texts: I believe the tradition of communion stems from the last supper Jesus had with his disciples.  Jesus had the last supper with just his 12 disciples, not all of his followers.  Does this mean that only priests should take communion, or should we assume that all followers should take communion, and if so why should we assume this from what is written?


texts:
The Catholic Encyclopaedia seems to suggest that the Church chose this day because it was the day of the Roman celebration: Dies Natalis Solis Invicti — the birthday of Sol Invictus, (the God of the unconquered sun) — which coincided with the Roman winter solstice.

Another source mentions Saturnalia.

  Researchers believe the Roman Catholic Church settled on Dec. 25 for many reasons, such as that date's ties to the winter solstice and Saturnalia, a festival dedicated to the Roman deity Saturn.

Linking Jesus to the Sun was supported by various Biblical passages. Jesus was considered to be the "Sun of righteousness" prophesied by Malachi 4:2

  Unto you shall the sun of righteousness arise, and healing is in his wings.

and apparently, Jesus' birth could actually have been on March 28th.

  An anonymous work known as De Pascha Computus (243) linked the idea that creation began at the spring equinox, on March 25, with the conception or birth (the word nascor can mean either) of Jesus on March 28, the day of the creation of the sun in the Genesis account. One translation reads: "O the splendid and divine providence of the Lord, that on that day, the very day, on which the sun was made, March 28, a Wednesday, Christ should be born.

How do Catholics respond to claims that Christianity was paganised by the Roman Empire?


texts: When is the end of the Christmas season for Latin Rite Catholics?

texts:
When does Christmas really end for Catholics?  I know it starts different for most Eastern Orthodox, but for Latin Rite Catholics, like myself, I don't know when it actually is supposed to end. At the very least I know it's over by Ash Wednesday, but there there seem to be very real reasons to celebrate from

December 25 - January 1st (the octave of Christmas, ending with the Solemnity of Mary, Mother of God)
December 25 - January 6th (the 12 days of Christmas, ending with the Epiphany)
December 25 - February 2nd (40 day celebration, ending with the Presentation)

So, I guess the real question is who has the stamina to party Catholic style for 40 days, especially after the hubbub leading up to Christmas, but in a liturgical sense, when does the Christmas season end?


texts:
In Genesis 1 it says "Let us.."
So how many persons have to be it at least? At least two or at least three?


texts: What exactly did Matthew mean when he is talking about Jesus' brothers in Matthew 12:46? From Matthew 12:49, its clear that he didn't mean Jesus' disciples as his brothers. So who are the Jesus' brothers mentioned there?


texts: LDS expected future relationship with God after exaltation

texts:
The LDS concept of exaltation states that

  As man is, God once was; as God is, man may become.

(A quote by the LDS Prophet Lorenzo Snow, from here)

The question I wanted to ask is, do Mormons have an expectation on how their relationship with God will be after they have been exalted?

More specifically, if they will become equal to God in glory, is the expectation that they will at that point cease to worship God?

(From a selfish technical point of view there certainly would not seem to be any need to worship God after that point as the reward will have been received, assuming that it cannot somehow be revoked.)


texts: Why do we have to go to organized institutions to practice our beliefs?

texts:
I believe in God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit.  People insist on going to church to express these feelings, beliefs, etc.  Why are religious institutions necessary?

My personal experiences with Church is people putting on a show in a public place.  People act all holy at church but when they are in public and not in church, they don't express their beliefs all the time.  Matthew 10:33- But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven This applies to these people.

I believe that if you are a good person, if you believe in God, and you don't deny him, you will go to Heaven. So this brings me to my question, Why do we have organized places of worship to practice our beliefs?  Can someone give me bible verses that say that these religious institutions are holy places, and this is where you should go to worship?

I am not trying to offend anyone, I am just trying to be informed. If you feel like I am offending you, please feel free to down vote me.


texts: What is the discerning of spirits in 1 Cor. 12:10? It seems that it is a bit different from the trying of spirits in 1 John 4:1 as there John gives a particular method as to how to try them and find out whether they are from God or not. Also, John seems to address every believer in his epistle, whereas in 1 Corinthians 12:10 Paul says that the gift of discerning spirits is given only to some believers (to "another").


texts: Why did Aquinas place so much credence in Aristotle?

texts:
Many of Aquinas' proofs are based on Aristotle's writings. But, why did Aquinas rely so heavily on Aristotle? Science proves that Aristotle sometimes erred in his own writings. For example, Aristotle wrote (On the History of Animals, Book I, Sec. 15) that humans had eight ribs on each side,

Common to the upper and lower part of the trunk are the ribs, eight on either side...
Κοινὸν δὲ τοῦ ἄνω καὶ κάτω τοῦ θώρακος πλευραί, ἑκατέρωθεν ὀκτώ...


texts: Is Jesus eternally the Son of God the Father?

texts:
Throughout scripture Jesus is identified as the “only begotten of the Father”.   Is Jesus eternally the Only Begotten of the Father or did He become the Son at His incarnation?

Scripture to me seems clear that Jesus is eternally the begotten of the Father, which imposes an eternal "family" dynamic within the Godhead.  Do Christians generally agree with this perspective and if not how do they view the sonship of Christ?


texts: What does the Roman Catholic Church teach about covenant theology?

texts:
In Reformed theology, there are summary theological constructs termed the covenant of works, the covenant of grace, and the covenant of redemption. In short, the covenant of works encompasses the path to salvation through perfectly obeying God. The covenant of grace is the path to salvation whereby believers are covered by the blood of Christ, who keeps the covenant of works on our behalf. And the covenant of redemption is between Christ and the Father, where Christ agrees to pay for the sins of his people.

Is there any similar or different version of covenant theology in the RCC? What does the RCC teach about the explicitly mentioned covenants in the Bible, e.g. the covenants with Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, and the New Covenant and Old Covenant that the NT and Jeremiah talk about?


texts: Do any Protestants teach that everyone really knows God according to Romans 1:21?

texts:
For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.
  (Romans 1:21, English Standard Version, ESV, Emphasis mine)

Are there Protestant denominations that teach that everyone knows God to some extent or do they teach that Paul is referring to Jews or Christians only?


texts: Do Catholics believe in other apparitions like Mary? Or is she unique in this respect?

texts:
From the outside looking in, it appears that the Catholic believe that Mary has and does appear to people somewhat frequently. It seems to be called "apparitions" .

You read more about them on this page: Marian Apparitions (Wikipedia).

Is this unique to Mary? Or does Paul and company make appearances also? Maybe others who are not known by name from the Bible.

Obviously, individuals can claim they see any number of things, but It is my understanding that the Catholic Church has "vouched" for many of these appearances.

My question is thus: Is Mary Unique in this regard?


texts: What is the Biblical basis for baby dedications?

texts:
Many churches do not practice infant baptisms, because they believe that in the Bible baptism is taught to be something done after a person chooses to follow Christ.

As an alternative, many of those churches practice "baby dedications."  A baby dedication is not a baptism (there is no water involved).  It's more like a public pledge by the parents to raise their babies in the Lord.

What Biblical basis or precedent is cited for this practice?


texts: How do opponents of penal substitutionary atonement theory handle Isaiah 53?

texts:
How do opponents of the penal substitution theory of atonement handle Isaiah 53?
This seems to describe penal substitution quite well:

53:4 Surely he took up our pain
and bore our suffering,
yet we considered him punished by God,
stricken by him, and afflicted.
5 But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was on him,
and by his wounds we are healed.
6 We all, like sheep, have gone astray,
each of us has turned to our own way;
and the Lord has laid on him
the iniquity of us all. (Isaiah 53:4-6, NIV)


texts: Did God really create the world in six days?

texts:
According to a well-known biblical tale from Genesis told to me when I was a child, God created the world in six days, then took a rest on the seventh day. Now that I am an adult, I can't help wondering what this six days even means. What does 'time' mean to someone like God? How long were those six days if there is no way for anyone to measure it? Also, time is defined in terms of physical processes which are regular, e.g. the current definition physicists use is

  The second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom.

It seems to me that time not only can't be measured, but has no meaning before the universe was created. How should we interpret this tale of creation?


texts: Connection between the serpent in the garden of Eden and the brass serpent

texts: We are told in the Bible that the serpent deceived Adam and Eve and that same serpent was used by Moses as sign of healing to those were bitten by snakes in the wilderness. What is the significance of the serpent in the bible in connection to the faith of a believer?


texts: Does every denomination / sect have a catechism?

texts:
In Lutheranism, there's the Small Catechism, Large Catechism, and the Book of Concord, with each book in series getting much larger and having more specific doctrinal material.  Even though the practicing theology of Lutherans spans crazy extremes, even the pastor who may be pushing the envelope against traditional doctrines is nonetheless apt to teach the Small Catechism to his or her students with pride.

Does every major faith tradition in Christianity ultimately have a catechism?


texts: What are the differences between the ELCA and UCC?

texts: Looking for a church community for me and my child, young adult college age. So far trying to decide between ELCA (Evangelical Lutheran Church in America) and UCC (United Church of Christ). What are the differences between these two communities?


texts: Why does Humanae Vitae not mention involuntary celibates/singles?

texts: I was reading Humanae Vitae today and noticed that there's no section for people who want to date and get married (involuntary singles/celibates), but women never give them a chance to go on a date with them. Why does the Catholic Church seem forget about this group? The Catholic Church says that marriage is a choice of free will, but some are not given a chance to meet someone and go on dates despite how hard they try to meet someone, when beyond their inability to date they're normal completely.


texts: What theological differences distinguish the Three-Self Patriotic Movement and the house church movement in China?

texts:
State-sanctioned Protestant Christianity in China — the Three-Self Patriotic Movement — is a bit of a mystery to me. I'm wondering to what extent the Communist Party censors the Christianity taught therein. This is a difficult question for this site (due to the lack of an accepted "orthodoxy"), so I'm trying to get at that by looking at objections raised by the "other Christians" in China. A 2017 article from The Gospel Coalition states:

  Yes, Christianity in China is legal, and yes, churches can meet publicly under the TSPM banner. But this comes with consequences. The TSPM reserves the right to censor and control their churches to the extent they deem necessary and appropriate.

