When was the "Evangelist" title first applied to the Gospel authors? Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are known as the "Four Evangelists" because they are believed to have written the four canonical Gospels. The word "evangelist" means a messenger of good news, but is usually used by Christians to refer to those who preach the Gospel to the lost. While it's easy to understand why it is also used for the Gospels' authors, as these books are messages of the good news, it does have a different sense. While we think of evangelists as people whose primary ministry was the direct preaching of the Gospel, this was not necessarily the case with the Gospel authors.
This question is a simple one: when in church history was the title "Evangelist" first applied to the Gospel authors for their role in writing the Gospel texts? If it is not known who first called them evangelists, then what is the earliest clear mention of them with this title?

When was the title Evangelist applied to the four gospels?  We find it was within the first 150 years of Christ's ascension.
Irenaeus who wrote circa 175 CE

The law and the prophets and evangelists have declared that Christ was born of a virgin, and suffered on the cross; was raised also from the dead, and taken up to heaven; that He was glorified, and reigns for ever.
-Fragments of Irenaeus LIV

Ignatius so-called Letter to Antiochans, quoting the Evangelists John and Matthew

The Evangelists, too, when they declared that the one Father was “the only true God,”1229 did not omit what concerned our Lord, but wrote: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made.”1230 And concerning the incarnation: “The Word,” says [the Scripture], “became flesh, and dwelt among us.”1231 And again: “The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.”1232
-source-

Irenaeus Against Heresies, wherein he calls Luke an evangelist

But surely if Luke, who always preached in company with Paul, and is called by him “the beloved,” and with him performed the work of an evangelist, and was entrusted to hand down to us a Gospel, learned nothing different from him (Paul), as has been pointed out from his words, how can these men, who were never attached to Paul, boast that they have learned hidden and unspeakable mysteries?
-source-

Fragments of Clement of Alexandria who wrote circa 200 CE

“Which are now,” he says,3719 “reported unto you by them that have preached the Gospel unto you.” The old things which were done by the prophets and escape the observation of most, are now revealed to you by the evangelists. “For to you,” he says,3720 “they are manifested by the Holy Ghost, who was sent;” that is the Paraclete, of whom the Lord said, “If I go not away, He will not come.”3721 “Unto whom,”3722 it is said, “the angels desire to look;” not the apostate angels, as most suspect, but, what is a divine truth, angels who desire to obtain the advantage of that perfection.
-source-

Tertullian quoting Matthew and Luke writing circa 225

And justly does the evangelist1240 write, “The law and the prophets (were) until John” the Baptist. For, on Christ’s being baptized, that is, on His sanctifying the waters in His own baptism,1241 all the plenitude of bygone spiritual grace-gifts ceased in Christ, sealing as He did all vision and prophecies, which by His advent He fulfilled. Whence most firmly does he assert that His advent “seals visions and prophecy.”
-source-


What is the biblical basis that Satan is/was an angel? I ask this question because I did not see anything that really answered the question. Also out of recommendation by fredsbend - but what is the basis for this?

Don't get me wrong, first of all, as I grew up being taught this same thing. However, the more I read and the more I learned, I realized such a thing does not exist in Scripture at least as much as I have read. I begin with some verses attributed to being about Satan, but follow with clear and precise objections to them being the case - these objections will also be in Scripture. As we know, Scripture cannot contradict Scripture, hence why I use the Bible as a guide on these matters. So let's begin with the most popular:

Isaiah 14:12-15

  How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how
  art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For
  thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt
  my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of
  the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the
  heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. Yet thou shalt be
  brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.

This is not about Satan, who is incorrectly identified as "Lucifer". Further reading both before and after these verses indicate that this is written about a man, the then King of Babylon.

Isaiah 14:4

  That thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon, and say, How hath the oppressor ceased! the golden city ceased!

A common argument is that Satan/Lucifer is described as "King of Babylon". However, we see nothing in Scripture to make such an inference. Then you have God calling this King a man in verses 16-17

  They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the > man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms; That made the world as a
  wilderness, and destroyed the cities thereof; that opened not the house of his prisoners?

Next is Ezekiel Chapter 28, which is largely attributed to being about Satan, however it cannot be because reading it from the beginning we see this is about the Prince/King of Tyrus/Tyre depending on your version. God starts this immediately by saying this individual is about a man.

28:2

  Son of man, say unto the prince of Tyrus, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Because thine heart is > lifted up, and thou hast said, I am a God, I sit in the seat of God, in the midst of the > seas; yet thou art a man, and not God, though thou set thine heart as the heart of God:

Other verses attributed to being about Satan and his fall is the falling of the Watchers (which is post-Eden, therefor wrong) and incorrectly quoting Revelation as a past event. We know the Dragon WILL be cast from the heavens with his army, but this has yet to pass. As a man, it would not be wrong for God to say he was in the Garden, as this could be a reference to ALL mankind, instead of the individual.

Also, I have seen nothing to support the idea that Satan was the snake in the Garden. Instead, it was a snake with legs that could speak. If it were Satan, where would his fall take place? Surely not long after Adam in Isaiah's prophecy?

In regards to Lucifer - this word is derived from the Latin lux ferre, which is used only twice in the Vulgate, once for the Isaiah verse and another in Revelation used by Jesus when He calls Himself "the Light of the World"/"Bringer of Light"/etc title depending on your version.

Many refer to Christ's mention of seeing the Devil fall from Heaven. However, we forget Jesus more than likely could prophesy, and as such that COULD have been an allusion to His Revelation, where the Dragon is in fact cast down.

I am curious on what others think and what other groups teach, and am interested in answers of all varieties. I apologize for the lengthiness by the way.

One particular Scriptural reference you haven't given is in Job 1:6–12

  One day, when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, the satan also came among them. The LORD said to the satan, "Where have you been?" Then the satan answered the LORD and said, "Roaming the earth and patrolling it." The LORD said to the satan, "Have you noticed my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him, blameless and upright, fearing God and avoiding evil." The satan answered the LORD and said, "Is it for nothing that Job is God-fearing? Have you not surrounded him and his family and all that he has with your protection? You have blessed the work of his hands, and his livestock are spread over the land. But now put forth your hand and touch all that he has, and surely he will curse you to your face." The LORD said to the satan, "Very well, all that he has is in your power; only do not lay a hand on him." So the satan went forth from the presence of the LORD.

(Translation: New American Bible, Revised Edition)

There is a note to "the sons of God" which reads:

  members of the divine council; see Gn 6:1–4; Dt 32:8; Ps 82:1. The satan: lit., "adversary" (as in 1 Kgs 11:14). Here a member of the heavenly court, "the accuser" (Zec 3:1). In later biblical traditions this character will be developed as the devil (Gk. diabolos, "adversary").

This is an unusual depiction of "the Devil", as it depicts him as a servant of, rather than a rebel against, God; but it does also exemplify his depiction as a heavenly being, that is an angel.

Interestingly, Thomas Aquinas in the Summa Theologica doesn't appear to even question whether the Devil was in fact an angel. He describes the Devil as an angel (First Part, Question 63, Article 3 and Article 5). One very interesting thing is that in the latter Article he does quote the passages you cite from Isaiah and from Ezekiel, and he says "it is said of the devil under the figure of the prince of Babylon  ... it is said to the devil in the person of the King of Tyre". In other words, although you are correct in interpreting the literal meaning of those two passages, typology intervenes and allows these two people to stand in for the Devil.


If we are the bride, who are the invited? Assuming that the Bride in the book of Revelation is talking about the church, then who are the invited in this verse?

  Then the angel said to me, “Write this: Blessed are those who are invited to the wedding supper of the Lamb!” And he added, “These are the true words of God.”

(Revelation 19:9)

If we are the Bride, I imagine we can't be the invited. If we are the invited, then we can't be the bride. Or do I misunderstand the language?

Revelation 21:2 personified the New Jerusalem as a bride.

  2 And I saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

As we know through Scripture, New Jerusalem will be the city those in Christ will call home. With this description, the marriage would be between the Lord and the New Jerusalem, with the invited being us who are accepted in to the Holy City.


How do the early church fathers expound upon the "exaltation of Christ" (Philippians 2:9-11) in light of the immutability of Jesus Christ? Philippians 2:9-11

NIV

  9  Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, 10  that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11  and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

ESV

  9 Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, 10  so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11  and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

KJV

  9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:   10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow , of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;   11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

To the untrained eye and to the recent convert, one might have it understood that Jesus was greater posthumously than perhaps pre-incarnate and during his life on earth. That, somehow, God moved Him from point C to point B or point A in the ranks of heaven once He completed his mission on earth.

How did the early church fathers reconcile this verse with the unchangeable nature of Christ? (e.g., Christ is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow.)

How do the early church fathers expound upon the “exaltation of Christ” (Philippians 2:9-11) in light of the immutability of Jesus Christ?

The early church fathers uniformly believed that the pre-existent Word , by being the only-begotten from the Father, was and is fully God in essence (nature).

  “We acknowledge a God, and a Son (His Logos), and a Holy Spirit.
  These are united in essence-the Father, the Son , and the Spirit.
  Now, the Son is the Intelligence, Reason and Wisdom of the Father. And
  the Spirit is an emanation, as light from a fire.” – Athenogoras (c.
  A.D. 175)

  [Quoting John 1:1] "'...and the Word was God,' of course, for that
  which is begotten of God is God." (Against Heresies, Book I, ch. 8,
  section 5)

  "The Word, that is, the Son, was always with the Father." (Against
  Heresies, Book IV, ch. 20, section 3)

Pre-Nicence

Irenaeus (130-202 C.E.) believed that the Word has added another nature to himself,  namely, the human nature. This nature of Jesus Christ is what he considered mutable and passible. When it comes to his divine nature, he is immutable and impassible.

