What are the current views of the Catholic Church on the right to secession? I’ve recently heard an interesting opinion that no entity has moral right to exercise authority upon any social group that is unwilling to remain under this authority (excluding inmates). Therefore, any group has the right to secede, and the central authority may not try to force the seceding entity to remain within the state, even if the secessions would lead to the end of the larger state.

For example, the Union had no right to wage war against the Confederation in attempt to enforce the integrity of the U.S.A.; the Basques and the Scottish should be granted independence; the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth had no right to fight the Cossacks as they did, instead they should have granted the Cossacks independence, and limit themselves to defending their new, shrunken borders against the Cossack raids. Note that it is not my intend to discuss these particular examples, I am providing them only to help understand the main issue.

These claims were made by a Catholic priest and were backed up by some ecumenical council (sadly I don’t remember which one), which allegedly stated that each nation has the right to self-determination or even to have it’s one state (again, sadly I don’t remember the details here). Additionally, these opinions seem to be backed up by CCC 1901, which states: “If authority belongs to the order established by God, "the choice of the political regime and the appointment of rulers are left to the free decision of the citizens."” – with a footnote directing to “GS 74 # 3.”

Does the Catholic Church really teach that every group has the right to secede whenever it wishes so? Does it forbid forceful attempts to prevent such secession in any case? Are there any official documents on the matter?

The morality of secession is related to the tyrannicide (killing of tyrants) thesis of the Spanish scholastic Jesuit Fr. Juan de Mariana, ch. 5 of his De Rege.

The economist Jesús Huerta de Soto, who specializes in Spanish scholasticism, describes Fr. De Mariana's thesis in his article "Juan de Mariana and the Spanish Scholastics" (cf. his related lecture):

  Although Father Juan de Mariana wrote many books, the first one with a libertarian content was, perhaps, the book entitled De rege et regis institutione (“On the King and the Royal Institution”) published in 1598, in which he set forth his famous defence of tyrannicide. According to Mariana any individual citizen can justly assassinate a king who imposes taxes without the people’s consent, seizes the property of individuals and squanders it, or prevents a meeting of a democratic parliament.⁷ The doctrines contained in this book were apparently used to justify the assassination of the French tyrant kings Henry III and Henry IV and the book was burned in Paris by the executioner as a result of a decree issued by the Parliament of Paris on July 4, 1610.⁸

  In Spain, although the authorities were not enthusiastic about it, the book was respected. In fact, all Mariana did was to take the idea that natural law is morally superior to the might of the state to its logical conclusion. This idea had previously been developed in detail by the great founder of international law, the Dominican Francisco de Vitoria (1485-1546), who began the Spanish scholastic tradition of denouncing the conquest and particularly the enslavement of the Indians by the Spaniards in the New World.

  Notes⁷Mariana describes the tyrant as follows:He seizes the property of individuals and squanders it, impelled as he is by the unkingly vices of lust, avarice, cruelty, and fraud … Tyrants, indeed, try to injure and ruin everybody, but they direct their attack especially against rich and upright men throughout the realm. They consider the good more suspect than the evil; and the virtue which they themselves lack is most formidable to them … They expel the better men from the commonwealth on the principle that whatever is exalted in the kingdom should be laid low … They exhaust all the rest so that they can not unite by demanding new tributes from them daily, by stirring up quarrels among the citizens, and by joining war to war. They build huge works at the expense and the suffering of the citizens. Whence the pyramids of Egypt were born … The tyrant necessarily fears that those whom he terrorizes and holds as slaves will attempt to overthrow him … Thus he forbids the citizens to congregate together, to meet in assemblies, and to discuss the commonwealth altogether, taking from them by secret-police methods the opportunity of free speaking and freely listening so that they are not even allowed to complain freely.—Murray N. Rothbard, Economic Thought before Adam Smith, op. cit., pp. 118-119.⁸See Juan de Mariana, Discurso de las enfermedades de la Compañía, imprenta de Don Gabriel Ramírez, calle de Barrionuevo, Madrid, año de 1768, “Dissertation on the author, and the legitimacy of this discourse”, p. 53.

An interesting part of Prof. Huerta de Soto's lecture (@17:54):

  But Mariana insists on another very important idea. He says natural law is vastly superior to the power of each king or ruler. This is an essential idea that is still perfectly applicable today. I believe that we must be aware of and very proud of the fact that when Thomas Jefferson, the founding father of the United States, was considering whether or not to rise up against the king of England, in order to give encouragement to Madison and the rest of the founding fathers of the great American homeland, he says to them: "You only have to read one book: The History of Spain by Fr. Juan de Mariana." And, in fact, Madison even sent him a copy of the book [vol. 2; here's a scan of Madison's copy on Internet Archive], because it is a history of Spain written from the perspective of freedom, unmasking the tyrants.

It indeed is Catholic teaching that natural law is superior to human law. For the relationship between Divine, natural, and human law, see St. Thomas Aquinas's Treatise on Law (Summa Theologica I-II qq. 90-108).

Also, see the article "The Shipwreck of Secession" by Catholic author John Horvat II


Are names of godparents written on Baptism Certificate? My friend agreed to be a godfather for my baby. But he cannot be present at ceremony for some visa/travel reasons. Will his name get written on the Baptism Certificate? I want to present/show him some memorial evidence that he is a godparent once we meet.

It totally depends on the church that issue the certificate.

In many denominations - especially Baptists and other evangelical congregationalist denominations - the certificate itself is generated by the church secretary.  It is not a legal form, even if it can be used as a proxy for a birth certificate in some circumstances. In a Roman Catholic church, or another more hierarchical one, the pastor may have less discretion as to the form of the certificate, but good pastoral care will usually lead him to find another solution.

As a non-official document, pastors can exercise discretion in how it is made out - and if there is a genuine request to help another's feelings, good pastoral care would suggest that a pastor should make a reasonable effort to accomodate the request.

In situations where the godparents' names do not appear on the certificate, the pastor would usually be willing to sign some form of acknowledgement that the parents have selected whomever as a godparent.

The key duty of a godparent, other than shock, horror, renouncing Satan is to vouch for the Christian upbringing of the child.  Even if the godparent is not present, if he or she is willing to take the same vow, most pastors would likely honor the request, and signify it some fashion if requested.


Does the Catholic Church teach there is only one person? I’ve stumbled upon a person who has made a few interesting claims. According to her, among others:

  Other people are only another physical form of yourself.

  There exists only one unposseded [by ego] and indivisible mind.

  In Truth, that is in the opposite of what we are presently in, we are one in Christ. We are thence one spirit of Christ and the body we don is temporary. So, as the apostles were saying, there is no female, slave, child… However the physical body must perceive something and perceives what it believes in. As in the beginning there was Adam and Eve as one. As there are branches in the vine but there is one vine.

  For anyone, who wishes to think reasonably and wisely, [the one unpossesed and indivisible mind] is the mind of Holy Spirit. For those who prefer to let themselves be possessed by a separate mind (located in the brain – egoistic ego), Holy Spirit is inaccessible and their thinking by the so-called brain is, euphemistically speaking, a dissimulation of thinking.

(The above quotations are literally the statements she has made, I only made effort to translate them into English, hopefully the translation is faithful to the original claims.)

This person, who maintains these assertions, claims to be a Christian, and a consequent and radical one. For me, such assertions rather looked as if they were rooted in New Age or Buddhism rather than Christianity, so I asked her which Church does she belong to. To my astonishment, she said she was a Catholic. She further maintains that the above assertions are a result of her own studies of truth, of the more accurate and more faithful reading of the Bible, of the praying experience of befriended Catholics, and also that these claims are, in part, kind of a revelation that is testified by miracles.

To my knowledge, according to (almost?) all major denominations of Christianity, God, creating humans and angels, has created many persons, distinct from Himself and distinct from each other. Claiming that all humans are in fact one person, who is God, and that any other perception is an illusion of the physical brain that is possessed by ego, seems to me to either be an outright heresy or, at best, some unwarranted religious syncretism, attempting to mix in foreign philosophical systems (New Age? Buddhism?) into Christianity. Claiming that all people are “one spirit of Christ” seems to me to border blasphemy.

Or, maybe, am I wrong? After all, I do not have any official documents issued by the Church to disprove this person’s claims.

Therefore, since she claimed to be a Catholic, may I ask:

Does the Catholic Church teach what she claimed?
Does the Catholic Church teach something opposite to what she claimed, and therefore by definition one cannot maintain such assertions and be a Catholic at the same time?
Does the Catholic Church not teach anything in this matter, and therefore every Catholic is free to believe whatever they choose?

No, in fact the Catholic Church teaches no such thing. One approach to seeing this is to understand the way the Church sees the body and soul:

The human person, created in the image of God, is a being at once corporeal and spiritual. ... The Church teaches that every spiritual soul is created immediately by God ... and also that it is immortal: it does not perish when it separates from the body at death, and it will be reunited with the body at the final Resurrection.

(Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraphs 362, 366)
This implies that every human being is a separate creation with an individual soul, so that "Other people are only another physical form of yourself" is in fact false. So, indeed, is the statement that "The body we don is temporary". Our bodies, though they will die, will return at the Resurrection where they and the soul will be united eternally.
This doesn't say much directly about the mind. Aquinas, however, did deal with this. In his Summa Theologica, First Part, Question 76 Article 2, Aquinas asks "Whether the intellectual principle is multiplied according to the number of bodies", that is, whether there is just one mind, or one mind for each body. His conclusion is:

If there is one intellect ... in no way is it possible to say that Socrates and Plato are otherwise than one understanding man. And if to this we add that to understand, which is the act of the intellect, is not affected by any organ other than the intellect itself; it will further follow that there is but one agent and one action: that is to say that all men are but one "understander," and have but one act of understanding. ...
However, it would be possible to distinguish my intellectual action from yours by the distinction of the phantasms---that is to say, were there one phantasm of a stone in me, and another in you---if the phantasm itself, as it is one thing in me and another in you, were a form of the possible intellect; since the same agent according to divers forms produces divers actions. ... But the phantasm itself is not a form of the possible intellect; it is the intelligible species abstracted from the phantasm that is a form. Now in one intellect, from different phantasms of the same species, only one intelligible species is abstracted; as appears in one man, in whom there may be different phantasms of a stone; yet from all of them only one intelligible species of a stone is abstracted; by which the intellect of that one man, by one operation, understands the nature of a stone, notwithstanding the diversity of phantasms. Therefore, if there were one intellect for all men, the diversity of phantasms which are in this one and that one would not cause a diversity of intellectual operation in this man and that man. It follows, therefore, that it is altogether impossible and unreasonable to maintain that there exists one intellect for all men.

This is difficult; but essentially what he's saying is that if there were only one mind, then there would be only one "understander" and therefore only one way of understanding each thing. Everyone, then, would understand everything the same way. But this is obviously false. Therefore there is not "only one unpossessed and indivisible mind".
What your friend seems to be embracing is not Catholicism, but something a bit like Buddhism and a bit like some form of gnosticism.


What is "state of perfection"? What does Aquinas mean when he speaks of "state of perfection", or more broadly, what does Catholic Church mean by "state of perfection"? He often uses this phrase in works like Summa Theologiae, On the perfection of spiritual life etc.

Referring to St. Thomas Aquinas's De perfectione vitæ spiritualis c. 15, Fr. Royo Marín, O.P., in La vida religiosa p. 116, defines "state of perfection" in general:

  States of Christian perfection are those whose members are obliged in a permanent and stable manner, through certain means,* to acquire Christian perfection or to exercise it for the good of others.

  [Son aquellos estados de vida cristiana cuyos miembros se obligan de una manera permanente y estable, mediante determinados medios, a adquirir la perfección cristiana o a ejercitarla en bien de los demás.]

*such as a rule approved by the Church, like St. Benedict's Rule or St. Augustine's Rule

Thus, "state of perfection" can be divided into that for

acquiring perfection

Religious life, whose primary object is God.cf. Summa Theologica II-II q. 186 a. 1 "Whether religion implies a state of perfection?"

exercising perfection for the good of others

Episcopal state, whose object is the good of others out of the love of God.

St. Thomas's articles on the question of the state of perfection in general (Summa Theologica II-II q. 184) are well worth reading. Relevant here are articles

1. Whether the perfection of the Christian life consists chiefly in charity?A thing is said to be perfect in so far as it attains its proper end, which is the ultimate perfection thereof. Now it is charity that unites us to God, Who is the last end of the human mind, since "he that abideth in charity abideth in God, and God in him" (1 Jn. 4:16). Therefore the perfection of the Christian life consists radically in charity.
4. Whether whoever is perfect is in the state of perfection?properly speaking, one is said to be in the state of perfection, not through having the act of perfect love, but through binding himself in perpetuity and with a certain solemnity to those things that pertain to perfection.cf. II-II q. 186 a. 1 ad 3: "it does not follow that whoever is in the state of perfection is already perfect, but that he tends to perfection." Even those who struggle upholding the 10 Commandments are permitted to enter religion, because "the religious state is a spiritual schooling for the attainment of the perfection of charity," "accomplished through the removal of the obstacles to perfect charity by religious observances" (II-II q. 189 a. 1 co.).
7. Whether the religious state is more perfect than that of prelates [bishops]?As Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. xii, 16), "the agent is ever more excellent than the patient." Now in the genus of perfection according to Dionysius (Eccl. Hier. v, vi), bishops are in the position of "perfecters," whereas religious are in the position of being "perfected"; the former of which pertains to action, and the latter to passion. Whence it is evident that the state of perfection is more excellent in bishops than in religious.It is from the abundance of their love of God that bishops are able to love their flock. This is why Jesus first asked St. Peter if he loved him and then commanded him to feed His flock (John 21:15-17).

cf. Fr. Hardon, S.J.'s definition of "state of perfection" as

  Those stable forms of living in which some of the faithful bind themselves by vows, or promises equivalent to vows, to practice the evangelical counsels of poverty, chastity, and obedience. They are called states of perfection because those who live in these states agree to follow a particular rule of life, approved by the Church, whose faithful observance will certainly lead to Christian perfection.


How is Acts 7:48 reconciled with omnipresence doctrines? Some verses seem to indicate that God is indeed not omnipresent such as Acts 7:48, "The Most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands". How is this specific verse reconciled with the doctrine that God is omnipresent?

'Dwelling' does not simply mean to 'be present'. It means to reside or inhabit. If you go into a shop, you are not 'dwelling' in the shop, but you are present there. If you say "I do not dwell in the shop" it doesn't mean you never go in there, or that you are not there now.

The point is that God is above 'dwelling' in places that humans have made. He has his own 'dwelling places (in so far as he dwells anywhere), but has no need of human temples.


Reformed perspective on "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us" (Acts 15:28) Acts 15 records the Council of Jerusalem, a meeting in about 50AD of early Church leaders regarding whether Gentiles could be Christians  without first becoming Jews. "After much discussion" (15:7) they decide to write a letter to say that converts need not follow the practices of Judaism. What interests me is the terms in which they describe the decision in their letter; verse 28 says (NIV):

  It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements.

On the face of it, this looks a little like the statement attributed to Bernard Montgomery, "God said, and I agree with him..."!

It could be that the text is simply giving emphasis to the determination of the apostles and elders to carry out what the Holy Spirit has indicated. But the way it's phrased, and the context of the meeting, seem to point to the church having authority in this moment; that there's something special about these people being gathered together, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, which gives them the right to make the decision and send the letter. They are acting jointly with the Spirit in a way that goes beyond mere acquiescence.

I'm sure that Catholic and Orthodox readers would have no trouble at all here. However, I think that from a Reformed perspective it would be more difficult to admit special authority of this kind. When Calvin writes about later Church councils, for example, he seems to regard them as existing merely for practical "convenience" (Institutes 4.9.13), to elucidate the contents of Scripture, and always in a strictly subordinate role ("it is the right of Christ to preside over all councils, and not share the honour with any man", Institutes 4.9.1). How can that be squared with the "and to us" here in Acts?

In short, from a Reformed point of view, what is the point of mentioning "and to us", and what relationship do Reformed theologians envisage existing between the Spirit and the Church at this moment?

But the way [Acts 15:28 is] phrased, and the context of the meeting, seem to point to the church having authority in this moment; that there's something special about these people being gathered together, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, which gives them the right to make the decision and send the letter.

Yes.  The early church leaders had the authority to decide what was and what wasn't Christianity.  Paul's letters were not merely good advice.  They were guidance for the various congregations.

Today, whether a church is part of a large denomination or an independent entity, somebody or some group runs the church.  Administratively and doctrinally.

Hopefully, this leadership group runs the church with the counsel and guidance of the Holy Spirit.  And the Holy Spirit is willing to guide the leadership group in harmony with God's will.

John 16:13-15 (NRSV):

  When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own, but will speak whatever he hears, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify me, because he will take what is mine and declare it to you. All that the Father has is mine. For this reason I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you.


Do Calvinists Disbelieve the Doctrine of Eternal Generation as a 'Begetting'? I read this on a Calvinist website (emphasis mine):

  Monogenes – This fallacy has existed for years and caused much confusion and damage. It is thought by many to be derived from monos (only) and gennao (to beget), hence “only-begotten”, however this is untrue. The word is found in John 1:14, 18: 3:16, 18; Hebrews 11:17; and 1 John 4:9. The KJV is famous for using the wording “only begotten”, though it did not originate there. This mis-translation of the Greek word has existed for centuries, and can be found even in some of the best early church creeds, such as the Nicene Creed and Athanasian Creed. The best translation would probably be something like unique, special, well-beloved son, as the two Greek words which it is comprised of properly suggest: monos (only) and genos (type, class).

Do Calvinists reject that the Son was eternally "begotten of the Father before all ages" (ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς γεννηθέντα πρὸ πάντων τῶν αἰώνων)? Or is this just an argument about the meaning of the word μονογενής as a standalone adjective?

Thanks in advance.

The Calvinistic position, traditionally, is not that the Son is (as stated in the question) 'begotten of the Father before all ages', but, rather, that the Son is :

  eternally begotten of the Father.

A very informative article by Benjamin W. Swinburnson states it thus :

  This doctrine, as classically defined in Reformed theology, states that God the Father, by an eternal personal act, by necessity of nature, generates the person (not the essence) of the Son by communicating to him the whole indivisible substance of the Godhead, without division, alienation, or change.

And his article, in detail, argues that John Calvin did so teach.

The begetting, so taught, is a matter of an eternal begetting, without beginning, without ending, outside of time. It is an eternal matter - between the Father and the Son - and is fulfilled in one Spirit.


