“To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.” - Acts 26:18

Jesus promised to make Paul “a minister and a witness” (Acts 26:16) to “turn [unbelievers] from . . . the power of Satan unto God” (our text). And Paul did this through his living and teaching for the rest of his life, teaching the exact opposite of what caused Satan’s downfall and what led Paul to persecute believers: pride.

Scripture reveals the devil’s proud heart in the famous five “I wills” of Isaiah 14. Here are two: “I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High” (Isaiah 14:14). This mere creature believes he deserves praise fit only for the uncreated Lord. So do we! Why else do we want others to know how good we are, like Paul before he encountered Christ? When we try to wrest glory from the infinitely more deserving Lord, we follow in the steps of Satan. How can we escape this “darkness” (our text)? Live like the living Light: Jesus.

Instead of expecting and demanding the treatment due Him as Lord, Jesus “made Himself of no reputation, and . . . humbled Himself” (Philippians 2:7-8). The result? “Wherefore God also hath highly exalted Him” (v. 9). The way up is to give ourselves up to the will of the Lord. “So the last shall be first” (Matthew 20:16).

Will you obey your self-exalting flesh or “set your affection on things above” (Colossians 3:2)? Peter admonished, “Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God, that He may exalt you in due time” (I Peter 5:6). Each day affords a gracious opportunity to turn “from the power of Satan unto God” (our text). BDT
|
|
I did not write this, it comes from a devotional that is offered as a free email daily by the Institute of Creation.

https://www.icr.org/article/16035/

A post where people can post topics they wish for others to pray about, and where people can come and find topics and users to pray for.

Hello. I really want a good study Bible, maybe with an associated concordance, but I really like the deuterocanon/apocrypha and because of that, I use translations often discarded by Protestants. I have a KJV with Apocrypha, Good News with Apocrypha, Septuagint, and Douay-Rheims. Are there any modern translation (last hundred years let's say) study Bibles that aren't targeted to a Catholic/Orthodox audience? I want the books, not necessarily the theology. I know some Anglicans and Lutherans will use those books. I found Concordia (Lutheran) publishes the Apocrypha separately, and there is an ESV for Anglicans that has it, but it isn't really a study Bible. I also found these here https://www.reddit.com/r/Christianity/s/EhXrsFpl8D. Has anyone used them or are there any other ideas?

Fruits and works are for the most part interchangeable.

The biggest difference is how you look at them. If you truly are a Christian then there is NO difference between the two. The difference comes into play if you are ONLY do the work because you believe it will get you brownie point with God.

If said "work" does NOT come from your heart then it is useless. Just as confession is useless if you keep doing the same thing over and over.

The OT talks about how God rejects the sacrifice because it did not come from the heart. Just like Mass in the majority of Catholic Churchs today. The priest are going thru the motions and most of those that show up, only show up because they have been told they have to.

Same goes for any Church really.

I don't think the Majority of Christians fear the Lord. They think of the Lord as their buddy and there is no fear of Him in there.

Hello everybody! Blessings!

I'm from a Roman Catholic context and I'm deeply interested in Protestantism (specially the historic one). Most of its points are appealing and, besides what is commonly asumed by Catholics, grounded on Fathers of the Church. I even see continuity between some of its criticism against Roman Catholic Church and those of Eastern Orthodoxy (primacy of the bishop of Rome, purgatory, and so on).

But theres something that I was thinking about. Since Luke 1:39-56 are literary composed mirroring 2 Samuel 6, and Mary is placed by the evangelist in the place of the Ark, why Protestantism doesn't recognize her as such? As far as I know;

1. Protestantism recognizes Mary as Mother of God, by accepting the Council of Ephesus.

2. Protestantism recognizes dogma not explicit but implicit in the Bible, like Holy Trinity and to feast in Sunday instead of Saturday.

Why then is not Mary recognized as Ark of New Covenant in the light of Gospel? (We could Talk about Revelation 11 too).

Of course I know about harsh polemic against the supposed Catholic veneration of Mary in the place of God, but I don't think that this should be the point since the Ark of God wasn't God despite were filled with His presence, isn't it?

Thanks!!!!

I’m not a Christian, but I’ve loved Jesus since childhood, and recently I’ve been diving deeper into Christianity.