  Granted, things used to be much worse than they are in 2017. In days past, certain biblical books were forbidden as texts of exposition (mainly end-time ones like Daniel and Revelation), evangelism wasn’t allowed, the gospel couldn’t be boldly proclaimed, and so on.

Apparently the teaching isn't so restricted now, although the idea that "real Christians" in China are underground is still widely circulated among expatriate Chinese Christians, and the house church movement there is still going strong. Are there specific doctrinal issues that have been raised in objection to TSPM that fuel the ongoing house church movement?

I realize that everything in China is ambiguous and the answer probably varies by region, city, and individual churches, but I'm hoping that specific evidence can be adduced from the testimony of Christian leaders who have objected to TSPM teachings.

Note: this was a difficult question for me to figure out how to ask on this site, but I think it's an important topic that is oddly missing from C.SE as far as I have been able to find. (I'm hereby rescuing the tag china, but also I kind of think the tag three-self-patriotic-movement deserves to exist...) If others have ideas about how this can be edited to better fit the format of this site, please do help.


texts: Is a moral society more open to the gospel than an immoral one?

texts:
One of the answers to Why do many Christians object to same-sex civil marriage? got me thinking.  If we work to make the common morals of our society more in line with Biblical morality does that make the members of our society more open to the gospel?

There's no doubt that an immoral society is more likely to be antagonistic or even hostile to the gospel.

We could argue that a moral society is more likely to be tolerant of the gospel, but then again that could turn into a real argument.  The Jewish society of Jesus's day was very moral, but it was the religious leaders (presumably with strong morals) that had Him killed.

As Christians, wouldn't our lives present a greater contrast to an immoral society? Wouldn't we stand out more in that setting and thereby attract more attention to the gospel as a real alternative to the status quo?

Members of a society with basically Christian morals won't see much difference between themselves and Christians.  Does that lack of contrast make them more or less likely to accept the gospel?

Note that by "accept the gospel", I'm thinking in evangelical terms of accepting by faith and being a "new creature" as Paul describes in 2 Corinthians 5:17:

  Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come.


texts:
Yesterday crossed this article which has a strong stand against something called "nominal Christianity".
From reading the article, I couldn't understand some points I'd like clarification in

what "nominal Christianity" really is

the problems with it

which terminology a Christian ought to use/follow instead


texts: What does the Bible say about people who see dead people?

texts: I have a friend who sees people who have passed away. She can see, hear, and talk to them. This isn't fake, she really can. She recently told me that she sees my deceased grandfather at our ball games. She cannot see her mother who died a few years ago, which frustrates her. She isn't religious. Does the Bible say anything about this? Is this absolutely impossible? What does this mean about the people she sees, like my grandfather? Some would say that he hasn't crossed over into the after world. I'm almost positive he was saved though. Thanks.


texts: What is the biblical basis for the forgiveness of sins for very evil persons?

texts: LDC asked this question before; it was down voted 8 times before it was closed, probably because of a provocative title and lack of a specific question. My editing of his question is: what are the biblical bases for forgiveness of sins and heaven available to evil persons such as Hitler, serial killers and ISIS terrorists? Is it as simple as just asking for forgiveness only? Thank you for you patient answer.


texts: What is the easy and less complicated definition of predestination [Calvinism]?

texts: I am finding it difficult to understand the Calvinistic ideas of limited atonement and predestination. Does limited atonement mean that only a chosen people called the elect will attain salvation? If yes, will they all be Christians and/or non-Christians as well? How do I know that I am among the elect or not? If everything is predestined, then why preaching the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ is necessary? All these ideas just confuses me, please help, but from the Calvinistic Presbyterian point of view and a Biblical basis as well.


texts: Have the dietary prohibitions of Acts 15:20 been applied to Christians today?

texts:
An answer to this question references Acts 15:20, which says --

  (19) Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, (20) but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood. (21) For from ancient generations Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues.”

James, in the presence of "[t]he apostles and the elders," (verse six) is talking about what he believes should be required of Gentiles that wanted to join the disciplines.

In Christianity, are there any formal, historical doctrinal statements -- creeds, canons, catechisms, confessions, etc. -- that specifically address dietary regulations such as those found in Acts 15:20?

My current understanding is informed by passages like Acts 10:9-16, 1Cor 10:23-33, and the manifold passages that tell us that Christians are not under the law.

Note the distinction between this question, which asks about regulations for consumption, and the referenced question, which asks about regulations for slaughter. I'll leave it to the moderators to determine whether the two are similar enough to close the present question.


texts: Does Scripture mention whether it rained before the flood?

texts:
I've often heard it said that the flood of Noah was the first time that the earth experienced rain. This is the passage people use:

  Genesis 2:5-6 ESV When no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up—for the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the land, and there was no man to work the ground, and a mist was going up from the land and was watering the whole face of the ground

Is this saying that it didn't rain at all until Noah's time, or just in the creation week? The flood didn't happen for over 1000 years after creation--that's a lot of time to not have any rain. Is there more scripture that adds credence to the argument that there was no rain before the flood? Is there scripture that says otherwise?


texts: Were any popes or patriarchs converts to Christianity?

texts:
The Biblical Peter was an adult when Jesus began his ministry, and thus ranks among the earliest converts to Christianity.  Roman Catholics hold that Peter was also the first pope.  Are any subsequent popes known or suspected to have been converts?

More generally, among the historical popes and patriarchs of the apostolic sees, were any of them (other than the founding apostles themselves) believed to be converts?


texts:
This says:

  Smoking in moderation is not a sin at all (CCC 2290).

The statement "Smoking in moderation is not a sin at all" can be found elsewhere like here and somewhere there.

I have two concerns on that statement.

First concern: But what about CCC 2291?

  Respect for health

  2288 Life and physical health are precious gifts entrusted to us by
  God. We must take reasonable care of them, taking into account the
  needs of others and the common good.

  Concern for the health of its citizens requires that society help in
  the attainment of living-conditions that allow them to grow and reach
  maturity: food and clothing, housing, health care, basic education,
  employment, and social assistance.

  2289 If morality requires respect for the life of the body, it does
  not make it an absolute value. It rejects a neo-pagan notion that
  tends to promote the cult of the body, to sacrifice everything for
  it's sake, to idolize physical perfection and success at sports. By
  its selective preference of the strong over the weak, such a
  conception can lead to the perversion of human relationships.

  2290 The virtue of temperance disposes us to avoid every kind of
  excess: the abuse of food, alcohol, tobacco, or medicine. Those incur
  grave guilt who, by drunkenness or a love of speed, endanger their own
  and others' safety on the road, at sea, or in the air.

  2291 The use of drugs inflicts very grave damage on human health and
  life. Their use, except on strictly therapeutic grounds, is a grave
  offense. Clandestine production of and trafficking in drugs are
  scandalous practices. They constitute direct co-operation in evil,
  since they encourage people to practices gravely contrary to the moral
  law.

Smoking involves drugs such as marijuana or nicotine right? So how can smoking be permitted under non-medical circumstances?

I operate under CCC 2291 not prohibiting drinking coffee in moderation as caffeine, while it is a drug, is GRAS and CCC 2291 instead referring to drugs that have or should have government warnings or prescriptions from doctors.

Second concern: The Catholic Church is against masturbation, but it seems to me that smoking is worse than masturbation.


texts: Does Jewish tradition predate Christian tradition in any meaningful way?

texts:
Many people assume that because Judaism is the super ancient religion and Christianity relatively modern, although ancient by any standards, that if someone wants to dig up some meaningful bit of Jewish history or Jewish tradition, even as it relates to Christianity, then the best source would be a Jewish scholar.

In one way at least, I know that Christians have preserved Jewish traditions in a way that the Jews were incapable of doing, because of the diaspora and the splits in their culture and heritage. Public sacrifice is an instance where the Jews have essentially lost a central part of their religion with the desecration of the temple.  I understand some have traditions that supplant the sacrifices mentioned in the Torah, but it's Christianity which preserved sacrifice as the central aspect of her liturgy.

But would modern Jewish Scholars really have any reason for knowing how to pronounce (or translate) their own language any better than modern Christian Scholars and are Rabbinical interpretations of scripture more ancient or authoritative than Christian interpretations?


texts: What are the main points of dissent between Cyril of Alexandria and John Chrysostom?

texts: What were the main differences or points of dissent between Cyril of Alexandria and John Chrysostom? Can anyone give a summary, please?


texts:
The wise men are commonly thought of as three men, each bearing a gift for the baby Jesus. When in fact the scriptures don't indicate exactly how many wise men there were, only what gifts they brought. There could have be four, five, or more wise men that each brought either gold, frankincense, or myrrh. Or, there may have only been two wise men, and both of them could have given the Christ child three gifts.

  "¶And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child
  with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they
  had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and
  frankincense, and myrrh." (Matt 2:11)

Is there any indication that there were more or less than exactly three wise men? Or has it always just been assumed that the fact they brought three gifts indicates there were three men? If so, when did this association begin?


texts: What is the Adventist response to Justin Martyr?

texts:
Justin Martyr described Christians worshiping on Sunday twice in his first apology.

And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place
But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly.

This document cannot be dated any later than 165 since the author died at 165.
In the great controversy Ellen G White claims that for at least the first 2 hundred years, Sunday worship was unheard of by Christians.