What is the basis for Cessationism? Cessationism is the belief held by some protestants that the miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit, such as prophecy, do not occur in present day.  The general thinking is that these gifts "ceased" at the completion of the canon, closing any new revelation.

What is the basis for this belief?  I'm interested in Biblical, logical, empirical and historical arguments.

The argument for Cessationalism tends to be empirical rather Biblical.

While there is significant evidence for glossalia in the NT writings (it is mentioned heavily), by the time of the Church Fathers  (1 Clement, Didache, Polycarp, etc...), the evidence is scant.
During most of recorded church theology (everything from say, Origin, Jerome, etc... to the Azusa Street Revival in 1900, this gift seems to have largely bypassed written record.
This is often excused / explained by the idea that the gift of prophecy and miracles was superceded by the written Word of God.  Another idea is that the gifts were no longer being used for their intended purpose.

The presence of miracles in Jesus' testimony, for example, was clearly given "in order that you might believe" (see Mark 2:8, Matt 17:26) and not for show (e.g. Luke 11:28-32). In Acts 2, the toungues were given as a miracle to substantiate the authority of the Apostles (those who would be 'sent out'). But, as Paul indicates in 1 Cor 12, the showy gifts like toungues and prophecy were causing divisions amongst believers.

As mentioned by Software Monkey, Pentecostal churches explicitly reject Cessationalism.  The aforemention Azusa Street Revival (and modern manifestations such as the Toronto Blessing) are, for the Penetcostal movement, the evidence of their legitimacy.  The term, of course, refers to the contrary position held by non-Pentecostals.


According to the Catholic Church, what did Jesus mean by saying “Least of these commandments "? We see Jesus saying at Matthew 5:18-19:

  For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one  stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, will be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

I am interested in knowing as to what Jesus meant by `these commandments'. Did he refer to the Ten Commandments and if so, which ones are the least of the commandments, according to the Catholic Church ?

There is surely a hierarchy of commandments. It begins with our duty toward God and goes on to speak of our duty to our fellow man; by definition, that is in an order of greater importance to less, inasmuch as God is more important, quite simply, than man. Moreover, keeping the latter are worthless unless the former are kept as a basis - not committing adultery will do no good if God is not treated as God, or His name is taken in vain: for "without faith it is impossible to please God. For he that cometh to God, must believe that he is, and is a rewarder to them that seek him" (Hebrews 11:6). Likewise, if you don't not murder your brother, how can you do him the justice of not stealing from him? Back to God - what use is not taking God's name in vain, unless you first acknowledge God to be the only God, and refrain from idolatry?

As for whether Jesus means more than the Ten, this is highly unlikely. The phrase "the Commandments" seems to have referred to only ashreth ha'dabrim (the Ten Commandments), as can be seen from Luke 18:20/Mark 10:19, for example:

  Mark 10:19 (DRB) Thou knowest the commandments: Do not commit adultery, do not kill, do not steal, bear not false witness, do no fraud, honour thy father and mother.

And indeed the fact that even God separated these from the rest by terming them The Ten Commandments in the Old Testament):

  Deuteronomy 4:13 (DRB) And he shewed you his covenant, which he commanded you to do, and the ten words that he wrote in two tables of stone.

("Words" had a wider semantic range than 'single word' in Hebrew, and here refers to the commandments.)

Of interest is that Jesus observes no particular order when listing the commandments. However, this is more likely to reflect the order in which the author listed them, since Luke omits "do no fraud," for example. About all we can know is that Jesus listed the latter commandments in some kind of order.


How do Mormons interpret Isaiah 43:10? "Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me." - Isaiah 43:10 (KJV)

In King Follett Sermon, Joseph Smith teaches that members of the LDS church may too become gods one day:
Eternal Life to Know God and Jesus Christ (King Follett Sermon)

The scriptures say it, and I defy all the learning and wisdom and all the combined powers of earth and hell together to refute it. Here, then, is eternal life—to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn how to be gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all gods have done before you, namely, by going from one small degree to another, and from a small capacity to a great one; from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, until you attain to the resurrection of the dead, and are able to dwell in everlasting burnings, and to sit in glory, as do those who sit enthroned in everlasting power. And I want you to know that God, in the last days, while certain individuals are proclaiming His name, is not trifling with you or me.

Moreover; we are aware that the Church of Latter Day Saints believes that the Godhead (Father Son & Holy Ghost) are three separate gods sharing the same will.

Although the members of the Godhead are distinct beings with distinct
roles, they are one in purpose and doctrine. They are perfectly united
in bringing to pass Heavenly Father's divine plan of salvation.
Godhead (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints)

Also; Abraham 4 teaches creation was committed by multiple gods.

And then the Lord said: Let us go down. And they went down at the beginning, and they, that is the Gods, organized and formed the heavens and the earth.

With this in mind; How does the Church of Latter Day Saints interpret Isaiah 43:10? Bonus points if the verse is kept in context.

First, it's important to take that scripture in context so going through verse 12 reads:

  Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.
  I, even I, am the Lord; and beside me there is no saviour.
  I have declared, and have saved, and I have shewed, when there was no strange god among you: therefore ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord, that I am God.

In this scripture, the Lord is addressing the issue of the Israelites worshipping other gods. He tells them that he, YHWH, is Israel's only god and the only god to be worshiped, not some false idol (see Isaiah 42:17 ...say to the molten images, Ye are our gods.).

Other scriptures of the Israelites being encouraged to stop worshiping other divine beings or idols, but Yahweh alone (it's a recurring theme/problem):

Isaiah 41:29
Isaiah 42:8
Isaiah 43:24
Isaiah 44:8-10,17,19
Isaiah 45:9,12,16,20,22

Another important doctrine on man becoming gods is that to us(man) there is only God. I will use an analogy (god::father): each of us has one father. One can strive to become a father, and those that do don't replace their father; their father is now a grandfather. Anything you do, or children you have, add to your grandfather's posterity also.

Related:

1 Cor 8:5-6 (to us there is only one God)

Scriptures on theosis (man becoming a god):

Romans 8:14-18
John 10:28-35 (the Jew's law said they were gods, the law was given to them by the Lord)
Revelation 1:5-6 (has similar phrasing as used in King Follet discourse: kings and priests unto God)

Creation by gods/plurality of gods:

Genesis 1:1 (the hebrew used for God translates to Elohim, and the definition is gods) see Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith pg 371
Genesis 1:26 (man in our own image)
Genesis 3:5 (shall be as the gods)
Psalms 82:1
Psalms 86:8

On verse 10 where it says before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. is similar to Isaiah 44:6 where again the Lord says beside me there is no God. Both seem to exclude all else, but similar phrasing found in other scriptures helps us understand that this is not the case. Isaiah 47:8-10 on the city of Babylon:

  Therefore hear now this, thou that art given to pleasures, that dwellest carelessly, that sayest in thine heart, I am, and none else beside me; I shall not sit as a widow, neither shall I know the loss of children:
  But these two things shall come to thee in a moment in one day, the loss of children, and widowhood: they shall come upon thee in their perfection for the multitude of thy sorceries, and for the great abundance of thine enchantments.
  For thou hast trusted in thy wickedness: thou hast said, None seeth me. Thy wisdom and thy knowledge, it hath perverted thee; and thou hast said in thine heart, I am, and none else beside me.

Seems to exclude any other city but in Zephaniah 2:15 on the city of Ninevah, it has the same phrase.

  This is the rejoicing city that dwelt carelessly, that said in her heart, I am, and there is none beside me: how is she become a desolation, a place for beasts to lie down in! every one that passeth by her shall hiss, and wag his hand.

This verse (the original v10) just means that the Lord is our Savior, no one else. It's also important to look at the phrasing 'before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me', God has always existed, and since He will always exist no man can ever be exalted "before" or "after" Him. All men who are exalted to godhood will be contemporaries of Yahweh, and will never precede nor follow Yahweh's existence. They will also become part of the divine council over which he presides.

More articles on this topic (it's a quite broad subject, any one topic touches upon other unique Mormon beliefs and it would be a very long answer if I tried to answer all of them here)

Besides Me there is no Saviour
Becoming like god
Old Testament Seminary Manual on Isaiah 43
No God beside me


Is there any extra-Biblical 'evidence' of Herod's murder of babies? When Herod heard of the news from the kings form east that there was a new king (Jesus) born, he ordered the killing of all boys younger than the age of two. So that would have been a great slaughter. So is there any historical 'evidence' for that event?

The short answer is: none known to date.  A variety of speculation has arisen on the relationship between how Herod conducted himself and the impact that had on the narrations related to him in scripture.

At the lowest level of detail: the Wikipedia article cites a decent range of sources and still concludes there are no contemporary sources that match one for one with the event reported in scripture.  (As Wiki articles go, it's a decent one).

G.J. Goldberg (http://www.josephus.org/ntparallels.htm#innocents) examines NT parallels with Josephus, in detail, arrives at the same conclusion.  He cites an example from antiquities having to do with a number of Pharisees being put to death as being possibly related.

  The story demonstrates at the least that the actions of Herod and the
  other people in the nativity story was not unheard of for the time, so
  that something of the sort {slaughter of innocents} might have occurred but escaped Josephus' notice. Or, the above story itself might have served as the nucleus of a tale that was elaborated over the years and applied to Jesus by his followers.

