If we say "God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit" can we say "God, God, and God"? God is said to be "the triune god". He exists as "the Father" (who is God), "the Son" (who is God), and "the Holy Spirit" (who is God).

Since Jesus is "the son of God", then the Father is independently referred to as God. Otherwise, Jesus would be the son of the triune god, and he would begat himself.

Because of Communicatio idiomatum, Jesus is also referred to as God. So it is said "God died for our sins" or "God suffered".

So we have the Father who is referred to as "God", the Son who is refered to as "God", and there is also the Holy Spirit guy, who is likewise referred to as "God".

Is it correct to refer to God as "god, god, and god"?

Language uses words with particular senses to talk about the world. It's a system of symbols which point to things in the world. One thing in the world, one referent, might have many different words (with many different senses) which can be used to refer to it. For example, one person could be referred to with the words "Mrs Smith", "Ruth", "mother", "grandma", "boss" etc. Though all of those words refer to the same person, they do not have the same senses and are not interchangeable.

Here's another example: at a meeting of world leaders the President of the United States, the President of Russia, and the President of Mongolia all had lunch together. In the context of each country's own media, it is common and appropriate to call each by simple title of "the President". But it would be very confusing to transform that statement into "at a meeting of world leaders the President, the President, and the President all had lunch together." And that's not just because they're all the same word; it would be wrong for US media to write "the President and the Chancellor of Germany had lunch together" if they were referring to the Russian president.

More is going on here than just confusing language however. The unqualified word "God" in Western Christianity (Catholicism and Protestanism) usually refers primarily to the Godhead, the singular essence of God, the one divine being in existence. My understanding is that this is one of the differences between Western and Eastern Christianity: instead of using "God" to refer to the godhead, Eastern Christianity usually uses it to refer to God the Father specifically.

When we say "Jesus the Son of God" we are referring to the second person of the trinity in particular. When we say "Jesus is God" we mean something different, that he is divine. But this does not mean that Jesus is the Godhead or the divine essence.

So if someone said "God, god, and god" Western Christians will only hear the first sense, that they are referring to the godhead three times, which means three divine beings, three divine essences, which is tritheism. Eastern Christians might instead understand it as referring to God the Father three times. But in neither case will it be understood as referring to the three persons of the Trinity.


What were the beliefs, teachings, and practices of the church regarding slavery in the New World? When the New World was discovered, slavery was virtually unknown in Europe. Soon after the discovery of the New World, European powers began to make slaves there, and to transport slaves from Africa to the Americas.

What part did the church (mainly the Roman Catholic church, which dominated Europe) play in this? Did it discourage or encourage the slavery of native peoples?  What were their beliefs and teachings at that time?

Here's what Wikipedia has to say about it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_slavery#Revival_of_slavery_in_the_Early_Modern_Period) (empasis is mine):
Before Columbus

The Portuguese sought confirmation that they could enslave infidels in a crusade. In 1452 Nicholas V issued the papal bull Dum Diversas to King Alfonso V of Portugal which included the following words: "we grant to you...full and free permission to invade, search out, capture and subjugate the Saracens and pagans and any other unbelievers and enemies of Christ...to reduce their persons into perpetual slavery". In 1454 Pope Nicholas explicitly confirmed the rights granted to King Alfonso V in Dum Diversas in Romanus Pontifex by which he granted to Alfonso "...the rights of conquest and permissions previously granted not only to the territories already acquired but also those that might be acquired in the future".

We [therefore] weighing all and singular the premises with due meditation, and noting that since we had formerly by other letters of ours granted among other things free and ample faculty to the aforesaid King Alfonso – to invade, search out, capture, vanquish, and subdue all Saracens, and other enemies of Christ wheresoever placed, and the kingdoms, dukedoms, principalities, dominions, possessions, and all movable and immovable goods whatsoever held and possessed by them and to reduce their persons to perpetual slavery, and to apply and appropriate to himself and his successors the kingdoms, dukedoms, counties, principalities, dominions, possessions, and goods, and to convert them to his and their use and profit...

In 1456, Pope Calixtus III confirmed these grants to the Kings of Portugal and they were renewed by Pope Sixtus IV in 1481; and finally in 1514 Pope Leo repeated verbatim all these documents and approved, renewed and confirmed them.
These papal bulls came to serve as a justification for the subsequent era of slave trade and European colonialism.

Spanish New World

Slavery was part of the indigenous cultures much before the landfall of the Europeans in America. After the Europeans made landfall in America in 1492, Ferdinand and Isabella saw that, if Spain did not receive from the Pope in regard to the American "Indies" the same authority and permissions which Portugal had received in regard of West Africa, then Spain would be at a disadvantage in making use of her newly discovered territories. Accordingly Pope Alexander VI was approached and already on May 3, 1493 he issued two bulls on the same day in both of which he extended the identical favours, permissions, etc. granted to the Monarchy of Portugal in respect of West Africa to the Monarchy of Spain in respect of America.....and to reduce their persons into perpetual slavery...wherever they may be.
Although the church was excited by the potential for huge numbers of conversions in the New World, the clergy sent there were often horrified by the methods used by the conquerors, and tensions between church and state in the new lands grew rapidly

16th century - Slavery in Europe

Slavery in Europe, mainly around the Mediterranean, continued, and was increased by the increased size of Mediterranean navies to combat the powerful Ottoman navy. The main type of naval ship in the Mediterranean, unlike the Atlantic and Northern seas, was the galley, rowed by galley-slaves; use of the galley only declines from about 1600. The navy of the Papal States was no different from that of Venice, France, Genoa and other naval powers. Galley-slaves were recruited by criminal sentencing, usually for a term of years many never survived, as well as capture in war, mostly of Muslims, and sometimes the African slave-trade. Some of the Popes were personally involved in the purchase and use of galley-slaves.[86] The Ottoman admiral Turgut Reis was captured and made a Genoan galley-slave for nearly four years before being imprisoned and eventually ransomed in 1544. After the battle of Lepanto approximately 12,000 Christian galley slaves were freed from the Turks.[87]
In 1535 Pope Paul III removed the ability of slaves in Rome to claim freedom by reaching the Capitol Hill, although this was restored some years later. He "declared the lawfulness of slave trading and slave holding, including the holding of Christian slaves in Rome".[88]
In 1639 Pope Urban VIII forbade the slavery of the Indians of Brazil, Paraguay, and the West Indies, yet he purchased non-Indian slaves for himself from the Knights of Malta,[89] probably for the Papal galleys. The Knights of Malta attacked pirates and Muslim shipping, and their base became a centre for slave trading, selling captured North Africans and Turks. Malta remained a slave market until well into the late 18th century. It required a thousand slaves to equip merely the galleys of the Order.[90][91]

It appears that the Catholic Church certainly approved of mass slavery and even participated in it. Some clergymen who were sent to those countries were shocked by what they saw and did not really approve of it. But as far I can tell, the Church played a big role in slavery.
You might want to read the complete article on Wikipedia though.


Are there any modern churches that subscribe to the Donatist heresy? Back in the late 300s, the big heresy was Donatism.  The basic idea was that if a Priest cracked under the pressure of persecution that it somehow "proved" he was never really worthy of administering the sacraments in the first place, and therefore any baptism, eucharist, or other thing he administered was somehow invalid.

Augustine, however, issued a powerful defense of the idea that a sacrament doesn't depend on the one administering it, but rather the one receiving it.  In reading a recent question about the Waldensians, however, I was surprised to see that they really were much-later Donatists.

The question then, is this - Are there any modern / extant churches that subscribe to this?

Depending on how strictly you define Donatism (sacraments and their efficacy aren't a "given" for most modern movements), it could be argued that many historical movements have been (and are) Donatist when they create a class of Christians who are superior to others and denounce others as non-believers because they are not as devoted. Some have argued that the Anabaptist movement was Donatist, and others have argued that various hyper-conservative movements within denominations or within other movements are Donatist. This can be as subtle as making a distinction between "Spirit-filled" and "nominal" believers, or by other class distinctions whereby one group is repudiated as being inferior because they are less dedicated or do not share the same experiences as the "superior" group.

I'm glad that the apostles didn't adopt that approach, because we'd only be able to read the gospel of John if that were the case ;)


Why did Jesus defend the disciples' failure to wash hands prior to eating? (Catholic perspective) In Matthew 15:1–4 we see:

  Then Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said,  “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands before they eat.”  He answered them, “And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? For God said, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘Whoever speaks evil of father or mother must surely die.’"

We see Jesus virtually defending the disciples who had failed in following a simple lesson of hygiene in an age when  food was eaten directly with hand and not with the help of spoon and fork. Of course,  Jesus was trying to bring the Pharisees home to more important things of life. But then, He could have started  like this: "Well,  I agree that  my disciples are too old to be taught table manners, but..."

My question is: How does the Catholic Church explain the lack of importance attributed by Jesus to the washing of hand prior to eating by His disciples, in the face of criticism by the Pharisees?

Cornelius à Lapide, S.J., commentates on Mt. 15:2-3:

  Why do thy disciples, &c. Bread, in this verse, is a common Hebraism for all kinds oi food. Observe : Moses, m the old Law,enjoined, by God's command, that the Jews should abstain from contact with the dead bodies of rapacious birds and unclean animals,from lepers and various other persons and things. And if any one touched them accidentally, he was accounted unclean ; and was not allowed to enter the Temple until he had performed the ablutions which the law prescribed. And these corporeal washings were enjoined for the purpose of adumbrating to the dense minds of the Jews those spiritual washings of the soul, which are effected by contrition and repentance. (See what I have said on Levit. xi. 31.)