  "When the Word became flesh , the immutable became mutable and the
  impassible became passible."

  Irenaeus (Against Heresis 3:18.3).

Nicene Era

  Hitherto we have met their irrational conceits with the true conceptions [2042] implied in the Word Son,' as the Lord Himself has
  given us. But it will be well next to cite the divine oracles, that
  the unalterableness of the Son and His unchangeable nature, which is
  the Father's, as well as their perverseness, may be still more fully
  proved. The Apostle then, writing to the Philippians, says, Have
  this mind in you, which was also in Christ Jesus; who, being in the
  form of God, thought it not a prize to be equal with God; but emptied
  Himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of
  men. And, being found in fashion as a man, He humbled Himself,
  becoming obedient to death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God
  also highly exalted Him, and gave Him a Name which is above every
  name; that in the Name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in
  heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that
  every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of
  God the Father .' Can anything be plainer and more express than
  this? He was not from a lower state promoted: but rather, existing as
  God, He took the form of a servant, and in taking it, was not promoted
  but humbled Himself. Where then is there here any reward of virtue, or
  what advancement and promotion in humiliation? For if, being God, He
  became man, and descending from on high He is still said to be
  exalted, where is He exalted, being God? this withal being plain,
  that, since God is highest of all, His Word must necessarily be
  highest also. Where then could He be exalted higher, who is in the
  Father and like the Father in all things ? Therefore He is beyond
  the need of any addition; nor is such as the Arians think Him. For
  though the Word has descended in order to be exalted, and so it is
  written, yet what need was there that He should humble Himself, as if
  to seek that which He had already? And what grace did He receive who
  is the Giver of grace ? or how did He receive that Name for worship,
  who is always worshipped by His Name? Nay, certainly before He became
  man, the sacred writers invoke Him, Save me, O God, for Thy Name's
  sake  ;'and again, Some put their trust in chariots, and some in
  horses, but we will remember the Name of the Lord our  .' And while He
  was worshipped by the Patriarchs, concerning the Angels it is written,
  Let all the Angels of God worship Him .'
  And if, as David says in the 71st Psalm, His Name remaineth before the sun, and before the moon, from one generation to another  ,' how
  did He receive what He had always, even before He now received it? or
  how is He exalted, being before His exaltation the Most High? or how
  did He receive the right of being worshipped, who before He now
  received it, was ever worshipped? It is not a dark saying but a divine
  mystery . In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God,
  and the Word was God;' but for our sakes afterwards the Word was made
  flesh.' And the term in question, highly exalted,' does not signify
  that the essence of the Word was exalted, for He was ever and is equal
  to God  ,' but the exaltation is of the manhood. Accordingly this is
  not said before the Word became flesh; that it might be plain that
  humbled' and exalted' are spoken of His human nature; for where
  there is humble estate, there too may be exaltation; and if because of
  His taking flesh humbled' is written, it is clear that highly exalted'
  is also said because of it. For of this was man's nature in want,
  because of the humble estate of the flesh and of death. Since then the
  Word, being the Image of the Father and immortal, took the form of the
  servant, and as man underwent for us death in His flesh, that thereby
  He might offer Himself for us through death to the Father; therefore
  also, as man, He is said because of us and for us to be highly
  exalted, that as by His death we all died in Christ, so again in the
  Christ Himself we might be highly exalted, being raised from the dead,
  and ascending into heaven, whither the forerunner Jesus is for us
  entered, not into the figures of the true, but into heaven itself, now
  to appear in the presence of God for us (Athanasius, Chapter
  IX:41-42).

Athanasius (296-373 C.E.) believed that Jesus Christ, being God himself, was already exalted but because of his exinanition , he took on human nature and was therefore, became lowly in status. His humiliation was his mission. The completion of his work prompted the Father to give back everything he had temporarily given up. In other words, Jesus did not lose his divine nature at his incarnation. He was fully God when he was on earth. However, the use of his unlimited divine powers has become limited due to his own choice and this is what his "self-emptying" really means.

Conclusion

The church fathers interpret the exaltation of Christ in Philippians 2:9-11 in light of his human nature.


Who was the first major Christian figure to popularize a figurative interpretation of Genesis? I assume that the church for a majority of its existence has assumed a plain interpretation of Genesis. However it's easy to see the church of the last 50 years adopt a more figurative interpretation of Genesis, presumably to coincide with popular scientist's standpoint that everything was created slowly and that human's are an evolved species.

I'd consider these to be tenets of a literal Genesis view:

God created the heavens and the earth in 6 literal, sunrise-sunset days
Birds, land-creatures, sea-creatures, plants, etc...were all created within this time frame
Adam and Eve were the first created people, created on the 6th day, and are the sole parents of humanity.

So it seems like the new popular tenets are these:

The "days" in Genesis 1 represent longer periods of time.
God guided evolutionary process.
Adam and Eve were 2 of many existing humans at the time and were evolved from a common ancestor to apes.

Can anyone pinpoint the person(s) or event(s) within the church that caused it to accept a more figurative view? This is not a question as to whether a figurative Genesis interpretation is right or wrong, but simply to see from where the normalcy of that belief came. I assume it would have happened in the last 200 years so it shouldn't be too hard to find the flagship for this.

I think it's clear that your assumption is wrong, and that figurative interpretations of the Genesis were always common amongst scholarly interpreters, such as for example St. Augustine. At the very least, he thinks that the transgression in the Garden of Eden was in fact of a sexual nature, and therefore the account as it is, is figurative.

Further, we are somewhat well aware that medieval culture in Europe was steeped in allegorical thinking. Even something like a bestiary, a compendium of beasts, would include several allegorical beasts as stand-ins for vices, for specific historical characters, peoples, etc...

To make a further point however, the idea that figurative, allegorical and literal interpretations of the same text were mutually exclusive is very modern idea.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_in_the_Middle_Ages

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegorical_interpretations_of_Genesis


Has the Catholic Church responded to the argument that sex between a married couple can strengthen their emotional bond? This is a question I asked based on problems I struggle with as someone raised Catholic as part of a generation taught more about science than any generation before me. I can't simply ignore science. So I ask this fundamental question:

If I were to sit down with my wife and watch TV, it would be a form of pleasure and bonding we share together, which is not a sin. But if I were to have sex with my wife without the intention to procreate, it would be considered a sin by the Catholic Church.

In science today, we have proven that love is not some magical thing, it's a biological mechanism triggered chemically, and emotionally (emotion also being a biological mechanism).

  The conventional view in biology is that there are three major drives
  in love – sex drive, attachment, and partner preference. The primary
  neurochemicals (neurotransmitters, sex hormones, and neuropeptides)
  that govern these drives are testosterone, estrogen, dopamine,
  oxytocin, and vasopressin. (Source : Wikipedia, see it's own citations 1-7 which are largely peer-reviewed scientific journals).

According to studies, part of this biological mechanism that causes two people to become emotionally and romantically attached to each other is induced during sexual intercourse.

  In humans and bonobos, the female undergoes relatively concealed
  ovulation so that male and female partners commonly do not know
  whether she is fertile at any given moment. One possible reason for
  this distinct biological feature may be formation of strong emotional
  bonds between sexual partners important for social interactions and,
  in the case of humans, long-term partnership rather than immediate
  sexual reproduction.
   (Source: Wikipedia, with citation to Encyclopedia of Human Relationships.

If a couple is financially or legally unable to procreate, and does not have sex for this reason, that chemically induced biological bond is never refreshed. In other words sex is scientifically proven to strengthen the bond between husband and wife.

So as a student of science, you can see why I have difficulty understanding this teaching of the Catholic Church.

Why does God not approve of a loving married couple enjoying pleasure and passion together via sex, for the sake of strengthening their bond as a couple? Has the Catholic Church responded to the argument that sex between a married couple can strengthen their emotional bond? Is there any official literature or doctrines that address this argument specifically?

There are a number of aspects to the O.P.’s question, but it seems to center around the question, “Must the marital act be done for the sake of procreation?” or said in other words, “Must the couple have the intention to have a child whenever they perform the marital act?”
The answer to that question is basically “no,” although the marital act must never be completely dissociated from its procreative purpose. (I will explain below in what way this is so.)
As with other Church teachings that deal with morality, the doctrine on the marital act is based, not so much on Revelation (on what we could only know because God has told it to us) as on what can be known about human nature through reason.
The Church has on many occasions made the case that the procreative purpose of the marital act is one of its essential properties, one that must not be willfully set aside. As Pope Paul VI puts it in his landmark encyclical Humanae vitae,

The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life.
This particular doctrine, often expounded by the magisterium of the Church, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act (Nos. 11-12).

It is important to observe, however, that Pope Paul VI does not affirm that every marital act must be for the sake of procreation; merely that it should (as he puts it) “retain its intrinsic relationship” to procreation.
Said in simpler words, couples are not to place deliberately an obstacle to procreation. As the encyclical puts it later on,

Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after the marital exchange [i.e., the marital act], is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means (No. 17; note that the translation on the Vatican website reads “sexual intercourse;” I feel that my translation better captures the meaning of the original Latin coniugale commercium).

