Where does Grace reside? (Catholicism) According to the teachings of the Catholic Church (infallible or not), where does Grace reside? I would imagine the answer is "in the soul". I've searched for concrete answers in the Catholic Encyclopedia (e.g. here and here) without success. I found the unreferenced quote below in the article about sin:

  The first effect of mortal sin in man is to avert him from his true last end, and deprive his soul of sanctifying grace.

So it seems it is the soul. But I would like a more authoritative reference, ideally from the Church itself (Magisterium). Any ideas?

Grace is a quality (a type of accident) that inheres in the soul, analogous to how the quality of redness inheres in a red apple.

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica I-II q. 110 a. 1 ("Whether grace implies anything in the soul?") co.:

  when a man is said to have the grace of God, there is signified something bestowed on man by God.

I-II q. 110 a. 2 ("Whether grace is a quality of the soul?") ad 1:

  Grace, as a quality, is said to act upon the soul, not after the manner of an efficient cause, but after the manner of a formal cause, as whiteness makes a thing white, and justice, just.

ad 2:

  because grace is above human nature, it cannot be a substance or a substantial form, but is an accidental form of the soul.

Being is divided into substance (that which exists in itself) and accident (that which exists in another). Accidents are divided into quantity, quality, relation, etc. See this diagram.

That grace is a quality infused and inherent in the soul is also evident from the Council of Trent, session 6:

  CANON XI.—If any one saith, that men are justified, either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ, or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost [Rom. 5:5], and is inherent in them; or even that the grace, whereby we are justified, is only the favor of God: let him be anathema.

  [Cdl. Manning's transl. of:] Canon XI.—Si quis dixerit, homines justificari, vel sola imputatione justitiæ Christi, vel sola peccatorum remissione, exclusa gratia et caritate, quæ in cordibus eorum per Spiritum Sanctum diffundatur atque illis inhæreat; aut etiam gratiam, qua justificamur, esse tantum favorem Dei: anathema sit.

Trent argues against Luther, who did not believe a transformation of the soul by grace is necessary for justification.


Is it possible for The Bible to contain errors? For those who profess to follow the word of Christ, everyone agrees that the Bible is the infallible word of God as transcribed by many different men compiled together in one book. But for this question, I'm not talking about "The Bible" as in the idea of the perfect Bible, but of the copies and translations mankind reads; the one you and I have on our bookshelves. This may seem like a stupid question for some, and I apologize, but is it possible for these books to contain errors?

The way I see it, The Bible is a product of mankind, written by man, transcribed by man, duplicated on printing presses created by man, and thus it may contain errors, mistakes, even contradictions; these mistakes are the result of man's imperfection, not God's.

It occurred to me after reading through many questions on this site that some people think that The Bible is 100% infallible, let alone that their particular copy may be a poor/inaccurate translation. It's almost as if they believe it was written by God himself, so they tend to blame errors on our own reasoning and interpretation of the Bible, as opposed to the simple fact that a particular passage could have been translated incorrectly (which often seems more likely, especially when it stands out from all the rest).

Note that whether errors/mistakes do (or do not) occur in The Bible is irrelevant; this questions asks merely whether it is conceivably possible that it could contain errors.

Yes, it is absolutely possible for editions of the Bible to contain errors. There is no magical mechanism to prevent this. There are some notorious printing mistakes, for example:

A 1631 printing of the King James version is now called the "Wicked Bible", owing to its rendering of Exodus 20:14,

  Thou shalt commit adultery

In 1763, the "Fool's Bible" said in Psalm 14:1,

  The fool hath said in his heart there is a God

The "Owl Bible" of 1944 says in 1 Peter 3:5,

  For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted God, adorned themselves, being in subjection to their owl husbands.

Some more are listed at Wikipedia under Bible errata. These are mostly simple mistakes, but some of them might be deliberately introduced (like the Printer's Bible of 1612, having "Printers have persecuted me without a cause" in Psalm 119:161).

In earlier times, when books were copied by hand, monks attributed such slips (in jest) to a demon called Titivillus 1, whose job was to introduce errors into manuscripts, especially of important texts.

Even in the earliest Biblical manuscripts, there are disagreements, as can be seen by consulting most modern editions that have footnotes - it's not hard to find verses with annotations that note differences among early texts.

1 Or possibly Titivilus or Tituvillis, etc., it being perfectly in keeping with his nature that there is no correct way to spell his name.


Are there Christian Denominations or Movements who believe that Jesus didn't actually pay our sin debt? I was wondering if there are any prominent or otherwise named group of Christians who believe that Jesus did away with our debt by legally canceling our debt instead of actually paying for the entire amount due. In other words, are there those who believe that it wasn't required that Jesus' suffering was equal to or exceeded all the suffering of punishment that each one of us is due because he dealt away with the legal requirement, period, through the cross?
This follows from passages like Col 2:14 where the consequences of our trespasses are merely set aside because of Christ's offering at the Cross:

Colossians 2:13-14 And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us [liberating us from] all our trespasses, 14 by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. (ESV)

See also Romans 7:1-6 where our freedom from the legal obligation to be punished by law for sin is effectuated in Christ's death the same way that woman may be freed from the legal obligation to her husband through death.

Romans 7:1-6 Or do you not know, brothers—for I am speaking to those who know the law—that the law is binding on a person only as long as he lives? 2 For a married woman is bound by law to her husband while he lives, but if her husband dies she is released from the law of marriage. 3 Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies, she is free from that law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress.
4 Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God. 5 For while we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death. 6 But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code. (ESV)

And Ephesians which describes the law being abolished in Christ's flesh.

Ephesians 2:14-16 For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility 15 by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, 16 and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility. (ESV)

It is possible that the movement called “The New Church” (which came out of Swedenborgian theology) believes that Jesus did not actually pay our sin debt.  I base this on two of their principal doctrines:

"There are two essentials which constitute the church, and hence two principal things of doctrine — one, that the Lord's Human is Divine; the other, that love to the Lord and charity toward the neighbor constitute the church, and not faith separate from love and charity."  It is by these two essential doctrines that conjunction with the Lord and salvation is effected.  If one is unaware of these two essential doctrines of the New Church and yet has believed in one God and lived a good life, they will be taught this by angels after death.

From what I’ve read I understand that they believe Jesus’ soul was divine from eternity although he did not exist prior to being born of Mary.  After his resurrection he put off the human body he inherited from Mary, and put on a human body from the Divine within Him, which is known in the New Church as the Divine Human.

During His life Jesus progressed towards God by gradually making the human body he inherited at birth one with the Divine...  It was this progress towards unification, completed by the passion on the cross that is the means by which all of humanity was saved from hell.

Other names for The New Church include Swedenborgian, New Christians, Neodan-Christians, Church of the New Christ, and The Lord's New Church.  Swedenborgians accept the four Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John; and the Book of Revelation as divinely inspired canon of Scripture. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Church
If Jesus’ “progression towards unification” with the Divine is the means by which all of humanity is saved, and if all that is required is for people to repent, love God and live a good life, then there would be no need for Jesus to pay the entire debt of sin.  The following Christianity Stack question is relevant to the Swedenborgian view of Jesus’ sacrificial death:

Many Christians believe that Jesus died to appease the anger of God. One reason for this is 1 John 2:2, which says: “And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.”  Propitiation basically means to appease the wrath of a god through an offering.  How did Swedenborg interpret 1 John 2:2: "He is the propitiation for our sins"?

In response to this question, Lee Woofenden says:

Swedenborg was aware of, but rejected, the traditional philosophically-based interpretation of "propitiation" as meaning to appease the wrath of God the Father through the literal shedding of blood and death of the Son of God on the Cross.  He goes on to explain why divine justice does not save one person due to the actions of another person (in this case, the Son of God)...

Swedenborg insists that although God does indeed forgive all of our sins out of pure love and mercy, the only way we can receive that forgiveness is to repent from our sins and live a new life of love and service to our fellow human beings, as Jesus Christ and the entire Bible command us to do...    "propitiation" has to do with God "covering over" our sins, meaning forgiving them out of pure love and mercy—which forgiveness we receive when we repent from our sins and live a good life instead, as God commands us to do throughout the entire Bible, both Old Testament and New.

I could be wrong, but I get an impression that “The New Church” and those groups associated with Swedenborg, believe that “it wasn't required that Jesus' suffering was equal to or exceeded all the suffering of punishment that each one of us is due because he dealt away with the legal requirement, period, through the cross.”
If I have misunderstood and misrepresented anybody, I will apologise unreservedly.  Please be aware I do not agree with the views expressed by The New Church or Swedenborg.


In Catholicism, what is the difference between Natural Law and Divine Law? In Catholic understanding, there is a divine law and a natural law.  Based on my reading, it seems like Divine Law = Revelation (as a Protestant would call it) and Natural Law = what you could deduce about right and wrong simply by using Reason to extrapolate the consequences of the act.

Thus, the 10 Commandments are first natural law (because you can figure out pretty easily that killing is bad), but then are also articulated by God. Does it then become Divine Law? Is it "also Divine Law" or "no longer Natural Law, just Divine?"

Are these categories supposed to exclusive? Is divine law higher than natural law?

Ultimately, what is the difference?

