Union with Christ is a central doctrine in Reformed Theology, and concerns the mystical union of the believer with Christ, by faith and by the Holy Spirit. In faith the Spirit unites us to Christ, and that union is the means by which Christ's saving work is applied to us, it is the power of regeneration, and the basis on which the earthly church can and should be united. While there may be a sense in which all of the elect are united to Christ even before they come to faith, this Union is normally spoken about in reference to our temporal experience of God's grace: the unbelieving elect person is not yet united to Christ, but instead we are united to Christ when we are given new life, the power to have faith, and freed from sin, or in other words, saved. (Though there is a logical order, the *ordo salutis*, from our perspective we experience these things concurrently.) So here we come to my question: Does Reformed Theology teach that the Old Testament saints were personally united to Christ in this same way? Reformed theologians have traditionally taught Covenant Theology, where the various Biblical covenants, including the Old (Mosaic) and the New, are seen as aspects of the one eternal Covenant of Grace. So the Westminster Confession says: > WCF 7.6: Under the gospel, when Christ the substance was exhibited, the ordinances in which this covenant is dispensed, are the preaching of the Word, and the administration of the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper; which, though fewer in number, and administered with more simplicity and less outward glory, yet in them it is held forth in more fullness, evidence, and spiritual efficacy, to all nations, both Jews and Gentiles; and is called the New Testament. **There are not, therefore, two covenants of grace differing in substance, but one and the same under various dispensations.** > > WCF 8.6: Although the work of redemption was not actually wrought by Christ till after his incarnation, yet **the virtue, efficacy, and benefits thereof were communicated into the elect, in all ages successively from the beginning of the world**, in and by those promises, types, and sacrifices wherein he was revealed, and signified to be the seed of the woman, which should bruise the serpent's head, and the Lamb slain from the beginning of the world, being yesterday and today the same and for ever. These paragraphs would seem to indicate that yes, the OT saints were united to Christ in the same way as NT Christians are. But it's not explicit, and there are some factors which would argue against it. First is that at Pentecost there seems to have been a fundamental change of state for the disciples whom the Holy Spirit came upon. Before that moment Jesus's disciples had faith, and the faith of the Christian is the same faith as that of Abraham (Romans 4:16). But the indwelling presence of the Spirit seems like something new; indeed Peter in Acts 2:16-21 says that the Spirit's coming upon them is the fulfilment of Joel 2:28-32, this "pouring out" of the Spirit being something new from the perspective of the OT prophets. When Paul describes the blessings of Israel in Romans 9:4-5 the Spirit is not one of them. A second factor is that the NT consistently describes the Spirit's indwelling as permanent. Several verses describe the Spirit as our guarantee of the rest of God's blessings (2 Cor 1:22, 2 Cor 5:5, Eph 1:13-14). In contrast the OT often speaks of the Spirit departing from someone or being taken from them (Judges 16:20, 1 Sam 16:14, Ps 51:11, Is 59:21), and many times when the Spirit comes to someone (Judges 3:10, 6:34, Ezek 2:2), it comes to someone we would most naturally describe as already having faith. Now there are many ways those verses are understood, but I've often heard it said (though not necessarily by Reformed teachers) that the indwelling of saints in the OT was only temporary, instead of the permanent indwelling Christians receive. So how does Reformed Theology understand the role of the Holy Spirit in the life of the Old Testament believer, and whether those believers should best be described as being personally united to Christ? ---------------- It is conceivable that Reformed Baptists may have a different answer to Reformed Paedobaptists as many of them reject Covenant Theology and would not say that there was only one covenant that applied equally to Old and New Testament saints. If this is the case, a good answer would explain the position of both Reformed Baptists and Paedobaptists.