  The Jews then, but especially the Pharisees, who wished to be accounted more religious than other people, made their whole sanctity consist in such outward and frequent washings before their meals,yea even when they were taking their food, as seems to be her eintimated. This was why, at the wedding-feast at Cana, there were placed six water-pots for these purificatory purposes. This was why they so frequently washed the cups and basons, out of which they ate and drank, yea even their beds and tables, as may be seen in Mark vii. 4. They were thus careful, lest if the vessels out of which they ate were polluted, they should contaminate those who ate out of them. But all this was merely done out of custom, since the law prescribed nothing of the kind.

  Observe 2. This excessive scrupulosity of the Jews was little if indeed at all conducive to piety, or profit, since it kept them wholly intent upon external washings. And so it called off their minds from the interior care and purification of the mind from sin. Neither did God require of them this exceeding anxiety about external lustrations; but seems rather to have discouraged it. (Deut. iv. 2) Christ therefore being about to put an end to these vain and frivolous, or noxious traditions, and being desirous of directing their whole attention to the purification of the mind, was unwilling to observe these ablutions, or to enjoin them upon His disciples, although He did not say so in express words, in order to avoid the envy and calumnies of the Pharisees.

  […]

  Jesus answered, &c., for the sake of your tradition. Arabic, for the sake of your ordinances. Instead of, for the sake of, some translate, through. But the meaning is the same in both; viz., your traditions set at nought and violate the Law of God. Therefore they are false and impious, and ought not to be observed.

  Note the word, your. Your traditions were not instituted by God,or His Saints : nor by the ancient Patriarchs and Prophets. They were only invented in recent times by the Scribes and Pharisees,your predecessors. And you wish to maintain them, not from love and reverence for them, but because ye have come into their place,and because ye would arrogate to yourselves power and authority to ordain similar traditions. But there are Divine and Patriarchal traditions, which must be in every way observed. They are, that the Books of Moses, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, and the rest of the Prophets are Canonical : that God is One in Essence, Three in Person: that sins are blotted out by true contrition arising from the love of God :that infants are guilty of original sin, and therefore must be cleansed by the Sacrament which God has ordained, and so on. These traditions ye ignore, or make of none effect, O ye Scribes ; being wholly taken up with your own traditions.

The Pharisee's hand-washing was their own tradition made to appear like the ceremonial precepts of the Old Law, which were no longer in force since Christ's passion. The ceremonial precepts were only intended to help prepare the Israelites for His coming. As St. Thomas Aquinas writes addressing the question "Whether the ceremonies of the Old Law ceased at the coming of Christ?":

  All the ceremonial precepts of the Old Law were ordained to the worship of God as stated above (Question [101], Articles [1],2). Now external worship should be in proportion to the internal worship, which consists in faith, hope and charity. Consequently exterior worship had to be subject to variations according to the variations in the internal worship, in which a threefold state may be distinguished. One state was in respect of faith and hope, both in heavenly goods, and in the means of obtaining them—in both of these considered as things to come. Such was the state of faith and hope in the Old Law. Another state of interior worship is that in which we have faith and hope in heavenly goods as things to come; but in the means of obtaining heavenly goods, as in things present or past. Such is the state of the New Law. The third state is that in which both are possessed as present; wherein nothing is believed in as lacking, nothing hoped for as being yet to come. Such is the state of the Blessed [in heaven].

  In this state of the Blessed, then, nothing in regard to worship of God will be figurative; there will be naught but "thanksgiving and voice of praise" (Is. 51:3). Hence it is written concerning the city of the Blessed (Apoc. 21:22): "I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty is the temple thereof, and the Lamb." Proportionately, therefore, the ceremonies of the first-mentioned state which foreshadowed the second and third states, had need to cease at the advent of the second state; and other ceremonies had to be introduced which would be in keeping with the state of divine worship for that particular time, wherein heavenly goods are a thing of the future, but the Divine favors whereby we obtain the heavenly boons are a thing of the present.


Does the Nicene Creed suggest a strict division of responsibilities within the Trinity? In the Nicene-Constantinopolitan creed, the three persons of the Trinity each seem to have their own role in creating the world:

The Father is "maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible".
For the Son, we have "by whom all things were made", a clear lifting from John 1:3.
The Holy Spirit is "the giver of life" (Greek ζῳοποιόν, Latin vivificantem).

Does this text intend to suggest a strict division of responsibilities (eg, the Father does not give life, the Spirit did not make heaven and earth), or is it more like giving emphasis to the ways in which each person contributes to a single creative will? In particular, what distinction is envisaged between the Father, who makes all things, and the Son, by whom all things are made? My sense is that the authors wanted to make some sort of distinction, but not to the extent of dividing God; I'd like to know how they thought about the ways that the three persons of the one God are responsible for creation.

I don't think the intention of the council fathers was to divide the job/responsibility of Creation between the three persons. Saying the Father does not give life or the Spirit did not make heaven and earth would probably be considered heresy in the early Church.

The Orthodox Church in America states that, "There is no will and no action of God the Father which is not at the same time the will and action of the Son and the Holy Spirit." ... The action of each is the action of all; the action of all is the action of each. And the divine action is essentially one."

Also saying that a person contributes to a single creative will could be understood as saying that the will is not in full control of the person, and that therefore the person executes the will like a robot. Which is also not correct. The CCC 258 sheds more light on this issue:

  For as the Trinity has only one and the same natures so too does it have only one and the same operation: "The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are not three principles of creation but one principle." However, each divine person performs the common work according to his unique personal property.

I understand these are not the references from the actual the authors of the creed, but rather current interpretations of their words. But I think they are in union with that of the council fathers. For example the quote within CCC 258 is directly taken from the Second Council of Constantinople.

Then one might ask why the council fathers used this distinction. I assume that they had a very hard time (as we still do) explaining the trinity and that its three persons are distinct persons while having the same will, power, action without sharing these attributes, rather being in full possession of them with harmony at the same time.

In conclusion, all things that are done by God, are done by the Father, through the son, in the Holy Spirit.


Two Editions of Pelikan's "Whose Bible Is It?" Yaroslav Pelikan's final book "Whose Bible Is It?" has two editions.  The first edition came out in 2005 and was sub-titled "A History of the Scriptures Through the Ages."  The second edition came out the year he died, and the sub-title changed to "A Short History of the Scriptures."

What I'd like to know is if there are any differences between these two, beyond superficialities such as the sub-titles, publishers, etc. In short, does the text differ at all?

It is not uncommon for book publishers to tweak the cover of a book slightly when the book goes for a second printing, due to having sold all of the original copies.  The quick succession (only a year after the original printing) suggests it was simply a reprinting, and not a "new edition."  And their marketing gurus probably decided that a new cover and a shortened subtitle would help sales.

It also appears that the second printing was only done in paperback (judging by availability on amazon), whereas the first printing was both in hardback and paperback.  This could also just mean that they ran out of the first printing of the paperback copies first.

I have not been able to find any hard evidence to support this guess, but it seems logical, and I find no evidence to the contrary, either.  I suppose an email to the publisher, Penguin Press, might set the record straight, if it's that important to anyone.


What time is the "sixth hour" in John 4? "...and Jacob's well was there. Jesus therefore, being wearied with
  his journey, sat thus by the well. It was about the sixth hour." John
  4:6 ASV

It was translated as "noon" in the NIV

  "...Jacob's well was there, and Jesus, tired as he was from the
  journey, sat down by the well. It was about noon." John 4:6 NIV

But The Halley's Bible Handbook says that the "sixth hour" is in the afternoon (6 p.m.), because it's roman hour system

  "The 'sixth hour', v. 6, is the roman time, ie, 6 p.m." Halley's Bible
  Handbook page 474

In "Rome in Late Antiquity: Everyday Life and Urban Change, AD 312-609", by Bertrand Lançon, page 132, We found other time definition.

What time system John used?

The hour of the day for Jews was calculated according to 12 hours of daylight, from sunrise to sunset.

A Jewish source explains it:

  an hour in halacha is calculated by taking the total time of daylight of a particular
  day, from sunrise until sunset,1 and dividing it into twelve equal
  parts. A halachic hour is thus known as a sha'ah zemanit, or
  proportional hour, and varies by the season and even by the day.

  For example, on a day when the sun rises at 5 a.m. and sets at 7:30
  p.m., one sha'ah zemanit, or proportional hour, will be 72.5 minutes
  long. The third hour of the day will come to a close at 8:37:30 a.m.

A Messianic source explains it (see also in the visual that the night hours were similarly divided into watches):

  A Hebrew Hour is defined as 1/12 of the time between sunset and sunrise, or 1/12 of the
  time between sunrise and sunset. The only Scriptural reference to
  there being 12 Hebrew Hours in a Hebrew Day is found in John 11:9
  where  יהושע the Messiah asked a famous question, "Are there not 12
  hours in a day?"


Does the Bible tell us who should be interpreting its message? Is there a passage in the Bible which tells us who should interpret the Bible? I know there are many interpretations/translations of the Bible already. Maybe I can get a better understanding from the different denominations and their interpretation.

For example, is it men, children, clergy, everyone?

