How should one reconcile a wrong against another person? When someone commits a wrong against another person, what is he supposed to do to make things right?  Is seeking forgiveness from God sufficient, or do you first need to set things right with the other person?  If the latter, what are you obligated to do -- apologize, make amends (what kinds), something else?

Does the answer depend on the type of damage done?  For example, is gossip different from property damage, or injury?

Does the answer depend on who was wronged?  Is the obligation to a fellow Christian different than one to a non-Christian?

I'm looking for a general Christian teaching on this subject.  If there's a wide range of opinions on this, I'd like to know what the teachings are, and the Scriptural support for them.

I am not Christian and thus am not asking what I should do in this case.  I know what is expected of me as a Jew if I have wronged somebody else, and I am curious about how that compares to what your religion teaches about what is expected of a Christian who wrongs another.  I'm not asking about the other side of the case, the obligation to forgive.

This is one of those questions that should have a clear, easy answer, but when you ask "what do Christians believe about this" you will likely get a lot of different answers.  I'm going to put a preface explaining why those answers vary, and then go into a purely Scriptural view, which is the view you will likely hear from the pulpit of any Church you visit.

Why the answers may vary.

In Christianity, there is a concept of being "free from the Law of Moses" through the perfect substitutionary sacrifice of Christ.  The central theme of Christianity is that we can never be "good enough" to get to Heaven on our own, and that Jesus is the promised Christ - His sacrifice is what gets us to Heaven, not our own good works.

One of the questions that varying groups differ (and they differ wildly) is what, exactly it means to be free from the Law of Moses.  There are other questions already on this site that explore that topic, but in a nutshell, there is debate over whether we are obligated to tithe, to refrain from certain things, to perform certain ceremonies, etc.

This applies to your question directly because some groups believe that we are under no obligation to obey the Old Testament commandments regarding this, and others will say we are.  Some will tell you that the Law of Love dictates that we will meet or exceed the requirements of Mosaic Law, and some would accuse those people of Legalism.

That said...

One common teaching

The teaching with which I am the most familiar with comes from the mouth of Jesus, as recorded in Matthew 5:20-24 (King James version)

  20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the
  righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter
  into the kingdom of heaven.

  21 Ye have heard that it was said of them of old time, Thou shalt not
  kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:

  22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother
  without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever
  shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but
  whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
  23 Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there
  rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee;

  24 Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be
  reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.

This is commonly taught as doing whatever it takes to make it right.  If you have sinned against someone, or even if that person thinks you have sinned against them, and you hadn't intended to, the priority is to reconcile and heal the relationship.

Per His words in verse 24. reconciliation with an offended person takes priority over worship.  (How can we come to God with a clean heart, if we are carrying the stain of sin?)

  Clarke's Commentary on the Bible expands on this:

  Leave there thy gift before the altar - This is as much as to say, "Do
  not attempt to bring any offering to God while thou art in a spirit of
  enmity against any person; or hast any difference with thy neighbor,
  which thou hast not used thy diligence to get adjusted." It is our
  duty and interest, both to bring our gift, and offer it too; but God
  will not accept of any act of religious worship from us, while any
  enmity subsists in our hearts towards any soul of man; or while any
  subsists in our neighbor's heart towards us, which we have not used
  the proper means to remove. A religion, the very essence of which is
  love, cannot suffer at its altars a heart that is revengeful and
  uncharitable, or which does not use its utmost endeavors to revive
  love in the heart of another. The original word, δωρον, which we
  translate gift, is used by the rabbins in Hebrew letters דורון doron,
  which signifies not only a gift, but a sacrifice offered to God. See
  several proofs in Schoettgen.

The answer to most of your sub-questions are simple, if we take His words at face value:

  Is seeking forgiveness from God sufficient, or do you first need to
  set things right with the other person?

We need to first make it right with the other person.

  If the latter, what are you obligated to do -- apologize, make amends
  (what kinds), something else?

Whatever it takes to reconcile.  This may be as simple as an honest confession of your sin to the other person, and a sincere apology, it may involve paying something back, it may mean doing something you really don't want to do (so long as that thing isn't sinful).  You may have to apologize before the Church, or admit to peers/friends/families that you've done wrong.

There may be cases where the other offended party will not accept any offer of reconciliation, at which case, we can only do our best.  God knows our hearts and minds better than we can, and He knows both your mind and that of the person who holds something against you.

  Does the answer depend on who was wronged? Is the obligation to a
  fellow Christian different than one to a non-Christian?

No.  Absolutely not.  The obligation to a fellow Christian is no more or less than to a non-Christian.

I've taken the liberty of finding a few teachings on the subject:

http://blog.beliefnet.com/markdroberts/2010/09/what-to-do-when-you-sin-against-someone.html

discusses the importance of attempting to reconcile with the person you've wronged.

http://carm.org/christianity/devotions/confession

echoes the fact that going to God alone isn't enough, you must go to the person you've sinned against.

http://www.victorious.org/churchbook/chur29.htm

Discusses practical, Scriptural guidance for resolving disputed between believers.

http://jpsmind.wordpress.com/2007/01/30/do-we-need-to-confess-our-sins-to-those-we-have-sinned-against/

Speaks to how our relationship with each other reflects our relationship with God.

http://www.gotquestions.org/restitution-Bible.html

Compares Mosaic Law with the New Testament teaching on forgiveness and Repentance


How do creationists explain some recent hominid discoveries Recent discoveries of more than 15 complete fossilised skeletons of a newly defined early human designated Homo naledi are yet to be dated, but scientists say their primitive features, small brains and small statures mean they are probably at least 2 million years old.

National Geographic provides a very detailed coverage of the naledi find.

I would be particularly interested in how Young Earth Creationists explain early human species such as Homo naledi. I am not just looking for an explanation of their apparent age, because on one view, these near-human fossils should not even exist.

Here's what Ken Ham had to say regarding the news of this discovery:

  No scientist witnessed the origin of man, and evolutionary scientists
  only believe there were intermediate evolutionary links between an
  ape-like ancestor and man because they have disregarded God’s Word and
  substituted their own fallible opinions in its place

  ...

  The only way to find an ape-man—or a “bridge” between apes and humans—is to
  misinterpret fossils of either an ape or a human as something in
  between.

Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell of Answers in Genesis provides a more thorough review and in her assessment claiming these bones are human is a stretch.

In general most Young Earth Creationists would recognize that claims such as this are based on the presuppositions and biases of the person making the claim. In other words the scientist(s) in question assume that Evolutionary Theory is true and interpret the facts to fit that framework. Other scientists would interpret the same facts based on the assumption that the Bible is true and reach a completely different conclusion.


During the Mass, may the Priest skip the Act of Penitence and the Kyrie Eleison? cf. General Instruction of the Roman Missal, A. The Introductory Rites.

At a certain church during a weekday Mass, the priest goes from the Sign of the Cross to the Collect, skipping 51. The Act of Penitence and 52. The Kyrie Eleison.

The Priest won't explain himself.

The question is during the Mass, by what Church permission or instruction is the priest allowed to skip the Act of Penitence and the Kyrie Eleison, and what effect has that on the entire Mass?

By what Church permission or instruction is the priest allowed to skip the Act of Penitence and the Kyrie Eleison

On some occasions, for example, when the Mass is joined to another rite such as the celebration of a sacrament or the Divine Office penitential rite can be omitted (GILH 94-95). Other than this the Act of Penitence cannot be skipped. Regarding The Kyrie...

  After the Act of Penitence, the Kyrie is always begun, unless it has already been included as part of the Act of Penitence. (GIRM 52)

what effect has that on the entire Mass?

Assuming the priest is skipping The Act of Penitence and The Kyrie without valid reason, the mass becomes illicit. Assuming that everything else at the Mass is as per the rubics, skipping these parts does NOT invalidate the Mass.

See Also:

Efficacy of the Penitential Rite Section: Follow-up: Penitential Rite [07-12-2005].
Is Your Mass Valid? Section 4: Serious Abuses - Those which Invalidate the Mass


According to Pentecostals, when were names added to the Book of Life? According to Pentecostals, are names added to the Book of Life anywhere in the Bible (after Creation)?

I see only examples of names remaining in or being wiped out. I don’t see names being added.

  “The one who conquers will be clothed thus in white garments, and I will never blot his name out of the book of life. I will confess his name before my Father and before his angels.”
  Revelation 3:5 ESV

In order to never be blotted out it’s implied you were already written in. When was it written in?

What is the Pentecostal Charismatic view?

I suppose I am qualified to answer this question as a “Pentecostal”.

From my perspective (as the question asks), since all mention of the Book of Life refers to names that are already written in it, then every name has been written in it from a time-independent source/power/etc, and therefore names can only be removed from it from a time-dependent human point of view.

My reading usually begins in KJV. Revelation 13:8 looks appealing but one cannot be sure that “the foundation of the world” describes the Book of Life or the Lamb or both.

  “And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.” Revelation 13:8 KJV

AMPLIFIED seems to support my initial perspective that “the foundation of the world” does pertain to the Book of Life.

  “All the inhabitants of the earth will fall down and worship him, everyone whose name has not been written since the foundation of the world in the Book of Life of the Lamb who has been slain [as a willing sacrifice].” REVELATION 13:8 AMP

ESV is similar.

  “and all who dwell on earth will worship it, everyone whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who was slain.” Revelation 13:8 ESV

GW and NIV seem to point toward “the foundation of the world” pertaining only to the Lamb.

  “Everyone living on earth will worship it, everyone whose name is not written in the Book of Life. That book belongs to the lamb who was slaughtered before the creation of the world.” Revelation 13:8 GW

  “All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast—all whose names have not been written in the Lamb’s book of life, the Lamb who was slain from the creation of the world.” Revelation 13:8 NIV

To add to my perspective, I’d say the question of when the names were written is an unfathomable concept since I stated that a power “outside of time” was/is the author.