Herod was rough with a lot of people.  From Goldberg:

  Incidentally, in Antiquities 17.6.5 174 there is described a forced
  mass movement of people just before Herod's death. These people the
  king had planned to have these murdered so the Jews would be mourning
  when he died, rather than holding joyful festivities to celebrate his
  passing. This movement could conceivably have contributed both to the
  story of the slaughter of the innocents and the census of Quirinius ...


What does Paul mean by "Love believes all things?" In 1 Corinthians Paul says

  Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. (1 Corinthians 13:7, ESV)

This has long puzzled me from a couple of angles.

First, is this instructive, or descriptive?  What I mean is, is Paul saying that to be loving, this is how we must behave?  Or is he saying, someone who loves just naturally displays these characteristics?

Second, if this is instructive, what does it mean that love believes all things?  Hopes, and bears/endures, I get, but believes?  Let me use a personal example: an adulterous spouse.  I love her and she claims with great energy that it will never happen again.  I believe her, but it does.  And she claims again that it will stop.  I believe her??  Every time?  For how long?

If it is descriptive, then believes makes sense, because as the cliche says, "Love is blind" so of course love believes all things.

Any insights into this?

Since Paul didn't expand on this, the best we can do is to review what noted theologians have said about this.  To get some good answers, you really need to look no further than Bible commentaries.

Bear in mind that the type of love here is agape love, which is also translated as charity, or selfless love.  It's not speaking of romantic love as on "love is blind", it's speaking of the selfless love that puts others first.

The general consensus is that it means that if you are truly charitable, you will have the type of love trusts by default.  That you're not cynical by nature.

To back this up:

From the Pulpit Commentary

  Believeth all things. Takes the best and kindest views of all men and
  all circumstances, as long as it is possible to do so. It is the
  opposite to the common spirit, which drags everything in deteriorem
  partem, paints it in the darkest colours, and makes the worst of it.
  Love is entirely alien from the spirit of the cynic, the pessimist,
  the ecclesiastical rival, the anonymous slanderer, the secret
  detractor.

From Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

  believeth all things; that are to be believed, all that God says in
  his word, all his truths, and all his promises; and even sometimes in
  hope against hope, as Abraham did, relying upon the power,
  faithfulness, and other perfections of God; though such a man will not
  believe every spirit, every preacher and teacher, nor any but such as
  agree with the Scriptures of truth, the standard of faith and
  practice; nor will he believe every word of man, which is the
  character of a weak and foolish man; indeed, a man of charity or love
  is willing to believe all the good things reported of men; he is very
  credulous of such things, and is unwilling to believe ill reports of
  persons, or any ill of men; unless it is open and glaring, and is well
  supported, and there is full evidence of it; he is very incredulous in
  this respect:

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary

  believeth all things—unsuspiciously believes all that is not palpably
  false, all that it can with a good conscience believe to the credit of
  another. Compare Jas 3:17, "easy to be entreated"; Greek, "easily
  persuaded."


Do prayers offered to anyone but God the Father go unheard? What is the opinion of the LDS Church concerning prayers offered to Saints, Mary, and Jesus Christ? Are they simply vain words? Are they in anyway acknowledged? Is it considered unrighteous to pray to anyone but God the Father?

First of all, God is the one who decides which prayers he answers, not us. I take it for granted that he hears all prayers, and it would be presumptuous to say prayers addressed to X go unheard.

Nevertheless, Christ taught that we ought to pray the Father, in his name. Let's just do it and not wonder whether he will answer other people's prayers or not. Generally, I feel Church doctrine is more about defining what is right, than to define what is wrong. Praying the Father in the name of Christ is the right thing to do, because Jesus said so.

Additionaly, I feel that God deserves the honor that we address him directly.

References:

John 16:23-27

  23 And in that day ye shall ask me nothing. Verily, verily, I say unto
  you, Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it
  you.

  24 Hitherto have ye asked nothing in my name: ask, and ye shall
  receive, that your joy may be full.

  25 These things have I spoken unto you in proverbs: but the time
  cometh, when I shall no more speak unto you in proverbs, but I shall
  shew you plainly of the Father.

  26 At that day ye shall ask in my name: and I say not unto you, that
  I will pray the Father for you:

  27 For the Father himself loveth you, because ye have loved me, and
  have believed that I came out from God.

And, while not directly related, I'd like to add:

Isaiah 8:19

  And when they shall say unto you, Seek unto them that have familiar
  spirits, and unto wizards that peep, and that mutter: should not a
  people seek unto their God? for the living to the dead?

What I am trying to say is this: Do people pray to Saints because they think God himself won't hear/answer them? What are they trying to achieve by this?

Also slightly unrelated, this is part of what the Bible Dictionary has to say about prayer:

  Christians are taught to pray in Christ’s name (John 14:13–14; 15:7,
  16; 16:23–24). We pray in Christ’s name when our mind is the mind of
  Christ, and our wishes the wishes of Christ—when His words abide in us
  (John 15:7). We then ask for things it is possible for God to grant.
  Many prayers remain unanswered because they are not in Christ’s name
  at all; they in no way represent His mind but spring out of the
  selfishness of man’s heart.

Personally, I feel this is far more likely to be the cause of unanswered prayer than some formality coming from being taught one way or the other.


Can we treat sin with another sin? Matthew 18:9

  And if your eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away.
  It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes
  and be thrown into the fire of hell.

Now it is obvious that self-harm is a sinful act. I understand that the verse is not meant literally but I wonder if it can be justified in different situations. Even some saints used self-harm to prevent them from sinning in a different area of their life. (St. Francis throwing himself into bushes with thorns to deal with lust)

For example:
If a man is worried he might commit an adultery, is it ok for him to get castrated? There is a discussion going on whether to castrate sex offenders. It will protect our society and maybe even their families. Or maybe tell a lie to prevent harm if saying the truth could cause greater harm.
There are many other examples I could mention but I don't want to make them as a subject of my question but simply to ask:
Can we treat sin with another sin? Or can one sin be justified as the mean to prevent another sin?

Ends do not justify means
No, it is never permissible to sin so that good may come about.
St. Paul wrote:

Rom. 3:8let us not do evil that there may come good

and

Rom. 5:20 & 6:1where sin abounded, grace did more abound. […] [So] shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid.

Grace is always sufficient to doing good:

2 Cor. 12:9My grace is sufficient for thee

Soul to be preferred over the body
Both the body and soul are goods, and it is against the 5th Commandment to do bodily or spiritual harm to oneself, but usually the body (a good) is against the soul (another good):

Gal. 5:16-17I say then, walk in the spirit, and you shall not fulfill the lusts of the flesh. For the flesh lusteth against the spirit: and the spirit against the flesh; for these are contrary one to another.

This is why the Church prescribes fasting and abstinence, for mortifying our evil inclinations.
Because we are dealing with two goods (body and soul), we must apply the principle of double-effect (cf. this Christianity StackExchange answer) and prefer the soul over the body:

Mat. 10:28…fear ye not them that kill the body, and are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him that can destroy both soul and body in hell.

Tolerating evil to prevent greater evil or to do greater good
Sin can be tolerated in order to prevent a greater evil. For example, a ruler could tolerate the evil ideology of Islam because if he condemned it, it might excite Muslims to greater violence and make Christians lose their faith.
Addressing the question of "Whether the rites of unbelievers ought to be tolerated?," St. Thomas Aquinas says:

…although God is all-powerful and supremely good, nevertheless He allows certain evils to take place in the universe, which He might prevent, lest, without them, greater goods might be forfeited, or greater evils ensue. Accordingly in human government also, those who are in authority, rightly tolerate certain evils, lest certain goods be lost, or certain greater evils be incurred: thus Augustine says (De Ordine ii, 4): "If you do away with harlots, the world will be convulsed with lust." …


What is a formal ontological definition of the nature of God according to the doctrine of the Trinity? What is a formal ontological definition of the nature of God according to the doctrine of the Trinity? Are the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit ontologically independent entities, each one being particulars of universal divine attributes? If so, wouldn't that mean 3 Gods instead of 1 God? Or should we understand God as one entity comprised of 3 "sub-entities"? But then what would it mean that "the Father is God", "the Son is God", "the Holy Spirit is God"? What does it mean ontologically that "X is God" according to Trinitarianism?
Take for example what the Athanasian Creed postulates: "So likewise the Father is Lord; the Son Lord; and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not three Lords; but one Lord". Is "Lord" being used here as an entity, as a predicate over entities, or what?

In case the question ends up getting closed as off-topic: https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/79273/are-there-any-publications-that-attempt-to-give-a-formal-ontological-definition

Use of "Ontological"

Are the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit ontologically independent
entities, each one being particulars of universal divine attributes?

The word "ontological" is somewhat up for interpretation, so it's difficult to give a clear answer one way or the other without some clarification. With that said, you will find the word "ontological" used in this context. A distinction is made between Trinitarian theologies which posit an Ontological (a.k.a. Immanent) Trinity, versus an Economic Trinity (Lee, 2009). An Ontological Trinity can be found Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, which for example states Christ is

Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made,
consubstantial with the Father

The word "consubstantial" here being a translation of the Greek homoousios/ὁμοούσιος. This is almost always considered to be an ontological statement about Christ's being, or substance, or something along those lines. For example, the English Language Liturgical Consultation renders this "of one Being with the Father". Murray, 1966 does not hesitate to refer to the Nicene creed's approach as "ontological".
Blumell, 2014 writes on p. 197:

the primary focus of
the [First Nicene] council had to do with delineating the proper ontological relationship between
the Father and the Son as it pertained to the Son’s divinity. More specifically, the
council sought to articulate exactly how Jesus ought to be considered divine and,
as such, how he ought to be viewed in relation to the Father.

and on p. 205:

To stress the ontological uniformity of Jesus and the Father the term homoousios (Grk. ὁμοούσιος; Lat. consubstantialis), commonly translated as “same substance” or “consubstantial,” was incorporated into the creed.

