The "L" in the TULIP acronym of Reformed Theology stands for Limited Atonement, which the Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms defines as : > Sometimes called 'particular redemption,' the view that Jesus' death > secured salvation for only a limited number of persons (the elect), > in contrast to the idea that the work of the cross is intended for all > humankind (as in “unlimited atonement”). This view resulted from the > post-Reformation development of the doctrine of election in Calvinist > circles. Proponents claim that because not everyone is saved, God > could not have intended that Christ die for everyone. We already have a question asking for the Biblical basis **for** Limited Atonement , so my question is what is the Biblical argument **against** Limited Atonement?

THE CLOSET VERSE REGARDING TRINITY IN THE BIBLE HAS BEEN THROWN OUT . The Verse in the Bible which is closest to Trinity and is often quoted by Christian missionaries is first Epistle of John Chapter 5 Verse 7 ... "**For there are three that bear record in heaven, the father, the word and holy ghost; and these three are one**" In the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, revised by 32 Christian Scholars of the highest eminence backed by 50 different cooperating denominations, this verse which is the keystone of the Christian faith has been removed as an interpolation, as a fabrication, as a concoction. According to them this verse does not exist in the original manuscripts, therby eliminating another lie from the English R.S.V... P. S : You can't have a word of God being corrupted like that?? Do you?

By an [Occam's razor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor) interpretation of 1 Samuel 28, I mean an interpretation that is as straightforward as possible, which doesn't require making unnecessary assumptions or special pleadings in the way the passage is interpreted. For example, if the author says literally and plainly that "X happened", well, the straightforward interpretation is that X happened and that's it. Applying this to 1 Samuel 28 ESV (pay attention to the bold text): > In those days the Philistines gathered their forces for war, to fight against Israel. And Achish said to David, “Understand that you and your men are to go out with me in the army.” 2 David said to Achish, “Very well, you shall know what your servant can do.” And Achish said to David, “Very well, I will make you my bodyguard for life.” > > 3 **Now Samuel had died**, and all Israel had mourned for him and buried him in Ramah, his own city. And Saul had put the mediums and the necromancers out of the land. 4 The Philistines assembled and came and encamped at Shunem. And Saul gathered all Israel, and they encamped at Gilboa. 5 When Saul saw the army of the Philistines, he was afraid, and his heart trembled greatly. 6 And when Saul inquired of the Lord, the Lord did not answer him, either by dreams, or by Urim, or by prophets. 7 Then Saul said to his servants, “Seek out for me a woman who is a medium, that I may go to her and inquire of her.” And his servants said to him, “Behold, there is a medium at En-dor.” > > 8 So Saul disguised himself and put on other garments and went, he and two men with him. And they came to the woman by night. And he said, “Divine for me by a spirit and bring up for me whomever I shall name to you.” 9 The woman said to him, “Surely you know what Saul has done, how he has cut off the mediums and the necromancers from the land. Why then are you laying a trap for my life to bring about my death?” 10 But Saul swore to her by the Lord, “As the Lord lives, no punishment shall come upon you for this thing.” 11 Then the woman said, “Whom shall I bring up for you?” **He said, “Bring up Samuel for me.”** 12 **When the woman saw Samuel**, she cried out with a loud voice. And the woman said to Saul, “Why have you deceived me? You are Saul.” 13 The king said to her, “Do not be afraid. What do you see?” And the woman said to Saul, “I see a god coming up out of the earth.” 14 He said to her, “What is his appearance?” And she said, “An old man is coming up, and he is wrapped in a robe.” **And Saul knew that it was Samuel, and he bowed with his face to the ground and paid homage**. > > 15 **Then Samuel said to Saul**, “Why have you disturbed me by bringing me up?” Saul answered, “I am in great distress, for the Philistines are warring against me, and God has turned away from me and answers me no more, either by prophets or by dreams. Therefore I have summoned you to tell me what I shall do.” 16 **And Samuel said**, “Why then do you ask me, since the Lord has turned from you and become your enemy? 17 The Lord has done to you as he spoke by me, for the Lord has torn the kingdom out of your hand and given it to your neighbor, David. 18 Because you did not obey the voice of the Lord and did not carry out his fierce wrath against Amalek, therefore the Lord has done this thing to you this day. 19 Moreover, the Lord will give Israel also with you into the hand of the Philistines, and tomorrow you and your sons shall be with me. The Lord will give the army of Israel also into the hand of the Philistines.” > > 20 Then Saul fell at once full length on the ground, filled with fear because of **the words of Samuel**. And there was no strength in him, for he had eaten nothing all day and all night. 21 And the woman came to Saul, and when she saw that he was terrified, she said to him, “Behold, your servant has obeyed you. I have taken my life in my hand and have listened to what you have said to me. 22 Now therefore, you also obey your servant. Let me set a morsel of bread before you; and eat, that you may have strength when you go on your way.” 23 He refused and said, “I will not eat.” But his servants, together with the woman, urged him, and he listened to their words. So he arose from the earth and sat on the bed. 24 Now the woman had a fattened calf in the house, and she quickly killed it, and she took flour and kneaded it and baked unleavened bread of it, 25 and she put it before Saul and his servants, and they ate. Then they rose and went away that night. Assuming that 1 Samuel 28 is inspired text and that the author is telling us about events as they actually happened, a straightforward interpretation of the passage reveals the following facts: - Samuel was already dead (v3) - Saul asked the medium to invoke Samuel (v11) - The medium saw Samuel (v12) - Saul was convinced that it was Samuel (v14) - Samuel spoke to Saul (v15, v16) - The words that were spoken were from Samuel (v20) As we can see, the author is telling us, literally and plainly, that Samuel spoke to Saul. An Occam's razor interpretation of this passage should therefore lead us to conclude that, if the author is telling us that Samuel spoke to Saul (even though he was already dead), then, well, Samuel spoke to Saul. As simple as that. That's literally, unambiguously stated in the text. And keep in mind that this is not a Parable or other kind of passage full of symbolic language that would warrant having second thoughts on the meaning of words. ### Question According to 'soul sleep' adherents, what's wrong with this straightforward approach to 1 Samuel chapter 28? If the author is telling us that "X happened", what's wrong with concluding that "X happened"? If this "Occam's razor" interpretation of 1 Samuel 28 is not justified, are there any other examples of non-parabolic, non-symbolic passages in which a similar straightforward interpretation is not justified? Is there a hermeneutical principle that justifies not always being straightforward in our interpretation of a non-symbolic, non-parabolic passage?