Why do religious people find it hard to accept that you don't need religion to have a good moral code? Just curious why some religious people think that without god there is only evil. Why can't a person without a religion be a good person, sometimes even better than some religious people?

Its not necessary for a person to have a religion to have good moral codes.

Hammurabi (1792-1750 BC) was a Babylonian King who gave one of the First Law in the World. The law was very similar the Mosaic Law, "Eye for eye, tooth for tooth".

  Exodus 21:24  Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for
  foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

Every human is given the ability to decide what is right and wrong. Even the murderers kill others knowing that it is bad, but they just don't care.

Many religions give the idea that doing good deeds is the way to Heaven and doing bad things will lead you to Hell. Thus promoting the idea of Salvation by Work. Some religions even lay down obligations to be fulfilled in order to enter Heaven/Paradise.

Christianity has a different concept. The Bible teaches us the idea of Salvation by Grace.

  Ephesians 2:8-9 (NIV) For it is by grace you have been saved, through
  faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God — not by
  works, so that no one can boast.

Your good deeds will not open the gates of Heaven. Your bad deeds are also not the main  reason why you should go to Hell. But Christians should do good deeds because we are saved by grace. Christians are called to be Holy, because God is Holy.

  Romans 12:1 (NIV) Therefore, I urge you, brothers and sisters, in view
  of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and
  pleasing to God—this is your true and proper worship.

Christ died for our sins. He took all our punishment on the cross. When we remember how much God had done for us, we recieve the power to overcome sin and reflect Christ-like character.


What are the major criticisms of the NIV? While researching for this answer and reading different posts on this site over the past few days, I've come across some criticisms of the NIV I'd never heard before. I've seen articles claiming that it changes the Bible to make it more friendly to homosexuality, but these claims were more general and more significant. For example, the one that stuck out to me the most was where someone said that the NIV translators knew no Koine Greek, just modern Greek, and that they used two secular translators to translate the NT into modern Greek.

These are some pretty serious claims. I've never liked the NIV myself, but that’s never been anything but my personal preference. I'd link to the places I saw these claims if I could remember. What arguments exist against the NIV? I'd like to find reliable references if at all possible. I’m not looking for small, minor issues like a few missing verses. I’m looking for larger, more significant problems that could conceivably affect the integrity of the text as a whole.

I'm not just looking for valid arguments; I'd also love to hear about any well-refuted claims against the NIV, so long as they had some intelligent basis in the first place. I know this question seems a bit open, but if any of these claims are true, I want be sure to avoid using an unreliable translation of God's words. I’m sure the same goes for others on this site and across the Internet.

I've seen three major categories of criticism for the NIV, but often people will combine two or three of them.

1. Text criticism: the NIV is based on critical texts

The NIV is a translation of the Nestle-Aland critical text of the Greek New Testament. It also critically evaluates the BHS for the OT, and often takes the Greek Septuagint as being a more reliable record than the Masoretic Hebrew.

Now most translations today are also based on these critical texts, and most people and scholars approve of their use. But there is a small minority of people who think the Textus Receptus or the Majority text is more reliable. Some of these fit into the KJV only movement, while others are not as concerned with the translation, just which source texts are used. If you see anyone talking about "missing" verses, this is what they mean: compared to the TR or MT the NIV has less verses. But most Christians wouldn't say that these verses are missing, but instead that they were added to some manuscripts after the texts were written.

2. Translation method: the NIV is a thought-for-thought translation

The NIV describes itself as "the very best combination of accuracy and readability.". It ranges between a word-for-word translation and a thought-for-thought translation. Clarity in the target language (English) is highly valued by the translators, and whole verses can be rearranged from the order which the source languages have, and which more word-for-word translations may copy. Another issue is idioms: phrases where the meaning of the whole is not found in the meanings of the individual parts. Translations like the NIV recognise more idioms than translations like the NASB, and when there are verses that are unclear in the original languages, unlike translations which translate the individual words even though they don't make sense in English, the NIV will give what the translators consider to be the most likely interpretation.

A number of people strongly disagree with any translation method other than word-for-word. In my opinion, they are misguided. Translating word-for-word is impossible to do completely, and gives little benefit even when you try.

3. Translation method: the NIV is a "progressive" translation

The NIV, and particularly its offshoot translation the TNIV (now largely merged together into the 2011 NIV), has been attacked for being progressive, in particular its gender accurate language. While some people say that it is trying to erase the gender distinctives of scripture, the changes it makes are only according to the current scholarly consensus: that the supposedly gendered language in the source languages is not actually gendered, and that formerly neutral terms in English now are strongly gendered. To ensure they were actually translating accurately into contemporary English they commissioned an independent report from Collins dictionaries to determine which words are actually used now - questions like whether it is more common to say "forefathers" or "ancestors", or "people" vs "mankind". This shows a great commitment to accuracy: true accuracy needs not only a right understanding of the source language, but also the target language. If other translations rely only on their translators' intuitions about what English is like, then we should expect they will occasionally make mistakes. This is why I don't say that it is "gender neutral", but instead "gender accurate" - the goal is not to make it neutral, but to make it accurate.

In all of these categories there are always individual verses where well-intentioned scholars will disagree. Text criticism, translation, and even knowing contemporary English are all difficult. In my opinion the NIV is a highly reliable translation for contemporary English. Even though no translation is perfect, praise God that we are blessed in English to have so many good options to compare between! And support the efforts to continue translating the Bible into every language which needs it.


Profanity in entertainment? Many comedians nowadays rely on the use of profanity to enhance their comedy. This is also present in movies and television (although limited).

I know the bible says not to let "unwholesome talk" come out of our mouths, but does it say anything of listening to it? More specifically, for the purpose of entertainment.

Don't get me wrong, I'm faithful, but I just don't see why we should let others' unwholesome talk get in the way of our own entertainment.

Anything that anyone says has eternal implications. When God speaks, His words go like the rain, they accomplish His work, and they return to Him (Isa. 55:10-11). Our words can be like that, too, like Samuel, who "let none of his words fall to the ground" (1 Sam. 3:19). Contrarily, James 3 speaks of the death that is in the tongue. It is impossible for man to tame it. Even the man who lies and then says he was joking throws around "firebrands, arrows, and death" (Pro. 26:18).

God would not have us share in deathly things. Paul condemns a long list of characteristics (among which include "disobedient to parents" and "inventors of evil") saying:

  ...Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things
  are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them
  that do them.

Romans 1:21 (emphasis added)

By being entertained with unwholesome things, we are taking pleasure in things that are worthy of death. Everything said has eternal implications. See Matthew 12:36-37

Also, to the Ephesians Paul writes:

  For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord:
  walk as children of light:... And have no fellowship with the
  unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.For it is a
  shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret. Eph 5:8,10-11 (emphasis added)

Being entertained is not a Christian value, though it is not a bad thing at all. We should not let unwholesome talk get in the way of our walk with God.

  Finally, brethren, whatever things are true, whatever things are
  noble, whatever things are just, whatever things are pure,
  whatever things are lovely, whatever things are of good report, if
  there is any virtue and if there is anything
  praiseworthy--meditate on these things. Philippians 4:8

(related to this question/answer is What does the Bible say about "bad" words?)


Which biblical verse was used against Galileo Which biblical verse was used against Galileo by the Church to punish him for his blasphemy. and which biblical doctrine was erroneously interpreted by Galileo for such a punitive action by the Church?

Centuries earlier, Aristotle had refuted heliocentricity, and by Galileo’s time, nearly every major thinker subscribed to a geocentric view. Many people believe wrongly that Galileo proved the heliocentricity. Galileo could not answer the strongest argument against the heliocentric theory, which was made nearly two thousand years earlier by Aristotle: i.e. if heliocentricity were true then there would be observable parallax shifts in stars’ positions as the earth, moved in its orbit around the sun. In absence of a valid argument even Copernicus refrained from publishing his heliocentric theory for some time out of fear of ridicule from his colleagues. However given the technology of Galileo’s time, no such shifts in their positions could be observed. It would require more sensitive measuring equipments than was available in Galileo’s day to document the existence of shifts, given the stars’ great distance.  Until then the available evidence suggested that the stars were fixed in their positions relative to the earth, and, thus, that the earth and the stars were not moving in space ---only the sun, moon and planets were.

Galileo could have safely proposed heliocentricity as a theory or a method to more simply account for the planets’ motions. His problem arose when he stopped proposing it as a scientific theory and began proclaiming it as a truth. Even so Galileo would not have been in so much trouble if he had chosen to stay within the realm of science and out of the realm of theology. But, despite his friends warnings, he insisted on moving the debate onto theological grounds.

So yes. The verses quoted by David in his answer were used against Galileo precisely because of his inability to answer the strongest argument against the heliocentricity and because he attempt to move the debate onto theological grounds.

Unfortunately throughout the Church history there have been those who insist on reading the Bible in a more literal sense than it was intended. They fail to appreciate, for example, instances in which Scripture uses what is called “phenomenological” language---that is, the language of appearances. Just as we today speak of the sun rising and setting to cause day and night, rather than the earth turning, so did the ancients. From an earthbound perspective, the sun does appear to rise and set, and the earth appears to be immobile. When we describe these things according to their appearances, we are using phenomenological language. The phenomenological language concerning motions of the heavens and the non-motion of the earth is obvious to us today but was less so in previous centuries when the scientific discoveries were primitive.

