What are the key differences between the Western and Eastern Christianity? I'm currently reading about Eastern Christianity as a part of my study.

Those are the churches that have existed since early times, such as the Nestorians, the Jacobites, the Coptics, and others. But not the Melkite/Orthodox Christianity (I don't include them as Eastern Christianity as in Keith Ward's categorization, he seems to separate them to another major branch besides Catholic and Protestantism).

The major differences between them and Western Christianity seem to be their agreement regarding the Council of Chalcedon, regarding the incarnation of Jesus. However besides of that, are there any other major differences? For example, what about the church hierarchy? Or do they have different political cultures?

Before I can answer, I must clarify several terms that you are using incorrectly/ambiguously and define how I will approach this question. I also must begin with the disclaimer that I will be answering from an Eastern Orthodox perspective.

Eastern Orthodox vs. Oriental 'Orthodox' vs. Nestorianism

Nestorianism was condemned at the third and fourth ecumenical councils (Ephesus I & Chalcedon I), so calling them 'Orthodox' is incorrect. While some Eastern Orthodox Christians do lump Nestorians and Oriental Orthodox Christians together as monophysite churches, Oriental Orthodox Christians reject this label and distinguish themselves from Nestorians as miaphysite churches.

Concerning Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Christians, the difference is that the latter accept only the first three ecumenical councils (Nicaea I, Constantinople I, & Ephesus I), while the former accept seven ecumenical councils. There are some Eastern Orthodox Christians who consider the controversy between Oriental Orthodox and themselves to be primarily semantic (and some dialogue has been made in the 20th century to reunite the churches, but full communion has not yet been restored), but officially they are not considered to be 'Orthodox' (despite their use of the title) as they were condemned as heretical for rejecting the fourth ecumenical council (Chalcedon).

In summary, Eastern Orthodox Christians believe that they are the only Church that can rightly be called 'Orthodox,' and thus Nestorians and Oriental Orthodox Christians are actually heterodox. With that said, I will focus exclusively on defining some key differences between Eastern Orthodox Christians and Western Christians.

Painting Western Christianity With Broad Brush Strokes

Comparing Western Christians only to other Western Christians would be too broad to address in an answer on this site. Similarly, comparing Eastern and Western Christians will necessarily have to be even broader. For this reason, I must make a caricature of Western Christianity that will not fit all Western Christians at all times and in all places. My apologies are extended to those of whom this caricature is not representative. It is also difficult since Western Christianity is extremely divided. For the sake of simplicity, I am lumping Roman Catholicism and Protestantism together (I am aware that many Protestants actually reject this label and consider themselves a separate division altogether, perhaps rightly so in the case of Anglicans - however in this response I will only recognize the two divisions as stated yet treat all of Western Christianity as one group).

Here are some of the primary characteristics of Western Christianity (that stand in sharp distinction from Eastern Orthodox Christian views) that I will use to define it:

Western Christianity has assimilated much of Hellenistic philosophy/thought. Oddly enough, the opposite charge is often made. However, close study of philosophy and history will reveal that Eastern Christians almost immediately began challenging Hellenistic philosophy and created a distinctly Christian philosophy, while due to historical and linguistic circumstances, much of Hellenistic thought and knowledge of the Greek language was lost in the West for some time and only rediscovered later, and was adopted uncritically by many theologians (cf. Scholasticism). For more information on this, please read Jaroslav Pelikan's outstanding work published through Yale University Press entitled Christianity and Classical Culture: The Metamorphosis of Natural Theology in the Christian Encounter with Hellenism. The implications of this point affect every other point of difference.
Western Christians believe that mankind has inherited some form of original sin from Adam and Eve that includes an inheritance of guilt. There is a wide spectrum within Western Christianity concerning this issue, but generally it is held that man is depraved to some extent and will go to hell because of 'original sin' if one is not 'saved.' Death is thus viewed as a form of punishment inflicted on mankind because of sin, and 'hell' is a place of intentional, conscience punishment by God (or complete separation from him, which is intended as a punishment).
Western Christians believe in a juridicial atonement, that is, God's wrath had to be propitiated by a perfect sacrifice: Jesus Christ. Western Christians generally believe that someone has to be punished in order to satisfy divine justice. In other words, mankind deserves to be punished but Jesus gets punished for us.
Western Christians discuss (forensic) soteriology as an isolated issue within theology (as distinct but related to anthropology, Christology and the theology of the Godhead), and focus on the ordo salutis (which often defines the primary contentions between various Western Christian groups).

I could go on but this will have to suffice (again, this is a broad question).

The Key Differences Between Eastern and Western Christianity

With the above definitions and considerations in mind, I offer the following key differences. This is certainly not an exhaustive list, and they are all interrelated:

Historically, culturally, and linguistically, the two churches have grown apart. The churches grew apart for lots of historical reasons, and the Great Schism was precipitated by numerous factors and made permanent by unfortunate conflicts (namely the Roman Catholic Church's decision to sack Constantinople, the seat of Eastern Orthodox Christianity, during the fourth Crusade). The East continued to mainly speak Greek until the 15th century, while the West soon forgot Greek and spoke mostly Latin and a mixture of other languages (but Latin remained the ecclesiastical language through the Reformation - and it still is within Roman Catholicism).
As previously stated, Western Christianity has assimilated much of Hellenistic philosophy/thought (largely uncritically). Conversely, Eastern Christians went through a long phase of assimilating, challenging, condemning, and modifying Hellenistic thought until a distinctly Christian philosophy emerged (largely attributed to the Cappadocian Fathers). Fr. Alexandre Kalomiros explains this in his speech The River of Fire:

  Paganism is ignorance of the true God, an erroneous belief that His
  creation is divine, really a god. This god, however, who is Nature, is
  impersonal, a blind force, above all personal gods, and is called
  Necessity (Ἀνάγκη).... The pagan gods are parts of the world,
  and they are immortal because of the immortality of nature which is
  their essence. In this pagan mentality, man is also god like the
  others, because for the pagans the real man is only his soul, and they
  believe that man's soul is immortal in itself, since it is part of the
  essence of the universe, which is considered immortal in itself and
  self-existent. So man also is god and a measure of all things....

  It is this pagan way of thought that was mixed with the Christian
  teaching by the various heresies. This is what happened in the West,
  too. They began to distinguish not between God and His creation, but
  between spirit and matter. They began to think of the soul of man as
  of something eternal in itself, and began to consider the condition of
  man after death not as a sleep in the hands of God, but as the real
  life of man, to which the resurrection of the dead had nothing to add
  and even the need of the resurrection was doubtful....

  ...they began to feel that God was subject to Necessity, to this
  rationalistic Necessity which was nothing else but human logic. They
  declared Him incapable of coming into contact with inferior beings
  like men, because their rationalistic, philosophical conceptions did
  not permit it, and it was this belief which was the foundation of the
  hesychast disputes; it had already begun with Augustine who
  taught that it was not God Who spoke to Moses but an angel instead.

  It is in this context of Necessity, which even gods obey, that we must
  understand the Western juridical conception of God's justice. It was
  necessary for God to punish man's disobedience. It was impossible for
  Him to pardon; a superior Necessity demanded vengeance. Even if God
  was in reality good and loving, He was not able to act lovingly. He
  was obliged to act contrary to His love; the only thing He could do,
  in order to save humanity, was to punish His Son in the place of men,
  and by this means was Necessity satisfied....

  This is the triumph of Hellenistic thought in Christianity. As a
  Hellenist, Origen had arrived at the same conclusions. God was a
  judge by necessity. He was obliged to punish, to avenge, to send
  people to hell. Hell was God's creation. It was a punishment demanded
  by justice. This demand of justice was a necessity. God was obliged to
  submit to it. He was not permitted to forgive. There was a superior
  force, a Necessity which did not permit Him to love unconditionally.

  However, Origen was also a Christian and he knew that God was full of
  love. How is it possible to acknowledge a loving God Who keeps people
  in torment eternally? If God is the cause of hell, by necessity then
  there must be an end to it, otherwise we cannot concede that God is
  good and loving. This juridical conception of God as a instrument of a
  superior, impersonal force or deity named Necessity, leads logically
  to apokatastasis, "the restoration of all things and the
  destruction of hell," otherwise we must admit that God is cruel....

  So the loss of God's grace, which is eternal, spiritual death, in
  other words, hell, is in reality an act totally dependent on God. It
  is God Who is punishing these people by depriving them of His grace,
  by not permitting it to shine upon them. So God is the cause of the
  eternal, spiritual death of those who are damned. Damnation is an act
  of God, an act of God's justice, an act of necessity or cruelty.

There is far too much that could be said here, so I will allow the quote to stand. I recommend reading the entire speech. Also, I know that the quote hits on a myriad of differences in worldview (which really must be understood before the differences can be understood, as many of the biases inherent in Western Christianity are part of the Western worldview itself), but this will have to suffice for now.

Also, as it stands, I would expect a large number of Western Christian rebuttals to this point. However, please understand that without first studying the underlying thought, it is impossible to have constructive conversation about this (the East and West don't even use terms like 'faith', 'grace', or 'prayer' in the same way/meaning).