Bear in mind that this kind of philosophical terminology unfortunately has a tendency to be a bit nebulous and subject to semantic drift. But it's fairly well-established that these terms of subtance, essence, being, etc. are ontological in character.
The Athanasian Creed, which you mention, is full of statements which can be taken to be ontological, e.g.:

And the catholic faith is this: that we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Essence.

In short, Nicene Christianity would almost certainly not hesitate to answer that the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit are not ontologically independent entities, but a single Godhead-entity. In Western Christianity, even more-so in light of the doctrine of Divine Simplicity.
Polytheism, "sub-entities"?

If so, wouldn't that mean 3 Gods instead of 1 God? Or should we
understand God as one entity comprised of 3 "sub-entities"?

Yes, I think you're right to say that if the three persons were ontologically independent, then it would be difficult to avoid the charge of polytheism (since separate ontologies implies that they are separate Gods). That's why Nicene Christianity would rather affirm the ontological unity of the three persons.
As for understanding God as having "sub-entities", that is probably misleading, since it would suggest a divided Trinity. For example, the Fourth Lateran (Roman Catholic) Council taught (On the error of Abbot Joachim):

But it cannot be said that He (the Father) has given a part of His
substance to Him (the Son), and retained a part for Himself, since the
substance of the Father is indivisible, namely, simple.

... the Father and the Son have the same substance, and so this same reality is the Father and the Son and also the Holy Spirit proceeding from both.

The three trinitarian persons under the Nicene view are each fully God, and do not separately need to "come together" to achieve full divinity. God is one entity/being, in three persons. Language of "person" rather than "sub-entity" is the distinction here: "sub-entity" implying some kind of allocation of parts of the greater entity to the smaller parts (which would be contrary to Nicene theology), whereas "person" emphasizing relationships and mutual-Love, etc.
But what does it mean to "be God"?

But then what would it mean that "the Father is God", "the Son is
God", "the Holy Spirit is God"? What does it mean ontologically that
"X is God" according to Trinitarianism?

Trinitarianism is not a monolith, but generally speaking, Nicene Christianity would allow "X is God" to be crudely equivalent to "X is God in substance/being/essence/etc."
I suppose the critical question is how one can say "X is God" and also "Y is God" but not "X is Y". Put in other terms, how can multiple persons each be God, without "confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Essence"? But that is not a question of philosophical coherence, but the statement of a mystery.

Is "Lord" being used here as an entity, as a predicate over entities,
or what?

Lord is a personal title, which arguably means it only makes sense when applied to persons. A chair is not a person (at least, not without a very unusual idea of personhood), so it wouldn't make any sense to say "This chair is my Lord". Regardless of what you think about that argument, Trinitarianism certainly holds that "the Father", "the Son", and "the Holy Spirit" refer to persons, so the predicate is plainly over persons in this case.
Usually, there is only one person per entity. Trinitarianism supposes an exception for God.
Conclusion

What is a formal ontological definition of the nature of God according
to the doctrine of the Trinity?

Expecting an explicit "definition" from official sources is probably too much, although the Athanasian creed is close. Succinctly, God is a single being ontologically, but at the same time, three persons. Each person does not have a separate ontology but shares the one Godhead-ontology.
References:
Lee, S. G. (2009). The Relationship between the Ontological Trinity and the Economic Trinity, Journal of Reformed Theology, 3(1), 90-107. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/156973109X403741 Download: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233714991_The_Relationship_between_the_Ontological_Trinity_and_the_Economic_Trinity
Murray, J. C. (1966). The Status of the Nicene Creed as Dogma., Chicago Studies: An Archdiocesan Review, 5. Text: https://www.library.georgetown.edu/woodstock/murray/1966j#2
Blumell, L. H. (2014). Rereading the Council of Nicaea and
Its Creed. Published in Standing Apart:  Mormon Historical Consciousness
and the Concept of Apostasy, Oxford University Press, pp. 196-217.


Why is Jesus occasionally referred to as "The Christ"? Is there a different definition between the two? I've occasionally heard of Jesus Christ referred to as "The Christ" and the phrasing has always struck me.  What are the differences (if any) between referring to him as Jesus Christ versus "The Christ", and what is the origin of the title?

The word "Christ" is simply the English transliteration of the Greek word "Χριστός" (pronounced "khristós"). It has the same meaning as the word "Messiah" which is simply a loose English transliteration of the Hebrew word "מָשִׁיחַ" (pronounced "mashíach"). Therefore, you'll find the word "Christ" used in translations of the New Testament and the word "Messiah" used in translations of the Old Testament.

Both words essentially mean "the anointed one".  In other words, Jesus is the one chosen by God to save His people. He is the Messiah who was promised to the children of Israel. He is the fulfillment of the prophecies.

When people call Jesus, "Jesus Christ," they are simply using the word as his title or epithet.  And when Jesus is called "The Christ," it is the same thing as calling him "The Messiah" or "The Anointed One." There is no obvious distinction in meaning between the two. It is simply a matter of grammatical style.


By what ordinary methods has God preserved infallibility in the Catholic Church? The Catholic Church teaches that in order for the saving truths of the faith to be preserved, explained, or observed, Christ endowed his Church with the charism of infallibility.1

It is not uncommon to hear that the Holy Spirit will intervene directly in order to preserve the purity of faith [e.g. this YouTube video].

From Scripture, we know that God can and has saved miraculously and with an outstretched arm.

The question is, through Church history, by what evident ordinary methods [grace working in, with, and through imperfect men] has God preserved infallibility in the Catholic Church?

1. cf. E.g. CCC 2035 and CCC 889.

In the last chapter, ch. V "The Relation of the Holy Ghost to the Divine Tradition of the Faith" (pp. 210-48), of Card. Manning's The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost, he shows how the Holy Ghost has preserved the Church pure, comparing it to the dissolution of other sects like Protestantism.

Anytime the Church convenes a dogmatic, General Council (like Trent, to fight Protestantism) or a pope infallibly defines something ex cathedra (like Pope Pius XII did the Assumption in Munificentissimus Deus, defined to promote the love of truth, virtue, Marian devotion and to protect the Catholic teaching on the Blessed Virgin), and fraternal correction given and well received like when St. Paul rebuked St. Peter at Antioch, these are some of the concrete ways the Holy Ghost preserves the faith unchanged and combats the errors threatening it.


Do non-christians of other religions have salvation or not beacuse they don't believe Christ is Lord? i mean in this question that many people  don't believe he died and don't believe he is the true lord :Do other people of other religions have salvation if they do not believe in salvation by Jesus?

The book of Romans touches on the subject of those who do not have the law. The law itself does not make a person holy. The righteousness even being written on the heart. Their conscience bearing witness

> God’s Righteous Judgment

  1You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone
  else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning
  yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. 2Now we
  know that God’s judgment against those who do such things is based on
  truth. 3So when you, a mere human being, pass judgment on them and yet
  do the same things, do you think you will escape God’s judgment? 4Or
  do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, forbearance and
  patience, not realizing that God’s kindness is intended to lead you to
  repentance?

  5But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are
  storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God’s wrath, when his
  righteous judgment will be revealed. 6God “will repay each person
  according to what they have done.”a 7To those who by persistence in
  doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal
  life. 8But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and
  follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. 9There will be trouble and
  distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then
  for the Gentile; 10but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does
  good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. 11For God does not show
  favoritism.

  12All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law,
  and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13For it is
  not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is
  those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14*(Indeed, when
  Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the
  law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the
  law. 15They show that the requirements of the law are written on their
  hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts
  sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.)*
  16This will take place on the day when God judges people’s secrets
  through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.

  > The Jews and the Law

  17Now you, if you call yourself a Jew; if you rely on the law and
  boast in God; 18if you know his will and approve of what is superior
  because you are instructed by the law; 19if you are convinced that you
  are a guide for the blind, a light for those who are in the dark, 20an
  instructor of the foolish, a teacher of little children, because you
  have in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth— 21you, then,
  who teach others, do you not teach yourself? You who preach against
  stealing, do you steal? 22You who say that people should not commit
  adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob
  temples? 23You who boast in the law, do you dishonor God by breaking
  the law? 24As it is written: “God’s name is blasphemed among the
  Gentiles because of you.”b

  25Circumcision has value if you observe the law, but if you break the
  law, you have become as though you had not been circumcised. 26So
  then, if those who are not circumcised keep the law’s requirements,
  will they not be regarded as though they were circumcised? 27The one
  who is not circumcised physically and yet obeys the law will condemn
  you who, even though you have thec written code and circumcision, are
  a lawbreaker.

  28A person is not a Jew who is one only outwardly, nor is circumcision
  merely outward and physical. 29No, a person is a Jew who is one
  inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the
  Spirit, not by the written code. Such a person’s praise is not from
  other people, but from God.