Contrary to general belief, Church has supported scientific endeavours for centuries. During Galileo’s time, the Jesuits had a highly respected group of astronomers and scientist in Rome. Many of the scientific advances during this period were made either by clerics or as a result of Church funding. Ten years prior to Galileo. Johannes Kepler published a heliocentric work that expanded on Copernicus’ work and found a welcome reception among some Jesuits who were known for their scientific achievements.

Scripture scholars of the past were willing to consider whether particular statements were to be taken literally or phenomenologically, but they did not like being told by a non-Scriptural scholar such as Galileo, that the words of the sacred page must be taken in a particular sense.


What Bible verses deal with a man stealing bread and having to pay double? While using a Bible reading plan, a verse came to my attention about thieves that steal bread. The verse(s) may have had something to do with the thief trying to feed his or her family, but the judgement (if my memory is correct) would be that the thief would have to pay double if caught. The crime and judgment are mentioned in one of the first four books of the Old Testament (probably Exodus or Leviticus). After spending over thirty minutes searching for it with Bible software, in a physical book, and on the internet, the identity of the verse(s) have yet to be discovered. Any help trying to locate them would be appreciated.

Which verses in Exodus or Leviticus deal with a man stealing bread and having to pay double?

It's Exodus 22. There's nothing specifically about bread, but it covers theft and double restoration.

Exodus 22:4 (KJV):

  If the theft be certainly found in his hand alive, whether it be ox, or ass, or sheep; he shall restore double.

Exodus 22:7 (KJV):

  If a man shall deliver unto his neighbour money or stuff to keep, and it be stolen out of the man's house; if the thief be found, let him pay double.


What is the difference between the Eastern and Western views of the one essence/substance of the Godhead? The philosophical metaphysics used by the Eastern and Western church's seem to be heavily influenced by Plato and Aristotle, respectively. How does this affect each's theology of the substance/essence in the Godhead?

The divine energy of Eastern Orthodox theology defines the divine 'essence' as an abstract definition of what 'God is', while the 'energy' is the ‘working-energy’ of what God does.  The western theological meaning of ‘essence’ includes ‘working energy’ in the definition already. For anybody familiar with programming terms, Eastern Orthodox sort of splits God into a class (essence) and eternally substantiated object of that class (energy) both class and object are eternal and uncreated.

For some reason the eastern Monk Gregory Palamas (1296–1359) came up with a distinction between God’s Essence and God’s energy.  The Essence-Energy distinction was a theological framework used by Palamas to explain how creation can participate in the experience of God, without becoming God. The idea in simple form is that ‘the manifestation of God’ or ‘the experience of God’ must be separated out from the non-experience-able essence of God; otherwise we are left with a Pantheistic view. This Pantheistic view would be seen as Neo-Platonic--Aristotelian. Something the western view is accused of being.

From the Western standpoint, this distinction was never needed as Western theologians simply used current handy Greek terms to explain the problem away in accordance with Christian concepts of God. The use of these terms does not automatically make the western view of God to be like Plato’s or Aristotle’s just because words have been borrowed. More specifically Thomas Aquinas used concepts such as Aristotle’s distinction between ‘Potentiality versus Actuality’ as well as ‘Actus Purus’, to show that to the Christian view of God automatically avoided Pantheism.

The idiots guide (i.e. my own) to Aristotle’s view of what ‘essence’ is and how it was borrowed and modified under a Christian lens is pretty simple. There is a kind of ‘essence’ beyond the particular embodiment, for example, if there is something called human, then Frank is only an example of, human essence, In addition if Frank is to really be a real human (his potential) he needs to become one actually through an chain of events (working-energy). Applying these terms to God necessarily means that God can’t have any such division of potential versus actualization of potential.  God is perfect he can’t become actualized and so his essence and working-energy is within the same incomprehensible perfection of his singular being.

To apply this concept to the eastern proposal, a division of essence and energy is rejected. Since God can’t have potential that is not actualized, and actualization implies working-energy, the idea of a separating energy from essence is incongruous to God’s perfection. Manifestations of his presence in time and space are not based on any separation within his own perfections and this does not allow for any kind of Pantheistic view by default.

I have oversimplified all the lengthy philosophical terms a bit, but I think you get the western idea from this. Hopefully you also sense the somewhat nauseous headache one obtains splicing these terms and how needless they are when approaching the more simple faith of those in the New Testament.

So what am I saying, well both camps seem to just use different terms to try and say the same thing. They both resorted to the overly intellectual use of philosophical distinctions, which was probably partly required as a reaction to on the multitude of heresies over the Trinity, etc., which the church suffered at that time faced. However if Palamas meant that the uncreated energies were truly ontologically distinct from God;s essence ,as are the three persons of the Trinity, then Palamas is less innocent that it would appear under my western view.  Some scholars say he did make this true distinction and other say he did not.

For a more complicated review these two articles basically throw in all the controverted points:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potentiality_and_actuality#Potentiality

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essence-Energies_distinction


The Legitimacy Of The Mark 15:34 And Matthew 27:46 Accounts Of Jesus' Words Mark 15:34 (NIV) states :

  And at three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?” (which means “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”)

Similarly Matthew 27:46 says

  About three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?” (which means “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”)

Why would Jesus say something that is clearly against what Scripture reveals about God never forsaking His righteous servants?

Why would the accounts of what Jesus is purported as saying be recorded in Aramaic/Hebrew when the rest of the account is in Greek?

What was Jesus' intention by His exclamation reported in Aramaic/Hebrew? Was it intentional to exact a predetermined response from all who would read the purported account over against the Scriptural record of Jesus' other statements regarding His death?

Mark begins his book by drawing attention to the words of Malachi.

  Behold I send my messenger ... Malachi 3:1

But there are two messengers in the quotation that follows. The messenger of preparation (who we know is John the Baptist) and the Messenger of the Covenant whom Malachi expressly states is :

  The Lord whom ye seek.

Since the Lord himself, come in flesh, is the Messenger of the Covenant thus Mark quotes his exact words (in Aramaic) - Eloi ! Eloi ! - since that is what his book is about - Jesus Christ come to express the Message, the Everlasting Covenant of the New Testament.

But Matthew draws attention to the King (of the Jews) and the Kingdom (not of earth but of heaven). Thus Matthew's focus is the transition from the passing phase of limited revelation within the compass of the nation of Israel into the full revelation to the whole earth through the Apostolic word of the Everlasting Gospel.

Thus Matthew draws attention to the Hebrew scripture. He does not quote the dialect in which Jesus spoke - he quotes the Hebrew words from the Psalm of David the King - Eli ! Eli !

  My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me ? ... Psalm 22:1

And why was it so ?

How could God ever forsake his servant in whom he delighted ?

Because God spared not his only begotten Son, but delivered him up for us all. That Divine Righteousness might be satisfied, sins must - they must - be resolved in humanity. Not the unclean and compromised humanity of Adam or any of his sons, but in Another Humanity, come of woman, but not come of Adam.

Thus the shocking rift in Deity, between God in heaven and God in humanity. That perfect unity of Father and Son - in One Divine Spirit - was disrupted. And for whom ?

For a vast multitude - as the sand of the sea and as the stars of heaven - whom no man can number.

I believe this cry came from the crucified Jesus spontaneously in the depths of unimaginable suffering when he experienced that appalling separation from the Father which was essential to the resolution of the sins of men.

And I believe that David was granted to prophesy of that moment in his Psalm.

Jesus is not - actually - quoting the Psalm, I would say.

It is the Psalm which, a thousand years before the event, is quoting Jesus.

Jesus cried out (spontaneously) in his native dialect of Aramaic.

David (the King) records it, in spirit, in prophecy, in Hebrew.

Thus Mark notes the actual cry of the Messenger.

And Matthew quotes the Hebrew Psalm of David.


Have Christian Scholars been forced to use BCE and CE instead of AD and BC? In the United States, there is both religious freedom and academic freedom.  In the world of academic freedom there seems to be an orthodoxy of non-sectariansim that invades thought and speech.  Movies like God's Not Dead and... God's Not Dead 2 have documented this over and over again as issue.

But has anything so minute as forcing Christian scholars to use the abbreviation BCE and CE instead of AD and BC on their published works occured?  If so, what reasoning do irreligious people have for making such a request and what apologetic has (if any) said Christian scholars used for refuting them?

Our traditional calendar references of AD and BC are neither ancient nor entirely sacred in the sense of a reference to the birth of Jesus. It was first proposed in 533 by the Roman abbot Dionysus Exiguus, but as a practical matter he  began counting years from from what he believed to be the year of King Herod's death1, not from the year of Jesus' birth, which he realised was unknowable. Nevertheless, the pagan Roman calendar continued in use until the ninth century, when Dionysus' calendar began to be adopted widely, with its references to AD (Anno Domini) and BC (Before Christ).

Many Christian scholars continue to use the terms AD and BC in their writing, but others have adopted the more neutral CE ('Common Era' or 'Christian Era') and BCE ('Before Common Era' or 'Before Christian Era') as much in deference to Jewish and other non-Christian sensitivities as any other reason. I have never seen any request for them to do so, either from irreligious people or people of other faiths, and therefore no refutation of such requests. Most certainly, Christian scholars are not forced to use the newer terms, as evidenced by the number of Christian scholars who continue to use the older abbreviations.

If the Christians of the early Middle Ages felt that the use of a Christian calendar, with AD and BC, was of such little moment that they delayed its use for some centuries after its development by Dionysus Exiguus, then we need not be overly concerned about whether some choose to use the same calendar, but with CE and BCE.

1We now know that King Herod actually died in April 4 BC/BCE.


Use of single and double quotation marks in Isaiah 7 Isaiah 7:4 (NIV) starts with

  Say to him, 'Be careful, keep calm and don't be afraid.

where the first single quotation mark doesn't seem to have a close pair - even reading much further in the chapter.

