My daughter has only six months at best left on the Earth. A very happy time of her childhood was spent with the Salvation Army as a child. A part of her life we didn’t share. She is consumed by a song that she sung at a talent quest at Sunday school and would love to hear it again. She’s in her 20’s so I imagine it would be an 80’s or 90’s song. I’ve googled the lyrics and searched everywhere to no avail. Who sung it and where could I find a copy? This is as far as she can remember: > Dear god why is your book full of thous and thees Do you hear my prayer when I bend my knees Do you live in a steeple or with some other people These are things that I’ve been wondering > > Do you have to squeeze to get in my heart If you ever sneezed would I fall apart Is heaven full of money or just some milk and honey These are things that I’ve been wondering > > Can you answer all my questions Even if I’m not grown up Can you give me some suggestions How to get as smart as you are. > > Dear god. Sometimes I just wonder about stuff like this

The Book [Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth](https://www.amazon.com/Zealot-Reza-Aslan-audiobook/dp/B00DYMLQEU/) by Reza Aslan argues that Jesus was actually a Zealot, a Jewish revolutionary attempting to challenge Roman rule. Christians will overwhelmingly reject this hypothesis, but I think the book may help us in some ways to understand the human side of Jesus and is very well argued. I would like to see answers about what readers learned from the book. Those who only saw reviews and excerpts are welcome to answer too, but please provide evidence, not just opinions. Aslan sees Jesus as attempting to fulfill the Zealots' hope for the Jewish messiah, who would re-establish his people's independence from Rome and become the literal king of the Jews. In other words, Jesus actually attempted to do what the Roman government executed him for. Writes [Gary Manning Jr. of the Talbot School of Theology](https://www.biola.edu/blogs/good-book-blog/2013/a-response-to-zealot-by-reza-aslan) : > [Aslan claims that] ...like other messianic figures of his day [Jesus] > called for the violent expulsion of Rome from Israel. Driven by > religious zeal, Jesus believed that God would empower him to become > the king of Israel and overturn the hierarchical social order. Jesus > believed that God would honor the zeal of his lightly armed disciples > and give them victory. Instead, Jesus was crucified as a > revolutionary. Early Christians changed the story of Jesus to make him > into a peaceful shepherd. They did this for two reasons: because > Jesus’ actual prediction had failed, and because the Roman destruction > of rebellious Jerusalem in AD 70 made Jesus’ real teachings both > dangerous and unpopular. Paul radically changed the identity of Jesus > from human rebel to divine Son of God, against the wishes of other > leaders like Peter and James. This summary is basically accurate. However, I found important food for thought in the book: - Why does the angel tell Mary the "Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there will be no end. - Why does Zechariah prophesy of that: "[God] has raised up a horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David, that we should be saved from our enemies, and from the hand of all who hate us... (Luke 1) - Why did Jesus begin his ministry in Nazareth by quoting Isaiah to the effect he had been sent to "set at liberty those who are oppressed"? (Luke 40) - Why did he say "I came not for peace but the sword?" (Matthew 10:34) - What was Simon the Zealot doing with Jesus if he was still a Zealot? - Why did Jesus use violence against the moneychangers at the same time that there was an insurrection going on led by Barabbas - Was it just a coincidence that Jesus was imprisoned with these revolutionaries? - Why did he tell his disciples to bring swords to the Garden of Gethsemane? (Luke 22:38) I found myself thinking deeply about the human side of Jesus while reading this book. Particularly, it gave me a possible insight into Jesus' agony in the Garden of Gethsemane and on the Cross. Did part of him pray so desperately that God would "let this cup pass" because he hoped to fulfill the prophecies of a Davidic messiah who would literally restore David's throne? Did Jesus tell his disciples to brig swords to the Garden to protect him from those who would come to arrest him? Did the disciples commit a providential error when they fell asleep? When he cried out "why have you forsaken me?" was he still, even at that moment, hoping that God would rescue him so that he could fight on? Personally I do not think that Jesus was a Zealot, but I do think that he might have had hopes to be the Jewish messiah in some sense. Those hopes, of course, could not be fulfilled if Jesus were to realize God's will that he act as the Suffering Servant. But they might have figured into to the human aspirations he had to leave behind at Gethsemane, and even on the Cross. **What other questions does Aslan's book raise for us, and what insights can we gain from reading his book, whether we agree with it or not?**