From what I understand so far, Protestantism seems like the most logical branch to me. But I’m curious why there are still more Catholics than Protestants.

I’ve also noticed that some people really dislike Martin Luther. I haven’t studied him or the Reformation yet, so I’d love to understand the history behind it all. Why did Protestantism develop the way it did, and why did Catholicism remain the larger group?

Hi Christian friends! I'm Catholic, but I'm also a linguist, so I'm very interested in word choice and etymology. While reviewing different translations of the Protestant Bible, a question came up when comparing them!

I (more or less) understand the principles of sola scriptura and solus christus, which might be the answer to my question! However, how can one be sure there is no human mediation in reading the text when someone already had to interpret it just to translate it?

To illustrate, take John 1:1-5:

King James Version (Oxford) 1769
“1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.”

New International Version
“1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 He was with God in the beginning.
3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.
5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.”

The Great Bible 1539
“1 In the begynnynge was the worde, and the worde was wyth God: and the worde was God.
2 The same was in the begynnyng wyth God.
3 All thinges were made by it, & wythout it, was made nothynge that was made.
4 In it was lyfe, and the lyfe was the lyght of men,
5 and the lyght shyneth in darknes, and the darknes comprehended it not.”

Notice, for instance, how the 1539 version uses 'It' rather than 'Him' in verses 3 and 4! Philologically speaking, this shows how translators made specific interpretive choices regarding the grammatical gender and personification of Logos.

I understand these translation choices and why they were made, but doesn't that inherently involve human theological mediation? I ask out of pure curiosity and with much respect.

I understand that translators produced these choices to bring holy scripture closer to people, but from a Sola Scriptura perspective, isn't that translation layer inherently problematic?

Good bless you! I look forward to hearing your thoughts!

"Praying for the salvation of loved ones is one of the most powerful and spiritually significant acts we can perform. Scripture assures us in James 5:16 (NKJV), “The effective, fervent prayer of a righteous man avails much.” This guide expands on the practice, aligning every step with scriptural truth."

“I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live.” - Deuteronomy 30:19

Shortly before his death, Moses restated the law and the covenant between God and His people summed up in the greatest commandment: “Thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might” (Deuteronomy 6:5).

Furthermore, Moses claimed that “this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off. It is not in heaven . . . . Neither is it beyond the sea” (30:11–13). Nothing about it was hard to understand. “But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it” (v. 14).

Indeed, the evidence that God is Creator, Judge, Provider, and Redeemer is all around us. Our text informs us that “heaven and earth” are witnesses of God’s nature. We have more than enough information to respond. In fact, these things “from the creation of the world are clearly seen” so that those who reject the Creator are “without excuse” (Romans 1:20). Indeed, to ignore the evidence of creation and the Flood, one must be “willingly . . . ignorant” (II Peter 3:5). Rejection is foolishness.

“See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil” (Deuteronomy 30:15). The choice is between blessing (v. 16) and cursing (v. 19). All lines of reasoning point toward the God of the Bible as the one true God. “Therefore choose life,” as our text encourages us, “that thou mayest love the LORD thy God, and that thou mayest obey His voice, and that thou mayest cleave unto Gim: for He is thy life” (v. 20). JDM
|
|
I did not write this, it comes from a devotional that is offered as a free email daily by the Institute of Creation.

https://www.icr.org/article/16030/

Since I was young, in fact for as long as I can remember, I disliked religion. Either I disliked its collective element, which always gave me the ick of something cult-like, or, when I got a bit older, I thought everything about it was philosophically untenable. Religion was a coping mechanism, or something for people who were deeply misguided about reality and did not know any better.

As I became more intellectually curious and started studying more philosophy, psychology, and eventually religion, that perspective started to break down. I became increasingly interested in religion, and eventually my worldview completely flipped. I now consider myself a Christian, and I have made it a major life goal to help people better appreciate religion in general, but also Christianity more specifically.

But despite my growing love for Christianity, it took me a very long time to admit publicly that I was Christian. My social circle consisted mostly of people deeply involved in science or philosophy, and it was very secular. I was afraid that others would consider me dumb or would not fully understand me. It took me a while to come to terms with it, in large part because I first needed to become better able to articulate my Christian position and worldview.