There is, however, no problem with engaging in the marital act as a way to bond with one’s spouse. In fact, the marital act is perfectly licit when the couple is infertile, either in the normal course of the woman’s ovulation cycle, or because of some kind of medical problem:

If therefore there are well-grounded reasons for spacing births […], the Church teaches that married people may then take advantage of the natural cycles immanent in the reproductive system and engage in marital intercourse only during those times that are infertile […]. [Such couples] use their married intimacy to express their mutual love and safeguard their fidelity toward one another (No. 20).

Similarly,

The sexual activity, in which husband and wife are intimately and chastely united with one another, through which human life is transmitted, is, as the recent Council recalled, “noble and worthy.” It does not, moreover, cease to be legitimate even when, for reasons independent of their will, it is foreseen to be infertile. (No. 11; the quotation is from Vatican II’s Gaudium et spes, no. 49).

Hence, for example, couples that are infertile for medical reasons may freely engage in the marital act.
It should be noted from the above passage that the Church views the marital act in a very positive light. It is absolutely not, for instance, an “evil” that must be tolerated in order for there to be more children.
In summary: the Church simply argues that it is immoral to place an obstacle deliberately in the way of procreation, when one engages in the marital act. Thus frustrating and essential property of the marital act is what the Church calls contraception.
(It should be noted that it can be licit to delay having children, or even to suspend child-rearing altogether; however, the only licit way to do that is to abstain from the marital act when the woman is fertile. With advances in modern gynecology, this option has become increasingly feasible and accurate; there is, for instance, the Billings method and the Creighton Model.)
Clearly, then, engaging in the marital act for reasons other than procreation—so long as procreation is not deliberately defeated, and in general, the spouses treat each other with love and respect—is not a problem at all.
Hence, the Church is entirely in favor of husband and wife engaging in the marital in order to bond with one another. That idea comes from none other than St. Paul:

Do not deprive one another [i.e., of the marital act], except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control (1 Cor. 7:5).


How is the 'New Perspective on Paul' different from Catholicism with respect to good works? Does both the views of the New Perspective on Paul and Catholicism define 'good works' similarly? What is the role of good works towards salvation according to these perspectives?

If there are different answers from the various New Perspective on Paul proponents then I am particularly interested in N. T. Wright's view.

The notion of "good works" comes up multiple times in the New Testament, so I'll limit my answer to the meaning of "works of the law" in Paul's epistles, particularly Galatians. The NPP soteriological system is really just an implication of the NPP's textual interpretation of "faith" and "works" in Paul's epistles. Surprisingly, Catholicism (especially Thomist) and traditional Protestantism are closer to each other than they are to NPP on this point.

NPP proponent James Dunn in The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998) defines "works of the law" as "what the law required of Israel as God’s people. Works of the law, in other words, were what Israel’s righteousness consisted of, Israel’s part of the covenant  which Yahweh had made with Israel in first choosing Israel as  his special people.... 'Works of the law' is the Pauline term for 'covenantal nomism.'"

Thus, the New Perspective on Paul sees "the works of the law" as being sociological. But it does not on this basis reject "the works of the law!" Instead, it sees the close connection between sociology and soteriology in 1st century Judaism as a good thing. According to NPP, the problem with the Judaizers is that their sociology was wrong, and so their soteriology was wrongly nationalistic instead of internationalistic. According to Wright, the problem with "the works of the law" was not that they were a system of works-righteousness, but "they are the things that divide Jew from Gentile" (Justification, p 117).

In contrast, both Aquinas and the Protestant Reformers viewed Paul's opponents as rejecting the Gospel by teaching works-righteousness. Aquinas in his Commentary on Galatians identifies "the works of the law" with the ceremonial provisions in the Torah. (Well, until he gets to Galatians 3, as we shall see later.)

  It should be known, therefore, that some works of the Law were moral and some ceremonial. The moral, although they were contained in the Law, could not, strictly speaking, be called “works of the Law,” for man is induced to them by natural instinct and by the natural law. But the ceremonial works are properly called the “works of the Law.”

Thus it would seem he agrees with NPP proponents, who identify the "works of the law" with Mosaic ceremonial laws, because those are the laws that distinguished Jews from Gentiles. Yet Aquinas did not think the Judaizers were wrong because their sociology was too nationalistic. Instead, it was because the Old Testament ceremonies could not confer grace:

  But with respect to being made just by the works of the Law, a man does not seem to be justified by them, because the sacraments of the Old Law did not confer grace. How turn you again to the weak and needy elements? i.e., that neither confer grace nor contain grace in themselves. The sacraments of the New Law however, although they are material elements, are not needy elements; hence they can justify. Again, if there were any in the Old Law who were just, they were not made just by the works of the Law but only by the faith of Christ “Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation through faith,” as is said in Romans (3:25).

The following passages of Aquinas's commentary are difficult, because he offers multiple possible interpretations. In particular, in his interpretation of Galatians 3:10-12, he offers two interpretations. The latter is exactly the traditional Protestant understanding of "the works of the law":

  Furthermore, some works of the Law are ceremonies carried out in the observances; others are works that pertain to morals, with which the moral precepts deal. Hence, according to a Gloss, that which is said here, namely, as many as are of the works of the law, are under a curse, is to be understood of ceremonial works and not of moral works. Or it should be said that the Apostle is speaking here of all works, both ceremonial and moral. For the works are not the cause making one to be just before God; rather they are the carrying out and manifestation of justice. For no one is made just before God by works but by the habit of faith, not acquired but infused. (italics mine) And therefore, as many as seek to be justified by works are under a curse, because sin is not removed nor anyone justified in the sight of God by them, but by the habit of faith vivified by charity: “And all these being approved by the testimony of faith, received not the promise” (Heb 11:39).

To be sure, Aquinas clearly does not hold to the Protestant view of justification as imputed righteousness, but rather the Catholic view as infused righteousness. Yet I would argue that both Aquinas and traditional Protestants interpret "the works of the law" in a way that upholds the grace-fullness of justification, either through sacramental infusion of justice (Catholicism) or through covenantal imputation of justice (traditional Protestantism). In contrast, the New Perspective on Paul sees justification as being attained through "good works", ie socially uniting oneself to God's people, which was Israel in the OT and is the Church in the NT.


Why is the number seven special? God seems to favor the number seven and I'm not sure why. Is there a reason, or is this just His favorite number?

You'll notice that God not only uses the number seven, but multiplies other numbers by seven as well. Please provide scripture and let me know if there are other numbers that God uses.

I think this answer from the Judaism site sums it up:

  7 is the length of time for a natural cycle to transpire, often ending
  with holiness/sanctification of some sort (the pattern set by
  creation)

7 is special because it was set down by God as the natural cycle in creation.

In the same question above is this answer about other numbers:

It mentions the numbers:

  1, (2?), 4, (5?), (6?), 7, 8, 10, 12, 40, and 70 all have
  significance.

See that answer for full details of their importance.

Also important is the number 50 for Jubilee (from this answer):

  Toward the end of the book of Leviticus the 7 day measure that is most
  familiarly the Sabbath is unrolled across years to be the sabbatical
  year, and across decades to be the Jubilee. The Jubilee is the 50th
  year - the crown of the 7th 7.


Did Pelagius believe in "faith alone"? The doctrine of "faith alone," or sola fide, teaches that people are justified only by their faith in Christ, not by any works they do.  It was emphasized during the Protestant Reformation, where it was one of the marks distinguishing Protestants from Roman Catholics.

However, I found an interesting statement in Bruce Shelley's Church History in Plain Language that seems to indicate a much earlier origin.  He describes the views of Pelagius (d. 418) as follows:

  God predestinates no one, except in the sense that he foresees who will believe and who will reject his gracious influences.  His forgiveness comes to all who exercise "faith alone"; but, once forgiven, man has power of himself to live pleasing to God. (138)

Of course, Pelagius's views on sin differed significantly from those of the leaders of the Protestant Reformation and most modern Protestants.  As a result, his doctrine of "faith alone," if it exists, will likely differ in particulars from that of Protestants.  So I'd like to know:

Did Pelagius believe in a doctrine called "faith alone" or one bearing resemblance to the Protestant doctrine?

That is, did he believe that faith without works caused someone to be saved?

If yes, what are the main ways in which his view differed from that of Protestant leaders like Luther and Calvin?

Below I've tried to summarize Calvin's views and then characterize Pelagius' as they relate to salvation by faith alone. All quotes from Calvin below are from his Institutes of the Christian religion. I will therefore just reference chapter and part in my quotes from Calvin. I left Luther out, because I don't have any of his books on hand.

Faith Alone according to Calvin:

John Calvin taught what is familiar to most contemporary Protestants

Book 3 Chapter 2
Part 1

  "God by his Law prescribes what we ought to do, failure in any one respect subjects us to the dreadful judgment of eternal death, ... it is not only difficult, but altogether beyond our strength and ability to fulfill the demands of the Law ... " (no merit in ourselves can be found) "there is only one method of deliverance which can deliver us ... when Christ the Redeemer appears ... if we with true faith embrace this mercy, and with firm hope rest in it.

Part 2

  "Faith consists not in ignorance, but in knowledge - knowledge not of God merely, but of the divine will. We do not obtain salvation either because we are prepared to embrace every dictate of the church as true, or leave to the church the province of inquiring and determining; but when we recognize God as a propitious Father through the reconciliation made by Christ ... By this knowledge ... we obtain an entrance into the kingdom of heaven."

Part 3

  "Faith consists in the knowledge of God and Christ"

So faith is the knowledge of Christ's work for us by which we receive his righteousness.

Pelagius

Now attempting to characterize whether Pelagius taught that man may be saved by faith alone is more difficult. He certainly did not teach that man must be saved by faith alone as Calvin did.