In Christian theology, Jesus is said to establish the New Covenant and fulfill the Old Covenant rather than abolish it. My difficulty concerns a specific Temple-related messianic expectation. For example, Zechariah 6:12–13 says of "the Branch": “Thus says the LORD of hosts, ‘Behold, the man whose name is the Branch: for he shall branch out from his place, and he shall build the temple of the LORD. It is he who shall build the temple of the LORD and shall bear royal honor, and shall sit and rule on his throne.’” (ESV) From a Jewish perspective, this seems to envision a visible, physical Temple-building as part of messianic expectation. If a visible restoration of the Temple had accompanied Jesus’ mission, it seems to me that the Christian claim would have been easier for Jews to accept without appearing to abandon covenantal faithfulness. I understand that many Christian interpretations address this by pointing to spiritual fulfillment: Jesus’ body as the Temple (John 2:19–21) Believers as God’s Temple (1 Corinthians 3:16) The Church as a dwelling place for God (Ephesians 2:19–22) My difficulty is this: God could, in principle, have fulfilled the prophecy in a fully observable way — restoring the Temple for the Jewish people — while simultaneously revealing the spiritual significance Christians now see. Such a course of action would have preserved both the prophecy’s visibility and persuasiveness from a Jewish perspective, while still conveying the theological truth Christians attribute to the Temple. Instead, the fulfillment remains largely non-obvious to those expecting a physical Temple, leaving a strong basis for Jewish non-acceptance. Question: How do mainstream Christian traditions explain why God allowed Temple-related expectations such as Zechariah 6:12–13 to be fulfilled in a spiritualized, postponed, or otherwise non-obvious way, rather than in a visibly persuasive way that could have satisfied both Jewish physical expectations and Christian spiritual interpretation?

Did St. Rose of Lima (✝1617)—called the Patroness of the Americas and the 1st canonized saint of the Americas—know about (or have a devotion to) Our Lady of Guadalupe (1531), called the Empress of the Americas (*Emperatriz de las Américas* )?