Also, Isaiah 7:7-9 has a single quotation within a double quotation pair:

  Yet this is what the Sovereign LORD says:

    " 'It will not take place, it will not happen, ...

    If you do not stand firm in your faith, you will not stand at all.' "

Questions:

Is the second single quotation, starting in Isaiah 7:4, missing or does some language rule apply here. Or did I simply miss it?
In this chapter, the LORD tells Isaiah to tell Ahaz some things - so the use of multiple quotations is probably justified. But is there some hidden meaning here, or even a tool that will help me understand the text better?
How would the meaning of Isaiah 7:7-9 be changed if only single quotation or only double quotation marks were used?

This question on the English Language Stack Exchange site talks about the Multiple Quotation Rule.

When a speech goes over more than one paragraph then the opening quotation marks are repeated at the beginning of each paragraph, with closing marks placed only at the end of the speech.

This is not a rule universally followed but is followed here in the NIV.

The NIV are also following another convention of indenting longer sayings.

  3Then the Lord said to Isaiah, “Go out, you and your son Shear-Jashub, to meet Ahaz at the end of the aqueduct of the Upper Pool, on the road to the Launderer’s Field.

  4Say to him, ‘Be careful, keep calm and don’t be afraid. Do not lose heart because of these two smoldering stubs of firewood—because of the fierce anger of Rezin and Aram and of the son of Remaliah.

  5Aram, Ephraim and Remaliah’s son have plotted your ruin, saying,

  6“Let us invade Judah; let us tear it apart and divide it among ourselves, and make the son of Tabeel king over it.”

  7Yet this is what the Sovereign Lord says:

    “ ‘It will not take place,
    it will not happen,

    8for the head of Aram is Damascus,
    and the head of Damascus is only Rezin.
    Within sixty-five years
    Ephraim will be too shattered to be a people.

    9The head of Ephraim is Samaria,
    and the head of Samaria is only Remaliah’s son.
    If you do not stand firm in your faith,
    you will not stand at all.’ ”

The opening double quote in verse 3 is repeated at the start of the indentation in verse 7, and closed at the end of verse 9.

The single quote in verse 4 is also repeated at the start of the indentation in verse 7, and closed at the end of verse 9.

The double quote at the start of verse 6 is closed at the end of verse 6.

The indentation in the middle of verse 7 counts as an opening quote and this closes with the end of the indentation at the end of verse 9.

Significance

Verse 3 begins The Lord said to Isaiah - the rest of verse 3 and all of verses 4,5,6,7,8 and 9 are what the Lord said to Isaiah.

The Lord's message to Isaiah was to go and find Ahaz and give him a message. From after "say to him" in verse 4 until the end of verse 9 is what the Lord wants Isaiah to say to Ahaz.

The message Isaiah is asked to give to Ahaz is to tell him what Aram and co. have been saying (verse 6) but not to worry because the Lord says something else (the indented bit from middle of verse 7 to end of verse 9.

The Lord told Isaiah to go and tell Ahaz something. Isaiah was to tell Ahax what Aram said and also what the Lord had to say on the matter. So the indented portion is what the Lord is telling Isaiah to tell Ahaz what He, the Lord has to say about the matter.  (The doctrine of verbal inspiration would even further complicate things.)

Clarification

  The Lord said to Isaiah,

    Go to Ahaz and say to him

      Be careful, Aram and his pals have been saying

        Let us invade Judah

      Yet this is what the Sovereign Lord says:

        It's not going to happen.


Did Jerome’s doctrine of Mariology affect his translation? In a recent Q&A on Hermeneutics.SE, I made an arguement that carried the implication that Jerome's translation of κεχαριτωμένη ('favored one’)† as gratia plena ('full of grace’)† in Luke 1:28 was misleading, conflated as it is with another phrase that has a different meaning in Greek. It was rightly pointed out that I didn't discuss the reason why Jerome made that decision.  Since I don't see an obvious linguistic explanation,* I wondered if there might be a doctrinal and/or sociological explanation.

In another Q&A on Christianity.SE, Jerome is cited as a key proponent of the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary. I'm not sure whether that has anything to do with the appellation “full of grace” or not. Other aspects of Mariology seem more relevant.

I'm interested in knowing:

What did Jerome believe about the immaculate conception?
What did he believe about Mary as Mediatrix of graces?
Did he use Luke 1:28 in defense of any Mary-related doctrine?

† Glosses extracted from ESV and Douay Rheims, respectively.

*Particularly with regard to translation decisions, even if I disgree with the choice, I can sometimes see the reasons for a different decision. Here I don’t.

This isn't a full-blown answer to your question, but instead a partial one.  I suppose one would have to write some sort of magnum opus to answer all three of your questions in a way that does justice to them.
But as a sort of beginning, I do know that translators over time have moved away from away from the Vulgate because of its emphasis of Mary in places she does not belong. The best known example of this is Genesis 3:15. To so many Christians this is the protevangelium (the first gospel promise pointing to Christ) in the bible.  Genesis 3:15 reads as follows:

”וְאֵיבָה אָשִׁית בֵּינְךָ וּבֵין הָאִשָּׁה וּבֵין זַרְעֲךָ וּבֵין זַרְעָהּ הוּא יְשׁוּפְךָ רֹאשׁ וְאַתָּה תְּשׁוּפֶנּוּ עָקֵב׃“ (Gen 3:15 BHS-T)
“I will put hostility between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed. He will strike your head, and you will strike his heel.” (Gen 3:15 HCSB)

You'll notice the "he" vs. "he" construction.  But in the Vulgate we find this:

“inimicitias ponam inter te et mulierem et semen tuum et semen illius ipsa conteret caput tuum et tu insidiaberis calcaneo eius” (Gen 3:15 VULG-T)

Instead of "he will crush your head," it reads "She (ipsa) herself will crush your head."  In this we see a strange, unfounded translation of a clearly masculine word in the Hebrew (הוּא) into a feminine word (i.e. Mary).
I hope this helps, at least a little in working toward the bigger, better explanation this question deserves.


How did Augustine of Hippo feel about Jerome's Latin translation of the Bible (the Vulgate)? Augustine and Jerome wrote several epistles to one another. In these epistles, how did Augustine feel about Jerome producing the Latin Vulgate? What were his concerns?

Short Answer:
In the least, Augustine did not approve of Jerome's preferred translation of the Septuagint (he actually penned two, at least in part), specifically. At most he may have thought it a sin to even use it as scripture. His greatest fear is that it would lead to apparent discrepancies in opinion between Latin and Greek churches and grievously harm church unity. He did not object to a translation in general (in fact he very much wanted one), but to the source that Jerome choose, the Hebrew versions, instead of the Greek versions.

In a letter from Augustine to Jerome:

  I beseech you not to devote your labour to the work of translating into Latin the sacred canonical books, unless you follow the method in which you have translated Job [which was by the Greek texts].

Some of the other translations Jerome provided where acceptable to Augustine. He even said this to Jerome in that same letter, which largely criticized the translation of the Septuagint:

  At the same time, we are in no small measure thankful to God for the work in which you have translated the Gospels from the original Greek, because in almost every passage we have found nothing to object to, when we compared it with the Greek Scriptures.

Despite Augustine's passionate objection, Jerome's translation of the Septuagint from the Hebrew texts is today heralded as his best work and among many protestants (and somewhat Catholics) one of the best translations of the Old Testament.

Long Answer:
The issue that Augustine had with Jerome's translation was with his source material and was most definitely not about Jerome's ability. In fact, Augustine regularly praised Jerome's work.

But concerning news that Jerome was using the Hebrew versions of the text instead of the Greek for the translation, Augustine once stated in a letter to Jerome in AD 394:

  I beseech you not to devote your labour to the work of translating into Latin the sacred canonical books, unless you follow the method in which you have translated Job, viz. with the addition of notes, to let it be seen plainly what differences there are between this version of yours and that of the Septuagint, whose authority is worthy of highest esteem. For my own part, I cannot sufficiently express my wonder that anything should at this date be found in the Hebrew manuscripts which escaped so many translators perfectly acquainted with the language.

Augustine thought it a waste of Jerome's efforts and ability to translate the Septuagint using the Hebrew texts available, believing that the Greek version was Divinely inspired. Using strong language, Augustine urges Jerome to use the same method for translating Job, which he approved of, which was to use the Greek and not the Hebrew text because the Greek was Divinely inspired in his opinion.

Jerome did not heed Augustine's advice, believing that the Hebrew was actually more accurate to the original text. He voiced his objection again to Jerome using the Hebrew in another letter in AD 403, although, he did praise the exhaustiveness of the work, but challenged the motive for the asterisks and obelisks in the translation. See the quote below:

  I have since heard that you have translated Job out of the original Hebrew, although in your own translation of the same prophet from the Greek tongue we had already a version of that book. In that earlier version you marked with asterisks the words found in the Hebrew but wanting in the Greek, and with obelisks the words found in the Greek but wanting in the Hebrew; and this was done with such astonishing exactness, that in some places we have every word distinguished by a separate asterisk, as a sign that these words are in the Hebrew, but not in the Greek. Now, however, in this more recent version from the Hebrew, there is not the same scrupulous fidelity as to the words; and it perplexes any thoughtful reader to understand either what was the reason for marking the asterisks in the former version with so much care that they indicate the absence from the Greek version of even the smallest grammatical particles which have not been rendered from the Hebrew, or what is the reason for so much less care having been taken in this recent version from the Hebrew to secure that these same particles be found in their own places.

Augustine goes on in the letter, reveling his biggest concern with the source material chosen was a matter of Church unity. He feared that the Latin churches would have scripture that was too different than the Greek churches, which might lead to arguments and schism. He favored the Greek texts, on a logical basis, because it was already wide spread.