Here are two verses that can form an answer to your question (at least they do it for me):

Jeremiah 17:5: "Cursed is the one who trusts in man, who draws strength from mere flesh and whose heart turns away from the Lord."

and:

John 16:13: "But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come"

Regardless of who preaches the Gospel or who translates the Scripture, a child of God must seek spiritual nourishment from his heavenly Father and He will not give a stone to a child who's asking Him from bread.


Who did Jesus intend to take communion? 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?

It is pretty clear that when Jesus called his disciples together on various occasions was to teach them things that they were to pass on to the entire church, this is one of them.  Just as various commands on how we aught to live was only said to them, and not other disciples, so this practice was initiated with only them.

The text does not specifically say ‘only you should do this in remembrance of me’ nor does it say ‘tell everyone else to do this in remembrance of me’. Therefore we must turn to other scriptures to confirm that natural suspicion that Jesus must have been changing the meaning of Passover for Christians, just as all Jews used to eat the meal in remembrance of their deliverance from Egypt.

Turning to the Corinthian’s where the subject had come up due to their abuse of the practice we see clearly that all believers who sincerely believe in Christ should partake of the Lord’s Supper.

  Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.

  (I Cor 10:17, ESV)

Notice above ‘we all’ partake, that is all believers.

However Paul makes it clear than this should only be done in a right frame of mind by true believers and is not to be made light of like it was just an opportunity to party and get drunk.

  23 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.
  27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup.

  (I Cor 11:23-27, ESV)

Notice above Paul is speaking to all the believers and saying they should all partake but not to do it in an unworthy manner.


Is this age the only opportunity for salvation? The majority of mainstream Protestant churches in the U.S. proclaim this age is the only opportunity for salvation.  There's a prominent minority, mostly non-denominational, that claim the period after the second resurrection is another opportunity for salvation.

The implications today concern evangelism efforts.  My experience with Baptist churches are they need to reach people before they die in THIS age, otherwise they are lost forever.  My experience with the non-denominational churches (who believe otherwise) are many simply are not called in this age (e.g. John 6:44), they will be given a chance for salvation in the second resurrection (e.g. Rev 20:5, barring the obvious that those who've received, then rejected Christ, are impossible to redeem thereafter, e.g. Heb 6:6).

Although I was reared around the Baptist and Methodist churches, I don't know their scriptural basis for their belief if you die in the life never knowing Christ you are lost forever.  The churches proclaiming that is not the case point out a lot of scriptural support.

Some examples:

the Lev 23 Holy Days, an annual reminder of the milestones in God's annual plan of salvation for mankind.  For example, TO THE DAY Christ was crucified on Passover, TO THE DAY the Holy Spirit was made widely available to mankind on Pentecost.  To come: Trumpets (Christ's return), Atonement (Satan's binding), the Feast of Tabernacles (1,000 year of Christ on earth), and the Last Great Day (8th day of Tabernacles, is the Great White Throne Judgement).
birthright and firstfruits theme throughout scripture.  This is way too long to post here.  But, I'll reply if requested.  But, it is throughout scripture from Genesis to Revelations.
lots of scripture showing God is not calling everyone in this age, even causing them to be spiritually blind and deaf so that they cannot respond to the gospel.
and various other scriptures supporting this, e.g. Isaiah 49:8's proper translation is "a" day of salvation, not "the" day.

and more.

My question: what is the Baptist/Methodist/same Protestant scriptural basis the age we are currently living in is the only age for salvation?

What is the Biblical basis for the Baptist belief in a singular day of salvation

Here is a description of one Baptist view.

Those who were saved before the cross are saved by faith, but receive their eternal life at the first resurrection.

  Hebrews 11:39-40  And these all, having obtained a good report through
  faith, received not the promise:  God having provided some better
  thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.

  Revelation 20:6  Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first
  resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall
  be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand
  years.

Those who trust in Jesus since the cross have immediate eternal life.

  John 5:24  Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word,
  and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall
  not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

Those who died in faith before the cross will have a single day of salvation (when they receive eternal life). Those who die after the cross each have a particular day when they are saved.

The second death is reserved for those of the second resurrection. This is a resurrection for the judgment of works.


How do Calvinists argue that limited atonement is just and merciful? Why is it just or merciful that God predetermines who is to be saved and who is to be damned, before they are even born? Does that not mean a murderer may be saved and a charity worker damned?

I am a Calvinist and I will try to answer this difficult but explainable question in my thoughts and belief in scripture.
Until we can see man's total depravity and God's total sovereignty we will never be able to understand God's just means so please bear with me.

  Few really believe in the complete ruin and total depravity of
  man.  Those who speak of man's "free will" and insist upon his
  inherent  power to either accept or reject the Savior, only voices
  their misunderstandings of the real condition of Adam's  fallen
  children.  So, if few believe that the condition of the sinner is
  entirely hopeless, there are fewer who really believe in the absolute
  sovereignty  of God. ~ A.W. Pink

What do we mean by the expression "the sovereignty of God"?  We mean the greatness of God, the subject of God as king, and the God-hood of God.  Basically, God is God.  To say God is sovereign is to assert that He is the Most High, doing "according to His will in His army of heaven, and among the inhabitants  of the earth: and none can stay His hand, or say unto Him, What doest thou"? (Daniel 4:35).
To say that God is sovereign  is to declare that He is the almighty and the owner of all power in heaven and earth.  No one can defeat His plans, prevent His purpose or resist His will (Psalms 115:3). We proclaim that He is "The Governor among the nations" (Psalms 22:28), setting up kingdoms,  overthrowing empires, and determining  the pathway of the nation's as He decides is best and according to His wil,His desire and His good pleasure.  To say that God is sovereign  is to announce that He is the "Only Potentate, the King of kings and Lord of lords" (1Timothy 6:15).  This is the real picture of God of the Bible.

The sovereignty  of the God of the Bible is absolute, irresistible and infinite.  We recognize  His right to rule the universe  just as He pleases.  We affirm that His right is right of the potter over the clay to mold that clay into whatever form he chooses.  He makes out of the same lump one vessel into honor and a other unto dishonor (Romans 9:21).  As a Calvinist in my belief, I affirm that God is under no rule of laws outside of His own will and nature, that He is only accountable to Himself and under no obligation to give explanations of His business to anyone.
Sovereignty  characterizes the whole being of God and His sovereign  qualities.

For many centuries Israel was the only nation to whom God granted any special  revelation of Himself:

"Who in times past suffered all nations to walk in their own ways"
(Acts 14:16
"You only (Israel) have I known of all the families of the earth"
(Amos 3:2)
Consequently, as all other nations were without the preaching of
God's  word, they were strangers to the faith that cometh thereby
(Romans 10:17)

These nations were not only ignorant of God himself, but had no way to please Him as a man or to be accepted  by Him.  Did God provide salvation to those people?  Has God changed?  Does God not have the same rights as a sovereign today as He had then.  Why was Israel God's  chosen nation.  Was it unjust for God to leave the other nations to themselves. NO!  God is both just And merciful to whom He pleases and He wills.  Why should we question God?

We as humans in our finite minds seem to think it is "all about us".  Most all of us believe  that God made all things but that He made all things for himself is not so widely believed. However, that God made us, not for our own sake, but for himself, not for our happiness, but for His own glory is repeatedly  affirmed in Scripture.

  "Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honor and power: for
  thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they were created"
  (Revelation 4:11).

But Proverbs 16:4 even goes further. It clearly declares that the lord made the wicked for the day of evil; that was His purpose in giving them existence.  God is our creator.  Is is not fair that He and He alone uses us as he finds His very will, His good pleasure and glory.  I say absolutely.  He is God, I am not.  All for His glory.

These are a few things that have come to mind as a Calvinist and as I think of your question.  God is just and merciful to whom He chooses.  This is of His makings, who am I to question?  He is the "Almighty, the maker of all"  all things to His glory.  Before we can question why, we must understand who He is and His sovereignty and not forget who we are.
I hope this can and will give you a better understanding of how most Calvinist see God.

KJV Bible,  R.C. Sproul,  A.W. Pink and John Mcarthur have all been contributors to my understanding of limited atonement. Understand who God is and His Holiness then the rest falls in place.


How is it that someone who lived thousands of years ago can "represent" me? The assertion that all of humanity "sinned" when Adam sinned, or "through Adam" is often made as a foundation to other Christian doctrines. What specific doctrine points to Adam being a representative of all of humanity? According to those who hold this doctrine, by what mechanism can Adam be considered my representative? I never voted for him nor was offered a choice to participate in his blood line. How is it logical that the choices he made should be held against me and the rest of humanity?

Furthermore, are my other blood ancestors such as my father and grandfather also my representatives in the same sense? If not how is their role different?

The tag original-sin has some interesting related questions, but nothing dealing just with the mechanism by which Adam is considered a "representative", a common phrase used by Christians.

I didn't get to vote or have any say in my forebears leaving their homelands and emigrating to the United States (or, The New World, as it was then known in Europe); nor did I have any say in whether or not to participate in their bloodline. Yet they represented me when they did it.

If we take the Bible to be God's word, and we believe that God cannot lie, then we also have to believe that Adam and Eve were the first people on earth, and that they had the choice to not sin - but of their own free will chose to disobey God.

It is not "Christianity" which says we are sinners because of Adam's sin, it is the Bible that says such:

  Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned

& here:

  For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead.

