How does Human Nature relate to Angelic Nature, specifically regarding sin and free-will? I have seen quite a few questions on here asking: How could Lucifer, being a perfect creation, have fallen or sinned?

However, my question is this:

What can we find in the Scriptures about the nature of Angels? Does it relate at all to the nature of humans, and can a comparison be made between the fall of man and the fall of Lucifer and his angels?

We know that both humans and angels are guilty of sin. But we know that evil existed before humanity fell to sin, as Eve was deceived. However, is there any evidence as to how Lucifer fell?

  2 Peter 2:4-- 4 For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of darkness, reserved for judgment;

  Romans 3:23--23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

  1 Timothy 2:12-14--12 But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. 13 For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. 14 And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.

I appreciate any help!

Paul is quite specific as to how sin entered our own sphere of existence :

  ... by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: [Romans 5:12, KJV.]

In this particular place he attributes the entrance of sin, into our own realm, to one man. The text you quote in I Timothy enlarges on that and conveys the role played by woman.

The writer to the Hebrews conveys three things about the nature of angels :

  And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire. [Hebrews 1:7, KJV.]

Firstly, as to their being, they are spirit-beings, that is to say, they have no personal material or substantive form as we humans do. It is clear from many scriptures that they may, as messengers (which is what both the Hebrew malak and the Greek aggelos mean) take, temporarily, either a manifestation of humanity or they may appear in a dream in a form which expresses their messenger role.

Secondly, the nature of their life, the way in which their life functions (which will be different from humans whose 'life' is in their 'blood', that is to say breathed in atmosphere flowing through the bloodstream to every part of the body energises human nature). The mode of the life-function of angels is likened (so that we may understand it) to fire - a burning, non-solid, energy.

Thirdly, their existence is (as should also be the case for humans) a continual service towards God, as Gabriel made clear to Zachariah when he said :

  I am Gabriel, that stand in the presence of God; and am sent to speak unto thee, and to shew thee these glad tidings. [Luke 1:19, KJV.]

The writer to the Hebrews also makes clear what the remedy is for sin, with regard to humans :

  And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. [Hebrews 2:15 and 16, KJV.]

Speaking of Jesus Christ, the writer makes it clear that Jesus Christ 'took on' the nature of humanity in order that humans might be redeemed from sin. By partaking of their nature and suffering on their behalf, he redeemed them from the transgression of humanity.

I can find nothing in scripture that expresses anything similar to this in regard to angels except the expression 'elect angels' :

  I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels, that thou observe these things ... [I Timothy 5:21, KJV.]


How many Wisemen were there? The wise men are commonly thought of as three men, each bearing a gift for the baby Jesus. When in fact the scriptures don't indicate exactly how many wise men there were, only what gifts they brought. There could have be four, five, or more wise men that each brought either gold, frankincense, or myrrh. Or, there may have only been two wise men, and both of them could have given the Christ child three gifts.

  "¶And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child
  with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they
  had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and
  frankincense, and myrrh." (Matt 2:11)

Is there any indication that there were more or less than exactly three wise men? Or has it always just been assumed that the fact they brought three gifts indicates there were three men? If so, when did this association begin?

To my understanding of Scripture, it is fairly safe to assume there were at least three, since there are three differing gifts named, but as you said the Bible does not tell us exactly how many there were. Even the belief that there were three cannot be accurately determined since one of them may have brought more than one gift, or even all three.

As a matter of fact the word used in Matthew is:

μάγος    magos

which can be either singular or plural depending on how it is used.


What does "amen" mean? One of the most common responses that Christians make is to say the word "amen". Here's an example from a Mass:

Priest:  May almighty God bless you, the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
All: Amen.

What does this expression mean?

"Amen" is a Hebrew word that stems from the word aman, which means "to be faithful, support, or confirm." The word "amen" actually means, "so be it," or "truly."

The Catholic definition agrees.

  ’Amen itself is an interjection used to agree with, affirm, approve,
  or emphasize something else that has been said. Thus when Jesus begins
  certain sayings by declaring "Amen, amen, I say to you . . . " various
  Bible translations often render the "amen, amen" different ways.
  Because of the word’s association with the Hebrew terms for truth, the
  double amen is sometimes rendered "truly, truly" or "verily, verily."
  Because of its association with the Hebrew terms for confirmation or
  dependability, one might also translate it "certainly, certainly" or
  "most assuredly."

  When one says "amen" in response to a prayer, it serves as an
  affirmation of agreement with the content of the prayer (cf. 1 Cor
  14:16)—in which case it is sometimes translated "So be it" (cf. CCC
  2856)—or as an expression of faith that God will hear and act on the
  prayer.

Southern Baptist version:  "You said it, Preacher!" or "Right on, Brother!"


Do annihilationism and universalism argue against eternal life? Annihilationists and universalists argue that the Greek word translated "eternal" (aionion/aionios) is more appropriately translated "eon-like", and thus New Testament terms like "eternal fire/punishment" (in e.g. Matt 18:8, 25:46) should be interpreted to mean long lasting but still finite fire and punishment.

Given that argument, do annihilationists and universalists have any New Testament basis for believing that "eternal life" is really eternal and not merely long lasting?

The views expressed below are not my own, but your question merits an answer that I hope represents annihilationism as an annihilationist might. I will seek to demonstrate you are correct in believing some annihilationists resort to alternate translations about hell which present difficulties for the traditional understanding of verses about heaven. Nevertheless, understood consistently, annihilationists can still believe that heaven is an eternal state.

1. Some annihilationists believe in translating references to eternity as 'eons' or 'ages'

Even annihilationists will admit that certain verses in scripture can be difficult to interpret from their perspective. Greg Boyd writes:

  The most difficult passages for annihilationists to explain are Revelation 14:10-11 and 20:10. These passages speak of the wicked being tormented “day and night forever and ever.”

The solution seems to be a matter of translation, accompanied, as I will suggest below, with a paradigmatic shift in the way we think about all such references to the 'temporal' nature of hell. Boyd Goes on to suggest that 'forever and ever' doesn't have to be a reference to eternity.

  The phrase “forever and ever” can be translated “for ages upon ages” which implies an indefinite, but not necessarily unending, period of time.

This leads the a difficulty regarding verses about heaven. If the same trick is used in verses like Matthew 25:46 to make "eternal punishment" into something less than eternal, it seems to undermine the eternality of "eternal life" mentioned in the exact same verse using the exact same word aiōnios.

2. Annihilationists can still believe in the eternity of the heavenly reward

Although seeming to present a difficulty if that were how Matthew 25:46 is translated that way, annihilationism both offers a new translation and an entirely new way of understanding the point of this verse. Boyd also writes:

  Now, Scripture certainly teaches that the wicked are punished eternally, but not that the wicked endure eternal punishment. The wicked suffer “eternal punishment”(Mt 25:46), “eternal judgment” (Heb 6:2) and “eternal destruction” (2 Thess 1:9) the same way the elect experience “eternal redemption” (Heb 5:9, 9:12). The elect do not undergo an eternal process of redemption. Their redemption is “eternal” in the sense that once the elect are redeemed, it is forever. So too, the damned do not undergo an eternal process of punishment or destruction. But once they are punished and destroyed, it is forever. Hell is eternal in consequence, not duration. The wicked are “destroyed forever” (Ps 92:7), but they are not forever being destroyed.

Therefore, the solution for an annihilationist isn't merely to translate words like aiōn as 'ages' but to also suggest the meaning of temporal references to eternity - both heaven and hell - is not in fact primarily temporal but descriptions of finality and intensity. Therefore, while 'complete' destruction implies full and just punishment that doesn't need to be eternal, to be 'completely' redeemed places one entirely outside of the clutches of sin, death, and the devil meaning that even without the use of the word eternal, the redeemed are implicitly redeemed forever because they have been redeemed 'completely'. This certainly softens the temporal references to the lasting eternal state of the redeemed of heaven, but it also seems to do justice to the different connotations a descriptor can take when applied to the different concepts of 'destruction' and 'life'.