The Seven Ecumenical Councils from Shaff's Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, the Excursus on Pelagianism  (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf105.xiv.xxvi.html)

  "Further he taught that man could live without committing any sin at all. And for this there was no need of grace; indeed grace was not possible, according to his teaching.  The only “grace,” which he would admit the existence of, was what we may call external grace, e.g. the example of Christ, the teaching of his ministers, and the like."

Augustine gives some more detail about how Pelagius believed man could be saved without grace here: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf105.xiv.xxvi.html (chapter 22 of his Anti-Pelagian writings)

We take for granted that Pelagius must have thought that if a man has chosen to be without sin, then he will enjoy eternal life. So it can be safely stated that man did not need to be saved by faith-alone. The question then is how Pelagius viewed those who had sinned and therefore needed grace; could those poor souls be saved by faith alone in the way Calvin understood it? I think the answer is no.

Unfortunately the best on topic content that I found comes from St. Augustine in his polemic against Pelagius.

St. Augustine: Anti-Pelagian Writings Chapter 33 (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf105.xiv.xxxvii.html), quoting Pelagius here:

  "we declare that God gives to the person, who has proved himself worthy to receive them, all graces, even as He conferred them on the Apostle Paul."

I don't think it takes much imagination to see how this statement by Pelagius directly opposes salvation by faith alone as taught by Calvin or any other Protestant (it is probably even unagreeable to Catholics); so long as we extend the grace he refers to here to include saving grace and not just the grace received by believers after baptism (personally I don't differentiate between the two). Chapter 33-36 of this work is where St. Augustine makes the following important points:

Grace is given to those who don't deserve it
If grace were given to the deserving it wouldn't be grace
Faith is given by God and works follow after this faith is implanted in the believer

All of these points are made as refutations of Pelagius' teachings and all points are foundational to the reformed doctrine in question; so if St. Augustine is to be believed, then Pelagius definitely couldn't have believed that man is saved by faith alone. However, this condemnation seems to all be hung on this one statement from Pelagius (I didn't read all those chapters in detail).

Following are some secondary considerations:

Pelagius - Letter and Confession of Faith to Innocent I (http://www.earlychurchtexts.com/public/pelagius_letter_and_confession_to_innocent.htm)

  "If after baptism a man do fall, we believe he may be recovered by repentance [or penance]."

This little snippet stands opposed to Calvin's teachings. He did say that repentance was required throughout life, but firmly rejected the Catholic practice of penance and the sacrament of confession altogether. Pelagius, however, appears to view it as a necessary action for those who have sinned to restore their salvation. It is worth noting that this was not a controversial doctrine at the time, St. Augustine probably agreed with him on this point.

St. Augustine: Anti-Pelagian Writings Chapter 28 (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf105.xiv.xxxii.html)

  "the Church is by the laver cleansed from every spot and wrinkle ... And who amongst us denies that in baptism the sins of all men are remitted, and that all believers come up spotless and pure from the laver of regeneration?"

Pelagius most certainly taught that those defiled by sin must be baptized to receive the forgiveness of sins. This contradicts how many Protestants conceive of salvation by faith-alone: believing saves you and baptism is just a symbol of that belief. However, I cannot say how Calvin would respond to this, he seems to emphasize different aspects of baptism, but not deny that it is how we initially receive grace: "forgiveness ... at our first regeneration we receive by baptism alone" (4:15:3). However, he mostly talks about how baptism gives the believer "knowledge and certainty" (4:15:1) of the gifts of salvation. Since knowledge = faith to Calvin, perhaps we can say that Calvin thought that baptism gives better understanding and assurance which is in itself perfecting the faith that already exists and therefore needful for salvation; however it is still this faith that saves. I think Calvin's views on baptism differ from Pelagius', but have some overlap. When Calvin attacks Pelagius he does so for his conception of infant baptism, not on his teachings about why converts need baptism. I don't think we can say that this teaching alone would exclude him from believing in faith-alone salvation from Calvin's viewpoint, but according to some it would.

In summary, imposing a contemporary reformed doctrine on Pelagius is difficult, because it was not what he was on trial for. None of his accusers condemned him for saying that man must work for his salvation or apply his effort to it. He was condemned for allowing that man may be saved apart from grace. Notice that the anathemas against Pelagius from the council of Carthage (http://www.earlychurchtexts.com/public/carthage_canons_on_sin_and_grace.htm) say that "without the grace of God we can do no good thing." They do not say that man cannot perform actions pleasing to God which are beneficial to salvation; neither do they say that man is saved by faith alone, they simply state that man cannot do any of these things with God's grace (note St. John Cassian's exhortation to a synergistic view of salvation in response to Augustine's polemical writings; as talked about in the article posted in my first comment).

The best proof we have is Augustine's words against Pelagius, but one may think that he is extrapolating the words of the heretic a bit.

As an aside, I would use caution with the phrase "faith apart from works" when referring to the soteriology of Calvin. He certainly taught that believers were to inherit salvation through good works.

Book 3 Chapter 18
Part1

"But though it is by mercy alone that God admits his people to life, yet as he leads them into possession of it by the course of good works"

Part 3

"believers must continue running during the whole course of their lives in order that they may attain it"


How, as a spiritual person do you differentiate your Intuition from Holy Spirit's guidance? Is there some biblical verses that would support how one could differentiate spiritual guidance with our own intuition? By mistake we (at least, I) do think sometimes take decision based on my own wish without knowing if that is what God wants when we are satisfied with the the direction we move. How do you help yourself in this regard?

Our thoughts can easily deceive us even to think what we believe is the will of God or the speaking of the Holy Spirit.

  2 Thessalonians 2:11-12 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
  12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

Until we come to a full knowledge and unity in the faith of Christ, we are apt to be deceived.

  Ephesians 4:12-14 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
  13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
  14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

If we hold onto our idols, whatever it be whether the authority of scribes, false teachers, or our own sinful desires, God will answer us according to our folly.

  Ezekiel 14:3-6 Son of man, these men have set up their idols in their heart, and put the stumblingblock of their iniquity before their face: should I be enquired of at all by them?
  4 Therefore speak unto them, and say unto them, Thus saith the Lord God; Every man of the house of Israel that setteth up his idols in his heart, and putteth the stumblingblock of his iniquity before his face, and cometh to the prophet; I the Lord will answer him that cometh according to the multitude of his idols;
  5 That I may take the house of Israel in their own heart, because they are all estranged from me through their idols.
  6 Therefore say unto the house of Israel, Thus saith the Lord God; Repent, and turn yourselves from your idols; and turn away your faces from all your abominations.

John's letters are written as an assurance for those people who think and act according to the Holy Spirit, telling us what it is to be a perfect man of God.

Excerpts:

  1 John 2:3-5 And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.
  4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
  5 But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him.

  1 John 2:9 He that saith he is in the light, and hateth his brother, is in darkness even until now.

  1 John 2:15 Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.

  1 John 2:26 These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you.
  27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

Until then, let us take consolation in the counsel of James:

  James 1:2-4 My brethren, count it all joy when ye fall into divers temptations;
  3 Knowing this, that the trying of your faith worketh patience.
  4 But let patience have her perfect work, that ye may be perfect and entire, wanting nothing.


What is the process of the Church approving a Marian apparition? Say that a person claimed to have had Mary appear to them in a way similar to the Marian apparitions of Fatima, Lourdes, Guadalupe, etc. What is the process of the Church approving a Marian apparition as being authetic?

Some apparition sites like Our Lady of Guadalupe have accompanying miracles that would lend to the authenticity of the apparition (in that case, the tilma of Juan Diego being imprinted with the image of Mary). But others like Our Lady of Good Help appear to only have the eyewitness testimony of a single person.

Is the process similar to canonization in which they look for miracles that have occurred at the site? Or is there some other way of the Church approving a Marian apparition?

What is the process of the Church approving a Marian apparition?

The Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith published it guidelines for Marian apparitions in the document entitled : Norms regarding the manner of proceeding in the discernment of presumed apparitions or revelations

The Vatican's "Norms regarding the manner of proceedings in the discernment of presumed apparitions or revelations" were approved by Pope Paul VI in 1978. An official English translation was released in 2011.

  I. CRITERIA FOR JUDGING, AT LEAST WITH PROBABILITY, THE CHARACTER OF THE PRESUMED APPARITIONS OR REVELATIONS

  A) Positive Criteria:

  a) Moral certitude, or at least great probability of the existence of the fact, acquired by means of a serious investigation;

  b) Particular circumstances relative to the existence and to the nature of the fact, that is to say:

  Personal qualities of the subject or of the subjects (in particular, psychological equilibrium, honesty and rectitude of moral life, sincerity and habitual docility towards Ecclesiastical Authority, the capacity to return to a normal regimen of a life of faith, etc.);
  As regards revelation: true theological and spiritual doctrine and immune from error;
  Healthy devotion and abundant and constant spiritual fruit (for example, spirit of prayer, conversion, testimonies of charity, etc.).

  B) Negative Criteria:

  a) Manifest error concerning the fact.

  b) Doctrinal errors attributed to God himself, or to the Blessed Virgin Mary, or to some saint in their manifestations, taking into account however the possibility that the subject might have added, even unconsciously, purely human elements or some error of the natural order to an authentic supernatural revelation (cf. Saint Ignatius, Exercises, no. 336).

  c) Evidence of a search for profit or gain strictly connected to the fact.

  d) Gravely immoral acts committed by the subject or his or her followers when the fact occurred or in connection with it.

  e) Psychological disorder or psychopathic tendencies in the subject, that with certainty influenced on the presumed supernatural fact, or psychosis, collective hysteria or other things of this kind.

