According to LDS, what principles of the gospel were corrupted in the Great Apostasy In the LDS.org article on Apostasy, the Great Apostasy is described in the following terms:

After the deaths of the Savior and His Apostles, men corrupted the principles of the gospel and made unauthorized changes in Church organization and priesthood ordinances.

Leaving aside the second part of the equation dealing with Church organization and priesthood ordinances, how exactly do Latter Day Saints believe the principles of the gospel were corrupted?
By way of background: I've had a couple of conversations with LDS (current or former missionaries) over the last year or so, where they have sought to emphasize the broad agreement with essential beliefs with other Christians. I find it hard to reconcile this with the LDS doctrine about the Great Apostasy and am trying to understand what they really meant. Is a de-emphasis of fundamental soteriological differences recommended as part of engaging with other traditions, or is the view on the "Great Apostasy" that is not that significant with regard to an understanding of the fundamentals of soteriological doctrine?

Within Mormon (LDS) theology, you can't speak of Church organization without speaking of priesthood authority.  The Priesthood exists without the Church but the Church cannot exist without the Priesthood.  The Priesthood is the power and authority given by God to act in the name of Jesus Christ.  So it makes no sense to a person of the LDS faith to separate the two.

But the question was what specific principles of the gospel were corrupted.  I would have to begin with the idea that God the Father and Jesus the Christ are of one substance (homoousia) which was cemented for Christiandom by the Nicene Creed (first council of Nicea in 325).  That is a major departing point from what a Mormon would believe is a correct principle of the Gospel.  Mormons believe that God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost (Spirit) are three distinct beings with one purpose.  Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost are not the same being as God the Father, who is our only God.

Another difference that is more subtle is in regards to soteriology.  While Mormons agree that all humankind is freely given grace by the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ (the atonement) as do most Christians, Mormons believe that obedience to the laws and ordinances (saving works done under priesthood authority, such as baptism) of the gospel is also required.  Some Christians would say that God approaches humans with God's saving works and never the other way around.  Mormons believe that some effort is required by humans to receive this approach (free will and choice).  This does not change the fact that Jesus Christ is the bridge between God and humankind and nobody can return to the Father any other way.

Other important principles that have experienced a slow departure over the years of the  Church would include the following ideas, not all of which are opposed by all denominations of Christians.  Humans are not born sinners because of the Fall of Adam, and thus are judged for their own sins.  Mormons do not feel that babies require baptism.  Baptism is required through proper Priesthood authority when a person is capable of understanding and accounting for their own choices.  And finally, and probably a major point of irritation to many, the words of the Bible are not the final words of God.  Prophecy and revelation are still alive and present in the world.  God has not finished speaking to humans.

This is not all-inclusive, and I'm sure there are many more points that are perfectly good and important, but this is the list that expresses the areas of greatest concern among my fellows at the (Presbyterian) seminary I attended.


How does God reconstruct your brain if it has been destroyed in the afterlife (Disclaimer: Sorry, I'm not a native english speaker, feel free to correct my english if it is poor)

In which state your brain is restored after death ? Does the bible said something about that ?

I have long been asked that question to myself, what memories do you brings with you when you die ? What God choose to bring back if your brain were destroyed in, for example, a car accident ? You know, it is common to read some news about people that loose their ability to pronounce some kind of word our doing something in particular, it is restored ?

Worst to answer, If someone suffered of a Alzheimer disease, in the begining of the sickness to keep your ability to memorize some things but you loose progressively your mind. Which moment does god will choose ? I mean, Which state of your brain will be choosen to be restored ?

This is a question about what happens during the "resurrection of the dead". That term is used in both the Bible and the Apostles' Creed (which the vast majority of Christians accept) and discusses how people will be brought back to life when Christ comes again.

The Bible does not go into a great deal about human anatomy (the word "brain" never appears), so we don't have a verse specifically answering your question. The most detailed description of the resurrection of the dead is Paul's explanation in 1 Corinthians 15:35-54. Of note is verses 42-44 (NIV):

  So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.

There are two main interpretations of this and other Bible passages that deal with it:

We will be given completely new "spiritual bodies" (with no connection to our earthly bodies) at the resurrection of the dead. This interpretation assumes "dualism": the belief that that our spirit/soul is completely independent of our earthly body and will survive intact no matter how damaged our bodies become.
Our earthly bodies will be put back together and become improved "spiritual bodies". This may or may not include a belief in dualism.

In both cases, it doesn't matter whether or not your brain and the rest of your body was destroyed in a car accident. Either you will be given a replacement body or your original body will be reformed. If you were impaired due to an ailment such as Alzheimer's disease, then your improved body would presumably not have that and you would be unhindered.

(Wikipedia has an excellent summary of differing views between different denominations and theologians over time, including several points about the resurrection of the dead that are beyond the scope of this question such as whether we immediately gain spiritual bodies in heaven or whether that will happen to everyone at once in the future).


Of whom is God jealous? You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your
  God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the
  fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, (Exodus 20:5, NIV)

If there is only one God, who is God jealous of?

Note:
Please see this question on Biblical Hermeneutics about the translation or definition of this passage.

The better question may be "What is it that God is jealous of?"  He is righteously jealous of the devotion and affections of His people.  This is mirrored in our own lives as a married individual is righteously jealous for the affections and devotion of his or her spouse.  Furthermore, a father or mother is righteously jealous for the affections of their children.  If their children started calling other men and women "Dad" and "Mom", it would be a tremendous insult to them, because they alone are the ones that have the true parental devotion to their children.

So, God is not jealous of another god or another being, but for the affections of His people.


What is the difference between "catholicism" and "catholic"? In the Apostle's Creed, the term "catholic" is used in describing the reciter's belief:

  I believe ... in the holy catholic church

This creed is used by a wide variety of denominations, and therefore I'd find it very hard to believe that it always refers to the Roman Catholic Church.

Some English translations of the Apostle's Creed use "holy Christian church" instead of "holy catholic church" - is "catholic", therefore, a synonym for "Christian"?

What is its use in the Apostle's Creed (and other documents)?

The wording of that creed has caused confusion among untold thousands of people over the past millennium and across scores of languages. For as much consternation as it has spawned, the intended meaning is really very simple.

The word catholic in the a Apostle's Creed is being used as an adjective, not a proper name! A quick English dictionary search will turn up possible meanings like the following:

  Including a wide variety of things; all-embracing
  Of or including all Christians

The Roman capital-C Catholic church used this adjective as a proper name in their official title. In our current times, the word is almost ubiquitously associated with that proper name. The Apostles Creed, on the other hand, was very specifically not referring to the Roman Catholic church but to the church universal. This is why a clear majority of Christian traditions both Catholic and Protestant are able to stand behind the Apostles Creed as a valid representation of their faith.

The various alternate wordings you will find (such as the one you noted: "Christian" or another common alternative: "Universal") are attempts at resolving the confusion by using a less miss-understood word.

Although it would not be a good substitute in the Creeds because it has overtones of diversity rather than unity, another related term is ecumenical. To put it all in context, it would be reasonable to say that "The Apostle's Creed's description of the core tenants of our (catholic) faith rather than a specific (Catholic) tradition makes it useful in an ecumenical context."


What is the basis of the view that Jesus was separated from the Father and Holy Spirit upon death? From my limited understanding of this matter, some people believe that Jesus was in some sense separated from the Father. This has come up in the context of discussions of the indivisibility of the Trinity, so this seems to me like a very unorthodox view at best, perhaps even a heresy at worst, since it seems to contradict the Athanasian Creed:

  ... we worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity. Neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance. For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Ghost is all One, the Glory Equal, the Majesty Co-Eternal.

And the writings of Lactantius (Divine Institutes, 4:28–29):

  when we speak of God the Father and God the Son, we do not speak of them as different, nor do we separate each, because the Father cannot exist without the Son, nor can the Son be separated from the Father

Perhaps there is no contradiction. For example, I understand the first two of the following senses of "separation" to be perfectly orthodox:

The Persons are distinct, in that the Father is not the Son, and the Son is not the Father. So in that sense, the Son and Father are "separate".
The Father was not conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary. The Father did not die on the cross, but the Son died on the cross. So in that sense, the Father and Son are "separate".

The persons were separated: not "in a sense", but actually separated in such a way that the indivisible Trinity was, without qualification, separated.
The Trinity is not indivisible, but is instead divisible, and was separated.
The substance was divided.
The Father was God, and Jesus was God, but they were, without qualification, separated.
The Son and Father were divided in Spirit: the Spirit of the Son was separated from the Spirit of the Father.

I do not think that these first two senses of separation are what is meant, though I could be wrong. However, I suspect that the last five senses (3-7) are also not meant. Though again, I could be wrong. I do not actually know, and I don't see where to place this view among the views that I am familiar with.

What exactly is this view? Have I listed it above, in one of the numbered lines? What is meant by "separated"? Would those who profess this view deny the Athanasian Creed and the Divine Institutes, and certain other works?
What is the origin and basis of this view among those who hold it? If the source of this view is the fact that Jesus quoted Psalm 22 when he died, how did this interpretation arise? Do those who hold this view claim that Jesus was professing separation, and reject the idea that Jesus was confirming the fulfillment of prophesy? If possible, which denominations actually hold this view? And why and how did the word "separation" end up being used for this?