I am not an expert in biblical Greek so I suppose an expert could mount a critique of the degree to which this explanation depends on English translations and grammar, but this is the way Boyd, as an annihilationist, explains his perspective.


According to the Protestant faith, was God grieved when He cast Satan out of Heaven? Ezekiel 28 and Isaiah 14 both describe Satan's rebellion and being "cast out" of heaven.
This question here on this site has plenty of references about the actual "events":
When did Satan get cast out of heaven?  Or is that yet to come?
And this site discusses Satan's fall as well: How did Lucifer fall and become Satan?
However, what I was curious about was whether there was any belief or discussion in Christianity about how God "felt" about Satan's rebellion?  Seeing as how the Bible describes Lucifer as the "Morning Star" and head of the angels, was God grieved that his #1 angel rebelled?
I'm asking from a Protestant faith standpoint, but would be curious if Orthodox or Catholic faiths present a viewpoint on this issue as well.
While I can find specific scriptures such as Gen 6:6 and Eph 4:30 that discuss how God can be "grieved", I couldn't find specific scriptures that showed God's specific emotions regarding Satan's fall.

Your citing of Genesis 6:6 and Ephesians 4:30 is good. That's probably as far as we can go in answering your question, however.

I want to say God was indeed grieved by the sin of His chief angel, Lucifer. God had invested a great deal in Lucifer. Lucifer was beautiful to behold, and he perhaps had a special place, or ranking, in the third heaven. Perhaps he was an angel of angels, a leader of other angels in the worship and service of God. To say God had no feelings whatsoever when He found sin in Lucifer and was forced to eject him from the third heaven, seems wrong. As to what those feelings were, however, I think the Scripture is largely silent.

In re-reading the book of Job recently, I noticed something interesting, and I'll pass it along to you. We read in 1:6 and 2:1,

  "Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came among them."

  "Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came among them to present himself before the LORD."

The thought came to me: Hmm, the sons of God presented themselves before the LORD. I wonder if this event is repeated on a regular basis throughout history.

I suggest--I repeat, suggest--that this formal reporting, as it were, may in fact be a regular occurrence in God's universe, at least in the spiritual realm.

My thinking on this is as follows: 1) God alone is Sovereign, and He is sovereign over everything and everybody in all creation; 2) He holds things together (all things cohere through Him and the word of His power); and 3) no one can escape accountability to Him.

  "And there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are open and laid bare to the eyes of Him with whom we have to do" (Hebrews 4:13 NAS).

If these things are so, then perhaps God has a "standing appointment" with the sons of God (i.e., the fallen angels) to "keep tabs on them," so to speak. Being omniscient, He knows what they've been doing, of course, but the verses in Job simplify things for the benefit of us readers. Since His fallen angels are not omniscient (nor are they omnipotent or omnipresent), they need to be reminded frequently of what they may and may not do.

In particular, I think God, in His watchful care over His children, allows the infernal hosts of wickedness to "sift us as wheat" from time to time, as He did with Job and Peter, for example.

  Job: "Then the LORD said to Satan, 'Behold, all that he has is in your power; only do not put forth your hand on him.' So Satan departed from the presence of the LORD" (1:12).
  Job: "So the LORD said to Satan, 'Behold, he is in your power, only spare his life'" (2:6).
  Peter: "'And the Lord said, 'Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren" (Luke 22:31-32).

God, however, puts limits on what they (and the devil) can do, as He did with Job, when He told Satan he was not allowed to take Job's life (2:6). God also knows if and when we will repent, if in our being "sifted" we fail the test, as with Peter:

  "'But I have prayed for you, that your faith may not fail; and you, when once you have turned again, strengthen your brothers'" (ibid.).

In conclusion, obviously God and Satan are on speaking terms, and Satan is on a short leash, as it were. Satan, however, knows that his time is short. His authority and activity as the "prince of the power of the air" are finite and will end one day when he is cast into hell, which was designed by God for the devil and his angels. Sad to say, many others will likewise be cast into hell one day, and I'm sure this, too, grieves God.

Consequently, God is patient and forbearing with us. Moreover,

  "The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish , but that all should come to repentance" (2 Peter 3:9 KJV).

I believe Satan can never, will never, repent. Human beings, however, God encourages to repent, and they are free to do so until the day they die. Once they die, however, repentance is not possible.

  ". . . as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation" (Hebrews 9:27-28 KJV, my emphasis).


What compelled John Wesley to take up the cause of Abolitionism? In 1778, John Wesley published his Thoughts upon Slavery, where he wrote:

The variety of ways that slavery appears make it almost impossible to convey a just notion of it ... First in what manner are they procured? Part of them by fraud ... But far more have been procured by force. The Christians landing upon their coasts, seized as many of them as they could find - men, women and children - and transported them to America ... It was some time before the Europeans found a more compendious way of procuring them: by prevailing upon them to make war in each other and sell their prisoners. Till then they seldom had any wars, all was peace and quiet. But the white man taught them drunkeness and avarice and hired them to sell one another. Nay, by this means even their kings are induced to sell their subjects ... As for the punishments that are inflicted upon them, say Sir Hans Sloan, some are gelded, others have half a foot chopped off ... others cut off an ear, and constrain them to broil and eat them ...
How can Britons can so readily admit a change in their disposition and sentiments as to practise in America what they abhorred and detested in Britain can be accounted for no other principle than of being the natural effect of slave-keeping which as the celebrated Montesquieu observes 'insensibly accustoms those who are in the practise of it, to want all moral virtues, to become haughty, hasty, hard-hearted, passionate, voluptuous and cruel.'

More, forty years earlier when he had been in the United States with his brother on missionary work in 1737-38 he recorded in his journal the barbaric treatment that:

daily practise upon their fellow creatures [inclufing whipping, driving nails through their ears and drawing teeth] ... even giving a white child a slave of his own to tyrannise ... [describing them] as shocking instances of diabolical cruelty

Given the interest that Britain had in maintaining the slave trade it's not suprising to discover that whenever Wesley preached against the slavery trade he put his life at considerable risk. For example, when he preached in Bristol, one of the foremost slave-trading ports in Britain, a disturbance broke out.
Q. Given this, what compelled Wesley to take on slavery and become one of the early adopters of abolition?
Moreover, given the shocking scenes of 'diabolical cruelty' he saw in the then slave owning United States why did it take so long to take up the cause?
Finally, how significant was his preaching in the context of the abolitionist movement - my own understanding - from being told this at school - was that Wilberforce was the main force behind it

You ask what compelled Wesley to take on slavery and become one of the early adopters of abolition.  I found a somewhat lengthy and wordy paper on this subject and have extracted a few paragraphs that may be helpful:  https://brycchancarey.com/Carey_BJRL_2003.pdf

2/16: Wesley's life coincided with the height of the British transatlantic slave trade. Britain had been a minor participant in the trade since the late sixteenth century. In 1660, Charles II had given the trade systematic government support and British involvement grew at a sharp rate over the following years. With the treaty of Utrecht of 1713, the event which concluded the War of the Spanish Succession Britain won the right to supply the lucrative markets of Spanish America with slaves. From that point onwards, Britain was by far the most significant participant in the international slave trade, responsible for transporting thousands of abducted Africans across the Atlantic every year, both to Spanish America and to British colonies in the Caribbean and North America. From the start, there had been those who opposed slavery and the slave trade, but their voices were rarely heard until late in the eighteenth century. In the decade following American independence, a public pressure campaign to outlaw the slave trade to the remaining British colonies attracted widespread support from the British public, who made their views known through local meetings, a mass petitioning campaign and a consumer boycott. Hundreds of publications opposing both slavery and the slave trade were printed and distributed between 1785 and 1795. The campaign was not immediately successful but, following a ten-year lull, the British slave trade was abolished by law in 1807. After another vigorous campaign in the 1820s and 1830s, the abolition of slavery in British colonies followed, with the emancipation of slaves taking place by 1838.

