During much of the 20th century "Fundamentalism" was serious movement in Christianity. According to Britannica: > The term fundamentalist was coined in 1920 to describe conservative > Evangelical Protestants who supported the principles expounded in The > Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth (1910–15), a series of 12 > pamphlets that attacked modernist theories of biblical criticism and > reasserted the authority of the Bible. Fundamentalism affirmed principles such as biblical inerrancy and the truth of Christian doctrines such as the Trinity, the incarnation, physical resurrection, the rapture and the Second Coming. It grew up in particular opposition to modernist ideas like Evolution, in the wake of Scopes "Monkey Trial." It also became influential in politics through movements such as Jerry Falwell's Moral Majority. It seems to me, however, that the term has fallen out of favor, especially as a result of Islamic fundamentalism and its terrorist political ramifications. Indeed, I found only two questions in this entire site with titles including the word "fundamentalism" or "fundamentalist." Questions: Do fundamentalists, still use that term to describe themselves? Would it be offensive these days to call an anti-modernist Evangelical Christian a "fundamentalist?"

God's name for himself is a form of "I AM", and he is referred to by a form of "HE IS" (YHWH), as in **Exodus 3:13-14**: > **13**… The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? what shall I say unto them? **14**And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you. When Jesus used the expression, the Jewish leaders wanted to kill him for blasphemy, as described in **John 8:58-59**: > **58**Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. > **59**Then took they up stones to cast at him … In comic strips and animated cartoons, the character Popeye frequently said: > I YAM WHAT I YAM AN' THA'S ALL THAT I YAM or some variation thereof. When it first appeared (1933 or perhaps earlier) did anyone protest that this expression was blasphemous?

Until now I have found the following end times Bible passages: - Daniel 7,8,10,11,12 - Joel 2:28-32 - Matthew 24 - Mark 13 - Luke 21:5-36 - 2 Peter 3:1-13 - 1 Corinthians 15:12-58 - 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 - 1 Thessalonians 5:1-11 - 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12 - 1 Timothy 4:1-5 - 2 Timothy 3:1-9 - Revelation 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 Are there any others?

Both Orthodox and Catholic Christians believe and affirm that the Blessed Virgin Mary is the ***ark of the new covenant***, but is there a scriptural basis for this and if so where do we see this in the Old or the New Testament?

I was looking up some stuff and noticed that multiple sources claim that the Catholics and Orthodox have a different view on the "first sin" or "original sin". - There is this answered question within the exchange. Which is what I've found through research as well. - As the Catechism says, “original sin is called ‘sin’ only in an analogical sense: it is a sin ‘contracted’ and not ‘committed’—a state and not an act” (CCC 404). - The Council of Carthage (418) is considered Ecumenical by the Orthodox Church, and it contained the doctrine of "Original Sin"... so no issue here. - Instead of original sin, which is used in Western Christianity, the Orthodox Church uses the term ancestral sin to describe the effect of Adam’s sin on mankind. We do this to make one key distinction; we didn’t sin in Adam (as the Latin mistranslation of Romans 5:12 implies). Rather we sin because Adam’s sin made us capable of doing so. The Greek word for sin, amartema, refers to an individual act, indicating that Adam and Eve alone assume full responsibility for the sin in the Garden of Eden. The Orthodox Church never speaks of Adam and Eve passing guilt on to their descendants, as did Augustine. Instead, each person bears the guilt of his or her own sins. (Saint John the evangelist orthodox church ) - The OCA website claims the "West" understand the doctrine of Original guilt. It is possible they meant the protestants and not the Catholics, but in my experience the Western Church is usually the catholics. - There is the OrthoCuban website who provides a summary, but perhaps it is just the authors flawed understanding of the words used? ------------- As the two churches appear to be still maintaining that there is a difference between Original Sin and Ancestral/First Sin... what exactly is the difference? Because as far as I can tell, there seems to be no difference. Both the catholics and orthodox churches say we suffer the consequences of the first sin, not the guilt. I think the difference is that the Catholic Church defines sin as a violation, and for the Orthodox sin is the separation from God. Is that the issue?