Both holiness and righteousness are used to describe God. Additionally, we as Christians are called to be holy and righteous as well. These are two distinct words, so they must have distinct meanings. So, my question is what distinguishes holiness from righteousness? > **You shall be holy to me, for I the Lord am holy** and have separated you > from the peoples, that you should be mine. Leviticus 20:26 ESV > > 14 As obedient children, do not be conformed to the passions of your > former ignorance, 15 but as **he who called you is holy**, **you also be > holy** in all your conduct, 16 since it is written, “**You shall be holy**, > for **I am holy**.” 1 Peter 1:14-16 ESV > > You are witnesses, and God also, how **holy and righteous** and blameless > was our conduct toward you believers. 1 Thessalonians 2:10 ESV > > But that is not the way you learned Christ!— 21 assuming that you have > heard about him and were taught in him, as the truth is in Jesus, 22 > to put off your old self,[f] which belongs to your former manner of > life and is corrupt through deceitful desires, 23 and to be renewed in > the spirit of your minds, 24 and to put on the new self, created after > the likeness of God in true **righteousness and holiness.** Ephesians > 4:20-24 ESV

> Zechariah 14 > > 17 And it will be that whichever of the families of the earth does not > go up to Jerusalem to worship **the King, YHWH of hosts,** there will be > no rain on them. > > Psalms 47 > > 2 For YHWH Most High is to be feared, **A great King over all the > earth**. 3 He subdues peoples under us And nations under our feet. 4 > He chooses our inheritance for us, The glory of Jacob whom He loves. > Selah. 5 God has ascended with a shout, YHWH, with the sound of a > trumpet. 6 Sing praises to God, sing praises; Sing praises **to our > King,** sing praises. 7 For **God is the King of all the earth;** Sing > praises with a skillful psalm. > > Psalms 47 > > 6 Sing praises to God, sing praises; Sing praises to **our King,** sing > praises. 7 For **God is the King of all the earth;** Sing praises with a > skillful psalm. In these verses above we can read that the Most High YHWH is King of the earth. Now the next verses shows that the Son, the Messiah Yahusha (Jesus/Yeshua) is going to be King. > Jeremiah 23 > > 5 “Behold, the days are coming, declares YHWH, when I will raise up > for David a righteous Branch, and **he shall reign as king** and deal > wisely, and shall execute justice and righteousness in the land. > > Jeremiah 33 > > 16 In those days Judah will be saved, and Jerusalem will > dwell securely. And this is the name by which it will be called: ‘YHWH > is our righteousness.’ 17 “For thus says YHWH: David shall never lack > a man to **sit on the throne** of the house of Israel, > > Luke 1 > > 30 And the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you > have found favor with God. 31 And behold, you will conceive in your > womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. 32 He will be > great and will be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God > will **give to him the throne of his father David, 33 and he will reign > over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no > end.”** As we can see, YHWH and His son Yahusha, are going to be King. Zecharia 14 refers to the promised Kingdom, the New Jerusalem, where YHWH is King. In Jeremiah 23 and 33 we can read that it is prophesied that a offspring of David is going to be King forever. Luke makes it clear that the son Yahusha is going to be that offspring that's going to sit on that throne as King forever. I do not believe in the tri-une God but do believe that YHWH and His Son are two different persons that do not share the same essence. From this perspective how must we look at the two kingships or what are the differences between them? And conscidering the everlasting kingships how must we interpret the part were the Son is going to give everything back to YHWH the Most High? In Luke for example, it stated really clear: "and of his kingdom there will be no end." > 1 Corinthians 15 > > 20 But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits > of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For as by a man came death, by a > man has come also the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all > die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. 23 But each in his own > order: Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to > Christ. 24 Then comes the end, **when he delivers the kingdom to God the > Father** after destroying every rule and every authority and power. 25 > For **he must reign until** he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 > The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27 For “God has put all > things in subjection under his feet.” But when it says, “all things > are put in subjection,” it is plain that he is excepted who put all > things in subjection under him. 28 When all things are subjected to > him, **then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all > things in subjection under him,** that God may be all in all.

I just want to make sure that I understand this Catholic doctrine correctly or not. > They immolated to demons and not to God, to gods whom they did not know, who were new and recent arrivals, whom their fathers did not worship. – Deuteronomy 32:17 > But the things that the Gentiles immolate, they immolate to demons, and not to God. And I do not want you to become partakers with demons. – 1 Corinthians 10:20 > Translation: (Catholic Public Domain Version)

While discussing whether the early church worshipped on the Saturday Sabbath a Sabbatarian (though not an SDA) asserted "We know that the Apostle John kept the (Saturday) Sabbath". My question is simple: How do any Sabbatarians "know" that John kept the Saturday Sabbath? What is the evidence?