4/16: Wesley and the Abolition Movement: Although Wesley claimed to have been opposed to slavery from the first time he heard of it, we have no way of knowing if this is true. Neither can we know with certainty when he first heard of slavery. He might have come into contact with slaves in England. In the early eighteenth century, it was fashionable for aristocratic women to employ black pageboys, and young liveried slaves were not an uncommon sight. Slaves were also brought to England by visiting colonists and by officers in both the Royal Navy and the merchant marine. However, if Wesley had encountered slaves such as these, he does not mention it in his letters or Journals. Without doubt, he did come into contact with slaves during his period in North America (1736-37).

13/16: Extract from Wesley’s Journal, August 12, 1772: “Wed. 12. - In returning I read a very different book, published by an honest Quaker, on that execrable sum of all villainies, commonly called the Slave-trade. I read of nothing like it in the heathen world, whether ancient or modern; and it infinitely exceeds, in every instance of barbarity, whatever Christian slaves suffer in Mahometan countries.”  William Wilberforce too, an evangelical rather than a Methodist, made it a constant theme in his writings and speeches, and even went as far as to write a book called A practical view of the prevailing religious system of professed Christians in the higher and middle classes of this country contrasted with real Christianity, which appeared in 1797.

16/16: In Thoughts upon slavery: Sharp and Benezet's work was legalistic, rational, primitivist and pious, but it was seldom sentimental... Wesley's arguments against slavery were not often original, but his major innovation was to introduce a sustained and concentrated sentimental rhetoric into the antislavery debate. Most of the many campaigners against slavery in the coming decades would, wittingly or otherwise, follow his example.

You also ask how significant was Wesley’s preaching in the context of the abolitionist movement.  Brothers John and Charles Wesley had a huge impact on Christian revival in Britain, especially in the north of England.  They constantly travelled from the east to the west coast preaching and establishing new churches wherever they went.  Given the vast number of sermons delivered by John Wesley, it would be difficult to pin down the significance and the influence his sermons on slavery had.  Unfortunately, I have to sign off for tonight but I hope to return to this question tomorrow.  I will try to find a suitable link/article about his sermons on slavery. To be continued...
John Wesley was ordained as a deacon in 1725 and as a priest in 1728.  During the early years of his ministry many of his sermons were unpublished.  However, his preaching had a huge impact.  Here are a few extracts from an article about him:

What kind of a preacher was John Wesley? To understand the impact of his preaching we must first appreciate his commitment to the task. He travelled some 225,000 miles throughout Britain and Ireland on horseback. At a conservative estimate he preached more than 4,000 sermons, some to congregations in excess of 20,000. He would regularly preach four or five times a day. His sermon register from January 1747 to December 1761 reveals that during this period he preached 7,000 sermons on 1,354 texts. He would regularly preach at five in the morning. Indeed, he laid great store by it, seeing it as 'the glory of the Methodists'.

John Wesley preached what he knew a particular congregation needed to hear. Thus, whilst some sermons had as their aim the winning of souls for Christ, others were directed at those who were already believers and concentrated on incentives to holy living. His conviction that all life belonged to God meant that no subject was beyond the scope of his preaching; and he was not averse to speaking about the use of money, the use of leisure, national sins and miseries as well as the doctrines at the heart of the Christian faith. But the decision about what subject to preach to which congregation was determined solely by the spiritual condition of his hearers.
https://www.methodistevangelicals.org.uk/Articles/523424/John_Wesley_Preacher.aspx

In 1739 John Wesley took up George Whitfield’s invitation to take over the work he had begun in Bristol and started to preach out in the open air.  It has been calculated that of the 500 sermons delivered between April and December 1739, only eight were in churches.  In this way, Wesley was able to communicate with a much larger audience.  The article in the link above says nothing about sermons on slavery, although he undoubtedly delivered sermons on this topic, especially given his association with George Whitfield and Bristol, a port infamous for its participation in the slave trade.
I regret to say I have been unable to find any of Wesley’s published sermons that deal with slavery and the abolition movement.  I found an article on the 44 sermons contained in ‘Sermons on Several Occasions’ (published in four volumes between 1746 and 1760) but it does not mention slavery: https://www.wesley.cam.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/10-wesley.pdf
Nonetheless, it is clear that John Wesley reached thousands of ordinary people as well as some of the great political “movers and shakers” in his day.  As the above article concludes “The heart of the matter lies not in what Wesley did, but what God did through him.”
With regard to William Wilberforce (1759-1833), who was an English politician and Member of Parliament, he was a key figure in ending the abominable slave trade that flourished at that time. His campaign was eventually successful, and he is lauded today for his courage and commitment to Christian principles.  He became a Christian in 1785 and was himself influenced by other Christians:

In 1787, he came into contact with Thomas Clarkson and a group of anti-slave-trade activists, including Granville Sharp, Hannah More and Charles Middleton. They persuaded Wilberforce to take on the cause of abolition, and he soon became one of the leading English abolitionists. He headed the parliamentary campaign against the British slave trade for twenty years until the passage of the Slave Trade Act of 1807...  His campaign led to the Slavery Abolition Act 1833, which abolished slavery in most of the British Empire. Wilberforce died just three days after hearing that the passage of the Act through Parliament was assured.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Wilberforce

Wilberforce was also influenced by other abolitionists such as John Newton (1725-1807) and George Whitfield (1714-1770):

John Newton (1725—1807) was a Christian, abolitionist, and hymn writer best known for his song “Amazing Grace.” John Newton’s work for the abolition of slavery in England, propelled by his faith, greatly influenced others, including Parliament member William Wilberforce. Wilberforce worked tirelessly to end slavery in the British Empire, and in 1787 Newton wrote Thoughts upon the African Slave Trade to aid Wilberforce’s cause. John Newton lived to see the passing of the Slave Trade Act of 1807, which made slave trading illegal. Slavery was finally abolished in most parts of the empire in 1833. https://www.gotquestions.org/John-Newton.html

George Whitfield (1714–1770) was converted to Christ while a student at Oxford University. There he became friends with John and Charles Wesley.  [Whitfield] made seven trips to the American Colonies and influenced a young William Wilberforce.  https://www.gotquestions.org/George-Whitefield.html


Who, and what, are the "chosen people"? According to Deuteronomy 7:6, the Israelites are called the "chosen people". Who in fact are the chosen people, and does this include Christians?

What sets the chosen people apart, are there special rights or honors that go with this title?

The "chosen people" are, as you mention the Israelites.

  Deuteronomy 7:6
  For you are a people holy to the LORD your God. The LORD your God has chosen you out of all the peoples on the face of the earth to be his people, his treasured possession.

This simply means that God has chosen these people and set them aside to be holy.

History

It all began with Abraham:

  Genesis 12:1-3 (NIV)
  The LORD had said to Abram, “Go from your country, your people and your father’s household to the land I will show you.

  2 “I will make you into a great nation, and I will bless you;
  I will make your name great,
    and you will be a blessing.
  3 I will bless those who bless you,
    and whoever curses you I will curse;
  and all peoples on earth
    will be blessed through you.”

That was the original "chosing", if you will.  After that came Isaac and Jacob, who was called Israel.

With Israel (Jacob), God renewed the blessing above (in Genesis 28), saying specifically (in that passage):

  Genesis 28:15a
  I am with you and will watch over you wherever you go

A man becomes a nation (more history)

God was faithful to his promise to Abraham and Jacob.  He made a great nation out of the Israelites and turned them into a nation while they were enslaved in Egypt.

When he freed them from Egypt, he lead them to the base of a mountain and established a few ground rules (the 10 commandments).  Later (not much later), he established an entire set of rules that can be found in Leviticus.

These set of rules were the original covenant.  The essence of it can be seen in Leviticus 26, but it basically says:

  "If you follow my decrees and obey my commands, I will bless you.  If you turn away from me, I will curse you."