Some Baptists and many other evangelicals use grape juice in communion. Is this explained on any catechism (or systematic theology available online) ? Does the reason for not using wine have to do with keeping oneself pure or the moral problems with alcohol?

In his book *In the Beginning*, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger wrote the following with regards to the pre-Pauline hymn of Phil 2:5-11: > We cannot consider this extraordinarily rich and profound text [Phil > 2:5-11] in detail. We want to limit ourselves here to its connection > with the story of the Fall, even though **it seems to have a somewhat > different version in mind** than the one that is related in Genesis 3 > (cf., e.g., Job 15:7-8). What is the account of the Fall presumed by Phil 2:5-11? And what is the account of the Fall related in Job 15:7-8? More over, are there other places where the Bible gives an account of original sin (either explicitly or implicitly)? If this question is too involved, I would be satisfied by any book/article recommendations.

**Has the Mass ever been translated and said in Sanskrit?** I remember reading some years ago about this possibility in Rome, by some Jesuit scholars, but can not find any sources to affirm that it has been done... As we know, Sanskrit is the sacred language of Hinduism, the language of classical Hindu philosophy, and of historical texts of Buddhism and Jainism. Sanskrit is also considered by many as the oldest language in the world. I believe that this would be a great evangelizing tool in the countries such as India and Tibet (China). Thus my question: **Has the Catholic Mass (in any Rite) ever been translated and said in Sanskrit?**

Many denominations may believe they are right. Likewise multiple religions sincerely believe they are right. But does God require one to join a denomination? Or does he emphasize the importance of Christlike living and the study of his word?

I've been studying how the biblical creation & re-creation in Genesis, from Adam to Noah, foreshadows the Exodus. For instance, Noah is of the 10th generation of mankind. The Hebrews were slaves in Egypt for 400 years = 40 x 10 = 10 generations if we assume 40 years per generation. 10 generations of the righteous line appears to represent a certain fullness of time, after which God enacts judgement. Anyways, what I am interested in for this post is the year of the flood (beginning and/or end) and the significance thereof. Genesis is careful to document what year each person was born in, in terms of the age of their father, up through and including Noah. It also tells us that the flood began in Noah's 600th year - and even specifies the month and day. From my calculations, it looks like the flood began in the year 1656 (from creation) and ended in 1657 (from creation). Off hand, I don't see the significance of either number. Yet, why would the author of Genesis be so specific about these dates if there were no meaning to it? Please share your insights :)

In Acts 10:15 a voice comes to Peter in a trance, saying, "What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy." Is this abrogation of the law?

Charity admits degrees (cf. St. Thomas Aquinas in *On Love and Charity* and *Summa Theologica* II-II q. 24 a. 4 - a. 10 ). Has any theologian explained if it is possible to measure one's degree of charity? If so, how can it be measured?

**How is the fact that Anglican Bishop Sarah Mullally is to become the first women to be the Archbishp of Canterbury and Primate of All England affected Anglicanism?** Are there any serious theological worries about this nomination that is going to take place on January 28,2026? [Dame Sarah Elizabeth Mullally](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Mullally)

According to this analysis, choosing the Sola Scriptura approach is the "safest best" Where could this logic fall apart, and what are your counterarguments?

In the beginning of Jesus's ministry, the Pharisees were angered at Jesus but were afraid of what the crowd thought if they were to arrest Jesus. "They looked for a way to arrest him, but they were afraid of the crowd because the people held that he was a prophet." Matthew 21:46. So, it makes me wonder how they mustered up the courage to arrest Jesus if he became more and more popular. How did they know that if they were to arrest Jesus, the crowd wouldn't turn against them after the display of the crowd just laying down palm trees when Jesus arrived in Jerusalem singing "Hosanna to the Son of David!"?