  It is to be noted that these criteria, be they positive or negative, are not peremptory but rather indicative, and they should be applied cumulatively or with some mutual convergence.

  II. INTERVENTION OF THE COMPETENT ECCLESIASTICAL AUTHORITY

  If, on the occasion of a presumed supernatural fact, there arises in a spontaneous way among the faithful a certain cult or some devotion, the competent Ecclesiastical Authority has the serious duty of looking into it without delay and of diligently watching over it.
  If the faithful request it legitimately (that is, in communion with the Pastors, and not prompted by a sectarian spirit), the competent Ecclesiastical Authority can intervene to permit or promote some form of cult or devotion, if, after the application of the above criteria, nothing stands in the way. They must be careful that the faithful not interpret this practice as approval of the supernatural nature of the fact on the part of the Church (cf. Preliminary note c).
  By reason of its doctrinal and pastoral task, the competent Authority can intervene motu proprio and indeed must do so in grave circumstances, for example in order to correct or prevent abuses in the exercise of cult and devotion, to condemn erroneous doctrine, to avoid the dangers of a false or unseemly mysticism, etc.
  In doubtful cases that clearly do not put the good of the Church at risk, the competent Ecclesiastical Authority is to refrain from any judgment and from any direct action (because it can also happen that, after a certain period of time, the presumed supernatural fact falls into oblivion); it must not however cease from being vigilant by intervening if necessary, with promptness and prudence.

  III. AUTHORITIES COMPETENT TO INTERVENE

  Above all, the duty of vigilance and intervention falls to the Ordinary of the place.
  The regional or national Conference of Bishops can intervene:

  a) If the Ordinary of the place, having done his part, turns to it to judge the matter with greater certainty;

  b) If the matter pertains to the national or regional level; always, however, with the prior consent of the Ordinary of the place.

  The Apostolic See can intervene if asked either by the Ordinary himself, by a qualified group of the faithful, or even directly by reason of the universal jurisdiction of the Supreme Pontiff (cf. infra, no. IV).

  IV. ON THE INTERVENTION OF THE SACRED CONGREGATION
  FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH

  a) The intervention of the Sacred Congregation can be requested either by the Ordinary, after he has done his part, or by a qualified group of the faithful. In this second case, care must be taken that recourse to the Sacred Congregation not be motivated by suspect reasons (for example, in order to compel the Ordinary to modify his own legitimate decisions, to support some sectarian group, etc.).

  b) It is up to the Sacred Congregation to intervene motu proprio in graver cases, especially if the matter affects the larger part of the Church, always after having consulted the Ordinary and even, if the situation requires, the Conference of Bishops.

  It is up to the Sacred Congregation to judge and approve the Ordinary’s way of proceeding or, in so far as it be possible and fitting, to initiate a new examination of the matter, distinct from that undertaken by the Ordinary and carried out either by the Sacred Congregation itself or by a special Commission. - Rome February 25, 1978


What does the Bible say about people with mental illness? Some people with mental illness might do lots of things that are unpredictable and considered sin, up to killing themselves, or possibly forget anything about Jesus and salvation.

So, what does the Bible say about them as in will they still be saved?

The Bible does not really have a concept of mental illness in the sense we have it today. There are, as far as I know, no stories in the Bible that clearly talk about the mentally ill.

There are of course cases of people described as "demon possessed" or "having an evil spirit". Many have speculated that these are people who would today be described as having a mental illness. Examples that spring to mind include the demon called "Legion", (Mark 5 1-20), Luke 4:31-37, The Philippian slave girl (Acts 16).

Whether we consider this a real demon or a mental illness, one thing that all these stories have in common is that after the demon has left (or they have been cured) no blame is attached to the person. We don't read that the people have to repent, or are forgiven. We could reasonably infer that they are not responsible for what they have done.

ADDITION:While not strictly within the scope of the question, I found while researching this article which discusses the moral responsibility of the insane from the Catholic viewpoint. Its conclusion is that there are kinds of insanity that remove the culpability of those that commit sin, chiefly those of a delusional nature or which prevent the sufferer knowing right from wrong. However if the sufferer still knows right from wrong they may still be responsible for their sins.


Is Nessa or Vanessa a Catholic name? I was looking for a suitable name for my future daughter. I visited this Catholicity website and I got Nessa as an interesting name. But then my friends and home people said it is not a catholic baptism name.
So I would like someone here to help me clarify this.

Is Nessa or Vanessa a Catholic name?

Not to sure what you mean by a Catholic name. Names of children are normally based on language and are often originated from a particular demographically known region.

There is no saint by the name of Vanessa or Nessa.

Canon Law states that names foreign to Christianity are not to be given to infants.

  Can. 855 Parents, sponsors, and the pastor are to take care that a name foreign to Christian sensibility is not given.

Foreign names here simply means offensive to the Catholic Church, the dignity of the child and Christianity in general.

Vanessa seems to be a fine name, even if there is no St. Vanessa in the Roman Martyrology.

  Vanessa is a feminine given name, especially popular in the United States, Germany and Brazil. It was invented by the Anglo-Irish writer Jonathan Swift for Esther Vanhomrigh, whom Swift had met in 1708 and whom he tutored. The name was created by taking "Van" from Vanhomrigh's last name and adding "Essa", a pet form of Esther.- Vanessa

However Esther is indeed a biblical and saint’s name.

As for Nessa, I see no problem here either even though it has Arabic origins and is not a saint’s name.

  Khairunnisa (Arabic: خير النساء) is an Arabic female given name. It can also be spelt as Kherunnisa or Khair-un-nisa. Khair means peace and nissa means lady, so the complete name means "lady of peace". The name is transliterated as Hayrünnisa in Turkey.

  There are several other names with the suffix -un-nissa, such as Mehr-un-nissa and Zeb-un-nisa. The name "Nissa" can also be used independently and written as "Nissa", "Nisa", "Nysa", "Neesa" and "Nessa".

For some, Nessa may have origins in Irish mythology also.

  Ness, also called Nessa, is a princess of the Ulaid and the mother of Conchobar mac Nessa in the Ulster Cycle of Irish mythology. Her father is Eochaid Sálbuide, king of the Ulaid. - Ness (Irish mythology)

More information may be gleaned here.

Both names are quite fine.

Hope this helps and God Bless.


Did Martin Luther ever remove books from the New Testament canon? Is it true that Luther removed James, Jude, and Revelation from the New Testament? If this is true then what were his reasons for doing so?

Martin Luther disliked James, in particular, for its emphasis on works.  He called it his "epistle of straw."  That said, there is simply not a mechanism for removing anything from the canon in Christian circles.

Likewise, of Revelation, Luther said:

  About this book of the Revelation of John, I leave everyone free to hold his own opinions. I would not have anyone bound to my opinion or judgment. I say what I feel."( Luther, M. (1999). Vol. 35: Luther's works, vol. 35: Word and Sacrament I (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald & H. T. Lehmann, Ed.) (398). Philadelphia: Fortress Press. )

In other words, he didn't like, but again recognized his own inability to edit the canon.

The canon is simply the consensus on what is best.  The marks of canonicity are settled, insofaras there is basically consensus.  (Okay, there is a question about those 7 books between Protestants and Catholics, but it is a very, very minor point)  Indeed, if Luther were to publish "his canon" at best he could only have said, "this is Luther's canon." And there is evidence he wished he could, but again, he couldn't.

I have no doubt that Luther preached very rarely on these books - but he simply did not have the standing to "remove" them from the canon.  It would be like one person saying, "Harry Potter is not on the best sellers list."  He might think it shouldn't have been, but he simply doesn't have the standing to say.

Finally, there is a deragatory term "canon within the canon," which refers to a person's favorite books within the canon - the ones he or she may elevate over others.  That Luther suredly had. His canon within the canon was Paul's epistles - but that doesn't mean he could downgrade the status of the others.


Is the King James Version Bible in the Public Domain I am writing a memoir and want to use some quotes from the King James Version Bible. Will this be considered Public Domain because of the age.

Thank you

Yes, it will. Quote away, without fear of being attacked for not footnoting what you are quoting.

In the Wikipedia article on the KJV, you'll find the following: "The Authorized Version [i.e., the KJV] is in the public domain in most of the world."

In your memoirs, just make sure your quotation corresponds to the correct chapter and verse. A personal pet peeve of mine is the frequency with which I go to the reference provided in a writing and fail to find the verse that is quoted and cited.

On the plus side, however, that kind of erratum makes me appreciate all the more the miraculous job performed by generations of faithful and meticulous scribes and transcribers who all did their part in providing us with the Bible we have today. PTL!


What groups advocate and establish "unlicensed" churches in the US? In the United States, most churches file papers of incorporation and formally apply for 501(C)3 status. A few choose not to, a notable example being the Indianapolis Baptist Temple Church in Iowa whose building was seized by IRS in 2001 for a related issue. They had no Employer Identification Number, as they refused any form of government registration. Please ignore the details of the tax case as it's not related to the question.

There are many groups historically which tried to avoid being entangled with the government in any way. What groups today advocate refusal to file these basic documents?

Most of the churches that do this do so as they are fiercely independent from any government over the local churches. As a result, they are also in denominations or groups that exercise little control over them, or they are not part of denominations at all. Many churches only even consider incorporating when they get larger (mine incorporated after being around for 30 years and with 500+ members)

As part of this, the groups that these churches are a part of also do not universally reject 501(c)3.