In the first centuries the true Sabbath had been kept by all Christians

Ellen G White's and Justin Martyr's account of Christian history clearly contradict each other. How do Seventh-day Adventists respond to Justin Martyr's claims?


texts: In LDS belief, why are eternal families so important?

texts:
I know that the family is central to God's plan, and that families give you more joy in life than anything else ever could. But I've often wondered why it is necessary for everyone to be sealed together?

I know the classroom answers. We teach in the LDS church that families can be together forever, sealed together by the power of the priesthood under the blessings of the temple, but why is that necessary? Why do we need to be sealed to our children and to our parents when in the beginning we were already part of an eternal family; sons and daughters of God.

What is the significance to coming to earth, raising one of our spirit brethren in mortality as our own physical offspring, then sealing them to us as such for time and all eternity? When we die, we're going to remember the pre-existence, and the relationships we had for an eternity as spirit siblings. Am I going to view my daughter as the spirit sister I knew her has? Or am I forever going to regard her as my very own offspring? After exaltation we teach that we begin families of our own, and produce spirit offspring just like our father in heaven, at which point our mortal children will be our spirit siblings, our children from our brief time in mortality, the spirit aunts and uncles to our new spirit children, as well as their brothers and sisters somehow?

What is it about taking our pre-existing family of children of God, and organizing them into lineages for time and all eternity that is so significant?


texts: According to the Catholic Church, did Jesus have faith or hope?

texts:
St. Paul says that faith, hope and love remain and the greatest of these is love; I've heard it reasoned that faith and hope aren't needed once you've been in the presence of God - but love alone remains in Heaven.

So, while Jesus was man roaming the Earth (who since the beginning was with God and was God), did he have recourse the theological virtues of Faith or Hope?


texts: What is the doctrinal significance of repetition between the Gospels?

texts:
The four Gospels each cover roughly the same events, but the details differ, as illustrated here.

Leaving aside the difference in similarity between the Synoptic Gospels and John, is there significance to which events are described multiple times?  Are multiply-described events more important in some way, or are they areas where multiple tellings are more important to understand the relevant doctrine?


texts: Who was the first to reject the historicity of Adam?

texts:
Since the nineteenth century the early chapters of Genesis have been very controversial. For some issues, like the age of the earth, it is well established that there have been many different positions through history. Is it the same for the general historicity of Genesis 1-3? Who was the earliest known Jewish or Christian theologian to explicitly reject the historical existence of Adam?

For this question valid answers would show evidence that someone explicitly taught one of these things:

That there was no man who is the ancestor of all humanity,
That there was no man (or married couple) who sinned, causing the fall,
That Genesis 1-3 tell us nothing about what really happened in history, so that we cannot know if there was a real Adam or not.

If someone taught that certain details, such as the talking serpent, or the first act of sin being eating some fruit, are not historical but are symbolic or allegories for a genuinely historical man and fall, then they would not be a valid answer for this question. Or in other words, I would like answers to distinguish between the historicity of the texts, and the historicity of Adam, no matter how figuratively or allegorically Genesis talks about him.


texts: What's the story behind "St. Wolfgang and the devil" painting?

texts:
I've stumbled upon this picture and got interested.

Is this an episode from St. Wolfgang's life? What's the book that the devil is holding?


texts: What happens to Jesus when received in a unworthy manner in the Eucharist?

texts:
There is a lot of written on what happens to a person when receiving the Eucharist in an unworthy manner but not so much what happens to Jesus.

Since the whole Christ is truly present, body, blood, soul, and divinity, under the appearances of bread and wine and not just his divine nature it is ok to ask. If it's just his nature we could say "nothing much" since nature doesn't do things in itself. But since Christ is present with his soul and the body, He must experience effects of the act on the host.

Does the Catholic Church have any writings or is there any work done by some mystics or saints? This also includes when someone drops a consecrated host and small pieces are still on the ground and people step on it unknowingly.


texts: Did JWs believe in trinity and immortality of the soul before they got their own Bible?

texts:
This is a question about the Bible translation called the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures (NWT) that was produced by Jehovah's Witnesses as a complete Bible first in 1961, and about its effects on doctrinal parts that in my opinion are more "foundational" (i.e. they have an effect on other doctrines).

In particular I wanted to ask about the concept of trinity and the immortality of the soul.

Did Jehovah's Witnesses believe in trinity and immortality of the soul before they got the New World Translation?


texts: What is the foundational motivation of Lenten practices?

texts:
Lent is traditionally described as lasting for 40 days, in commemoration of the 40 days Jesus spent fasting in the desert, according to the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, before beginning his public ministry, during which he endured temptation by Satan. - Wikipedia

I included this Wikipedia quote only because it was easiest and really seems to reflect a near universal consensus on the symbolic purpose of the Lenten season.  Various traditions practice Lent differently and some do not practice at all but the underlying Scriptural basis appears to be agreed upon among those who do.

The three synoptic gospels use 3 different words which carry different degrees of intensity to describe Jesus departing into the wilderness by the Holy Spirit:

  Mat 4:1  Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil.

  Mar 1:12  The Spirit immediately drove him out into the wilderness.

  Luk 4:1  And Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan
  and was led by the Spirit in the wilderness

Two things immediately jump out:  First, Jesus did not go into the wilderness of His own accord but was taken there (led or driven) by the Holy Spirit and, second, He was taken there for the purpose of being tempted (more accurately tested) by the devil.

Since there is unanimity in the Scriptural basis of the practice but differences in the application of the practice I am wondering if there is unanimity in the spiritual, motivational desire.

Are Lenten practitioners attempting to enter into Jesus' experience of having been led or driven by the Holy Spirit into deprivation to be tested by the devil or is it more of a ritual of remembrance?


texts:
Origen believed in the pre-existence of souls (prior to conception), and that people's souls did things before their embodiment. For example, he taught that Jacob was loved and Esau hated because of what they did prior to their conception.

But what did he believe about Jesus' soul? Did it exist eternally? Or was it created in a moment of time like all other souls, so that at the Annunciation the incarnation had already begun?


texts: What is the basis for the belief among some Protestants that Christ's teachings do not apply to us today?

texts:
I have seen some Protestants arguing that Christ's teachings in the Gospels don't apply to us; that they were applicable only to the Jews, the immediate audience, since the new covenant did not begin at that time; and that only the new covenant teachings apply to us. The same is said about the Epistle to the Hebrews.

Here is one example of this doctrine, in an excerpt from an article by Paul Ellis, a popular Protestant preacher:

  .... Sadly, it didn’t happen. Since the law-teachers had been negligent,
  Jesus had to do their job before He could do His own. Before He could
  save the world from sin, He had to preach the law that made sin
  utterly sinful. Before He give Himself as the answer, He had to make
  sure we were asking the right question. Who will deliver us?

  So Jesus became the greatest law preacher of all time. As the prophet
  Isaiah had foretold, He made the law magnificent. He lifted up what
  others had knocked down and raised the standard to glorious levels of
  perfection. Never again would mankind be without excuse. You want to
  know what God expects? Just read the Sermon on the Mount. In it Jesus
  says that God demands perfection and nothing less.

  How did Jesus preach the law?

  Preaching the red letters of Jesus is a bit like drinking whatever you
  find in the laundry. If you’re not paying attention – if you fail to
  distinguish His life-giving words of grace from His death-dealing
  words of law – then you could really do some damage. Don’t believe me?
  Then consider these red letters:

  If you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father
  will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their sins, your
  Father will not forgive your sins. (Mat 6:14-15)

  This is one of the most-quoted passages in the Bible and it is vintage
  law. It is a killer scripture. It is not good news. This verse should make
  us shudder for it says that our forgiveness hinges on our ability to
  forgive others and we are poor forgivers indeed. Men sin against us
  repeatedly. Have we honestly forgiven them all? What if we miss one?
  And what do we say to those who have been raped and abused? What do
  you say to a young child who has been molested? “Sweetie, you need to
  forgive that evil man otherwise God won’t forgive you.” That’s not
  grace. That’s the condemning ministry of the law in full bloom. How do
  you forgive the unforgiveable? You can’t! Then you’re in trouble. The
  law condemns you as an unforgiver. Now you’re beginning to recognize
  your need for grace and this is a good thing.

  Any time you read a conditional statement from Jesus, you should
  interpret it as law. “Do not judge and you will not be judged” (Lk
  6:37). That’s good advice but it’s also law. To avoid something
  (judgment) you have to do something (don’t judge). It’s a blessing you
  have to pay for. And anytime Jesus makes a threat, you should
  interpret that as law as well. “Anyone who is angry with his brother
  will be subject to judgment” (Mt 5:22). That’s bad news for anyone
  with a brother!

This quote is only to give an example and evidence of this doctrine. It may not be representative of the views of all others who hold a similar doctrine.

My question:

What exactly is this view, in what sense don't these teachings apply to us today, and what are the reasons or basis given to justify this view?


texts:
In Genesis 3:16 God says to Eve

  Your desire will be for your husband…

What exactly does that mean?


texts: What is the basis for Topical Preaching?

texts:
Related:
  What is the basis for Systematic Expository Preaching?

Topical preaching is rather self-explanatory - the preacher picks a topic, then finds bible passages or verses related to or supportive of the topic, and preaches on that topic (using the bible passages for proof texts/support)

What is the triumvirate basis for this method? That is, what is the

Scriptural Basis. Obviously this is the #1 basis, but I'm not aware of any passages specifically addressing this, so you might need...
Reasonable Basis. What's the logical, practical point of topical preaching? What's a logical argument for it?
Traditional Basis. Who or what denominations have used this method in the past? Do they specify a reason?


texts: Why did Jesus use the expression, "very truly I tell you"?

texts:
I used to think nothing of it until someone said, "it makes you wonder what he was saying the rest of the time".