In particular, I am in this case looking for an answer that is well-sourced: not an explanation of personal views, nor a personal interpretation of scripture, but something "relatively well established", according to our best standards of "relatively well established".

tl;dr> If Jesus isn't separated from the Father on the Cross, then the heresy of patripassianism is true, and more importantly, the notion that God does not change is not.

1. Scripture sets up cases that separate the Father from the Son

Scripturally the idea that Jesus was separated from the Father is typically supported from when Jesus cries out in Matthew 27:46

  "Father, Why have you forsaken me?" (a reference to Psalm 22).

To be forsaken implies that indeed, the Father is absent from Jesus in a very real way.

Additionally, 2 Corinthians 5:21 says:

  For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

We know that sin cannot abide in the presence of God ([Jude](For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.)), and therefore there must have been a separation.

Of this forsaking, the church fathers wrote:

  ORIGEN. But it must be asked, What means this, that Christ is forsaken of God? Some, unable to explain how Christ could be forsaken of God, say that this was spoken out of humility. But you will be able clearly to comprehend His meaning if you make a comparison of the glory which He had with the Father with the shame which He despised when He endured the cross.

  HILARY. (de Trin. x. 50 &c.) From these words heretical spirits contend either that God the Word was entirely absorbed into the soul at the time it discharged the function of a soul in quickening the body; or that Christ could not have been born man, because the Divine Word dwelt in Him after the manner of a prophetical spirit. As though Jesus Christ was a man of ordinary soul and body, having His beginning then when He began to be man, and thus now deserted upon the withdrawal of the protection of God’s word cries out, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

  Or at least that the nature of the Word being transmuted into soul, Christ, who had depended in all things upon His Father’s support, now deserted and left to death, mourns over this desertion, and pleads with Him departing. But amidst these impious and feeble opinions, the faith of the Church imbued with Apostolic teaching does not sever Christ that He should be considered as Son of God and not as Son of Man. The complaint of His being deserted is the weakness of the dying man; the promise of Paradise is the kingdom of the living God. You have Him complaining that He is left to death, and thus He is Man; you have Him as He is dying declaring that He reigns in Paradise; and thus He is God. Wonder not then at the humility of these words, when you know the form of a servant, and see the offence of the cross

  DAMASCENE. (de Fid. Orth. iii. 27.) Although He died as man, and His holy soul was separated from His unstained body, yet His Godhead remained inseparate from either body or soul. Yet was not the one Person divided into two; for as both body and soul had from the beginning an existence in the Person of the Word, so also had they in death. For neither soul nor body had ever a Person of their own, besides the Person of the Word.

  Thomas Aquinas, S., & Newman, J. H. (1841). Catena Aurea: Commentary on the Four Gospels, Collected out of the Works of the Fathers, Volume 1: St. Matthew (958–959). Oxford: John Henry Parker.

2. If Jesus did not separate from the Father, then you are stuck with Modalism or Nestoriansism

2a. Modalism

Theologically, the idea that Jesus was separated from the Father whilst dying on the cross is necessary if one is to avoid the heresy of Patripassianism. Patripassianism states that the Son literally was the Father, so whatever the Son suffered, the Father suffered also. However, the problem with this is that when Jesus dies, it is important that God the Father does not die with Him.  If he does, then God has changed state - from live to dead - and is therefore "passable" meaning that he can change. If he can change, the thinking goes, then he cannot be fully 'perfect' because change implies going from a less perfect to more perfect state.

Most directly, Hippolytus wrote against Noetus who held this view.

Patripassianism is sometimes called "Monarchical Modalism," because it is inherently modal in its underpinning. If as Sabelius believed, God is modal, then patripassianism is tautological. If Jesus is God the Father incarnate, then the death of Jesus = the death of the Father.  As it is essential that Jesus actually died (and did not just appear to die as the Muslims believe) and if it is equally essential that God the Father not die, since he is perfect, then by definition, Jesus and the Father must have been separated at this point.

Since modalism was rejected as heresy, it was natural to make heretical the idea of patripassiansm.

The book "No one Like Him" explains it well:

  Modalism, if adopted, has the further consequence that the Father literally suffered on the cross with Christ. This notion is called “patripassianism,” and initially it may seem innocuous, for all Christians would say that the Father’s heart broke and he empathized and sympathized with Jesus while he was on the cross. But that is not what patripassianism means. It means that the Father, in playing the “Son role” while Christ was on earth, actually suffered and died on the cross. This conclusion seemed inescapably to follow from belief in only one divine nature and in the three “persons” as nothing more than different names that designate different roles or activities played at one time and another. But patripassianism met with strong resistance for a very simple reason. Typically, early Christians believed that God is atemporally eternal. As such, he is absolutely immutable, for change comes with time but is absent from an atemporal being. Moreover, if God is absolutely immutable, he cannot experience changes of any sort, including changes in his emotional and physical state (if he is at all physical). Therefore, patripassianism was clearly objectionable. It destroyed atemporal eternity and divine immutability and impassibility. God could suffer, he could undergo change; and if the divine nature was thoroughly resident in Jesus, then God was subject to time, or so it seemed

Pope Leo the Great, in the Post-Nicene Fathers, directly connects this patripassianism to the essence of the Trinity:

  This species of blasphemy they borrowed from Sabellius, whose followers were rightly called Patripassians also: because if the Son is identical with the Father, the Son’s cross is the Father’s passion (patris-passio): and the Father took on Himself all that the Son took in the form of a slave, and in obedience to the Father. Which without doubt is contrary to the catholic faith, which acknowledges the Trinity of the Godhead to be of one essence (ὁμοούσιον) in such a way that it believes the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost indivisible without confusion, eternal without time, equal without difference: because it is not the same person but the same essence which fills the Unity in Trinity

2b. Nestorianism

It is possible to make an argument that says only the human nature of Jesus died on the cross - the nature of God did not. This maintains passability, but it presents, in my mind, an even worse problem.  It turns God into a monster and doesn't actually involve sacrifice.

Imagine, for a moment that this was "God's plan."  First and foremost, it inherently presumes a Nestorian understanding of the hypostatic union - also condemned as heresy. In over-emphasizing Jesus' humanity, it turns him into a dual-natured person. It exalts the created human (who was not, as it says in John 1, with God in the beginning, for it was created)

Leaving that aside, for a moment though, if the Divine nature of God the Son were to have left his human side, we have two unfortunate outcomes.

God himself never actually sacrifices himself in this scenario.  He sacrifices a created thing - it's like he tore off a soiled suit, rather than actually descending into Hell.
In this scenario, God creates a human being for the sole purpose of being tortured and abandoned. At the moment of greatest pain and suffering, God abandons him.  If only the human is crying out, "Father, why hast thou forsaken me!" then God has turned his back on the best human ever made.  Talk about sadistic!  Would you follow that vengeful, cruel, and hateful God? I certainly wouldn't!


What is the Catholic stance on Embryo Screening? Embryo Screening is the process of fertilizing multiple eggs, checking their DNA makeup, and then screening out the eggs that do not meet the requirements.  These requirements can be anything from potential health issues (genetic diseases) to gender preference.

Obviously, the Bible doesn't have much to say about this directly.  Still, I'm curious what the Catholic stance is for or against this and what Bible verses support this stance.

This looks like a case for Evangelium Vitae:

  Special attention must be given to evaluating the morality of prenatal diagnostic techniques which enable the early detection of possible anomalies in the unborn child. In view of the complexity of these techniques, an accurate and systematic moral judgment is necessary. When they do not involve disproportionate risks for the child and the mother, and are meant to make possible early therapy or even to favour a serene and informed acceptance of the child not yet born, these techniques are morally licit. But since the possibilities of prenatal therapy are today still limited, it not infrequently happens that these techniques are used with a eugenic intention which accepts selective abortion in order to prevent the birth of children affected by various types of anomalies. Such an attitude is shameful and utterly reprehensible, since it presumes to measure the value of a human life only within the parameters of "normality" and physical well-being, thus opening the way to legitimizing infanticide and euthanasia as well.

It applies specifically to already implanted/natural conceived children, but ought to be widened to your case given today's technology.  We'd consider those children to be just as fit for life regardless of their genetic defects.  In fact, the very idea that they have genetic defects when barely conceived should make it more obvious that they are fully human!

If you want a biblical basis try:

  It is I who bring both death and life

(Dt 32:39)

which is to say, don't play God.


Does Satan still masquerade as a angel of light among Christians? I was reading in 2 Corinthians 11: 13-15,

  For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, masquerading as
  apostles of Christ. 14 And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as
  an angel of light. 15 It is not surprising, then, if his servants
  masquerades as servants of righteousness

Could these scriptures apply to the Church of today?

The following is a Bible based answer. This is what Jehovah's Witnesses Believe.

These words to still apply today in the sense that there are many who claim to be Christians who are not really living as Christians and are promoting beliefs that do not harmonize with true Christianity as taught in the Bible. The ones doing this are helping Satan to accomplish his will because someone looking to be a Christian could be mislead by them as to what it means to be a Christian or what the Bible teaches.

Here are some scriptures that help us to see that there are still many today like this:

  Matthew 7:22-23

  Many will say to me in that day: 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophecy in
  your name, and expel demons in your name, and perform many powerful
  works in your name?' And then I will declare to them: 'I never knew you!
  Get away from me, your workers of lawlessness!'