The overly simple answer is:  Natural Law is a human person's participation in the Eternal Law (the knowable part of which is called Divine Law).

While Peter Turner's answer covered all of the essential points, St. Thomas Aquinas' coverage of the topic is the benchmark among the Doctors of the Catholic Church and one summary of it (among many, I am sure) can be found here: Aquinas On Law.

The important parts:

Eternal Law is the mind of God as understood by God Himself.
Divine law is derived from Eternal Law as it appears historically to humans (revelation).

Natural Law, is tough to summarize succinctly. One decent summary is:

  The Natural Law, as applied to the case of human beings, requires
  greater precision because of the fact that we have reason and free
  will. It is the our nature humans to act freely (i.e. to be provident
  for ourselves and others) by being inclined toward our proper acts and
  end. That is, we human beings must exercise our natural reason to
  discover what is best for us in order to acheive the end to which
  their nature inclines. Furhtermore, we must exercise our freedom, by
  choosing what reason determines to naturally suited to us, i.e. what
  is best for our nature. The natural inclination of humans to acheive
  their proper end through reason and free will is the natural law.
  Formally defined, the Natural Law is humans' participation in the
  Eternal Law, through reason and will. Humans actively participate in
  the eternal law of God (the governance of the world) by using reason
  in conformity with the Natural Law to discern what is good and evil.

While not relevant to the original question, the final point is Human Law which builds on Natural Law. Saint Thomas says:

  it is from the precepts of the natural law, as from general and
  indemonstrable principles, that the human reason needs to proceed to
  certain particular determinations of the laws. These particular
  determinations, devised by human reason, are called human laws.
  (Summa Theologica q91, a3, p. 21)


What is "spirit" in Holy Spirit? Jesus taught the woman of Samaria that "God is spirit".

The answer to the Penny Catechism Q17. What is God? is God is the supreme Spirit, who alone exists of himself, and is infinite in all perfections.

As the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity, the Holy Spirit is God and consubstantial with the Father and the Son.

A diagram as one below is sometimes used to explain the mystery of the Blessed Trinity.

This is where it gets confusing for me. If each of the persons is God, then from the foregoing we can say

  The Holy Spirit is the supreme Spirit.

Since the Father and the son are each also the supreme Spirit but not the Holy Spirit, what is "spirit" in the Holy Spirit and how is it different from "spirit" in the supreme Spirit?

Catholic perspective preferred but any others welcome from Christians who believe in the Blessed Trinity.

What is “spirit” in Holy Spirit?

Spirit = pneuma

Vines definition

primarily denotes the wind" (akin to pneo, "to breathe, blow"); also "breath;" then, especially "the spirit," which, like the wind, is invisible, immaterial and powerful.

What can be confusing is that the word "spirit" can be used in different ways.

God is called a spirit to differentiate him from the material world.

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

There is a person in the Godhead that is called the Holy Spirit because the work he does is similar to receiving a breath of inspiration. Both Jesus and God send forth the Spirit.

  John 14:16-17  And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you
  another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;  Even the
  Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him
  not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you,
  and shall be in you.

  John 16:13  Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will
  guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but
  whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you
  things to come.

  John 20:22  And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith
  unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:

There is a function of the Holy Spirit as one by whom new life is imparted.

  John 6:63  It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth
  nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they
  are life.

The Holy Spirit is a spirit in that he is not of the material universe. He is also a spirit in that he leads us and teaches us by inspiration similar to receiving life giving breath. He is also a spirit because of our new life in Christ (our spiritual life) is made possible through his quickening.


How does the devil work? In Christianity what are specific real life examples of how the devil works?

Also, any specific examples of how the devil works in the Bible?

Satan is a Hebrew word (Ha-Satan) that means The Accuser. In Job 1, we see the Accuser doing what he does best- making accusations against God's chosen.

Because the devil is a created being, and therefore nowhere near being God's equal, he can only accuse people in front of God, and God may allow the Devil to bring about events as a result.

Interestingly, the point of the Gospel is because that there is therefore now No condemnation for those who believe in Christ Jesus, the Devil has lost his one ability over God's elect, namely the ability to accuse the Brethren.


What is the origin of the tradition that Thaddeus founded the Armenian Church? According to tradition, Thaddeus (aka Jude) and Bartholomew were the first disciples to bring the Gospel to Armenia.  As such, they are commemorated as the patron saints of that church.  What is the origin of this tradition?  That is, what is the oldest extant reference to Thaddeus preaching in Armenia?

Fortunately, The Kingdom of Armenia: A History (by M. Chahin) has an online extract that covers this very issue. On page 261, Chahin says tradition has it that King Abgar of Edessa (c. 5 BCE-32 CE) wrote to Jesus begging him to cure him of a malady. The allegedly written reply, along with His portrait (painted by Abgar's messenger, Ananias), purports to inform the king that one of His disciples would visit him, after the Writer's ascension. On the arrival of St. Thaddeus, the king, having been cured, along with his wonderstruck people, was converted to Christianity. Soon after that momentous event, the king died. His nephew, Sanatruk, king of another province in Great Armenia, embraced Christianity when St. Thaddeus visited him, in spite of fear of the wrath of his nobles. His anxiety was justified when he was compelled to apostasise and to martyrise St. Thaddeus.

Chahin goes on to provide historic evidence that there was a substantial Christian community by around 100 CE, although I think this is a typo and Chahin actually meant 200 CE - "for there were persecutions during the reign of Khozrov I (217-52) and his predecessors.  Already by the third and fourth centuries, the throne of the Armenian pontiffs was being called the 'chair of St. Thaddeus'.


Was the washing of feet of the disciples by Jesus, part of a Jewish tradition? At John 13:3-6 (RSVCE) we read:

  Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he had come from God and was going to God, rose from supper, laid aside his garments, and girded himself with a towel.  Then he poured water into a basin, and began to wash the disciples’ feet, and to wipe them with the towel with which he was girded.  He came to Simon Peter; and Peter said to him, “Lord, do you wash my feet?”

That the towel and the basin were already there, suggests that Jesus was enacting a traditional ritual of washing of the feet of the participants of  Passover feast, by the elder. The assumption is also corroborated by  the fact that only Simon Peter, who was not the first one to have his feet washed by Jesus, registered his objection.

My question is: Are there any teachings from the side of Catholic Church confirming that Jesus was in deed reinforcing a Jewish tradition of washing the feet of one's  dear ones at Passover ?

On the contrary, the towel and basin were there for feet to be washed by themselves (Genesis 18:4 & 19:2, Judges 19:21, 1st Samuel 25:41 and others). In that culture (and as an externality of wearing sandals), it was custom to have the feet of people who entered one's home washed. It had nothing to do with Passover specifically, but rather out of both respect and general desire for cleanliness. For example, look at the other known foot washing incident:

  Luke 7:37 And behold, a woman of the city, who was a sinner, when she
  learned that he was at table in the Pharisee's house, brought an
  alabaster flask of ointment, 38 and standing behind him at his feet,
  weeping, she began to wet his feet with her tears, and wiped them with
  the hair of her head, and kissed his feet, and anointed them with the
  ointment.

then later

  Luke 7:44 Then turning toward the woman he said to Simon, "Do you see
  this woman? I entered your house, you gave me no water for my
  feet, but she has wet my feet with her tears and wiped them with her
  hair.

Emphasis mine. It was a custom to have the things around for anyone entering the room - that a person entering the home would wash their own feet, or perhaps a servant would wash it for them. In addition, in Luke's account of passage at hand, you'll notice a different reason for Jesus getting his wash on, emphasis mine:

  Luke 22:24 A dispute also arose among them, which of them was to be
  regarded as the greatest. 25 And he said to them, "The kings of the
  Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and those in authority over them
  are called benefactors. 26 But not so with you; rather let the
  greatest among you become as the youngest, and the leader as one who
  serves. 27 For which is the greater, one who sits at table, or one who
  serves? Is it not the one who sits at table? But I am among you as one
  who serves.

While the disciples jockey for whomever is the best, Jesus lowers and humbles himself, stripping down like a servant to wash those same disciple's feet. John records this dialogue as well, emphasis mine:

  John 13:12 When he had washed their feet, and taken his garments, and resumed
  his place, he said to them, "Do you know what I have done to you? 13
  You call me Teacher and Lord; and you are right, for so I am. 14 If I
  then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to
  wash one another's feet. 15 For I have given you an example, that you
  also should do as I have done to you. 16 Truly, truly, I say to you,
  a servant is not greater than his master; nor is he who is sent
  greater than he who sent him.

There was no tradition here, until this point. This actually starts a Christian tradition, a sense of inward and outward humility. Paul's letter 1st Timothy 5:10 included "washed the feet of the saints" in instructions for the selection of widows who wish to be provided by the church. Paul also writes in Philippians 2:7 that Jesus took "the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men." Peter objected to this because he didn't understand what Jesus was trying to do (Jesus says this to his face in John 13:7), which is totally within his character.

(all references in RSVCE)


Should non-believers be allowed in church? Very interesting and very edgy question. The mention of Church in the Bible is often referring to the multitudes of Christians and not just the building. I'm curious about the building in this question.