& here:

  all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God


Is there a way to prove the God of the Bible? I understand that there is an element call faith to believe a system of belief. But my question is, are there valid arguments to prove God to someone who does not believe? Or at least to present God as logical?

The classic arguments I know are the following :

Cosmological argument: That every thing that has a beginning must have a cause.
Theological argument: The order and the useful setting in a system imply an intelligence and a finality that did the organization.
Ontological argument: That the idea of God itself is a proof for the existence of God. How can a finite being imagine an infinite one?
Moral argument: The conscience of the human is proof of a conscience giver. Or, the morality within man means that there must be a moral law giver.
Congruence argument: This argument maintains that the previous arguments present the best way to understand the person of God. That the belief in the existence of God is the better way to explain our moral nature (mental and religious). Also, it is the better way to explain the material universe.

These arguments work together to form one argument. So please don't work with these as 5 single, independent arguments.


Are there any complete tables that can accurately pinpoint the year of the flood? Answers in Genesis -> Timeline for the Flood says that the Flood happened in 1656 Anno Mundi.

However, they don't provide similar table to tell that the exact same Flood starts at 2348 BC. Instead it just quotes a source.

Anywhere I can find such tables in quick and easy to read format? There should be continuation after that?

If you're talking about the date of the Great Flood within the generational dating of the book of Genesis, there are many tables that show this. Here is one example:

(Note: Posting of this table does not imply agreement with all of its text.)

Though there are similar tables that continue the dating through the rest of the Old Testament to the time of Christ, connecting the Flood to our current calendar system, they are necessarily based on less solid genealogies and dates in the Bible, especially during the five or six centuries from the time of the Babylonian captivity to the time of Christ, in which there are major gaps in the biblical record. At that point the dating depends on extra-biblical historical sources providing possible dates for historical events recorded in the Bible.

Further, though we can date the Babylonian captivity fairly accurately from extra-biblical historical records (Babylonian, Persian, etc.) the biblical dating from the time of the Egyptian captivity to the time of the Babylonian captivity is nowhere near as clear-cut as it is from Adam to Joseph, making it difficult to pin down exactly how many years elapsed during that time period.

All of this is why there is not the level of agreement in biblical dating from the time of Joseph to Christ, and up to the present calendar system, that there is from the time of Adam to Joseph, even if we assume that the Bible provides an accurate and historical account of the events it describes.


Can a human ever be happy in the afterlife while not loving God? I'm talking about the afterlife cause you can easily experience moments of happiness during your life on earth, with any kind of attitude towards God.

But after we die, do we have any other choice than to love God? In other words, is happiness possible without loving God? Heaven is only for those who embrace God, right?

I know many people hate God, because they don't like the world that God created. Otherwise they are no bigger sinners than God-loving Christians. I don't know what would have to happen for them to stop hating God. Probably God would have to explain himself to them, which I find hard to imagine... What will happen to them after death?

First of all, Christianity doesn't teach that some get to go to heaven because they are "smaller sinners" than everybody else. Likewise those in hell are not their because they are "bigger sinners" than anyone else. In fact as humans we all stand on pretty equal ground as far as that is concerned, and if that were the standard we'd all be in hell.

Secondly, men do not hate God because of the world he created, they hate God because he is good and they are not. However consciously or unconsciously, they hate him because he is altogether different than they are. They do not understand him and if they did they would not like what they found. The Bible teaches that men love darkness because their deeds are dark and that God is light. (John 3:16-20) Men will naturally hate that which brings judgement to their deeds. God created the earth "and it was good", there would have been no reason to hate it except for the evil deeds of men that have polluted it. A truly Christian perspective on "hating the world" would involve hating the pollution of sin in it and therefore hating ourselves which would turn us to loving God.

Another point that comes up in your question is the issue of choice. The Bible does not speak of any opportunity for new choices to be made after death. Even though everything will be laid bare and there will be no longer room for doubt or question, the choices are made here. They will be sealed there. Those who (through God's intervention in giving them a new heart) chose to hate sin and love God on earth will continue to do so and be truly happy in his presence. Those who have not been redeemed and hate him here will continue to do so for all eternity even though his nature is revealed.

And to bring all this round to the core of your question: No, it will not be possible for a human to be happy in the afterlife while not loving God. There is nothing else in heaven to be happy about. The lamb on the throne is the central theme in the description we are given of heaven. Heaven is heaven because God is there. It will be unquestionably happy for those there because they will love him (even more than they do now). For those apart from him there will be no happiness at all, only weeping and gnashing of teeth.


Which cup of wine did Jesus tell his disciples to drink during the Last Supper? During the Last Supper, when Jesus told his disciples to drink the wine because it was his blood.  Which cup of wine was this?  Was it the third cup, or was it the cup of Elijah (or one of the other cups) in the Passover Seder meal?

(Luke 22:20 and 1 Corinthians 11:25)

Per 1 Corinthians 11:25 (NIV)

  25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is
  the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in
  remembrance of me.”

(emphasis added, obviously)

This seems to indicate that it was the third cup.

Here is a much larger article about it.

This is presuming that it was the Passover meal at all.


What's the principle in the eyes of God behind Leviticus leprosy and unclean law? I am reading Leviticus these days, and I have a few questions:

To take one example, I don't understand 13:13:

  then the priest shall look, and if the leprous disease has covered all his body, he shall pronounce him clean of the disease; it has all turned white, and he is clean. "

Isn't it possible that the disease is still there?
I know some people do eat a lot of bizarre foods and animals, but I still find its hard to think about people eating locusts, and God said it's clean.

Ultimately, I want to know are these laws having good reasons and very sophisticated modern scientific explanations behind them? Or are there any other principles behind them that we would never fully know until we meet God?

To understand how to contextualize the meaning of various rules of eating food, or Priesthood medical inspections  under the Mosaic we need to understand the overall purpose.  In a nutshell the reason why these laws were added was to bring about an awareness of sin. This was achieved partly through symbols (non sinful things represented symbolically as sin) and partly through listing actual sins directly in a codified legalistic compilation, i.e. the moral laws.

If there was actually any practical benefit of some obscure ritual or dietary restrictions is secondary to the principal purpose -- of making an awareness of sin. In some cases there need not be any practical benefit at all. In the case of the seemingly medicinal inspections for mold in the camp and the quarantine of contagious diseases, there does seem to be a practical element wrapped within the symbolic purpose, but really it is the symbols of filth and disease of sin that counts.  Although a rule may have no practical meaning, Wthnrespect to the medicinal inspections a practical rule was surely warpped in the symbol.  In the case of leprosy where white formations covered the whole body but there were not any open sores it was a sign that it was not leprosy but another non contagious disease. Nobody declared clean was highly contagious that was part of the reason for the inspection. Also no symbolic rite was positively harmful.

  The third case is looked upon according to differing medical views, either as a different disease, the lepra vulgaris, which “scarcely affects the general health, and for the most part disappears of itself, though it often lasts for years” (Clark); or as a case of the true leprosy in which “the breaking out of the leprous matter in this complete and rapid way upon the surface of the whole body was the crisis of the disease; the diseased matter turned into a scurf, which died away and then fell off” (Keil). Patrick compares it to the eruptions in measles and small pox, when there is safety in their full development. The suspected person thus either had a harmless disease, or he had had the leprosy and was cured. In either case sentence of cleanness was to be pronounced. (Lange's Commentary on Leviticus)

The main symbolism of arbitrary diet laws or obscure rites, whether having practical benefit or not, was in 'externally' symbolizing the need to 'separate oneself' from the world or separate the world from Israel.  As Abraham 'cut' himself off from the world, leaving his people by faith, so did his children cut away the flesh of their foreskin. In the same way many foods and practices among heathens, were cut away, like the foreskin, as a symbol. Also defiled things in the camp of Israel was to be cut away or quarantined from infecting the rest. This separation of things and restrictions even encompassed the removing of perfectly useful objects such as yeast during the passover feast.

In addition to this need to be 'separate', 'cut away from' and 'holy' in a somewhat 'figurative sense', a livid awareness of the external impurity of sin, ultimately the cause of all disease, mold, corruption and death was to be made.  The entire result was an increased awareness of sin. Anyone burdened with constant rites of 'do not touch', 'do not eat' and of 'purifications' etc., often under the threat of capital punishment would become aware of sin for sure! In addition to the awareness of sin, the moral commands and their serious threatenings established a full sense of guilt, requiring atonement. This goes hand in hand with the levitical sacrificial rites.  All this sin, guilt, death and sacrifice was meant to increase awareness of sin and increase sin itself.

  The law was brought in so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more (Romans 5:20, NIV)

By becoming more wicked and aware of it, an unbelieving Jew would find solace in the promise of a Messiah, become a believing Jew like Abraham, a born again Jew having faith in Messiah. In other words, the purpose of the law was to lead us to Christ as a harsh school master. This leading included every obscure rule that separated the Jew from the world and enabled their communal life under the theocracy in an awareness of sin, guilt and death.

  So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian. (Galatians 3:24-25, NIV)

Guardian in this verse is παιδαγωγοσ paidagogos; a servant whose office it was to take the children to school. In other words a tutor,  instructor, or schoolmaster. The idea is that while under the shadow of the mosaic law the people of God were not treated as real full sons with responsibility, knowledge and authority in the family, but as mere toddlers managed under a servant of the home. Schoolmasters are often considered harsh in that they do not have the natural affections of a parent and since their rod of disciple in this sense was to instill terror, guilt and the increase of sin.