The two churches approach theology differently. The East takes an apophatic approach to theology while the West a cataphatic one (this is somewhat of an unfair caricature as both groups take both approaches, and Eastern Orthodox generally balance both ways of doing theology - but again, these are broad caricatures). This represents a fundamental difference in how God may be approached intellectually. In the East, theology begins with the premise that God is unknowable in his essence, but we can encounter him through his energies. It is thus impossible for finite creatures to make cataphatic statements about their infinite Creator. Thus theology is something that the East does, it is not an abstract field of study. The purity of the nous that has been attained by the theologian is vital in the task of theology. Having advanced degrees and knowledge does not make one a theologian, but rather the one who prays is rightly called a theologian in the East, and his or her journey in theosis is directly proportional to his or her ability to 'understand'/'experience' theology, which is an encounter with God himself (as opposed to merely studying a topic; cf. theoria). The West largely approaches theology cataphatically within a Scholastic framework. It would not be fair to deny that the West has had theologians in the Eastern sense of the word, but the West generally labels these individuals as 'mystics,' while in the East all theology is mystical.
The East views salvation as the process of theosis, and thus the Incarnation is the central event in redemptive history. The West views salvation through a multitude of singular events within the ordo salutis, and the crucifixion is generally seen as the central event (although some Protestants would argue that the resurrection is the central event). In Eastern Orthodoxy (as well as in Roman Catholicism and Arminian Protestantism), salvation is synergistic, while in much of (Calvinist-influenced) Protestantism it is monergistic.
The East believes that the central tenet of Western theology is that Western Christianity considers God to be the real cause of all evil - regardless of whether or not Western theologians acknowledge this position or not (some staunch Calvinists admit this). Obviously many Western Christians would disagree. Eastern Orthodox Christians therefore have no need of justifying God (cf. theodicy). In Eastern Orthodoxy, evil is the estrangement from God who is life. Thus death is evil. However, most Western Christians teach that death is a punishment from God, although some Protestants consider death to be 'natural'. Either way, since God is the Creator of all things, the West necessarily believes that God is the real cause of death. They also apply this to the soul, so that God is also the cause of spiritual death for mankind (by punishing mankind in hell). As Fr. Kalamiros explains,

  The 'God' of the West is an offended and angry God, full of wrath for
  the disobedience of men, who desires in His destructive passion to
  torment all humanity unto eternity for their sins, unless He receives
  an infinite satisfaction for His offended pride. What is the Western
  dogma of salvation? Did not God kill God in order to satisfy His
  pride, which the Westerners euphemistically call justice? And is it
  not by this infinite satisfaction that He deigns to accept the
  salvation of some of us? What is salvation for Western theology? Is it
  not salvation from the wrath of God? Do you see, then, that Western
  theology teaches that our real danger and our real enemy is our
  Creator and God? Salvation, for Westerners, is to be saved from the
  hands of God!

Conclusion

This answer is necessarily incomplete. Asking about how the East and West differ in regards to specific doctrines or positions is a much more attainable goal. However, given the broad question, this is my best attempt at answering it. Also, this is certainly a biased answer as it represents an Eastern Orthodox perspective. Obviously a Western answer will differ considerably.

Also, to avoid the duplication of content and repeating myself, I did not address topics that I've answered on before in any depth. You may also wish to check out these responses of mine:

Universalism in the Orthodox Church?
What is the ecclesiastical 'hierarchy' of the Eastern Orthodox Church?
Is the Eastern Orthodox Church independent from regional governments?
What happens with a soul after one's death according to Eastern Orthodox doctrine?
Who is a Christian according to the Russian Orthodox Church?
How can common believers in the Eastern Orthodox Church be sure that the Church's decisions are correct and not erroneous?
Is there a significant difference between salvation by faith with works and salvation by faith and works?
How do Protestants in general respond to these points concerning them?

For a great book that explains these differences in greater depth to those already well-versed in Western theology, check out James R. Payton's Light from the Christian East: An Introduction to the Orthodox Tradition.


Why didn't C.S. Lewis convert to Catholicism? This might seem like a weird question if you're a Protestant and really like C.S. Lewis. But as a Catholic, I don't see him as ever espousing particularly non-Catholic positions, and he is very well read at Catholic universities.

His faith journey closely parallels G.K. Chesterton, although Lewis came from a more intellectual background. Chesterton converted from nothing to Anglicanism to Catholicism, but Lewis never made the final jump.

I read Lewis's book The Pilgrim's Regress, and understand that he had a few things to say about Catholics. But in general, we like him, so why didn't he like us? One of his best friends, J.R.R. Tolkien (who was largely responsible for his conversion), was Catholic, so what made Lewis not Catholic?

C. S. Lewis wrote in Christian Reunion:

The real reason, I take it, why you cannot be in communion with us is not your disagreement with this or that particular Protestant doctrine, so much as the absence of any real "Doctrine", in your sense of the word, at all. It is, you feel, like asking a man to say he agrees not with a speaker but with a debating society.
And the real reason why I cannot be in communion with you is not my disagreement with this or that Roman doctrine, but that to accept your Church means, not to accept a given body of doctrine, but to accept in advance any doctrine your Church hereafter produces. It is like being asked to agree not only to what a man has said but to what he's going to say.
To you the real vice of Protestantism is the formless drift which seems unable to retain the Catholic truths, which loses them one by one and ends in a "modernism" which cannot be classified as Christian by any tolerable stretch of the word. To us the terrible thing about Rome is the recklessness (as we hold) with which she has added to the depositum fidei - the tropical fertility, the proliferation, of credenda. You see in Protestantism the Faith dying out in a desert: we see in Rome the Faith smothered in a jungle.
I know no way of bridging this gulf.

That said, Lewis usually takes great pains to avoid sectarian division (perhaps influenced by growing up in Northern Ireland), and is often sympathetic to Catholic viewpoints. For example, he received advice on Mere Christianity from Catholics as well as Protestants before its publication, to ensure that it expressed sentiments that were universally agreeable.
The book C. S. Lewis and the Catholic Church by Joseph Pearce (Ignatius Press, 2003) explores the development of Lewis's thought on this matter. The foreword by Thomas Howard summarises as follows:

Lewis wishes us to accept his identity as a "mere" Christian; but we find the truth of the matter is that he is a mere Protestant. [...] But there are more anomalies. Although he loathed the whole business of "High", "Broad" and "Low" churchmanship in the Church of England, he could not avoid it all. He had nothing but contempt for the Broad churchmen who diluted the Faith until it was a mere sickly gruel (see his Anglican bishop in The Great Divorce). And he detested the "smells-and-bells", lace-cotta, biretta sort of thing that one finds at Anglo-Catholic shrines, and which formed the metier of T. S. Eliot. He just wanted to be left alone, to go to church and be done with it.
But it was not so simple. In spite of himself, Lewis moved more and more toward what can only be called a "catholic" Anglicanism. Again - he hated the epicene punctilio of the Anglo-Catholic party: but his faith came to embrace all sorts of doctrines and practices that his evangelical readers (who are his most enthusiastic clientele) must sedulously ignore. He spoke of "the Blessed Virgin", and made his confession to his priest regularly, and believed in purgatory, and even came to refer to the Eucharist as - heaven help us all - the Mass!  Lewis's anti-Romanism remained with him until his death, however.


Is breaking copyright law a sin? Possible Duplicate:
  Are Christians bound to the laws of their country?

Making illegal copies of films, music, books and games
Downloading and seeding torrents
Using someone else's program code without license
Plagiarism (which is like breaking 9th Commandment)

Are the things listed above sinful?

Does it depend on whether we're making money from it?

This issue is really just a sub-set of a much larger issue. See my answer on Are Christians bound to the laws of their country? for a defense of why Christians are bound to follow the laws of their countries whether or not they agree or disagree with them.

Whether or not some of the items you list would or would not fall under a biblical definition of "theft" and thus run afoul of one of the ten commandments, breaking a civil law is still something we're instructed against according to Romans 13:1. Hence breaking civil laws and ethical standards is also disobedience to God, which is sin.


When were the Hades and the lake of fire created? Has the matter of when the Hades and the lake of fire were created ever been considered in Christianity? Were they, for example, created before the fall of man or afterwards? Are there any well-known works devoted to this topic? Any major common thoughts?

The Bible gives us no information as to when Hell and the lake of fire were or possibly when the lake of fire will be created.
Hell is first mentioned in:
Deuteronomy 32:22  KJV

For a fire is kindled in mine anger, and shall burn unto the lowest hell, and shall consume the earth with her increase, and set on fire the foundations of the mountains.

and the lake of fire is first mentioned in:
Revelation 19:20  KJV

And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.

From what I can determine from my study is that Hell existed prior to Deuteronomy 32:22, but as for the Lake of fire there is a possibility that it does not yet exist and may be created just prior to the great white throne judgment since:
Rev 20:10 and 11 KJV

10  And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.
11  And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.

The lake of fire most probably does not now exist and will most likely be created as a permanent place for punishment of Satan and the fallen Angels:
Matthew 25:41  KJV

Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:


A Question regarding arguments against the Nicene Creed The Nicene Creed, produced at the First Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, was later amended (see Wikipedia) at the First Council of Constantinople in 381 AD and states :
( I am quoting excerpts from the original Greek and the literal English) :

Πιστεουμεν εις ενα θεον Πατερα [...]. . . . I believe in one God (the) Father [...]
και εις ενα Κυριον Ιησουν Χριστον . . . . . and in one Lord Jesus Christ,
τον υιον του θεου, τον μονογενη. . . . . . . the son of God, the only-begotten,
τον εκ του Πατρος γεννηθεντα . . . . . . . . that of the Father begotten
προ παντων των αιωνων [...] . . . . . . . . . . . before all the ages [...]

Francis Warden wrote a Ph.D. dissertation in 1938 which was summarised in 1953 in a journal and led to a publication by Dale Moody (also 1953) in the Journal of Biblical Literature which argued against the Nicene Creed's expression of 'only begotten' for the Greek word  monogenes (used nine times in scripture) and argued that the meaning should be 'one of a kind' or 'unique'.
This is a strange thesis as that is what monos, by itself, means. Moody has failed to translate the -genes suffix and has ended up conveying the concept of solitude, rather than expressing the fact of a relationship, especially considering the nine contexts of intimate relationship recorded in scripture :-
Luke 7:12, 8:42, 9:38 Hebrews 11:17 John 1:14,18 3:16,18 I John 4:9.
Subsequently, Denny Burk, Professor of Biblical Studies at Boyce College (The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Kentucky) argued strongly against Dale Moody's conclusions. Also, Charles Lee Irons of the Fuller Theological Seminary argued against it and contributed to a book Retrieving Eternal Generation, Zondervan 2017, in which ten University Professors and three Assistant Professors argued unanimously in favour of the Nicene stance on the subject.
I am interested to know if there has been any response to the extensive research work of Burk, Irons and their compatriots and am interested to know if any further arguments, from the opposing faction, have been presented against this considerable resistance to Dale Moody's theory.
Denny Burk - Monogenes and Eternal Generation
Charles Lee Irons - The Only Begotten

Warden's thesis is not strange at all. That is what the word was used for in a several ancient Greek texts:

μονο-γενής, ές, Ep. and Ion. μουνο-, (γένος): the only member of a kin or kind: hence, generally, only, single. Used as such in Hes.Op.376, Hdt.7.221, cf. Ev.Jo.1.14, Ant.Lib.32.1; of Hecate, Hes. Th.426.