Does the cause-effect and begotten doctrine of the Eastern and Roman Catholic Church imply a division or multiplication in the nature of God? Unitarian God (Father) begets or caused into effect the second person- Son, who is subordinate to the Father. I am not using *Subordinate* in the sense of having a lesser divine and different substance/essence than the Father, but when they say "begotten not made", and that the Father alone is uncaused seem to imply that the Father begot the Son like a living creature begets its offspring. The offspring of God is not created from outside substance (like man from dust) but literally *derived, generated, caused or begotten* from the Father's divine nature, and he is equally divine. The Son is lesser in rank by the virtue of "generation", and the Spirit "proceeds". The words begotten and proceed are used, but seem to imply causation and generation. As though the Monarch, Unitarian God generated the (co-divine persons) Son and the Spirit, transforming into Multipersonal or the Trinity. The topics on "begotten, not made " and the "Monarchy of the Father " doctrine and the doctrines of "eternal generation", "eternal sonship" and "eternally begotten" generated this question. The language and these phrases in their creeds have resulted in confusion and debate; One might even say that such a literal generation of the divine persons undermines the doctrine of Immutability or the unchangeable nature of God. > Eastern Orthodox - Wiki > > According to the Eastern Orthodox view, the **Son is derived from the > Father who alone is without cause or origin.** This is not > subordinationism, and the same doctrine is asserted by western > theologians such as Augustine. In this view, the Son is co-eternal > with the Father or even in terms of the co-equal uncreated nature shared by the Father and Son. However, this view is sometimes > misunderstood as a form of subordinationism by Western Christians, who also asserts the same view even when not using the technical term i.e. > Monarchy of the Father. Western view is often viewed by the Eastern > Church as being close to Modalism. > > **Catholics** > > The Catholic Church also believes that the Son is > begotten of the Father and the Holy Spirit is proceeding from the > Father through and from the Son. Catholic theologian John Hardon > wrote that subordinationism "denies that the second and third persons > are consubstantial with the Father. Therefore it denies their true divinity." Arius "made a formal heresy of" subordinationism. > > The International Theological Commission wrote that "many Christian > theologians borrowed from Hellenism the notion of a secondary god > (deuteros theos), or of an intermediate god, or even of a demiurge." > Subordinationism was "latent in some of the Apologists and in > Origen." The Son was, for Arius, in "an intermediate position > between the Father and the creatures." Nicaea I "defined that the Son > is consubstantial (*homoousios*) with the Father. In so doing, the > Church both repudiated the Arian compromise with Hellenism and deeply > altered the shape of Greek, especially Platonist and neo-Platonist, > metaphysics. In a manner of speaking, it demythicized Hellenism and > effected a Christian purification of it. In the act of dismissing the > notion of an intermediate being, the Church recognized only two modes > of being: uncreated (nonmade) and created."

I read something recently and it reminded me of oil I asked a priest to bless. He read the rite word for word except that he did not sprinkle it with holy water. Is it still as efficacious? Thank you. God bless!