I hope one of you can answer a theological question I have! My question is: how are sins of thought, and sins depicted in media, distinguished by species/kind? As an example: let’s imagine a person watched a horror movie that had graphic scenes of murder and torture. Since those are two distinct ‘species’, or ‘kinds’ of sin in real life, are they also distinct sins when consumed through media? And my question is the same in regard to sins of thought: as an example, let’s say a person indulged impure thoughts. Is their species, or kind, simply a ‘lustful thought’? Or are they distinguished by the thoughts’ contents (ex. Adultery, rape, etc.)? Those are just two examples, but my question pertains to all instances where thoughts, or media consumption, are sinful. This question is also important in regards to the sacrament of Confession. As Catholics, we are obliged to confess our mortal sins in “number and kind”—how are these sins distinguished by “kind”, so we know how to properly confess them (in the event they are mortally sinful)? Is there any church teaching or definite answer on this matter that you can reference? Thank you and may God bless you all!

I find the Catholic title "Mother of God" for the Virgin Mary confusing. It is clear that she was the mother of Jesus, the Son. But the title suggests (indeed, not literally, but still) that Mary is mother of God as a Trinity. Is that correct? If so, it creates the problem that a human (or is there reason to say that Mary wasn't (entirely) human?) gave birth to God, while God created mankind. This problem doesn't exist when Mary is only mother of Jesus, because then it could be merely a way of speaking to say that Mary was the one through whom the Word became flesh, which would be the Protestant view as described in https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/15779/5729

I am an Assemblies of God protestant and am very close friends with a catholic girl. Would cross denominational marriage like this be a good idea? I know that the bible says to not be unequally yoked. But my relationship with her is literally shaking all of what I thought I've known as sure facts in my beliefs. Have any cross denominational marriages worked out in the past? What does the bible have to say about cross denominational marriages?

I struggled to understand the bible in today's time as I feel that context matters quite a bit when reading it. I'm not sure how to structure this but I feel as though the rules/laws that applied then wouldn't apply now (not all and I understand that). This isn't specific but a boarder topic that goes into other sub-topics which I see with tattoos/piercings. I feel as though if someone who doesn't like being restricted without reasons that would fit into todays context makes them pull away from the bible and building a relationship with Gob due to the many sin and warnings of going to hell. I understand this isn't a kind of questions but more of a discussion, but any help to understand would be appreciated and with understanding comes acceptance which I hope to find.

Have any Catholic theologians thought that those who die with only Original Sin go to purgatory (not limbo)? related question: "Limbo part of purgatory? "

To all **Christ** Worshippers, We Have a Question........ We seek an answer from someone , who comprehends the issue. ... If **God** was killed at the hands of humans Then **what kind of God** was this that they could kill?.... And was he pleased with what they did to him? .... Then good for them if they attained his pleasure. But if he was **displeased** by what they did to Him . .... Then how could their strength overcome his? Was the world ,in that moment, left without God? Left with no one to **answer** the prayers?.... Were the **seven** heavens left empty?... When he lay beneath the ground that covered him .... Was the creation left ungoverned by the Lord ?.., When his hands were **tied** and **nailed** in place? And how could the angels abandon him?.... And not come to his aid, when they heard his cry? .... And how could the planks of wood endure the weight, of the True God while he was fastened to it, **powerless** and **bound**.... And could the nails come near to Him at all? so as to touch him and afflict him with pain.... And how were the hands of his enemies even able to, Strike him upon the back of the neck? .... And did Christ - by his own strength, return again to life,.... Or was it **another God** who brought him back to life again..... And how strange it is, that a tomb can enclose a Lord;.... And even more strange is a womb , that once contained him. ..... He remained there for nine months, ..... In **darkness** sustained by blood from menstural flow, ...... He emerged from the **womb** as a small child. ...... Weak with his mouth opened while in search of milk. ..... **Eating and drinking**, then enduring what must follow. ..... **So can this be called God**? God is far exalted above the false lies of Christians...... Everyone of them shall be questioned about what they forged. ..... **O' worshippers of Cross**, for what reason, is one praised or blamed for throwing the **Cross** away? ..... Does not sound **reason** judge that nothing suits it more, than to break or burn it, for the wrong done through it? ..... If **God** was forced upon it, against His will, with His **hands** fastened to it with nails, then the Cross would be deemed as cursed, fit to be stepped on, not kissed when seen...... The **Lord of all creation** was humiliated upon it , and yet you worship it,..... Thus you are counted among his enemies..... And if you exalt it, ..... Because it **once** held, The Lord of the Servants, as he was set upon it..... It is said, though the Cross has gone, when its form is seen, we recall the glory once attributed to it. .... Then why not bow before every **grave**, in that case..... Since a **grave** once contained your **Lord** **within** it. .. **O' Followers of Christ**, wake up; Here lies its beginning and here lies its end.,...