I am not going to get into the time period of when "that day" refers to, but clearly just because many today claim to serve "the Lord" does not automatically make it true. If they make a practice out of disregarding Christian laws and principals, then they are really workers of lawlessness.

  2 Timothy 3:1, 5

  But know this, that in the last days critical times hard to deal
  with will be here...having an appearance of godliness but proving
  false to its power; and from these turn away.

Many today have an appearance of godliness, even an appearance of being Christian, but show with their life that God's standards have virtually no effect or power over them.

  2 Timothy 4:3

  For there will be a period of time when they will not put up with the
  wholesome teaching, but according to their own desires, they will
  surround themselves with teachers to have their ears tickled.

Many religious leaders today within Christendom will promote acceptance of things that flagrantly disregard Bible principals. Many will even publicly disavow large portions of the Bible as being accurate.

  Luke 13:24

  Exert yourselves vigorously to get in through the narrow door, because
  many, I tell you, will seek to get in but will not be able.

  Mathew 7:13, 14

  "Go in through the narrow gate, because broad is the gate and spacious
  the road leading off into destruction, and many are going in through
  it; whereas narrow is the gate and cramped the road leading off into
  life, and few are finding it.

Of the billions of people who think of themselves as "Christian" would it be reasonable to think that all of them are helping others to go down the cramped road leading to life? Doesn't it seem more reasonable that some of them are encouraging people to go down the broad and spacious road that is leading off into destruction?

  Ephesians 4:5

  one Lord, one faith, one baptism;

According to this scripture, Christians are supposed to be united. Can the collection of all Christian denominations be thought of as a collective, united group if they have distinctly contradictory beliefs? Wouldn't it be more in harmony with this scripture to believe that God is organized enough to use just one religious group to teach and help people to serve him unitedly and acceptably?

  John 4:24

  God is a Spirit, and those worshipping him must worship with spirit
  and truth."

This scripture helps us to see that in order for our worship to be acceptable to God, we must worship him in accordance with the truth. Could all religious leaders within all denominations be promoting the truth about how to worship God even though they teach contradictory ideas? Clearly that cannot be the case. Since God requires us to worship him with truth, then anyone promoting things not true is promoting worship that is not acceptable to God and is therefore a minister of Satan in the sense that they are serving his interests.

Of course there are sincere people within all religions and not all who are aiding Satan realize they are doing this. That is why we continue to preach to all that will listen. For more information, please see "How Can You Recognize True Worship?" in the brochure "Good News From God!".


How widely used is "beehive" imagery? The LDS church uses the imagery of a beehive to represent the way the church [should] function. Notably lacking any sign of the cross or other usual Christian symbology in the temple, the main pulpit used in the venue hosting the General Conference is adorned with several beehive carvings. The meaning of this symbolism was explained during one of the sessions.

Where else in Christianity has this imagery ever shown up? Do any other theologocal traditions make use of it? Is it widely used in LDS decoration or is this just an isolated case?

The symbolism actually comes almost entirely from Brigham Young's fascination with one simple verse in the Book of Mormon.

  Ether 2:3

  And they did also carry with them deseret, which, by interpretation, is a honey bee; and thus they did carry with them swarms of bees, and all manner of that which was upon the face of the land, seeds of every kind.

When Brigham Young worked to establish Mormon colonies throughout the Inter-Mountain West region, the colony eventually petitioned the US government for statehood.  Brigham Young decided that the territory should be called "Deseret," because he saw the honeybee's industriousness and self-sufficiency as admirable and worthy of emulation.  The proposed State of Deseret was enormous, covering almost all of modern-day Utah and Nevada, and smaller portions of the surrounding states, and Congress ended up denying the petition, and instead allowing statehood to smaller regions.  However, to this day, a beehive icon titled INDUSTRY figures prominently in the official seal of the state of Utah, also known as "the beehive state."

The term Deseret is used in many parts of Mormon culture, particularly in Utah. (See the Wikipedia disambiguation page for several prominent examples.)

It's worth noting that 20th century scholarship and research into ancient Egyptian language and culture has discovered that honeybees were held in extremely high regard by the Pharaohs, and the word DSR.T (vowels removed, as they were not part of the written language) was associated with them. (Nibley, "The Deseret Connection", Abraham In Egypt)

Within the church, the beehive symbol is easily recognizable, but is not particularly common.  For example, the pulpit at the Conference Center is decorated with a beehive icon, as noted in the question, but in most local chapels it is not present on the pulpit.


Reference for this "New is in the Old Concealed" quote that is attributed to Augustine? I've seen the quote, "The New is in the Old Concealed, the Old is in the New Revealed" (such as a question here or the second answer here) or a variation, "The Old Testament is the New Testament concealed, and the New Testament is the Old Testament revealed" (such as in this answer) and I have typically seen this attributed to Augustine, though I haven't found its source.  I have only found these two related but non-identical statements of St. Augustine from "On the Spirit and the Letter."

  "This grace hid itself under a veil in the Old Testament, but it has been revealed in the New Testament" (from chapter 27)

and

  This is the righteousness of God, which was veiled in the Old Testament, and is revealed in the New (from chapter 18)

I actually originally heard this from a Chuck Missler presentation without attribution. And at this Ligioner ministries article, and many others, it is attributed to Augustine.

Where does this quote come from?

“In the Old Testament the New is concealed, in the New the Old is revealed” (Novum Testamentum in Vetere latet, Vetus Testamentum in Novo patet) literal: New Testament in the Old lies, the Old Testament in the New is clear. St. Augustine, Quaest. in Hept. 2,73: PL 34, 623; cf. DV 16.

In case the reference needs decoding; Quaestiones in Heptateuchum VII (Seven Questions Concerning the Heptateuch) Dated AD 419-420.


What did Protestant reformers think about the date and authorship of the New Testament? Biblical scholars state that the different books of the New Testament were written between 49 and 120 AD, approximately. This means - rather uncontroversially - that the activity of the Church (i.e. of Apostles, converts, churches, etc) predates the Scripture.

Now, this Biblical research is fairly new, starting only in the XIX century. This is, by the time of the Reformation, such research was not available. Which was the opinion of Reformers on the origin, authorship, and dates of composition of the New Testament? Was it in line with the current scholarly research?

PS: Although I do not want to deviate the purpose of the question to other issues, my interest on this issue is the Sola Scriptura debate. Maybe Calvin and other reformers believed that the Scripture was not temporarily before the Church activity? (or, roughly speaking, that what the Catholic Church calls the Tradition did not come before the Holy Writ?)

There never was any argument between the Reformers and the Catholic church regarding the canon of scripture, just as they never had any difference of belief about the Trinity doctrine. Going back to Martin Luther, here is a quote from a historian:

  The Bible for him was not strictly identical with the Word of God. God's Word is the work of redemption in Christ which became concrete in Scripture as God in Christ became incarnate in the flesh; and as Christ by the incarnation was not denuded of human characteristics, so the Scripture as the medium of the Word was not divested of human limitations." (Here I Stand, p 331, Roland Bainton, Lion 1988)

He goes on to deal with Luther's translation of the New Testament into German, published in 1522. Although Luther had "a hierarchy of values within the New Testament", the existing canon was maintained and none of the Reformers disagreed with the ancient views of origin and authorship of those texts. Obviously, they had no knowledge of current scholarship, but given that none of the New Testament writings mention the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 (though 'Revelation' might have been written after the event) it's unlikely they would support a post 100 date.

As for whether "the activity of the Church predates the Scripture", the first century Church certainly was active even before the first part of the New Testament began to be written. The book of Acts shows that the Church exploded on to the scene, with great power, only ten days after Jesus had returned to heaven. Thousands were converted in a very short space of time, yet note how those first Christians kept quoting from the ancient Hebrew Scriptures that were their only "Bible" up until the New Testament Scriptures began to circulate and be copied. Without the ancient Hebrew Scriptures, there could be no Christianity as Jesus was the fulfilment of its prophecies about a Messiah. All the new converts in the first century were converted on the basis of understanding how Jesus fulfilled the already existing Hebrew Scriptures.

Your final query, whether the Catholic Tradition came before the Holy Writ or not - the Hebrew Scriptures came hundreds of years even before Jesus was born, so I assume you actually mean 'before the New Testament'. The Reformers regarded Scripture as the church's constitution which is (and I now quote from another history book):

  ...to directly counter the Roman Catholic claim that the church is the mother of Scripture. The canon, as the constitution of the church, is what constitutes a people as this people, under this government, in this body. Of course, the Reformers and their heirs never doubted that the church came before the completed canon of Scripture in history. However, they insisted that it is the word that always creates the church. ...The law and the promise were God's sacramental word (faith-creating means of grace) even before they were committed to the canon. As that word became inscripturated, the church itself found its proper constitution. ...The churches of the Reformation do not deny the ongoing authority of the church in its representative assemblies, but the key difference is this: whereas the Roman Catholic Church combines Scripture and tradition as one source of magisterial (i.e. ruling) authority, we confess that this belongs to Scripture alone, with tradition as ministerial (i.e. serving). Just as courts interpret the constitution, church courts interpret Scripture. This is why churches from the Reformation affirm the ecumenical creeds and subscribe to confessions and catechisms as communally valid interpretations of God's Word. Yet again, it must be emphasized that this authority does not arise from the church. It arises from the canon that the church seeks faithfully to interpret in dependence on the Spirit. ...The Reformers and their heirs recognized that there were many traditions in the apostolic church that were unwritten. In that era, believers were to follow the teaching and example of the apostles in both written and unwritten forms (2 Th 2:15; cf. 1Co 11:2; 2Th 3:6)... Therefore, the churches of the Reformation have received the Scriptures as the sole magisterial authority without disregarding the ministerial authority of church councils. (Pilgrim Theology pp 67-69, Michael Horton, Zondervan 2011)


Does the Catholic Church have to submit to an approved private revelation? ...Hence, public revelation is the deposit of faith and rule of faith
  and must be lived by all Catholics.[14] Saint Thomas Aquinas taught
  that all public revelation ended with the death of Saint John the
  Apostle. ... Private revelations cannot surpass, correct, improve, fulfill, complete, or perfect public revelation.