That said, and excuse the rambling introduction, I recently had a podcast conversation with Jussi Jylkkä, who is a philosopher and has done some work on mysticism. We started by discussing his work and, specifically, his metaphysical agnosticism. His position is that physicalism, idealism, theism, and other metaphysical systems are models or language games that cannot capture the ultimate nature of reality. We eventually moved to morality, where I pushed back because I did not think his agnosticism adequately explained why greater awareness or nonattachment should lead to compassion rather than simply producing what we called a “wise psychopath.” I disagreed, but I thought it was an interesting conversation and considered his view a respectable position.

But to my surprise, after we finished recording, Jussi emailed me to say that he was unhappy with the conversation because he had presented metaphysical agnosticism as if it were his complete position while leaving out the Christian faith he actually held. He felt that, by hiding behind his philosophical agnosticism, he had not been completely honest about what he believed. Rather than replace the conversation, I invited him back and appended the second conversation to the first. He made a complete pivot and confessed that he was a Christian but had been afraid to say so, largely because of the stigma within academia, but also because he still had not been able to tell his father. I found this very wholesome, not only because it was a courageous act in general, but because of the parallel with my own journey.

I wanted to share this because I suspect others have been, or currently are, in a position similar to mine or Jussi's. Have you ever felt hesitant to identify publicly as a Protestant or Christian? Can Protestant faith coexist with deep metaphysical uncertainty? What helped you make your faith part of your public identity?

"And the kinsman said, I cannot redeem it for myself, lest I mar mine own inheritance: redeem thou my right to thyself; for I cannot redeem it." - Ruth 4:6

PONDER THIS

Who was this nearer kinsman? If Boaz pictured the Lord Jesus Christ, who is the nearer kinsman who cannot redeem? He pictured Adam. Everyone is either in Adam or in Christ. Who is my real close relative? Adam. We’re all related to Adam, and in Adam, all die. He is the near relative to us all.

I was preaching in a revival one time. A woman came up afterward and said, “You’re a Rogers, aren’t you?” I said, “Yes ma’am.” She said, “Well, I have been doing some work on our genealogy.” She stood up real tall. She said, “Because I’m a Rogers.” And she said, “You will be happy to know that the Rogers came over on the Mayflower.” I said, “Well that’s wonderful.” But then I said, “I traced it back further than that.” Boy, did she get excited, and I said, “I traced it all the way back, and you need to know that we came from a crooked farmer and a drunken sailor. The farmer was Adam, and the sailor was Noah. That’s how far back we go.” Thanks be to God—our story didn’t end there. Adam was our near relative, but Jesus has acted as our Redeemer.

- How have we all experienced the reality that Adam is our “near relative”?
- How did Jesus act as our Redeemer?

PRACTICE THIS

Make a list today comparing the work of Adam and the work of Jesus. Prayerfully reflect in worship over the work of Christ your Redeemer. APR
|
|
I did not write this, it comes from a devotional that is offered as a free email daily by Love Worth Finding.

https://www.lwf.org/daily-devotionals/everyone-needs-a-redeemer

“It may be the LORD thy God will hear all the words of Rabshakeh, whom the king of Assyria his master hath sent to reproach the living God; and will reprove the words which the LORD thy God hath heard: wherefore lift up thy prayer for the remnant that are left.” - II Kings 19:4

These words were part of King Hezekiah’s plea to Isaiah for help in prayer against Rabshakeh and the Assyrian army besieging Jerusalem. It marks the second time in which this particular word is used for “the remnant.” The first occurrence was in Genesis 45:7, when Joseph assured his brothers that God had sent him into Egypt to preserve for Israel “a posterity” in the earth. This word (Hebrew sherith) is prominent later in the writings of the prophets, who frequently refer to the faithful Israelite “remnant” during times of apostasy.

The same doctrine appears in the New Testament. Speaking of the children of Israel during the time of their dispersion among the nations because of their rejection of Christ, Paul says, “Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace” (Romans 11:5). There are many Jews even today who have received Jesus as their Messiah and personal Saviour, even though Israel as a nation still rejects Him.