The relationship between God's foreknowledge (or omniscience) and the free will of humans seems to be a complicated topic where multiple positions exist. Regardless of my position (which you can read about here: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/101932/how-do-non-open-theists-reason-a-basis-for-free-will and https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/101985/how-would-an-open-theist-explain-that-gods-exhaustive-foreknowledge-would-lead) I think it would be helpful to have an overview of all the various positions that arose (including Open Theism). The main questions I have for each position would be: - How do they imagine God's foreknowledge works? - Is God's foreknowledge exhaustive or limited? - What are the biggest biblical arguments they put forward? - Do humans have "free will" and if so, how does it work? - Do they avoid Fatalism/Predeterminism? If so how?

I've enjoyed reading Wesley's writings, but I'm struggling to find a decent account of Methodist systematics. Can anyone suggest anything notably Methodist in flavour or should I just pick up something by a mildly dissident Anglican?

In passages describing the resurrection and the return of Christ, angels are sometimes described as gathering people. For example, Gospel of Matthew 24:31 says that the Son of Man will send His angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather His elect from the four winds. Meanwhile, First Epistle to the Thessalonians 4:16–17 describes the dead in Christ rising first, followed by the living believers being caught up. My question is: **Are angels described in scripture as gathering the dead in Christ from their graves, the living believers from the earth, or both?**

In the Liturgy of the hours I found a very strange text that looks like heresy to me. It is written by Tertullian, who actually joined the Montanists. This text is really confusing. To me the text sounds like "personal prayer, not Mass, is the new form of sacrifice". I dont know what he is saying at all. I have been told that Mass is the new sacrifice. I read this text as if he was saying Mass isn't even important. What is he saying in this text and why is included in the Liturgy of the hours? Second Reading From the treatise On Prayer by Tertullian: priest: The spiritual offering of prayer >Prayer is the offering in spirit that has done away with the sacrifices of old. What good do I receive from the multiplicity of your sacrifices? asks God. I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams, and I do not want the fat of lambs and the blood of bulls and goats. Who has asked for these from your hands? >What God has asked for we learn from the Gospel. The hour will come, he says, when true worshippers will worship the Father in spirit and in truth. God is a spirit, and so he looks for worshippers who are like himself. >We are true worshippers and true priests. We pray in spirit, and so offer in spirit the sacrifice of prayer. Prayer is an offering that belongs to God and is acceptable to him: it is the offering he has asked for, the offering he planned as his own. >We must dedicate this offering with our whole heart, we must fatten it on faith, tend it by truth, keep it unblemished through innocence and clean through chastity, and crown it with love. We must escort it to the altar of God in a procession of good works to the sound of psalms and hymns. Then it will gain for us all that we ask of God. >Since God asks for prayer offered in spirit and in truth, how can he deny anything to this kind of prayer? How great is the evidence of its power, as we read and hear and believe. >Of old, prayer was able to rescue from fire and beasts and hunger, even before it received its perfection from Christ. How much greater then is the power of Christian prayer. No longer does prayer bring an angel of comfort to the heart of a fiery furnace, or close up the mouths of lions, or transport to the hungry food from the fields. No longer does it remove all sense of pain by the grace it wins for others. But it gives the armour of patience to those who suffer, who feel pain, who are distressed. It strengthens the power of grace, so that faith may know what it is gaining from the Lord, and understand what it is suffering for the name of God. >In the past prayer was able to bring down punishment, rout armies, withhold the blessing of rain. Now, however, the prayer of the just turns aside the whole anger of God, keeps vigil for its enemies, pleads for persecutors. Is it any wonder that it can call down water from heaven when it could obtain fire from heaven as well? Prayer is the one thing that can conquer God. But Christ has willed that it should work no evil, and has given it all power over good. >Its only art is to call back the souls of the dead from the very journey into death, to give strength to the weak, to heal the sick, to exorcise the possessed, to open prison cells, to free the innocent from their chains. Prayer cleanses from sin, drives away temptations, stamps out persecutions, comforts the fainthearted, gives new strength to the courageous, brings travellers safely home, calms the waves, confounds robbers, feeds the poor, overrules the rich, lifts up the fallen, supports those who are falling, sustains those who stand firm. >All the angels pray. Every creature prays. Cattle and wild beasts pray and bend the knee. As they come from their barns and caves they look out to heaven and call out, lifting up their spirit in their own fashion. The birds too rise and lift themselves up to heaven: they open out their wings, instead of hands, in the form of a cross, and give voice to what seems to be a prayer. >What more need be said on the duty of prayer? Even the Lord himself prayed. To him be honour and power for ever and ever. Amen.