Summary (What it means to be chosen)

God set the nation of Israel aside.  They would be his people and he would be their God.

If they followed him, they would be blessed.  If they turned from him, they would be cursed.

Christians are not the Israelites.  Christians are not the "chosen people".

Christians are chosen

Having said that, Christians are, undoubtedly, chosen (although we are not "The Chosen People").

  John 14:15-24 (NIV)
  “If you love me, keep my commands. 16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever— 17 the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be[a] in you. 18 I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you. 19 Before long, the world will not see me anymore, but you will see me. Because I live, you also will live. 20 On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you. 21 Whoever has my commands and keeps them is the one who loves me. The one who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love them and show myself to them.”

  22 Then Judas (not Judas Iscariot) said, “But, Lord, why do you intend to show yourself to us and not to the world?”

  23 Jesus replied, “Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching. My Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them. 24 Anyone who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me.

If you read through that, what you'll see is that Jesus has set us aside and given us the same type of covenant that you see mirrored in Leviticus (and Deuteronomy, for that matter).  Specifically:

  John 14:15
  "If you love me, keep my commands."

He goes on to say that he will be part of us and we will be part of him.  Clearly, we are "chosen" in this sense.

Summary #2

Christians are "chosen".  This means we live in Jesus and we are a part of Jesus and we will inherit eternal life.  He has chosen us for eternal life.  However, we are not the "chosen people".  (See the first half of this answer for that.)


Is there a Catholic bishop with jurisdiction over space? Background information: An Ordinary, in Catholicism, is a bishop who holds "Ordinary" jurisdiction over a specific territory. He is usually known as the "Bishop of [Place Name]" and holds general authority (though ultimately subject to the Pope) for making rules within his territory, adjudicating cases, ordaining priests, and performing other management functions.

In this answer on Space Exploration.SE, @Ángel spoke about the possibility of a Roman Catholic marriage in space. He spoke about the general requirement of obtaining the permission of applicable Ordinary(ies) for holding a marriage in a place other than where the couple live.

That leads me to the following question: Does Catholicism have any concept of an Ordinary having jurisdiction over outer space, or any part of space? Is there a Bishop of the Great Red Spot straining his eyes with a telescope from an observatory in Rome looking for souls to shepherd out of the storm? If there is no bishop with ordinary jurisdiction in space, is there a process for determining who holds canonical jurisdiction over an event that happens in space or a soul who resides there? Do the Ordinaries having jurisdiction over spaceports hold extended jurisdiction over any spacecraft that launches from them and any crew and passengers therein? Do all space missions fall directly under the immediate and sole jurisdiction of the Pope himself?

The 28th Canon of the 4th Ecumenical Council at Chacedon in 451 ceded jurisdiction of all Dioceses "among the barbarians" to the See of Constantinople.  The text of the Canon reads:

  Following in all things the decisions of the holy Fathers, and acknowledging the canon, which has been just read, of the One Hundred and Fifty Bishops beloved-of-God (who assembled in the imperial city of Constantinople, which is New Rome, in the time of the Emperor Theodosius of happy memory), we also do enact and decree the same things concerning the privileges of the most holy Church of Constantinople, which is New Rome. For the Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of old Rome, because it was the royal city. And the One Hundred and Fifty most religious Bishops, actuated by the same consideration, gave equal privileges to the most holy throne of New Rome, justly judging that the city which is honoured with the Sovereignty and the Senate, and enjoys equal privileges with the old imperial Rome, should in ecclesiastical matters also be magnified as she is, and rank next after her; so that, in the Pontic, the Asian, and the Thracian dioceses, the metropolitans only and such bishops also of the Dioceses aforesaid as are among the barbarians, should be ordained by the aforesaid most holy throne of the most holy Church of Constantinople; every metropolitan of the aforesaid dioceses, together with the bishops of his province, ordaining his own provincial bishops, as has been declared by the divine canons; but that, as has been above said, the metropolitans of the aforesaid Dioceses should be ordained by the archbishop of Constantinople, after the proper elections have been held according to custom and have been reported to him.

In 1995, Pope John Paul II affirmed in his encyclical Ut Unum Sint declared, that "the Church must breathe with her two lungs" and recalled the "unity which, in spite of everything, was experienced in the first millennium."  This might be interpreted to mean that the same authority granted to the Patriarch of Constantinople in the first millennium (i.e. prior to the 1054 Schism) still exists in some semblance today.

Given the above, it would seem to me that the one bishop with any sort of claim of ecclesiastical authority over space with at least tentative assent by the Roman Catholic Church might be the current Eastern Orthodox Patriarch of Constantinople, Bartholomew I.

Given, however, the number of Russian Orthodox cosmonauts that have been and are currently in space, such authority might be disputed by the current Patriarch of Moscow, Kirill I, who has lately himself improved relations with Pope Francis.  (Interestingly, the Patriarch of Moscow himself was once under Constantinople's jurisdiction, since the Russians were considered to be "among the barbarians" until 1589).

It may be that ceding jurisdiction over space to the Orthodox Patriarch of Constantinople - something that seems proper under the ancient canons of the Church -  may end up being the first small step on the long path to full re-unification with Rome.


What arguments were made against William Carey's missions efforts? I am aware that William Carey's efforts to form a missions society and travel overseas as a missionary were opposed by some of his Calvinist (or hyper-Calvinist) Baptist peers.

I'm vaguely aware of their arguments, such as "the Great Commission only applied to the apostles," but I'm looking for a better understanding of a) their arguments and b) the biblical basis for those arguments.

An ideal answer would quote, summarize, and reference the writings of Carey's opponents, and not merely rely on the writings of Carey and his friends.

In summary: What arguments did William Carey's opponents make against his overseas missions efforts, and on what biblical basis did they make them?

This is unlikely to be the ideal answer you seek, but after 2 years and 9 months it is the only one offered to date.

I have looked through two reputable books on the subject, ones that deal with the events of William Carey's mission to India, seeking to find any information about the difficulties he experienced in starting his overseas mission. However, both those books were written in the late 1970s and not by those who opposed him in the 1790s. From what is written, it appears that there were two main difficulties he encountered. One was theological, the other was more to do with church politics and church governance.

The theological issue is what you seek to explore, so here is a relevant quotation from Stephen Neil's A History of Christian Missions pages 261-2 (The Pelican History of the Church, volume six):

  Carey, who had turned Baptist at the age of eighteen, combined for a
  time the offices of village pastor and village cobbler... One of the
  first fruits of Carey's zeal for study was his treatise An Enquiry
  into the Obligation of Christians to use Means for the Conversion of
  the Heathen (1792).  The title indicates one of the difficulties with
  which Carey and those like-minded with him had to contend; the
  hyper-Calvinism of the day had convinced many that the conversion of
  the heathen would be the Lord's own work in his own time, and that
  nothing could be done by men to hasten it. Carey's answer is a
  patient, methodical survey of the world and of the whole history of
  Christian efforts to bring the Gospel to it. His mind is entirely free
  from the eschatological speculations of the pietists... The appeal of
  this pamphlet was reinforced by Carey's sermon to a group of Baptist
  ministers at Nottingham on 31 May 1792; starting from the text Isaiah
  54:2-3, 'Lengthen thy cords, and strengthen thy stakes', he laid down
  his two great principles of action: 'Attempt great things for God;
  expect great things from God.' Four months later the Baptist
  Missionary Society was formed. In June 1793 Carey left for India with
  his family as the Society's first missionary.

Tantalising clues are given with mention of hyper-Calvinistic views that men could not hasten the work of God in conversion, and of pietistsic eschatological speculations.