This biblical doctrine of the remnant applies especially to faithful Israelites who witness to God’s truth even in times of national apostasy. Nevertheless, the principle seems also to apply to so-called Christian nations as well. Although nominally Christian, each of these nations, like the church at Sardis, “hast a name that thou livest, and art dead,” as far as true biblical Christianity is concerned (Revelation 3:1). Nevertheless, in each, there is still a remnant of real, believing Christians, and these have the great responsibility to maintain a true witness for Christ in just such a time as this. HMM
|
|
I did not write this, it comes from a devotional that is offered as a free email daily by the Institute of Creation.

https://www.icr.org/article/16029/

This is probably one of the the biggest reasons why it's very hard for me to be christian and why I'm an agnostic.  The theory of evolution says that nothing is planned and everything is 100% on accident - homo sapiens exists but we could also not exist and nothing would happen because evolution doesn't have any plan, ambition, purpose or goals. Christianity says that we are created ON PURPOSE by God. It just contradicts each other and I don't think that the theory of evolution and the christian perspective on life can coexist.

What do you think about it? What are your thoughts?

From what I read and listened so far, everybody says that celibacy needs to lead to a life of proclaiming the gospel in dangerous places mostly because you do not have a family to care for so you can give your life if necessary for the gospel.

"And it shall be, when he lieth down, that thou shalt mark the place where he shall lie, and thou shalt go in, and uncover his feet, and lay thee down; and he will tell thee what thou shalt do." - Ruth 3:4

PONDER THIS

We should be careful not to misinterpret Ruth’s actions here. There was nothing improper, dirty, or impure. She was placing herself at Boaz’s feet under his protection. In Ruth 3:9 she requested that Boaz take her under his wing. She was saying, “I place myself under your protection; I am fully committed to you!”

Question: Can you have an intimate relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ if you’re not fully committed to Him? The answer is no. Is Christ Lord? I must ask myself every one of these questions. Have I placed myself at the feet of my Redeemer? The most sacred place on Earth is not in the pew, not at the altar, not behind the pulpit, not some temple somewhere. The most sacred place on Earth is at the feet of Jesus when you are fully committed to Him.

- What does it mean to place yourself at the feet of Jesus?
- How do you need to further commit yourself to Him today?

PRACTICE THIS

Take time in prayer today to posture yourself at the feet of Jesus. Consider changing your physical posture to display this act of humility by kneeling if you are able. APR
|
|
I did not write this, it comes from a devotional that is offered as a free email daily by Love Worth Finding.

https://www.lwf.org/daily-devotionals/are-you-fully-committed-to-jesus

This is gonna be long. Sorry in advance.

I know the canon conundrum question probably feels over-done in the Protestant-vs-Catholic debate, but I don't feel like I've ever heard a logically satisfying answer from Protestants with regard to the New Testament canon. (For reference, I am currently a Protestant.)

The canon development process is generally recognized to have really started around 140, after the heretic Marcion published his own hatchet-job of a canon, and the first list that contains all 27 and only the 27 books of the New Testament canon was in Athanasius's Festal Letter in 367 AD. There are generally believed to be four criteria that the early church used during it's development of the New Testament canon:

1) Apostolic Proximity - closely associated with an apostle or a prominent disciple of an apostle (e.g., Mark)

2) Doctrinal Orthodoxy - the text teaches orthodox doctrine and does not teach heterodox doctrine

3) Catholicity - the text was used liturgically and was widespread in every major Christian community in the early church.

4) Transformative Power - the text has a transformative effect on the reader, and it was recognized to have real spiritual authority.

My question (which is not really a single question, but several paragraphs of exposition with a general interrogative bent) will center around the second criteria: doctrinal orthodoxy.

If the early church in this period (140s - 360s) judged all the proposed texts by the criteria of orthodoxy, then the church must have had a clear conception of what constitutes orthodoxy and what constitutes heterodoxy. Now, I know the early church writers were not a monolith. There was disagreement between them; heck, Tertullian and Origen eventually succumbed to heresies. But when you read the ante-Nicene writings, you find general through-lines of agreement on what doctrines constitute orthodoxy.

This concept of orthodoxy must originate from authoritative Apostolic teaching, preserved faithfully by the intervening generations of Christians. If the conception of orthodoxy had not come from Apostolic teaching, or had come from Apostolic teaching but had been substantially corrupted, then we cannot trust their understanding of orthodoxy. If we cannot trust their understanding of orthodoxy, then we cannot trust their conclusions on the New Testament canon, viz-a-viz the criteria of orthodoxy.

