfilled, and his justice
  satisfied. God is not only well pleased in, and with his Son, but with
  all his people, as considered in him; in him he loves them, takes
  delight in them, is pacified towards them, and graciously accepts of
  them. It would be almost unpardonable, not to take notice of the
  testimony here given to the doctrine of the Trinity; since a voice was
  heard from the "father" in heaven, bearing witness to "the Son" in
  human nature on earth, on whom "the Spirit" had descended and now
  abode. The ancients looked upon this as so clear and full a proof of
  this truth, that they were wont to say; Go to Jordan, and there learn
  the doctrine of the Trinity. Add to all this, that since this
  declaration was immediately upon the baptism of Christ, it shows that
  his Father highly approved of, and was well pleased with his
  submission to that ordinance; and which should be an encouraging
  motive to all believers to follow him in it.

  Also from the Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary

  And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is—Mark and Luke give it in the direct form, "Thou art." (Mr 1:11; Lu 3:22).

  my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased—The verb is put in the
  aorist to express absolute complacency, once and for ever felt towards
  Him. The English here, at least to modern ears, is scarcely strong
  enough. "I delight" comes the nearest, perhaps, to that ineffable
  complacency which is manifestly intended; and this is the rather to be
  preferred, as it would immediately carry the thoughts back to that
  august Messianic prophecy to which the voice from heaven plainly
  alluded (Isa 42:1),

The LDS view is a bit different - LDS doctrine includes the idea that God is actively procreating in Heaven, and produces "spirit children".  These spirit children choose the human lives they will lead, so all of us pre-existed in Heaven with our actual spiritual father.  In LDS theology, Jesus was the first, and chose to be perfect and to suffer as he did to redeem man, as was God's plan.  Lucifer was another child of God, who wanted to offer salvation by removing the penalties of the law, thus destroying our free agency.

See Pre-Mortal Life - Mormon Wiki

Simply put, the Father and the Son existed as an all-invisible Spirit, one in unity, not one in person in a universe that was an empty void. In order for anything to be created, one had to step down from being fully and all-spirit God. The Fathers form has never changed, nor has anyone ever heard his voice. Proverbs 8:22-31. Initial sacrifice in order for us to exist. Christ was brought forth from the Father. . Existing as both God and man. As scripture often refers to water and blood. Water being Holy Spirit, blood being man. In the Old Testament, Christ was shown in many names, angel of the Lord, Michael, etc. Christ was the God of the Old Testament. Entire time. OUR God and Lord. Came from the same essence as the Father, just in a form we can commune with without getting consumed by the Fathers all spirit purity. New Testament, Christ, our God takes a step further. Comes fully in the flesh as a man, suffering all feeling and temptations we have experienced, only he didn't sin. He had his Fathers spirit to conquer the flesh. Came to do his Fathers will, not his own. An example of dying to oneself. Dies on the cross, all of him, fully. If not, he sacrificed nothing. He gave up his spirit. The Holy Spirit. When he was stabbed, water and blood poured out. Now that Holy Spirit (Christs spirit) is in his Fathers control, and Christ pleads on our behalf. Those of us who obey the Lords commands, and seek Christ, and have an earnest desire to stop sinning and do repent... Receive the Holy Spirit. Why everything has always been through Christ. Christ is our Father, our God, our Lord. Just in a form we can recognize and have communion with. When we worship Christ, we are worshipping God the Father, the spirit who no one has ever seen or heard. Christ is the radiant image and perfect glory of God the Father just in a form we can recognize. Like Father like Son, only Christ was brought forth from the Father in order for anything to be created in the form of both God and man. We have seen and heard Christ. Moses used to speak to God face to face, we read about The finger of God, God's back, he has form. This is Christ. The Father has always been all invisible spirit form. The Holy Spirit has always connected The Father and the Son(Christ- our God, Lord, Father) now upon christs sacrifice, we are able to be connected in unity with The Father and the Son through the Holy Spirit which Christ sacrificed for us. The Holy Spirit is Christs spirit. The Father and the Son are separate. Christ is and has always been our only mediator to God the Father.


Can man judge whether God is fair? Over and over I hear people pronouncing in one way or another that God is "not fair"*. Sometimes this is stated directly, other times indirectly as in "that doesn't seem fair, therefore God must not be that way."

My question is, are we humans in a position to judge whether God is fair or not? If so what standard do we use to define fair? How should Christians handle issues of "fairness" and how should we respond to these accusations against God?

* Often with the conclusion: therefore I will not believe in him.

No. God's ways and thoughts are so much above ours it's difficult to understand.

  Isaiah 55:8-9 (NLT)
   8 “My thoughts are nothing like your thoughts,” says the Lord.
        “And my ways are far beyond anything you could imagine.
   9 For just as the heavens are higher than the earth,
        so my ways are higher than your ways
        and my thoughts higher than your thoughts.