According to Catholicism, when is the Scripture source of infallible doctrine and when is it not? Infallible doctrines and dogmas of the Catholic Church are directly or indirectly based on Scripture. As this page states:

  The Church's Magisterium exercises the authority it holds from Christ to
  the fullest extent when it defines dogmas, that is, when it proposes truths
  contained in divine Revelation or having a necessary connection with them,
  in a form obliging the Christian people to an irrevocable adherence of
  faith.

Moreover, as this site states, these doctrines and dogmas must be explicitly taught by the Magisterium.

Now, not every verse of the Bible that "seems" to define a moral or theological truth appears to be part of an infallible doctrine. Examples abound. I just present a few examples:

the Council of Jerusalem "defined" that Christians must avoid meet of strangled animals and to eat blood of animals (in Acts 15:20). Yet, this seems not to be an infallible doctrine of the Catholic Church.
1 John 2:23 states that

  No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also.

which seems to suggest that non-Christians cannot "have" God [the Father]. Conversely, the Church does not deny the presence of God in non-Christians. This was stated clearly in Vatican Council II (e.g. see this page).

Meanwhile, plenty of other verses are directly used to define dogmas, e.g. about sacraments, the Church, sins, etc.

So, the relationship between moral and theological "truths" in Scripture and Dogma is such that all of dogmas emerge from Scripture, but not all of Scripture belongs to dogmas.

The question is, then, why not all "apparent" doctrines of moral and faith in Scripture become dogmas?

A few things:

All true doctrines of Christianity are objectively dogma.

Even if Arianism hadn't popped up, that Jesus was fully God would still be true. It would be a true Christian doctrine. Moreover, even if it was only implicitly believed (it wasn't only implicitly believed), that, too, would not mean it was not dogmatically true nonetheless. That it became a dogma centuries after Christ doesn't add to or take away from its truth, simply means that whereas before the Church had not needed to intervene and resolutely sided with and publically adopt to the exclusive of all others a certain theological doctrine, it now has, and the members of the Body of Christ must hear what the Spirit is saying. Thus the distinction between the true doctrine and the dogma is simply in the public status of the doctrine as, unequivocally, the doctrine of the only, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.
No doctrine of the Faith is 'based' on Scripture.

While Scripture in its own right, viewed purely in literary terms, or as a book (holy, true, and without error as it may be), is said to promote, condemn, etc. certain ideas and doctrines, whether it 'teaches' something is nonetheless, at the end of the day, subjective. (Just look at the many 'sola scriptura' religions that exist today, disagree, yet have the same authority in saying it is 'just what the Bible teaches.') Therefore, to cite Scripture as 'teaching' something is in every case to invoke or imply a pre-existing theology (i.e. which is true), relying upon whose truth one can show that the Scriptures must be interpreted in such and so a way, and not this other: whether or not it is admitted that a theology comes first, this is of logical necessity the case. As for the Catholic Church, She admits that theology comes first before reading the Bible, for many reasons, but chiefly because the Bible was not yet written in completion when “the faith once delivered to the saints” (James 1:3) was already deposited. Scripture doesn't generate Christian doctrine it informs our knowledge about them. No single Christian doctrine is purely based on a reading of the Bible, as though the Bible authors ever taught something only in one of their writings, or several of them.

So we can use terms like 'grounded' in Holy Scripture, or 'based' on it, but never in the sense that we learned a new doctrine by happening upon it in Scripture—only that it is as firmly Biblical as the Faith given along side it to the same Church. At the very least, we can never say that we learned a 'new' doctrine not already believed in its core essence at least outside of that Biblical revelation.

A historical example of interest (since you raised the point about sacraments) is something said in the Council of Trent in its decrees On the Sacrifice of the Mass:

  CANON II. If any one saith, that by those words, Do this for the commemoration of me (Luke xxii. 19), Christ did not institute the apostles priests; or, did not ordain that they, and other priests should offer His own body and blood; let him be anathema.

Now for a non-Catholic whose epistemology is sola scriptura, that seems like an attempt to read something wild into a few words (i.e. what they would consider 'the priesthood being based on the Bible.' But in Catholicism, we don't use a few words to 'prove' anything (i.e. in a way which would imply the belief can be known only by reading words in the Bible, and was not part of the faith once for all delivered to the saints at least implicitly). Supposing the Comma Johanneum is authentic, it wouldn't be what we 'based' the Trinity on (it wasn't, it was by pointing to the faith of the Christian Church before Arius popped up—“how many fathers can you cite for your [novelties]?”)1 On the other hand, it would be legitimate and lawful for the Church to declare, say, 'If anyone denies that by the words, 'the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost [are] one' the Apostle did not declare the Trinity to be the true and everlasting Godhead, ...' not because it is supposed to be saying that hereby the Trinity was 'undoutedly taught' but that the Church alone has authority to teach on her own Scriptures in this capacity, whence the Anathemas.

The Church isn't saying, 'See?' 'Do this in memory of me explicitly and uneqivocally teaches that Christ made them priests!' but rather 'See now, children, this is how I want you to understand my Book; I'll not have disobedient or fallen away children tell me what my own Book means or teach my children likewise.' That is, 'we the Church have the fullness of truth, the faith once delivered to the saints, a part of which is the priesthood, which pertains to the Last Supper, whence the meaning of the words 'Do this' of necessity refer to the priestly office of offering the Eucharist, not to some other heretical thing.'
The Council of Jerusalem defined doctrinal matters (the necessity of circumcision to "be saved")2 and also matters of discipline (which meats you can eat and how to eat them).3 The latter cannot be a matter of faith and morals, per the teaching of Jesus.4 It is rather a matter of discipline, dress, diet etc. 'Don't eat sausages on Wednesdays' doesn't carry the force of a moral doctrine on faith and morals, but it can still be a sin to disobey it, given which authority said it or asked it of you. Whereas 'Don't kill' has to do with the image of God and so forth, and is not something arbitrated, but something intrinsically moral (what goes into your pie hole has nothing to do with morality intrinsically)

Thus 'you need not be circumcized to be saved in the New Covenant' is different from 'we burden you with a commandment not to eat such and such in such and such a way' in an obvious way.
No one who DENIES the Son has the Father

For Catholicism, 'invincible ignorance' is when the truths of Christianity have not been presented to you, so leaving you excusable in that regard. It doesn't actually say what happens to their salvation5, only that such passages as ascribe damnable sin to those who deny Jesus explicitly or willfully by definition do not apply to someone. 'Not believing in the Son' because you favor sin instead is different from 'not believing in the Son' because you don't know who or what such is or means.6 Whence a definition of the statement and dogma 'outside of the Church there is no salvation' is given, namely, 'outside by their own volition' (just as an unqualified 'anyone who doesn't acknowledge me as God' obviously means 'knows me to be such, and does not reform their stubborn, wilfull ignorance and acknowledges me as such').

1 St. Athanasius, The Decrees of the Council of Nicaea.

2 Acts 15:1.

3 ibid. 15:20.

4 Matthew 15:11.

5 Cf. Pope Blessed Pius IX, Singulari Quidem, “... the Catholic Church ... is the temple of God, outside of which, except with the excuse of invincible ignorance, there is no hope of life or salvation.”

6 John 15:22.


Why did Augustine attempt to stop Christians from walking barefoot? In The Confessions, Augustine relates the story of an ascetic named Alypius who "tamed his body" to such an extent that "he went barefoot on the icy soil of Italy" (IX.vi).  Henry Chadwick notes:

  Much ancient evidence records the axiom that for cultic acts bare feet are necessary; Augustine himself found it impossible to stop the practice when he became a bishop.  Monks in ancient Egypt removed their shoes for communion.  In Syria it was customary for candidates for baptism, in the West for Regation processions.

Apparently, then, some Christians walked barefoot only for short times associated with communion or baptism, while others went without shoes for long periods, even outdoors during the winter.  Chadwick's note makes it sound as though Augustine objected to the practice generally, not just to the extreme forms, but this isn't clear. So:

Did Augustine attempt to stop Christians from removing their shoes for all types of worship and ceremonies (if so, why?)?  Or was he only concerned about the more dangerous types like that done by Alypius?  Where in his writings does he address this topic?

I think that Henry Chadwick is conflating Manichaeism with Christian asceticism, toward which he appears to have a bias.  He clearly indicates in another work - Priscillian of Avila: The Occult and Charismatic in the Early Church - that he had Manichaeism in mind when he interpreted the passage, but also considered certain non-canonical Christian ritual ascetical practices.  Georgetown Professor James O'Donnell observes (here), however, that although the latter troubled Augustine, he did not think it merited a severe rebuke, as he attests in his Letter No. 55:

  I cannot, however, sanction with my approbation those ceremonies which
  are departures from the custom of the Church, and are instituted on
  the pretext of being symbolic of some holy mystery; although, for the
  sake of avoiding offense to the piety of some and the pugnacity of
  others, I do not venture to condemn severely many things of this kind.
  But this I deplore, and have too much occasion to do so, that
  comparatively little attention is paid to many of the most wholesome
  rites which Scripture has enjoined; and that so many false notions
  everywhere prevail, that more severe rebuke would be administered to a
  man who should touch the ground with his feet bare during the octaves
  (before his baptism), than to one who drowned his intellect in
  drunkenness. My opinion therefore is, that wherever it is possible,
  all those things should be abolished without hesitation, which neither
  have warrant in Holy Scripture, nor are found to have been appointed
  by councils of bishops, nor are confirmed by the practice of the
  universal Church, but are so infinitely various, according to the
  different customs of different places, that it is with difficulty, if
  at all, that the reasons which guided men in appointing them can be
  discovered (XIX.35)

I would submit, however, that although Augustine may have objected (mildly) to
non-canonical ritual Christian ascetic practices, he did not object to Christian asceticism in general.  This is evidenced in how he refers to the Egyptian monk, Antony (Anthony the Great), one of the strictest ascetics of his time:

  A conversation ensued on his [Pontitianus, a Christian] speaking of
  Antony, the Egyptian monk, whose name was in high repute among Thy
  servants, though up to that time not familiar to us. When he came to
  know this, he lingered on that topic, imparting to us a knowledge of
  this man so eminent, and marvelling at our ignorance. But we were
  amazed, hearing Thy wonderful works most fully manifested in times so
  recent, and almost in our own, wrought in the true faith and the
  Catholic Church. We all wondered — we, that they were so great, and he,
  that we had never heard of them.