Now I don't believe for one moment Jesus was a liar, but why did He use that strange expression?

One of 26 examples exists here:

  John 16:7 (NIV)
  But very truly I tell you, it is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Advocate will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you.


texts: Why did the mid-early church consider the Gospel of Matthew to be reliable?

texts:
The Gospel of Matthew is now considered to be important, however the 1st century and 2nd century references to it are surprisingly confusing and sparse.

Which authors in the 1st and 2nd century refer to it unambiguously? For each author, please note the following:

When they wrote.
Whether they cite the Gospel of Matthew's content.
Whether they refer to it as the Gospel of Matthew.
Whether they seem to have considered that it was written by Matthew the apostle.
What criteria they use for acceptance as canonical.

Examples

Tertullian seems to have written ~190AD (?), but doesn't associate the contents of what is now the Gospel of Matthew with Matthew the person, and instead associated it with Luke.
Clement (end of 1st century?) seems to quote Matthew, but does not say it was written by Matthew, or indeed give it a name or authorship of any sort.
Papias (150AD) mentions a Gospel of Matthew, but gives the impression that it was written in Hebrew and does not cite it, so doesn't leave us certain that he was talking about the same one.
Iranaeus (190AD) gives what is most similar to the modern account of the authorship of the Gospel of Matthew. (I assume that he cites it so that we can be sure that he saw what we see in the gospel of Matthew?)

So: Are the above correct? Are there other 1st and 2nd century sources that refer to and/or cite the Gospel of Matthew and its authorship? What criteria did they use for determining authorship and canonicity?


texts: How does Human Nature relate to Angelic Nature, specifically regarding sin and free-will?

texts:
I have seen quite a few questions on here asking: How could Lucifer, being a perfect creation, have fallen or sinned?

However, my question is this:

What can we find in the Scriptures about the nature of Angels? Does it relate at all to the nature of humans, and can a comparison be made between the fall of man and the fall of Lucifer and his angels?

We know that both humans and angels are guilty of sin. But we know that evil existed before humanity fell to sin, as Eve was deceived. However, is there any evidence as to how Lucifer fell?

  2 Peter 2:4-- 4 For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of darkness, reserved for judgment;

  Romans 3:23--23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

  1 Timothy 2:12-14--12 But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. 13 For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. 14 And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.

I appreciate any help!


texts: How is "binding and loosing" extrapolated to all clergy?

texts:
Matthew 16:19
  And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

I recently read an article in which the Roman Catholic author states,

  In the Catholic Church’s understanding, the office of “binding and loosing” which was given to Peter was also assigned to the whole college of apostles who in turn commission their assistants in ministry to do likewise.

If it is understood that Jesus was talking to Peter, by what rationale or authority can this "office" be passed on from him to others?


texts: Was Mary ceremoniously married to Joseph when she left to serve Elizabeth?

texts:
We see at Mtt 1: 18-24, how Joseph was asked to accept Mary as his wife.

Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily. But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.......... Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife.

Luke, from his side,  gives an account of the Annunciation and the Visit of Mary to Elizabeth “in those days" at Chapter 1: 26-45.
In case Mary visited Elizabeth just after the Annunciation, she may not have been ceremoniously married to Joseph. But if she stayed put at her home after the Annunciation till the marriage would be over, she would have become visibly pregnant as referred to at Mtt 1:18. But then, Joseph, her husband would have accompanied her to the place of Elizabeth. And in case he did not go, Mary would have been asked by Elizabeth : "Why did you come alone?" The sequence of events therefore points to the possibility that Mary left to meet Elizabeth just after the Annunciation, came back after three months to tell Joseph that she was pregnant with Jesus, and then they got ceremoniously married . My question therefore is: According to Catholic Church, was Mary ceremoniously married to Joseph when she left to serve Elizabeth?


texts: Does God will the diversity of religion?

texts:
According to this article: Pope Francis signed a document stating:

  The pluralism and the diversity of religions, colour, sex, race and
  language are willed by God in His wisdom, through which He created
  human beings,

The article says:

  theologian says it must be read in the proper context

The context is:

  Catholics, Muslims and all who believe in God must work together to
  build a culture of love, peace and human fraternity

My question is how does the Catholic Church understand it within the context of the first commandment? Is this the teaching of the Catholic Church that diversity of religion is the will of God?

  I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out
  of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before me. You
  shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of
  anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or
  that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them
  or serve them.3 It is written: "You shall worship the Lord your God
  and him only shall you serve."4 Catechism


texts: What does it mean to interpret the Bible literally?

texts:
Here are some common definitions from a dictionary for ‘literal’:

Being in accordance with, conforming to, or upholding the exact or primary meaning of a word or words.
Word for word; verbatim: a literal translation.
Avoiding exaggeration, metaphor, or embellishment; factual; prosaic: a literal description; a literal mind.

So what does it mean then to ‘take the Bible literally?’ Which definition are we referring to when we say ‘I take the Bible literally?’


texts: Guidelines for "becoming" a believer, according to the Catholic Church

texts:
This might sound like an odd question, but I hope it's on-topic.

Say an atheist/agnostic approaches you and asks, "how can I get to believe in God?". Out of instinct/experience, you can say things like "pray, read, talk to a priest, go to a church, etc".

I wonder if there is some sort of "official guide" in the Catholic Church directed to non believers, so they can get to know God. I'm thinking in terms of  encyclicals, exhortations, pastoral documents, or even something based on doctrine. Any ideas?


texts:
Which languages did Huldrych Zwingli know?

As far as I know, he knew Latin and, of course, he knew his own mother tongue (which was German or Romanch?), but did he know some other languages? I am especially interested in whether he knew Hebrew or Greek.


texts: What is the role of "Sign of the cross" gesture in Catholicism?

texts:
Catholics make this gesture during or after prayer, by using their right hand to touch the forehead, then the middle of the breast, then the left shoulder, and finally the right shoulder.

Is this the sign of the cross?

Does it symbolize Trinity?

What is the role of this gesture?


texts: What do Christian Pacifists believe is necessary for a killing to be justified?

texts:
Christian Pacifists, for example Mennonites, are often portrayed (and indeed frequently portray themselves) as believing that violence, especially lethal violence, is never justified.  I am sure this is not actually the case, as God explicitly causes the death of several people in various circumstances in the Bible.  Furthermore, God orders the Jews to kill people at various times for various reasons, and seems to condone and approve of killings such as, for example, those done by Esther, where the killer is not visibly ordered to perform the killing by God.  While I'm sure there is an explanation, I am unsure what it is, so:

When (i.e. in what situations) do Christian Pacifists believe killing is acceptable and when do they think it is actually good and why do they think these things, keeping in mind the various justified killings we see throughout the Bible and Sacred Tradition.


texts: According to Protestantism is the Holy Spirit a Spirit of a Spirit?

texts:
God is a Spirit as stated in the Bible. The Holy Spirit is described as the Spirit of God. Does this mean that the Holy Spirit is a Spirit of a Spirit? How does this relationship work?

I know the Holy Spirit is one with the Trinity - God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. I know the Son came in flesh and the Spirit in Spirit. So God and the Holy Spirit are both Spirits with the latter being a Spirit of a Spirit?
Bible references:

  1 Cor 12:3 - Wherefore I give you to understand,
  that no man speaking by The Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed...

and also

  John 4:24 - God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship
  him in spirit and in truth.


texts: What is a Catholic's response to advice contained in Laudatio Si?

texts:
Pope Francis' Laudatio Si is a treasure trove of practical advice for living simply or at least moderately.  He seems to want people do use less air conditioning and facebook.  I've already used "The Pope says if you don't eat all your meat your robbing poor people" on my kids.

But, in a letter that is addressed not just to Catholics, but to the whole world (or at least Matt Damon),  what sort of submission does Joe Catholic have to give to the popes words (especially the practical advice, not the 2nd part where he goes in to the theological aspects of everything).

And by sort of submission I mean in terms of specific Latin words like Obsequium.


texts: Why did Jesus order the unclean spirits in the Multitude at the Seaside (Mark 3.7-12) to not make him known?

texts:
The passage I am referring to is Mark 3.11-12:

  11 Whenever the unclean spirits saw him, they fell down before him and shouted, “You are the Son of God!” 12 But he sternly ordered them not to make him known.

I'm confused because why would Jesus not want the multitude of people present with him to not know he is the Son of God? Isn't that what Jesus wanted?


texts: What is significant about the torn curtain? What about Jesus' death impressed the centurion at the cross?

texts:
When Jesus died, the curtain in the temple was torn from top to bottom:

Mark 15:38-39 (NIV)

  38 The curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. 39
  And when the centurion, who stood there in front of Jesus, saw how he
  died, he said, “Surely this man was the Son of God!”

What made the centurion say that? What is the significance of the torn curtain - does it have doctrinal significance?


texts: What was the miracle of Blessed Luigi and Maria Beltrame Quattrocch?

texts: Luigi and Maria Beltrame Quattrocch were beatified by Pope John Paul II.  They were the first married couple to be beatified.  They lived exemplary lives in Fascist Italy during WWII; but I can't find any information regarding a miracle being attributed to them.  For canonization, there must be demonstration of two miracles, one of which must be posthumous.  I thought demonstration of one miracle was required for beatification.  However, I may be mistaken about that detail.


texts: Do Paul's and Jesus' use of epithets and culturally-harsh criticisms mandate/approve our own?

texts:
Not to be confused with this closed question, is our use of cultural criticisms (eg some from the list of Carlin's 7 words) approved\allowed\encouraged because Jesus (and later Paul) used cultural equivalents?