I know that these days most churches are designed to be seeker-friendly, in a way that their doors are "open" to all individuals during all hours, including service. What I'm curious about, is why some Christians believe that their church should not be opened to the non-believing population during service hours.

More specifically J.H. Skelly and his street preaching ministries believes that non-believers should not be allowed inside of the church during the service hours.

What is the Biblical basis for this kind of thinking?

This is also the case among the Eastern Orthodox - if you're not Orthodox you get as far as the narthex but no further. Their practice is not based solely on scripture, but also on tradition. The basic idea is that the Church is unified as the Body of Christ, and this unity is expressed and sanctified by common participation in the Eucharist; it is therefore wrong to allow people who are not part of the Church to take part in the service. It is a more extreme version than, say, the Catholic position that you can be physically present in the church building, but not go up to receive the sacrament.

Scriptural support for unity through the Eucharist is found principally in 1 Corinthians 10-12 and in John 6:25-59, though there are other passages (like Acts 2:42-47) that speak about unity of the community of believers in a general way.

  Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all share the one loaf.
  (1 Cor 10:16-17, NIV)

The inference is that believers are united, but believers+unbelievers are not, and so there is no true koinonia ("participation" above, also translatable as "fellowship" or "community") if the celebration of the Eucharist does not reflect the unity of Church membership.


Looking for a specific sermon about Barnabas I remember hearing a sermon1 in the last few years (so probably after 2010). I think it was a series of three about Josephs in the Bible (hence one sermon per Joseph). The first was about Joseph, son of Jacob; the second was about Joseph, husband of Mary.

I am looking for the third, about Barnabas (referring to his real name). I think it was by Bill Hybels (and probably all three were by the same person) but no amount of Googling on my part can find it.

In it I think he mentions three specific stories from Acts about Barnabas:

his selling a field
his bringing Saul to the believers in Jerusalem
his choosing to go on missions with John Mark

The latter story was particularly interesting because John Mark later went on (according to church tradition) to meet up with Peter and write the Gospel of Mark. Hence, the speaker said, humanly speaking had Barnabas not encouraged John Mark we would have missed Mark's Gospel (and possibly others).

Hence the focus of the sermon was the power of encouragement.

I'm pretty sure I heard it and did not see it, so it is possibly a podcast. Or perhaps it is from a CD, since it does not seem to be online.

Does anyone know where I have heard this?

1 There is a possibility that it was not a sermon but a book, but I'm pretty sure I heard it as a sermon.

Looks like Willow Chicago had something regarding Barnabas in February 2012. Could that have been it?


Should a Protestant read the apocryphal books of the Bible? The Protestant Bible has 66 books. Should we read apocryphal books (e.g. 1&2 Maccabees and Gospel of Thomas)?

You don't need to (as in should), but you can if you want to. Don't allow them any special authority if they're not in your Bible; use common sense. Apocryphal books and other writings of the time might be interesting in many ways, e.g. historically.

There's an important distinction to be made between 1&2 Maccabees and the Gospel of Thomas. This distinction also tells you a lot about how useful a certain book would probably be to read.

Old Testament apocrypha / Deuterocanonical books

1&2 Maccabees aren't included in the Protestant Old Testament, but Roman Catholics and most Orthodox Christians consider them canonical. They weren't in the Hebrew Bible, thus they're called deuterocanonical as opposed to protocanonical. As Raphink points out in his answer, these books were written later than the protocanonical books and thus couldn't be included in the Hebrew Bible.

Protestants consider deuterocanonical books Old Testament apocrypha, i.e. books that don't have divine authority but are relevant with regard to pre-New Testament history. Martin Luther said about them:

  Apocrypha, that are books which are not considered equal to the Holy Scriptures, but are useful and good to read.

Useful and good to read -- but not divinely inspired, according to Protestants.

New Testament apocrypha

There's a very broad consensus between Christians of different denominations on what books are included in New Testament. In fact, there's practically no disagreement here. Luther was probably the most vocal questioner of the authority of James, Hebrews, Jude and Revelation, but even he didn't exclude them from canon. Neither does any major denomination nowadays consider any extra books to be part of New Testament.

The Gospel of Thomas is one of the better known writings belonging to New Testament apocrypha. It might also be one of the more interesting ones. However, keep in mind that no one notable considers it part of the Bible. Neither is there any church-father, reformer, founder of a major denomination or such saying that it's "useful and good to read".

There are many other books considered New Testament apocrypha. I'll say from personal experience that not all of them are worth reading.

Summary

Old Testament apocrypha are considered part of the Bible by some and "useful and good to read" by some.

New Testament apocrypha are considered neither.


Does the Roman Catholic Church have a daily Bible reading? I know that the Roman Catholic Church has the same Gospel reading on the Lord's Day. But does it having a daily reading as well? Where can I go to find it?

Yes

Divinum Officium has Mass propers for the pre-Vatican II, 1962 and earlier calendars; and there is a daily reading website for Novus Ordo Masses.


According to the Bible, does sin give Satan 'Legal Access' to your life in any sense? I was talking to a Christian friend recently, and she brought up this teaching that when you sin you give the devil 'legal access' (her words) to your life. The conversation was in the context of a Lutheran pastor with cancer we both knew, who refused to believe that his cancer was in any way a spiritual attack, as he was a child of God and 'defended from the darts of the enemy.'

I'm curious about any scriptural teaching on whether your sin opens up some sort of 'legal right' for satan to work in your life. Personally I'm quite uncomfortable with this idea for a number of reasons (for one, it doesn't seem to sit well with the story of Job), but I'd be interested if anyone can provide any scriputural justification/refutation.

I believe that Christians have developed this conviction from the passage in Ephesians 4:27 which in the NIV translation says, "and do not give the devil a foothold."

Therefore taking this passage some believe that if you allow any sin in your life you are giving the devil a foothold or, as someone else might put it, "legal access" to your life.

Matthew Henry states in his commentary on Ephesians a similar belief, "We give place to the devil, when the first motions of sin are not grievous to our souls; when we consent to them; and when we repeat an evil deed. This teaches that as sin, if yielded unto, lets in the devil upon us, we are to resist it, keeping from all appearance of evil."


What is the biblical basis for Historical Premillennialism? Related:

  What are the differences between the different millenialisms?
  What is the biblical basis for Dispensational Premillennialism?

Historical Premillennialism is a view of the end times that (very, very basically) says that evil will continue to increase (but the church will hold strong), then Christ will return to rapture believers, then there will be a Thousand Year Reign. (something like that. Historic. Premils: please edit. Also, see Caleb's answer on the above related question)

What is the biblical basis for this belief? Also, what logical deductions that support this belief can you make from biblical passages?

If tradition can be a convincing argument, feel free to use it.

I believe in Historical Premillennialism(mouthful) (Edit: Now I stand with Dispensation Premillennialism.) and I will use bullet points and passages after it to give the bases.

Evil will increase

  Luke 17, [20] Once, on being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, “The coming of the kingdom of God is not something that can be observed,

  Luke 17, [28] “It was the same in the days of Lot. People were eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building. 29 But the day Lot left Sodom, fire and sulfur rained down from heaven and destroyed them all. [32] Remember Lot’s wife!

What was it like in the days of Lot? The passage, "Remember Lot's wife!" suggests that it is when Lot was in Sodom and Gomorrah.

  Genesis 13, [12] Abram lived in the land of Canaan, while Lot lived among the cities of  the plain and pitched his tents near Sodom. [13] Now the people of Sodom were wicked and were sinning greatly against the LORD.

  Genesis 18, [20] Then the LORD said, “The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous [21] that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know.”

  Genesis 19, [26] But Lot’s wife looked back, and she became a pillar of salt.

It is pretty obvious here that the end of times are linked with sin. This is further reinforced with another verse in Book of Luke:

  Luke 17, [26] “Just as it was in the days of Noah, so also will it be in the days of the Son of Man. [27] People were eating, drinking, marrying and being given in marriage up to the day Noah entered the ark. Then the flood came and destroyed them all.

  Genesis 6, [5] The LORD saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time. [6] The LORD regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled. [7] So the LORD said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.” [8] But Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD.

Great Tribulation

Tribulation refers to the hard times for the believers of Christ. There are disagreements on whether now is the time of tribulation or not. However, in America, the forces of Christianity are slowly decreasing. People are getting more wicked, to the point where they begin to arrest people when reciting bible publicly; to the point where in UK they began to teach health on Human Reproduction by showing physical sexual intercourse video (aka pornography, Google it if you don't believe me.)

  Luke 17 [30] “It will be just like this on the day the Son of Man is revealed. [31] On that day no one who is on the housetop, with possessions inside, should go down to get them. Likewise, no one in the field should go back for anything. [32] Remember Lot’s wife! [33] Whoever tries to keep their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life will preserve it. [34] I tell you, on that night two people will be in one bed; one will be taken and the other left. [35] Two women will be grinding grain together; one will be taken and the other left.”