  Confessions, Book VIII, XII.29

I think further evidence of a bias against Christian asceticism comes out in the way Chadwick chose to translate the Latin, fortissimo dominatori corporis, usque ad Italicum solum glaciale nudo pede obterendum insolito ausu (IX.VI.14).  Chadwick's translation reads, as you cite:

  ... and tamed his body to a tough discipline of extraordinary
  boldness: he went barefoot on the icy soil of Italy.

By comparison, the translation in the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers edition of Confessions reads:

  ... being so brave a tamer of the body, as with unusual fortitude to
  tread the frozen soil of Italy with his naked feet.

Other translations:

  ... a most valiant tamer of the body, so as, with unwonted venture, to
  wear the frozen ground of Italy with his bare feet [Pusey].

  ... and was so brave a tamer of his body that he would walk the frozen
  Italian soil with his naked feet, which called for unusual fortitude [Outler]

Augustine attempted during his life to end not only certain ascetical practices associated with Manichaesm, but indeed the cult itself (to which he at one time belonged), as evidenced by the large corpus of work he wrote against it (e.g. On the Morals of the Manichaeans, Concerning Two Souls, Disputation against Fortunatus, Against the Epistle of Manichaeus Called Fundamental).  This is not to say, however, that he condemned similar ascetical practices undertaken by Christians for entirely different purposes.

I would submit that the short passage cited, when translated appropriately, shows Augustine's support, rather than disdain, for Christian asceticism.

This apparent bias against Christian asceticism reflected in Chadwick's comment seems not to be unique.  The editors of Augustine's Anti-Manichaean Writings in the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers series make the following statement, without any further elucidation or support, in their introduction:

  Many Christians were in a position to be attracted strongly by the
  Manichæan theory and practice. The later asceticism as it appeared in
  the hermit life of the fourth and following centuries was essentially
  pagan and had much in common with the Manichæan.


Questions about this icon of Saint Sophia Below is an icon of Saint Sophia and her three daughters (Faith, Hope, and Charity). It's so cute! I hope someone who is knowledgeable about iconography can answer a couple questions I have about it.

Who is who in the icon? We obviously know which figure represents St. Sophia, but what about the three daughters? There are no inscriptions. Which is Faith? Which is Hope? Which is Charity? In other icons, the three girls are different heights so they are easily distinguishable (according to the hagiography, Faith was 12 years old, Hope was 10, Charity was 9), but in this icon they look equally heighted to me. The middle one looks slightly taller, but maybe that's only because she is in front. Most icons I've seen online have Faith in the middle, Hope on the left, and Charity on the right, but not all of them follow this convention. [I realize the placement of the three figures in my icon most likely can't be answered with 100% certainty, but is there a probable answer?]
Are the three girls wearing veils in this icon? Looking at their shoulders, it seems as if they have white veils. But the tops of their heads look brown (like hair) to me, not white! What's going on? Is this just because the image is faded?

Here is another icon of St. Sophia and her three daughters St. Faith, St. Hope and St. Charity:

Martyr Sophia and her three daughters at Rome

  The Holy Martyrs Saint Sophia and her Daughters Faith, Hope and Love were born in Italy. Their mother was a pious Christian widow who named her daughters for the three Christian virtues. Faith was twelve, Hope was ten, and Love was nine. Saint Sophia raised them in the love of the Lord Jesus Christ. Saint Sophia and her daughters did not hide their faith in Christ, but openly confessed it before everyone.

There are a wide variety of icons of St. Sophia with her three saintly daughters as your link points out.

In the icon I placed above St. Faith is in the middle because she is the eldest and thus the senior child. St. Hope is standing to the right of St. Faith and St. Charity is standing to the left of St. Faith. This is in fact the traditional way of placing individuals according to seniority.

An Abbot has his prior seated at his right side in the refectory and the subprior is seated at his left side. It's tradition.

Even the Supreme Court of the United States follows this tradition:

  Seniority and seating

  For the most part, the day-to-day activities of the justices are governed by rules of protocol based upon the seniority of justices. The Chief Justice always ranks first in the order of precedence—regardless of the length of his or her service. The associate justices are then ranked by the length of their service. The chief justice sits in the center on the bench, or at the head of the table during conferences. The other justices are seated in order of seniority. The senior-most associate justice sits immediately to the chief justice's right; the second most senior sits immediately to his left. The seats alternate right to left in order of seniority, with the most junior justice occupying the last seat.

  During Court sessions, justices sit according to seniority, with the chief justice in the center and associate justices on alternating sides, with the most senior associate justice on the chief justice's immediate right, and the most junior associate justice seated on the left farthest away from the chief justice. Therefore, the current court sits as follows from left to right, from the perspective of those facing the Court: Gorsuch, Sotomayor, Breyer, Thomas (most senior associate justice), Roberts (chief justice), Ginsburg, Alito, Kagan, and Kavanaugh (most junior associate justice). Likewise, when the members of the Court gather for official group photographs, justices are arranged in order of seniority, with the five most senior members seated in the front row in the same order as they would sit during Court sessions, and the four most junior justices standing behind them, again in the same order as they would sit during Court sessions.

The more ancient icons of St. Sophia and her daughters would definitely follow this order even when the daughters of St. Sophia are not named and appear to be of the same height. Modern artists may not follow this tradition way of placing saints in an icon.
But the icon you posted is of a certain antiquity and St. Sophia's daughters are from left to right: St. Hope, St. Faith and St. Charity.

St. Sophia's daughters are not wearing veils in your icon but their heads are surrounded with golden halos. In iconography the color gold represents the presence of God.


Is there a difference of substance between the veneration of Mary, and the worship of God? Speaking from a protestant understanding, I had just assumed that Catholics would say they worshipped Mary.

They (often) pray to her, sing her praise (calling her holy, and such). Sometimes bowing to her, and constantly adorning her with titles (Blessed Mother, Queen of Heaven, Mother of God, etc etc.). Sometimes kneeling before her statues, etc. This from an outside perspective seemed like worship to me. And it was a thing they were very much proud of.

I was talking to a Catholic apologist at a local event as she passed out rosaries. She was trying to teach me the hail Mary, and convince me that I should pray to Mary.

But when I used the word "worship" she recoiled, and claimed not to worship Mary. On this site I have had a similar reaction. I was surprised by this reaction.

If you just google search "worship" here is what you get. (the verb form)

  show reverence and adoration for (a deity); honor with religious rites.
  //"the Maya built jungle pyramids to worship their gods"//
  synonyms:   revere, reverence, venerate, pay homage to, honor, adore, praise, pray to, glorify, exalt, extol; More

The question

So, it seems that Catholics would agree that it is wrong to Worship Mary. Obviously they don't think of the things they are doing as worship. I am interested in the substance of "adoration/veneration/worship" that is appropriate for God alone, and that which appropriate for Mary or the saints.
A criteria by which one could judge a concrete example of adoration.

How do Catholics make this distinction?
What is Worship for a Catholic? And is it reserved for God alone?
How does this play out practically (what would it look like to worship God in light of this distinction)?

One useful distinction appears in petitionary prayer. We ask both Mary (as well as the other saints) and God to help us by doing things for us. The difference is in what we ask them to do.

For example, the prayer to Mary known as the Litany of Loreto begins by petitioning God in the Trinity, then moves to petitioning Mary, then back to God. But though both God and Mary are asked to do things, they're very different. We ask God:

  God the Father, have mercy on us.
  God the Son, Redeemer of the world, have mercy on us.

And later,

  Lamb of God, you take away the sins of the world: grant us peace.

In contrast, to Mary we pray;

  Mother of Christ, pray for us.
  Seat of Wisdom, pray for us.
  Queen of the most holy Rosary, pray for us.

Only God has the power to grant us graces, and it is only Him whom we ask for actual things. Mary and other saints have no such power, and our reverence to them does not (should not) extend so far as to ask them for things. We can only ask them to pray to God for us.

You can see another difference, perhaps, in this example. Someone who looks up to another, who takes them as a life example and perhaps even thinks of them as a hero, will treat them with great respect and reverence. They may feel a certain sense of awe in their presence. But in the other hand, there's the sense of awe and wonder that many people feel when they look up at the stars, and confront the majesty of the universe. The two feelings are different (I contend) in kind, not just in scale. That's analogous to the difference between our feelings toward Mary and those we have toward God.