For example, Jesus called the Scribes and Pharisees "hypocrites" several times during His ministry (Matthew 15, 22, 23, Luke 12, etc).

Wikipedia points-out:

  hypokrites was a technical term for a stage actor and was not considered an appropriate role for a public figure. In Athens in the 4th century BC, for example, the great orator Demosthenes ridiculed his rival Aeschines, who had been a successful actor before taking up politics, as a hypokrites whose skill at impersonating characters on stage made him an untrustworthy politician. This negative view of the hypokrites, perhaps combined with the Roman disdain for actors, later shaded into the originally neutral hypokrisis. It is this later sense of hypokrisis as "play-acting", i.e., the assumption of a counterfeit persona, that gives the modern word hypocrisy its negative connotation.

Being called a hypocrite was about as horrid an insult as one could level against a public figure in Christ's day.

Paul called the church in Corinth worse than the Gentiles, and arrogant.

Paul also called Peter effectively a Gentile, and frequently used the word "anathema" or "accursed" in his writings describing those who would pervert the Gospel for their own ends.

Were these merely cases of calling a spade a spade (regardless of the language chosen to do so), or is it an encouragement/permit to use similar language at least when confronting sin?


texts: For Catholics who object to Vatican II, what are the key issues?

texts:
From time to time I see references to Roman Catholics who object to (part? all?) of Vatican II.  Most commonly I see ads in my local newspaper for traditional Latin masses, but I understand the objections to be more than vernacular versus Latin worship.  I've also heard (as a Jew) that not all Roman Catholics accept nostra aetate, the Vatican II declaration that Jews have a valid covenant with God and don't need to be sought as converts, but I don't know if the anti-NA folks overlap the Latin-mass folks and what other beliefs they share.  Do certain groups object to the whole thing or just parts of it?

I tried to find an answer on Google and it led me to this page at Catholic Answers (no idea how authoritative that is), which in turn led me to the name "Society of Saint Pius X".  This page on their site lists key concerns of: modernism, religious liberty, ecumenism, collegiality, and liturgical abuses (their wording, not mine), but I can't tell if that's all based on Vatican II or if it's something broader.  I also can't tell if SSPX comprises the Catholics who object to Vatican II or if they are just one such group.  (I don't remember seeing that name in the aforementioned newspaper ads.)  I found this C.SE question about whether SSPX is schismatic, which is helpful but doesn't answer my question, which is about the broader platform, not one specific organization.

So: is there a (denomination? ideology?) that describes objectors to Vatican II, or do such objections come from scattered groups or individuals with no over-riding ideology?  If there is an ideology beyond specific people/groups, does it have a name?  And what specifically do they object to -- everything decided at that council or just certain things?


texts: According to Calvinists, how do Job's works correspond to his salvation?

texts:
Job 31:1–4 (DRB) I made a covenant with my eyes, that I would not so much as think upon a virgin.1 2 For what part should God from above have in me, and what inheritance the Almighty from on high? 3 Is not destruction to the wicked, and aversion to them that work iniquity? 4 Doth not he consider my ways, and number all my steps?

The very similar New Testament equivalent might be:

  Ephesians 5:1–7 (DRB) Be ye therefore followers of God, as most dear children; 2 And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath delivered himself for us, an oblation and a sacrifice to God for an odour of sweetness. 3 But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not so much as be named among you, as becometh saints: 4 Or obscenity, or foolish talking, or scurrility, which is to no purpose; but rather giving of thanks. 5 For know you this and understand, that no fornicator, or unclean, or covetous person (which is a serving of idols), hath inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. 6 Let no man deceive you with vain words. For because of these things cometh the anger of God upon the children of unbelief. 7 Be ye not therefore partakers with them.

As a Catholic, it seems obvious to me from reading this that Job avoids sin in general (something for which Scripture praises him: cf. 1:1), but here fornication or thoughts thereof, because if he did not he would have no part in God, because he would be wicked by definition.  This directly links works with justification, and Job lucidly and freely chose to take this course of life ('made a convenant with [myself]') because of the risk of not having done so. But in Calvinism there is no even theoretical risk of losing salvation, and therefore no need to avoid sins so as to avoid such a fate (i.e., whereas there is motive for avoiding sins which is not a salvific reason, so Calvinists believe).

Question

According to Calvinists, how does Job view his works in relation to his justification/salvation?

Thanks in advance.

1 Cf. Mt. 5:28.


texts: How do we know that Jesus was crucified at 9:00 a.m.?

texts:
I have heard many times that Jesus was crucified at 9:00 a.m. and remained on the cross till 3 p.m.. How do we know that? The Scriptures say something like the third hour:

  Matthew 15:25: And it was the third hour, and they
  crucified him.

But how do we know that the third hour was exactly 9:00 a.m.?

Do we draw information on that point exclusively from Scriptures?

Is it something like a known fact from Hebrew tradition?

Or, perhaps, something else ?


texts: Which sects interpret "Day and Hour unknown" literally?

texts:
“Watch therefore, for you know neither the day nor the hour in which the Son of Man is coming.
  Matthew 25:13 (NKJV)

Is there any Christian sect which literally interprets this verse and says that even if there is no way of knowing the exact day or hour, there are some clues available from the scripture to calculate or know the season, year or century when Jesus will come again? If so, what is the basis of their calculations or arguments?


texts: What kinds of liquids can Catholics have while fasting?

texts: There are times of the year when Catholics are obligated to fast, such as Ash Wednesday and Good Friday. During that time, what kind of liquids are allowed? Water only? Juice? Smoothies? Meal replacement shakes?


texts: What is an overview of Protestants' answers to why I still sin when I have the Spirit of God in me?

texts:
If we, as Christians and believers, are indwelt with the perfect and true Holy Spirit, the same spirit of Jesus, which is also the fullness of God, why do we still sin?

  Galatians 4:4-7 ESV But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons. And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!” So you are no longer a slave, but a son, and if a son, then an heir through God.

This passage led me to a debate within myself that went like this:

  Q: If we have the Spirit of Jesus in us, why do we sin?
  A: We sin because we're in the flesh. (Romans 7)
  Q: Then how come Jesus didn't sin while being in the flesh?
  A: Because Jesus was God. Because Jesus had perfect faith. Because he was perfectly obedient. (Philippians 2)
  Q: But if we're given the same Spirit that Jesus had upon believing, the same Spirit as God, why can't we do any of those things? Why do we still sin?
  A: ???

A good answer will show how biblical sources would be utilized by the various Protestant denominations to address the questions listed above.


texts: What is the physical evidence for a global flood?

texts:
Young Earth Creationists believe in a young earth, followed by a literal global flood based on the belief that Scripture is written as history.  Often, in comments, discussion forums, and discussions in general, they will refer to "overwhelming physical evidence" that backs up their theological belief.

What phsyical evidence do they teach or believe can be interpreted as consistent with the idea of a global flood?


texts: Does the Mormon Church teach that Jesus is God?  Hopefully this isn't too simple of a question.


texts: What are Christians called who believe in a non-intervening God?

texts:
Which branch(es) of Christianity takes the stance that there is a God who creates all things but once the creation is here on this earth, does not intervene?

I heard an argument between coworkers that the Christian founding fathers of the United States had similar beliefs but not sure as there is a lot of debate there.

Also heard this position in the scientific community and am wondering if there are Christian denominations that hold this view and how popular it really is ?


texts: Can we know the exact date of Resurrection?

texts: Wikipedia gives two possible dates for resurrection 7 Apr 30 and 3 Apr 33: I wonder why we cannot date the event with accuracy since we know the details : full moon on 14 Nisan. It would seem quite easy , with modern knowledges and techniques, to determine on what year the first vernal full moon took place on 14 Nisan, what are the problems?


texts: What makes a Council's conclusions authoritative?

texts:
I was just reflecting on an answer to a question I recently asked, and began to wonder... How do we know the conclusions of a given Council were true?  Are all findings by Christian Councils authoritative?  If not, what is the criteria by which we can judge the findings of a Council?  Is it decided democratically amongst those claiming to be Christians?

If there is indeed a "standard" by which Council findings are evaluated, why would we consider the Council findings as "authoritative", as opposed to simply considering the "standard" to be authoritative.

(The answer may not be as straightforward as it seems.)


texts:
Franciscan Media:

Saint Pedro de Corpa and Companions’ Story
Another Saint of the Day for September 10
These five friars were martyred in Georgia for their insistence on
monogamy in Christian marriages...

Their names:

Pedro de Corpa
Blas de Rodriguez
Miguel de Anon
Francisco de Berascola

The article says they are saints. But couldn't find any details of the canonization online.

Are these friars really canonized?
If yes, who canonized them and when?
Is there any hagiography/biography written about them?


texts: What does Paul mean when he says "rather we uphold the law"

texts:
Romans 3 talks about how we are saved by faith apart from works & the law. At Romans 3:31 Paul tells us:

  Do we then nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather we uphold the law.

From any protestant perspective, what does Paul mean by "upholding" the law?

Does Paul mean we should continue to obey the entire law or does he mean that we should just simply acknowledge it?


texts: How can we practice Matthew 18:15 in a public forum?

texts:
Over at Judaism.SE, there's a question: How should we respond to objectionable content in a public forum?  It got me thinking, how should we apply Jesus' teaching on reconciliation:

  “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother.”—Matthew 18:15 (ESV)

Sometimes, we are in a public forum with someone who is our brother or sister in Christ, and they say or do something that hurts us or is a sin against us.  When in person or when a private communication channel is provided (e.g., Facebook, email, and many internet forums), it's easy enough to take them aside.  But what should we do where there is no way to initiate a private conversation with a fellow Christian?