  The principles of pietism are the demand for personal conversion and
  for holiness, close fellowship to the Society, and responsibility for
  witness. The expectation that the return of Christ, which cannot be
  much longer delayed, will be preceded by a great outpouring of the
  Spirit of God on Jews and heathens led by a natural gradation of
  thought to a sense of responsibility for ‘foreign’ missions. (Ibid p
  228)

Hyper-Calvinism has long been a problem in Protestantism, giving Calvinism a bad name. Various biblical arguments have been proposed, to imply that those who are saved by the grace of God have to leave the work of the conversion of others to the Holy Spirit; they simply worship God faithfully, 'fence' the Lord's table so that no 'unworthy' person partakes, and teach from the scriptures.  Those who are not saved who hear the teaching might be saved, by the grace of God. Now, when we look at the arguments for the hyper-Calvinists, an interesting point arises. The same scriptures that the Calvinists and the hyper-Calvinists use to uphold the predestining sovereignty of God in election are interpreted differently by both groups. Different interpretations produce different theological conclusions, which either encourage reaching out to the unsaved with the gospel, or discourage that. Great lumps of quotations could be given to show where the groups differ, but no scriptures would be involved. The books that deal with the differing stances are all about interpretations of scriptures, not the scriptures themselves.

There is an excellent book dealing with this, The Story of Christian Theology, pages 455 following, by Roger E. Olson (IVP 1999).  Although it does not deal with missions, it shows the theological issues between Calvinism and hyper-Calvinism. But it does not thrash out scriptures. It traces the development of theological ideas based on different interpretations and emphases of scriptures.  One way of expressing this could be that such debates about predestination and the sovereignty of God showed the limits of where ideas and words could take Christians, theoretically. Carey was not concerned about that; he wanted to take the Gospel to lost souls, trusting in God to do great things as Christians obediently did everything they could to fulfil Christ’s commission in Matthew 28:19-20.

This does not exactly answer your question but given how missions have grown and shown great success, that may indicate why there seems to be such a dearth of information on the objections of the hyper-Calvinists in centuries past. Had their arguments been sound, we could have expected dismal failure on the part of the missionary societies, with hyper-Calvinistic arguments being upheld to this day as proof that they were right. It appears that they were wrong.


How did Rahab speak the language spoken by Joshua’s spies Did the Israelites learn many languages in Egypt and pass them down (including to one of these two spies)? Is it known how Rahab was able to communicate?

Abraham, Isaac and Jacob lived in Canaan before the Hebrew people moved to Egypt.

Moses lived for forty years in Midian before he led the people into the desert.

During the wandering in the desert, the Hebrew people frequently fought the neighboring peoples.

All these interactions provided opportunities for some of the Hebrew people to learn Canaanite languages.


Mere Christianity Chapter 7 ("Let's Pretend") Book IV: Reference to Story of Mask In Mere Christianity Chapter 7 ("Let's Pretend") Book IV, Lewis writes that there is a story

about someone who had to wear a mask; a mask which made him look much
nicer than he really was. He had to wear it for year. and when he took
it off he found his own face had grown to fit it. He was now really
beautiful.

Does anyone know what this story is?
Thanks

C.S. Lewis won a triple first (the highest honours in three areas of study – Classics, Philosophy and English) at Oxford. He then taught as a fellow of Magdalen College for nearly 30 years. Later, he was the first Professor of Medieval and Renaissance English at Cambridge University. Much of his academic work concentrated on the later Middle Ages, especially its use of allegory. His book “The Allegory of Love” (1963) helped reinvigorate the serious study of late medieval narratives. His last academic work was “The Discarded Image, An introduction to Medieval and Renaissance Literature” (1964). In his book “Fern-seed and Elephants” Lewis picks a statement from a liberal commentary where John’s Gospel is called a ‘spiritual romance’, ‘a poem not history’. He retorts: “I have been reading poems, romances, vision literature, legends, myths all my life. I know what they are like. I know that not one of them is like this.”
I would suppose that this second story about a person having to wear a mask for years, comes from that wealth of late Medieval literature with which he was so conversant. It is hardly necessary to track it down; he knew of that story and incorporated it into chapter 7 of his book as an illustration of what he was going to explain:

“What had begun as disguise had become a reality. I think both these
stories may (in a fanciful way, or course) help to illustrate what I
have to say in this chapter.”

That story might have been, basically, just what he said it was, in his first paragraph of chapter 7. If the original tale had been more elaborate, Lewis would have expertly condensed it to its salient points. He was just using it (and the summary of Beauty and the Beast) as a spring-board from which to launch into application of knowing theology. If you could find the original story, it would not have anything further in it that would improve its application in Lewis’s chapter. I’m not so sure that his application is sound, but I have no doubt that his condensed version of that un-cited story is a neat summary which helps in his explanation of applying theology in order to become more Christ-like.
His conclusion is important, for he says there has been something very misleading in his language up till that point.

“I have been talking as if it were we who did everything. In reality,
of course, it is God who does everything. We, at most, allow it to be
done to us. In a sense you might even say it is God who does the
pretending. The Three-Personal God, so to speak, sees before Him in
fact a self-centred, greedy, grumbling, rebellious human animal” and
acts as “the higher thing” which “always raises the lower. A mother
teaches her baby to talk by talking to it as if it understood long
before it really does.”

That ties the opening illustration (of wearing a mask for years) with the conclusion, that God can transform a horrible person into a Christ-like one.


What role did the Donation of Constantine have on the development of the doctrine of Papal supremacy? In the late Middle Ages, two documents arose which, together, are called the The Donation of Constantine. They made a large number of statements which would have had the effect of making the Pope the "Emperor of Christianity."

Considering that they were discredited by the end of the 16th century, what effect did these documents have on the development and legitimacy of the Papal claims at primacy?

My interpretation is that the answer is, "doctrinally, effectively, none." While I will definitely say that it seems like there was a good deal of effect on the politics of Italy (and, to a lesser extent, France) in the High Middle Ages, from a doctrinal perspective, it does not really seem to be terribly significant. And I say this for two particularly important reasons:

The doctrine was already in place:

The claims and assertions about the primacy of the Papacy had been around since before Eusebius who died in 339.
Leo the Great is generally considered the major proponent of the doctrine, and died centuries before the document was written.

They were disproven:

The documents were disproven 70 years before Luther, 100 years before Trent
While that was not published until the 16th century, it was certainly widely known when the doctrine of infallibility itself was defined at Vatican I

The major challenger to Papal authority in when those were written was the See of Constantinople, but it is apparent that these documents were known only to the west. (And when it was shown in the East, it contributed to the Great Schism)


To what extent did Isaiah understand his own prophecies? Consider Isaiah 53:4-6 (NIV), which is commonly interpreted as a prophecy that the Messiah would die for the sins of the world:

  4Surely he took up our pain
     and bore our suffering,
  yet we considered him punished by God,
     stricken by him, and afflicted.
  5But he was pierced for our transgressions,
     he was crushed for our iniquities;
  the punishment that brought us peace was on him,
     and by his wounds we are healed.
  6We all, like sheep, have gone astray,
     each of us has turned to our own way;
  and the LORD has laid on him
     the iniquity of us all.

It seems apparent that the majority of Jews at the time, did not interpret this passage (and others) to mean that Jesus was the Messiah, until after Christ died.  This seems to be common with many (maybe most or all) Biblical prophecies: There is sufficient detail to identify once an event has occurred, but not sufficient detail to predict when a prophesied event will occur.

So my question:  Did Isaiah understand his own prophecies, in the sense that we do today?  Would Isaiah, for instance, have known that the Messiah would die for the sins of the world? If Isaiah had met Christ before His death, would he have realized he was the Messiah?

Or were Isaiah's own words enigmatic to him as they were to the rest of the world, prior to the fulfillment of the prophecies?

Peter gives us some insight into this:

  10 Concerning this salvation, the prophets, who spoke of the grace
  that was to come to you, searched intently and with the greatest care,
  11 trying to find out the time and circumstances to which the Spirit
  of Christ in them was pointing when he predicted the sufferings of the
  Messiah and the glories that would follow. 12 It was revealed to them
  that they were not serving themselves but you, when they spoke of the
  things that have now been told you by those who have preached the
  gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven. Even angels long to
  look into these things.  1 Peter 1:10-12 NIV

Many passages in the Old Testament were considered to be Messianic well before the time of Christ. One theory was that there would actual be two Messiahs.  This arose out of an attempt to reconcile what appeared to be both a suffering Messiah and a conquering Messiah.  These were known as Messiah Ben Joseph (or Ephraim) and Messiah Ben David.