  Matthew 24 [3] As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. “Tell us,” they said, “when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?” [4] Jesus answered: “Watch out that no one deceives you. [5] For many will come in my name, claiming, ‘I am the Messiah,’ and will deceive many. [6] You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. [7] Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places. [8] All these are the beginning of birth pains. [9] “Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me. [10] At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other, [11] and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people. [12] Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold, [13] but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved. [14] And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come. [15] “So when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation,’ spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand— [16] then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. [17] Let no one on the housetop go down to take anything out of the house. [18] Let no one in the field go back to get their cloak. [19] How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! [20] Pray that your flight will not take place in winter or on the Sabbath. [21] For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now—and never to be equaled again.

Matt 24: 3 to 6: I don't know about you, but I think the state of today reflects this verse.

Matt 24: 7: You remember the tsunami hitting on Japan, with Reactors exploding, etc, right? many people in Japan are migrating because the island is slowly sinking, according to the geologists. They say another one is coming.

Matt 24: 14: There is no nation which the Gospel of God and missionaries weren't sent to according to the experts. We sent them all. The only problem is to give every person the chance to repent.

Return of Christ

  Matt 24: [26] “So if anyone tells you, ‘There he is, out in the wilderness,’ do not go out; or, ‘Here he is, in the inner rooms,’ do not believe it. [27] For as lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. [28] Wherever there is a carcass, there the vultures will gather. [29] “Immediately after the distress of those days

  “‘the sun will be darkened,
     and the moon will not give its light;
  the stars will fall from the sky,
     and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.’

  [30] “Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. And then all the peoples of the earth will mourn when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory. [31] And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.

1000 year Reign

  Revelation 20: [1] And I saw an angel coming down out of heaven, having the key to the Abyss and holding in his hand a great chain. [2] He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years. [3] He threw him into the Abyss, and locked and sealed it over him, to keep him from deceiving the nations anymore until the thousand years were ended. After that, he must be set free for a short time.
  [4] I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony about Jesus and because of the word of God. They had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years. [5] (The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.) This is the first resurrection. [6] Blessed and holy are those who share in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years.

Edit: As Caleb have said, my answer may not have any defense that holds this over all other views of the End. However, this question was asking for the biblical bases of this particular view, and besides, Jesus prophesies these events in SAME order on every other Gospels, least, I think so..

Edit: Yes. Matthew 24: 1 ~ 31, Mark 13: 1 ~ 26, Luke 17: 20 ~ 30. All of them list the things to come, in this particular order:

The Power of Satan Arising over the Churches and Followers of Christ --> Great Hardship for the followers of Christ --> Coming of Christ in Great Glory and Power.

Edit: (Again, as I said above, I stand with Dispensational Premillennialism. The Power of Satan Arising over the Churches and Followers of Christ --> The Rapture --> Great Hardship for the people of the world --> Coming of Christ in Great Glory and Power.

  Luke 17 [30] “It will be just like this on the day the Son of Man is revealed. [31] On that day no one who is on the housetop, with possessions inside, should go down to get them. Likewise, no one in the field should go back for anything. [32] Remember Lot’s wife! [33] Whoever tries to keep their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life will preserve it. [34] I tell you, on that night two people will be in one bed; one will be taken and the other left. [35] Two women will be grinding grain together; one will be taken and the other left.”

Due to that fact that Jesus said that some will be taken, and some will be left behind, it suggests that Rapture will take place first and then Tribulation will take place.)


What is the Protestant belief known as "faith alone"? "Faith Alone"?

If you have heard the term "Protestant" before, chances are you have also heard the saying "faith alone." The way Protestants speak of "faith alone" might almost give one the impression that Luther and his band of rebels chanted this mantra all the way out of the Catholic cathedral as they defected from the Mother Church and set off to seek a better way.

So what is the story on this "faith alone" concept? As a Protestant, the first place I go when I have questions is Scripture. ("Sola Scriptura," right?) When I do a query in the NASB Bible on "faith alone" this is the only entry that comes up:

  You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. -James 2:24

That is humorous. (Of course, from what I am told, Luther did not believe that the book of James belonged in the canon of Scripture anyway... but I digress.)

So where did the idea of "faith alone" come from? From what I understand, Luther had translated the following verse into Latin, at which point the Catholic church back-translated it into German, incorrectly rendering the bolded term as "faith alone":

  For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. -Romans 3:28

So the Catholics rendered the Latin as "faith alone apart from works of the Law," and were outraged. However, Luther maintained that the Catholics had mistranslated his Latin, and that the Latin solum ("alone") was necessary in Latin to convey the meaning of the sentence, though they were correct that the extra term was unnecessary in German. So in Luther's mind, the Latin was accurate with solum ("alone"), and the German was accurate without allein ("alone"). All that to say it seems that in Luther's mind "faith alone" was nothing more than a Catholic mistranslation! So how did it become a Protestant mantra?!

To further complicate matters, Romans 3:28 does not contrast faith with works, but with works of the Law; i.e. the Mosaic Law. Yet the modern Protestant mantra seems to contrast faith with any sort of action.

My Question

So, can someone explain the Protestant doctrine of "faith alone" to me? Do I have my facts straight about its origin (a Catholic mistranslation from Latin to German)? If so, how in the world did a Catholic mistranslation (that Luther rejected) become a Protestant mantra?!

Also, is this doctrine really as foundational to Protestantism as people think it is? And what does this doctrine even mean? Is it "faith apart from any action"? Is it "faith apart from the Mosaic Law"? Something else? Would Luther even affirm the Protestant doctrine of "faith alone"?

Related: What is the biblical basis for salvation by faith alone (sola fide)? This question asks how a person would justify this doctrine from Scripture. It's not the same as what I'm asking here, but it is relevant none the less.

Also related: Can someone help me cite Luther's explanation of faith alone to Catholics? This question asks for a particular source to use in an upcoming blog post. Not at all what I'm asking, but related none the less.

The correct understanding of this term is so fundamental in understanding the reformation. It certainly has nothing to do with linguistics or translations. It has everything to do with the doctrine of justification. There are only two sides to the issue. Catholics (and I believe Eastern Orthodox and the Syrian Churches) do not believe in a momentary or instantaneous justification occurring when we are still God's enemies. They believe in justification as something requiring ‘our cooperation’ with grace (code word for works from a Protestant view) until we are finally justified in the final judgment...based on our ‘cooperation’ with grace. Luther and the reformers thought this was all pure and wicked nonsense. They believed in justification that occurs in a moment, while we have no works but only sin. In other words, while a sinner has no merits, no works (all moral goodness are considered the works of the Law as it is the law that requires them) he is justified forever. No merits whatsoever of any kind only a sinful heart forgiven when a person is made justified in an instant. The only condition is faith but not the active kind, rather the passive reception of a gift, excluding justifying faith as a work also. This has often been called 'an alien righteousness' because it is Christ's righteousness imputed to sinners apart from any of their own internal holiness. It is alien to our inner experience.
In simple terms ‘faith apart from works’ means we are justified in 'a moment' while we have no works to consider at all, i.e. justified apart from anything of the sort. Either we are justified over a period of time, where our obedience and personal holiness and sins are taken into the equation, i.e. ‘justified with works in the equation’, or not. Either it is justified by faith only (apart from any works) or justified with works in the mental equation.
Now this has caused confusion because although in terms of protestant justification our works are not a microscopic part of the equation; yet all who are justified of necessity produce good works as a fruit of the 'alien justification' (i.e. external righteousness of Christ imputed to them). Although 'sanctification' includes the discussion of works and 'cooperation with grace', justification excludes them. Our works having nothing to do with justification at all, but they play a big role in our sanctification.  However under the Catholic scheme works are an 'important' part in justification. Actually justification and sanctification are really not much different under the Catholic scheme (i.e. we need continued cooperation with grace in order to be finally justified). Thus Protestants view the Catholic doctrine as works based righteousness hypocritically sprinkled with grace. These two sides should really be clear and do not need any evaluation of Latin or Greek, or German or the invention of different kinds of grace, different kinds of law, etc. Such philosophies only cloud the light of day upon which the Protestant religion was produced. We can’t have it both ways, either our works are considered in 'some sense' in our justification before God, or they are 'not'. One is a classical Protestant view and the other is a Catholic (or Orthodox or Syrian view).
As regards to 'if this is really foundational to Protestantism' the answer is more than anyone probably realizes today.
Just to make it clear that I am accurately representing the reformers on this point I leave a quote from Luther that spells out clearly the difference between those who mix sanctification (i.e. holy love, or works of love) with justification, and those who do not.

The truth of the Gospel is this, that our righteousness comes by faith alone, without the works of the Law. The falsification or corruption of the Gospel is this, that we are justified by faith but not without the works of the Law. The false apostles preached the Gospel, but they did so with this condition attached to it. The scholastics do the same thing in our day. They say that we must believe in Christ and that faith is the foundation of salvation, but they say that this faith does not justify unless it is “formed by love.” This is not the truth of the Gospel; it is falsehood and pretense. The true Gospel, however, is this: Works or love are not the ornament or perfection of faith; but faith itself is a gift of God, a work of God in our hearts, which justifies us because it takes hold of Christ as the Savior. Human reason has the Law as its object. It says to itself: “This I have done; this I have not done.” But faith in its proper function has no other object than Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who was put to death for the sins of the world. It does not look at its love and say: “What have I done? Where have I sinned? What have I deserved?” But it says: “What has Christ done? What has He deserved?” And here the truth of the Gospel gives you the answer: “He has redeemed you from sin, from the devil, and from eternal death.” Therefore faith acknowledges that in this one Person, Jesus Christ, it has the forgiveness of sins and eternal life. Whoever diverts his gaze from this object does not have true faith; he has a phantasy and a vain opinion. He looks away from the promise and at the Law, which terrifies him and drives him to despair.
Therefore what the scholastics have taught about justifying faith “formed by love” is an empty dream. For the faith that takes hold of Christ, the Son of God, and is adorned by Him is the faith that justifies, not a faith that includes love. For if faith is to be sure and firm, it must take hold of nothing but Christ alone; and in the agony and terror of conscience it has nothing else to lean on than this pearl of great value (Matt. 13:45–46). Therefore whoever takes hold of Christ by faith, no matter how terrified by the Law and oppressed by the burden of his sins he may be, has the right to boast that he is righteous (Luther’s works, vol. 26: Lectures on Galatians, 1535, Chapters 1-4.(Vol. 26, pp. 88–89).