Does the Lumen Gentium dogmatic constitution say that non-Catholic Christians cannot be saved? The Wikipedia page on Salvation in Christianity says the following about the Catholic view of salvation of non-Catholics:

  Nevertheless, individual Protestants aware of the fact that Christ established the Catholic Church, but fail to join its membership, "cannot be saved" since they are living in open contempt towards God's known truth.

This statement is sourced by Lumen Gentium, a 1964 Roman Catholic dogmatic constitution that was a major document of Vatican II. Wikipedia didn't say which part, but as best I can tell, it is referring to Chapter II, Section 14:

  This Sacred Council wishes to turn its attention firstly to the Catholic faithful. Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism(124) and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church. Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.

Is it accurate to say that this passage is saying that Protestants (or at least those who know the historical basis for the Catholic Church) cannot be saved unless they join the Catholic Church? Or is there something that I am missing?

Lumen Gentium does indeed state that non-Catholic Christians can not be saved, but there are some important qualifications. First of all, part of the statement in Chapter II, Section 14 states:

Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.

This is important, because the section only affects Christians who "knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ" refuse to become Catholics. It can be  said that anyone who holds this belief would, of course, become a Catholic and that anyone who does not become a Catholic does not hold that belief. Protestants and others are off the hook.
Second, Lumen Gentium must be read in the context of Dignitatis Humanae, also issued by the Second Vatican Council. This states:

This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.
The council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself.

In Dignitatis Humanae, section 2 grants non-Catholics the absolute right, under Catholic teaching, to religious freedom. But is the exercise of that freedom to be considered as being at the expense of their salvation? For this I turn to section 1:

First, the council professes its belief that God Himself has made known to mankind the way in which men are to serve Him, and thus be saved in Christ and come to blessedness. We believe that this one true religion subsists in the Catholic and Apostolic Church, to which the Lord Jesus committed the duty of spreading it abroad among all men ...
This Vatican Council likewise professes its belief that it is upon the human conscience that these obligations fall and exert their binding force. The truth cannot impose itself except by virtue of its own truth, as it makes its entrance into the mind at once quietly and with power.
Religious freedom, in turn, which men demand as necessary to fulfill their duty to worship God, has to do with immunity from coercion in civil society. Therefore it leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ.

I notice that the bishops say three times in the space of the above extract that what follows is their "belief" - thus not immutable truth. The council only requires non-Catholics to follow their consciences, not necessarily bound by the teachings of the Church, saying "The truth cannot impose itself except by virtue of its own truth."
So, yes, Lumen Gentium does say that non-Catholic Christians can not be saved, but only if they actually know the requirement to become Catholics. In Dignitatis Humanae, they are to follow their own consciences in reaching the truth as to whether they should be Catholics.


How do the Assemblies of God interpret 1 Corinthians 11:2–6? I attend an Assemblies of God church and my pastor's attitude towards expectation of attire within the church is very lax. That being the case, what is the AG/Pentecostal interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11:2–6?

2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.
3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.
5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.
6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. (KJV)

As far as I am aware, the Assemblies of God does not have an official stance on physical head covering. The woman is free to decide.

At my church, Findlay First Assembly of God (the oldest AG Church), it was interpreted as a spiritual or metaphorical covering, refering to women in leadership positions over men within the church.

  The women in Corinth, by prophesying without a head covering, were sending a signal that they were no longer submitting to male authority. Paul sees this problem as severe because the arrogation of male leadership roles by women ultimately dissolves the distinction between men and women.
  - Thomas R. Schreiner

What Paul Really Says About Women in Ministry


Why was Solomon chosen as King instead of one of his brothers? 1 Kings tells us that, when David was elderly and impotent, Adonijah considered himself as heir-apparent and crowned himself, but Nathan the Prophet and Bathsheba approached David:

  She said to him, “My lord, you yourself swore to me your servant by the Lord your God: ‘Solomon your son shall be king after me, and he will sit on my throne.’ But now Adonijah has become king, and you, my lord the king, do not know about it.

Why would David have chosen Solomon, the younger candidate, as a successor?

David chose Solomon as his successor because “the word of the Lord came to [him]” telling him to do so. David, due to his many sins, was unworthy of building God’s temple. God chose Solomon from before his birth as the one who would build the temple and reign over Israel.

1 Chronicles 22:6-10

  6 Then he called for Solomon his son and charged him to build a house for the Lord, the God of Israel. 7 David said to Solomon, “My son, I had it in my heart to build a house to the name of the Lord my God. 8 But the word of the Lord came to me, saying, ‘You have shed much blood and have waged great wars. You shall not build a house to my name, because you have shed so much blood before me on the earth. 9 Behold, a son shall be born to you who shall be a man of rest. I will give him rest from all his surrounding enemies. For his name shall be Solomon, and I will give peace and quiet to Israel in his days. 10 He shall build a house for my name. He shall be my son, and I will be his father, and I will establish his royal throne in Israel forever.’


Why is Jesus' name pronounced differently in each language? Possible Duplicate:
  Why do biblical names vary in different languages?

We call him Jesus in English. But in the  Tamil language, the word Jesus is pronounced as "Eeasu". I wonder why such thing is happening. For example, if a person's name is John in English, he will be called John in Tamil and hopefully in other languages too.

But why does  this rule differ in case of Jesus Christ?

Your premise that other names are said the same across languages is simply not correct. Lots of writing systems and spoken sounds don't have one-to-one equivalents in other languages, and over time it is quite common for names to morph to things that are easier to write or say. Sometimes the name will be spelled the same but pronounced locally, then somebody will come along and start writing it how it sounds and so on. Sometimes names have meanings and it is common to translate the meaning into a new name. Then that name gets transliterated and the process continues.

The main point is that Christianity's use is no different than common language practice. If anything there are some very common threads that connect all the dots—more so than you might find for just any name.

A simple example is my own name. Caleb on English is neither pronounceable nor spellable in Turkish. They can't actually say it well even repeat-after-me style because they never end words with "b" and the other sounds just don't go together well. If they see it written, they say it differently entirely. Usually I go by a rough sound equivalent and don't worry about how they spell it. If I'm doing documentation of any kind, I go by the spelling and just introduce myself with their pronunciation of that to save trouble, and I am accustomed to answering to that name as well. The other alternative would be to use the name as it had come to be translated in scripture, which through hand-me-down tradition and various language transitions is rendered "kalev". Incidentally this is actually closer to the Hebrew version of the name than my given English name.

For reference, Jesus is rendered as "İsa" in Turkish.


Should a priest refuse communion to the inappropriately dressed woman when she approaches to receive it? Should a priest refuse communion to the inappropriately dressed woman when she approaches to receive? For example, a woman comes dressed with a short dress or bare shoulders in the church, and she goes to receive communion; should the priest refuse the communion on the account of the scandal she is causing? I am interested in the Catholic viewpoint.

Should a priest refuse communion to an inappropriately dressed man or woman when they approach to receive it?

That will all depend on the particular circumstances involved. I included men in my response because both sexes can be equally modest in dress and can be also guilty of dressing immodestly.

Caveat: What is considered an inappropriate dress code in some cultures may not be equated with inappropriate dress at all! Inappropriate does not always mean immodest either.

Before going with my response hear, I will admit that the Vatican has at one point published at proper dress code which I remember reading. What I do recall about it, is the simple fact the level was so high that even the most modestly dressed Catholics would be taken aback. Times have changed drastically in the manners of how people dress in modern times.

Culture plays it’s part in this to. For example, it is not deemed inappropriate in Middle East churches, for a woman to breastfeed an infant while at Mass. In some countries this is somewhat frowned on. However Pope Francis sees no problem with it.

  "Babies have their own dialect," he added. "If one starts to cry the others will follow, like in an orchestra." He said that if the babies were "starting a concert" of crying because they were hungry, mothers should "go ahead and feed them," for this too is a "language of love."

  This isn't the first time Pope Francis has encouraged mothers to breastfeed in the Sistine Chapel. Last year at the same ceremony, the Pope made similarly supportive remarks, saying mothers should feed their children as "Mary breastfed Jesus." - Pope Francis Once Again Encourages Mothers To Breastfeed In The Sistine Chapel

There are signs all around St. Peter’s Square explaining the expected dress code when visiting the Vatican. Having visited the Vatican in person I can say that the Swiss Guards are very vigilant in enforcing the dress code on visitors.

The above Vatican sign shows the dress code of both men and women!

As we see in the above pictographs that even men and boys must not wear short. However in some cultures this is not considered an inappropriate dress code at all. Scouts in France will attend Mass in shorts, whether they attend the New Mass or the Old Mass. Having lived in France for over ten years, I can attest to this fact.

There is a Benedictine Monastery about 10 Kilometres from where I presently live and on the doors of the abbey church there is the exact same signage as what is posted at the Vatican a being the standard that the monks desire as a dress code for the faithful to enter the church.

That said, it occasionally happens that some visitors enter into the church with what is considered inappropriate dress. At communion time, I have never seen any priest refusing to give communion to a visitor, uniquely because they were deemed inappropriately dressed. I have seen some of the priests refuse to give communion to someone when the communicant displayed signs that they were not Catholic and have no idea on how to receive Holy Communion, but never for not following the dress code!

In general, a priest will not refuse communion to a communicant simply because they are somewhat inappropriately dressed according to the standards of their cultures. However, if one were to come down the communion isle in his or her Adam’s suit, I imagine a priest would definitely refuse to allow the communicant to receive Holy Communion.