What conventions did the Jews use to express time in Jesus' day? I was reading Acts and I came across Acts 2:15 which reads "These men are not drunk, as you suppose. It's only nine in the morning!"(NIV, 1984).

But I realized that in the Apostolic times,  they did not use the a.m. and p.m. way of time telling. So, after a brief search, I found that in early translations, it is "For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day" (KJB, Cambridge ed.)

I know we live by grace and anything we do which is not of faith is a sin. I like using the old way of time telling. But when I communicate, I try to be helpful in order not to confuse people and use the am, pm time. I think this old timing is the standard in countries like Ethiopia and some Greek, Indian and Russian churches.

The NIV has simply translated the Jewish reckoning into a time that moderns would understand more readily.

Briefly, hours were reckoned from sunrise - the third hour of the day would be about three hours after sunrise.   Depending on the time of year, that is usually around 9 or 10am in the morning.

As to the concerns about translating units, one should realize there is nothing sacred about the units.  Translating units is merely a helpful aid to the reader who is otherwise unaccustomed to the system.

It would be the equivalent of going from the German Er fahrt funf kilometer to He drove three miles. Literally, the sentence says 5km, but in changing units as well, the reader gains more clarity.

There is nothing any more sacred about units in which a thing is measured than in the sylables with which a word is pronounced.

People who are baptized in the name of Jesu, Yeshua, iousous (Greek), or "der Herr" are not going to Hell because the syllables G and sus were not uttered.

Unlike Islam, Christianity does not believe there is anything sacred about original languages. Units of measure would be no different- whilest the KJV will speak of homers and ephaths, modern translations are totally okay with kilos and liters.

(As an American, however, quarts are clearly holier than liters. How else do you explain our refusal to do what everyone else is doing!)


Unfulfilled prophecies? My understanding is that there are numerous prophecies from the OT which have been fulfilled over the years. (Ignoring any gray areas between "prophecy" and poetic passage of scripture.)

Aside from the book of Revelation, is there an outstanding list of pending prophecy? I.e. things which have been foretold which haven't come to fruition?

The short answer is "yes, there are".

There are quite a few other places that prophecy about the end times, particularly in Daniel 7-12, Matthew 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21.

Matthew 24:14 specifically prophecies that the Gospel will be preached throughout the entire world prior to the end:

  And this gospel of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the whole
  world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.
  Matthew 24:14 ESV

Here are a few others:

  But understand this, that in the last days there will come times of
  difficulty. 2For people will be lovers of self, lovers of money,
  proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful,
  unholy, 3 heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, without self-control,
  brutal, not loving good, 4treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit,
  lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, 5having the appearance
  of godliness, but denying its power. Avoid such people.  2 Timothy
  3:1-4 ESV

  knowing this first of all, that scoffers will come in the last days
  with scoffing, following their own sinful desires. 4 They will say,
  "Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell
  asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of
  creation." 5For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens
  existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through
  water by the word of God, 6and that by means of these the world that
  then existed was deluged with water and perished. 7But by the same
  word the heavens and earth that now exist are stored up for fire,
  being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly.
  2 Peter 3:3-7 ESV

  But we do not want you to be uninformed, brothers, about those who are
  asleep, that you may not grieve as others do who have no hope. 14For
  since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through
  Jesus, God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep. 15For
  this we declare to you by a word from the Lord,[d] that we who are
  alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will not precede
  those who have fallen asleep. 16For the Lord himself will descend from
  heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with
  the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise
  first. 17Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up
  together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so
  we will always be with the Lord. 18Therefore encourage one another
  with these words.  1 Thessalonians 4:13-17 ESV

  This is evidence of the righteous judgment of God, that you may be
  considered worthy of the kingdom of God, for which you are also
  suffering— 6since indeed God considers it just to repay with
  affliction those who afflict you, 7and to grant relief to you who are
  afflicted as well as to us, when the Lord Jesus is revealed from
  heaven with his mighty angels 8 in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance
  on those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel
  of our Lord Jesus. 9They will suffer the punishment of eternal
  destruction, away from[b] the presence of the Lord and from the glory
  of his might, 10 when he comes on that day to be glorified in his
  saints, and to be marveled at among all who have believed, because our
  testimony to you was believed. 2 Thessalonians 1:5-10 ESV


Can People Who Aren't Saved, Heal in Jesus’ Name? For backstory, I've recently been looking for confirmation that I'm really saved. I've started to repent of all my sins (that I know of) about 1-2 weeks ago. I've pretty sure I've been saved since I was 8 years old, but I dedicated myself to God again, just to make sure.
So I've recently been listening to an audio teaching about prayer, and the last little bit of the teaching is about healing yourself and others in the name of Jesus. I was having a bit of a headache, so I decided to try it out on myself when I got home instead of just using painkillers.
I got home, and spoke to my body. I put my hand on my temple and said, "temple, you will stop hurting in the name of Jesus" or something along those lines. And it worked! That was the first time I've ever healed myself in Jesus name.
Does the fact that God was able to heal me through myself mean that I'm saved for sure? Or could someone who isn't saved do exactly what I did? This is assuming they have faith that God will heal them as well.

Your ‘backstory’ explains several things that will help in offering an answer. Immediately, there appears to be a need for you to learn from Jesus’ own words on this subject, and then to subject everything everyone else tells you to that.  There are two particular statements of Jesus that could form a good basis for you to compare all else with.
First, his response to the disciples being upset at some doing miracles, though they were not identified with their group.  This is in Mark 9:38-41:

‘Teacher,’ said John, ‘we saw a man driving out demons in your name
and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us.’ ‘Do not stop
him,’ Jesus said. ‘No-one who does a miracle in my name can in the
next moment say anything bad about me…’

Second, his warning to professed Christians on the day of judgement, as to the importance they attached to how they did miracles in his name. This is in Matthew 7:21-23:

‘Not everyone who says to me, “Lord, Lord” will enter the kingdom of
heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
Many will say to me on that day, “Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in
your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many
miracles?” Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from
me, you evildoers.’

Once you have studied those two passages of scripture and become clear as to what Jesus says about casting out demons in his name back then, and what he says about the day of judgment when false prophets and false miracle-workers are exposed and condemned despite them doing things in Jesus’ name, you might be helped to have a biblical basis for asking questions. Perhaps you might see a need to ask a fresh question on the matter concerning you right now.


Do Reformed paedobaptists call for the baptism of household servants, just as Abraham's servants were circumcised? In Genesis 17:9–13 we read:

  9 And God said to Abraham, “As for you, you shall keep my covenant, you and your offspring after you throughout their generations. 10 This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your offspring after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised. 11 You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you. 12 He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised. Every male throughout your generations, whether born in your house or bought with your money from any foreigner who is not of your offspring, 13 both he who is born in your house and he who is bought with your money, shall surely be circumcised. So shall my covenant be in your flesh an everlasting covenant. (ESV)

I understand this passage to say that male household slaves and the male children of household slaves were to be circumcised, regardless of any "statement of faith."

In modern times we don't see many examples of household slaves or servants.  However, several hundred years passed between the beginning of the Reformation and widespread prohibitions on chattel slavery in the West.  Other forms of generational household servitude continued even longer.

Many Reformers affirm that baptism is the new sign of the covenant, replacing circumcision, and therefore practice infant baptism (or paedobaptism) for the children of believers (WCF 28-4).  Thus, my questions:

Do any Reformed paedobaptists, past or present, explicitly argue that members of one's household, including one's household slaves or servants, ought to be baptized (even if they make no statement of faith)?
In the absence of any examples of (1), do any Reformed paedobaptists, past or present, explicitly explain why household slaves and servants ought not to be baptized?

In a limited sense, yes, some Reformed paedobaptists have supported this: the presentation of slave children for baptism by their masters was practiced and supported in the Presbyterian Church in the USA in the antebellum period.  However, I find no evidence that adult slaves were baptized except upon their own conversion (that is, not when the master was converted, nor when the slave was purchased by a Christian master).

A resolution by the General Assembly in 1816 concluded that slave children should be presented for baptism by their masters if the latter were in a position to "train them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord":

  That it is the duty of masters who are members of the Church, to present the children of parents in servitude to the ordinance of baptism, provided they are in a situation to train them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, thus securing them the rich advantages which the gospel promises.
  That it is the duty of christian ministers to inculcate this doctrine, and to baptise all children of this description, when presented to them by their masters.

The Synod of New York and Philadelphia made a similar declaration in 1786, holding that Christian masters had the "duty" to have "children of their household" baptized, even those "born of parents not in the communion of any Church."

The Testimony and Practice of the Presbyterian Church in Reference to American Slavery, pages 122 and 123.


Does Young Earth Creationism teach that Adam and Eve only had a concept of morality after the fall? Does Young Earth Creationism teach that Adam and Eve only had a concept of morality after the fall, once they had eaten from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil?

If so, would they have been unaccountable for their actions before the fall?

Does Young Earth Creationism teach that Adam and Eve only had a concept of morality after the fall?

Young Earth Creationism is not often extended to such considerations.

One might assume that since a knowledge of good and evil was obtained after the infraction, the concept of morality was by definition more limited before the more extensive knowledge was acquired.

They did know morality in a more limited sense of knowing that they were not to eat the fruit of the tree.

  Genesis 3:2-3  And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the
  fruit of the trees of the garden:   But of the fruit of the tree which
  is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it,
  neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.