Non-Trinitarians who do not believe Jesus is God Almighty include Unitarians, Socinians, Arians, Jehova's Witnesses, etc. This would not include, supposedly, Modalists and LDS/Mormons. The idea of atonement in the Old Testament was that a sinner would bring an offering to atone for his sin, and the death of that animal (and thus, its life) would take the place of the sinner's. In his *Temple, Its Ministry and Services *, Alfred Edersheim wrote, >The fundamental idea of sacrifice in the Old Testament is that of substitution, which again seems to imply everything else—atonement and redemption, vicarious punishment and forgiveness. The firstfruits go for the whole products; the firstlings for the flock; the redemption-money for that which cannot be offered; **and the life of the sacrifice, which is in its blood (Lev 17:11), for the life of the sacrificer**. Hence also the strict prohibition to partake of blood. Even in the ‘Korban,’ gift (Mark 7:11) or free-will offering, it is still the gift for the giver. This idea of substitution, as introduced, adopted, and sanctioned by God Himself, is expressed by the sacrificial term rendered in our version ‘atonement,’ but which really means covering, **the substitute** in the acceptance of God **taking the place of**, and so covering, as it were, **the person of the offerer**. Now, this would be a 1:1 relationship, i.e. one sinner, one animal. If Jesus is just a man (or even an angel, another created being), even if he be a sinless man (just like the animal was sinless and was offered as an atonement), how can Jesus effect atonement for all of humanity (John 1:29 ) rather than just one person?

In passages such as First Epistle to the Corinthians 15:45–49, Paul the Apostle contrasts the first man, Adam, with the second man, Christ: >“The first man Adam became a living being; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit… Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven.”
(1 Cor 15:45–49) This seems to suggest that humanity bears the image of Adam in a physical or natural sense (“man of dust”). My question is: In what sense do Christians bear the image of the second man, Christ? - Is this image spiritual (e.g., regeneration, righteousness, new nature)? - Is it future, referring primarily to the resurrection body?

In John 11, Jesus calls Lazarus out of the tomb by name, and he comes back to life. This seems to imply a personal and direct calling from Jesus. In Christian eschatology, during the resurrection of the dead, will all believers be called in a similar personal manner, or is Lazarus’ case unique? Are there biblical passages or theological interpretations that suggest a general principle about how believers are resurrected and whether each will be individually addressed by name?

According to fundamental Belief 24: (Christ’s ministry in the Heavenly Sanctuary) the SDA believe that Christ began his investigative judgement in 1844.This they refer to as the end of 2300 days of Daniel's prophecy. Daniel 8:14 NASB >14 And he said to me, “For 2,300 evenings and mornings; then the sanctuary will be [q]properly restored.” In the prophecy Daniel refers to the restoration of the sanctuary which the SDA clear identify as the heavenly sanctuary.But its not clear in Daniel's prophecy which one he was referring to.Should the text be understood from a literal or non literal sense. How can one understand this interpretation of Christ ministry in the heavenly sanctuary?