  For my part, I would much rather that you would furnish us with a translation of the Greek version ... For if your translation begins to be more generally read in many churches, it will be a grievous thing that, in the reading of Scripture, differences must arise between the Latin Churches and the Greek Churches, especially seeing that the discrepancy is easily condemned in a Latin version by the production of the original in Greek, which is a language very widely known; whereas, if any one has been disturbed by the occurrence of something to which he was not accustomed in the translation taken from the Hebrew, and alleges that the new translation is wrong, it will be found difficult, if not impossible, to get at the Hebrew documents by which the version to which exception is taken may be defended.

Augustine even discusses a certain bishop who 'narrowly escaped' a 'calamity' where he might have lost his congregation forcing the bishop to 'correct [Jerome's] version in that passage as if it had been falsely translated.' Augustine's concern for Church unity and reduced confusion is summed up thusly:

  You would therefore confer upon us a much greater boon if you gave an exact Latin translation of the Greek Septuagint version: for the variations found in the different codices of the Latin text are intolerably numerous; and it is so justly open to suspicion as possibly different from what is to be found in the Greek, that one has no confidence in either quoting it or proving anything by its help.

Jerome, however, did not respond favorably and was even somewhat hostile to Augustine's reasoning, which required that Church unity be more important than the exactness of the translation to the original writings. His letter to Augustine in AD 404 states:

  you ask why a former translation which I made of some of the canonical books was carefully marked with asterisks and obelisks, whereas I afterwards published a translation without these. You must pardon my saying that you seem to me not to understand the matter: for the former translation is from the Septuagint; and wherever obelisks are placed, they are designed to indicate that the Seventy have said more than is found in the Hebrew. But the asterisks indicate what has been added by Origen from the version of Theodotion. In that version I was translating from the Greek: but in the later version, translating from the Hebrew itself, I have expressed what I understood it to mean, being careful to preserve rather the exact sense than the order of the words. I am surprised that you do not read the books of the Seventy translators in the genuine form in which they were originally given to the world, but as they have been corrected, or rather corrupted, by Origen, with his obelisks and asterisks; and that you refuse to follow the translation, however feeble, which has been given by a Christian man, especially seeing that Origen borrowed the things which he has added from the edition of a man who, after the passion of Christ, was a Jew and a blasphemer. Do you wish to be a true admirer and partisan of the Seventy translators? Then do not read what you find under the asterisks; rather erase them from the volumes, that you may approve yourself indeed a follower of the ancients. If, however, you do this, you will be compelled to find fault with all the libraries of the Churches; for you will scarcely find more than one manuscript here and there which has not these interpolations.

In AD 405 Augustine replied with the same argument and begged Jerome to deliver the translation to him so that it may not be used in any authoritative church gathering. As far as historians know, Jerome did not respond and continued with the translation.

SOURCES (In order of use)
A selection of the letters between Jerome and Augustine
Septuagint Wikipedia Article - Section on Christian use of
Jerome Wikipedia Article - Section on Translations and Commentaries
Jerome Wikipedia Article - General Reference


According to the Catholic Church, did Jesus have faith or hope? St. Paul says that faith, hope and love remain and the greatest of these is love; I've heard it reasoned that faith and hope aren't needed once you've been in the presence of God - but love alone remains in Heaven.

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

1. Jesus enjoyed the Beatific Vision from his conception.

From the moment of his conception Jesus enjoyed the Beatific Vision, i.e. his human soul saw the divine essence with an intuitive vision and face to face, and in this vision his soul enjoyed the divine essence.

2. As a consequence, Jesus did not need faith.

Believing, an act whose enabling virtue is propositional faith, is assenting to the truth of a proposition which is not seen, either directly or by logical inference from first principles which are seen, on the basis of the authority of God Who revealed that proposition and Who cannot deceive.

But by seeing the divine essence, Jesus saw directly everything He needed to know about God, Himself as man, his mission and the world, so that for his human intellect there was no "unseen" proposition that He had to believe. Therefore He did not have propositional faith (usually called just "faith").

This point is treated by St. Thomas Aquinas in ST III, q.7, a.3 [1].

3. As another consequence, Jesus did not need hope.

Since this point is explained so briefly and clearly in the next ST article (ST III, q.7, a.4) [1], I will just quote its answer:

  As it is of the nature of faith that one assents to what one sees not,
  so is it of the nature of hope that one expects what as yet one has not; and as faith, forasmuch as it is a theological virtue, does not
  regard everything unseen, but only God; so likewise hope, as a
  theological virtue, has God Himself for its object, the fruition of
  Whom man chiefly expects by the virtue of hope; yet, in consequence,
  whoever has the virtue of hope may expect the Divine aid in other
  things, even as he who has the virtue of faith believes God not only
  in Divine things, but even in whatsoever is divinely revealed. Now
  from the beginning of His conception Christ had the Divine fruition
  fully, as will be shown (Question [34], Article [4]), and hence he
  had not the virtue of hope. Nevertheless He had hope as regards such
  things as He did not yet possess, although He had not faith with
  regard to anything; because, although He knew all things fully,
  wherefore faith was altogether wanting to Him, nevertheless He did not
  as yet fully possess all that pertained to His perfection, viz.
  immortality and glory of the body, which He could hope for.

[1] OF THE GRACE OF CHRIST AS AN INDIVIDUAL MAN (THIRTEEN ARTICLES)


How are Regeneration, Faith, and Union with Christ ordered in Reformed Theology? In the Reformed Ordo Salutis, or order of salvation, how are Regeneration, Faith, and Union with Christ ordered? (Note that the order of salvation is a logical order, not temporal, and the believer will experience several stages concurrently.)

Because of Total Depravity, the doctrine that we are spiritually dead in our sin, I think Regeneration is usually said to precede Faith, because we need to be brought back to spiritual life in order to have faith.

Faith is said to precede Union with Christ because it is through Faith that the Holy Spirit unites us the Christ.

But isn't it Union with Christ that gives us new life in Christ? Does Union with Christ therefore precede Regeneration? Or is the new life of Regeneration somehow different from the new life we receive through being united to Christ? How is this chicken-and-egg cycle resolved in Reformed Theology?

Union with Christ as a step within ordo salutis

The article The Puritans on Union with Christ, Justification, and Regeneration describes English Puritan Thomas Goodwin (1600-1680)'s solution to the "chicken and egg" problem based on his work The Object and Act of Justifying Faith by splitting the Union of Christ into two phases:

before regeneration (not conscious)
after regeneration when the sinner exercises their faith (conscious)

Quotes from the section "Union with Christ and the Ordo Salutis" (emphasis is mine)

  ... the common Reformed view on the order of justification and regeneration is that the latter precedes the former. But what about the role of union with Christ in relation to regeneration and justification?  ... But in relation to regeneration or, more specifically, effectual calling, Goodwin argues that union with Christ precedes regeneration. Christ first “apprehends” the believer: [quote from Goodwin].  This statement appears to indicate that union with Christ logically (not chronologically), precedes not only justification—a typical Reformed view—but even regeneration (narrowly considered).

  What makes Goodwin’s views on this matter perplexing is the fact that within the space of six pages he affirms there is a“threefold union with Christ”¹⁹ and a “twofold union with Christ.”²⁰ The first union is a relational union, like the union between a husband and wife. “And this union is fully and completely done when first we are turned to God, and when Christ takes us.”²¹ The second union involves the dwelling of Christ in the human body (Eph. 3:17)—“an actual inbeing of his person.” The third is objective, that is, having Christ as an object of faith “as the faculty doth view an object.”²² When Goodwin later speaks of the twofold union, he has in mind the first two under the heading of a “substantial union and communicative union.”²³ The union that we are especially concerned with is the first union, the union whereby the sinner is married to Christ. How does this happen? Returning to Goodwin’s comment above that “Christ takes me, and then gives me his Spirit, faith, holiness, &c.,” we are faced with the question of whether union with Christ precedes faith itself.

  Goodwin’s The Object and Act of Justifying Faith is helpful in answering this question. In it, he speaks of the act of the will completing the union between Christ and the believer, which makes believers “ultimately one with him.”²⁴ However, as the bride, we are simply confirming the union that has taken place. So, contrary to the common view of marriage, which requires the consent of both partners since a man cannot marry a woman against her will, there is a spiritual union on Christ’s part to the elect that does not require assent from the sinner “because it is a secret work done by his Spirit, who doth first apprehend us ere we apprehend him.”²⁵ That is to say, Christ establishes a union with the elect sinner by“apprehending” him and then giving the Spirit to him. But this union is only complete (“ultimate union”) when the sinner exercises faith in Christ. This basic pattern is confirmed later in Goodwin’s work on justifying faith:

    It is true indeed the union on Christ’s part is in order of nature first made by the Spirit; therefore Philip. iii. 12, he is said first to “comprehend us ere we can comprehend him;” yet that which makes the union on our part is faith, whereby we embrace and cleave to him…. It is faith alone that doth it. Love indeed makes us cleave to him also, but yet faith first.²⁶

  Goodwin is at his finest when he speaks of Christ “taking,” “apprehending,” and “comprehending” the sinner. Christ “takes hold of us before we believe” and “works a thousand and a thousand operations in our souls to which our faith concurs nothing…. Christ dwells in us and works in us, when we act not and know not our union, nor that it is he that works.”²⁷ Before the new believer is aware, our Lord unites us to Himself (“takes hold of us”) and works in us. The Spirit then regenerates the sinner, who in turn exercises faith toward Christ and completes the union. From that union flow all other spiritual blessings.