The "Clarity Principle" ensures a message be told clearly without any iota of confusion or ambiguity. It seems Jesus' alleged divinity claims (that were forcefully attributed to him) don't follow that principal, which is quite highly unlikely of God to do. If Jesus was God, there would have been non metaphorical verses in the Bible clearly stating Jesus was God, but we find 0. What does this signify? Why did God have to be so shy and hesitant in claiming his divinity that he didn't once order in clear cut non ambiguous terms or told his folks to worship him? P. S : Kindly don't refer to metaphorical verses of Bible that in no case seem convincing enough to be deemed as monotonous when related to other verses or read in full context

In Romans 3:8, Paul teaches that it is wrong to do evil to achieve good: > And why not say—as we are accused and as some claim we say—that we should do evil that good may come of it? Their penalty is what they deserve. This principle is explicitly reaffirmed by the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1789 . However, in Catholicism, a distinction is drawn between *physical evil* and *moral evil*. "Physical evil" is what St. Thomas Aquinas would call "corruption* and defect" ("*corruptio et defectus*"), corruption being the change from existence to non-existence.**
*cf. "What are “generation and corruption” in Aristotle's philosophy? "
\*\**Summa contra Gentiles* III cap. 71 ("That divine providence does not entirely exclude evil from things") **According to Catholicism, is it ever permissible to produce physical evil so that good may result?** My understanding is that the answer is yes. For example, when performing a medical surgery, it is acceptable for the surgeon to intentionally damage the patient's skin (physical evil) as a means to saving the patient's life (a good end). I want to make sure I'm thinking about this correctly. I would most appreciate answers drawing on quotes from the Magisterium, but I'd also appreciate relevant quotes from Catholic theologians.

To be clear, I'm interested to know if there is anyone throughout church history who claimed to be Christian (whether a group, individuals or a notable figure) who taught that *the Holy Spirit is **not** a divine person who is distinct from the Father and the Son* and were still considered to be within the bounds of Christian orthodoxy i.e. not excommunicated or deemed a heretic? Edit/ additional info: When I say "deemed a heretic" I mean, deemed to be a heretic by any church denomination or other group of Christians. ---------- **FYI: I'm a traditional trinitarian Christian. I believe the Holy Spirit is a distinct divine person of our triune God. I am only asking this question because I've encountered people who deny this, and I have become more interested in the topic to defend my belief.**

I previously posed the question https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/101219/61679 , an [answer](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/101246/61679) to which contended that one doesn't need to rely on Biblical inerrancy or a specific exegetical method to assert a young Earth. Instead, it suggested that the purportedly ample scientific evidence is enough to support this conclusion. To substantiate its position, the linked answer cited the article titled [The 10 Best Evidences from Science That Confirm a Young Earth](https://answersingenesis.org/evidence-for-creation/10-best-evidences-young-earth/) published on Answers in Genesis. The article opens by asserting the following: > The earth is only a few thousand years old. That’s a fact, plainly revealed in God’s Word. So we should expect to find plenty of evidence for its youth. And that’s what we find—in the earth’s geology, biology, paleontology, and even astronomy. > > Literally hundreds of dating methods could be used to attempt an estimate of the earth’s age, and the vast majority of them point to a much younger earth than the 4.5 billion years claimed by secularists. The following series of articles presents what Answers in Genesis researchers picked as the ten best scientific evidences that contradict billions of years and confirm a relatively young earth and universe. The article then proceeds to list ten lines of evidence supporting a young Earth: 1. [Very Little Sediment on the Seafloor](https://answersingenesis.org/geology/sedimentation/1-very-little-sediment-on-the-seafloor/) 2. [Bent Rock Layers](https://answersingenesis.org/geology/rock-layers/2-bent-rock-layers/) 3. [Soft Tissue in Fossils](https://answersingenesis.org/fossils/3-soft-tissue-in-fossils/) 4. [Faint Sun Paradox](https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/sun/4-faint-sun-paradox/) 5. [Rapidly Decaying Magnetic Field](https://answersingenesis.org/evidence-for-creation/5-rapidly-decaying-magnetic-field/) 6. [Helium in Radioactive Rocks](https://answersingenesis.org/age-of-the-earth/6-helium-in-radioactive-rocks/) 7. [Carbon-14 in Fossils, Coal, and Diamonds](https://answersingenesis.org/geology/carbon-14/7-carbon-14-in-fossils-coal-and-diamonds/) 8. [Short-Lived Comets](https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/comets/8-short-lived-comets/) 9. [Very Little Salt in the Sea](https://answersingenesis.org/evidence-for-creation/9-very-little-salt-in-the-sea/) 10. [DNA in “Ancient” Bacteria](https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/antibiotic-resistance/10-dna-in-ancient-bacteria/) Are there published responses from Old-Earth Creationists and/or Theistic Evolutionists addressing the Young-Earth Creationist interpretation of these ten lines of evidence? I'm particularly interested in understanding why OEC and TE advocates do not find the scientific evidence presented by YEC advocates compelling. References to books or other authoritative publications are welcomed (and encouraged).