All of us know that Jesus had ascended to God the father after he had resurrected, we know that he will come again at the end of time to judge the people and found the kingdom of God on earth. The question is, will he descend as an adult man as he ascended to God the father, or will he be reborn again as an infant in a new incarnation?. Note: there are many who claimed to be incarnations or reincarnations of Jesus, some of them belong to new Christian denominations, look: [Wikipedia List of people claimed to be Jesus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_claimed_to_be_Jesus) Esoteric Christianity like Liberal Catholic Church adopts reincarnation and oneness of god who is both transcendent and immanent and accept Tritheism as three persons in that one God,i.e: the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are manifestations of that one transcendental immanent God. Look: [The Liberal Catholic Church](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.thelccusa.org/about/doctrine.html&ved=2ahUKEwiJqtDln9vmAhVaBGMBHVuACIgQFjAVegQIAxAB&usg=AOvVaw3tmC-K73qW9T0pMn8NF4yE&cshid=1577636090716) and [Liberal Catholic Church (Wikipedia)](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Catholic_Church&ved=2ahUKEwiJqtDln9vmAhVaBGMBHVuACIgQFjATegQIAhAB&usg=AOvVaw1jVuej_N56fVnUqmJKBsJ5&cshid=1577637685926) I would like answers to be biblically based, it's preferred to be by scholars of Christianity, especially of orthodox Christianity.

Paul instructed a young minister, Timothy, in his first letter to that man: >The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons...They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth.
For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving because it is consecrated by the Word of God and prayer. (1 Timothy 4:1-5) It seems that--without allowing irresponsible eating, and without ignoring common sense dieting--that generally Paul taught that there is to be no restrictions on one's diet...especially in connection with religious institutions or required religious observances. And there are today several religions or even Christian denominations that forbid certain foods to be eaten. Seventh Day Adventism is one of those denominations. And no doubt they are familiar with this warning by Paul. So how do they respond to Paul?

Moses 8:25-30 >25 And it repented Noah, and his heart was pained that the Lord had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at the heart. > >26 And the Lord said: I will destroy man whom I have created, from the face of the earth, both man and beast, and the creeping things, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth Noah that I have created them, and that I have made them; and he hath called upon me; for they have sought his life. > >27 And thus Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord; for Noah was a just man, and perfect in his generation; and he walked with God, as did also his three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth. > >28 The earth was corrupt before God, and it was filled with violence. > >29 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt, for all flesh had corrupted its way upon the earth. > >30 And God said unto Noah: The end of all flesh is come before me, for the earth is filled with violence, and behold I will destroy all flesh from off the earth. VERSUS Genesis 6:6-13 >6 And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. > >7 And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them. > >8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord. > >9 ¶ These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God. > >10 And Noah begat three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth. > >11 The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence. > >12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth. > >13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth. My question is why was the wordage changed around who was "repented". In Moses it makes it seem like because of Noah's sorrow and the dangers against his life God who was already angry at the world flooded the earth because of Noah's faith. Whereas in Genesis, it seemed to be Gods decision to flood and the earth and Noah was an innocent bystander who God decides to save. But the Pearl of Great Price being a collection of extras a retranslations of the bible maybe the mormons decided Genesis was incorrect. Or do these two sections go hand in hand. Let me know your thoughts from an LDS perspective and outside perspective.