Some disagree on whether a Christian in this life may fall utterly and lose or forfeit eternal life. However, most Christians do agree that after death, the Christian is eternally secure in heaven (or the new earth). And this seems to be well supported in Scripture: > **[John 10:28](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john+10%3A28&version=ESV)** (ESV) > 28 A)"> I give them eternal life, and B)"> they will never perish, and C)"> no one will snatch them out of my hand. > > **[Revelation 21:4](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=revelation+21%3A4&version=ESV)** (ESV) > 4 A)"> He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and B)"> death shall be no more, C)"> neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away.” So it seems clear that Christians could not be susceptible to another Fall . My question is, Why? What is the fundamental reason why Christians would not be susceptible to another Fall or rebellion against God? *Please answer from a Protestant, non-Calvinist perspective.* ---------- ### Possible responses I have considered ### > There will be no law, and thus no concept of sin *But wouldn't rebellion against God would be considered sin, even apart from a "law"?* > After death we no longer have a sin nature, and are thus incapable of sin *But weren't Adam and Eve created without a sin nature, and yet sinned?* > Satan will be vanquished, unable to tempt us *But didn't Lucifer rebel without being externally tempted? If we are unable to rebel without a tempter, that implies that we will have less free will than Lucifer and the angels had.* > We will be unable to sin, either through lack of free will, or prevention by God *The argument that I usually use and hear for the existence of free will is that God would rather have willful obedience than robotic obedience. Is God then hedging on this preference for the sake of our eternal souls?* > We have already been atoned for by Christ, so if we were to sin, it could not be counted against us *This allows for sin in heaven, which I can't buy. It contradicts Revelation 21:4 for one thing, and makes heaven imperfect*

The book of Esther is included in both the Jewish canon and Christian canons of all denominations. However, it seems to have enjoyed a questionable status for much longer than any other of the now-accepted writings. For example, it is the only Old Testament book not to be found at Qumran, it is one of the few OT books not referenced by Sirach, it is omitted from Melito of Sardis's canon, and Athanasius also expressly categorized it with the Apocrypha as useful but not canonical. Jerome, whose opinion is often cited by Protestants in discussions of the canon, counted Esther as canonical but not the deuterocanonical books (although it seems he changed his opinion on the deuterocanonical books at some point in his career). I haven't read Jerome's comments myself but, usually his reason is explained to be that the canonical books were the ones where the Hebrew manuscripts still existed while the others were only preserved in Greek (or were composed in Greek). However, Jerome seems to have known of Hebrew manuscripts of 1st Maccabees, so there must be something else going on to distinguish it from Esther. Protestants usually cite as the main criterion for OT canonicity some prophetic authority guaranteeing the divine inspiration of a book. However, Esther has no association with the prophets, unlike any other book of the Protestant OT canon. However, Esther was included in the canon by the Council of Rome (382) and by all subsequent streams of Christian thought. Why? What reasoning lead the Church to set aside the doubts specifically about the book of Esther that apparently had existed for quite a while prior? **This is a historical question.** I am not asking why it is included in the canon by Protestants or Catholics today, but rather why it was included starting in the 4th century, i.e. **why the doubt which originally surrounded the book was cleared up.**

Thomas Cranmer's 42 Articles has Article 10: "those that have no will to good things, he makes them to will, and those that would evil things he makes them not to will the same." Does the C. of E. have an official definition of free will, or what might be the nearest it gets to having one?