Union with Christ as taking place throughout ordo salutis

Another way to solve the problem is by conceiving "Union with Christ" as taking place throughout ordo salutis, not simply as a step.  The 2 resources below explain this approach:

2011 book Union with Christ: In Scripture, History, and Theology by Dr. Robert Letham, Professor of Systematic and Historical Theology
LTh paper Ordo Salutis and Union with Christ by Sammy Davies, Jr., pastor of Ammanford Evangelical Church.

In the book, Dr. Letham spreads the interrelationship discussion in separate chapters: regeneration, faith, justification in Chapter 4; sanctification, adoption, and glorification in Chapter 5; death and resurrection in Chapter 6.  "The fact that union with Christ is paramount, far from requiring that we dispense with the ordo salutis, preserves and enhances it by pointing to its integrating feature."  He then noted that

  The divines at Westminster knew this in the seventeenth century when they combined a logical or orderly ordo salutis in WCF 9-18 with the same topics considered as aspects of union and communion with Christ in grace and glory in WLC 65-90.  Moreover, it is at least open to question whether we are simply to follow precisely the same pattern as Paul did.  He was not the only biblical author.

Both references a 2006 book Richard B. Gaffin Jr. (but not recommend his solution): By Faith, Not by Sight: Paul and the Order of Salvation.  Mr. Davies noted that Gaffin "suggests that justification and sanctification are simply manifestations of union."  Quote from Letham:

  He has cautiously suggested the possibility that [order salutis] needed recasting.  This is in view of Paul's insistence that the center of the biblical revelation of salvation is the death and resurrection of Christ.  Our union with him in those epochal events, viewed in the eschatological sense that Paul gives them, should shape our soteriology, Gaffin suggests.  Gaffin has not intended to undermine the doctrine of justification only by faith, but rather to see the order of salvation in a manner compatible with the Pauline view of redemptive history.  Others, influenced by Gaffin, have voiced similar proposals.

Both Dr. Letham and Mr. Davies defended to preserve ordo salutis, the latter relying on another of Dr. Letham's 1993 book The Work of Christ - Contours of Christian Theology.

After noting that Union with Christ in its simplest form is the joining of Christ and His Church, Mr. Davies helpfully analyzed "5 broad ways in which the Bible describes this union":

Incarnational Union ("In becoming man Christ united Himself with the human race")
Covenantal Union (Hosea, Ephesian 5)
Sacramental Union (baptism, communion)
Experiential Union (Holy Spirit transforming believers into the likeness of Christ)
Mystical/Spiritual Union (Holy Spirit indwells all believers)

Mr. Davies's paper closes with 3 options / perspectives to relate Union with Christ and ordo salutis, recommending the last one (Letham's scheme) as the best option:

  Salvation can be viewed purely in light of the ordo salutis and as we have seen this has historically been the case in Reformed theology. It is not so much that union with Christ is considered an incorrect motif, but rather that it is neglected in favour of the rational, logically arranged, enlightenment endorsing ordo salutis simply substituted to mean effectual calling.

  [This is the relationship understood in the historical Reformed Church, see Andrew McGowan's 2004 paper "Justification and the ordo salutis"]

  The exact opposite of the first position could be adopted. Salvation could be seen as solely union with Christ. Union with Christ becomes a synonym for salvation and a strict ordo salutis is abandoned. Within this framework the different stages of the ordo are simply ‘benefits’ of the union rather than discrete acts. The aspects of the ordo are a direct result of being united to Christ. They are, all at once, terms which can immediately be associated with a believer by virtue of being in Christ. Gaffin suggests that justification and sanctification are simply manifestations of union.

  [This is the view of the Neo-Orthodox such as Barth or Hart]

  The third stance is to understand the ordo as taking place within the union. It is almost as if union with Christ is introduce as a new stage in the ordo salutis, but is perhaps better thought of as, “the dominant motif in any formulation of the application of redemption and dominate feature of any “order” of salvation.” The ordo salutis takes place in union much like a fish resides within water.

  Robert Letham expresses this understanding of union with Christ as “the foundation of all the blessings of salvation. Justification, sanctification, adoption and glorification are all received through our being united to Christ.”

  Furthermore, “The whole process of the application of salvation to us by the Holy Sprit (what has been known as ordo salutis – the order of salvation) fits in here as part of what it means to be united with Jesus Christ.” Essentially union with Christ isn’t actualised until the Holy Spirit works faith and repentance in a believer.

  [This is the view of those from the Westminster Theological Seminary stream.  Quotations from Letham's "The Work of Christ"]

Conclusion (from Mr. Davies's paper)

  The Bible is clear that in salvation there are different aspects even if they are received by the believer or take place at one and the same time. Terms such as justification, glorification, regeneration must be maintained as they are Biblical terms, which teach Biblical truths about the believer and the salvation they receive through the work of Christ and the Holy Spirit. Some sort of understanding of an ordo must be preserved therefore in order to reflect the instances in Scripture where such a progression is implied. Additionally the importance of having clearly defined and understood terms to express our salvation is indescribable and a loss of such terms would be detrimental to the Church. Without such terms confusion would reign over the role of God and man in salvation as well as the various benefits and ends to which it is designed.

  The Bible is equally as clear with regards the union of a believer with Christ as a major facet of salvation. To continue to ignore this in the way that reformed history has tended to do would be to read the Bible with only one eye open.

  As with many major themes in Scripture there is a healthy tension which must be maintained. The third perspective seems to maintain this tension more favorably than the other two as it seeks to describe the ordo salutis within a framework of union. Additionally this seems to be the method employed by Paul in both his letters to the Church in Rome and Ephesus.

  ...


Why do many bishops oppose the Vatican ban on blessing same-sex marriages? Why do bishops (catholic) in some dioceses say that the Pope is outdated and ignoring scripture by refusing same-sex couples the sacrament of marriage, i.e. making their union holy. (Example). They believe that blessing these couples is supported by scripture, but I am not sure where they find support for that claim. One priest in my city says God is "I am" not "I was", and as our understanding develops we ought to see that we should extend our blessings to even "non-traditional" marriages.
Since it's not just one or two priests accusing the Pope, but rather many bishops including the president of the bishops' conference in Germany, I don't think this can easily be dismissed as a heretical priest or something like that. I would therefore like to know why they believe it is justified and in line with Scripture to extend the sacrament of marriage to homosexual marriages.

Why are there heretics? Why don't they think acts of sodomy are sins? Because of sin and ignorance, the "mystery of iniquity" (2 Thes. 2:7).
Specifically, though, because they think condemning homosexual acts (like condemning acts of contraception, adultery, divorce, and concubinage) is not "inclusive", "welcoming", "compassionate", "pastoral", or "civil".
Here is how some U.S. bishops unfaithful to Church teaching on homosexuality or LGBT ideology put it:

Calls it "clericalism":During the 2018 sex abuse crisis, Cardinal Cupich claimed that the real issue was “clericalism” and not homosexuality. Cupich told America, a liberal Catholic newspaper, that blaming the abuse on homosexuality was a “diversion” away from clericalism. (LifeSiteNews)
Opposes Church teaching on intrinsically evil acts:McElroy also said the Church “should not” refer to homosexual acts as intrinsically disordered, which he believes is an example of “very destructive language.” Rather, the Church should use “language that is inclusive.” (America)
Supports giving Communion to those in public sin:In July 2017, Bishop McGrath told practicing homosexuals in his diocese that he will not refuse Holy Eucharist or a Catholic funeral to them so long as they request them “in good faith.” McGrath claimed this was the “compassionate and pastoral” thing to do. (LifeSiteNews)
Doesn't think civil law should uphold natural law:Following the Supreme Court’s decision [Obergefell v. Hodges] to legalize gay “marriage” in 2015, [D.C.'s] Archbishop Gregory provided a weak and ambiguous statement, emphasizing how there must remain “obligations of civility toward one another” going forward. Instead of affirming the evil of homosexual acts, Archbishop Wilton Gregory simply said the Church’s teaching does not change, and the ruling merely “confers a civil entitlement to some people who could not claim it before.” (The Georgia Bulletin)

courtesy: Faithful Shepherds


Is partaking of the Holy Eucharist the key to incorruptibility of the saints? The Incorruptibles by Joan Caroll Cruz has many stories about incorruptible saints.

These saints with incorruptible bodies are Catholic, and I never heard any Protestant, other non-Catholic Christians, or even other religions claim they have members whose bodies are incorrupt. Does the Catholic Church have a good explanation on why this is?

Does the Holy Eucharist have something to do with the incorruptibility?

Inedia, according to the Catholic theologian Antonio Royo Marín, O.P. (Teología de la Perfección Cristiana p. 845), is the "ayuno absoluto durante un tiempo muy superior al que resisten las fuerzas naturales" ["absolute fast lasting much longer than natural forces can endure"], in which only Holy Communion is received. He continues (ibid. p. 846):

Supuesta, finalmente, la sobrenaturalidad del fenómeno, habrá que explicarlo, desde el punto de vista teológico, por una especie de incorruptibilidad anticipada de los cuerpos gloriosos, que suspende la ley del incesante desgaste de los órganos y dispensa, por lo mismo, de la ley correlativa de la refección alimenticia.
[Assuming the supernaturality of the phenomenon, it will have to be explained from the theological viewpoint, by a type of anticipated incorruptibility of the glorified bodies, which suspends the law of the incessant degradation of the organs and, therefore, dispenses from the correlative law of needing refreshment from food.]

One effect of Holy Communion is attaining glory and everlasting life: "If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever" (Jn. 6:52). One can only receive Holy Communion worthily within the Catholic Church (cf. St. Thomas on whether one can receive Communion from schismatic or heretical priests). Thus, it makes sense that the incorruptibles are Catholic.
A few examples of incorruptibles who experienced inedia (cf. Teología de la Perfección Cristiana p. 845):

St. Catherine of Siena (1347–1380), for ~8 years
Teresa Neumann (1898-1962), from 1926-1962.