The association with "begotten" is logical for a Latin speaker, as the Greek γενής shares the same IndoGermanic root as the Latin verb genere, which can both mean to be born and to beget.


What is the Arminian view of God's providence? Disclaimer: This question is not intended to suggest that God is not sovereign under Arminianism. It is simply a question for clarification, as I haven't really found a detailed description. Also, I have read this question but it's not quite what I'm asking.

When I ask "What is the Arminian view of God's providence", I am not referring to soteriology (specifically, at least - it would be included) but to how God brings about His plan, or any given part thereof. Say God decides he wants to bring X about - how does he 'arrange' things to achieve the desired outcome?

For example, a Reformed Christian might say that God determines things and need not take into account free will so can easily bring about X, while a Molinist would say God arranges the circumstances so humans will freely act in a way that brings about X. Is this within the scope of Arminianism? What level of detail do Arminians say God's plan has? Does it include individual human actions? I realize that's several questions but they all fit within this one/are details that I would hope to be included in the answer to the main question.

General backround

I am going to quote from one prominent Arminian theology advocate, Roger E. Olson, a well-published professor of theology and ethics.  One of his books is the 2006 Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities.  He maintains a blog called My Evangelical Arminian Theological Musings.  In this March 2014 blog article Arminianism and Providence I think he addressed all your subquestions while omitting the soteriological aspect (as you requested) because he helpfully contrasts many elements you mentioned that are connected to providence: free will, God's will, sin/evil, foreknowledge, foreordaining, etc. although the blog article may not be to the level of details you are looking for.

Some quotes from that article:

  I have expressed my own overall view of God’s providence this way: “God is in charge but not in control.” However, some Arminians objected to that.
  Sin and evil are included in God's consequent will, not God's antecedent will.  God governs them but does not design, foreordain or render them certain. ... The only category of creaturely decisions and actions where God NEVER interferes with free will IN THE SENSE OF rendering them certain is sin and evil.  God permits them but does not design, foreordain or render them certain.  ... In relation to creaturely decisions and actions that are sinful, God never designs, foreordains or renders certain individuals’ evil decisions and actions that would cause their condemnation.
  God DOES interferes with free will in guiding and directing our lives as his people.  He is not the author of our sins or failures, but he does direct our lives in terms of opening and closing doors.
  If we shut him out of our lives and tell him to leave us alone he will, saying, reluctantly, "Okay thy will, not mine be done." This, too, of course, is within his will -- consequently but not antecedently.
  ... he foresees their sinful intentions and allows me to be in the path of their consequences insofar as that “needful and best” for me.  ... Much of what I suffer may very well be his will. I do not expect God to be “fair” to me or keep me from harm (although I believe praying for him to preserve my life and help me in times of trial is always good).

I think more details would be forthcoming from his two books, both highly rated in Amazon:

Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities (2006)
Against Calvinism (2011)

Details on how God "arrange" things

  Say God decides he wants to bring X about - how does he 'arrange' things to achieve the desired outcome?

Answer: by

"placing people in circumstances where he knows what they will freely do because he needs them to do that for his plan to be fulfilled."
divine self-limitation so as not to be the cause of evil

God truly respects human freedom even to the point of reluctantly allowing evil to happen, which thwarted His perfect will, but then He work around them to orchestrate His plan because He foreknew the outcome of those evil actions.  "He has chosen to make himself partially dependent on his
human covenant partners while remaining the “superior covenant
power of holy love.”".  Thus He chose not to force miracle to happen in Nazareth but making it dependent on people's faith.  Thus He allowed Jesus to be crucified although He didn't tempt the people who made the decisions to sin but working around them to achieve the final result.

Basis for the answer

The answer above was based on Chapter 4 ("Yes to God's Sovereignty; No to Divine Determinism") of his book "Against Calvinism" referred to above.

Plan for Chapter 4.  After starting with 2 heart-wrenching examples to illustrate the insufficiency of Calvinistic divine determinism, he wrote a long historical summary of Calvinist teaching by discussing in individual sections the treatment by Zwingli & Calvin, Jonathan Edwards, Loraine Boettner, R.C. Sproul, Paul Helm, and John Piper.  Then he discussed in a section titled "The Problem of God's Reputation" quoting evangelical philosopher Jerry Walls who says "The Calvinist must sacrifice a clear notion of God's goodness for the sake of maintaining his view of God's sovereign decrees."  In the next section "The Freedom of God and Human Responsibility" he discussed the view of the various Calvinists focusing on this topic.  Finally he closes with the section "Alternatives to Divine Determinism" from which I constructed the short answer above.

Quotes from the final section of chapter 4 (emphasis mine):

  ... The main alternative to this strong doctrine of God’s sovereignty [i.e. Calvinist doctrine of divine determinism] is divine self-limitation.

  First, let it be clearly understood that those who appeal to divine
  self-limitation and passive permission as the explanation for sin and
  evil in the omnipotent, creator God’s world do not say God never manipulates historical circumstances to bring about his will. What God
  never does is cause evil. God may and no doubt sometimes does bring
  about some event by placing people in circumstances where he knows
  what they will freely do because he needs them to do that for his plan to
  be fulfilled. Such seemed to be the case with Jesus’ crucifixion. Even
  then, however, it was not that God tempted or manipulated individuals
  to sin. Rather, he knew what events, such as the triumphal entry, would
  result in the crucifixion.

  But what we must not say is that the fall of Adam, which set off the
  whole history of sin and evil, was willed, planned, and rendered certain
  by God. God neither foreordained it nor rendered it certain, and it was
  not a part of his will except to reluctantly allow it. How do we know this? We know it because we know God’s character through Jesus Christ.
  The doctrine of the incarnation proves that God’s character is fully
  revealed in Jesus such that “no interpretation of any passage [in the
  Bible] that undercuts the revelations of the divine mind inculcated by
  Jesus can be accepted as valid. What he says and does is what God says
  and does. He had no hidden decrees to conceal, no dark side of his
  Father to protect from disclosure, no reason to be defensive about the
  [ways of] God.”¹⁰⁵

  The high Calvinist doctrine of God’s sovereignty including evil as
  part of God’s plan, purpose, and determining power blatantly
  contradicts Scripture passages that reveal “God is love” (1 John 4:8),
  takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked (Ezek. 18:32), wants
  everyone to be saved (Ezek. 18:32; 1 Tim. 2:4; 2 Peter 3:9), and never
  tempts anyone (James 1:13). To be sure, Calvinists have clever but
  unconvincing explanations of these and numerous other passages of
  Scripture. For example, John Piper argues that God has “complex feelings and motives,”¹⁰⁶ such that he genuinely regrets that sin and
  evil have to be part of his world, genuinely wishes that all people could
  be saved, and is grieved when those he predestined to die and even
  suffer in hell for eternity for his glory experience that fate. But these are not convincing explanations of these important passages that reveal the
  heart of God. They make God double-minded.

  So how might one deal with the reality of sin and evil in God’s world
  without placing undue limits on God’s power and sovereignty? The
  only way is to posit what Scripture everywhere assumes — a divine
  self-limitation in relation to the world of moral freedom, including
  especially libertarian freedom. That freedom is a wonderful and terrible
  gift of God to human persons created in his image and likeness. In
  other words, God allows his perfect will to be thwarted by his human
  creatures whom he loves and respects enough not to control them.

  Thus, God does have two wills, but they are not ones posited by
  Calvinism. As a result of Adam’s free choice to fall into sin (with free
  choice here meaning he could have done otherwise), God has a perfect
  will— also known as his antecedent will. (“Perfect” here means “what
  God truly wishes would happen.”) God’s perfect will is that none
  perish; this is God’s antecedent will (antecedent to the fall and to its
  resulting corruption in the world). God also has a consequent will—
  consequent to creaturely rebellion. It is that he allows some freely to
  choose to perish. But his allowing is genuinely reluctant and not
  manipulative.

  Evangelical theologian Stanley Grenz (1950 – 2005) offered a helpful
  distinction in God’s providence that corresponds to the two wills —
  perfect/antecedent and consequent — mentioned above. It is the
  distinction between “sovereignty de facto” and “sovereignty de jure.”¹⁰⁷ According to Grenz, with whom I agree, due to God’s voluntary
  self-limitation he is now sovereign de jure (by right) but not yet
  sovereign de facto (in actuality). His sovereignty de facto is future. This reflects the biblical narrative in which Satan is the “god of this age” (2 Cor. 4:4) (where “world” clearly means “this present evil age”), and God
  will defeat him in the coming age to become “all in all” (1 Cor. 15:28).
  The entirety of 1 Corinthians 15 can be interpreted in no other way; it
  assumes the distinction between God’s sovereign rule de jure now and
  de facto in the future. This is not to say, of course, that God is not
  actually sovereign now at all; it only says that God is allowing his
  sovereignty to be challenged and his will to be partially thwarted until
  then.

  Doesn’t this limit God’s power and sovereignty? No, because God
  remains omnipotent; he could control everything and everyone if he
  chose to. For the sake of having real, personal creatures who can freely
  choose to love him or not, God limits his control. Still, God is sovereign
  in the sense that nothing at all can ever happen that God does not allow.
  Nothing falls totally outside of God’s supervening oversight and
  governance. But not everything that happens is what God wants to
  happen or determines to happen. There is no exhaustive divine
  determinism.