IS GOD FAIR? I hguess sometimes it feels like we are asking the wrong questions.Jesus' parables as well as many old testament books prove God to be the foundation of everything. So as someone in a previous comment put it... our thoughts as well as everything else about us, come FROM GOD. This just like in any postulate, or theory, we must predicate our assumptions on one immovable fact. Proven, beyond question. The only thing that fits that requirement is that GOD is GOD and as he says three times both in the old testament and the new " I will have mercy on whom i will have mercy..."
I'm not advocating, mindless following or that we check our brain at the door of Christianity. but just like DeCartes reasoned so many years ago "Je pense jusqua je suis" (I think therefore I am") We must come to at least one immovable conclusion and with this conclusion in mind we can allow our thoughts to ponder and question but in the end if we truly believe in our immovable conclusion (God as creator of all), there is no choice but to subjegate our thoughts of fairness to HIS.
just like in Habbakuk God answers this question in Job "Brace yourself like a man. I will question you and you shall asnwer me" Then he goes on to answer Job's question


From an LDS perspective, what is an Unclean Spirit? From an LDS perspective, what is an unclean spirit?  What is its history?  Where did it come from?

From the scriptures, I gather that unclean spirits want to inhabit mortal bodies.  My guess is that unclean spirits once lived on earth in a mortal body.

Some might say an unclean spirit is the same as an evil spirit and is the same as the third part of the host of heaven which fell in the pre-mortal existence.  I would be happy to know if this is correct or if an unclean spirit is different than the other two.

Unclean spirits are those spirit children of God who kept not their first estate, which refers to the life before earth life. All men and women lived with God as his spirit children before coming to the earth as mortal beings. Those who kept their first estate were rewarded with a chance to live on Earth, receive a mortal body, be resurrected, and obtain salvation. Those who keep their second estate (on Earth) shall be exalted. Unclean Spirits, or Evil spirits, are those who did not keep their first estate, and will never receive a mortal body.

The Book of Abraham gives us the most detailed information about our life before the creation of the Earth:

  22 Now the Lord had shown unto me, Abraham, the intelligences that
  were organized before the world was; and among all these there were
  many of the noble and great ones;

  23 And God saw these souls that they were good, and he stood in the
  midst of them, and he said: These I will make my rulers; for he stood
  among those that were spirits, and he saw that they were good; and he
  said unto me: Abraham, thou art one of them; thou wast chosen before
  thou wast born.

  24 And there stood one among them that was like unto God, and he said
  unto those who were with him: We will go down, for there is space
  there, and we will take of these materials, and we will make an earth
  whereon these may dwell;

  25 And we will prove them herewith, to see if they will do all things
  whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them;

  26 And they who keep their first estate shall be added upon; and they
  who keep not their first estate shall not have glory in the same
  kingdom with those who keep their first estate; and they who keep
  their second estate shall have glory added upon their heads for ever
  and ever.

  27 And the Lord said: Whom shall I send? And one answered like unto
  the Son of Man: Here am I, send me. And another answered and said:
  Here am I, send me. And the Lord said: I will send the first.

  28 And the second was angry, and kept not his first estate; and, at
  that day, many followed after him.

That second angel, who was angry, and kept not is first estate, was Lucifer, Satan, the Devil, and those who followed after him; that third part who of the host of heaven who will never have a body of their own, and shall be cast our into outer darkness.

  3 And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red
  dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his
  heads.

  4 And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did
  cast them to the earth: (Revelations 12:3-4)

  ...for, behold, the devil [...] rebelled against me, saying, Give me
  thine honor, which is my power; and also a third part of the hosts of
  heaven turned he away from me because of their agency; And they were
  thrust down, and thus came the devil and his angels; (Doctrine and
  Covenants 29:36-37)

  And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their
  own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness
  unto the judgment of the great day. (Jude 1:6)

I was surprised to find that I couldn't find a reference to this in the Bible Dictionary or on LDS org.  There is a wiki article that treats the subject:
http://www.mormonwiki.com/Evil_Spirits
In agreement with this article, I have always been taught that an unclean spirit is a dis-embodied spirit corresponding to one of those that chose to follow Satan in the War in Heaven.


What does the word Glory mean in the Bible? Does it mean Might, majesty, light, happiness or power? Or all those things ( in which case, how to tell what context it's being used in?

Have you ever used Strong's Concordance with Hebrew and Greek? I often come here with questions on the meanings of words.

Paul said that man is the image and glory of God, and that woman is the glory of the man; also that the man is not without the woman, neither the woman without the man in the Lord. -- Man as we know was created first. Jehovah was asked if it was good for man to be alone, "No" he replied. So He and God created woman. Man was created after God's image, Woman was created after Man's image.

Here is what glory means in 1 Cor 11:7 according to this site. Out of the definitions I am not sure which one fits the best.

Take a look, use Strong's Concordance, it is a wonderful tool.  It is for both Greek and Hebrew.

"Glory" has no particular Biblical meaning, because the writers of the original texts did not speak English. The original scrolls that became the Bible were written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek--not English.  The Bible wasn't even translated into English until 1500 years after Christ. There are 530 different versions of the Bible today, and each one makes very different decisions about how to convert the original written ancient language. On top of that, some words have multiple meanings, so you can't be sure what meaning a particular translator intended. They certainly don't all agree.