> "Intercession is the act of using your influence to make someone in authority forgive someone else or save them from punishment" - [*Cambridge Dictionary*](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/intercession) . > "Intercession definition: Entreaty in favor of another, especially a prayer or petition to God in behalf of another" - [*YourDictionary*](https://www.yourdictionary.com/intercession) . For an act to be "intercession", the intercessor must believe there is a possibility that the act will cause God to act differently than He would have without the intercession. > "The only thing that makes sense is that Jesus must share in God’s divine nature. If that is not the case, then God has either contradicted himself or changed his mind, and he does neither of those things." - from the article "[*What Does It Mean to Be a Trinitarian?*](https://www.christianity.com/wiki/christian-terms/what-mean-to-be-trinitarian.html) " at the Christianity.com website. > "Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities; for we know not what we should pray for as we ought, but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered" - Romans 8:26 (KJV) > "Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us" - Romans 8:34 (KJV) **Do Trinitarians redefine "intercession"?** I understand that, instead, they could take the Greek words translated "intercession" and translate them differently. Or they could say that God's changing His action because of an intercession does not constitute His changing His mind. *[Entugchano](https://biblehub.com/greek/1793.htm)* One thing I have learned from leading Biblical word studies is, "If you want to discuss *agape*, refer to it as *agape*, not as 'love'". This time it bit me. I forgot the first line of Paul's answer and thought he was discussing "intercession" when apparently he was discussing *[Entugchano](https://biblehub.com/greek/1793.htm)* , instead. - Also see Strongs & similar [here](https://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Lexicon.show/ID/G1793/entugchano.htm) and [here](https://www.billmounce.com/greek-dictionary/entynchano) and [here](https://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/kjv/entugchano.html)

I am currently working on a project devoted to the thoughts of the Curé of Ars (St. John Vianney) on various topics. One of the topics is *scruples*. St. Alphonsus Liguori, for instance, has this to say about scruples itself: > A conscience is scrupulous when, for a frivolous reason and without rational basis, there is a frequent fear of sin even though in reality there is no sin at all. A scruple is a defective understanding of something. St. Philip Neri seemed to have a fair amount to say on the subject, including > The scrupulous should remit themselves always and in everything to the judgment of their confessor, and accustom themselves to have a contempt for their own scruples. And he offered the following advice to those pestered by scruples: > If those who are molested by scruples wish to know whether they have consented to a suggestion or not, especially in thoughts, they should see whether, during the temptation, they have always had a lively love to the virtue opposed to the vice in respect of which they were tempted, and hatred to that same vice, and this is mostly a good proof that they have not consented. and > When a scrupulous person has once made up his mind that he has not consented to a temptation, he must not reason the matter over again to see whether he has really consented or not, for the same temptations often return by making this sort of reflection. However, when I searched, for example, the various sermons and catechetical instructions of the Curé of Ars, I could find nothing along these lines. In fact, I could find nothing at all in which anything directly regarding *scruples* in the above sense is even mentioned. St. John Vianney, has, however, used the word in a slightly different sense on several occasions; when, for example, he says: > My children, you make a scruple of missing holy Mass, because you commit a great sin in missing it by your own fault ; but you have no scruple in missing an instruction. and also, > He [lukewarm Christian] has few scruples in cutting out, on the least pretext, the Asperges and the prayers before Mass. But, alas, I can find nothing regarding his having addressed *scruples* specifically as a spiritual disease. I have consulted his definitive biography by Trochu, and all I could find in there regarding scruples as a disease, is a reference that Trochu makes in regards to St. Benedict Labre en route to receiving the hospitality of the Vianney household when St. John Vianney was a little boy: > Tortured by scruples, Benoit Labre had just left the Trappist monastery of Sept-Fonds, where he had been a novice under the name of Brother Urban. He had now acquired a certainty that his vocation was to be a wayfarer for the remainder of his life, so he set out for Rome. His first halt was at Paray-le-Monial, where he paid long visits to the chapel of the Apparitions. From Paray he journeyed to Lyons, but rather than enter the city at nightfall he chose to spend the night at Dardilly. On observing a number of poor persons going to the house of Pierre Vianney, he went along with them. QUESTION: Does anyone know if the Curé of Ars had had anything to say about the disease of *scruples* directly, perhaps along the lines of the Liguori and Neri quotes provided above; and if so, what are they or where I may find them? (The sources I have used, for the most part, are in English. Perhaps there is something in the French in which the subject is directly addressed?) Thank you.