Furthermore it should be clear that the reformers, when speaking about 'works of the law' meant moral goodness primarily and not the so called Mosaic legislation (i.e. ceremonies and civil laws). For example, speaking against Thomas who is arguable the emblem of modern Catholic dogma on the subject:

When Thomas and other scholastics speak about the abrogation of the Law, they say that after Christ the civil and ceremonial laws are fatal, and that therefore they have now been abrogated, but not the moral laws. These men do not know what they are saying. When you want to speak about the abrogation of the Law, discuss chiefly the Law in the proper sense of the word—the Law in the spiritual sense. Include the entire Law, without distinguishing between the civil, the ceremonial, and the moral. For when Paul says that through Christ we have been set free from the curse of the Law (Gal. 3:13), he is certainly speaking about the entire Law, and especially about the Moral Law. (Luther’s works, vol. 26: Lectures on Galatians, 1535, Chapters 1-4. (Vol. 26, pp. 446–447)).


Are there any Christian sects that believe the Old Testament was written (inspired) by Satan or that these scriptures are evil in some way? I wonder that if there are Christians that interpret the Old Testament as something so false/deceitful that it may be the work of the Devil himself in an attempt to lead humanity out of God's true path.

Catharism (a Gnostic Christian movement in the 12th to 14th centuries), held the belief that the Old Testament God was Satan (and thus that the scriptures were inspired by Satan). From Wikipedia:

  The idea of two Gods or principles, one being good and the other evil, was central to Cathar beliefs. The good God was the God of the New Testament and the creator of the spiritual realm, contrasted with the evil Old Testament God—the creator of the physical world whom many Cathars, and particularly their persecutors, identified as Satan.

The Cathars were branded heretics by the Catholic Church. After sending missionaries failed and the Pope's legate was martyred, the Albigensian Crusade was launched, killing most of the Cathars and forcing the survivors to recant and rejoin the church.

Another question on this site asks: What was the explanation for why Catharism identified the Old Testament God as Satan?


Why did the Catholic Church change so radically after Vatican II in regards to the status of Jews? Before Vatican II in the 1960s, the Church was overtly anti-Jewish. For example:

St. Thomas Aquinas writes in De Regimine Judaeorum (also called Epistola ad ducissam Brabantiae) that "the Jews by reason of their fault are sentenced to perpetual servitude".
The Church had the Good Friday prayer that addressed "the perfidious Jews." That prayer is no longer said by most Catholics.
The Church sanctioned the expelling of Jews from many nations.
The Church in some places made the Jews wear special symbols so that they could be distinguished from gentiles.
In the 17-19th centuries you had a series of popes (e.g., Pope Leo XIII in his encyclical Humanum Genus) condemning the rising influence of "Judeo-Masonry."
Pope St. Pius X had a conversation with Zionist founder Theodore Herzl and told him that he can't recognize the proposed state of Israel until the Jews recognize the Church and convert.
etc.

This overtly anti-Jewish attitude of the Church that existed for 1960-odd years just seemed to vanish after Vatican II, and was replaced with a positive view of the Jews. I've even heard senior Churchman refer to Talmudic Jews as elder brothers of Catholics. This about-face on the subject of Jews is just one of many radical changes that occurred to the Church in the wake of Vatican II.

If the full deposit of the faith was revealed by Jesus, then how can the Church teach contradiction? How can the Church teach one thing about the Jews for nearly two millenia, and now practically fawn over them?

I disagree with the OP about his thesis that the Church has always been overtly anti-Semitic/Jewish.  The examples are not compared to the time period in which they were expressed to see what the rest of the world said and how they said what they said.  As a matter of fact, the Church has not been anti-Jewish in any official capacity.

St. Augustine has been infamously accused of many things including being anti-Jewish, yet his ruling in favor of a Jewish man in a case brought before him by the Jewish man in which the man's mother sold property that belonged to him to a bishop.  The bishop in question refused the man's request to return his land in which he offered to pay the bishop.  This is why the man brought his case before St. Augustine.  After reviewing the case, Augustine wrote to the bishop in question and told him he was sure he wished to do the right thing and told him he had to return the Jewish man's land to him.  Sounds anti-Jewish?  Didn't think so, because Augustine was not an anti-Semite.  Nor was Aquinas.

Gregory the Great "emptied the papal treasury to ransom prisoners of the Lombards and to care for persecuted Jews and victims of plague and famine" (http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/fathers/view.cfm?recnum=3466).

What Vatican II did was to open new frontiers by referring to the Jews as our elder brothers in the faith from which all Catholics come.  Much good fruit has been borne with the improved relations between Catholics and Jews (amongst all religious traditions and non-Christian religions).


Is Pre-Adamism considered heretical by any mainstream denominations? I came across an article on the existence of Pre-Adamite beings. The article refutes their existence but claims it is a belief held by "many evangelicals". As far as I can find, no major denomination endorses this teaching. Nor could I find any official statements addressing/rejecting it at all.
Do any mainstream denominations have a stance on this issue?

I guess that, for any denomination, the answer depends on whether those Pre-Adamite beings are posited to be human in a metaphysical and theological sense, i.e. with an infused spiritual soul, or only in a biological sense, without an infused spiritual soul.
In the case of the Roman Catholic Church, the first option is heresy but the second is not. The Thomistic philosopher Edward Feser defended the compatibility of the second option with Catholic doctrinal orthodoxy a few years ago in his blog.


Why was Dan removed from the list of 12 Israel tribes in Rev 7? Here is the list of 12 tribes of Israel from Genesis, Numbers and Revelation.

I sorted them according to the list in  Genesis 29-30.
In Numbers, Levi is replaced by Ephraim and Manasseh who replaced Joseph also.
But in Revelation 7 Dan is removed and replaced by Manasseh.

Why are these list different? Why is Dan removed from the list?

Dan fell into idolatry in Judges 17 and 18, and was thus removed:

Judges 18:30-31:

  And the people of Dan set up the carved image for themselves, and
  Jonathan the son of Gershom, son of Moses, and his sons were priests
  to the tribe of the Danites until the day of the captivity of the
  land. So they set up Micah's carved image that he made, as long as the
  house of God was at Shiloh.

Also, Ephraim is missing as well.  Hosea 4:17 explains why:

  Ephraim is joined to idols; leave him alone.

See this link for more details.


Is There an Exhaustive List of All/Most Common Venial and Mortal Sins? I would like to know if there is an exhaustive list of all common venial and mortal sins or, at least, most common venial and mortal sins. It could in a certain sense be useful. I know mortal sins are usually said to be tied to the 10 commandments one way or another, but I think it wouldn't be out of touch to have additional explicit lists.

The 7 capital sins, which give rise to other sins, can be mortal:

Pride
Greed
Lust
Anger
Gluttony
Envy
Sloth

St. Thomas Aquinas's Summa Theologica II-II devotes separate questions (collections of articles) to the following, which are or can be sins or vices; for many of them, he discusses whether they can be mortal (many of them can be):

10. Unbelief in General
   11. Heresy
   12. Apostasy
   13. Sin of Blasphemy, in General
   14. Blasphemy Against the Holy Ghost
   15. Vices Opposed to Knowledge and Understanding
        1. blindness of mind
        2. dullness of sense
   20. Despair
   21. Presumption
   34. Hatred
   35. Sloth
   36. Envy
   37. Discord, Which Is Contrary to Peace
   38. Contention
   39. Schism
   40. War
   41. Strife
   42. Sedition
   43. Scandal
   46. Folly Which Is Opposed to Wisdom