  Of course, Jesus, being God, could have healed everyone in
  Nazareth when he visited there (Mark 6:5), but he “couldn’t” do
  miracles there because of their lack of faith. As God, he had the sheer
  power to do miracles. But he had limited his power ordinarily to do
  miracles in the presence of faith. He did not want to go around
  unilaterally healing people without some measure of cooperating or
  receptive faith on their part. So it is with God’s sovereignty. He could exercise deterministic control, but he has chosen not to do so. As
  theologian E. Frank Tupper says, God is not a “do anything, anytime,
  anywhere kind of God” because he has chosen not to be that kind of
  God.¹⁰⁸ He has chosen to make himself partially dependent on his
  human covenant partners while remaining the “superior covenant
  power of holy love.”¹⁰⁹

Footnotes:

  ¹⁰⁵. William G. MacDonald, “The Biblical Doctrine of Election,” in
  The Grace of God, the Will of Man: A Case for Arminianism, ed., Clark H.
  Pinnock (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1989), 213.

  ¹⁰⁶. Piper, The Pleasures of God, 146.

  ¹⁰⁷. Stanley J. Grenz, Theology for the Community of God (Nashville,
  TN: Broadman & Holman, 1994), 140.

  ¹⁰⁸. E. Frank Tupper, A Scandalous Providence: The Jesus Story of the
  Compassion of God (Macon, GA: Mercer Univ. Press, 1995), 334 – 35.

  ¹⁰⁹. Hendrikus Berkhof, The Christian Faith: An Introduction to the
  Study of the Faith (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 146.

Recommendations for further reading

Del Rey Church Theology class material on Providence, Decrees, Creation.  Del Rey Church is an EFCA church which accepts both Calvinism and Arminianism.  The class material seems to be non-polemic and really tries to let each side states the position well.  I think this is an excellent way to survey various positions regarding Providence.  It's very long and detailed, but I think it's worth studying.
Thomas Oden's book Classic Christianity: A Systematic Theology which is his attempt to present ecumenical Christianity before the fall of Rome (thus before the schism) so not specifically Wesleyan / Arminian.  He limits himself to patristic interpretation of the Bible, which I think is very valuable to learn how the patristic fathers didn't spell out too much specifics on God's providence, leaving it open for later theologians to fill out the detail (which on the negative side can lead to unhealthy disputes that distract us from what's common to Christianity).  He himself is a Methodist, and in his earlier book The Living God: Systemic Theology: Volume One he has more details on the Arminian view of providence and the book was quoted by the class material above.


From a biblical perspective, Who performs a miracle - the person or God? In answering a question about kenosis, I said that Jesus emptied himself of his divinity, essentially, "giving up the perks of being God." Hammar replied, "but he still performed miracles, didn't he?"

In response, I said, "yes, but other humans performed miracles, too." which got me thinking - Do humans actually perform miracles or does God perform a miracle through people in order that people might know that God approves.

Biblically speaking, there are several instances of Jesus and other people performing miracles.  Is there, however, any indication that the power by which they were performed "flowed differently" between the prophets of the past and the Jesus that is believed to be a part of the Godhead himself?  What proof texts would speak to the issue on either side, and how have these been interpreted by significant theologians in the past?

In healing the woman who had been bleeding for many years (Mark 5:24 - 30), Jesus has an interesting reaction:

25 And a woman was there who had been subject to bleeding for twelve years. 26 She had suffered a great deal under the care of many doctors and had spent all she had, yet instead of getting better she grew worse. 27 When she heard about Jesus, she came up behind him in the crowd and touched his cloak, 28 because she thought, “If I just touch his clothes, I will be healed.” 29 Immediately her bleeding stopped and she felt in her body that she was freed from her suffering.
30 At once Jesus realized that power had gone out from him. He turned around in the crowd and asked, “Who touched my clothes?”
31 “You see the people crowding against you,” his disciples answered, “and yet you can ask, ‘Who touched me?’ ”
32 But Jesus kept looking around to see who had done it. 33 Then the woman, knowing what had happened to her, came and fell at his feet and, trembling with fear, told him the whole truth. 34 He said to her, “Daughter, your faith has healed you. Go in peace and be freed from your suffering.”

It is interesting, a miracle was performed without Jesus doing it.  This seems to imply that miracles could occur without Jesus' explicit doing. If Jesus was unaware of the miracle being performed through him, who was doing the miracle?
The obvious answer is that God the Father poured out power in a way that bypassed Jesus' human consciousness. Jesus could thus empty himself of his divinity (the kenosis), and yet still perform miracles.
This would also explain the story in Acts 8, when Simon, a former magician turned new believer, asked the disciples the secret of how to perform miracles.  He was even willing to pay for the privilege, a dubious practice called simony (the selling of power) ever since.
But, in seeking to perform these miracles, he was rebuked.  Even if he wanted to perform these miracles for god's kingdom, it was clear he didn't realize that miracles were performed for God's glory, not his own.
Finally, Jesus is explicit that miracles are not magic tricks - they are signs that are to accompany a message.  They are not to relieve suffering but rather to authenticate God's will. In Mark 2, Jesus forgives the paralytic, which incenses the Pharisees. It isn't until after the Pharisees get angry at this blasphemy (Who can forgive sins but God alone?), that Jesus performs the miracle, explcitly saying "in order that you might believe."
Miracles, are thus a sign of God's power. As such, I don't think its a stretch to say if the purpose of a miracle is to prove God's hand in a thing, that he would also be the source of it.


Jansenism's views of marriage? What are Jansenism's views of marriage? Were they akin to Manicheans' and Albigensians'? Who was a prominent Jansenist who wrote about marriage?

The Jansenists were known for adhering to errors on grace condemned by Innocent X in 1568 (DZ 1092 ff.). Opposed to the Jesuits' presumed laxity, they were moral rigorists ("hards"), who, according to Noonan's Contraception p. 317,

insisted on the Augustinian tie between sexual acts, concupiscence, and original sin. They [unlike St. Augustine] insisted on the sinfulness of initiating intercourse with any purpose other than procreation.

Thus, the Jansenists appear to have an extreme procreative view of sexual intercourse. The Cathars / Alibegensians were against procreation because, like the Manicheans, they believed the material/bodily world is evil and that marriage is, too, because it "traps" souls in bodies.
Catholic teaching is that (Summa Theologica suppl. q. 49 a. 5 co. // Super Sent., lib. 4 d. 31 q. 2 a. 2 co.)

when married persons come together for the purpose of begetting children, or of paying the debt to one another (which pertains to "faith[fulness]") they are wholly excused from sin.[quando conjuges conveniunt causa prolis procreandae, vel ut sibi invicem debitum reddant, quae ad fidem pertinent; totaliter excusantur a peccato.]

Martin de Barcos, a student of Cornelius Jansen himself, was a prominent Jansenist theologian. De Barcos promoted the heresy that "St. Peter and St. Paul are the two princes of the Church who form one head." (DZ 1091). What he wrote about pleasure in marriage in Du decalogue pp. 296-301 does not appear to be contrary to Catholic teaching on marriage.
The Jansenist philosopher Pascal also seems "to have an extreme procreative view" of marriage when he writes (Pensées diverses III – Fragment n° 65 / 85):

les filles de Loth, par exemple, qui n’avaient que le désir des enfants, étaient plus pures sans mariage que les mariés sans désir d’enfant.the daughters of Lot, for example, who only desired children, were purer without marriage than marrieds who have no desire for children.

This statement depreciates virginal marriage.


Why the 70-year exile and not more? Reading Jeremiah, it occurred to me that the Israelite occupation of the land, including the time of the Judges, was around 800 years from the time they crossed the Jordan. God says the period of exile is due to them not giving the land rest like they were supposed to do (70 years for the 420 years prior) but the timeframe in question only seems to cover the period of the kings. Does this mean they obeyed that particular mandate during the time of the Judges? Otherwise, shouldn't the exile have been a lot longer? TIA

See https://lifehopeandtruth.com/prophecy/understanding-the-book-of-daniel/daniel-9/
This article quotes the Jamieson, Fausset and Brown Commentary. The 70 years was “the exact number of years of Sabbaths in four hundred and ninety years, the period from Saul to the Babylonian captivity."

Disobedience to the Ten Commandments was judged by forty years of wandering in the desert.
Disobedience during the times of the judges was punished by periodic oppressions by neighboring peoples like the Moabites, Philistines, Canaanites, etc.
The exile was specifically a judgement against the kingdom of Israel/Judah, which began with Saul.

The cited article makes an interesting point: there were two overlapping 70-year exiles.

Seventy years from first deportation to Cyrus' edict permitting return.
Seventy years from destruction of Solomon's temple until the construction of a new temple.


Where did Martin Luther say Temptations, of course, cannot be avoided, but because we cannot prevent the birds from flying over our heads, there is no need that we should let them nest in our hair.

It's in Luther's Explanation of the Lord's Prayer, Sixth Petition ("And lead us not into temptation"), paragraph 161.  Sample collection that includes the work is Luther on Christian Education, 1907, 12MB PDF which includes:

Luther's Small Catechism
Large Catechism
Explanation of God's Ten Commandments
Explanation of the Apostle's Creed
Explanation of the Lord's Prayer
Explanation of Holy Baptism
Explanation of Confession
Explanation of the Lord's Supper.

For historical interest, here's full quotation.  I'm impressed at how detailed the explanation is.  Makes me want to read the whole thing !

  THE SIXTH PETITION.

  "And lead us not into temptation."