Churches that might go this way are congregational in polity. So, Baptists, Brethren Churches, Bible Churches, Non-denominational, Amish, or other misc. Anabaptist.


What guidance has Scripture or church fathers offered on how to deal with sacred objects of other religions? I've heard of a case of a Christian tearing up a prayer booklet of another religion in a somewhat violent manner.  Is this action in tune with Christian tradition or conflict with any biblical edicts?

My answer has to do with an assumption that the prayer book of another religion can essentially be viewed as an idol, given that some may attempt to get something "spiritual" from an object constructed by humans.  And here are some verses that apply to answer your excellent question:

1) Don't bow to the idol.
There are degrees of reverence to the object  that those in other religions may deem necessary (one can imagine other religions bowing to it-- for example, I've seen a Catholic priest bow to the Bible during a worship service). Biblical principle: don't participate.

  "Yet I will leave 7,000 in Israel, all the knees that have not bowed to Baal and every mouth that has not kissed him." 1 Kings 19:18

2) Tactful destruction of a tract may be biblically warranted.
There are biblical cases where idols of other religions were destroyed (2 Kings 19:18).  For example, I have picked up a free music CD from a store, played it at home, found it to contain violent sexual lyrics, and then quietly broke CD in half and thrown in garbage.  I have also quietly pocketed and trashed a tract left out in public for something I found spiritually harmful.

3) The idol is mere wood.
Treating a book as a mere book might be a better witness than an elaborate display of going after it like you need to stop its spiritual power from infecting everyone.

  And have cast their gods into the fire, for they were not gods, but the work of men's hands, wood and stone. Therefore they were destroyed. 2 Kings 19:18

4) Physically attacking symbols of religion may be less effective than witnessing to the foolishness of the religion.
Paul waded into the midst of idols an gave sermons where he told those in false religions about the true religion.  The text does not record him knocking down the idols.
Similarly, I cannot count the number of times my pastor(s) have given detailed instruction on other religions. To be clear, kids who didn't know about other religions, knew more about these religions after the class.  So information about other religions isn't necessarily harmful.

  For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: to an unknown god. So you are ignorant of the very thing you worship—and this is what I am going to proclaim to you. Acts 17:23

5) Mockery, incisive Socratic questions are okay.
Jesus mocks the Pharisees' religion with several unflattering analogies in Matthew 23.


Can the ancestral sin doctrine (and Paul's epistles) survive without a single breeding pair? The necessity of salvation in Christian doctrine seems to be inextricably linked to the view that the entirety of human nature somehow springs from the gametes (and perhaps education) of a single original breeding pair (Adam and Eve's nature & nurture). From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

  416 By his sin Adam, as the first man, lost the original holiness and
  justice he had received from God, not only for himself but for all
  human beings.

  417 Adam and Eve transmitted to their descendants human nature wounded
  by their own first sin and hence deprived of original holiness and
  justice; this deprivation is called "original sin".

  418 As a result of original sin, human nature is weakened in its
  powers, subject to ignorance, suffering and the domination of death,
  and inclined to sin (this inclination is called "concupiscence").

Paul's writings had a large role in the development of this theology:

  Therefore, just as through one person sin entered the world, and
  through sin, death, and thus death came to all, inasmuch as all sinned
  (Romans 5.12)

Modern biology doesn't allow the possibility that there ever was a bottleneck of two (or perhaps even one, given that Eve was cloned from the ribs of Adam) in Homo Sapiens history:

Inference of human population history from individual whole-genome sequences
Population bottleneck
Adam and Eve: the ultimate standoff between science and faith

So can the ancestral sin theology and the foundational Pauline writings stand in the absence of an original breeding pair, or do they become meaningless?

(Since this is not a truth question, but a theological inference question please see the comment to avoid arguing uselessly outside the question)

Preface that this isn't a site for debating what is true, it's merely for learning what s taught/believed within Christianity.  See  How we are different than other sites?

With that in mind, most of your question is off-topic, but I believe that the core concept from your question can be addressed if we phrase it as follows:

Do any Christian groups believe that without a literal Adam, the concept of original sin has no meaning?

I'm going to answer that portion, in the interest of answering the heart of the question, filtering out the portions that are off-topic and/or controversial/disputed within Christian circles.

The short answer is tat yes, some Christians, namely Young-Earth Creationists teach and believe exactly that.  Ken Ham, Kent Hovind and other well-known YEC proponents teach exactly that.

One such example from CCEL

  Is it important:

  Well, if there was no first Adam, could there also not be a second
  Adam, our LORD Jesus Christ? For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ
  shall all be made alive...it is written, The first man Adam was made a
  living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit." 1
  Corinthians 15

  If death did not come as result of Adam's sin, then why did we need a
  savior to deliver us from death unto life? "Just as sin entered the
  world through one man (Adam), and death through sin, and in this way
  death came to all men, because all sinned"- Romans 5

  Was Jesus' real if his geneaology account is not trustworthy? Jesus
  was the son of Joseph, who was the son of ..., the son of Seth, the
  son of Adam (Luke 3) - Can the Word of God be trusted for its specific
  geneaology or is it mythology?

I also posted on the subject at Why do Young-Earth Creationists make such a big deal about the YEC view.

Not all Christians see it thus way, of course.  This represents only one view within Christianity.


What did Jesus write on the ground? John 8:6-8 NIV

  6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him.
  But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as
  though he heard them not.

  7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said
  unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a
  stone at her.

  8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.

Do we have any information on what he was writing?

The quick answer is "No." However, there has been a lot of speculation on this.

We do know that the accusers of the woman left without stoning her after Jesus said, "He who is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone at her," but apparently none of them left before He did this. We also know that the older ones were the first to leave.

So, what He wrote on the ground could have been irrelevant, and the people left perhaps under conviction from the statement alone.

One interesting suggestion is that Jesus was writing out the 10 Commandments. If so, it could have been that the accusers realized that they were guilty of breaking the law.  "Honor your father and mother" comes before the "Thou shalt not commit adultery". Also included are the prohibition against bearing false witness and coveting, both of which could likely have indicted all of the accusers.

It is also possible that Jesus was writing other specific commandments (outside the ten commandments) of which each person was guilty of breaking.

Yet, again, we don't really know. We aren't told, so we can conclude that it wasn't important for us to know. What Jesus wrote may or may not have added to what drove the accusers away.


Better safe than sorry? Should you confess if you're not sure if you've committed a sin? I’m guessing if you aren’t sure if you have committed a sin it is better to confess anyways than to be stuck in hell forever? Is there anything wrong with wrongly confessing or is it OK?

If you aren’t sure if you have committed a sin it is better to confess anyway?

If the action or deed may be a possible venial sin then one may go to Confession. It will not do any harm and one may even get some spiritual insight into leading a holy life.

If however one is not sure if one has committed a mortal sin, one should go confession. Mortal sin for a Catholic must be confessed to a priest within the Sacrament of Reconciliation.

  Mortal sin destroys charity in the heart of man by a grave violation of God's law; it turns man away from God, who is his ultimate end and his beatitude, by preferring an inferior good to him.

  Venial sin allows charity to subsist, even though it offends and wounds it. - Catechism of the Catholic Church.

If in doubt, it would be best to go to confession. If one did commit a mortal sin, one would be restored to the state of grace and the sacramental life within the Church. If one did not do a mortal sin, then one has gained insight into leading a holier life and obtained confidence in going to a priest in  the Sacrament of Confession as means to keep oneself holy.


Did Mary, sister of Martha, anoint Jesus's feet on two different occasions, John 11:1-2 and John 12:2-5? At John 11: 1-2 (NRSVCE) we read:

"Now a certain man was ill, Lazarus of Bethany, the village of Mary and her sister Martha.   Mary was the one who anointed the Lord with perfume and wiped his feet with her hair; her brother Lazarus was ill."

We also read at John 12:2-5(NRSVCE):

" There they gave a dinner for him. Martha served, and Lazarus was one of those at the table with him.   Mary took a pound of costly perfume made of pure nard, anointed Jesus’ feet, and wiped them with her hair. The house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume.  "

It appears that the Evangelist John is presenting in Chapter-11 a 'flash forward'of the event relating to  anointment of the Lord by Mary, which he later describes in detail in Chapter- 12. Or, is it possible that Mary had anointed  Jesus on one different occasion or more, before the death of Lazarus ? My question therefore is: How does the Catholic Church explain the positioning of John 11:2 before John 12:3 ?

Imagine a biography in which a woman writes:

  That summer I stayed a week with June Armstrong.  Her two brothers, Dean and Neil were there too, but we managed to ignore them.  Neil was the one that walked on the moon.

And a few chapters later:

  I sat with June as she stared at the TV, watching her brother Neil as he proclaimed "That's one small step f'ra man, one giant leap for mankind.".

There's nothing confusing about that is there?  There's nothing to make anyone think that Neil walked on the moon when he was a child.

It's no different from what John wrote, so why should the Catholic Church (or anyone else) think there is a problem that needs explaining?


What happens if someone spills the wine during the Eucharist? What would happen if someone (a priest, parishioner, deacon or anyone) spills the wine during a Eucharist service at a Catholic church?

An accidental spill of the Precious Blood can be cleaned up by soaking it up by placing a "purificator" which is a linen specially reserved to come into contact with the consecrated wine (one can use multiple of this linens depending the quantity of liquid) and then soaking them back in water do dissolve or dilute the Precious Blood. Then it can be poured into the ground where no people or animals would regularly step on. Like a flower bed or similar appropriate area.  In Catholic churches there is a sink (called sacrarium) in the sacristy that the drain does not connect to the regular sewage line but rather directly to the ground and is specially design to wash the sacred vessels that would contain minimal traces of the Precious Blood or Body of our Lord.