Treatise on Prudence and Justice

53. Imprudence
   54. Negligence
   55. Vices Opposed to Prudence by Way of Resemblance
        1. prudence of the flesh
        3. craftiness
        4. guile
        5. fraud
        6. solicitude about temporal things
        7. solicitude about the future
   59. Injustice
   63. Respect of Persons
   64. Murder
   65. Injuries Committed on the Person
        1. mutilation of members
        2. blows
        3. imprisonment
   66. Theft and Robbery
   67. Injustice of a Judge, in Judging
   68. Matters Concerning Unjust Accusation
   69. Sins Committed Against Justice on the Part of the Defendant
   70. Injustice with Regard to the Person of the Witness
   71. Injustice in Judgment on the Part of Counsel
   72. Reviling
   73. Backbiting
   74. Tale-Bearing
   75. Derision
   76. Cursing
   77. Cheating, Which is Committed in Buying and Selling
   78. Sin of Usury
   92. Superstition
   93. Superstition Consisting in Undue Worship of the True God
   94. Idolatry
   95. Superstition in Divinations
   96. Superstition in Observances
   97. Temptation of God
   98. Perjury
   99. Sacrilege
   100. Simony
   105. Disobedience
   107. Ingratitude
   108. Vengeance
   110. Vices Opposed to Truth, and First of Lying
   111. Dissimulation and Hypocrisy
   112. Boasting
   113. Irony
   115. Flattery
   116. Quarreling
   118. Vices Opposed to Liberality, and in the First Place, of Covetousness
   119. Prodigality

Treatise on Fortitude and Temperance

125. Fear
   126. Fearlessness
   127. Daring
   130. Presumption
   131. Ambition
   132. Vainglory
   133. Pusillanimity
   135. Meanness
   138. Vices Opposed to Perseverance
        1. effeminacy
        2. pertinacity
   142. Vices Opposed to Temperance
        1. insensibility
   148. Gluttony
   150. Drunkenness
   153. Lust
   154. Parts of Lust
        2. simple fornication
        6. seduction
        7. rape
        8. adultery
        9. incest
        10. sacrilege (in the sense of violating a person consecrated to God such as a priest, brother, or nun)
        11. unnatural vice (sodomy, masturbation, bestiality, etc.)
   156. Incontinence
   158. Anger
   159. Cruelty
   162. Pride
   163. First Man's Sin
   167. Curiosity


How can we be sure the Old Testament is accurate if Elijah was the only prophet left? This morning in church the service was about Elijah with the Baal's prophets. I read this verse and some questions arose which I could not find an answer on.

  1 Kings 18:22
  Then said Elijah unto the people, I, even I only, remain a prophet of the LORD; but Baal's prophets are four hundred and fifty men.

The following questions arose:

Was the Bible already written in the time of Elijah?
If Elijah was the only prophet left, how can we make sure that the Baal's prophets did not corrupt the scriptures? And more in general, how can we make sure that none of the bad kings back in this time did not corrupt the scriptures?

Just because there was only one prophet does not mean there were no priests or followers - prophets were messengers from God, priests actually served in the Temple, and adherents, well, they adhered.  In Isaiah, the notion of the Remnant God's select people who remain true even when most fall away is well understood.

Additionally, it does not diminish the text for Elijah to have engaged in hyperbole.  Even most inerrantists can accept that a human feeling all alone might exclaim, "I'm the only one left!"

Finally, if you read the context of 1 Kings 18 - you find just a few verses up (1 Kings 18:1 - 15) an encounter in which Elijah speaks with a fellow servant of the Lord - Obadiah - who would qualify as part of the remnant. And, as @RyanFrame points out, in 1 Kings 19:18, God reminds Elijah that he has "7000 who have not bended the knee".

To answer the related questions:

Most scholars assume the books of the Torah to have been pretty well settled no later than 600 BC - and these events are less than 200 years away from that.  Beyond that, the JEPD theory would argue that an iteration of the text was done as early as 1000BC - and depending on how liberal or conservative one is, there were no changes to some oral retelling changes in that time.
Some historians like to state that Ba'al and El Shaddai / Yahweh were originally in one narrative together.  The preserved Old Testament doesn't seem to reference this in any way, but other local myths do.  This answer, in particular speaks to the Ugaritic and Cananite understandings of Ba'al, and his consort-like status to Yahweh. Theoretically, if the prophets of Ba'al had corrupted the Scriptures, they would have preserved the role of Ba'al. As it is, the only mentions of Ba'al are negative (disputing her actual existence) and as a misguided belief only.  That they did not would seem to suggest that the preserved text was not influenced by the surrounding nations.


Can Catholics receive sacraments via Skype? Can Catholics receive any of the sacraments via Skype?

Yes, you could conceivably be married by proxy, via Skype.

  Can.  1104 §1. To contract a marriage validly the contracting parties must be present together, either in person or by proxy [per procuratorem].

There can be no online confession:

  Can.  964 §1. The proper place to hear sacramental confessions is a
  church or oratory.

  §3. Confessions are not to be heard outside a confessional without a
  just cause.

See the Substantive Norms art. 4, which forbids the recording "by whatever technical means" of what is said in confession:

  § 2. With due regard for § 1, n. 5, also reserved to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is the more grave delict which consists in the recording, by whatever technical means, or in the malicious diffusion through communications media, of what is said in sacramental confession, whether true or false, by the confessor or the penitent. Anyone who commits such a delict is to punished according to the gravity of the crime, not excluding, if he be a cleric, dismissal or deposition.

All the other sacraments must be done in person because they require a physical matter:

holy water for Baptism
holy oil for Confirmation, Orders, and Extreme Unction (Last Rites)
wheat bread for the Eucharist
imposition of hands (+ investiture of the new Priests) in Holy Orders


What is the Christian definition of "The Messiah"? Christianity is the religion of people who consider Jesus to be "The Messiah".

But what is the Christian definition of "The Messiah"?

Since Christian theology is based on the notion of "The Messiah's" first coming, what are the criteria that one has to fulfill during their "first coming" in order to be regarded as "The Messiah"?

I think there is an assumption behind your question that is not quite right, regarding the Christian conception of "the Messiah". As David Stratton shows in his answer, the Messiah concept is originally Jewish, and Christians believe that Jesus is that very same Messiah, and the fulfilment of various prophecies. But bear in mind that most Christians historically (1) were Gentiles, and (2) lived long after Jesus did. They are not in the position of already believing the Jewish scriptures to contain true prophecy, and then figuring out that they are talking about Jesus - as if they might wake up one day and decide someone else is a better fit. It's more like taking the salvation work of Jesus as basic, and afterwards using that understanding to approach the Jewish tradition. Jesus's Messiah-nature is (pretty much) axiomatic for Christians, and not a conclusion; instead, the facts of his life tell us what "Messiah" ought to mean.

The earliest Christians, at least, were steeped in the concept of Messiah. As we know, there was a pre-existing expectation of a religious-political saviour of some kind, diverse interpretations of exactly what that meant, and many claimants to the title. The first Christians were those who came to believe that Jesus of Nazareth was the same person as the expected Messiah, and they explained this with reference to the Jewish scriptures (consider Peter's speech in Acts 2:14-41, for just one example).

I daresay that in many cases, Jewish people, ancient or modern, would regard a lot of these interpretations as wrong or unjustified (though not all: there are several passages that Jews and Christians agree are messianic, even if they disagree on whether they are talking about Jesus). From a Christian perspective, these passages help us to understand who Jesus was - they do not provide criteria against which he should be judged. Remember that Christians read the New Testament as authoritative from the get-go. If it says that's how to understand what Joel wrote, then there you have it. Moreover, it says very clearly that all expectations about the Messiah are met or exceeded in Jesus (see for example the Letter to the Hebrews). In particular, he is a king, a priest and a prophet - but not in the way people expected - he is the suffering servant, he is representative of Israel, he brings God's truth to the world, he is above the angels, and so on. More than that, he uniquely met and defeated sin in his own person, as "the firstborn of the dead" whose resurrection makes eternal life possible for all people.

There is a "weak" version of Jesus-as-Messiah, where "Messiah" was a useful analogy for explaining what Jesus did, to people who were already familiar with the idea. Consider in opposition Acts 17:16-34, where Paul speaking in Athens uses the language of Greek philosophy rather than Jewish prophecy. The title would then be just one of many attributes or analogies used to describe who Jesus was, as he is elsewhere called the bread of life, the lamb of God, and so on. But this isn't really satisfactory, since it doesn't explain why exactly God would choose to be incarnate in this nation, at this time.

From a Christian perspective, one can understand the entire prior history of Israel, and indeed the world, as leading towards Jesus. This includes the Messiah concept. In other words, the fact that the messianic idea existed should be "explicable" in terms of Jesus. N. T. Wright (Anglican theologian and bishop) writes that for Paul, "In Jesus the Messiah the covenant purpose of the creator for Israel was finally fulfilled" 1. In this way the universal significance of Jesus is tied in with the religious and political context of his life, and all of these circumstances were arranged by God. Messiah is not an empty or minor title. It is inseparable from the gospel message. And because of this there is no objective checklist within Christianity for deciding whether someone is the Messiah. Christian faith presupposes that Jesus is the Messiah.

Here comes a terrible analogy. Suppose I am expecting my long-lost uncle to show up for dinner. I've never met him, but I have some idea what he looks like (and perhaps my family can't agree on how tall he is, whether his hair is greyish-black or blackish-grey, or whether he sings bass or tenor). When he does arrive and introduces himself, I immediately "know" that he is my uncle, by what he says and the way he looks and moves, even if he doesn't precisely match my earlier expectation. He may show other forms of proof too. But from now on, because I know who my uncle is, I have updated my uncle-concept in the light of my new experience. True, there is a definition of "an uncle" as the brother of one of my parents, but my definition of "my uncle", my idea of who he is, comes from the facts of his existence. My understanding of my family history, and of all the stories in which my uncle featured, has changed now that I have met him. I cherish those stories but I no longer use them as a checklist against which uncle-candidates can be assessed. Analogy ends.