  If the word "temptation" or "allurement" were not
  so much in vogue it would be better and clearer to say:
  And lead us not into trials. But in this petition we learn to
  realize the wretchedness of our life upon earth. For it is all
  trial; no man who is wise will look for peace and security
  here; he can never attain to such a condition. And though
  we all should desire it, it is still in vain. A life of trial it is
  and remains.
  Therefore we do not say, Take the temptation from me, but, Lead us not into it. What the supplicant means to
  say is. We are surrounded with temptations on all sides and
  cannot escape them, but, O our Father, help us not to enter
  into them, that is, not to consent to yield to them and so be
  overcome and overthrown. He who yields to temptation
  sins and becomes a captive of sin, as Saint Paul says, Rom
  7,23.
  Therefore, this life is, as Job says (7, 1), nothing but
  a warfare and a perpetual conflict with sin. And the dragon,
  the devil, continually assaults us and endeavors to draw us
  into his jaws. Saint Peter says : Dear brethren, "be sober,
  be watchful: your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion,
  walketh about, seeking whom he may devour," 1 Pet 5, 8.
  Behold, Saint Peter, our dear father and faithful bishop, says
  that our adversary seeks us, not at any particular place,
  but everywhere and at every point. He incites, stirs and
  troubles ail our members and senses from within and without.
  From within, by evil suggestions; from without, by
  wicked images, words and acts. Men and every creature
  are his agents. Unchastity, wrath, pride, covetousness and
  other sins are the objects of his temptations, and he uses
  every cunning device to induce us to yield. As soon as we
  feel so inclined let us swiftly raise our eyes to God in prayer
  :
  O God, Father, see how I am moved and tempted to this
  or that vice; see how I am hindered in this or that good
  work. Guard me, dear Father, and help me; let me not
  succumb and yield to it. How blessed would he be who
  would rise and apply this petition faithfully! There are
  many who know not when they are tempted nor what they
  should do in temptation.
  What is temptation? It is of two kinds. On the
  one hand, that which incites to anger, hate, bitterness, displeasure,
  impatience; such as sickness, poverty, dishonor
  and everything painful, especially the annoyance of having
  one's will or purpose, one's opinion, counsel, word or work
  rejected and despised. These things are of daily occurrence
  in this life, and God inflicts them through evil men or devils.
  If one feels a wrong impulse, he ought to be wise
  and not be taken by surprise, for such is the course of this
  life. He ought to draw forth this petition as a true bead
  in the rosary of prayer, and say : O Father, here is certainly
  a temptation, which is come upon me ; help me, that it may
  not result in my seduction and overthrow.
  When temptation assumes this form two kinds of
  foolish conduct are possible. First, when we say: Indeed,
  I would be pious and not get angry if I had peace. And
  some give our Lord God and his saints no rest until he
  takes the temptation from them. He must heal this man's
  leg, make that man rich, let this man secure justice. And
  they do whatever they can by their own efforts and the
  efforts of others to extricate themselves, and so they remain
  lazy and cowardly knights, unwilling to sustain attack, or
  to fight. Therefore, they are not crowned; ay, they fall
  into the opposite temptation, as we shall hear. But the
  proper course is not to slip by the temptation nor to escape
  it, but in knightly valor to conquer it. This is the sentiment
  which Job expresses when he says (7, 1) : "Is there not a
  warfare to man upon earth?"
  The others, who neither overcome the temptation
  nor are relieved of it, plunge into anger, hate, impatience;
  give themselves entirely to the devil ; work evil by word and
  w^ork; become murderers, robbers, slanderers, perjurers,
  backbiters, and makers of all kinds of mischief. The temptation
  has conquered them and they yield to every evil impulse.
  The devil has them altogether in his power and they are
  his captives. They invoke neither God nor his saints. But
  inasmuch as our life is called a temptation by God himself,
  and it is unavoidable that we are subjected to offenses and
  injustice in body, property and honor, we ought to look
  forward to trials with unruffled minds, receive them in a
  spirit of wisdom when they come, and say: Ah, such is the
  nature of life, what am I to do? It is and remains a temptation.
  It cannot be otherwise. God help me that I may
  not be moved and overthrown.
  Thus you see that temptation can be avoided by
  no one ; but resistance may be made and, with prayer and
  recourse to divine aid, we can put ourselves in readiness to
  meet such designs. In the book of an old father we read
  that a young brother expressed a desire to be rid of his
  thoughts. Thereupon the old father said: Dear brother,
  you cannot prevent the birds from flying in the air over your
  head, but you can prevent them from building a nest in
  your hair. So, as St. Augustine says, we cannot prevent
  offenses and temptations, but by prayer and invocation of
  the help of God we can prevent them from overcoming us.
  On the other hand the temptation is that which incites
  to unchastity, lasciviousness, pride, avarice, vainglory
  and everything that pleases. Especially does this kind of
  temptation come when one is permitted to have his way;
  when his words, counsel and deeds are praised ; and when he
  receives much honor and appreciation.
  This is the most dangerous temptation, characteristic
  of the time of the Antichrist. So David says in the
  Psalm (91, 7) : "A thousand shall fall at thy side, and ten
  thousand at thy right hand." Its spread at the present
  time is alarming. For the world strives only for wealth,
  honor and pleasure. In particular is it true that the young
  acquire no training for the fight against temptation and
  carnal lust. They fall without an effort. Nothing is considered
  disgraceful any more. The whole world is full of
  lecherous songs and stories, as if this were the proper thing.
  In all this we witness the fearful wrath of God, who permits
  the world thus to fall into temptation because nobody calls
  upon him.
  It is indeed a sore temptation for a young person
  when the devil fans his flesh into a flame, sets marrow,
  bone and every member on fire, and, at the same time,
  incites him from without by seductive objects in the form
  of gestures, dances, clothes, words and attractive pictures of
  women or men. As Job says (41, 21) : "His breath kindleth
  coals." The world is now altogether mad in its devotion
  to dress and jewelry. But it is not impossible for us to
  overcome all this, provided we are in the habit of calling
  upon God and praying: "Father, lead us not into temptation."
  This should be our prayer also when tempted to
  pride in consequence of receiving praise and honor; likewise
  when wealth or any worldly boon falls to our lot.
  Why does God permit men thus to be tempted to
  sin? Answer: That man may learn to know himself and
  God. To know himself—that he can do nothing but sin and
  evil. To know God—that God's grace is mightier than all
  creatures. Thus man shall learn to despise himself and to
  praise and glorify God's grace. For there have been those
  who have tried to withstand unchastity by their own powers,
  by fasting and work. They have broken down their bodies
  thereby and yet have accomplished nothing. For evil desire
  is extinguished by nothing except the heavenly dew
  and rain of God's grace. Fasting, work and watching must
  indeed accompany it ; but they are not sufficient.

  Conclusion of the Petition

  Now, when God has forgiven us our debts, nothing
  is so much to be guarded against as the danger of falling
  again. For, as David says (Ps 104, 25), in the sea of this
  world are creeping things innumerable ; that is, many temptations
  and stumbling-blocks, which would draw us back
  into guilt. It is necessary that, without ceasing, we speak
  from our hearts : Father, lead us not into temptation. I do
  not ask to be altogether free from temptation, for that would
  be disastrous and worse than ten temptations like those first
  mentioned; but I ask that I may not fall and sin against
  my neighbor or thee. St. James says : "Blessed is the man
  that endureth temptation," Ja 1, 12. Why? Because temptations
  exercise a man, and perfect him m humility and patience,
  and make him acceptable to God, as his dearest children
  are. Blessed is he who takes this to heart. Now, alas!
  everybody seeks rest, peace, pleasure, and comfort in this
  life. Therefore, the reign of Antichrist is approaching, if
  indeed it is not already here.


Open my eyes so I may see 2 Kings 6:15-17 (KJV)
  15 And when the servant of the man of God was risen early, and gone forth, behold, an host compassed the city both with horses and chariots. And his servant said unto him, Alas, my master! how shall we do?
  16 And he answered, Fear not: for they that be with us are more than they that be with them.
  17 And Elisha prayed, and said, LORD, I pray thee, open his eyes, that he may see. And the LORD opened the eyes of the young man; and he saw: and, behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha.

Is this the result of the power of Elisha's prayer and/or is it possible that while on this earth, I will ever be able to see like this?

Two common metaphors used throughout scripture are that we are "blind" and that we are "dead." In both metaphors, the idea is that there are entire worlds and goings-on of which we are unaware.  Paul even combines both metaphors when he describes the Gospel as "veiled to those who are perishing."

Certainly, then, the normal course of events is that we are unaware of this.

That said, the power of the Gospel can be compared to "a blind man receiving back his sight."  This typically doesn't happen until the end, however, for as 1 Cor 13:12 says, "For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror [ed or "as in a glass, darkly"]; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known..."

The point is that the supernatural part of Elijah's prayer wasn't that Elisha would see - but rather that he would see NOW as opposed to later.


Is the genealogy in Matthew a complete Genealogy, or did he abreviate it for a specific reason? The genealogy in Matthew 1 lists the names in 3 groups - From Abraham to David, David to the Exile, The Exile to Jesus.

I'm just interested to know is this a complete family history for Jesus, or is it done "poetically" so that there are 14 generations in each group?

Is Matthew trying to highlight something to his Jewish readers by pointing out there are 14 generations between each event?

Many people believe that there are gaps in the Genealogy listed in Matthew.  This article addresses "the primary problems of the Genealogy in Matthew", and lists the gaps as one of the arguments for "unreliability" leveled by critics.

  Section I: What Are The Primary Problems Associated With Matthew’s
  Genealogy And How Are They Reconciled?

  There are 3 main problems associated with Matthew’s genealogy that
  most critics point out. They are as follows:

  The Inference That Joseph Was Actually Jesus’ Father

  The Promise Of God Against Jeconiah Nullified That The Messiah Would Be As A Result Of His Bloodline. (Jer. 22:29-30)

  Too Many Gaps In The Genealogical Succession Of Matthew Against Known References In Other Texts Prove Discrepancies.

The "gaps are explained thus:

  The critic often levies the charge that gaps found within the
  genealogy of Matthew are as a matter of sloppy investigations of the
  facts and proof that Matthew either made the story up or simply
  couldn’t seem to get it right even after he wrote it. These type of
  statements usually claim the historical ignorance of the gospel writer
  and relegate Jesus to the realm of myth, which is another tired
  critical argument refuted over and over down through the last couple
  of centuries. Was Matthew eagerly, erroneously and fallaciously
  promoting information that even he couldn’t seem to get straight? What
  are we to make of gaps in Matthew’s account?

  Once again this type of observation is clearly and certainly
  overemphasized, and has no bearing on the accuracy of the narrative.
  It is a fact that some of the individuals Matthew says “begat”, were
  grandfathers and sometime great grandfathers and not paternal fathers
  and sons. One such example is Mt. 1:8 where Joram is said to have
  “begat” Uzziah. We know that 1 Chron. 3:10-12 states that Joram was
  Uzziah’s great-grandfather not paternal father. 3 generations are
  skipped by Matthew in this case.