History/teachings of "The Crossing" I have to admit this one's personal for me.  A friend of mine from years back has become a member of a Church that self-identifies as "The Crossing".

I've been able to find some information on the Church via multiple Google result hits, but everything I'm finding is solely from an individual, specific, local Church.  (Example)

I'm very interested in knowing the history of this Church.  Is it considered a denomination?  Is each Church independent? Is the doctrine sound (or at least in-line with standard protestant evangelical theology)?  From what I've been able to dig up it looks like a Church similar to  Evangelical Free Churches - doctrine based on salvation by faith alone, but with a strong focus on doing good works, community involvement, and the expression of Christian love.  It also looks to be quite liberal in the teachings, and likely the music, and the focus on "being a good person".

Does anyone know of the background - the origins and underlying teachings, and is this considered a "denomination" in the same way "Assembly of God" Churches are?  Or is this more of a free-thinking, liberal movement that is loosely organized?

I'm still no expert, but I've been able to determine the following through research and reading of the site's content as well as watching a few of the messages.

The Crossing Church noted in the question seems to be a collection of Churches in the state of Minnesota, and don't appear to be directly related to other Churches with the same name elsewhere in the country, although the theology and style are similar.

This Church falls squarely in the "Purpose-Driven" "Emergent Church" category.  As such, there is quite a bit of theology that falls in-line with "mainstream" Protestant Christianity, and also, quite a bit that could be considered controversial, and even heretical by many standards.

The Church's Statement of Faith reads like almost any other Protestant denomination's Statement of Faith. (Link to their statement in PDF format, sorry, it's all they offer.)  The statement covers:

Biblical inerrancy
The Trinity
Virgin birth and identity of Jesus as fully God, and fully Man
Man created in God's image, separated by sin, original sin
Jesus' death as a substitutionary payment for our sins
The coming personal, visible return of Christ
Salvation by Grace through Faith in Jesus
bodily resurrection of the just and unjust, eternal joy of the saved, enternal, conscious punishment of the unsaved
Indwelling of the Holy Spirit for the saved
Baptism by immersion for believers as a sign of obedience (not as necessary for salvation)
Participants in the Lord's Supper should be believers, in good fellowship with Christ
The Universal Church - all believers

They also list "The Code" (also a PDF link), which makes it very clear that they are intensely focused on evangelism, using any means possible to reach the lost.

Rather than listing all the bullet points, here are a few that stand out:

  We are united under the visionary.  The Crossing is built on the vision God gave Pastor Eric.  We aggressively defend our unity and his
  vision.
  We are an invasion force, not a fortress.  We invade our city with Christ; we don't hide from the city and condemn people.  We are
  always missional.
  We are all about the numbers.  Every number is a life influenced.  We unapologetically set goals and measure progress so God
  can influence more lives or His kingdom.

Note:  This next section could clearly be simply the opinions of disgruntled ex-members.  It's included to answer the "Are their beliefs in-line with mainstream Protestant Christianity.  I've cited sources, but cannot vouch for their reliability, having no first-hand experience myself.

Going beyond their own website, we start to see some statements by ex-Church members that would because for concern in more conservative mainstream Christianity.

From http://apprising.org/2011/07/29/eric-dykstra-and-the-crossing-church/

Putting untrained, struggling people in a leadership position.  Most Churches consider Godly living, and strong personal testimony to be a requirement for eligibility in a leadership position.  This Church appears to take a different approach, encouraging people that are "not qualified" to become leaders in the hopes that this will strengthen their walk with the Lord.

  In July 2009, my wife and I were in counsel with “Pastor” Bruce Rauma.
  We were going through a lot of stressful personal things, and I was
  still grieving my Mother’s death that had happened in May of 2009.
  Bruce called a meeting with us to meet him at the Church and told us
  that he thought we should become Small Group leaders.

  I explained to Bruce that we were not ready to shepherd people, as we
  were broken ourselves.  He said “no” that we were ready, and that
  running a group would help us with our own problems.  So we became
  Small Group leaders.  There was no training, no interview of our
  backgrounds, nothing.  Then we were recruited to by “Pastor” Chris to
  leave the Elk River Campus and plant the Zimmerman Campus.

Allowing non-believers to be Pastors:

  There was a young man named Jeremy who was on our FIT team.  He was a
  seeker who started going to The Crossing.  One week he took me aside
  and told me that he was planning on moving to Florida and did not
  think that he “buys” into this Jesus thing.

  The following week, he was running around telling everyone that he was
  now going to become the next “campus pastor”.  I asked my leader what
  was going on, and how that it Biblical, he said that Eric thinks that
  Jeremy H. needs to be challenged to push him along in faith.

The above practice seems to be in line with the philosophy of  Alan Hirsch:

  we need to reframe evangelism within the context of discipleship…even
  “the Twelve” (and “the Seventy”) were all what we would call
  “pre-conversion disciples.” (source)

The Church is also, apparently, very harsh to those who choose to leave the fold.  (source)

As for the history, it appears that the main Pastor, Eric Dykstra, was "given a vision by God" to start the Church.  (See point 1 in "The Code" above.)  This is a theme that seems to be quite common in the Emergent Church as well.

Currently, the Church operates in four different campuses, all near Minneapolis Minnesota.

Other, completely unrelated Churches go by the name "The Crossing" and seem to be similar in many respects - boilerplate statement of faith, but with strong indication that they fall squarely into the definition of "The Emergent Church".


Did early church fathers understand the doctrine of trinity? Many historians and religious scholars ... attest to the influence of
  Greek or Platonic philosophy in the development and acceptance of the
  Trinity doctrine in the fourth century.  ... the famous Greek
  philosopher Plato ... believed in a divine triad of "God, the ideas,
  [and] the World-Spirit,". (Source)

The easiest way to verify the authenticity of this claim would be to check if any of the early church fathers believed in trinity. (Please note by early I mean the <= 300 AD)

The Apostles Creed, referenced as early as 390 A.D., quite clearly articulates an understanding of our faith revolving around the three persons we identify as the members of the Trinity as core to the faith. It makes up almost half of the total text.

  I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
        the Maker of heaven and earth,
        and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord:

  Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost,
        born of the virgin Mary,
        suffered under Pontius Pilate,
        was crucified, dead, and buried;

It is clearly understood both today and in its time that this creed was affirming a belief in One God and at the same time identifying how he is revealed to us. While it doesn't use the term Trinity nor define the mixed natures as clearly as later creeds and confessions, it is unlikely that such a creed would have seen the near universal acceptance as articulating the core of Christian belief if it went against the teachings of the church fathers of the previous three centuries. The lack of controversy on this topic is remarkable. We do know people who taught otherwise, such as the Gnostics and Arians, but part of the purpose of this Creed was to emphatically reject them, a standard that has continued throughout mainstream Christian history.

Before moving on, it would be remiss not to point out that the most emphatic and authoritative writings on this matter in the first couple centuries are in fact the Scriptures themselves. Looking in material written by "early fathers"  for clues about what they did or did not believe without first and foremost considering the teachings found in the pages of the Bible their actions as church fathers helped to canonize would be a disservice to them.

That being said we do have clear evidence that the early Fathers did believe in the Trinity. Few of them used that word, but the words they did use fit the formula. For example Polycarp lived from 70 A.D to somewhere in the mid second century. Here's how he prayed:

  "O Lord God almighty... I bless you and glorify you through the eternal and heavenly high priest Jesus Christ, your beloved Son, through whom be glory to you, with Him and the Holy Spirit, both now and forever."

While that statement was simply an affirmation of the three persons without directly trying to define their relation to each other, other early Fathers such as Theophilus from the late second century did remark on how they relate:

  It is the attribute of God, of the most high and almighty and of the living God, not only to be everywhere, but also to see and hear all; for he can in no way be contained in a place.... The three days before the luminaries were created are types of the Trinity, God, his Word, and his Wisdom.

Likewise Justin (another Martyr and church leader from the second century) had this to say about baptism:

  "For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water."

Clearly the three persons were at the center of the faith people were being inaugurated into. In another place, he comments specifically on the relation of these three persons to each other:

  We will prove that we worship him reasonably; for we have learned that he is the Son of the true God himself, that he holds a second place, and the Spirit of prophecy a third. For this they accuse us of madness, saying that we attribute to a crucified man a place second to the unchangeable and eternal God, the Creator of all things; but they are ignorant of the mystery which lies therein.

By the first decade of the third century, we have quite a collection of declarations about the Trinity. Here is Tertullian:

  And at the same time the mystery of the oikonomia is safeguarded, for the unity is distributed in a Trinity. Placed in order, the three are the Father, Son, and Spirit. They are three, however, not in condition, but in degree; not in being, but in form; not in power, but in kind; of one being, however, and one condition and one power, because he is one God of whom degrees and forms and kinds are taken into account in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

The list goes on. I can't quote them all here but Ignatius the Bishop of Antioch, Irenaeus, a disciple of Polycarp and later Bishop of Lyons, Didache, Hippolytus, Novatian, Origen, and other Fathers through the second and third centuries can all be quoted with emphatic articulations of the Trinity.

The exact formulation and best way to articulate this mystery has been widely debated in every age and language since. The above Fathers certainly had varying ideas about just what it meant to have a single God with three persons. We still struggle to wrap our heads around this today. And that's ok as long as we do not err on the side of either denying either the unity or diversity of his nature. We must not make out the persons of the Trinity to be separate beings nor deny that the one being is revealed to us in thee persons.