One doctrine that has been consistently taught in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is that, if people had accepted the gospel but didn't have the opportunity in this life, they will still be saved and be able to receive all the blessings of the gospel. This general idea goes back to at the latest Joseph Smith's vision of the celestial kingdom, where he was surprised to see his brother who died before the restoration of the church. D&C 137 > 5 I saw Father Adam and Abraham; and my father and my mother; my > brother Alvin, that has long since slept; > > 6 And marveled how it was that he had obtained an inheritance in that > kingdom, seeing that he had departed this life before the Lord had set > his hand to gather Israel the second time, and had not been baptized > for the remission of sins. > > 7 Thus came the voice of the Lord unto me, saying: All who have died > without a knowledge of this gospel, who would have received it if they > had been permitted to tarry, shall be heirs of the celestial kingdom > of God; > > 8 Also all that shall die henceforth without a knowledge of it, who > would have received it with all their hearts, shall be heirs of that > kingdom; > > 9 For I, the Lord, will judge all men according to their works, > according to the desire of their hearts. Now, the covenant of marriage is seen as vitally important to receive the highest blessings in the celestial kingdom (D&C 131 ). LDS perform proxy sealings in the temple for those who were married in life but not in the "new and everlasting covenant" that is eternal marriage. With regard to those that, for some reason or another, did not have the opportunity to marry in this life, no proxy marriages are (kind of obviously) performed. Yet it has been consistently taught since at least Lorenzo Snow that there will be opportunity for those eventually (in the millenium I suppose) to be married. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/teachings-of-presidents-of-the-church-lorenzo-snow/chapter-9-sacred-family-relationships?lang=eng&id=p8#p8 > People who have no opportunity of marrying in this life, if they die > in the Lord, will have means furnished them by which they can secure > all the blessings necessary for persons in the married condition. The > Lord is merciful and kind, and He is not unjust. There is no injustice > in Him; yet we could scarcely look upon it as being just when a woman > or a man dies without having had the opportunity of marrying if it > could not be remedied in the other life. There would be injustice in > that, and we know that the Lord is not an unjust being. My sister > Eliza R. Snow, I believe, was just as good a woman as any Latter-day > Saint woman that ever lived, and she lived in an unmarried state until > she was beyond the condition of raising a family. … I cannot for one > moment imagine that she will lose a single thing on that account. It > will be made up to her in the other life, and she will have just as > great a kingdom as she would have had if she had had the opportunity > in this life of raising a family. (Quote from 1899, shortly after becoming president of the church in 1898) Was Lorenzo Snow the first to formulate the doctrine this way? Surely all the building blocks were already there even in Joseph Smith's time. Please correct me if I am wrong in this, but I assume none of the standard works go into this topic, so what we have here is an example of doctrine defined by "the modern-day prophets consistently taught it".

Most English translations in Rev 5:9 read something like "You purchased people for God by your blood from every tribe and language and people and nation." However, the Revelation ECM/CBGM data prefers the reading τῷ θεῷ ἡμᾶς over the reading of τῷ θεῷ (supported by only one Greek manuscript, 02). If I am not mistaken, this would read something like "you purchased ***us*** for God by your blood...". My question(s) pertain to the significance of this change in reading. Who are the 24 elders? How does this reading change our understanding of their identity and function? Are they a part of the redeemed?

What are the Biblical arguments used by those who teach that God does not know every detail of the future? I've seen three answers as to whether God knows every detail of the future. - 1. "God knows every detail of the future, including things that He hasn't planned". 2. "God knows every detail of the future because He plans every detail of the future". 3. "While God could control every detail of the future, He does not, and sometimes things happen that He does not expect to happen". A complete response should discuss all three. **Conclusion** I accepted Kristopher's answer as it best answered the question. I awarded the 200 point bounty to Andrew Shanks as his answer and comments were most helpful in refining my answer, which was the goal of the bounty.

According to Wikipedia : > The modern Jewish Passover and Feast of Unleavened Bread is seven days, starting with the sunset at the beginning of Nisan 15. and > According to some interpretations, the Gospel of John (e.g., 19:14, 19:31, 19:42) implies that Nisan 14 was the day that Jesus was crucified in Jerusalem. The article mentions that this was the first Easter controversy which petered out around the 4th century and that "Jehovah's Witnesses continue to celebrate the memorial of Christ's death on Nisan 14." Recently, an answer on Biblical Hermeneutics asserted that Jesus was crucified on Nisan 14. This indicates the interpretation is still supported in some modern traditions. Are there any denominations that interpret John 19 as placing the crucifixion on Nisan 14? Do the Jehovah's Witnesses base their memorial on John 19?

Christian theology affirms that Jesus Christ is fully divine and fully human. At the same time, Scripture describes real human limitations during his earthly life (e.g., growth in wisdom, learning, and dependence on ordinary means of communication). Given this, I am asking how Christian doctrine understands Jesus’ knowledge of human languages during his earthly ministry. - Did Christ, by virtue of his divinity, possess complete knowledge of all human languages while incarnate? - Or did the incarnation (often discussed in terms of kenosis) entail genuine limitations such that his linguistic knowledge was exercised within normal human bounds? - How do major Christian traditions (e.g., Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant) reconcile divine omniscience with apparent human limitations in this area?

What is the difference between the Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox churches?