The article does go on further, but from just this last paragraph, we can see that this author, at least, believes that there are gaps, and the genealogy is not complete.  This has been my understanding as well, as it's a common explanation in Apologetic literature.


What is the purpose of other planets and solar system according to the bible? Are they just to light up the night? Does the bible even talk about other planets and other solar system with the capability of life or the people who wrote the bible does not know about these solar system because of lack of scientific advancement at that time?

The Bible does recognise the existence of heavenly bodies of some sort, and the fact that they move and come and go during the year:

  Gen 1 14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years.

However it calls them lights, which is how they appear from the earth. There is no reference to planets or other such worlds.

There was astronomy in late Biblical times: the Wise Men followed "a star" at the time of Jesus' birth. However the difference between astronomy and what we now call astrology was not clearly defined, and technology had not developed to the extent that Jupiter (the largest and most clearly-featured planet) could be seen to have coloured bands or moons. It was Galileo who first observed its moons, and he got into serious trouble for documenting it and supporting Copernicus.

We may say the Bible is incomplete in describing the heavenly bodies as lights rather than being more specific; but it was written by the writers of the time — they could not be expected to write down what they could not have understood.


What is the biblical basis for saying that Middle East Region will not have peace? I am not sure if am just imagining this, but I can remember hearing from my Sunday School teacher that "the Middle East  will not have peace, according to some Bible verse ... that dooms the region from ever having peace"

Where Middle East in my faint recollection can be any of the major cities or countries in that region.

Especially during the time the Kingdoms of Israel were split.
If such a verse(s) exist please let me know.
Plus an explanation/opinion on the verse would be nice too.

My denominations is Protestant: Pentecostal and attend a new life church. I am looking for a Protestant perspective.

Jeremiah (who was active between 626 and 586 B.C.) made this prophecy about the descendants of Jacob:

  “These are the words the LORD spoke concerning Israel and Judah... ‘How awful that day will be! None will be like it. It will be a time of trouble for Jacob, but he will be saved out of it...  I will surely save you out of a distant place, your descendants from the land of their exile. Jacob will again have peace and security, and no one will make him afraid. I am with you and will save you,’ declares the LORD” (Jeremiah 30:4-11).

Throughout their history in the Promised Land, the descendants of Jacob have struggled internally, with conflict between the various tribes.  The article in the link below explains in great detail why there has been so little peace.  It concludes:

  “So Israel has been in rebellion against the house of David to this day” (1 Kings 12:19). The northern kingdom is called “Israel” (or sometimes “Ephraim”) in Scripture, and the southern kingdom is called “Judah.” From the divine viewpoint, the division was a judgment on not keeping God’s commands, specifically the commands prohibiting idolatry. From a human viewpoint, the division was the result of tribal discord and political unrest. The principle is that sin brings division (1 Corinthians 1:13, 11:18; James 4:1).” https://www.gotquestions.org/Israel-Northern-Southern-kingdoms.html

Conflict in the Middle East has been a reality whenever Israel has existed as a nation. Whether it was the Egyptians, Amalekites, Midianites, Moabites, Ammonites, Amorites, Philistines, Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, or Romans, the nation of Israel has always been persecuted by its neighbours. Why is this? Basically, it is because God has a special plan for the nation of Israel, and Satan wants to defeat that plan.

It all goes back to Genesis 12:5-9 when the Lord appeared to Abram and said, “To your offspring I will give this land.”  Hebrew Scriptures say Isaac was to be the son of promise, through whom all he nations would be blessed. The Qur’an says it was Ishmael. The Qur’an teaches that it was Ishmael whom Abraham almost sacrificed to the Lord, not Isaac (see Genesis 22). This disagreement over who was the son of promise further contributes to today’s hostility in the Middle East.

However, God has promised a reuniting of the northern and southern kingdoms:

  “He will raise a banner for the nations / and gather the exiles of Israel; / he will assemble the scattered people of Judah / from the four quarters of the earth. / Ephraim’s jealousy will vanish, / and Judah’s enemies will be destroyed; / Ephraim will not be jealous of Judah, / nor Judah hostile toward Ephraim” (Isaiah 11:12-13).

The Protestant view is that when the Prince of Peace—Jesus Christ—reigns in His millennial kingdom, all hostility, jealousy, and conflict among the tribes will be put to rest.


What happens to a diocese when a bishop dies unexpectedly? Our bishop passed away last week unexpectedly, the only thing I've heard is that it may the Vatican 6-9 months to replace him.
What is the process and who is in charge of the diocese during this time?
Are confirmations and ordinations put on hold?
What about the other functions that the bishop delegates to priests (but the laity takes for granted)?

What happens to a diocese when a bishop dies unexpectedly?

Prior to the naming of Archbishop Exner in my archdiocese, we were without a bishop for 11 months. The diocesan administrator (later named the apostolic administrator just prior his visit ad limina as a priest) performed most of the normal functions of the archbishop.

  The term "sede vacante" can be applied to other Catholic dioceses outside of Rome. In such cases, this means that the particular diocesan bishop has either died, resigned, transferred to a different diocese, or lost his office and a replacement has not yet been named. If there is a coadjutor bishop for the diocese, then this period does not take place, as the coadjutor bishop (or coadjutor archbishop, in the case of an archdiocese) immediately succeeds to the episcopal see.

  Within eight days after the episcopal see is known to be vacant, the college of consultors (or the cathedral chapter in some countries) is obliged to elect a diocesan administrator. The administrator they choose must be a priest or bishop who is at least 35 years old.

  If the college of consultors fails to elect a qualifying person within the time allotted, the choice of diocesan administrator passes to the metropolitan archbishop or, if the metropolitan see is vacant, to the senior-most by appointment of the suffragan bishops.

  Before the election of the diocesan administrator of a vacant see, the governance of the see is entrusted, with the powers of a vicar general, to the auxiliary bishop, if there is one, or to the senior among them, if there are several, otherwise to the college of consultors as a whole. The diocesan administrator has greater powers, essentially those of a bishop except for matters excepted by the nature of the matter or expressly by law. Canon law subjects his activity to various legal restrictions and to special supervision by the college of consultors (as for example canons 272 and 485).

  Vicars general and episcopal vicars lose their powers sede vacante if they are not bishops; the vicars that are themselves bishops retain the powers they had before the see fell vacant, which they are to exercise under the authority of the administrator. - Sede vacante

The diocesan administrator may perform the confirmations within the diocese even if he is a priest (Can. 427 §1).

  The diocesan Administrator is bound by the obligations and enjoys the power of a diocesan Bishop, excluding those matters which are excepted by the nature of things or by the law itself.

Who's in charge of the Diocese When There's No Bishop is an excellent read.


What is the significance of Matthew starting with the names of the ancestors of Jesus? The Gospel of Matthew starts by stating the names of ancestors of Jesus Christ. Does that have any significance other than to establish that Jesus was a descendant of King David?

There are several lessons to be drawn from this genealogy.  One of my personal favorites is the four women mentioned: Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, and Mary.  Each of these women's stories is mentioned in Scripture, and each has a less than stellar reputation.

To wit:

Tamar played the part of a prostitute, and got her father-in-law to impregnante her, although she was justified in doing so.
Rahab was a prostitute, and says as much.
Ruth was at very least very, very forward with Boaz.  When she "uncovers his feet," there is at least the possibility of reading the euphemistic idea of feet as saying that Ruth seduced Boaz by sleeping with him.
Mary was pure, but to the outside world, she looked like an unwed mother.

Even beyond the women, Jesus takes the good and the bad. Yes, David was good and Solomon was wise - but Manesseh's evil was equally on display. Being God, it is not just "an accident of nature." God chose each and every one of these - good and bad alike - to be his forefathers and foremothers. He came to seek and save everyone. He came to seek and save the lost.

Here's the idea - these were not all the pure Queens and noble Kings that the world looks upon.  Prompted by the Holy Spirit, Matthew included some awfully shady seeming characters.  Why? Because the God who became Man came for precisely this kind of person!  Jesus was a King - he was descended from David. But he was not aloof. He came to seek and save even people like this!


Who do mainline Protestants believe an "archangel" (such as Michael) to be? Some sects including Jehovah's Witnesses believe the archangel Michael to be one in the same with Christ. The basic premise of this claim seems to stem from the unique usage of the role archangel rather than just any-ol-angel.

  Michael is the only one said to be the 'archangel', meaning 'chief angel' or 'principal angel'.

I would like to know what a mainline Protestant understanding about the role of "archangel" is. What makes them different from a mainline* angel? Do they bear any special relation to Christ? How many might there be?

Also, are there any ways in which Protestants view the type "archangel" differently than other major traditions?

* Sorry, couldn't resist.

There is some debate over how many archangels there are.  Gabriel is referred to as an archangel by Catholic tradition, but there is no scripture supporting that.  The apocryphal 'Book of Enoch' as well as Ephesians 1:21 and Colossians 1:16 was used by Thomas Aquinas and others preceding him, to develop the 'Angelic Hierarchy', but scripture is very vague when it comes to this.

The word "archangel" comes from the Greek αρχάγγελος (archaggělǒs), meaning chief angel, a translation of the Hebrew רב־מלאך (rav-mal'ákh).  There are only 2 verses in the NT that say "Archangel", 1 Thessalonians 4:16 and Jude 1:9.  They both refer to Michael as the archangel (singular), though Michael is also referred to in the OT, Daniel 10:13-21, as "one of the chief princes" (vs 13) (also translated as chief angels in some translations).  So scripture isn't clear as to whether he is one of several/many archangels, or the only one.

It is important to note that Michael is AN angel, and therefore not accorded the same favors that are afforded to Christ (Hebrews 1:5, 2:5), as the author of Hebrews shows how unique the Son of God is, even above the angels, nor will the world be subject to them, unlike Christ, who will reign (Revelation 19:16; Matthew 2:1, 2; 9:35).  Also, Jude 1:9 presents Michael as not even have the power to rebuke Satan alone, as he stated "the Lord rebuke you", whereas Christ had the power to rebuke Satan and demons on his own authority (Matthew 4:10, 16:23, 17:18; Mark 8:33; Luke 4:35).