The Messiah Ben Joseph (son of Joseph) indicated the sufferings that Joseph, the son of Jacob, endured at the hands of his brothers and during the first part of his time in Egypt.  Interestingly enough, Joseph became as Pharaoh in Egypt, much like Jesus, who did suffer at the hands of His brothers and the forces of another country, but who now reigns as King of Kings.

Messiah Ben David would be a king.

So, Isaiah, like Peter reveals, likely searched intently and with the greatest care trying to find out the time and circumstances when Messiah would come.  He likely did not understand everything about it, but more than likely understand a good bit.


Does the Bible say anything about a Conscious and Unconscious Mind? Unfortunately, I don't have a rigorous definition of "conscious" and "unconscious" mind, although I think most of us would agree that they exist.

Question: Is there any verse in the Bible that says anything about the split between conscious and unconscious mind?

2 Peter 2:12 talks about unrighteous men who indulge the flesh. The verse describes them as "creatures of instinct" and "unreasoning animals".

It seems significant that they are described as being moved by "instinct" rather than "reason".

This seems to indicate that it is error to be led by the "unconscious mind" at the expense of the "conscious mind".

I'm not sure "walking" should be classified as "unconscious", though; indeed, if it were, you may walk into traffic without thinking, as a sleep-walker might. ;p


Jonah and the Whale - Is there any scientific proof that it is possible to survive in the belly of whale? The book of Jonah records that Jonah spent three days in the belly of a great fish (possibly a whale).

  And the LORD appointed a great fish to swallow up Jonah. And Jonah was
  in the belly of the fish three days and three nights.  Jonah 1:17 ESV

Is there any scientific evidence that suggests it is possible for a person to survive in the belly of a whale, or are we left to conclude that this was part of the miracle?

Cecil Adams (aka "The Straight Dope") did a lot to debunk later-day Jonah stories here: http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2294/have-any-real-life-jonahs-been-swallowed-by-whales-and-lived

Basically, he says that while many would like to believe this is a phenomenon that has been reproduced, all the stories range from apocryphal to fraudulent. As such, yes, the fact that Jonah was preserved for three days in the belly of the whale, was in fact a miracle.

Theological Import

The fact that Jesus alludes to the same in Luke 11:32 (the sign of Jonah being given instead of a miracle) may lead one to a discussion of the difference between a sign and a miracle - but in both cases the effect is the same. It is a physical situation in which the natural human response is to see God's direct intervention. I would argue that the point of Luke 11:28 (A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miracle, but no miracle will be given it except the sign of Jonah) specifically points to the fact that people wanted a magical reproduction. Nowadays, we are not a magical culture, but rather a scientific one. As such, we ask not for a miracle but a scientific explanation.  I suspect Jesus would say of his own resurrection, that no explanation would be given it, except the sign of Jonah.


Is there any evidence in the Roman catacombs that the Early Church had a devotion to the Virgin Mary? Is there any archeological evidence in the catacombs of Rome that the Early Church had any (particular) devotion to the Virgin Mary? If so, what are the sources that support such a devotion?

Not prior to the 2nd century, mainly since the catacombs were not developed until then.

While there are various Christian frescos in these underground tombs which demonstrate a devotion to the saints, including the Virgin Mary, the time period for their origin would be no earlier than the late 2nd century or early 3rd, for even though Christians immediately began burying their dead in the catacombs after they became available, they did not become regularly used for worship until persecution forced them underground. The frescos did not come till later, and those that are dated are probably from the late 3rd or early 4th century. By 380 A.D., the catacombs were no longer used for meeting as Christianity became legal in that year.

So even the earliest frescos would reflect practices removed by at least a century from Christ. Yet, with other historical records it is clear that devotion to the saints, including Mary, was obviously early and seems to have developed parallel with the use of the catacombs to bury the early martyrs.

Whatever the case, since the catacombs yield little empirically of the Church prior to the 2nd century and since devotion to saints seems to be of the era of the catacombs' first use by Christians, nothing found in these tombs can guarantee a connection with the Church in its most primitive and primary state.


The "eye of the needle gate" today There is a great set of answers that covers some of my question regarding the interpretation of this passage over on the Biblical Hermeneutics site, but it didn't answer all of my questions.

Today I heard an old pastor speak about when he saw one of those gates for himself in Jerusalem. If I understand it right, the gate he saw was even labeled with "The eye of the needle" or something similar (though his interpretation was not the classic, because he was sure of that there was no way a camel could get through the gate he saw).

What gate (which obviously exists today) is this pastor speaking about?
Is there really any part of the Jerusalem walls left since Jesus time? Weren't all of the walls destroyed after the siege of Jerusalem 70 A.D?

Update 1

Even since before asking this question, I never doubted that Jesus was speaking about a real "eye of the needle", and not a gate. Even though I marked one answer (which was really clarifying) as accepted, it would be really interesting to nail this myth and go down to the details. According to the New Bible Dictionary, third Edition, p. 562, there is one remaining ancient wall "at the present-day Damascus Gate". What does "ancient" mean in this context? Could it have survived since the days of Jesus? In that case, how big is this part? Are there other ancient walls that could be from the days of Jesus? And are there any "gates" in these ancient walls that have been suggested as the "needle eye gate"?

Minor clarification. While the Temple of Jerusalem was destroyed in 70AD, the city of Jerusalem retained its general street plan until 135 AD.  In 135 AD, after the Bar Jakova Revolt, the already damaged city was razed to the ground. In its place, a Greek city called Aelia Capitolina was put in its place.

As such, when Constantine's mother, Helena visited the city in the 300s, there was nothing left, except new settlements which bore no relation to the extant city. This why Golgotha, for example - the outskirts of the town in the day - are, if you believe Helena, now inside the Church of the Holy Sepelchure, smack dab in the center of the city.

Indeed, the city itself has migrated over time. The "City of David," extends south of the current city walls. That one would now exit the "Dung Gate" to go to where David's palace was shows how fluid city layouts can be.

The Temple, which was at the northern end of the city, is now central to it.  The "beautiful gate" (or the "Golden Gate", next to the Temple) was sealed off in 1541, and most of the existing walls date to the Ottomans, built in the 1500s.

As such, if there ever was an "eye of the Needle" gate, (which in my mind is highly doubtful) it certainly no longer exists today. Additionally, any understanding of where the gate was in relationship to the city would be of no use, because there is no context for it.

Update

The Damascus Gate has been the historic main entrance to the city. The actual edifice, however dates to 1547, and was built on the ruins of a 2nd Century AD gate,


From where do Jehovah's Witnesses derive the doctrine that Jesus was and now is Michael the Archangel? According to some Watchtower literature, it is taught that Michael the Archangel is Jesus and that Jesus, after He ascended into heaven, resumed the name of Michael.

  "It proves Michael the archangel is no other than the only begotten
  son of God, now Jesus Christ. The very name Michael means who is like
  God and indicates Jehovah God is without like or equal." (New Heavens
  and New Earth pg.30-31).

  Jesus is actually the incarnation of Michael the Arch angel and
  resumed the name when he ascended into heaven ( ibid. pg.30 Your will
  be done on earth pg.316 )

Do Jehovah's Witnesses still believe this, and, if so, what is the biblical basis from which these teachings are derived?

Jehovah's Witnesses (JWs) take Daniel 10:13,21; 12:1 to equate Michael to Christ.  They believe that since it refers to Michael as "one of the foremost princes", and,

"Michael will stand up, the great prince who is standing in behalf of the sons of your people."