For more examples of incorruptibles who also experienced inedia, see The Incorruptibles.


Are Bartholomew and Nathanael the same? Comparing the lists of disciples in Matthew 10:1-4, Mark 3:13-19, Luke 6:12-16, Acts 1:12-14 We find the name Bartholomew, but in John 1 We read about Nathanael.

In John 1:46-50, Nathanael is introduced to Jesus for the first time.

We know He was Philip's friend from Bethsaida and He was "truly an Israelite in whom there is no deceit"

Nathanael also appears in John 21:2

The name 'Bartholomew' appears in Matthew 10:3, Mark 3:18 and Luke 6:14

Are Nathanael and Bartholomew the same person?

I believe so.

Popular thought on the subject agree that Bartholomew and Nathanael are the same person.  While there is no passage in the Bible that directly says "Bartholomew is Nathanael," circumstantial evidence points in that direction.  Arguments can be made either way; church tradition points toward them being one and the same.

Arguments for:

First, regarding the names themselves.  Bartholomew seems like a family name or last name.  In Hebrew, the name would be Bar-Tholmai, or Son of Tholmai.  Nathanael seems like a first name, meaning Gift of God.

Second, Bartholomew and Nathanael seem to be mutually exclusive.  Bartholomew makes appearances in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Acts.  Each reference is in a list of the 12 Disciples.  Nathanael makes appearances in the book of John, which has no formal list of the 12 Disciples.  In John chapter 21, Nathanael is included in a list of disciples (John 21:2 "There were together Simon Peter, and Thomas called Didymus, and Nathanael of Cana in Galilee, and the sons of Zebedee, and two other of his disciples.")  In John, Nathanael does what one of the 12 Disciples might be expected to do: he goes fishing with some of the others in the 12 Disciples.

Third, there is a relationship between Philip and Bartholomew in the lists of disciples in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Acts.  There is also a relationship between Philip and Nathanael in John (Nathanael is the friend Philip brings to Jesus when Philip first learns of Him).

Arguments against:

First, Bartholomew is a perfectly reasonable first name.  It has been used many times since.

Second, Nathanael is never listed in a formal list of the 12 Disciples.  Certainly, there were many disciples of Jesus who are not included in the 12 Disciples.  This was one of the requirements to be considered for Judas' replacement in the 12 Disciples after Judas betrayed Jesus.

Third, the link between Philip and Bartholomew in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Acts is hardly strong -- their names are simply grouped together.  Even if the link were strong, it's not as if Philip cannot have two good friends.

The truth is that the Biblical authors were not concerned over whether we, thousands of years later, would definitively be able to link Nathanael and Bartholomew together.  If they were, Matthew 10:3 would have read, "Philip, and Nathanael Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew the publican; James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus;" (bold text added).


On what basis do Catholics continue doctrinal development after the Bible canon was closed? On what basis do Catholics continue doctrinal development after the Bible canon was closed?

The Catholic Church teaches dogmatically that general revelation ended with the Apostles (cf. condemned proposition no. 21 in Pope St. Pius X's Lamentabili Sane). This general revelation forms the Deposit of the Faith, which is taught and explained by the Church.
We see through history that Church fathers, saints, and theologians have explained the Deposit of the Faith in new ways. Per Catechism of the Catholic Church ¶ 66,

Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries.

Obviously, new explanations must be judged prudently by the Church, lest contradiction or novelty be introduced. St. John Henry Newman, in An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, shows a set of principles by which genuine development may be judged. Summarily, these are:

Preservation of Type
Continuity of Principles
Power of Assimilation
Logical Sequence
Anticipation of Its Future
Conservative Action upon Its Past
Chronic Vigor


Was the wine in The Last Supper fermented? I was reading "Does wine really mean wine in the Bible?" and I thought, The Last Supper was during the Passover, where the jewish was forbidden to use ferment in recipes:

  Exodus 12:15 KJV
  Seven days shall ye eat unleavened bread; even the
  first day ye shall put away leaven out of your houses: for whosoever
  eateth leavened bread from the first day until the seventh day, that
  soul shall be cut off from Israel.

This implies that the wine used in the The Last Supper was just grape juice, right?

Prior to the advent of pasteurization, fermentation was something which happened in all grape juice whether a fermenting agent was consciously introduced or not (and it happened with relative immediacy). The last supper, then, would have had wine and not plain grape juice.

It is also noteworthy to point out that wine, unless something bizarre has occurred, is not leavened bread.


According to Catholic Church, did King Solomon find grace with God after his death? We read at 1 Kings 11:1-13 how King Solomon fell into disgrace and was punished by the Lord :

King Solomon loved many foreign women along with the daughter of Pharaoh.....and his wives turned away his heart.   For when Solomon was old, his wives turned away his heart after other gods; and his heart was not true to the Lord his God, as was the heart of his father David.  .... So Solomon did what was evil in the sight of the Lord, and did not completely follow the Lord, as his father David had done. ...
Then the Lord was angry with Solomon, because his heart had turned away from the Lord, the God of Israel, who had appeared to him twice, and had commanded him concerning this matter, that he should not follow other gods; but he did not observe what the Lord commanded. Therefore the Lord said to Solomon, “Since this has been your mind and you have not kept my covenant and my statutes that I have commanded you, I will surely tear the kingdom from you and give it to your servant. Yet for the sake of your father David I will not do it in your lifetime; I will tear it out of the hand of your son. I will not, however, tear away the entire kingdom; I will give one tribe to your son, for the sake of my servant David and for the sake of Jerusalem, which I have chosen.

We see God giving an earthly punishment to Solomon for his infidelity. Verses 41-43 which narrate his death do not say whether he died repentant, or not. My question therefore is: According to Catholic Church, did King Solomon find grace with God after his death?

According to Catholic Church, did King Solomon find grace with God after his death?
Most Christians, whether Catholics and other denominations would think it more than a little strange for God to allow the writings of a damned person to become inspired Sacred Scripture (Proverbs, Eccles., Song of Songs).
I am glad you never limited this question to the Latin Rite because in the Byzantine Catholic Church, he is recognized as a saint who’s feast day is celebrated on December 11. In the Eastern Orthodox Church, Solomon is commemorated as a saint, with the title of "Righteous Prophet and King". His feast day is celebrated on the Sunday of the Holy Forefathers (two Sundays before the Great Feast of the Nativity of the Lord).

Holy Prophet King Solomon
Feast Day - December 11
The biblical King Solomon was known for his wisdom, his wealth and his writings. Solomon was the son of King David and Bathsheba. Solomon was not the oldest son of David, but David promised Bathsheba that Solomon would be the next king. When David’s elder son Adonijah declared himself king, David ordered his servants to bring Solomon to the Gihon spring where the priest anointed him while David was still alive. Solomon inherited a considerable empire from his father.
Although he was a ruler at a young age, he soon became known for his wisdom. The first and most famous incident of his cleverness as a judge was when two women came to his court with a baby whom both women claimed as their own. Solomon threatened to split the baby in half. One woman was prepared to accept the decision, but the other begged the King to give the live baby to the other woman. Solomen then knew the second woman was the mother.
People from surrounding nations also came to hear Solomon’s wisdom. He composed 3,000 proverbs and 1,005 songs. He wrote the Song of Songs, the Book of Proverbs and Ecclesiastes.
Once Solomon’s empire was tranquil, he began to build the Holy Temple. He received wood from King Hiram of Tyre and imposed a compulsory labor service on both the Israelites and the foreign nations that were under his control. Solomon was also renowned for his other building projects in which he used slave labor from the Hittites, Amorites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites. He spent 13 years building his own palace, and also built a city wall, a citadel called the Millo, a palace for the daughter of Pharaoh (who was one of his wives) and facilities for foreign traders. He erected cities for chariots and horsemen and created storage cities. He extended Jerusalem to the north and fortified cities near the mountains of Judah and Jerusalem.
Solomon’s downfall came in his old age. He had taken many foreign wives, whom he allowed to worship other gods. He even built shrines for the sacrifices of his foreign wives. Within Solomon’s kingdom, he placed heavy taxation on the people, who became bitter. He also had the people work as soldiers, chief officers and commanders of his chariots and cavalry. He granted special privileges to the tribes of Judah and this alienated the northern tribes. The prophet Ahijah of Shiloh prophesied that Jeroboam son of Nebat would become king over ten of the 12 tribes, instead of one of Solomon’s sons.
Solomon died in Jerusalem after 40 years as ruler of Israel. He was buried in the City of David. His son, Rehoboam succeeded him as king. Under Rehobaum’s rule, Solomon’s empire was lost and his kingdom was divided into two parts.

In the West, I can not find Solomon being honoured as such. But the fact that Rome allows the Eastern Rite Catholics to honour him as such speaks volumes.
When a small portion of the Ethiopian Orthodox faithful came into union with the Catholic Church, certain of their feast had to be suppressed.
For example: The Commemoration of the Twenty-Four Priests (The Twenty-Fourth Day of the Blessed Month of Hatour: 24 Hatur).
The Catholic Encyclopedia speaks highly of Solomon, although falls short of naming him a saint.