If a priest thinks he see someone inappropriately dressed at communion time, he should not refuse communion to the individual, but rather explain what is wrong with their clothing attire after Mass and in private as to avoid any real  scandal in the future. Some people simply do not understand such things.

Once again, if we were to go by the standards of the Vatican in the 1930’s, many of us today would be deemed as being underdressed, especially in the hot summer months.

Now taking all the above into consideration, we should make a distinction between inappropriate and immodest dress in respect to women’s and girl’s dress. Pope Pius XI has stated that a woman or girl who ”wear immodest clothes are to be prohibited from Holy Communion and from the office of sponsor in the sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation, and in certain cases, they are to be prohibited even from entry into the church.“ Thus according to Pope Pius XI, priests should normally refuse to give communion to such individuals if truly dress immodestly. (How the Vatican reacts to dress in our days has certainly changed as we are aware at any televised Papal Mass bares out.)

  Women and girls who wear immodest clothes are to be prohibited from Holy Communion and from the office of sponsor in the sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation, and in certain cases, they are to be prohibited even from entry into the church.

  THE MARYLIKE STANDARDS FOR MODESTY IN DRESS

  “A dress cannot be called decent which is cut deeper than two fingers breadth under the pit of the throat; which does not cover the arms at least to the elbows; and scarcely reaches a bit beyond the knees. Furthermore, dresses of transparent materials are improper.” (The Cardinal Vicar of Pope Pius XI).

  Marylike is modest without compromise, “like Mary,” Christ’s mother.
  Marylike dresses have sleeves extending at least to the elbows; and skirts reaching below the knees.
  [N.B. Because of impossible market conditions quarter-length sleeves are temporarily tolerated with Ecclesiastical Approval, until Christian womanhood again turns to Mary as the model of modesty in dress.]
  Marylike dress requires full coverage for the bodice, chest, shoulders and back; except for a cut-out about the neck not exceeding two inches below the neckline in front and in back and a corresponding two inches on the shoulders.
  Marylike dresses do not admit as modest coverage transparent fabrics — laces, nets, organdy, nylons, etc. — unless sufficient backing is added. However, their moderate use as trimmings is acceptable.
  Marylike dresses do not admit the use improper of flesh-colored fabrics.
  Marylike dresses conceal rather than reveal the figure of the wearer; they do not unduly emphasize the parts of the body.
  Marylike dresses provide full coverage — even after the jacket, the cape or the stole are removed.
  Slacks or ‘jeans’ are not to be worn to church.
  Marylike fashions are designed to conceal as much of the body as possible rather than reveal it. This would automatically eliminate such fashions as tight fitting slacks or ‘jeans’, sweaters, shorts; shorts which do not reach down at least to the knees; sheer blouses and sleeveless dresses, etc. These Marylike standards are a guide to instill a sense of modesty. Women and girls who follow these standards and who look to Mary as their ideal and model will have no problem of modesty in dress. She who follows these standards will not be the occasion of sin nor a source of embarrassment or shame to others. - A PAPAL DECREE CONCERNING MODESTY

Here we must walk a fine line, for if a genuine scandal were to exist, then yes, priests should refuse to give communion to either a male or female who is immodestly dressed. Remember too, that these are guidelines that many would deem outdated. After all Pope Pius XI did say that “‘jeans’ are not to be worn to church.”

In my seminary days this point was part of the dress code for all seminarians, but it did not apply to the faithful on Sunday Mass (1980’s).  Many wore jeans to Mass and so so did young girls and women. If guess it was a question of what was considered appropriate over inappropriate rather than what was considered immodest in dress.

Let the theologians figure out the nuances and I will do my best to be both appropriate and modest in my dress at Mass.


When was the first African American ordained in a US Presbyterian denomination? In Presbyterianism, a distinction is typically made between preachers who are "licensed" and those who are "ordained."  One who is licensed has permission to preach regularly in a particular geographic area, but is not considered an officer of the church.  One who is ordained has greater privileges, such as full membership, including voting rights, in a presbytery.

In the antebellum South, Presbyterians licensed several African American preachers, like John Chavis.  He preached in a variety of congregations, but, apparently due to his race, was never ordained.

Today, of course, there are many ordained Black pastors in the various American Presbyterian denominations.  So my question is, when was the first African American ordained by one of them?

I'm especially interested to know if the first such ordination took place prior to or during the war, perhaps by the anti-slavery New School Presbyterians in the North.

You are correct that John Chavis, although he is reported to have been the first college-educated Black/African in America, was never ordained. He was licenced to minister.

It appears that John Gloucester, the founder of the first African American Presbyterian Church in the US, was the first African American Presbyterian ordained. His ordination was on April 13, 1810, in Tennessee, after college level studies around the turn of the century, followed by the founding of the first African American Presbyterian church in 1807, a short assignment in North Carolina, and his return to his Philadelphia young church. As he was licensed only to preach, and not lead, he was allowed to return to Tennessee to complete his required studies for ordination.

My source for research was BlackPast.org. John Gloucester's full story is detailed here.


Why is the Song of Solomon in bible? Can someone explain what the song is all about? I read it and found out that the characters are not husband and wife. I want to understand the context in which the poem is written and a gist of the same.

I am indebted to Dr. Peter Leithart for his writings and lectures on the Song of Songs. For further reading, you can visit his website. These thoughts might help in approaching the book.

Wisdom literature

It is helpful to consider the book’s position in the canon as part of the wisdom literature. In Proverbs, the king exhorts his son to seek wisdom and throughout the book, wisdom is personified as a great and righteous lady. She is contrasted with the harlot Folly, the strange or foreign woman who tempts the simple to turn aside to their ruin. “In the final chapter, we find that the prince has chosen well: He has made Lady Wisdom his bride.  As King Lemuel’s mother urged, he has renounced the women who destroy kings (31:3) and embraces the woman who enables him to rule well.(Leithart)"

Ecclesiastes follows on this theme and shows the limit of wisdom. Wisdom is rightly prized and sought, but it is not ultimate. This life, this creation, is good and is meant to be enjoyed, but, to borrow a phrase from Doug Wilson, that joy is on a tether.

The Song of Songs displays the King’s desire for his Bride, the one in whom he delights. It is a love poem, to be sure, but it reaches beyond individual human relationships. It is the height of wisdom literature and the height of poetry. It is the Song of Songs - a verbal construction that parallels the Holy of Holies - the Most Songy Song, the Greatest Song Ever Written. As such, it is elusive, difficult to get a solid hold on. It is also allusive - it reaches out and pulls in imagery and ideas from all over the rest of scripture.

Land Imagery

The beauty of the Bride is often expressed in geographic or agricultural terms. Her body is like a rolling landscape, her breasts like spiced mountains, her hair like goats leaping down the slopes of Gilead (4:1). Her neck is like the Tower of David, set with warriors’ shields (4:4). She is beautiful as Tirzah, lovely as Jerusalem (6:4). Her eyes are pools in Heshbon, her nose like the tower of Lebanon, her head crowns her like Mount Carmel (7:4-5). This is the love of the King for his country, his people.

  Who is this who looks down like the dawn,
  beautiful as the moon, bright as the sun,
  awesome as an army with banners?

This alludes to the gathered host of Israel encamped under the tribal banners around the tabernacle (Num 2). The people surround the King as the Bridal City, the New Jerusalem, which is decked out in royal splendor and surrounds Christ, the Husband, and which outshines the sun and moon with the reflected glory of God (Rev 21).

Edenic Imagery

“The Song is full of the imagery of Eden.  Solomon uses the word “garden” eight times (4:12, 15, 16 [2x], 5:1; 6:2 [2x]; 8:13), and the poem frequently refers to trees, fruits, flowers, springs.(Leithart)” The lovers are a sort of idyllic, unfallen Adam and Eve, maturing in their passion and love for one another. He describes her as a tree which he climbs to gather and eat her fruit (7:8), reminiscent of the fruit trees in the garden.

Four times Solomon calls her “my sister, my bride” which brings to mind Adam’s statement of Eve, “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man." ‘Bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh’ is a statement of kinship. It is nearly the same greeting Laban gives Jacob (Gen 29:14) and different groups claim kinship in similar terms (cf. Jud 9:2, 2 Sam 5:1, 19:12, 13). The Hebrew behind the ‘Woman’ and ‘Man’ is Ishah and Ish. Up until this point the man has been called adam because he was formed from the dust of the ground, adamah. The word Ish is almost exactly the same word as Esh, fire. So, the dirt-man becomes fire-man in union with his bride. He is transformed and glorified. This is the same thing Paul says in 1 Corinthians 11:7, “For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man.” The woman lights up and glorifies her husband, making him better than he would be on his own.

Temple Imagery

“Eden’s garden was Adam’s original sanctuary, and the imagery of the garden in the Song shades over into imagery of the sanctuary.  The house where the lovers meet is made from temple materials – cedar and cypress (1:17), and like the temple the garden of love is a place of feasting (2:4; 5:1).  Solomon frequently mentions the fragrances that waft from the garden, reminding us of the pacifying smoke from Israel’s sacrifices.(Leithart)”

Both the Bride and the Beloved are described in terms of temple imagery. She is pictured as a lily, with cheeks like halves of pomegranates, like the lily-topped and pomegranate-encircled pillars in the temple court (1 Kg 7:21ff). Again, she herself is like a pillar that the Beloved climbs, a palm tree like the palm groves carved into the walls of the temple (1 Kg 6:29). Her aroma is that of frankincense, myrrh, cinnamon and spices, like the perfumed anointing oil used in the sanctuary (Ex 30:23ff).