Obviously, this very site is an example of where this might come up.  But I'm not making it a meta-question since it's really a question about how Christians should behave in any public forum.  And of course, it must be an ecumenical position since, unless the forum happens to be specific to a particular branch of Christianity, the other person might come from any faith tradition (or none at all).  How do we love those who sin against us in strictly public places?


texts: According to soul sleep adherents, if unclean spirits can be conscious without bodies, why can't human spirits also be conscious without bodies?

texts:
Most soul sleep adherents find no issue in accepting that demonic/unclean spirits are conscious beings despite the fact that they lack physical bodies. The scriptural evidence for this is quite undeniable:
Matthew 12:43-45 (ESV):

43 “When the unclean spirit has gone out of a person, it passes through waterless places seeking rest, but finds none. 44 Then it says, ‘I will return to my house from which I came.’ And when it comes, it finds the house empty, swept, and put in order. 45 Then it goes and brings with it seven other spirits more evil than itself, and they enter and dwell there, and the last state of that person is worse than the first. So also will it be with this evil generation.”

Mark 5:1-13 (ESV):

They came to the other side of the sea, to the country of the Gerasenes. 2 And when Jesus had stepped out of the boat, immediately there met him out of the tombs a man with an unclean spirit. 3 He lived among the tombs. And no one could bind him anymore, not even with a chain, 4 for he had often been bound with shackles and chains, but he wrenched the chains apart, and he broke the shackles in pieces. No one had the strength to subdue him. 5 Night and day among the tombs and on the mountains he was always crying out and cutting himself with stones. 6 And when he saw Jesus from afar, he ran and fell down before him. 7 And crying out with a loud voice, he said, “What have you to do with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? I adjure you by God, do not torment me.” 8 For he was saying to him, “Come out of the man, you unclean spirit!” 9 And Jesus asked him, “What is your name?” He replied, “My name is Legion, for we are many.” 10 And he begged him earnestly not to send them out of the country. 11 Now a great herd of pigs was feeding there on the hillside, 12 and they begged him, saying, “Send us to the pigs; let us enter them.” 13 So he gave them permission. And the unclean spirits came out and entered the pigs; and the herd, numbering about two thousand, rushed down the steep bank into the sea and drowned in the sea.

Luke 24:36-39 (ESV):

36 As they were talking about these things, Jesus himself stood among them, and said to them, “Peace to you!” 37 But they were startled and frightened and thought they saw a spirit. 38 And he said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? 39 See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me, and see. For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.”

But, if unclean spirits can be conscious without physical bodies, why can't human spirits also be conscious without physical bodies? Are unclean spirits and human spirits fundamentally different? Aren't they all just spirits? If God is spirit, does not have a body and is conscious, if unclean spirits do not have bodies and are conscious, why can't human spirits also be conscious in the absence of a physical body?
I'm interested in what soul sleep adherents have to say about these questions.


texts: Did reformation leaders throw out the Summa Theologica?

texts:
St. Thomas Aquinas's seminal work the Summa Theologica was an attempt to catalog all the theological arguments ever conceived.

Much of the reasoning is rooted in the Natural Law and it's what Catholics believe today. It's the reason we've got such strong opinions on abortion, birth control, embryonic stem cell research, homosexual "marriage" and more even though private interpretation of the Bible could potentially lead one to believe otherwise.

What I wonder, is how much of a common ground is the Natural Law (specifically as it relates to the Summa) and how did the reformers (Luther, Calvin, Wesley, etc.) decide whether or not to accept it?


texts: What do 1st century extra-biblical sources say about hell?

texts: Do we have any information about what 1st century Christians and Jews believed about hell?  I know what the Bible says on the subject, and am curious about the extra-biblical context.


texts: Has the Lord handed over the souls of the redeemed to St Michael?

texts:
In Ken Graham's answer to a separate question, he cites a prayer to Saint Michael used in the Catholic rite of  exorcism. The Latin text of the prayer includes the passage:

tibi trádidit Dóminus ánimas redemptórum in supérna felicitáte locándas

which I am reasonably sure translates as:

The Lord has handed over to you the souls of the redeemed, to be placed in supernal happiness

Have I perhaps mistranslated? Does this reflect a Catholic tradition or teaching (of which I have been unaware)? If not, what is the import of the passage?


texts:
We see a number of references both in the Old Testament and the New Testament to the "Law of Moses" (for example Lk 2:22; Jn 1:45 and Jn 7:19).

I wish to know as to which "laws" are referred to by the said term. Are the Ten Commandments included in the Law of Moses?


texts: How are the Decretive, Preceptive, and Permissive wills of God defined?

texts: I've heard people talk about the Decretive, the Preceptive, and the Permissive wills of God, but I don't entirely understand them. What do they mean and what makes them distinct from each other?


texts: Who first associated the fourth beast of Daniel 7 with the Roman Empire?

texts:
Daniel's vision of the four beasts in Daniel 7 has long intrigued commentators.  Regarding the vision of the fourth beast, the text reads:

  7 After this I saw in the night visions, and behold, a fourth beast, terrifying and dreadful and exceedingly strong. It had great iron teeth; it devoured and broke in pieces and stamped what was left with its feet. It was different from all the beasts that were before it, and it had ten horns. [ESV]

A fuller description of this beast, and interpretation of the vision, appears in verses 19–27.

Based on this and an apparently related passage in Revelation 17, commentators have historically associated the Roman Empire with this fourth beast.  C. F. Keil writes:

  These four kingdoms, according to the interpretation commonly received in the church, are the Babylonian, the Medo-Persian, the Macedo-Grecian, and the Roman.  "In this interpretation and opinion," Luther observes, "all the word are agreed, and history and fact abundantly establish it." (source)

Keil notes that this is a slight overstatement; at least one early commentator, Ephrem the Syrian (306–373) held that the fourth kingdom referred to Macedonia.  Wikipedia notes that shortly thereafter, Jerome (347–420) advocated the now-traditional view that the fourth kingdom is Rome.

Was Jerome the first to make this connection?  Which Christian author first associated the fourth kindgom of Daniel 7 with the Roman Empire?


texts:
The Wikipedia article on the golden plates says that Joseph Smith translated the golden plates into the Book of Mormon with the help of "seer stones". Initially, he is said to have used two stones set in frames as glasses to see the new translation. Later, he switched to a different method with one seer stone inside a hat, but I'm confused as to how it was supposed to help in translation.

  After the loss of the first 116 manuscript pages, Smith translated with a single seer stone, which some sources say he had previously used in treasure-seeking. Smith placed the stone in a hat, buried his face in it to eliminate all outside light, and peered into the stone to see the words of the translation. […] Smith's translation did not require the use of the plates themselves. Though Smith himself said very little about the translation process, his friends and family said that as he looked into the stone, the written translation of the ancient script appeared to him in English.

Image from Wikipedia, licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0

I'm confused about this process. Obviously, there is some sort of divine power assumed to be going on here, but I’m trying to understand how the miracle was said to have manifested, specifically where these letters appeared.

Was the stone projecting the words into the darkness? Were the words appearing upon the face of the stone, like the popular depiction of a crystal ball? Was the stone moving around and forming letters? How was the translation of the Book of Mormon shown through Joseph Smith's seer stones and hat?

In other words, how does hat + stone = words?


texts: Are there any positive statements of the golden rule in extra-biblical literature?

texts:
What is commonly called the golden rule is stated by Jesus in Matthew 7:12:

  In everything, treat others as you would want them to treat you, for
  this fulfills the law and the prophets. (NET)

Commentators often notice that the golden rule appears in extra-biblical literature, but often in negative form.

For example, Ben Witherington states:

  Jesus was by no means the first or only person to come up with a
  version of the Golden Rule. There is the famous saying of Rabbi
  Hillel, for example: “What is hateful to you, do not do to your
  neighbor: that is the whole Torah, while the rest is commentary on it;
  go and learn” (b. Sabb. 31a cf. Tob 4.15; 2 En. 61.1-2). It is worth
  pointing out that Jesus insists on a positive formulation of the
  maxim, where as other forms of it, both Jewish and Greco-Roman (cf.
  Isocrates Nic. 61; Herodotus 3.142), tend to be negative.

Are there any positive statements of this principle to be found in extra-biblical literature? (Excluding, of course, Christian literature or later literature influenced by Christianity)


texts: According to Pentecostalism, what is the impact of the sin nature, hormones, and the Holy Spirit on libido?

texts:
What has more of an affect on libido, the flesh/sin nature or hormones and how does that change, after becoming a Christian filled with The Holy Spirit? And does receiving the Holy Spirit as a teen give you power over the flesh with peak hormones?

I'm interested in the views of the Assemblies of God and other Pentecostals.


texts: How do Mormons understand Revelation 22:3?

texts:
Revelation 22:3 in the King James Version:

  3 And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him:

To me this appears to indicate Jesus and God are one, and not separate beings, for the sake of the same throne and the singular pronouns his and him. How do Mormons understand this verse?


texts: Who were the "wise men from the east" (Magi) spoken of in Matthew 2?

texts:
I have heard a few ideas about who the wise men from the east were who came to Jesus at his birth (or shortly thereafter) and offered gifts.  What are the best theories on this and what evidence is there that supports them?

Also, how many wise men were there?


texts: Is promotion of contraception a reason to excommunicate?

texts:
Melinda Gates (wife of Bill Gates) promotes contraception such as condoms and sterilization among many other things. This is against the Catholic teaching. She also claims to be a practicing catholic.

My question is: Could public promotion of something that is against the teaching of the Catholic Church be used to excommunicate? If yes, why doesn't the Catholic Church excommunicate her? Or who/where can claim the case for excommunication?


texts: Why did Jesus weep when Lazarus's friends agreed to show him his body?

texts:
After Lazarus died, Jesus led his disciples to visit Lazarus's sisters, Mary & Martha. When the friends of Lazarus agreed to show Jesus the cave where Lazarus's body was laid, Jesus wept.