What does "biblical Christianity" mean to evangelical Protestants? What does "biblical Christianity" mean to evangelical Protestants, and does it entail the emphasis on and especial attention to sola scriptura?

I think this question is important, because it may be jargon for something in the evangelical Protestant culture.

Biblical Christianity vs. un-Biblical Christianity

In regards to protestantism, Biblical Christianity could probably be defined or characterized by how one would describe un-Biblical Christianity. What is unbiblical Christianity? It is Christianity (or the claim thereof) that lives or teaches something in contradiction to Scripture.

Naturally, to conclude that something contradicts the truth of the Scripture, one must have an idea of what is meant (ultimately, by God) by what is written. That involves fallible humans, and therein is a source of inconsistency and disunity.

In general, Biblical Christianity means that you live and believe things consistent with the testimony of Scripture. Though some might claim something as narrow as @Anonymous ("whatever-I-believe-in"), I don't think this is what is meant by most people who use the phrase. They are, at least, claiming that what they believe is not their own idea, but is taken from the Bible.

A related phrase, "that's [not] Biblical," answers the question as to whether or not an idea is compatible, harmonious, or incompatible with the Scripture. For people who claim to hold to sola scriptura, the Bible is the ultimate check of any idea, and so everything a Christian believes and does should "be Biblical" because those things should all be harmonious (or at least compatible—an allowance for people who don't agree with you but whose conclusions are at least a reasonable interpretation) with the testimony of Scripture.


Is Sung Matins a form of mass? I'm not familiar with Sung Matins, and was wondering if it's a form of mass, or something outside of mass.
They're doing 30 minutes of carrols between the Sung Matins and Solemn High Mass, and is still celebrating in the Usus Antiquior (pre-concilliar use) of the Roman Rite.

Is Sung Matins a form of mass?
No, but Matins does form part of the Divine Office
Matins is the first official set of prayers that all religious and all ordained members (priests and deacons) of the Church must recite each day. Matins is followed by Lauds, Prime, Terce, Sext, None, Vespers and Compline. Some communities prefer to recite or sing (Chant) their Matins in the evening. In this case it is called Vigils instead of Matins. Many priests today are exempt from praying the smaller hours or Terce, Sext and None. Prime in our modern times has almost vanished all together.

The custom of reciting prayers at certain hours of the day or night goes back to the Jews, from whom Christians have borrowed it. In the Psalms we find expressions like: "I will meditate on thee in the morning"; "I rose at midnight to give praise to thee"; "Evening and morning, and at noon I will speak and declare: and he shall hear my voice"; "Seven times a day I have given praise to thee"; etc. (Cf. "Jewish Encyclopedia", X, 164-171, s.v. "Prayer"). The Apostles observed the Jewish custom of praying at midnight, terce, sext, none (Acts 10:3, 9; 16:25; etc.). The Christian prayer of that time consisted of almost the same elements as the Jewish: recital or chanting of psalms, reading of the Old Testament, to which was soon added reading of the Gospels, Acts, and Epistles, and at times canticles composed or improvised by the assistants. "Gloria in excelsis" and the "Te decet laus" are apparently vestiges of these primitive inspirations. At present the elements composing the Divine Office seem more numerous, but they are derived, by gradual changes, from the primitive elements. As appears from the texts of Acts cited above, the first Christians preserved the custom of going to the Temple at the hour of prayer. But they had also their reunions or synaxes in private houses for the celebration of the Eucharist and for sermons and exhortations. But the Eucharistic synaxis soon entailed other prayers; the custom of going to the Temple disappeared; and the abuses of the Judaizing party forced the Christians to separate more distinctly from the Jews and their practices and worship. Thenceforth the Christian liturgy rarely borrowed from Judaism.
The development of the Divine Office was probably in the following manner: The celebration of the Eucharist was preceded by the recital of the psalms and the reading of the Old and New Testaments. This was called the Mass of the Catechumens, which has been preserved almost in its original form. Probably this part of the Mass was the first form of the Divine Office, and, in the beginning, the vigils and the Eucharistic Synaxis were one. When the Eucharistic service was not celebrated, the prayer was limited to the recital or chanting of the psalms and the reading of the Scriptures. The vigils thus separated from the Mass became an independent office. During the first period the only office celebrated in public was the Eucharistic Synaxis with vigils preceding it, but forming with it one whole. In this hypothesis the Mass of the Catechumens would be the original kernel of the whole Divine Office. The Eucharistic Synaxis beginning at eventide did not terminate till dawn. The vigils, independently of the Eucharistic service, were divided naturally into three parts; the beginning of the vigils, or the evening Office; the vigils properly so called; and the end of the vigils or the matutinal Office. For when the vigils were as yet the only Office and were celebrated but rarely, they were continued during the greater part of the night. Thus the Office which we have called the Office of evening or Vespers, that of midnight, and that of the morning, called Matins first and then Lauds, were originally but one Office. If this hypothesis be rejected, it must be admitted that at first there was only one public office, Vigils. The service of eventide, Vespers, and that of the morning, Matins or Lauds, were gradually separated from it. During the day, Terce, Sext, and None, customary hours of private prayers both with the Jews and the early Christians, became later ecclesiastical Hours, just like Vespers or Lauds. Compline appears as a repetition of Vespers, first in the fourth century (see Compline). Prime is the only hour the precise origin and date of which are known--at the end of the fourth century (see Prime).
At all events, during the course of the fifth century, the Office was composed, as today, of a nocturnal Office, viz. Vigils - afterwards Matins - and the seven Offices of the day, Lauds, Prime, Terce, Sext, None, Vespers, and Compline. In the "Apostolic Constitutions" we read: "Precationes facite mane, hora tertia, sexta, nona, et vespere atque galli cantu" (VIII, iv). Such were the hours as they then existed. There are omitted only Prime and Complin, which originated not earlier than the end of the fourth century, and the use of which spread only gradually. The elements of which these hours are composed were at first few in number, identical with those of the Mass of the Catechumens, psalms recited or chanted uninterruptedly (tract) or by two choirs (antiphons) or by a cantor alternating with the choir (responses and versicles); lessons (readings from the Old and New Testaments, the origin of the capitula), and prayers (see Breviary). - Divine Office


Is St. Joseph the greatest saint after the Blessed Virgin Mary? According to Catholic teaching, is St. Joseph the greatest saint after the Blessed Virgin Mary?

Yes, since the 16th century this has become the more common teaching.cf. Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P., Mother of the Saviour and Our Interior Life, ch. 7 "The Predestination of St. Joseph and His Eminent Sanctity"
Leo XIII, Quamquam pluries, August 15th, 1899, argues that St. Joseph's eminent sanctity is due to the graces of the sacrament of matrimony:

The dignity of the Mother of God is so elevated that there can be no higher created one. But since St. Joseph was united to the Blessed Virgin by the conjugal bond (maritale vinculum), there is no doubt that he approached nearer than any other to that super-eminent dignity of hers by which the Mother of God surpasses all created natures. Conjugal union is the greatest of all (coniugium societas necessitudoque omnium maxima); by its very nature it is accompanied by a reciprocal communication of the goods of the spouses. If then God gave St. Joseph to Mary to be her spouse He certainly did not give him merely as a companion in life, a witness of her virginity, a guardian of her honor, but He made him also participate by the conjugal bond (coniugali fœdere) in the eminent dignity which was hers.

(source)


Have any prominent theologians written on what the ascension looked like? Some postmodernists believe the picture of Jesus floating up into the sky like a balloon is absurd. I remember C. S. Lewis saying (in Miracles) that we don't necessarily have to believe that if we believe he ascended. But are there any commentators, pastors, church fathers, or theologians who have written on what it may have looked like? More specifically than just parroting Luke's account, that is.

  And when he had said these things, as they were looking on, he was lifted up, and a cloud took him out of their sight. And while they were gazing into heaven as he went, behold, two men stood by them in white robes, and said, “Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into heaven? This Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven.”

I took a quick survey of mentions of the word ascension at CCEL.org, and got a few comments from theologians.
From Augustus Johann Neander, Life of Jesus Christ in its Historical Connexion and Historical Developement [sic], section 306:

... Christ did not pass from his earthly existence to a higher through natural death, but in a supernatural way; ... he was removed from this globe, and from the conditions of earthly life, to a higher region of existence in a way not conformed to the ordinary laws of corporeal existence or to be explained by them.

From Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. II, Part III, Chapter XIII, section ii:

From these accounts it appears, (1.) That the ascension of Christ was of his whole person. It was the Theanthropos, the Son of God clothed in our nature, having a true body and a reasonable soul, who ascended. (2.) That the ascension was visible. The disciples witnessed the whole transaction. They saw the person of Christ gradually rise from the earth, and “go up” until a cloud hid Him from their view. (3.) It was a local transfer of his person from one place to another; from earth to heaven. Heaven is therefore a place.
... In opposition to this Scriptural and generally accepted view of the ascension of Christ, as a transfer from one place to another, from the earth, as one sphere of the universe, to heaven, another, and equally definite locality, the Lutherans made it a mere change of state, of which change the human nature of Christ was the subject.

From John Gill, [Doctrinal Divinity], Book V, Chapter 7:

this ascension of Christ was a real motion of his human nature, which was visible to the apostles, and was by change of place, even from earth to heaven; and was sudden, swift, and glorious, in a triumphant manner: and he went up as he will come again, in a cloud, in a bright cloud ...

All these, except Neander, were Reformed theologians, as I understand it (Gill was a Baptist, Hodge a Presbyterian—but correct me if my understanding of the divisions of Protestant denominations is lacking), and all three seem to have the idea that Jesus did in fact physically "rise up on high" (though Neander's "removed from this globe" is subject to interpretation on this front). Though Hodge mentions the Lutherans in particular as interpreting the Ascension more analogically than literally, he does state that this is a less accepted interpretation.


What does TULIP stand for? I came across this acronym when reading about Calvinism.  What does it stand for in reference to theology in general?