More...

If the Catholic Church approve a private revelation as worthy is the Church also obliged to follow the messages and requests?

I'm referring to the Fatima visions as they were approved by the Church.
In these visions, the Virgin Mary asks for the consecration of Russia. Is the Church obligated to do it or can the Church (pope) say this is a private revelation and we as the Church don't submit to its authority? Something like if God wants it the Holy Spirit would lead the Pope and the bishops the "standard" way as we know it from the tradition, similarly when they decide dogmas.

No, the Church does not have to submit to private revelation, even if they are approved and are deemed worthy of belief.

Private revelation is outside the deposit of faith and thus the Catholic faithful is not obliged to submit to a particular revelation. Nevertheless some prudence must be applied in whether or not the faithful should believe a particular private revelation.

  67 Throughout the ages, there have been so-called "private" revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ's definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history. Guided by the Magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church.

  Christian faith cannot accept "revelations" that claim to surpass or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfillment, as is the case in certain non-Christian religions and also in certain recent sects which base themselves on such "revelations". - Catechism of the Catholic Church

  84 The apostles entrusted the "Sacred deposit" of the faith (the depositum fidei), contained in Sacred Scripture and Tradition, to the whole of the Church. "By adhering to [this heritage] the entire holy people, united to its pastors, remains always faithful to the teaching of the apostles, to the brotherhood, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. So, in maintaining, practicing and professing the faith that has been handed on, there should be a remarkable harmony between the bishops and the faithful." -  Catechism of the Catholic Church

In deciding whether to "submit" to certain demands of a private revelation, the Catholic faithful must exercise the use of prudence.

  Although an assent of Catholic faith may not be given to revelations thus approved, still, an assent of human faith, made according to the rules of prudence, is due them; for according to these rules such revelations are probable and worthy of pious credence. [De Serv. Dei Beatif.] - Apparitions/Private Revelations

Although the Apparitions of Fatima (1917) are in the domain of private revelation and as thus are not part of the deposit of faith, but are worthy of belief, still the virtue of prudence must be exercised by the faithful (pope included) in making an informed decision whether to accept this private revelation or not.

Since the Visions of Fatima ask that the pope in union with all the bishops of the world to consecrate Russia to Her Immaculate Heart, the question of the prudence in fulfilling this request rests with them.

  Private revelations do not form part of the deposit of faith of the Catholic Church, and its members are not bound to believe in any of them. (Assent may be given based on the discernment of the Church and its judgment that an apparition is probable and worthy of pious credence.) The reported visions at Fátima gathered widespread attention, as numerous pilgrims began to visit the site. After a canonical inquiry, the Bishop of Leiria-Fátima officially declared the visions of Fátima as "worthy of belief" in October 1930, officially permitting the cult of Our Lady of Fátima. - Our Lady of Fátima (Wikipedia)


Works Rightouseness - Is there any Christian Group that focus on this I have been reading a Protestant book on evangelism and it, as well as other books I have read from Evangelical sources, focus greatly on on how their faith practice is in direct opposition to Works-Righteousness.

Coming from the Catholic Prospective of Grace Alone, which is consistent with Gods selection throughout history.  I am curious if there is a faith practice who instructs to its followers that we are saved as Payment for the works that we do.

A Good answer would have a official Document or "What we believe" Statement from the denomination that suggest that works somehow bring a person into the family of God.

I feel personally that the context is directed towards those outside the Church, who do not know the Gospel, the Evangelicals seem focused more on those inside the church, who in there minds, are not "REAL" Christians, like themselves.

Is there a Denomination that states that we are saved by Works?

Dr. John Fonville, in the third part of his sermon series entitled Threats To Christian Freedom: Legalism, discusses two types of works righteousness about which Paul warns the Church in Galatia in the 5th Chapter of his Epistle to them, and gives examples of each that include theologies that, by this site's standards, are Christian denominations. He contrasts these types of theological legalism with functional legalism, which he describes as grace-centered Christians who unintentionally judge themselves according to the law.

The first, called simply legalism (nomism), includes Christian theologies and other religions that teach that salvation itself- justification in the final judgement- is not imputed but is earned by works during life. He cites Mormonism, Jahovah's Whitness, and Islam as examples of theological legalism, as well as Christian denominations that teach that a salvific work like baptism or other sacrament is required for salvation. Contrary to what it may seem, this type of legalism actually diminishes the law, since the standard of the law must be lowered in order to be achieved by the individual. Ultimately in this theology, the sacrifice and divinity of Christ are of no consequence, as he becomes simply an example of righteous works and not the source of righteousness.

The second, called covenant nomism, teaches that while the initiation of the salvific process is a result of grace and election, both sanctification and ultimate justification are a result of works. In other words, you get in by faith, but you stay in by works. This is what Paul means when he asks rhetorically, "Are you so foolish? After beginning by means of the Spirit, are you now trying to finish by means of the flesh?"  Dr. Fonville includes charismatic revivalism with its alter calls for rededication, the Roman Catholic Church with its doctrine of penance, and first century Judaism as examples of this type of works based righteousness. In this theology, the effectiveness of God's grace, the existence of the Spirit in the life of the believer, and the believers unity with Christ are discarded.

A remedy to both of these types of works based righteousness in the Church, Dr. Fonville concludes, is the constant exposure to the sound Gospel of salvation by grace through faith, citing 2 Peter 1:12-13,

  Therefore, I will always be ready to remind you of these things, even though you already know them, and have been established in the truth which is present with you. I consider it right, as long as I am in this earthly dwelling, to stir you up by way of reminder,


What is the full meaning of Mathew 24:36-51 from a view of Methodists or Baptist 36 “But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son,[a] but only the Father. 37 As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 38 For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; 39 and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 40 Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left. 41 Two women will be grinding with a hand mill; one will be taken and the other left.
42 “Therefore keep watch, because you do not know on what day your Lord will come. 43 But understand this: If the owner of the house had known at what time of night the thief was coming, he would have kept watch and would not have let his house be broken into. 44 So you also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him.
45 “Who then is the faithful and wise servant, whom the master has put in charge of the servants in his household to give them their food at the proper time? 46 It will be good for that servant whose master finds him doing so when he returns. 47 Truly I tell you, he will put him in charge of all his possessions. 48 But suppose that servant is wicked and says to himself, ‘My master is staying away a long time,’ 49 and he then begins to beat his fellow servants and to eat and drink with drunkards. 50 The master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he is not aware of. 51 He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the hypocrites, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

From a Baptist or Methodist perspective, is this Jesus talking about Revelation or his death? I have taken many time reading over this but I cannot find a good answer.
Also is it a coincidence that these verses come right after a section about the end of times?

I can only answer from the perspective of the Baptist. That particular passage is considered a warning from the Lord that his second coming will be swift, and that this is the only pre event warning we will get. He points out that life will continue normally, and that we will be totally unaware that the spectacular event of his return is about to happen.

The passage about the unfaithful servant is also a warning that we cannot wait until the end to be a good Christian. He warns us that people will be selected to go to Heaven while someone of similar circumstance will be left behind.

He warns us that we are human and that if we knew exactly when he would return, we would wait until the last moments to become acceptable to go to Heaven, as this is the nature of mankind. So he says for us to be wary and expect that there may not be a next minute to repent. He also warns us that his return will be timed to occur at a time when we least expect it. Who would have been looking for his return during the attack on the World trade center, or another earth shaking event.

The final part of the passage you quoted is the most revealing of all in that he is telling us that he has given us the things that God wants us to do while here on Earth, and it will be good if he returns to find us giving our best efforts to live a life doing those things. He also tells that if he returns and finds us doing things contrary to his teachings he will utterly destroy us.

Although this is an abbreviated synopsis of the meaning of Matthew chapter 24 I hope it is sufficient to let you know how we as Baptists regard the lesson about Jesus return.


Does yearning to know more about God for a stronger relationship leave us hanging in confusion? Many times we try to ask questions not to challenge the Christian faith but rather to know more and perhaps draw closer to God.

How can one get the confidence in trying to explain to and convert a learned and highly educated unbeliever who always has strong reasons from philosophy, logic, psychology etc to support his rigid stand?

The bible actually seem to halt us in seeking to know more from God.

  who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? (Romans 9:20, KJV).

Romans 14:5 also says:

  Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.

And then we have this:

  For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. [...] so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts. (Isaiah 55:8–9).