In Catholicism, is it a serious sin to make major decisions as if you don't believe in Catholicism? >"844. Negative doubt is the state of mind in which one remains suspended between the truth contained in an article of faith and its opposite, without forming any positive judgment either of assent to or dissent from the article, or its certainty or uncertainty > >(a) If this suspension of decision results from a wrong motive of the will, which directs one not to give assent on the plea that the intellect, while not judging, offers such formidable difficulties that deception is possible, then it seems that the doubter is guilty of implicit heresy, or at least puts himself in the immediate danger of heresy. > >(b) If this suspension of judgment results from some other motive of the will (e.g. from the wish to give attention here and now to other matters), the guilt of heresy is not incurred, for no positive judgment is formed. Neither does it seem, apart from the danger of consent to positive doubt or from the obligation of an affirmative precept of faith then and there, that any serious sin in matters of faith is committed by such a suspension of judgment. Examples: Titus, being scandalized by the sinful conduct of certain Catholics, is tempted to doubt the divinity of the Church. He does not yield to the temptation by deciding that the divinity of the Church is really doubtful, but the difficulty has so impressed him that he decides to hold his judgment in abeyance. It seems that there is here an implicit judgment (i.e., one contained in the motive of the doubt) in favor of the uncertainty of the divinity of the Church. Balbus has the same difficulty as Titus, and it prevents him from eliciting an act of faith on various occasions. But the reason for this is that an urgent business matter comes up and he turns his attention to it, or that he does not wish at the time to weary his brain by considering such an important question as that of faith, or that he thinks he can conquer a temptation more easily by diverting his thoughts to other subjects, or that he puts off till a more favorable moment the rejection of the difficulty. In these cases there is not heretical doubt, since Balbus forms no positive judgment, even implicitly, but there may be a sin against faith. Thus, Balbus would sin seriously if his suspension of assent should place him in immediate danger of positive doubt; he would sin venially, if that suspension be due to some slight carelessness." (McHugh & Callan, *Moral Theology* Vol. I) For example, suppose Bob is dating a Catholic woman and would like to marry her as soon as possible. However, he has some doubts about whether Catholicism is true or not and whether he will ultimately remain Catholic although he continues to practice Catholicism in the mean time. For this reason he is delaying getting married. What will happen to Bob if he dies suddenly? Sure he is theoretically a Catholic in good standing, but he is living as if he doesn't believe in it.

Can I enter about a five minute read post about where I see the rapture taking place so I can get feedback on it? It is hermeneutically and systematically accurate as to when the rapture will occur.

Malachi 3:1-5 (ESV): > “Behold, **I send** my messenger, and he will prepare the way **before me**. And **the Lord whom you seek will suddenly come to his temple**; and **the messenger of the covenant** in whom you delight, behold, he is coming, **says the LORD of hosts**. 2 But who can endure the day of his coming, and who can stand when he appears? For he is like a refiner's fire and like fullers' soap. 3 He will sit as a refiner and purifier of silver, and he will purify the sons of Levi and refine them like gold and silver, and they will bring offerings in righteousness to the LORD. 4 Then the offering of Judah and Jerusalem will be pleasing to the LORD as in the days of old and as in former years. > > 5 “Then I will draw near to you for judgment. I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers, against the adulterers, against those who swear falsely, against those who oppress the hired worker in his wages, the widow and the fatherless, against those who thrust aside the sojourner, and do not fear me, says the LORD of hosts. Trinitarians usually interpret Malachi 3:1-5 as evidence that Jesus is Jehovah, by picking up on the fact that Jehovah is speaking in the first person about himself, but then it turns out that the one who came was Jesus. For more details, here are [two](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/a/56076/38524) [examples](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/a/56079/38524) of this kind of exegesis on the passage, taken from the hermeneutics site. Of course, this way of exegeting Malachi 3:1-5 totally contradicts the Christological views of Biblical Unitarians. How do Biblical Unitarians exegete Malachi 3:1-5?