Is there consensus among theologicians on the why Jesus wept there?


texts:
Some laws don't evolve or change, some laws are just objectively wrong
  to begin with. Laws and court rulings providing for abortion, same sex
  'marriage' and no fault divorce are laws that require immediate action
  and can never be followed by any Christian if it forces them to
  violate their conscience. We should prefer martyrdom. – Comment

I can understand the concept of civil disobedience to laws you disagree with (and such civil disobedience appeared to be the context of this discussion), but in what sense can that apply here? You can express your disapproval of marriage equality by the act of civil disobedience of ... not marrying someone of the same sex? I'm confused.

To make a serious question out of my genuine bemusement, I'll ask, What should a Christian do when the state permits something the church does not?

When the state prohibits something the church permits, the answer seems to be, Don't do it.

When the state prohibits something the church mandates (such as proselytism), there's probably a clear case for civil disobedience.

Ditto when the church prohibits something the state mandates (such as serving in the armed forces).

But when the church prohibits something the state permits, it's less obvious to me. My answer when I was religious would have been the same as above (though for different reasons): Don't do it. But others seem to recommend civil disobedience in this area. I'm not sure what form such civil disobedience is imagined to take. How can one civilly disobey being allowed to do something? By stopping other people doing it? By force?

Note: This question is similar to, but not the same as the question which triggered it. That question was assuming that all action would be within the democratic process (political campaigning, pressure groups, and, ultimately, voting at the ballot box). However, the comment which sparked this question arose within a context of civil disobedience, and I simply can't understand how civil disobedience is supposed to apply in this case.


texts:
I can't quite wrap my head round this one. How do we know so much about the birth of Christ, but almost nothing about his growing up?

As I see it, there were only a handful of people at the birth, Mary, Joseph, some shepherds and possibly the owner of the stable. That's been documented and detailed in the gospels in reasonable detail, so someone there must have provided details.

If they realised that His birth was significant then I can understand the sharing of the facts of his birth, but if that was the case then why not more detail about His growing up?

If they didn't realise until He started his ministry that he was the same Jesus, and then connected the stories together, then there wouldn't have been any real oral traditional stories of his birth. How was there such a detailed narrative about it?
It doesn't make sense to me to document only the birth and then nothing until the ministry.

I understand the way stories were handed down, and I understand that the gospels were written later, but I just can't reconcile the above.


texts: What is the "Holy place" Jesus spoke of in Matthew 24:15?

texts:
In Matthew Chapter 24 Jesus warned of the end time scenario, and said that when we saw the Abomination of Desolation standing in the Holy Place, that was when things were really going to get bad:

Matthew 24:15  KJV

  When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)

I have searched the Scriptures in an effort to determine what he meant by the Holy place, but all I find is that the area in the Tabernacle just outside the curtain designating the holy of holies is called the holy place.

Exodus 26:33  KJV

  And thou shalt hang up the vail under the taches, that thou mayest bring in thither within the vail the ark of the testimony: and the vail shall divide unto you between the holy place and the most holy.

Is there any other guidance that I have overlooked, which someone can point out.


texts: Is there any biblical evidence that suggests Jesus read or wrote anything, and was he literate?


texts: Is it a sin or forbidden to follow any of the parts of the Law of Moses?

texts:
In John 7:53-8:11, Jesus condemns fulfilling the Law of Moses when it requires that a crowd stone an adulteress to death. This seems to imply (if these passages are authentic, which is in question) that in some cases fulfilling the Law of Moses is now sinful.

Even if this passage is not authentic, there are parts of the Law of Moses that now seem rather barbaric. These laws requiring the killing your children if they are stubborn and rebellious (Deuteronomy 21:18-21), killing a rape victim for not putting up sufficient resistance (Deuteronomy 22:23-24), and killing those who commit blasphemy or believe in a different religion (Leviticus 24:16; Deuteronomy 13:5-10 respectively).

Are there some cases where it is sinful or forbidden to follow any of the laws in the Old Testament, now that Jesus has fulfilled these laws (Romans 10:4; Galatians 3:23-25; Ephesians 2:15)?

A very good and very similar question is: To what extent does the Law of Moses still apply? and also:
Do we have to obey the laws of the bible? If so, what laws?
Even though these are questions that I'm interested in and still find somewhat confusing, in this question I'm looking for additional insights (scripture or scholarly) about whether it is now sinful or forbidden to follow any of the Laws of Moses (including the ceremonial laws for which we are no longer bound). Answers meant to address which of these laws are forbidden are better suited for these questions.


texts: Did the invention of the printing press change Christianity?

texts:
Before 1440 and the invention of the printing press, most Christians would not have had their own personal bible. So I would assume the only place they would see one would be in a church read by a Priest or other scholarly people.

Do you think this changed Christianity a lot from pre-15th century Christianity ?

Having your own Bible which you could refer to and read every day and debate people with must have been a lot different to the times when people had to go and consult the few copies.

I'm sure there were some richer people who could afford to have their own personal copies copied out by scribes.


texts: How do Lutherans interpret Matthew 15:11?

texts:
"What goes into someone's mouth does not defile them, but what comes out of their mouth, that is what defiles them." Matthew 15:11.
I guess one thing that Jesus wants to say here is that eating pork does not defile man, or any other food that was forbidden. But what else does Jesus mean? What about the "but what comes out of their mouth, that is what defiles them." part?


texts: How does uniting to Christ's suffering work?

texts:
What is the Catholic teaching on uniting with Christ's suffering?

Specifically when we go through some kind of suffering and we acknowledge it as God's will and converse it with Christ. It reminds us of His suffering and helps us to realize what Christ did for us.

My question is: Does it also subtract from his suffering? When he went through his passion Jesus saw all sins of past, present, and future. But he also saw the fruit and the saint's responds which gave him comfort. Does uniting to Christ's suffering only comforts the heart of Jesus or also subtract his suffering during crucifixion where he would otherwise have gone through them?

For example: If I suffer some pain and take it as sharing Jesus's suffering, was that sharing now split between me and him and now Christ doesn't need to suffer as much(back in time) because I took some part on myself?

  "In bringing about the Redemption through suffering, Christ raised
  human suffering to the level of the Redemption. Thus each man, in his
  sufferings, can also become a sharer in the redemptive suffering of
  Christ" (Salvifici Doloris).


texts: How do Jehovah's Witnesses define "active" membership?

texts:
On several occations I have seen terms used for active vs inactive Jehovah's Witness church members. I have also seen inactive ones referred to as passive or even with both monikers together as inactive passive. Based on other experiences with JW's, I imagine these terms have fairly specific definitions. I just don't know what they are.

This makes me wonder exactly how membership is defined and what makes the difference between an active an a inactive member? What officially defines a person as one or the other, and what is the process and result of an official status change?


texts:
I am looking for hymns that talk to God / Jesus / Holy Spirit instead of about Him or us. Prayer like hymns if it makes sense.
English is not my primary language so I know only one: "Fairest Lord Jesus"
Ant help would be appreciated.
Thanks


texts: Do Catholics have to accept the early chapters of Genesis as literal historical truth? or can they read them as historical mythology? (Mythology which is based on history, with characters who were real people, some events actually happened etc.)


texts: Will I get in trouble if I copy the whole KJV into a book?

texts:
The goal is to get my hands on a blank/clean version of the KJV that is in the public domain - One that I could copy freely into a text editor without fear of ever having to deal with copyright issues.

The intent is to copy the entire Bible into my book to add apologetics & commentary to it in the form of foot/side -notes while leaving the text itself entirely unchanged. I'm guessing that this is allowed, but what I mainly need to know is whether there is a specific website from which writers could download the KJV.

I've found this link - perhaps that is what I'm looking for?

I very much thank you for your help.


texts: Are Christians not permitted to have sex with wife when she's on her period?

texts:
Acts 15:29 and 21:25 carry over four requirements from the old testament to apply to gentile Christians - one of which is abstaining from sexual immorality.  In Leviticus 20:18, it makes a big deal about having sex with a woman while she's on her period.

  If a man lies with a woman during her menstrual period and uncovers her nakedness, he has made naked her fountain, and she has uncovered the fountain of her blood. Both of them shall be cut off from among their people. (ESV)

However, Leviticus 15:24 makes it sound more like a ceremonial issue than a sexual immorality issue (which in that case may be a requirement which has passed away under the new covenant).

  And if any man lies with her and her menstrual impurity comes upon him, he shall be unclean seven days, and every bed on which he lies shall be unclean (ESV)

So the question is, does the Bible prohibit sex during menstruation between a man and his wife?


texts: How can the sun be created after day and night?

texts:
"Light" was created on day 1 - Genesis 1:3-5.  However the sun was created on day 4 - Genesis 1:14-19.

How is this possible?


texts: Can a Catholic priest conduct a Catholic baptism upon the request of non-Catholic parents, assuming that they will raise the child Catholic?

texts: Can non-Catholic parents ask the priest to baptize the child (infant) in the Catholic church and promise that they will give the child a Catholic upbringing? I mean, it could be a learning experience for the child. Even if the child doesn't believe, such insider exposure may give the child some underlying presuppositions that Western atheists make (i.e. existence of God, the causal relationship between the supernatural and morality, etc.), which may not be accessible to atheists who are not raised in a Christian household. Also, even if Christian morality isn't perfect, the church at least provides a social environment as an attempt to not only teach morality in the Western world, but also promote community service, and Catholic churches are pretty common in the United States, so maybe the non-Catholic/non-Christian parents may willingly take advantage of that. Plus, I use the Catholic church in this question, because I know that the Catholic church seems to consider all people who are baptized are Christian, but not all Christians (in this sense, Catholics) are saved and that salvation is an ongoing process. I think that would be doable for a non-Catholic person who intends to raise his or her child Catholic. Even if the child may not become an observant Catholic in adult life, he or she will forever be Catholic, and the Catholic upbringing may be beneficial.


texts: What is the basis for the idea that the Song of Solomon is about the relationship between God and the church?

texts:
I am familiar with the interpretation of Song of Solomon which suggests that it is love poetry written by (or at the behest of, or in honour of, or later attributed to) King Solomon and that it is about human romantic love.