These and many more make me feel incapable of winning souls for Christ and often leaves me hanging and tongue-tied myself. How do we manage this as Christians?

This is one of my favorite scriptures to turn to with questions like this.

  James 1:5 if any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. 6) But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.

So James tells us that we should ask God for any knowledge that we don't know. But with a condition attached. You need to ask in faith that God will answer your question. If you do so its promised that the Lord will give to you freely. And He always keeps His promises. I would add that @San Jacinto was right on in that you need to be humble in asking as well.


Why was the epistle of Clement to Corinth not considered canonical? I'm wondering on this one. I'm reading Eusebius and he states that at least one letter from the Bishop Clement (c. 35 AD - 99 AD) to Corinth was considered worthy to be read and was circulated among the early Church in the first and second centuries. Why was it not included in the canon?

I don't believe that we can discern exactly why the Church Fathers considered certain writings as belonging within the New Testament canon and others not, but those writings that were included in the canon - with the notable exception of Paul's Epistles - were either written by those who were direct disciples (though not necessarily Apostles) of Christ or were documenting what His direct disciples had witnessed.  Examples of the latter might include Mark, who early Church histories maintain received his Gospel from Peter; and Luke, who was not an Apostle, but - as at least held in the eastern Church - was one of the Seventy and was Cleopas' companion on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24).

It should be noted that prior to the New Testament canon being formally closed for the entire Church at the 7th Ecumenical Council (787), Clement's Epistle did appear in some New Testament manuscripts - most notably the Codex Alexandrinus, dating to the early 5th century.


What did Jesus actually get up to in America (according to Mormons)? I'm wondering where I should flick to in my LDS quad in order to learn about what Jesus supposedly got up to when he visited America. Could someone provide an outline of his interactions on the American continent(s) along with scriptural citations? I'll be happy to hear from anything in the LDS corpus of scripture.

If you have a quad, [a four-in-one book containing all four Standard Works that Mormons recognize as canonical scripture, for those unfamiliar with the term,] this account can be found in the Book of Mormon, in 3 Nephi, beginning at chapter 11.  It contains an account of Jesus's ministry among the Nephites, (the inhabitants of the land who the Book of Mormon is a history of,) how he preached the Gospel to them, established/reorganized the church under the Law of the Gospel instead of the Law of Moses, and performed miracles among the people.


Do Christians believe that more sinful people suffer more on Earth? I wonder what Christian groups believe that more sinful people suffer more on Earth due to God's punishment?

As a note: I am non-denominational (just a Christian).

I think there is a difference between Israel and the other nations. Other nations did not make an oath in which they agreed to be cursed if they did not keep all the commandments of the Torah (Lev. 26:14). However, Israel did (Deut. 27:26).

As for humanity in general, Jesus said (Matt. 5:45), "That you may be the children of your Father who is in heaven, for He makes His sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and He sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous."

There are some terrible things that happen to pious Christians, and sometimes generally "bad" people get through life "unscathed." I don't necessarily believe that bad people suffer more on Earth than Christians. But, at the last day, there will certainly be a different fate for each.


Since when has white wine been used in the Catholic mass? In any Catholic mass I attended (in Germany) white wine was used for the holy Eucharist. There are some plausible practical reasons for that. But, as far as I know, red wine was the normal wine in antiquity.

So when the use of white wine in mass started? Were there discussions on the validity of Eucharist with white wine? Were there the opinion, that one could but shouldn't use white wine and red wine would be better?

Since when has white wine been used in Catholic Mass?

There this a reasonable possibility that white wine at Mass was used in the Early Church since day one.

Our Lord never said anything about the colour of wine at the last supper. And Rome has never published a decretal concerning the colour of wine. It seems plausible that white wine did become more popular in the 16th century when the use of a purificator was introduced at Mass.

  In the Early Church both clergy and laity received the consecrated wine by drinking from the chalice, after receiving a portion of the consecrated bread. Due to many factors, including the difficulty of obtaining wine in Northern European countries (where the climate was unsuitable for viniculture), drinking from the chalice became largely restricted in the West to the celebrating priest, while others received communion only in the form of bread. This also reduced the symbolic importance of choosing wine of red colour. - Altar wine (Wikipedia)

In antiquity, wines were of various colours.

First of let us deal with Greek wine.

  Ancient Greece and wine

  The most common style of wine in ancient Greece was sweet and aromatic, though drier wines were also produced. Color ranged from dark, inky black to tawny to nearly clear. Oxidation was difficult to control, a common wine fault that meant many wines did not retain their quality beyond the next vintage. However, wines that were stored well and aged were highly prized: Hermippus described the best mature wines as having a bouquet of "violets, roses and hyacinth." Comedic poets noted that Greek women liked "old wine but young men."

And now for ancient Roman wines.

  As in much of the ancient world, sweet white wine was the most highly regarded style. Wines were often very alcoholic, with Pliny noting that a cup of Falernian would catch fire from a candle flame drawn too close. Wine was often diluted with warm water, occasionally seawater.

  The term "wine" spanned a broad spectrum of wine-based beverages, the quality of which depended on the amount of pure grape juice used and how diluted the wine was when served. The finest wine was reserved for the upper classes of Rome. Below that was posca, a mixture of water and sour wine that had not yet turned into vinegar. Less acidic than vinegar, it still retained some of the aromas and texture of wine and was the preferred wine for the rations of Roman soldiers due to its low alcohol levels. Posca's use as soldiers' rations was codified in the Corpus Juris Civilis and amounted to around a liter per day. Still lower in quality was lora (modern-day piquette), which was made by soaking in water for a day the pomace of grape skins already pressed twice, and then pressing a third time. Cato and Varro recommended lora for their slaves. Both posca and lora were the most commonly available wine for the general Roman populace and probably would have been for the most part red wines, since white wine grapes would have been reserved for the upper class.

The wines of ancient Palestine are a different matter all together.

  Palestinian wine has been in production since ancient times. In Palestine, the use of wine was not only an important factor in religious ritual, but also a necessity for social interaction, general dietary consumption and medicinal purposes.

  Vines were among the three major crops cultivated in Roman and Byzantine Palestine and there are numerous remains of ancient winery installations. Wine was produced throughout the region, from the fertile plains in the north, to the arid areas of the Negev. In Akhziv, an enormous press with the capacity for 59,000 litres was dated to the 4th century. Archaeology suggests that there was a substantial increase in production in the early Byzantine period and most the large-scale presses date to this era.5 The rabbis of the Talmudic era devoted much attention to wine production and commerce and instituted many laws religious pertaining to it. Although the Talmud states that "the wine of Tyre was cheaper than Palestinian wine," nowhere does it mention that wine was ever exported abroad. Various other sources from the Byzantine period reveal that this indeed occurred. Around the mid-fourth century, the anonymous writer of Expositio totius mundi et gentium states: "Ashkelon and Gaza…export the best wine to all Syria and Egypt." Transport jars or amphorae have been found in large quantities at various Mediterranean sites, at harbours and as parts of shipwrecked cargos off the shores of Cyprus, Greece and Asia Minor. Significant international trade in Palestinian wine started in the early 5th century, and lasted another 250 years. The deposits of Palestinian amphorae in foreign regions is substantial. They show that Palestinian wines were exported as far as Spain, Gaul and even Wales. In this period, they accounted for 45% of amphorae found in Carthage, 20% at 6th-century Argos and Marseille and 16% at Naples in the 7th century. It is assumed that the Palestinian Bag Jar, one of the most common forms of pottery to be found in the southern Levant, carried white Palestinian wine when exported. John the Almsgiver (7th-cent.) is said to have admired the aromatic bouquet of the expensive Palestinian wine he was offered in Alexandria. Coming from the land of the Bible, Palestinian wine appealed to Christian priests for use during the Eucharist.

This begs the question of what kind of wine did Our Lord used at the Last Supper?

Is there a modern wine that is designed to resemble an ancient Hebrew (Palestinian) wine?

  Marawi Wine from the Recanati Winery in Israel.

  The new crisp, acidic and mineral white from a high-end Israeli winery was aged for eight months — or, depending on how you look at it, at least 1,800 years.

  The wine, called Marawi and released last month by Recanati Winery, is the first commercially produced by Israel’s growing modern industry from indigenous grapes. It grew out of a groundbreaking project at Ariel University in the occupied West Bank that aims to use DNA testing to identify — and recreate — ancient wines drunk by the likes of King David and Jesus Christ. - Israel Aims to Recreate Wine That Jesus and King David Drank

Although a little speculative, it is not impossible that Our Lord, himself, used white wine at the Last Supper. It would be interesting to see what tradition has to say on this subject also.

  Where does the practice of using amber wine for communion come from, and why is it done? Do we not lose the symbolism of red wine?

  It is thought that amber wine was introduced [(became more popular)] in the Western Church during the post-Tridentine era. J. A. Jungmann gave his opinion that "when . . . the use of the purificator became general, that is since the sixteenth century, white wine has become commonly preferred because it leaves fewer traces in the linen" (The Mass of the Roman Rite, 1959). In the same way, Peter Elliott reckoned that amber or white wine had been favoured in the Western Rites because of this convenience of washing altar linens (Ceremonies of the Modern Roman Rite, second edition, 2004).