I’m researching the story of the Seven Sleepers of Ephesus. I understand that it is not part of the canonical Bible, but that it appears in early Syriac Christian writings, such as the homilies of Jacob of Serugh (5th–6th century CE). I’m curious about how this story is viewed within Christian traditions today, particularly Eastern/Syriac Christianity: Is it considered purely devotional or moral literature, or is it treated as a historical event? How do clergy or believers engage with it—do they tell it as a story for inspiration, include it in liturgy, or otherwise reference it? Are there any standard interpretations or lessons emphasized by these communities? I’m interested in both historical and contemporary perspectives on the story in Syriac/Eastern Christian traditions.

According to the doctrine of the trinity the Son is eternal. Is this in reference to his divine nature only or the physical and divine? If it is both physical and divine, then did the body shrink down into Mary?

Can a woman whose husband is a credo-baptist believer still go to mass with her husband and family? If they want to delay baptism of their children until they are capable of thinking for themselves will you get kicked out of the Catholic church? They are both Catholics; the husband just feels that baptism is something a person has to decide for him/herself to do. The parents do want their kids baptized; they just want them to choose to do so (when they are mature enough to decide).

I asked, "What is the Boethian solution?" One answer was - >The Boethian solution refers to a philosophical argument, most famously detailed in Boethius's *The Consolation of Philosophy*, that resolves the problem of divine foreknowledge and human free will. Boethius argues that God is eternal, existing outside of time, and thus perceives all of time—past, present, and future—at once, much like a person outside of a train can see the entire track at once. For God, there is no "fore"-knowledge but an "eternal present" where all events are simply "present" to Him, not predetermined by His knowledge. Therefore, an event happening does not occur because God foresaw it, but rather God simply sees it happening in His eternal present, a fact that does not remove human freedom. The answer added - >This theory contradicts the scriptural concepts which Paul expresses, namely ; foreknowledge, predestination and election. How does God's being outside of time contradict foreknowledge, predestination and election?

In Trinitarian readings of 1 Corinthians 8:6, it is often argued (e.g., by Dr. James White ) that Paul intentionally echoes the Shema of Deuteronomy 6:4 and “expands” it by identifying: - “one God” with the Father - “one Lord (κύριος)” with Jesus Christ On this view, Paul is said to include Jesus within the unique divine identity of YHWH while maintaining Jewish monotheism. **My question is directed to Christians who hold a non‑Trinitarian or Unitarian view:** **What are the primary exegetical and hermeneutical objections to interpreting 1 Corinthians 8:6 as a deliberate expansion or reformulation of the Shema?** In particular: - What reasons are there for denying that Paul is intentionally alluding to Deuteronomy 6:4? - How should the distinction between “one God, the Father” and “one Lord, Jesus Christ” be understood within first‑century Jewish monotheism? - Does Paul’s use of κύριος necessarily imply identification with YHWH, or can it be explained in functional or representative terms? Answers should focus on biblical, linguistic, and contextual considerations, rather than appeals to later creeds or post‑biblical theology.

According to Colossians, there appears to be some disagreement amongst the first century church on *whether* to keep the Sabbath: > Colossians 2:16 > > Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a **Sabbath day**. Did the first century church keep the Sabbath? And if so which day was it on? The Jewish Saturday or the new Christian Sunday?

The question arises whether the millennium is a literal 1000 year period, or a symbolic one. Perhaps the answer could be better ascertained if we look at other prophesied time periods, ones that were already fulfilled, and see what that shows us. Off the top of my head I can think of the several below, all of them fulfilled literally; but I'm not sure how to research this and perhaps others might be able to contribute some other instances, whether literal or symbolic. Here are the instances already thought of: The dreams of Pharaoh's officials interpreted by Joseph as to occur in 3 days in Genesis 40; The 7 years of famine in Pharaoh's dreams in Genesis 41; Nebuchadnezzar’s dream about his insanity in Dan. 4; The 70 years of the Babylonian captivity as prophesied in Jeremiah 25:11-13 and 29:11; Jesus' prophesy regarding being in the tomb 3 days in Matt. 12:40, Mark 8:41, and John 2:19; The destruction of Jerusalem, occurring in the generation still living after Jesus' death and resurrection in Matthew 24:34. The question is directed to any serious student of the Bible. Note that the prophesy has to have been fulfilled already (partial fulfillment is fine), in order to evaluate whether it was literal, or symbolic. Please Note: I am not looking for a defense or rebuttal of pre-post or a-millenialism, nor for general instances of fulfilled prophesy, but for specified time periods of future events, that were fulfilled.