The tulip acronym stands for the following:

Total depravity, the idea that man can do only evil without God.
Unconditional election, the idea that the saved are chosen by God without any consideration for their actions.
Limited atonement, the idea that Christ's death atones only for the sins of the elected saved.
Irresistible grace, the idea that no one can resist God's free gift of grace once God offers it.
Perseverance of the saints, the idea that the elected saved will always be saved.

Generally, these are called the five points of Calvinism. Calvin's theology is very complicated and I've heard some argue that this is just a simple synthesis of his ideas; Calvin did not came up with it himself. Having some familiarity with the theology, I would note that it's missing God's total sovereignty, among some other things, that are vital to Calvinism.

Wikipedia has much to offer on TULIP


Is there a twelfth word to be added to the eleven of the angelic host? After the individual angel spoke to the shepherds keeping watch in the field, Luke 2: 8-12, the multitude of the heavenly host appeared, praising God, and they spoke. I would suggest that their recorded words are a summation of all that was said at the time.
That summation is precisely eleven words in the recorded Greek, given by Luke in chapter two, verse thirteen:

δοξα εν υψιστοις θεω και επι γης ειρηνη εν ανθρωποις ευδοκια
doxa en upsiotois Theo kai epi ges eirene en anthropoi eudokia

This can be rendered in exactly eleven English words (see Young's Literal Translation):

Glory in highest, Godward; and on earth, peace: among men, goodwill.

One would have expected twelve words (the number of covenant), given that this is the inauguration of the New Testament.
Is there a word which is expected to be added. On our part, to these heavenly words of the angelic host?

The only additional word that could reasonably be expected to be added, on our part, is Amen.

Those glorious sentiments absolutely deserve and receive my personal "Amen".


Do all Christian views need to have a Biblical basis? Do all Christian views need to have a Biblical basis? Stated another way: Is there room for understanding God and/or His will that does not come from the Bible? Perhaps through revelations from God Himself, or secondary sources (Angels, Saints, etc). I would wager the answer to this question depends on the denomination being discussed. But, for example, do the words of the Pope always hold true in Catholicism even if there is no strict biblical basis for them?

A good reference on the reformed, evangelical position on this is from chapter 1 of the Westminster Confession

We speak of the Bible as God's Word because in it he speaks to us (2 Tim 3:16). He speaks to us personally in the Bible through the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 2:12). Because the Bible is considered as God's Word it is his definitive words to us, the only infallible source of knowing him. It is also sufficient for everything we need to know about him. This means that in theory we don't need to look anywhere else to know God's will.

Some points to note:

The Bible won't tell us about absolutely everything that there is to know. It isn't particularly concerned about things like mathematics. The Bible is the final authority on matters of faith. Often it may not even answer your personal questions about God and his will. In this situation, either it means that we need further reflection, or that we're asking the wrong questions which means we may need to realign our concerns with the Bible's.
The Bible won't state everything down explicitly. Often our understanding of God is derived as a consequence of what we read in the Bible. E.g. the Bible doesn't mention the Trinity, but we can certainly see the ideas (e.g. John 17). This has implications on contemporary issues or things which we think the Bible doesn't deal with. We can draw principles and doctrines and apply them to different contexts. But you likely won't find specific answers to decisions in your own context such as whether you should do X or Y.
Not everything in the Bible is easy to understand. Often the difficulty in understanding lies in our own hardness against God, which is why God has given us the Holy Spirit to help us. Often it is because of the difficulty in understanding the actual meaning. The reformers also derived the principle that Scripture should interpret Scripture, which upholds the authority of the Bible while recognising its difficulties. Often the difficulty in understanding is not in individual statements but in the message as a whole and in the emphases. E.g. many parts of the Bible teaches us to love, but it is not the biggest teaching. The biggest teaching is that we need God's salvation because without it we cannot love anyway.

It's commonly recognised that there are at least 3 other sources: reason, tradition, experience. These are part of God's common grace to everyone. They can be helpful, but these should only be considered as secondary sources. They are ultimately flawed because people are flawed.

Reason. We use reason in deducing a lot of things, even reading the Bible. But we know that our capabilities to reason are limited, and people contradict themselves anyway. From a philosophical perspective, we can't know God by sheer reason. Our senses have limited scope, and by nature we deny God anyway (Rom 1:19f). God needs to reveal himself to us and tell us about himself and what he desires. E.g. he needs to tell us that there is only 1 of him. Anything else is just a guessing game. E.g. "I think God is like ..."
Experience. Can we know God from experiencing a vision? We don't particularly need it if the Bible is his revelation to us. A vision doesn't make us more anointed. Neither do we need such a vision or revelation to supplement the Bible since the Bible is sufficient. But if we do get such a vision, it should still be weighed up against Scripture (e.g. 1 Jn 4:1-3). Besides, the Holy Spirit is the important subjective, experience of God. I don't mean speaking in tongues, and it doesn't need to 'feel' particularly spiritual. The fact that we can repent and believe in Jesus is evidence of it already.
Tradition. Can an individual (such as the Pope) have more authority to give a special revelation from God? People may have particular gifts from God, e.g. Eph 4:11. The Apostles carried a unique authority because they were eyewitnesses to Jesus (Acts 1:21). But no one has a special phone line to God. All Christians have the same direct line to God, i.e. the Holy Spirit. Even the Apostles needed that before they could start preaching (Acts 2). Having said that, the teaching of church leaders, books or each other can be helpful. Even non-Christian teachings/writings can be helpful. But that's not to say that they're always right. Neither can they carry the same authority as the Bible, because they are ultimately man's words.

So we can have secondary sources to help us know God, but the ultimate authority is the Bible because of the special authority that the Bible carries as the Word of God. The implication is that everything else is either wrong or inadequate, which means that we do need to come back to the Bible in the end. And because of the difficulty of understanding the Bible sometimes, we need to continually be going back to Scripture. You may even be surprised by what you find.


Converting from Russian Orthodox to Roman Catholic in 1820 José Bolcof, a Russian man baptized in the Orthodox church, arrived in Spanish California and wished to adopt the Catholic faith. Mariano Payeras O.F.M., father-president of the Franciscan missionaries in Alta California, debated Bolcof's conversion with his colleagues. They were willing to baptize him, but as he had already undergone some kind of baptism, reluctant to risk doing so a second time.  After the priests' discussion an unknown resolution was reached. No record of a baptism is in evidence but Bolcof was able to receive other sacraments later.

In the Jus Novissimum era of Catholic canon law, what rites or acts were technically required for a Russian Orthodox person to become a Catholic?

Since the Orthodox Church has the same seven valid sacraments as the Catholic Church, the only requirement for a baptized Russian Orthodox to enter into full communion with Rome would be to make an abjuration or a profession of faith.

  Reception of Converts and Profession of Faith

  According to the form approved by the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, July 20, 1859.

  In the case of a convert, careful inquiry should first of all be made concerning the validity of their former Baptism. If it be found that there is no Baptism or that the Baptism received was invaid, they must now be baptized unconditionally. If, however, after diligent inquiry reasonable doubt remains concerning the validity of their former Baptism, they are now to be baptized conditionally. If, thirdly, the former Baptism be judged to have been valid, only Abjuration or Profession of Faith should be required. In accordance, therefore, with their condition there are three methods of receiving converts:

  I. If never baptized or if the previous Baptism was invalid -- The convert is unconditionally baptized, and neither Abjuration nor absolution follows, since the Sacrament of Regeneration washes away all.

  II. If the previous Baptism was doubtful -- The convert is conditionally baptized, the following procedure being observed: 1. Abjuration or Profession of Faith and conditional absolution from censures. 2. Conditional Baptism. 3. Sacramental Confession with conditional absolution.

  III. If the previous Baptism was valid -- 1. Abjuration or Profession of Faith. 2. Absolution from censures. 3. Supplying of Ceremonies of Baptism (see form for adults [or of children, according to more recent decrees]) if desired.

  The priest vested in surplice and violet sits in front before the middle of the altar or, if the Blessed Sacrament is present, on the Epistle side. The convert kneels before him and with his right hand on the book of the Gospels (or the missal) reads the following: (If the convert cannot read the Priest reads it to him slowly and distinctly, so he may understand and repeat the words.)

                            **PROFESSION OF FAITH**

  I, N.N., ______ years of age, born outside the Catholic Church, have held and believed errors contrary to her teaching. Now, enlightened by divine grace, I kneel before you, Reverend Father _____________, having before my eyes and touching with my hand the holy Gospels. And with firm faith I believe and profess each and all the articles contained in the Apostles' Creed, that is: I believe in God, the Father almighty, Creator of heaven and earth; and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord, Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried; He descended into hell, the third day He arose again from the dead; He ascended into heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of God, the Father almighty, from thence He shall come to judge the living and the dead. I believe in the Holy Ghost; the holy Catholic Church; the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting. Amen.

  I admit and embrace most firmly the apostolic and ecclesiastical traditions ...

For the remainder of the Profession of Faith on can read it here: Reception of Converts and Profession of Faith.

For those who wish to read it from the Roman Ritual (page 10) of the 1952 edition, but noting that the Reception of Converts is dated July 20, 1859. This should suffice for placing the Profession of Faith within the Jur Novissimum.

  The canonical period known as the Ius Novissimum ran from the Council of Trent (1545-1563) to the promulgation of the Pio-Benedictine Code (1917).

Update

The original Rituale Romanum was promulgated by Pope Paul V on June 17, 1614 and has undergone several later editions, but has essentially remained the same.

  Numerous new editions of the Ritual of 1614 were published, introducing changes of various sorts, generally enriching the part dedicated to blessings, and organizing the material better and with different titles. These were issued by Popes Benedict XIV in 1742, Bl. Pius IX in 1862), Leo XIII in 1884, Pius XI in 1925, and Pius XII in 1952.

  Despite the various editions, the text which has come down to us remains essentially the same, and the use of it remains authorized and protected by the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum of July 7, 2007, as we celebrate the 400th anniversary of its promulgation. - The Fourth Centenary of the Rituale Romanum of Pope Paul V : June 17, 1614