  Unlike the acute controversy over the use of leavened or unleavened bread, at the time of the Great Schism between East and West in the 11th century, the exact colour of altar wine has not been a contentious issue, and at no time has there been any canonical regulation to make wine of a particular colour universally obligatory. It has been acknowledged that obviously red wine is a better Eucharistic symbol than amber or white; as such it has sometimes been referred to as "the blood of the grape", as well as "the fruit of the vine". This symbolic value, however, true as it is, weighs far less with those who maintain a strong realist view of the sacramental presence: the visual appearance of consecrated wine of whatever shade is independent of the res sacramenti - that of Christ's real presence in the Blessed Sacrament of his Body and Blood in holy communion. - Amber communion wine?

Although red wine is more symbolic in colour with blood, white is to say the more commonly used wine at Mass. White wine has a more symbolic aspect of demonstrating the Mass as a “spiritual and bloodless sacrifice.”  Possibly because of availability. A lot would depend on the availability of the Altar wine offered in a particular area, as well to the personal choice or the priest saying Mass.

Both red and white wines were used in ancient times for Mass.


Can Christians be judges? There is a famous, often (ab)used phrase, "judge not, lest you be judged" , which implies (to me at least) that people on the whole, and Christians in particular, should defer from judging other people. The only person/power/entity (whatever you call it) that can pass judgement is God.

This is a belief upheld by most monotheistic religions that I know of. I attended a Catholic school, and remember that one of my teachers was a former deacon.  When he was asked to be a jury member in a big court case, he said he had to decline as he took a vow, which prevented him from passing judgement, especially in matters that concerned life and death.

I wonder, though, how this affects Christians that did not take the same vows. I mean: "the judge not" bit seems applicable to everyone who adheres to the Christian faith, does it not?

Does being a judge or member of a jury have a whiff of sin about it, as a result?

So my questions are:

Can Christians be judges?
If so, can they ever sentence someone to death?
If not, can they judge in any matter, or are they allowed to settle domestic disputes or rule in material matters?
Is sentencing or being on a jury a sin?

Can Christians be judges?

Yes. We are told to judge others within the church. (1 Cor 5:12)

As @CecilBeckham said, we are told not to judge people's hearts/righteounness. (Mt 7:1-2, Lk 6:37) We are also told not to be hypocritical in our judgment (Ro 2:1)

Paul endorses the idea of governmental authority in Romans 13, and says

  Romans 13:4 (NASB)
  But if you do what is evil, be afraid ; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil.

We are certainly expected to exercise judgment/discernment. (John 7:24, Lk 12:57)

There's no prohibition (even in sense or intent) in what the Biblical authors say that would prevent anyone from being employed as a secular judge (or even as a Christian arbiter). Judges (in America) do not judge men's hearts, nor do they claim to assign their eternal station. They decide issues of the written law. I can imagine that a Christian judge might have difficulty if the law itself were immoral or required something sinful, but that's an exception, not a rule.

Can they sentence someone to death?

The example in the Old Testament is that the community was a witness against people who had committed a crime worthy of death. Certainly humans were fit to pass this kind of judgment on another.

We are not commanded to do such a thing in the New Testament, but it stands to reason that it is at least justifiable. Paul's statement about the God-ordained authority of the government suggests that punishment is within its rights (even if the rulers are evil or if the laws are immoral—as was the case with the Roman law of the day). He wasn't writing a legal treatise, but was saying that the government isn't wrong to punish us, because they get their authority from God (and I would assert: even if they abuse it).

For the protection of innocent people, it seems like it might be possible for there to be a situation in which execution is the best thing to do. We're (indirectly) told not to murder (Mt 5:21, but murder and killing are not the same, nor was killing ever the subject of the sixth commandment (Ex 20:13), because the Jews were required to pass judgment on their brothers when they had committed a serious offense for which the punishment was death.

Also, in America, judges don't (decide the) sentence of death. That is always a jury trial. One exception might be a military trial—I don't know much about the legal system of the U.S. military.

Is sentencing a sin?

If you're thinking of some specific reason why this might be wrong, you will have to say what it is.

There's not any form of injunction against deciding someone's punishment for a legal infraction. Anyone with authority over another certainly seems to possess the power and right to decide punishment (within their sphere of authority). Parents "sentence" their children, employers "sentence" their employees, teachers "sentence" their students, etc. Sentencing (as a judge or jury member) isn't any more wrong than being a judge or jury member, because it's part of the task assigned to you.


How do Christians justify their belief and how do they convince others of their belief? First of all, I assume that everybody should have some sort of justification for his beliefs. Secondly, I assume that Christians are interested in convincing others to join them as evangelisation seems to be promoted in the bible. Lastly, I assume that Christians respect the laws of logic and therefore their justifications must also follow these laws.

My question, based on these assumptions, is as follows: How do Christians justify their beliefs to themselves as well as to others and how do they convince others of their belief?

I am aware that this question is very fundamental. I tried to find an answer on the site, however, I couldn't find any. Please point me to any questions with good answers regarding this topic that I couldn't find!

Lastly, I assume that Christians respect the laws of logic and therefore their justifications must also follow these laws.

Then you're not really going to get very far.  Yes, Christians respect the laws of logic, but we do not respect only the laws of logic.  The basis of Christian belief isn't grounded in logic, but in testimony, faith and experience.  We know that God is there because he makes his presence known through the witness of the Holy Ghost, and we know that he is good and worthy of obedience and worship because of the history of our relationship with him.

As we follow God's commandments faithfully, we can see the results in our lives. We see that living the principles of the Gospel works, that it produces positive results, helping us to resolve or avoid problems in our lives.  That increases our faith, making us better-able to trust in God, so that when we need to do something truly difficult, even if it seems to contradict what we think is logical, we can say, "God has never led me wrong before, so I can trust in him now."  Those who don't understand this principle say that Christians live by "blind faith," but that is far from the truth.

As for how Christians convince others of their belief, we don't.  While it's possible to convince another person that our viewpoint makes sense, actual faith, the kind I'm talking about in the previous paragraphs, comes from God, not from another person.  What proselyting Christians attempt to do is convince others to open their hearts, to be willing to accept that the Gospel might be true, and to be willing to pray to God to seek their own testimony and establish their own relationship with him.  Conversion is a highly personal matter between oneself and the Lord; anyone else's involvement is secondary.


What is the basis for faith not being an emotion or feeling? What does Protestantism say? I have heard don't make your bible decisions on your feelings, use your brain, have faith. Am I to understand faith is not a feeling nor an emotion?

I looked here and here and nothing. I found love and hope but not faith.

It's kinda like a follow up question to Which scriptures (if any) are cited by proponents of the 'don't go on feelings' teaching?

In general, what you've heard is similar to a widely held perspective within Protestantism. From Luther:

  “Feelings come and feelings go,
   And feelings are deceiving;
   My warrant is the Word of God--
   Naught else is worth believing.

This highlights though, that our faith should be based on the Word of God - not on our own thinking.  It is entirely possible for our thoughts to be as fickle and deceiving as our emotions, for instance according to Proverbs 14:12:

  There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way to death.

and we can be:

  always learning but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth. - 2 Timothy 3:7

If overly emphasized, (poor statements of) this doctrine can lead some to downplay the role of emotions in the life of the believer to the extant of ignoring them as a legitimate part of life and undermining any fulfilment of the great commandment

  Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul
  and with all your strength. - Deutoronomy 6:5

and has in all probability contributed to the rise of reactionary movements within Protestantism such as Pietism, Revivalism, Methodism and Pentecostalism - so by no means do Protestants speak with a unified voice on this issue.

A relevant article on this subject is found at:

http://www.atthispoint.net/articles/emotions-and-faith-the-perplexing-relationship-between-what-we-feel-and-what-we-believe/217/

with further response articles to it linked from that page


Was "love your enemies" ever included among the evangelical counsels? In Institutes of the Christian Religion, John Calvin accuses his scholastic opponents of considering the commandment "Love your enemies" to be optional. Specifically, he says that they call it an evangelical counsel, to be kept by monastics but not Christians in general.

  The scholastic doctors made simple "counsels" of the commandments in which our Lord told us not to seek revenge and to love your enemies; they say one is free to obey these counsels or not. They have said that it is only monks who are obliged of necessity to keep them - monks to whom they have ascribed a more perfect righteousness than to other Christians - because monks are obligated to keep the "evangelical counsels", as they call them.  1

Similar language had appeared in the Augsburg Confession (1530), article XXVII.54:

  They hear that it is an evangelical counsel not to seek revenge; therefore some in private life are not afraid to take revenge, for they hear that it is but a counsel, and not a commandment.

  Audit consilium Evangelicum esse de non vindicando: ideo alii in privata vita non verentur ulcisci, audiunt enim consilium esse, non præceptum.

I thought that the evangelical counsels were limited to chastity, poverty and obedience. This is certainly the case today, according to Canons 598-601 of the Code of Canon Law.

While the whole topic of "precept vs. counsel", or supererogation, has been a divisive topic, I am curious about the specific example, rather than whether it's a valid distinction at all.

Was there a contemporary group of scholastics that taught this, or were Calvin and the others simply incorrect about Catholic doctrine?
If they were wrong, did anybody point that out at the time?