They also interpret "stand up" to be mean "take control and reign as king." From their book Your Will Be Done On Earth,

"the Michael that stands up as the 'great prince' to fulfill Daniel 12:1 is the Lord Jesus Christ at God's right hand."

Additionally, they cite 1 Thessalonians 4:16,

"The Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel's voice and with God's trumpet, and those who are dead in union with Christ will rise first."

They argue that it is the Lord Himself who issues forth the commanding call as the archangel, from Aid to Bible Understanding,

"Michael is the only one said to be the 'archangel', meaning 'chief angel' or 'principal angel'.  The term occurs in the Bible only in the singular.  This seems to imply that there is but one whom God has designated chief or head of the angelic host.  At 1 Thessalonians 4:15 the voice of the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ is described as being that of an archangel, suggesting that he is, in fact, himself the archangel."

Because of this, they interpret Christ's identity, both pre-incarnation and post-incarnation, to be the archangel Michael.
Their book Reasoning From the Scriptures, under section 'Jesus Christ', and "Is Jesus Christ the same person as Michael the archangel?", cite the above as well, and also add:

"Revelation 12:7-12 says that Michael and his angels would war against Satan and hurl him and his wicked angels out of heaven in connection with the conferring of kingly authority on Christ.  Jesus is latter depicted as leading the armies of heaven in war against the nations of the world. (Rev. 19:11-16) Is it not reasonable that Jesus would also be the one to take action against the one he described as "ruler of this world," Satan the Devil? (John 12:31) Daniel 12:1 associates the 'standing up of Michael' to act with authority with "a time of trouble, such as never has been since there was a nation till that time."  That would certainly fit the experience of the nations when Christ as heavenly executioner takes action against them.  So the evidence indicates that the Son of God was known as Michael before he came to earth and is known also by that name since his return to heaven where he resides as the glorified spirit Son of God."

This question from a Watchtower reader and the answer provides further explanation.


What is morphological analysis, as it applies to bible study? As far as I can tell, it's a technique used by bible students to better understand the original languages in context.

How does one go about using a tool such as Robinson's Morphological Analysis Codes?

Edit: I've also asked this same question on Hermeneutics.SE.

This question was answered on Biblical Hermeneutics.SE.

Morphological analysis codes are used in the study of the original languages of the Bible. For example, a word might be listed with the morphological code "A-NPM," which would indicate the following:

A-NPM

Part of Speech: Adjective
Case: Nominative (subject; predicate nominative)
Number: Plural
Gender: Masculine

Follow the link provided above for more information.


What does Christian Science teach about mental illnesses? I understand that Christian Science believes that a person with a physical disease should not seek out medical treatment, but instead rely on prayer. Wikipedia says that adherents believe

…that disease is a mental error rather than physical disorder, and that the sick should be treated not by medicine, but by a form of prayer that seeks to correct the beliefs responsible for the illusion of ill health.
The church does not require that Christian Scientists avoid all medical care – adherents use dentists, optometrists, obstetricians, physicians for broken bones, and vaccination when required by law  – but maintains that Christian Science prayer is most effective when not combined with medicine.

I'm curious to know what Christian Science teaches about mental illnesses (e.g. depression, schizophrenia, PTSD, and other mental illnesses recognized by the DSM-5). In particular, I'm wondering if mental illnesses are also described as mental errors or if they are something else. Also, what sort of treatment would be permitted? I presume that taking SSRIs and other medication would be strongly discouraged, but is seeking out a counselor permitted?

Thanks for your question. While the Wikipedia page is an adequate description, I recommend you also look at the webpage of the Christian Science church itself to see how they describe their own beliefs to the public, Www.ChristianScience.com. And you can refer to Science & Health with Key to the Scriptures, by Mary Baker Eddy for the complete explanation and method of Christian Science healing and prayer.
Regarding mental illness, CS does teach that it, like physical illness can be treated and healed through prayer. Mary Baker Eddy, the founder of Christian Science, writes in her book on Christian healing:

The treatment of insanity is especially interesting. However obstinate the case, it yields more readily than do most diseases to the salutary action of truth, which counteracts error. The arguments to be used in curing insanity are the same as in other diseases: namely, the impossibility that matter, brain, can control or derange mind, can suffer or cause suffering; also the fact that truth and love will establish a healthy state, guide and govern mortal mind or the thought of the patient, and destroy all error, whether it is called dementia, hatred, or any other discord.
—Science & Health, 414:4

Keep in mind that this text was published in 1875, and do her word choice reflects the understanding of mental illness at that time. That doesn't change the point, however, that mental illness, like physical illness can be treated through prayer.
The question about what treatment is permitted sort of misses the point. CS is not about obeying rules so that God will heal you, or so that you'll be saved. It's about growing in an understanding of your identity as a spiritual idea of God. Therefore, each person is left to choose the treatment that they feel is best for them in any given situation. The general idea is that matter-based treatments are antagonistic to that goal of growing in spiritual understanding because they are grounded in the material rather than the spiritual, which is why CS advises against combining CS treatment with medical treatment. However, each person must choose for himself what to do. That said, many CStists do choose to rely exclusively on prayer because they've seen it work healing all kinds of physical, psychological, relationship or even financial problems.


According to Reformed churches, is the trinity a finalized doctrine? From 325 AD at the Council of Nicea up to about the 8th century, councils have been held to determine the correct nature of God. It was eventually decided that the bible reveals a triune god- one god existing as three divine persons. Although shrouded in mystery and containing contradictions that are labeled "beyond our human comprehension", the trinity doctrine has been the most popular Christology for centuries. According to the Westminister Confession of Faith:

  “The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.”

Suppose I work my way up the ranks to become a respected and exalted member of the church. One day, I have a divine revelation that Wisdom is not merely personified in the bible, but is the fourth person of the Quadrilateral god. Of course, my idea would have many critics. They may say "Proverbs 8:22–30 says Wisdom was brought forth, so it cannot be the eternal god", to which I'd reply "Wisdom is eternally brought-forth through the eternal generation" or something.

I would show that Wisdom is described as a person that can speak, think, and that Jesus even says she has her own children. I could even quote Theophilus of Antioch to show that I'm not the only one who believes Wisdom is a divine person of God.

Anyways, my question isn't about whether the Quadinity is true.

Is the trinity a completed doctrine and too sacred to be reformulated, or do Reformed churches allow alternative ideas to be presented and considered?

Yes and no.  That is, in simple terms:

No, the doctrine of the Trinity is not "finalized" or "completed" – Reformed theologians regularly debate the intricacies of this doctrine
Yes, the doctrine of the Trinity is "finalized" – anyone who rejects the fundamentals of the Trinity would generally not be considered "Reformed."

Your quote of the Westminster Confession of Faith refers to the canon of Scripture, to which nothing may be added, but Reformed thinkers regularly attempt to develop better (and sometimes new) understandings of Christian doctrines, including the doctrine of the Trinity.  But a radically divergent view of God, such as the quadrinity you mention, would be rejected as not Reformed.

All Reformed confessions strongly defend the Trinity.  Here's what one of them says:

  In the unity of the Godhead there be three Persons of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. The Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father;  the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son. (Westminster Confession of Faith, II)

Other Reformed confessions go into more detail, but none of them exhaustively describe the doctrine.  Thus, it's possible for two people to say "I affirm Chapter II of the Westminster Standards" but disagree on some aspects of the doctrine of the Trinity.  This actually happens with great regularity.  Here are two examples:

Karl Barth's innovations in the doctrine of the Trinity were a lightning rod in 20th century Reformed theology.  Some Reformed theologians claimed that went too far, but others didn't object.  See my answer to Did Karl Barth confess an orthodox doctrine of the Trinity?
Robert Reymond, in his New Systematic Theology, and Wayne Grudem, in his Systematic Theology, find themselves on opposites sides of an ongoing debate within Reformed circles over subordination of the Son to the Father.  Some admit a "subordination of role," while others do not.