1. N. T. Wright. Romans and the theology of Paul. In Pauline Theology, volume 3, ed. David M. Hay and E. Elizabeth Johnson. 1995.


Why no specific names of false apostles and false brothers in Acts and epistles? Why is it so that while we are told in the Acts and epistles of many false-apostles and false brothers, there are no specific names mentioned? Has this matter ever been considered in Christianity?

Here are some suggestions, none of which I am claiming as necessarily the answer:

Naming people draws attention to them. The writers probably didn't want their readers going to find out what these people were writing
Naming people makes them exclusive. If the writer says "don't listen to Marcus and Suetonius" that leaves Octavius free to spread his teaching. This is especially true since the letters were circulated widely, and the authors may well have understood that they were also writing for a later generation.


Parable of weeds - where did the enemy get seeds from? In the Parable of Weeds, the enemy is narrated as sowing the seeds of weed once the farmer had sown good seeds (Mt 13:25).  But, Matthew 13:30 suggests that the tares along with their  ripe seeds would be burned, thereby leaving no scope for the weed-seed to be stored.  My question is: from where did the enemy get the seeds of tares?

The enemy himself is the original tare.
Jesus explains this clearly in Matthew 13: 37-40.

He that soweth the good seed is the Son of Man. The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one;
The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels.
As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in fire; so shall it be in the end of this world.


Reward in Heaven? What is it? (Catholic) Catholic Church teaches that we will be rewarded differently in heaven based on our merit (i.e. based on the amount of good deeds that we have freely done during our earthy life; for example, see this article from International Catholic University).

My question is, what exactly is this "heavenly reward"? I have heard some saying that the heavenly reward is our heavenly capacity for love (with greater the reward implies having a greater heavenly capacity for love), but I cannot really find a source of this claim.

What exactly will our "heavenly reward" be?

Please answer according to Catholic understandings.

The question: what exactly is this "heavenly reward"?
Short answer: the reward is that you are with God rather than not.
Discussion
Since you ask from the Catholic perspective, the reply will be based on the current Catechism1.
About each person getting a different reward.

CCC 1023 Those who die in God's grace and friendship and are perfectly purified live for ever with Christ.  They are like God for ever, for they "see him as he is," face to face.

Recall from the Old Testament that Moses himself could not see God face to face.  Being with God, forever, is considered a great reward among Catholics and is taught by the Church to be the great reward.

CCC 1021 Death puts an end to human life as the time open to either
accepting or rejecting the divine grace manifested in Christ.  The New
Testament speaks of judgment primarily in its aspect of the final
encounter with Christ in his second coming, but also repeatedly
affirms that each will be rewarded immediately after death in
accordance with his works and faith.  The parable of the poor man
Lazarus and the words of Christ on the cross to the good thief, as
well as other New Testament texts speak of a final destiny of the soul

a destiny which can be different for some and for others.

That last line (above) appears to be the teaching that you are referring to in your question.  And now for the different rewards:

1022 Each man receives his eternal retribution in his immortal soul at
the very moment of his death, in a particular judgment that refers his
life to Christ: either entrance into the blessedness of heaven - through
a purification or immediately - or immediate and everlasting damnation.

The reward is one of three things: entrance into Heaven immediately, entrance into Heaven after purification, or "or immediate and everlasting damnation"
It may be hard for us to grasp, given that we are immersed in the physical world and may make analogies to temporal rewards.  The Church teaches that the reward at judgment is spiritual in nature: to be with God and to see God as He really is.  What greater reward could there be?
Personal Reflection
"Well done, my good and faithful servant." (Matthew 25:21)
Just to hear those words at judgment would be reward enough.

1 I suggest a review of the articles I cited the Catechism, since they go have references and footnotes.  Each article has notations to show its derivation from Scripture, Tradition, and/or teachings of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church.


Does 1 Corinthians 9:27 contradict the doctrine of "The Perseverance of the Saints?" At First Corinthians 9:24-27, the Apostle Paul writes:

  Do you not know that in a race all the runners run, but only one receives the prize? So run that you may obtain it. Every athlete exercises self-control in all things. They do it to receive a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable. So I do not run aimlessly; I do not box as one beating the air. But I discipline my body and keep it under control, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified.

How is this verse understood by people who believe in the doctrine of perseverance, such as those in the Reformed tradition?

Let's compare what Paul said in the Greek with a consideration of the doctrine of perseverance, in light of what several commentators taught on 1 Corinthians 9:27.

"Adokimos"

The word in 1Co 9:27 that is commonly translated as "disqualified" is "adokimos" (ἀδόκιμος) in the Greek (Strongs G96), and was normally used to refer to adulterated currencies, metals, soils, etc. Specifically, it was used to describe materials that, when tested for integrity, were found to be impure -- that is, "adokimos" described counterfeits.

Perseverance

The doctrine of perseverance, sometimes derisively termed "once saved, always saved," should not be taken to indicate that mere superficial participation in Christian activities -- going to church on Sunday, claiming that one "loves Jesus," etc. -- is an indicator of salvation. Passages such as Matthew 7:21-23 and Christ's words to the church of Laodicia in Revelation 3, among many others Biblical texts, indicate that not all who call themselves Christian will enter into heaven. Perseverance is granted to the members of the "invisible church" (the "wheat"), as a subset of the "visible church," which also includes the "chaff" (Mt 3:12). See John Darby's Synopsis on 1Co 9:27.

Conclusion

Several commentators have suggested that Paul was expressing concern not over his salvation, but rather over the particular reward ("crown") that he sought to obtain in heaven.1 F.B. Meyer saw the verse as indicating Paul's recognition of the fact that his ability to win souls to God was actually a result of Christ working through him, and that God could just as easily use another in Paul's place. (Cf. Lk 3:8). Gill understood "adokimos" to refer to disapproval from people, rather than rejection by God, if Paul were to live in a way that was discordant with the Gospel that he preached.

Of course, Wesley's commentary describes the verse as a direct indication that the elect may lose their salvation, which interpretation was in keeping with Wesley's Arminian theology. Adam Clarke, as a Methodist, echoed Wesley's understanding in his own commentary.

Calvin, the theologian most closely associated with the Doctrines of Grace (which includes perseverance), offers the following interpretation:

  "That, when I have preached to others..." Some explain these words in this way — “Lest, after having taught others with propriety and faithfulness, I should incur the judgment of condemnation in the sight of God by a wicked life.” But it will suit better to view this expression as referring to men, in this way — “My life ought to be a kind of rule to others. Accordingly, I strive to conduct myself in such a manner, that my character and conduct may not be inconsistent with my doctrine, and that thus I may not, with great disgrace to myself, and a grievous occasion of offense to my brethren, neglect those things which I require from others.” It may also be taken in connection with a preceding statement, (1Co 9:23) in this way — “Lest I should be defrauded of the gospel, of which others are partakers through means of my labors.”

Finally, we can remember that the passage from First Corinthians was written by the same Paul of Tarsus who wrote 1 Corinthians 1:8, Phillipians 1:6, and other passages that are widely interpreted as clearly communicating that: 1) Perseverance requires diligent effort on the part of the individual, and 2) Perseverance is a work that God, in his own strength, accomplishes in believers. That Christians' perseverance is accomplished by God is made especially clear at John 6:35-40:

  Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst. But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe. All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”

See Scofield's Reference Notes on 1Co 9:27 and Albert Barnes' Notes. Barnes also calls on Edwards in support of the same interpretation.


Who decides if a verse is literal and what parts of the Bible metaphorical? Just to be clear, I'm not asking what parts of the Bible are literal and what parts aren't. I just want to know who decides which view verses are supposed to be followed and which ones are like obsolete.

For example, verses like these are not followed anymore.

Leviticus 19:27:

  You shall not round off the side-growth of your heads nor harm the edges of your beard.

Leviticus 11:8, which is discussing pigs:

  You shall not eat of their flesh nor touch their carcasses; they are unclean to you.

Genesis 38:9-10:

  Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother's wife, he wasted his seed on the ground in order not to give offspring to his brother. But what he did was displeasing in the sight of the Lord; so He took his life also.

Leviticus 19:28:

  You shall not make any cuts in your body for the dead nor make any tattoo marks on yourselves: I am the Lord.

Leviticus 19:19:

  You are to keep My statutes. You shall not breed together two kinds of your cattle; you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed, nor wear a garment upon you of two kinds of material mixed together.
  Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments.

So I'm wondering how can people choose to disregard these verses anymore and still be a Christian... if so, then why is it still in the Bible? Who decides if something from the Bible is obsolete? Because as what I have observed, people tend to disregard parts of the Bible if it doesn't fit the current trend anymore like the haircut thing and the fabric matching... So is it people who decides that these verses are "OK" not to follow?

I'm going to answer your stated question: "Who decides wat is literal and what is metaphorical?"  That's a legitimate question.  The old "what laws are still in effect" has been answered many times.  Hence my VTC.  What is metaphor and what is literal, however, is a good question.