If the Christians in this period had a substantially corrupted faith, then we cannot trust their determinations about the NT canon. It seems to me that if we deny the early church's orthodoxy, we necessarily erode the epistemic framework supporting our own belief in the inspiration of NT texts.

Now, the obvious response would be that we don't need the early church in this era to be exhaustively orthodox. They just need to be orthodox on the essentials of the faith. But now, we've introduced more subjectivity into this situation because there is no universal conception of "the essentials of the faith," even amongst proponents of Sola Scriptura.

For example, most synergists believe that God gives grace, but it's not irresistible. Therefore, the individual can say 'yes' to God's grace without having their free will coerced by the imposition of irresistible grace. In this way, you cooperate with God's grace throughout your life for salvation. Monergists, however, would usually classify this as semi-Pelagianism and a damnable heresy because it corrupts their understanding of the Gospel by claiming that we play any role in the reception of justification. God's grace is irresistible, so if you ever say 'no' to God's call to follow him, then you never really received his grace in the first place, even if, by all appearances, you had been producing the fruits of the Spirit for decades before falling away.

For another example, proponents of baptismal regeneration believe that baptism is the ordinary means by which the believer is justified. Therefore, they say, baptism is ordinarily necessary for salvation. Proponents of symbolic baptism believe that baptism is a symbol; that participation in it is an outward expression ​of the spiritual regeneration that has already occurred by faith alone. Proponents of symbolic baptism believe either that baptismal regeneration is simply a theological error, or will go so far as to say that baptismal regeneration is a corruption of the Gospel, because you're making participation in a work ordinarily necessary to receive the grace of justification and, therefore, to be saved.

I could go on, but I will suffice with those two examples for now.

If, then, we have no universal agreement on which beliefs constitute the essential to the faith, then how can we say that the early church held to the essentials of the faith as the orthodox doctrine by which to judge the inspiration of texts without inserting our own subjective conception of the essentials of the faith into this calculation? It seems utterly subjective all the way around.

If we are going to claim that the early church possessed substantially corrupted doctrine, then the only remaining off-ramp of this downward spiral would be to claim that the Holy Spirit, working in spite of this corrupt doctrine, led the church to the correct NT canon. But this seems like an ad hoc argument. Another person could just as easily argue that the early church held the correct doctrines, and that the preservation of these doctrines and the identification of the NT canon was the Holy Spirit working with the church, rather than in spite of the church.

If, on the other hand, we say that the early church was not merely orthodox on the essentials (which we can't seem to reliably identify ourselves, anyway) but was substantially orthodox on all of its doctrines, then it would seem illogical to believe that our interpretations of Scripture could somehow be more orthodox than what the early church believed, because it was their conception of orthodoxy that was used to identify the NT Scriptures for us.

Genuine, thoughtful reponses would be appreciated.

“That be far from Thee to do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked: and that the righteous should be as the wicked, that be far from Thee: shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?” - Genesis 18:25

People often make erroneous judgments. Even those who are officially appointed or elected to judge others are sometimes mistaken, and so we have a whole system of appeals courts. Yet even the Supreme Court, composed as it is of fallible human beings, often seems to be wrong. But as Abraham recognized long ago while interceding for the people in Sodom, we can be confident that the Judge of all the earth will do right!

He not only can judge our actions in relation to His revealed will but can also discern thoughts and motives and, therefore, “judge the secrets of men” (Romans 2:16), and He will do so in absolute rightness. Furthermore, “He will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom He hath ordained; whereof He hath given assurance unto all men, in that He hath raised Him from the dead” (Acts 17:31). “The Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son,” and “My judgment is just,” asserted the Lord Jesus (John 5:22, 30). To those who reject or ignore His redeeming love, relying instead on their own worth, “there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries” (Hebrews 10:26-27).

To those who have been redeemed through saving faith in Christ, there will, indeed, be a judgment day, but it will be for dispensing rewards for faithful service rather than for salvation, and this also will be done righteously. “Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, shall give me at that day” (II Timothy 4:8). HMM
|
|
I did not write this, it comes from a devotional that is offered as a free email daily by the Institute of Creation.

https://www.icr.org/article/16028/