I recently found out that as early as Origen it has also been interpreted as being about the relationship of God and his people. I am struggling to find out what case was made for this interpretation of Song of Songs.

What is the case that song of Solomon is about the relationship between God and the church and who came up with this interpretation?


texts: What is the earliest claim that Jesus Christ kept the law of Moses on behalf of others?

texts:
J N Darby and William Kelly, those responsible for the Plymouth Brethren movement in the mid to late 1800s, did not accept the concept that, during his earthly life, Jesus Christ kept the law on behalf of believers. Referring to the ‘righteousness of God’ (Note: not that of Jesus Christ) JND states :

It is His own (God’s) righteousness which is upon the believer (1)

I can find, myself, nothing in the early Church Fathers, and nothing in the writings of the Reformers on the subject.
John Calvin in his Institutes (1560) writes :

… since, as God only, he (Christ) could not suffer, and, as man only, could not overcome death, he united the human nature with the divine, that he might subject the weakness of the one to death as an expiation of sin, (2)

The Helvetic Confession (1564) states :

Therefore, because faith receives Christ our righteousness and attributes everything to the grace of God in Christ, on that account justification is attributed to faith, (3)

…  but the righteousness of Christ, or rather, he imputes faith in Christ to us for righteousness. (3)

Although the Helvetic Confession refers to ‘the righteousness of Christ’ (a collocation never found in scripture) the phrase is qualified by ‘or rather’ and it is made clear that ‘faith in Christ’ is in view, not the idea that Christ kept the law on behalf of anyone.
In 1647 the Westminster Confession contains the wording :

Those whom God effectually calleth, He also freely justifieth:a not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous, not for anything wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ’s sake alone; nor by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness, but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them. (4)

Here the words ‘imputing the obedience … of Christ’ occur but without a definition of what that actually means. In context, one would expect it to mean what Calvin means, that is to say, Christ’s obedience to the Father in offering himself up to sufferings and death.
It is only when we come to the modified form of the Westminster Confession - the Savoy Declaration of 1658 that we have the words :

by imputing Christ's active obedience to the whole law, and passive obedience in his death for their whole and sole righteousness, they receiving and resting on him and his righteousness by faith (5)

This definitive wording (active and passive obedience) is most probably the influence of John Owen who was involved in the preparation of the Savoy Declaration and who, himself, states :

… the obedience of Christ unto the law, and the imputation thereof unto us, are no less necessary unto our justification before God, than his suffering of the penalty of the law, and the imputation thereof unto us, unto the same end. (6)

Is it so that, until 1658, the Christian Church did not teach this doctrine in such a stated form ?
Does such a concept appear in any of the writings of the pre-Nicene or post-Nicene fathers ?
Does such a concept appear in the writings of the Reformers ?
Is this, solely, a ‘Puritan’ doctrine ?

(1) J N Darby Outline of the Epistle to the Romans :  Chapter (2-4) : Para 40
(2) John Calvin Institutes 2.12.3 1560 (Definitive Latin edition)
(3) Helvetic Confession  Chapter 15 on Justification
(4) Westminster Confession  Chapter 11 on Justification
(5) Savoy Declaration Chapter 11 on Justification
(6) John Owen (from The Works of John Owen, vol. V.) Quoted from The Doctrine of Justification by Faith though the Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ; Explained, Confirmed, and Vindicated (1677),


texts: Without an annulment, a convert is confirmed and receives first communion

texts:
A non-baptized man marries a Catholic, then divorces.  Then the non-baptized man remarries a Protestant.  During this marriage the man is baptized Protestant. The man later coverts to Catholicism and but does not get an annulment from the first marriage because the priest says he meets all three criterion and absolves him.

He is then confirmed and receives first communion, from the same Msgr.

Is that man able to receive first communion and confirmation?
Is he in a state of grace?
Can he be a godfather?


texts: What is the meaning of 'I desire mercy and not sacrifice'?

texts:
I've been reading through the book of Matthew, and in chapter 9 I came across verse 13. It's when Jesus was answering the Pharisees after they asked Him why He ate with the tax collectors and sinners:

  13: But go ye and learn what this meaneth, I desire mercy, and not sacrifice, for I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.

I didn't give it much of a thought until I came to chapter 12 verse 7. Here again Jesus was answering the Pharisees too after they asked Him why His disciples were plucking and eating the ears of grains on a Sabbath.

  7: But if ye had known what this meaneth, I desire mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless.

And the first part really hit me - "if ye had known what this meaneth".

I did a Bible search for the phrase and found Hosea 6:6

  For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.

Can someone please explain to me in a very simple way what the phrase means "I desire mercy, and not sacrifice" and why Jesus was telling that to the pharisees.

Why does he use the specific word mercy?

Checking the meaning of the word at google it says:

  Compassion or forgiveness shown toward someone whom it is within one's power to punish or harm.


texts:
If the Sabbath is Saturday and it's known that the Roman Catholic Church changed the day week to worship from Saturday to Sunday, why then would Protestants continue to worship on Sunday?  I understand that Protestantism is a large group - I believe all of the sub-denominations do this for the same reason.  If there are different reasons per denomination, I'll either change the question or make a question for each Protestant Denomination.

Cardinal James Gibbons, The Faith of Our Fathers (Ayers Publishing, 1978)

  But you may read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, and you will
  not find a single line authorizing the sanctification of Sunday. The
  Scriptures enforce the religious observance of Saturday, a day which
  we never sanctify.

John A. O'Brien, The Faith of Millions: the Credentials of the Catholic Religion Revised Edition (Our Sunday Visitor Publishing, 1974)

  But since Saturday, not Sunday, is specified in the Bible, isn't it
  curious that non-Catholics, who claim to take their religion directly
  from the Bible and not from the Church, observe Sunday instead of
  Saturday? Yes, of course, it is inconsistent; but this change was made
  about fifteen centuries before Protestantism was born, and by that
  time the custom was universally observed. They have continued the
  custom even though it rests upon the authority of the Catholic Church
  and not upon and explicit text in the Bible. That observance remains
  as a reminder of the Mother Church from which the non-Catholic sects
  broke away—like a boy running away from home but still carrying in his
  pocket a picture of his mother or a lock of her hair.


texts: Does 2 Timothy 1:9 prove the Doctrine of Election?

texts:
2 Timothy 1:9 states:

  Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according
  to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was
  given us in Christ Jesus before the world began.

If this verse says what I think it does, that we were chosen to be saved "before the world began," doesn't that prove the Calvinist Doctrine of Election?


texts:
Paul, after reasoning about idolatry in Athens, states:

  Therefore, although God has overlooked such times of ignorance, he now
  commands all people everywhere to repent, because he has set a day on
  which he is going to judge the world in righteousness, by a man whom
  he designated, having provided proof to everyone by raising him from
  the dead.”  (Acts 17:30,31 NET)

I think it is safe to say that God overlooking "such times of ignorance" means God overlooked the ignorance of the people of those times.

How did Paul understand God to have "overlooked" the ignorance of those people?

It does not seem that "overlooked" merely means that God did not call them to account while alive, sparing them certain temporal judgments. Rather, in light of verse 31, it seems to imply that they will somehow be found less culpable in the final judgment.

According to most orthodox Christian theology, these pagans who died without Christ are forever condemned and without hope. If that is the case, it doesn't sound like God "overlooked" their ignorance to me.

Question: What does it mean for those people who lived in times when ignorance was overlooked by God?


texts: An example of C.S. Lewis’s claim of the pitfalls of pity

texts:
In The Problem of Pain, C.S. Lewis says

  Even a good emotion, pity, if not controlled by charity and justice, leads through anger to cruelty. Most atrocities are stimulated by accounts of the enemy’s atrocities; and pity for the oppressed classes, when separated from the moral law as a whole, leads by a very natural process to the unremitting brutalities of a reign of terror.

Is there a specific example that Lewis was likely to have in mind? What is the “very natural process” by which pity for oppressed people leads to a reign of terror?


texts: Trouble finding these quotes from St. John Chrysostom

texts:
I stumbled upon the following quotations from St. Alphonsus' book "The History of Heresies and their Refutation":

  Gratia Dei semper in beneficiis priores sibi partes vindicat. (St.
  Chrysos. Hom. 13, in Jean)

  Quia in nostra voluntate totum post Gratiam Dei relictum est, ideo et peccantibus supplicia proposita sunt, et bene operantibus retributiones. (Idem, Hom. 22, in Gen.)

  Igitur quod accepisti, habes, ncque hoc tantum, aut illud, sed quidquid habes; non enim merita tua hæc sunt, sod Dei Gratia; quamvis fidem adducas, quamvis dona, quamvis doctrinæ sermonem, quamvis virtutem, omnia tibi inde provenerunt. Quid igitur habes quæso, quod acceptum non habeas? Num ipse perte recte operatus es? Non sane, sed accepisti...Propterea cohibearis oportet, non enim tuum ad munus est, sed largieutis. (St. Chrysos. Hom, in cap. 4, 1, ad Cor.)

The problem is that I can't find those in the works cited by Alphonsus. Any experts here on St. John Chrysostom or that have read some of his works that can help me out?


texts: Do Mormons believe that marriage is eternal?