He is described like a statue of a man with a head like gold - the Holy of Holies; eyes like doves - the seven branched lampstand*; cheeks of spices - the altar of incense; lips of lilies - again, the lily-topped pillars; body of ivory, legs of alabaster and gold, appearance like cedar - the foundation and structure of the temple.

“The interweaving of imagery in the Song hints at the double reference of the poem: It is a poem of ideal human love, the lovers like unfallen Adam and Eve, but it is also a poem about Yahweh’s trysts with Israel in the love-garden of the temple.(Leithart)”

Sexual Imagery

As a love poem, it expresses in very passionate terms the desire of the Bride for the Beloved, and that of the Beloved for his Bride. In Ephesians 5, Paul points out that the fundamental meaning of the sexual relationship between a husband and wife is that it is an image, a type, of the relationship of Christ and the Church. “‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church.”

Scripture, especially in the prophets, frequently refers to Yahweh as Husband and Israel as Wife (cf. Is 54:5, Jer 3:20, 31:32, Hsa 2) Ezekiel 16 is a retelling of the history of Israel in Husband/Wife imagery:

  When I passed by you again and saw you, behold, you were at the age for love, and I spread the corner of my garment over you and covered your nakedness; I made my vow to you and entered into a covenant with you, declares the Lord GOD, and you became mine. Then I bathed you with water and washed off your blood from you and anointed you with oil. I clothed you also with embroidered cloth and shod you with fine leather. I wrapped you in fine linen and covered you with silk. And I adorned you with ornaments and put bracelets on your wrists and a chain on your neck. And I put a ring on your nose and earrings in your ears and a beautiful crown on your head. Thus you were adorned with gold and silver, and your clothing was of fine linen and silk and embroidered cloth. You ate fine flour and honey and oil. You grew exceedingly beautiful and advanced to royalty.

Yahweh brought His people out of wallowing in the blood of Egypt to bring them to His mountain and establish His covenant with them. He washed them by baptism in the Red Sea (1Cr 10:2) and by the sprinkling of blood at Sinai (Ex 24:8). He anointed Aaron and the whole tabernacle with oil, setting them apart for holy use. He adorned them with the glory of the tabernacle: gold, silver, embroidered cloth and leather - plunder from the Egyptians. The rendering of the story in Ezekiel highlights the covenant of Sinai as His marriage covenant with His people. But despite all this, Israel turned away and whored after other lovers, other gods, and lusted after the gods of Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, or anyone else who happened to pass by.

The Song shows desire set over against lust. The desire of the two lovers for one another is full, passionate, mature. Each is fully longing for and seeking after the other and will not turn aside to any other. “As a lily among brambles, so is my love among the young women.” He is captivated by her beauty. “You have captivated my heart, my sister, my bride; you have captivated my heart with one glance of your eyes... Turn away your eyes from me, for they overwhelm me.” By the end of the Song, the Bride has taken on the name of the Beloved. She is the Shulamite, a feminine form of Solomon’s name. She has become  the radiant, glorious, spotless Bride - a Bride fit for the King.

If what Paul says is true, that marriage is a picture of God with His people, Christ with the Church, then here we see the complete devotion and passionate desire of Christ for His Bride and of the Church for Christ. This has implications for how the Church should be viewed. How often was Israel led astray? How often is today’s Church led astray by lovers less wild than Jesus? The Song shows an idyllic relationship, one that has not been born out in the Church (at least with our limited perspective on history), but Paul says it will and that Christ will “present the church to Himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.”

*the Spirit who descends as a dove at the baptism of Christ and as flames of fire on Pentecost is the same ‘seven Spirits (or seven-fold Spirit) of God’ in Revelation 4:5, and the seven flaming eyes of Christ in Revelation 5:6.


If you are in mortal sin but went to mass anyways are you in less of a sinful state? Let's say John is in an invalid marriage and he intends to convalidate at some point but he is waiting for practical reasons such as making sure family can attend and it will take some time and money.

He is in a state of mortal sin and cannot be absolved until the marriage is convalidated.

Is going to mass beneficial to him? Does it make him in a less sinful condition than if he quit going until the convalidation?

TL;DR: no, for the same reason that one can't be "a little bit pregnant."

I am going to answer in reverse order, since going to mass or not seems to be the active ingredient of this question.

Making the best of a difficult situation

  Is going to mass beneficial to him?

Yes, going to mass is still beneficial to someone in a state of sin.

By attending mass, even if he is unable to receive communion due to the "work in progress" regarding his marriage's convalidation, he is:

Turning toward God, rather than away1
Staying connected to the faith community
Participating in receiving the Word, and joining in the prayers of the faithful
Keeping his priorities (thou shalt keep the Sabbath holy) in accord with the Commandments
Acting in humility by accepting God's offer of love and friendship, even while dealing with the temporary state of sin. (That work in progress will come to fruition ...)

  CCC 1 He{God} calls man to seek him, to know him, to love him with all his strength. He calls together all men, scattered and divided by sin, into the unity of his family, the Church.

On Compounding Sin

  Does it make him in a less sinful condition than if he quit going until the convalidation?

The question is asked in reverse, so I'll challenge its frame.  The question "Does sin compound" was answered here.  The choice to refrain from going to Mass would compound the state of mortal sin in a serious way.  Beyond that, choosing to stay away from the Eucharistic celebration is also a rejection of the Faith Community (all of the other people who go to his church).  It shows by his actions that he chooses not to accept their company in the communal worship embodied in the Mass.  It may be a small sacrifice of ego to attend mass when one cannot receive communion, and others can, but of such small sacrifices is love, agape love, built.  When it comes to love, show don't tell.

John 13:34

  34 A new commandment I give unto you: That you love one another: as I
  have loved you, that you also love one another.

1 Choosing to not go to Mass is a specific and mortal willful turning away from God. Sin, in general, is a turning away from God.

  1850 Sin is an offense against God: "Against you, you alone, have I
  sinned, and done that which is evil in your sight."  Sin sets itself
  against God's love for us and turns our hearts away from it. Like the
  first sin, it is disobedience ...

Repentance, as it has come to us in translation from the original Greek and Hebrew, is in origin a term that connotes a turning toward God, or a turning again toward God (which implies an initial turning away from God at some point, aka sin).  As we each deal with sin, be it venial or mortal, a conscious effort to turn towards God keeps our faith priorities aligned with His will.  Conversely, to willfully turn away is to reject his mercy.

  CCC 1864 There are no limits to the mercy of God, but anyone who
  deliberately refuses to accept his mercy by repenting, rejects the
  forgiveness of his sins and the salvation offered by the Holy Spirit.
  Such hardness of heart can lead to final impenitence and eternal loss.

CCC references are citations from the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Anecdotal point: I've a former work colleague who attends the same church that I do. He comes to mass, with his wife and children, regularly.  He is still working through the convalidation process, which has some quirks based on the circumstances surrounding their marriage.  He was raised Catholic.  To say that the process has been frustrating for him is an understatement, but he remains faithful and hangs in there even though he can't receive.  I am looking forward to celebrating with him on the day that their marriage is convalidated.


Interpretation of Exodus 21 When I read the Bible for the first time, about Exodus 21:22-25 ESV I thought the charges are about the pregnant woman and I absolutely didn't know that life for life refers to the born child since hitting may cause also the woman a death, until I see this question!

My question is not focusing on just the mentioned verses but also for whole of the Bible: How to read the Bible correctly?

  "When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her
  children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall
  surely be fined, as the woman’s husband shall impose on him, and he
  shall pay as the judges determine. But if there is harm, then you
  shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand,
  foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
  Exodus 21:22-25 ESV

It is not written "she" or "the child". X for X is written vague.

Perhaps a more literal translation:

  Exodus 21:22: And should men quarrel and hit a pregnant woman, and she miscarries but there is no fatality, he shall surely be punished, when the woman's husband makes demands of him, and he shall give [restitution] according to the judges' [orders].

The great medieval rabbi known as Rashi comments on this passage:

And should men quarrel: with one another, and [one] intended to
strike his fellow, and [instead] struck a woman. [From Sanh. 79a]
and hit a pregnant woman: Heb. נְגִיפָה וְנָגְפוּ is only an
expression of pushing and striking, as [in the following phrases:]
“lest you strike ךְתִּגֹף your foot with a stone” (Ps. 91:12); “and
before your feet are bruised (יִתְנְַָפוּ) ” (Jer. 13:16); “and a
stone upon which to dash oneself (נֶגֶף) ” (Isa. 8:14).
[Here Rashi is emphasising that the blow need not be such as to endanger the woman herself.]
but there is no fatality: with the woman. [my emphasis]

The assailant must pay to the husband the value of the foetus.

  Exodus 21:23: But if there is a fatality, you shall give a life for a life,

Rashi says:

But if there is a fatality: with the woman.
you shall give a life for a life: Our Rabbis differ on this matter. Some say [that he must] actually [give up his] life, and some say [that he must pay] money, but not actually a life, and if one intends to kill one person and kills another, he is exempt from the death penalty and must pay his [the victim’s] heirs his value, as [it would be if] he were sold in the marketplace. -[From Mechilta, Sanh. 79]


Are there any denominations that accept the gap theory? Some Christians have expressed doubt about a literal 24 hour day, before the sun and moon were created in:

  Genesis 1:16  KJV  And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

Advocates of the gap theory have based much of their argument on verses 1 and 2 of Genesis, because there was no light.