1 This is from the 1541 French edition, translated by Elsie Anne McKee (Eerdmans, 2009), in chapter 3, "On the law", p161. In the 1599 Latin edition, the corresponding text is in Book II, Chapter 8, paragraph 56; the Latin uses just consilia instead of consilia evangelica.

Calvin is right, in a sense: certain types of vengeance are allowed by the Roman Catholic Church, and have been since at least the time of St. Thomas Acquinas. The current Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

  Anger is a desire for revenge. "To desire vengeance in order to do evil to someone who should be punished is illicit," but it is praiseworthy to impose restitution "to correct vices and maintain justice."95 If anger reaches the point of a deliberate desire to kill or seriously wound a neighbor, it is gravely against charity; it is a mortal sin. The Lord says, "Everyone who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment."96

Which references the Summa:

  It is unlawful to desire vengeance considered as evil to the man who is to be punished, but it is praiseworthy to desire vengeance as a corrective of vice and for the good of justice; and to this the sensitive appetite can tend, in so far as it is moved thereto by the reason: and when revenge is taken in accordance with the order of judgment, it is God's work, since he who has power to punish "is God's minister," as stated in Romans 13:4.

It's not that "love your enemies" in the broad sense is an evangelical counsel, but that vengeance done to correct a wrong is a Good Thing, whereas vengeance out of anger is absolutely wrong. As I understand it, when Calvin refers to the scholastics (I've seen it translated as the dismissive "schoolmen") in the Institutes, he's referring to people like St. Thomas (and others, like Duns Scotus).

But it's also important to take the Augsburg Confession in context: the part you quote from it is an expansion of the premise of the article, which starts a little bit before:

  Furthermore, the precepts of God and the true service of God are obscured when men hear that only monks are in a state of perfection.

The charge isn't so much that love your neighbors is an evangelical counsel, but that only monks can ever do right by God, so regular men don't even bother because it's pointless. The issue of "love your enemies" is just one thing mentioned that normal men don't even bother to do because they believe only the perfect monks can do it.

This charge was refuted in 1530 by the Confutatio Pontificia, which stated:

  Moreover, the malicious charge that is still further added, that those in religious orders claim to be in a state of perfection, has never been heard of by them; for those in these orders claim not for themselves a state of perfection, but only a state in which to acquire perfection - because their regulations are instruments of perfection, and not perfection itself.


What should I tell my children about Santa? Is it wrong to lie to my children about the existence of Santa? When they get older how do I explain to them that I was lying? How can I expect them not to lie when I confess to them that I had been lying about Santa's existence?

Perhaps the question really is, "Should I lie to my children?" or "Should I lie?"  The answer to both of those is, of course, "No."

Certainly it is culturally normative to tell children about Santa.  However, right and wrong in Christianity are not determined by how acceptable it is to a culture.

My parents told me the gifts were from them, and I appreciated them for it--not some mythical being.  Christmas for devout Christians is a remembrance of Jesus and not the celebration of fairy tales.


Did Martin Luther believe the Church needed to be reformed before the Great Schism of 1054AD, or after? I think its safe to say that Martin Luther, being one of the fathers of Protestantism, was primarily at odds with the Roman Church.  He posted his 95 theses to confront what he thought to be corruption that centered around Roman Catholic indulgences.  Later on he became convinced that the Pope was the Anti-Christ.

  Nevertheless, since few know this glory of baptism and the
  blessedness of Christian liberty, and cannot know them because of the
  tyranny of the pope, I for one will walk away from it all and redeem
  my conscience by bringing this charge against the pope and all his
  papists: Unless they will abolish their laws and traditions, and
  restore to Christ's churches their liberty and have it taught among
  them, they are guilty of all the souls that perish under this
  miserable captivity, and the papacy is truly the kingdom of Babylon,
  yes, the kingdom of the real Antichrist! For who is " the man of sin"
  and "the son of perdition" but he that with his doctrines and his laws
  increases sins and the perdition of souls in the Church, while he sits
  in the Church as if he were God? All this the papal tyranny has
  fulfilled, and more than fulfilled, these many centuries. It has
  extinguished faith, obscured the sacraments and oppressed the Gospel.
  (Babylonian Captivity of the Church, Page 536, chapter 3 - emphasis added)

From what I understand, Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy are basically the same doctrinally, with the exception of a few points, such as the Filioque, Papal Supremacy, etc. I also understand it to be true that it is an historical fact that, before the Great Schism, there was only one Church consisting of both the "Eastern lung" and the "Western lung."

My question is this:

Did Luther believe that the Church needed to be doctrinally reformed even before the Great Schism? If not then why didn't he just embrace Eastern Orthodoxy, and in turn direct his "reforming" constituents toward the East?

I haven't read all of Luther's works to know whether or not he conscientiously protested Rome exclusively, or the sacramental lineage of the unified East/West Fathers and ecumenical councils of the early Church altogether.

Luther saw the church becoming significantly corrupted much earlier than we might think.  Generally I would say that Luther perceived a split between the 'real' church and the 'false church' basically around the time of St. Augustine, for he always separated the ritualistic ecclesiastical doctrine of religion, from the Augustinian spiritual doctrine of saving grace. To garner direct quotes from Luther in establishing a factual date of the church apostasy, we would do well to start at St. Gregory and the establishment of the papacy, according to Luther, right after at around 603 AD.

While having some respect for Pope Gregory, primarily in that he refused to become a pope in the modern sense of the word, Luther heaps more blame upon St. Gregory (540-604 AD) than anyone before him. In some ways he begins to be a point for galvanizing all the heresies and abominations slowly and gradually building up to that time, making a good first landmark to answer the question.

  Gregory alone is the originator of the fables about purgatory. He also originated the Masses for the dead. Somewhere he tells that there was a certain steward in his monastery who by chance and negligence left three guldens among his papers. When Gregory found these after the man’s death, he had made a terrific uproar about the deceased man and had cried out that the man was accursed because of the crime of thievery and would be subject to eternal punishments, although it was likely that this monk had had greater opportunity to steal in other respects; yet nothing had been pilfered by him, but this money had lain hidden among his papers without his knowledge. Yet Gregory declares that by this example and as a result of his shouting the others were so terrified that from then on no one of them was willing to keep back even a heller. Finally, however, Gregory ordered 30 Masses to be said for the man, and when these had been completed—so he writes—this steward appeared to him and thanked him profusely for the great service by which he had been freed from punishments and the curse of God.

  This was undoubtedly the “strong delusion” referred to in 2 Thess. 2:11, and from this example of Gregory there spread into the whole world that infinite multitude of abominations and the offering of the sacrament for the dead. But the specter which appeared to him was the devil in all his wickedness, who came out of hell to mock the whole human race. For the horrible and rash falsehood of purgatory and Masses for the dead exceeds all understanding and power of speech.  (Luther's Works Vol 7.297)

Another landmark the more direct to the answer would be just after, in Pope Boniface III who Luther technically thought was the first Pope (603 AD) (Unlike the Catholic church of course who assumes the Papacy started way back with Peter).

  It is very easy to prove that the pope is neither the commander or head of Christendom, nor lord of the world above emperor, councils, and everything, as he lies, blasphemes, curses, and raves in his decretals, to which the hellish Satan drives him. He himself knows full well—and it is as clear as the dear sun from all the decrees of the ancient councils, from all the histories, from the writings of the holy fathers, Jerome, Augustine, and Cyprian, and from all of Christendom before the first pope, who was called Boniface III* —that the bishop of Rome was nothing more than a bishop and should still be that. St. Jerome dared to say freely, “All bishops are equal, all together they have inherited the throne of the apostles,” and adds the example, “as the bishop of a small city—like Engubium67 and Rome, Regium and Constantinople, Thebes and Alexandria. (Luther's Works Vol 41.290)

On the topic of the papacy Luther does not speak negatively about Gregory at all, rather he seems to admire him in spite of his other low opinions.

  In addition, St. Gregory, when it [the title “universal pope”] was offered to him by several great bishops, sharply refused it and writes that none of his predecessors had been so bold as to accept or wish to carry such a title,71 although the sixth council in Chalcedon72 had offered it to them; he closes by saying briefly and to the point that no one should call himself the highest bishop or head of the whole of Christendom, as many decrees also say, and furthermore, that the bishop of Rome too, though he is one of the greater ones, is nonetheless not to be called universalis, the head of “all” Christendom. (Luther's Works Vol 41.291)

It is after Gregory that Luther truly pins the fall of the church under the papacy:

  But after Gregory’s death Sabinianus was a bishop for a year and a half; I count him among the popes, for he was a big monster, like a pope is, and wanted to burn the books of St. Gregory, his immediate predecessor—perhaps because in his writings St. Gregory did not want the papacy to be tolerated. Boniface III was elected after him. This is when God’s wrath began. This Boniface persuaded the regicide Phocas that he should be pope, or chief of all the bishops in the whole world. The bell was cast then, and the Roman horror accepted with joy, as the one who was now lord over all the bishops in the world.  (Luther's Works Vol 41.291)

One could trace some of the other streams of perceived corruptions by investigating the origins of many practices Luther opposed but I think starting with St Gregory but absolutely occurring with Pope Boniface III (603 AD) followed by the Popes after him is really where the true church under the Augustinian faith split from the ritualistic ecclesiastical church under the corrupt doctrines of the papacy, according to Luther.