What theolological distinctives are exhibited in 'The True Furqan'? The book The True Furqan, a work first published in Arabic a little over a decade ago, has come up recently in several contexts from being a suspect in anti government plots1 to being proof that Christians corrupted2 the New Testament. The Wikipedia article suggests several supposed motivations for the publishing and hints at some of the controversial receptions. What it doesn't give is any idea what sort of things the book actually contains!

What general theological distinctives are evidenced in the book? In what way does it represent the nature of God? Of humans? What does it say or imply about the nature of the Bible vs. the Qur'an? What Christian tradition would most align with its doctrinal position? Are there any significant ways in which the theology evidenced is distinct from that of orthodox3 Christianity?

1 Here is an English source that gives a general overview of the craze in my local media regarding an alleged government security bulletin linking this book to subversive 'Christian' missionary activities (source, source, source). That such activity is orchestrated by foreign entities as a  way to subvert the state is a common allegation and plays into the local penchant for religious conspiracy theories. Part of my purpose in asking this question is to find a way of clearly expressing the relation of this particular work and the ideology behind it to the broader context of historical Christianity.

2 This is an eminently common claim among Muslims. Every new translation of the Bible, every new publication, every new 'brilliant' idea somebody has for missions methodology stirs up another wave of "see they changed this, how can we trust the NT hasn't been completely changed?

3 For the purpose of this question, assume orthodox refers to the mainstream branches of Christianity that would widely be recognized as Chalcedonian.

This book imitates the Quran, or tries to imitate it, in order to answer the Quran. The translator, Anis Shorrosh is allegedly also the writer. He is an evangelical Christian. The ideology and theology of the book is based on the beliefs and ideas of this man, and his understanding of Christianity.

The main idea of the book is to tell Christianity in a Quranic form, but the book is too arguing and too furious and stressful compared to the eloquency of the Quran. "Al-Furqan" is one of the names of the Quran, meaning the "The Criterion". The book is to change Muslims' minds into Christianity by showing them "The True Criterion". However all this hoax would make people think how desperate Christians are!

The book actually quotes some parts of the Quran, and keeps talking about Satanic verses and how people left "The True Gospel".

  They recite this gibberish which is nothing but plagiarized wisdom,
  pitiful enunciation and mystifying instructions. (40:5)

There are many Islamic concepts and terminology in it. There are hundreds of verses, quoting a verse from the Quran and giving some answer, sometimes actually by distorting them. These verses generally go like this:

  You said "..." but you did ..., so you are...

Such a verse:

  Furthermore, if it is rumored, "These sayings are his own invention;"
  he recoils from the criticism and announces, "Bring ten such invented
  chapters if you have the creative ability." No one brings forth such
  invented chapters except an imposter who recites what demons
  concocted. (45:12-13)

And the original:

  23.And if you are in doubt about what We have revealed (the Quran) to Our worshiper (Muhammad), then produce a chapter like it, and call
  your witnesses (supporters and helpers) besides God if you are
  truthful.
  24.And if you do not do it, and you can never do it, then fear the Fire (Hell) whose fuel is men and stones.  It has been prepared for
  disbelievers.
  25.And give good news (O Muhammad) to those who believe and do good deeds, that for them are gardens (Paradise) in which rivers flow....
  http://quran.com/2/23-25

Another one with a bigger distortion of the original:

  O you who are fabricators of lies from among Our misled worshipers:
  you announce, "We believe in God and what was given to Jesus and the
  prophets. We make no differentiation among them. Yet from among those
  messengers We have preferred some over others." (51:1)

And the original:

  Say, [O believers], "We have believed in Allah and what has been
  revealed to us and what has been revealed to Abraham and Ishmael and
  Isaac and Jacob and the Descendants and what was given to Moses and
  Jesus and what was given to the prophets from their Lord. We make no
  distinction between any of them, and we are Muslims [in submission] to
  Him." http://quran.com/2/136

Following are extracted by me. These are not from the 'quotation verses'. You can compare some of the verses of the Quran and what this guy have in his book, and see what this book is about:

The Quran:

  And when it is said to them, "Believe as the people have believed,"
  they say, "Should we believe as the foolish have believed?"
  Unquestionably, it is they who are the foolish, but they know [it]
  not. http://quran.com/2/13

The True Furqan:

  Whenever it is urged upon the infidels to believe in The True Furqan,
  which We revealed, just as Our devoted followers have done, they
  proclaim, "Are we to accept what the inferior infidels have believed?"
  (4:7)

The Quran:

  And when there came to them a Book from Allah confirming that which
  was with them (with the Jews) - although before they used to pray for victory against
  those who disbelieved (polytheists) - but [then] when there came to them that which
  they recognized (the Quran), they disbelieved in it; so the curse of Allah will be
  upon the disbelievers. http://quran.com/2/89

The True Furqan:

  At any rate, The True Furqan came to confirm what is with the
  humankind through The True Gospel. Surprisingly, they hid it behind
  their backs as if they had no better sense. (11:26)

The Quran:

  Those to whom We gave the Scripture (Christians and Jews) know him (Muhammad) as they know their own
  sons. But indeed, a party of them conceal the truth while they know
  [it]. The truth is from your Lord, so never be among the doubters.
   http://quran.com/2/146-147

The True Furqan:

  As for those who trusted in The True Gospel, they know it (The Gospel)
  as they know their own sons. Thus they do not conceal the truth! ... (61:13)

The Quran:

  There shall be no compulsion in [acceptance of] the religion. The
  right course has become clear from the wrong. So whoever disbelieves
  in Taghut and believes in Allah has grasped the most trustworthy
  handhold with no break in it. And Allah is Hearing and Knowing.
  http://quran.com/2/256

The True Furqan:

  As for those of Our people who have gone astray, The True Furqan is
  now disclosed to explain Our Way concerning the difference in True
  Wisdom, stubble and hay, "No compulsion in religion," We say.
  Therefore why don't you trust Us and obey? (3:6)

The Quran:

  1.Ha, Meem.
  2.By the clear Book,
  3.Indeed, We have made it an Arabic Qur'an that you might understand.
  4.And indeed it is, in the Mother of the Book with Us, exalted and full of wisdom.
  5.Then should We turn the message away, disregarding you, because you are a transgressing people?
  6.And how many a prophet We sent among the former peoples,
  7.But there would not come to them a prophet except that they used to ridicule him.http://quran.com/43

The True Furqan:

  1.O, you who have gone astray from among Our faithful followers: We have inspired it -a True Furqan- in the Arabic tongue clearly
  miraculous, to distinguish triviality from truth. It will enlighten
  you concerning the evil which you were practicing.
  2. You have counterfeited Our tongue and fabricated deceitfully that We have revealed a message which was never declared and have
  transacted what We have never asked. You have brazenly misled the
  people away so that whosoever trusted you was led astray and whosoever
  believed you ended up losing his way. Yet despair awaits every vile
  slanderer. (4:1-2)

The Quran:

  In the name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful
  1.Say, "He is Allah , [who is] One,
  2.Allah , the Eternal Refuge.
  3.He neither begets nor is born,
  4.Nor is there to Him any equivalent."http://quran.com/112

The True Furqan:

  1.In the Name of the Father, the Word, the Holy Spirit, the One and only True God
  2.He is Triune in Unity, united in Trinity, indivisible as deity.
  3.He is the Father, Who has never given birth like the race of humanity.
  4.He is the Word, Who has never been born except through virginity.
  5.He is the Spirit, Who has never been separated from the Trinity. (A)

There are endless amount of similarities like the above, therefore we can conclude that, this book is written solely for the purpose of saying "Nay, this one is the true Furqan." to those who believe in "The Furqan". Therefore to answer the question from above,

  What does it say or imply about the nature of the Bible vs. the
  Qur'an?

This book suggests that The Quran is Satanic, and it is all lies, imitation of the Gospel and gibberish.

  They recite this gibberish which is nothing but plagiarized wisdom,
  pitiful enunciation and mystifying instructions. (40:5)

However, because it is written solely for Muslims by an Arab Christian, it starts with,

  To the Arab nation specifically and the Muslim world collectively:
  peace, mercy and blessings from God Almighty!

and keeps using Quranic words and verses. That is a way to deceive people maybe, but it is clearly contradictious.

If we come to the stance of this book on the Bible, it is a hard job. Clearly, it is a book written for Muslims, calling them to so-called "The True Gospel" and telling them whatever came after is counterfeit. Almost every page, the book keeps saying "The True Gospel" is distorted by Muslims.

  Additionally, you have alleged that some portions of The True Gospel
  have been altered. So, you discarded most of it behind your backs. Had
  you believed Our Divine Revelation, you would not have claimed that is
  was altered. (8:4)

Since the aim is to convince Muslims that they do not know The True Gospel and they should believe it, and this is done with Quranic words and verses, it is hard to say if the book, itself believes itself about what is said on "The True Gospel" in it. Also the book, because it is busy giving messages to Muslims, every single verse, does not have time to talk about deeper Christian theology. For example, the chapter "The Crucifixion" can be read, which argues with Muslims, that their rejection of crucifixion is baseless, because they do not get what it is actually. So, the book can be attributed to any form of 'orthodox' Christianity, especially Evangelicalism, when the parts on Christian theology is taken. However, as a whole, it does not fit in any form of Christianity, not even the writer's. The idea of the book "The True Furqan", itself, is ridiculous and do not comply with any doctrinal positions of Christianity. As you should have understood until here, it is a tool to be used against Muslims, but destined to fail for obvious reasons.