Ultimately, who "decides" is a verse is literal or metaphorical is the person reading for himself.  Any given text can be interpreted figuratively or literally - indeed Gregory of Nyssa (Life of Moses) could pull allegorical meaning out of the feathers on the quail that piled up in front of the children of Israel, and John Dominic Crossan can dismiss the Resurrection itself as mere metaphor.  Indeed, even the existence of David, the King of Israel, was long considered only myth, until archeological evidence proved otherwise.
This is true in any reading endeavour - when reading a news story, for example, most people assuming that news stories represent a literal meaning, except when you are a {liberal | conservative} talking about {Fox News | MSNBC}.  And then, of course, there is The Onion :)
John Searle's work on "speech-act theory" is often considered in the midst of apprehending meaning from a text, and is one of many starting places in hermeneutics. In basically suggests that every apprehension of meaning is ultimately an act of the mind to ascertain the genre.
Denominationally, two primary approaches to reading Scripture prevail:

Dogmatic Interpretation
The Catholic Church in particular stresses the dogmatic concept of Scripture. As the institution charged with guarding Scripture, they have developed traditions about what is literal and what is metaphorical. As the repository of the keys of heaven, the church is particularly suited to settling matters of interpretation, ensuring a regula fide that does not change over time. It understands that there is a multitude of meaning in Scripture (see the Catchechism ), and stresses the importance of reading Scripture in the traditional context to avoid "novelty". It does not necessarily see this as an either/or question.

Priesthood of All Believers
Protestants tend to favor provate interpretation ("What does this mean to you?"), although especially amongst the earliest reformers, the tendency was to require that "private interpertation" be run through your fellow believers so as to avoid twisting Scripture into meaning things it didn't. To avoid mis-reading, one should submit one's own interpretation to the whole body of believers, so as not to distort the meaning of the text.

Those are the primary approaches - but ultimately, even the camp you decide to fall into, is a matter of personal choice.
Beyond that, however, "editing" the Bible just isn't a possibility.  While there are differing positions on the "inerrancy" of Scripture, preservation of Scripture (the idea that God has given us the Scripture we need) is not nearly as controversial.  What has been handed down is that the 'canon' of Scripture is merely a list of those books which Christians over the centuries have found most profitable.  It is nothing more than the NY Times Best-Seller List. (See this for more). There is no process for changing that list, because it is simply so set in stone.  Over time, certain emphases are more important to different generations, but as a matter of doctrine, the idea of preservation says that we have all of what we need - even if some of it is more fashionable than others.


If Anger is one of the Seven Deadly Sins, how could Jesus have been angry yet still be sinless? (Catholicism) Anger is one of the Seven Deadly Sins recognized by the Roman Catholic Church (the origins of which are described at this question). However, Jesus was shown to be angry.

  He looked around at them in anger and, deeply distressed at their stubborn hearts, said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” He stretched it out, and his hand was completely restored. — Mark 3:5 (NIV)

While the passages don't specifically say it, it certainly seems like Jesus was also angry during the cleansing of the Temple.

Despite this, Jesus was without sin.

  God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. —2 Corinthians 5:21 (NIV)

If Anger is one of the Seven Deadly Sins, how could Jesus have been angry yet still be sinless?

The short answer is, “anger” in this context refers to two distinct, but related things.

What Jesus showed (literally) in the cleansing of the Temple, and God (metaphorically)* when the Israelites forged the Golden Calf is the passion that we experience when we are face-to-face with an difficult evil. (See Summa theologiae [S.Th] Ia-IIae, q. 23, a. 3, corpus.)

A passion, however, is not sinful, in and of itself; and (as Jesus shows) the passion of anger is very much appropriate when we are faced with an injustice.

On the other hand, when we are talking about the sin of anger, we mean either acts of disproportionate anger (as in the desire for revenge referred to in the O.P.) or else the so-called “capital sin” or “deadly sin” of anger, which is, strictly speaking not a sin exactly, but a habit of sin, or vice. (See Catechism of the Catholic Church [CCC] no. 1866.)

So there is nothing wrong with the passion of anger, provided it is directed to a proportional evil or injustice. “Anger” is a sin when the passion is fostered out of all proportion to the evil, especially when it leads one to desire revenge.

*God, in His Divine Nature, is pure spirit, so, strictly speaking, He does not experience the passion of anger. “Anger” is how Israelites experienced the punishment imposed by God.


What is the evidence that the bones found under St. Peter's Basilica are actually St. Peter's bones? There were some bone fragments found under St. Peter's Basilica in the 1940's. Pope Paul VI said in 1968 that the bones were "identified in a way that we can consider convincing." What is the convincing argument that these bones are indeed's St. Peter's?

A perfect answer will include the details about how the bones were found.

On a related note, the bones have recently been made available for public viewing for the first time. During a Mass, Pope Francis seemed to venerate the relics, which may mean that the Church will officially declare them as St. Peter's bones.

A lot of the evidence is circumstantial, so it's probably a matter of opinion whether it's convincing or not:

The bones that are thought to be St. Peter's were found near a grave under the current high alter of the Basilica - a location that's long been considered St. Peter's grave.
There are written records that indicate that ~160 AD there was a shrine erected in the Vatican area over Peter's grave.
Excavations below the current high altar revealed the remains of the ~160 AD shrine and some evidence of an even earlier one (~70 AD).
Constantine was certainly convinced of the location of the grave when he built the first St. Peter's.  In order to position the centre of the apse in the right place, a large area of the Vatican hill had to be flattened.
It's been quite a while since I've read any of the books about this... the bones thought to be St. Peter's weren't found in the grave, they were found in a niche in a wall next to the grave, a wall that has ancient graffiti carved into it that says something like "Peter is here."
The bones that were found in the grave were identified as being from an elderly man, heavily built.  There was dirt on the bones that matched the dirt in the grave and the theory is that the bones were moved to protect them since drainage and flooding of the lower levels of the Basilica was a concern.

Unfortunately, I think the details that would make this closer to the "perfect answer" you asked for run afoul of one of the StackExchange guidelines for what not to ask:

  "Your questions should be reasonably scoped. If you can imagine an entire book that answers your question, you’re asking too much."

Among the books that cover this are:

http://www.amazon.com/Bones-Peter-John-Evangelist-Walsh/dp/1933184752
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2438024.The_Tomb_of_St_Peter
http://www.amazon.com/Saint-Peters-James-Lees-Milne/dp/1199553344

The texts of (and some pictures from) these 3 books can be found on this site.


What are Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs on how those who died before Jesus, or before JWs existed, will gain salvation? Christian denominations have different beliefs about how those who died before Jesus existed, or before their denomination existed, can gain salvation.

For example, some denominations believe that the souls of those people were in Limbo until Christ's Ascension. Others believe in the necessity to baptize people in the past by proxy.

Considering that people in the distant past would not have been Jehovah's Witnesses nor may not even have known about Jesus, in order to put faith in him, what are Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs on how such people could gain salvation?

Do you believe that they were somehow informed about Jesus ahead of time? Or do you baptize dead people by proxy, or is there some other mechanism? Or are they eternally doomed?

TL;DR - Jehovah's Witnesses don't believe they are the only people who will be saved. Jesus' ransom sacrifice was designed to retroactively cancel out the sin which has been inherited by everyone from Adam. (1 Corinthians 15:20-22; Hebrews 2:9) Sincere ones who have died without an opportunity to exercise faith in Christ will receive an opportunity when they are resurrected during Christ's Millennial Reign. (John 5:28-29; Acts 24:15)

First off, you may want to read the article: What Is Salvation?

Just as we are able to put faith in Jesus' sacrifice even though we didn't personally see it, Jehovah's people had been putting faith in the Messiah long before Jesus brought about the prophecy's fulfillment. (John 8:56) When Adam and Eve first sinned, God immediately spoke of a Messianic prophecy by which humankind would eventually be restored to a sinless state.

  And I will put enmity between you and the woman and between your offspring and her offspring. He will crush your head, and you will strike him in the heel.” —Genesis 3:15

Throughout history, faithful men and women have been putting their trust in this promise as God continued to expound on how it would be fulfilled by the Messiah. Hebrews chapter 11 lists many faithful ones from the Old Testament who found God's favor and received salvation.

  13 In faith all of these died, although they did not receive the fulfillment of the promises; but they saw them from a distance and welcomed them and publicly declared that they were strangers and temporary residents in the land. 14 For those who speak in such a way make it evident that they are earnestly seeking a place of their own. 15 And yet, if they had kept remembering the place from which they had departed, they would have had opportunity to return. 16 But now they are reaching out for a better place, that is, one belonging to heaven. Therefore, God is not ashamed of them, to be called on as their God, for he has prepared a city for them. —Hebrews 11:13-16

However, all of these faithful ones from before Jesus' day have the earthly hope, just as most Jehovah's Witnesses have today. The heavenly hope has been reserved for 144,000 which have been chosen by Christ ever since his death. Those with the heavenly hope will assist Christ in ruling the righteous ones on Earth.

  39And yet all of these, although they received a favorable witness because of their faith, did not obtain the fulfillment of the promise, 40 because God had foreseen something better for us, so that they might not be made perfect apart from us. —Hebrews 11:39-40

This is the only distinction between those who died before Jesus' death and those who died after: the ones who died after are able to be members of the 144,000.