Where to read about: Church Fathers discussing the unwritten traditions of the church before year 400 AD. I read that Epiphanius of Salamis has said something about the unwritten traditions in his book - Ancoratus I found this https://dokumen.pub/ancoratus-0813225914-9780813225913.html But I can not find something relevant in this book by searching by keywords. Do you know other church fathers discussing the unwritten traditions and the explanations about these unwritten traditions before 400 AD? Thanks in advance. ---------------------- **Looking to find answers on these traditions and more, from ancient writers:** Both catholic and orthodox may be in strange position for some of these traditiosns. What can be the explanations. 1. The catholics with the **Clerical celibacy**. Is this apostolic unwritten traditions that the apostles taught 2 Thes. 2:15; Peter was married Matt. 8:14-15; 1 Corinthians 9:5-7; Also 1 Titus 1:6-9; Timothy 3:2-5; 2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife.... About forbidding marriages 1 Timothy 4:1-3; The catholic teaching of the Clerical celibacy seems not to align with scripture or I may not understand it properly, please correct me if I am wrong, not sure how to understand this. If the scripture say Timothy 3:2-5; If this is not apostolic teaching, how can I be 100% sure that the other claimed unwritten traditions are apostolic teachings? Since while researching I learn that there are indeed traditions in the churches that are not apostolic, even borrowed from older pagan traditions like the halo on the icons. 3. Leavened or Unleavened Bread - which one is apostolic and who evt. changed the apostolic tradition and when? As far as I know catholic and orthodox condemn each other on this. 4. If Purgatory is apostolic traditions why do Eastern Orthodox do not accept it? Did ancient writers from East or West mentioned it? Both churches claim to accept "the unwritten traditions" of the apostles. 5. Orthodox do not accept - (Original Sin) but accept Augustine since he is mentioned in ecumenical councils. This is also strange, accepting the person as church father, but not accepting his teachings. 6. Saturday fasting - Orthodox do not do it, if I am not wrong they condemn it. Is this apostolic tradition? 7. Filioque - the original Creed did not include it, it is known to be later addition, so this can not be directly said to be apostolic, also I do not find it in the scripture, even that I have heard, some protestants claim that. The other strange thing is that, Augustine seems to have the filioque and again the orthodox accept him because he was accepted in some of the ecumenical councils, but reject some of his teachings.

Can somebody explain to me the Catholic view of Transubstantiation and why it is important? Because with my understanding of it, the priests pray over the bread and wine and it turns into the literal blood and body of Jesus, but still looks the same. I know that in Matthew 26:26-29 it says about Jesus saying that the bread and wine was his body and blood but I thought that that was meant in a metaphorical sense. If the bread and the wine does actually turn into the body and the blood of Jesus, what difference does that make compared to a protestant's communion other than the reverence you would give or any of the rituals done. As a Pentacostal we celebrate communion in my church; drinking grape juice and eating crackers in remembrance of What Jesus did for us. I'm not opposed to other views on the matter, I'm just curious.

I am looking for the name of the cathedral that contains the following mural. What I know for sure is: - That it has been done between 2004 and 2008, more likely in 2008. - It was made in a Catholic cathedral of a Spanish speaking country. - The original file name is "2B CS.jpg" What I think I know is: - It was a city in Latin America. - The city is on or near the seashore.

Were the 4 horses of revelation released upon the world in the past?

Is it true that some of the Catholic saints did not exist at all? I am told that St. George with the dragon did not exist at all! Thanks.