Were any of the early church leaders Gentile converts to Christianity? By early, I mean the second half of the first century to the end of the second century.  I know, for example, that Paul and Barnabus were ethnic Jews.  The Apostle Paul mentions various Christians, such as Tychicus (a Greek name, meaning 'fortunate'), who came from Asia Minor (Colossians 4:7, 16; Ephesians 6:21–22; 2 Timothy 4:12; Titus 3:12).Source: Who was Tychicus?

But was he a Jew, or was he a Gentile who converted to Christianity?

Later, we have Polycarp of Smyrna (died c. A.D. 155), Linus, and Clement of Rome (died c. A.D. 99), who are attributed as being bishops within the early Christian church. We also have Ignatius of Antioch (died c. A.D. 110).  But were they Jews or were they Gentile converts to Christianity?

Is there any information on the earliest recorded Gentiles who became leaders in the Christian church?

This question already has a lot of answers, but I feel like the most basic answer is missing!
The answer is yes, and we need look no further than the Bible.
Titus himself was a gentile convert. We learn this in Galatians 2

Galatians 2:3 nkjv - Yet not even Titus who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised.

For the sake of being concise, I wont quote more of the chapter, but you should check it out.
Now that we have established Titus Gentile-ness, we must ask the second question, was he a "Leader in the early Church"?
If we go to the book of Titus, we can find that out

Titus 1:5 nkjv - For this reason I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are lacking, and appoint elders in every city as I commanded you
Titus 2:15 nkjv -  Speak these things, exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no one despise you.

So his job is to choose elders, teach , exhort, and rebuke, and in general get the churches in line. To me it is clear that Paul is asking Titus to act as a leader in the church.
Its at this point that the discussion gets more complicated if we don't have a shared doctrine of what constitutes an Elder/leader in the church etc, but personally I think this single example answers the original question quite nicely!


Are there any modern Nestorian or Jacobite systematic theology textbooks? There exist many modern (say, 20th century or later), English language systematic theology textbooks from a Western Christian perspective. For example, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ludwig Ott from a Catholic perspective and Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine by Wayne Grudem from a Reformed perspective would surely count as being such.

Does there exist analogous, English language texts that take the perspective of Nestorian or Jacobite Christians?

Answering with respect to the Nestorians/Assyrian church of the East rather than the Jacobites (Miaphysites):
While not exactly a modern text, the Marganitha (13th Century) is a Assyrian (a.k.a. Nestorian) systematic theology in good esteem. There is a fairly readable 19th century translation into English in the public domain provided on wikisource.
Unfortunately, I doubt there would be any more modern examples, especially given the history of the Assyrian church. Before the 20th century, there would be little motivation to write a systematic theology in the English language. During the 1920s, they suffered a genocide under the Ottomans (The so-called Seyfo), and the subsequent emigrations meant that the immediate pastoral concerns of reorganizing a previously geographically isolated church on a global scale (in foreign cultures no less) were of more importance than writing systematic theology. Likewise, recent ecumenical efforts, which by their nature tend to involve looking back at historical theological positions rather than creating new works, may account for the lack of such a systematic theology.
A Modern (2006) Assyrian Catechism (rather than systematic theology) can be found here by C. Klutz and G. Toma. It has a Bibliography which includes the above-mentioned Marganitha, as well as a number of other volumes, which may be of interest, though they do not all appear to be in English.


If Jesus was Sinless and had Free Will, how is the rest of creation not a mistake? If it is possible to create beings like Jesus - or to recreate humans as sinless versions of themselves - Was all of creation a mistake?

A mistake that all of History in the Bible attempts to correct? From the initial mistake of not giving Adam and Eve the knowledge to prevent their own mistakes. Through to Jesus coming to correct the initial mistake, only to be the subject of further mistakes. Through to the ultimate correction of the mistake. The destruction of the world.

Doesn't this imply that we are God's mistake?

To be clear, I'm looking for a scripture-based explanation for how the universe was/wasn't a mistake. And by extension if the first, how that can be reconciled with a perfect God.

The wonderful answer to this question by @Richard inspired this question.

First of all you start with a false premise. Jesus was not created! He is the creator. What is possible for him to be and become is not necessarily possible to create.

Secondly, something created in such a fashion that it would remain sinless would make it a very different kind of being than a sinful being that has been redeemed and made perfect out of imperfection. The latter is a MUCH HARDER feat and shows off the glory and the power of Christ.

There is no mistake. From the beginning God set out to do something hard to demonstrate the power of his Son. The history of salvation begins not at the fall of man (as if something went unexpectedly wrong) but before creation itself. Jesus is knows as the Lamb who was slain before the foundations of the world. How salvation would work was decided and implemented and the results written down before man came along to test the plan.

  Revelation 13:8 (ESV)
  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.


Is my confession valid if I didn't say the Act of Contrition? I shared my confession with the priest. He told me not to bother with the Act of Contrition. There was one typed always on the table. I turned to look at it, it wasn't there. I could have said it without it but some words have changed.

Assuming you are Catholic, yes, your confession is valid.  The Catechism of the Catholic Church discusses the penitent's participation in the sacrament around paragraphs 1450-1460.  Your three duties are "contrition", "confession", and "satisfaction" (the latter being the part where you carry out the assigned penance and do your best to sin no more).

If the priest said the words of absolution but asked you not to say the Act of Contrition, that's fine.  Priests will often do this if they have a lot of people waiting in line to receive the sacrament.

The main things that could result in an invalid or ineffective reconciliation would be if you weren't really contrite, didn't really intend to stop sinning, or if you deliberately chose not to reveal some of your mortal sins, or if for some reason the priest forgets to say the words of absolution.


According to the Holy Spirit's infallible inspiration of scripture, is anything ever recorded that is unnecessary or curious? I wonder sometimes where the role of Bible trivia and extensive historical research plays into the Bible.  For example, Melchisedec, is a type of Christ in a great part because the Bible does not provide any genealogical record of him, he just appears as though he never had a beginning. If somebody found some ancient monument that recorded an oral history of Melchisedec's parents, to best grasp the meaning in the Bible one would have to try and not think about that discovery.  It would be very curious and unnecessary information.

I am not questioning if Q & A about various things does not have some theoretical value, as it eventually pertains to life and death.  However, as far as scriptures themselves are concerned, is the Bible ever interested in the curious for the sake of general interest, or the unnecessary to life and death?

Nothing is unnecessary within scripture: everything mentioned in scripture is essential and not merely curious, because all scripture is useful for teaching, refutation, correction, and training in righteousness:

  2 Timothy 3:16-17
  16 All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17
  so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work.

Regarding study, and we may presume especially study of the trivial, take care to not exhaust yourself:

  Ecclesiastes 12:9-14
  Epilogue. 9
  Besides being wise, Qoheleth taught the people knowledge, and weighed, scrutinized and arranged many proverbs.
  10
  Qoheleth sought to find appropriate sayings, and to write down true sayings with precision.
  11
  The sayings of the wise are like goads; like fixed spikes are the collected sayings given by one shepherd.
  12
  As to more than these, my son, beware. Of the making of many books there is no end, and in much study there is weariness for the flesh.
  13
  The last word, when all is heard: Fear God and keep his commandments, for this concerns all humankind;
  14
  because God will bring to judgment every work, with all its hidden qualities, whether good or bad.

(An aside: Christ does have a very important genealogical history through His Blessed Mother, Mary.)


What does the Bible say in regards to technological development? With regards to technological advances, the study of technology and continuing to make medical and convenience advancements that prolong life, and the "playing god" complex.

What does the Bible have to say about these, in a literal sense(not interpreted).  There's many nay-says that come about when medical or technological advancements come around that seem to push the boundaries of human civilization and knowledge.  Are there any passages in the Bible that denounce the quest for learning, or for advancement in the sense that we could clone life, stem-cell research, etc?

This has been a hot topic for me for quite some time, when intellectually arguing these I seem to not have any study material ready.  What does the Bible say about "playing god" to sum it up?

The Bible says nothing directly about technological advancement. It neither condemns nor condones. The closest you could come to a Biblical statement is the story of the Tower of Babel, in which mankind advances and God intervenes to set us back a bit, for the sole purpose of restraining us. (verses 6-8 below)

  Genesis 11:1-9

  King James Version (KJV)

  11 And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech.

  2 And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they
  found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there.

  3 And they said one to another, Go to, let us make brick, and burn
  them thoroughly. And they had brick for stone, and slime had they for
  morter.

  4 And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top
  may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered
  abroad upon the face of the whole earth.

  5 And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the
  children of men builded.

  6 And the Lord said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one
  language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be
  restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.

  7 Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they
  may not understand one another's speech.

  8 So the Lord scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all
  the earth: and they left off to build the city.

  9 Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the Lord did there
  confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the Lord
  scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.

However, this isn't so much a denouncement on technology as a denouncement on pride and arrogance.

As for individual technological advancement, Scripture is silent. On general, it's how we choose to use technology that can be addressed Scripturally. The same computer that can be used to steal or view pornography can be used to share medical knowledge and save lives. The technology is neither good not evil in and of itself.

As for "playing God", that isn't a good fit for the site because the definition of "playing God" is different for different people and groups. I will go no further than to say that clearly, the Bible is not opposed to medicine and following medical guidelines to save and protect lives. For example, many of the Old Testament laws were designed to protect the people from disease.