The fact that Solomon's reign was passed in tranquillity, except for the attempts of Edom and Damascus to regain their independence, testifies to the care he displayed for the defence of the realm. That he showed no ambition to undertake foreign conquests redounds to his credit; after the exhausting wars of David the nation needed repose. And if he spent his people's wealth lavishly, his commercial policy may have helped to produce that wealth, and perhaps even given to the Jewish people that impulse towards trade which has been for centuries so marked a trait in their character. Nor can the indirect effects of the commerce he fostered be overlooked, inasmuch as it brought the people into closer contact with the outside world and so enlarged their intellectual horizon. And in two other respects he profoundly influenced his nation's after-history, and thereby mankind in general. In the first place, whatever the burdens which the construction of the temple entailed upon the generation that saw it erected, it eventually became the chief glory of the Jewish race. To it, its ritual, and its associations, was largely due the stronger hold which, after the disruption, the religion of Jehovah had upon Judah as contrasted with Northern Israel; and when Judah ceased to be a nation, the reconstructed temple became in a still higher degree the guardian of the Hebrew faith and hope. And secondly, the Book of Proverbs, though parts are expressly ascribed to other authors than Solomon, and even those sections which are attributed to him may be complex of origin, is nevertheless the product of Solomon's spirit and example, and much that it contains may actually have proceeded from him. And as Proverbs served as a model for many works of a similar character in later times, some of which, as has been said, were popularly ascribed to him (Ecclesiastes, Wisdom), the debt which the world of literature indirectly owes to the Hebrew king is considerable. The works named do not exhaust the list of productions with which Solomon's name is connected. The Song of Songs is attributed to him; two of the Canonical psalms are entitled his; and a book of Psalms of quite late date also goes by his name.

The wisdom of Solomon is universally honoured. Just recall the story involving the two women and the one baby who he ordered to be cut in two. In fact, during the coarse of the liturgical year, this very biblical story is read at Mass in both the Ordinary Form of the Mass and the Extraordinary Form of the Mass.
The wisdom of Solomon will always be praised, not only by Catholics, but by the Orthodox Churches and Jews alike.

The Judgement of Solomon is a story from the Hebrew Bible in which King Solomon of Israel ruled between two women both claiming to be the mother of a child. Solomon revealed their true feelings and relationship to the child by suggesting the baby be cut in two, each woman to receive half. With this strategy, he was able to discern the non-mother as the woman who entirely approved of this proposal, while the actual mother begged that the sword might be sheathed and the child committed to the care of her rival. Some consider this approach to justice an archetypal example of an impartial judge displaying wisdom in making a ruling.
Biblical narrative
1 Kings 3:16–28 recounts that two mothers living in the same house, each the mother of an infant son, came to Solomon. One of the babies had been smothered, and each claimed the remaining boy as her own. Calling for a sword, Solomon declared his judgment: the baby would be cut in two, each woman to receive half. One mother did not contest the ruling, declaring that if she could not have the baby then neither of them could, but the other begged Solomon, "Give the baby to her, just don't kill him!"
The king declared the second woman the true mother, as a mother would even give up her baby if that was necessary to save its life. This judgment became known throughout all of Israel and was considered an example of profound wisdom.

Fresco of the Judgment of Solomon, Wallfahrtskirche Frauenberg [de] Frauenberg, Styria


Wouldn't evil have already existed on Earth before Adam and Eve? We all know the story of Adam and Eve causing the first original sin by eating from the Tree of Life. However, Lucifer became Satan before Adam and Eve were even created, he was casted down to Earth as described in Ezekiel 28:18. It is assumed that the serpent described in Genesis is Satan, right?

Wouldn't evil have already existed on Earth before Adam and Eve? If Adam and Eve were the ones who cursed the Earth from their disobedience, then would that mean Satan performed no evil on Earth before Adam and Eve? It seems rather confusing. If Satan did commit evil before Adam and Eve's arrival, then wouldn't the Earth have already been cursed?

Earth was created specifically with men in mind. Adam and Eve were given dominion over all the creatures over the earth.

  And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. (Genesis 1:26)

Therefore when man fell, the earth and everything under their dominion fell as well. Satan was permitted on earth to test them, but the earth was not cursed until men betrayed their allegiance to God. And even then, in a sense, God cursed the earth for our sake, since idleness can easily lead to temptations for a sinner.

Therefore Satan was an usurper of Adam's dominion, he is referred to as "the prince of this world" (John 12:31). However, this dominion was never Adam's to give away, it rightfully belongs to God. As soon as man sinned, the plan of salvation was put in place (Gen 3:15). The earth, although under the curse of sin, was flooded with grace (Rom 5:20). Because Jesus, "the lamb slain from the foundation of the world" is the rightful ruler.


Has the Vatican issued clarification for pictures which appear to show Pope St John Paul II kissing the Qur'an? In comments which I have come across on the internet, this picture is thought to be very scandalous as it appears to show Pope St John Paul II kissing the Qur'an.

Have the Vatican issued a document to clarify the story behind the picture or explain his actions?

The book that the pope appears to be kissing looks like no Qur'an I have ever seen. The symbol on the cover is enough like that on the cover of my own copy of the Qur'an (no I am not a Muslim), but does not seem to be identifiably Islamic.  The problem with identity is that the 'book' looks more like a binder or outer cover - when you zoom in, it seems to be enclosed on both edges, whereas a Qur'an is not normally presented in this way. It may be that Pope St. John Paul II was simply following traditional Arabic custom by kissing a gift presented to him, whatever was held in that binder.  Nevertheless at least one website claims authenticity for the event:

  At the end of the audience the Pope bowed to the Muslim holy book, the Qu'ran, presented to him by the delegation, and he kissed it as a sign of respect. The photo of that gesture has been shown repeatedly on Iraqi television and it demonstrates that the Pope is not only aware of the suffering of the Iraqi people, he has also great respect for Islam.

The question becomes one of whether it is appropriate for the pope to show respect for members of another religion and for its holy book. The Second Vatican Council issued, in 1965, Pastoral Constitution On The Church In The Modern World. Part I, chapter II (28) states:

  Respect and love ought to be extended also to those who think or act
  differently than we do in social, political and even religious
  matters. In fact, the more deeply we come to understand their ways of
  thinking through such courtesy and love, the more easily will we be
  able to enter into dialogue with them. [My emphasis]

Either way, it appears the Vatican has not seen it necessary to post an explanation of the photograph.  I think we should give the pope the benefit of the doubt and believe that he acted with propriety and sensitivity to the feelings of the Catholic community he leads.


Why shouldn't the UK have women bishops? Just last week in the UK, the Church of England voted on the concept of having women bishops (who would then be eligible for appointment to the House of Lords, but that's not relevant.)

They voted no.

On the morning TV show, "The Big Questions", last Sunday, one of the pundits in favour of that decision stated that the church had "scriptural authority" to back the decision up.  This went unchallenged, and so was not expanded upon.

What is the scriptural authority behind this decision?

(Full disclosure, I am an Anglican / Episcopalian. I am 100% behind a very, very strong view of Scriptural authority, though I believe in the case of female priests, the old interpretation is not really in line with what Paul or God wrote. As such, I think it's totally okay to have a female priest- but for Scriptural reasons. )

1. There is a scriptural case for not allowing women any positions of authority in the church

In 1 Corinthians, Paul says that he does not permit a woman to speak in church. Additionally, completarian theology reads several passages in Paul's letters to be clear that a woman is not to exercise "headship" over a man. The Scriptural case is laid out pretty well in this answer, which basically says that there are many Scriptures that say "Women shouldn't preach," but that aren't as clear cut as one might assume.

2. If a Scriptural case exists, then it is a de-facto ground of support

Whether one agrees with the interpretation or not, there is thus an explicit argument in Scripture that women are not to have priestly authority. In the same way that the Queen of England is bound to certain "constitutional" limits, proscribed by tradition, so to the Church is bound to traditional arguments, including certain interpretations of Scripture.

The central debate amongst Anglicans today is the very question of the role of Scripture.  "Progressives" in the Anglican Tradition believe that Scripture is a source of theology, but not the only one. Traditionalists, including the vast majority of Africans, who outnumber English Anglicans several fold, disagree. As a church of compromise (Anglicans promote the via media - the "Middle Way"), the role of Scripture is the crux of the question- not women themselves. Traditionalists can rightly call on Scripture by looking to Paul, to Judges, and to other references. (Again, will expand when not on a phone)

3. Pragmatically, the question of women priests has been settled, but bishops are an open case

Because society has changed so much, universal acceptance of denying all female roles is no longer an option.  Many, many congregations views denying women a platform to preach as a societal anachronism.  (Again, full disclosure, when I look at the relative position the early church gave women, see, for example 2 John, which was addressed to the elect lady and her church, I am convinced that the Gospel was revolutionary in the freedom it afforded women when compared against the original society.)  As such, as the relative status of women has changed so dramatically, many congregations actually desire both male and female teaching and oversight.  Again, the Anglican via media has a straight-forward solution - let individual congregations decide.

The issue with bishops is that their purview is simply that much larger.  There are thousands of churches, but only hundreds of dioceses.  Additionally, parishes in the Anglican tradition do not have set boundaries, whereas dioceses do* (yes, there are execeptions, but by and large this is true.)

As such, accidents of geography necessarily override individual congregational preferences.    In the same way that both Republicans and Democrats in the U.S. are forced into the same Congressional seat, so too, both pro-women and anti-women adherents are forced into the same district.

In other words, the compromise doesn't scale to the diocese level.

Because the pragmatic solution doesn't scale to the diocesean level, debate exists there. Anglicans haven't settled this issue, and so, until we do, there will be decisions that each faction vociferously hates.

4. The bigger issue is Scripture

Ultimately, even the deciding factor - meaning the role of Scripture, how it is interpreted, and how it is applied in this context, will have unintended precedent setting effects.

If, for example, a female bishop is forced on a congregation that reads Scripture to exclude them, how will they feel when a homosexual bishop is chosen?  The United States has, at the time of writing, two.  Again, remember that this is absolute heresy in the majority of the Anglican world (Uganda, Nigeria, etc...).  Their reading of Scripture would be very simple - 1 Corinthians 5 - expel the immoral brother!