> **“Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God."** - Matthew5:8 **IMPORTANT NOTE:** We cannot add nor subtract any word from the bible. When Jesus said this beatitude, He said this promised to all the living not dead nor this promise can only be gain after death. Jesus did not said, *"Blessed are the pure of heart, for they will see God,* ***after death***." Archangel Gabriel have faculties to see the state of soul of every human being. Archangel Gabriel saw the majestic soul of Mary, and proclaimed that it was *"full of grace"*. Mary was seen having the most pure heart. > [**Mary: Woman of Most Pure Heart**](https://carmelite.org/spirituality/mary-woman-most-pure-heart/) > > As well as regarding Our Lady, the Blessed Virgin Mary, as patron of our Order, we Carmelites revere her under a number of special titles such as ‘Beauty of Carmel’, ‘Sister’, and ‘Woman of Most Pure Heart’. > > Purity of Heart (Puritas Cordis in Latin) is an important concept in Carmelite spirituality, and Mary is seen as its greatest exemplar and embodiment. For this reason medieval Carmelites were among the most fervent promoters of the doctrine of Mary’s ‘Immaculate Conception’, which was not formally proclaimed a dogma of the Catholic Church until 1854. > > Carmelites have always sought to imitate Mary in her purity of heart. The medieval Carmelite writer Felip Ribot said that the goal of the Carmelite life is to offer to God a holy heart purified from all stain of sin. The purpose of this is to achieve, by God’s grace, union with God. Mary, the Most Pure Virgin, is seen as the perfect model of one who was totally available for union with God. > > To explain the significance of purity from a Carmelite perspective, the Irish theologian Chris O’Donnell, O.Carm., uses the image of a milk jug. The purpose of a milk jug is to dispense milk. In order to do so properly, it must be clean; if the milk jug is dirty, then the milk will become infected. However, there is no point in the milk jug being clean simply for the sake of it; if the purpose of a milk jug is to dispense milk, then it can be as clean as you like but if it’s empty then it isn’t useful. This is an analogy of the human heart. Its purpose is to pour out love for others. If our hearts are impure, then what we ‘pour our’ to others will be infected. But there is no point is having a pure heart simply to leave it empty; the point of purity is not an end in itself but a means to be useful for others. > > This is what Carmelites mean by purity: having a heart undivided for God, free from our own motives and desires so that God’s will be done in us. Today’s society often associates ‘purity’ with puerile notions of sex. Carmel teaches us that purity is more a matter of the heart than the rest of the body. > > *Maria Purissima*, Mary Most Pure, is the great example of purity, in that her heart is totally given over to God and pours out love towards those around her. **Looking for Protestant Founders like Luther,Calvin, Zwingli, etc. also theologians and biblical scholars outside of Catholic Church, before reformation and early reformation era, who look upon the Blessed Virgin Mary as having a pure heart**." A citation from Protestant Founders and Theologians in harmony with Early Church and Church Fathers would be a perfect answer.

Colossians 3:22-25 (NIV) states: > 22 Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to curry their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord. 23 Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for human masters, 24 since you know that you will receive an inheritance from the Lord as a reward. It is the Lord Christ you are serving. 25 Anyone who does wrong will be repaid for their wrongs, and there is no favoritism. Atheists on a certain Internet forum used this as an argument that the Bible condones slavery. What is a Christian counterargument to this statement?

In a recent debate between Dr. James White and Dr. Justin Smith , Dr. James White argues for a Trinitarian interpretation of 1 Corinthians 8:6, claiming that Paul deliberately echoes the Shema (“Hear, O Israel: YHWH our God, YHWH is one” – Deut 6:4) and “expands” it. According to this argument, Paul: - Retains the Shema’s monotheistic framework - Identifies “one God” with the Father - Identifies “one Lord (κύριος)” with Jesus Christ - Uses the same κύριος / θεός vocabulary found in the Septuagint rendering of Deut 6:4 This is taken to imply that Paul includes Jesus within the unique divine identity of YHWH, without abandoning Jewish monotheism. **My question is directed to Christians who affirm the doctrine of the Trinity:** **Apart from later creeds or patristic theology, what exegetical and hermeneutical arguments support reading 1 Corinthians 8:6 as a deliberate reworking or “expansion” of the Shema?** More specifically: - Does the immediate literary context of 1 Corinthians 8 support this reading? - What linguistic or intertextual indicators suggest Paul is intentionally alluding to Deuteronomy 6:4? - How should the distinction between “one God, the Father” and “one Lord, Jesus Christ” be understood without collapsing them into modalism or separating them into two gods? Would you agree with Dr. White’s interpretation? If so, on what biblical and contextual grounds, rather than post‑biblical theological developments? If not, what other interpretations of 1 Corinthians 8:6 exist that are in support of the trinity doctrine, and on what biblical and contextual grounds, rather than post‑biblical theological developments?

I have recently met people who are Reformed Baptist. However, I'm having a hard time understanding what their major beliefs are, especially in comparison to other Baptists. The Wikipedia article gives a good overview of the history of the group, but doesn't summarize the major theological beliefs. Do they still hold to the defining Baptist tenet that only adult baptism is valid? Are there other major differences between them?