Gen 1:1 and 2

  In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

In Genesis 1:3 God created light:

  Genesis 1:3  And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

However: the light was not separated from the darkness (and even I have a hard time imagining that even though I do not question it). Then in verse 4 Go does separate the light from the darkness.

  Genesis 1:4  And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

In verse 5 God designates day and night, and calls the combination of the two the first day.

  Genesis 1:5  And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

Do any Denominations believe that up until verses 4 and 5 there was an indefinite period which had no specific number of hours, or days, or years by our concept of time?

There are quite a few denominations that believe that the literal 7 days of creation occurred only a few thousand years ago, while also believeing that the universe itself was created billions of years earlier.

Many of them have "Church of God" in their names, such as:

United Church of God,
Living Church of God,
Restored Church of God,
Philadelphia Church of God,
Church of God, International,

They publish various videos and booklets, such as:

Why Creationists Are Wrong,
Where Do the Dinosaurs Fit?.

  Advocates of the gap theory have based much of their argument on
  verses 1 and 2 of Genesis, because there was no light.

Do you have a reference to this argument about light?  I've never heard it before.

The usual description of the gap theory is that there is an unspecified amount of time between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2.  God created the universe billions of years ago (1:1), Lucifer was put in charge of the Earth and then later rebelled against God.  This resulted in the destruction of much of the Earth, including its plants and animals (e.g. dinosaurs).  Genesis 1:2 resumes the history with the creation week, God restoring the Earth and repopulating it.

I wrote an essay for a religion/science course twenty years ago.  Genesis 1: No Need For Metaphor  Here's an excerpt from it:

...
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth

The word "heavens" is sometimes translated as the singular "heaven", but the original Hebrew word is "shamayim", and like "elohim", it too is a plural word. Depending upon context, there are three meanings to this word. The first heaven is simply the earth's air, the second is space beyond the atmosphere, and the third is the location of God's throne (2Corinthians 12:2 "up to the third heaven").

Before the physical creation, there were already created spirit beings known as Angels, and symbolically referred to as stars in Job 38:4,7 and elsewhere:

"Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? […]
 When the morning stars [(Lucifer?'s) Angels] sang together
 And all the sons of God [(the other) Angels] shouted for joy?"

Note that "sons of" is not meant literally (as a reference to Christ would be) but a Hebrew idiom indicating "those characterized by", as in "sons of disobedience".

These angels were lead by three archangels, Gabriel, Lucifer, and Michael.

3. Genesis 1:2
    "The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters."

The earth was  Notice that even though the word "was" frequently appears in italics, to indicate that it was supplied by the translators, the first use in this verse isn't italicized since there is a Hebrew word from which it has been directly translated. In Hebrew, if a simple state of being is intended, the verb "to be" is omitted. But in this case, the word doesn't indicate a state of being, as it does in English, but also a change of state. The New International Version has a footnote indicating that it could have been translated as "became", and the same Hebrew word is used in Genesis 19:26: "[…] became a pillar of salt".

The earth was without form, and void
Many translations use "without form" and "void" or other similar expressions, but the translators may have been influenced by the Greek belief that the universe originated from chaos. The same Hebrew word for "void", "bohu", is translated in Isaiah 34:11 as "emptiness" in reference to a land that has been destroyed, while the word for "without form", "tohu", is translated in other verses, such as Deuteronomy 32:10, Job 12:24, Psalms 107:40, and Isaiah 24:10, and 41:29 as "ruin", "waste", "desert", "empty place", "confusion", and "wilderness". The Contemporary English Version renders this verse as:

"The earth was barren, with no form of life;"

More significantly, Isaiah 45:18 uses the same word "tohu":

"For thus says the LORD,
Who created the heavens […],
Who formed the earth and made it […],
Who did not create it in vain [tohu] […]"

providing further indication that this is not how God originally created the world, but how it later became. The RSV has "did not create it a chaos", while the NASB has "did not create it a waste place".

The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep.
Between verses 1 and 2 is a long period of time during which the earth must have teemed with life, as evidenced by the fossils of dinosaurs and other extinct creatures. But what was it that turned God's creation from perfection to darkness and desolation?

One thing God cannot create is character. Free will is something shared by both angels and man, who must freely choose to do God's will. Lucifer, and a third of the angels (Revelation 12:4), chose to rebel against God (Revelation 12:7-9):

  "And war broke out in heaven: Michael and his angels fought with the
  dragon; and  the dragon and his angels fought, but they did not
  prevail, nor was a place found for them in heaven any longer. So the
  great dragon was cast out, that serpent of old, called the Devil and
  Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was cast to the earth, and his
  angels were cast out with him."

It was the ensuing conflict and Lucifer's ejection from heaven that caused such massive damage to the earth.

Isaiah 14:12 refers to these events while comparing the king of Babylon to Lucifer:

"How you are fallen from heaven,
O Lucifer, son of the morning!
*How* you are cut down to the ground,
You who weakened the nations!
For you have said in your heart:
I will ascend into heaven,
I will exalt my throne above the stars of God;
I will sit on the mount of the congregation
On the farthest sides of the north;
I will ascend above the heights of the clouds,
I will be like the Most High."

and Ezekiel 28:12-15 compares (perhaps sorrowfully) the king of Tyre:

"[…] You were the seal of perfection,
Full of wisdom and perfect in beauty.
You were in Eden, the garden of God; […]
You were the anointed cherub who covers; […]
You were perfect in your ways from the day you were created,
Till iniquity was found in you."

Jesus referred to this in Luke 10:18:

"I saw Satan fall like lightening from heaven"

Peter in 2Peter 2:4:

"[…] God did not spare the angels who sinned,
but cast *them* down to [Tartarus]
and delivered *them* into chains of darkness […]"

and Jude in Jude 6:

"And the angels who did not keep their proper domain,
but left their own abode,
He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness
for the judgement of the great day;"

But even though rejected by God, Satan still remains in charge of the earth. John 12:31, John 14:30, John 16:11, 2Corinthians 4:4, Ephesians 2:2 refer to him as "the ruler of this world", "the god of this age", etc. And in Luke 4:5-6 Satan claimed to have authority over all nations:

"Then the devil, taking Him up on a high mountain,
showed him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time.
And the devil said to Him, 'All this authority I will give to You,
and their glory; for *this* has been delivered to me,
and I give it to whomever I wish.'"

Jesus's non-denial of Satan's claim confirms that Satan does hold such power.

4. Genesis 1:3-5

"Then God said, 'Let there be light'; and there was light.
And God saw the light, that it *was* good;
and God divided the light from the darkness.
God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night.
So the evening and the morning were the first day."

Even though perfect character cannot be created, God can create beings capable of using their free will to develop such character in themselves. But unlike the angels, man would be a physical being, mortal instead of immortal, and subject to permanent termination should he choose to go against God's will. As Ezekiel 18:20 says "The soul who sins shall die […]".

But first God had to clean up the nuclear winter mess that the earth had been turned into. On this first day he allowed sunlight to once again begin warming up the earth.


Does faith cometh by hearing only as alluded to in Romans 10:17? (KJV) Romans 10:17

  17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

It seems Paul alludes to faith cometh by hearing the word of God,but in several instances in bible(Hebrews 4:1)(Isaiah 53:1) they heard the word of God but did not believe.

So can we conclude that faith comes by hearing alone?

There are two primary groups.

One hears the gospel, builds faith on it and understand. He is like the good soil.

  Matthew 13:23 he that received seed into the good ground is he that heareth the word, and understandeth it; which also beareth fruit, and bringeth forth, some an hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty.

Another group hears the gospel, but do not build faith on it and do not understand. He is like the hard ground of the way side.

  Matthew 13:19 When any one heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth it not, then cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart. This is he which received seed by the way side.

But imagine if there were no seed at all, no gospel, no word of God?

Therefore, faith comes from hearing, and hearing from the word of God.

Now faith is the gift of God (Ephesians 2:8), grace and the Holy Spirit are also the gifts of God. But the gospel, which is the word, which is really Jesus Himself, is the seed and root of all.


Why did John the Baptist say he wasn't a prophet? According to John 1:21

  They asked him, “What then? Are you Elijah?” He said, “I am
  not.” “Are you the prophet?” He answered, “No.”

Why did he said he wasn't a prophet?

Moses told the people to expect in the future an authoritative, law giving prophet of at least equal stature to himself. No other prophet that followed Moses was regarded as important as Moses by the Jewish people. Thus this expected prophet would stand out.

  15 “The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from
  among your own brothers. You must listen to him. 16 This is what you
  requested from the Lord your God at Horeb on the day of the assembly
  when you said, ‘Let us not continue to hear the voice of the Lord our
  God or see this great fire any longer, so that we will not die!’ 17
  Then the Lord said to me, ‘They have spoken well. 18 I will raise up
  for them a prophet like you from among their brothers. I will put My
  words in his mouth, and he will tell them everything I command him. 19
  I will hold accountable whoever does not listen to My words that he
  speaks in My name. (Deuteronomy 18:15-19)

Jesus fulfills the requirements. John the Baptist does not.