So "no," the doctrine of the Trinity is not finalized; it is something that theologians will likely continue to argue over for a long time to come, because of its central place in Reformed doctrine.

But the importance of the doctrine also means that, "yes," the doctrine of the Trinity is finalized – in Reformed circles, it isn't going anywhere.  Those who reject the basics of the Trinity will generally be considered outside the bounds of Reformed theology, and, if they wish to teach their views, forced to join (or start) another branch.

Of course, "Reformed theology" is just a label, and as such it is applied differently by different people.  As previously mentioned, some consider Barth Reformed, and others don't.  But the Reformed confessions provide helpful guidance in this respect – people who explicitly reject confessional teachings of the Trinity, including someone arguing for a "quadrinity" as you mention, would certainly be outside the bounds of the Reformed confessions, and therefore generally considered outside Reformed theology.


What is the biblical basis for the idea that people can't stop sinning? I had someone ask me to show Scripture that says people can't stop sinning. I had a hard time locating one.  What passage(s), if any, support this idea?

The doctrine you are addressing is called Total Depravity.
This question will actually say much more about it: What is the Biblical basis for Total Depravity?
Various denominations have slightly different nuances to the idea, but typically the following verses are first up:

Romans 3:10-11: "There is none is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God."
Romans 8:7-9: "For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God. You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him."
Ephesians 2:3b: "[We] were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind."
1 Corinthians 2:14: "The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned."

In the Old Testament, one looks to:

Jeremiah 17:9 (NLT) "The human heart is the most deceitful of all things, and desperately wicked. Who really knows how bad it is?
Jeremiah 13:23 (NIV): "Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard its spots? Neither can you do good who are accustomed to doing evil."

Basically, the idea is related to original sin, and says that mankind is incapable of not sinning.


How does "believe that you have received it" practice in the Christian life? in Mark 11:24

  24 Therefore I tell you, whatever
  you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will
  be yours.

What is the catholic interpretation of the verse? The reason I'm asking because I wonder if this is the same or similar interpretation as the New Age movements offers?

  You’ve probably heard how visualization is a key part of Law of
  Attraction success.

  “You have to visualize your desire to attract your desire.”

Do we need to go around and visualize or even act like we have already received whatever we asked for in a prayer? How does "believe that you have received it" manifests/practice in the Christian life?  How does it differ from the New Age understanding?

St. Thomas, in his Catena Aurea (Golden Chain) on St. Mark's Gospel, cap. 11 l. 4, cites St. Theophlyact, who writes:

  For whosoever sincerely believes evidently lifts up his heart to God, and is joined to Him, and his burning heart feels sure that he has received what he asked for, which he who has experienced will understand; and those persons appear to me to experience this, who attend to the measure and the manner of their prayers. For this reason the Lord says, "Ye shall receive whatsoever ye ask in faith;" for he who believes that he is altogether in the hands of God, and interceding with tears, feels that he as it were has hold of the feet of the Lord in prayer, he shall receive what he has rightly asked for. Again, would you in another way receive what you ask for? Forgive your brother, if he has in any way sinned against you; this is also what is added: "And when ye stand praying, forgive, if ye have ought against any: that your Father also which is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses."


Was the KJV "too highly colored in many places with the party ideas and opinions of those who made it"? In the Emphatic Diaglott, the second paragraph under the heading "To the Reader" states:

But can it be fairly said that such is the case with our present English Version? We opine not. Though freely acknowledging that it is sufficiently plain to teach men the social and religious duties of life, and the path to Immortality, yet it is a notable fact that King James' Translation is far from being a faithful reflection of the mind of the Spirit, as contained in the Original Greek in which the books of the New Testament were written. There are some thousands of words which are either mistranslated, or too obscurely rendered; besides others which are now obsolete, through improvement in the language. Besides this, it has been too highly colored in many places with the party ideas and opinions of those who made it, to be worthy of full and implicit confidence being placed in it as a genuine record. In the words of Dr. Macknight, "it was made a little too complaisant to the King, in favoring his notions of predestination, election, witchcraft, familiar spirits, and kingly rights, and these it is probable were also the translators' opinions. That their translation is partial, speaking the language of, and giving authority to one sect." And according to Dr. Gell, it was wrested and partial, "and only adapted to one sect;" but he imputes this, not to the translators, but to those who employed them, for even some of the translators complained that they could not follow their own judgment in the matter, but were restrained by "reasons of state." [bold mine]

Is there any historical record as to the veracity of this statement about the wording of the King James Version?

It has been calculated by some that 83% of the New Testament part of the  Authorised Version (see Wikipedia - William Tyndale footnotes 9 & 10) is fully attributable to William Tyndale. If that be true (and from my own studies I do not doubt it) then any comment about the AV being biased in any way has to distinguish between any supposed bias in Tyndale separately from any supposed bias in the AV translators.
Scrivener's learned Greek Text of 1894 has shown what texts (Erasmus, Beza, Stephanus and Computensian Polyglot) were used in which places by the AV translators and so that, also, would need to be examined with regard to any supposed 'bias' regarding the choice of source.
It is noticeable that the AV translators favoured Beza, in one important place,  by adding his words εκ σου 'of thee' to the words of Luke in 1:35 turning 'which shall be begotten, shall be called Son of God' into 'which shall be begotten of thee, shall be called Son of God' : a very noticeable difference with serious implications.
And it is certainly true that one can discern places in the AV where the translators favour certain doctrinal views which are later expressed in detail in both the Westminster Confession and the Savoy Declaration.
One example of this is where the AV translators mis-translate Romans 5:18 δι ενος δικαιωματος as 'by the righteousness of one' (mis-representing a prepositional genitive as a possessive and adding an article not present in the original). Were they correct, then the concomitant expression δι ενος ανθρωπου in Romans 5:12 should be translated 'by the man of one' which is clearly ridiculous.
(See the Englishman's Greek New Testament Literal Interlinear Translation and Green's Literal Translation which have the correct reading.)
'By one man' and 'by one righteousness' is the correct translation. But the mis-translation which would have a schoolboy rightly castigated in Greek class is clearly an interpretation which favours the doctrine of Dr John Owen who influenced the Savoy Declaration of 1658 which contains support for the concept of 'active and passive obedience'.
However the quotation cited by the OP above, and the entire text in the link provided, bears not one single reference to the  AV and therefore (either from just that quotation, or from the entire article) no evidence whatsoever is offered of any bias at all, only a statement of unsubstantiated opinion.
The writer goes on to mention Vatican manuscript 1209 which is the Codex Vaticanus so it becomes obvious that the argument is not really against the AV, or rather Tyndale, or even the matter of English translation at all, the argument is against the Greek Received Text, as such.
Thus the above comments are singularly insufficient to persuade myself to leave the most commonly available English translation of the Textus Receptus, the Greek 'Received Text', in favour of what is being argued for, namely the Greek Text of 1881 and thereafter, which leans heavily on the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus, which disagree between themselves in 3,000 places in just the four gospel accounts of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, as publicised by Dean John Burgon in his book 'Revision Revised' 1881.


What is the earliest indication of controversy regarding the anarthrous θεός in John 1:1? Historically, what are the earliest writings that indicate controversy or differing opinions regarding the interpretation of the anarthrous θεός in John 1:1?  This debate continues today between those who advocate the translation "the Word was God" against those who prefer "the Word was a god."

The earliest mention of controversy appears to be in the writings of Origen of Alexandria, in the third century.  He indicates that some debate already existed on the matter in his time, and he attempts to resolve it by saying that the lack of the article implies that the Word of God is inferior to and dependent on the "True God":

We next notice John’s use of the article in these sentences.  He does not write without care in this respect, nor is he unfamiliar with the niceties of the Greek tongue.  In some cases he uses the article, and in some he omits it.  He adds the article to the Logos, but to the name of God he adds it sometimes only.  He uses the article, when the name of God refers to the uncreated cause of all things, and omits it when the Logos is named God.  [...]
Now there are many who are sincerely concerned about religion, and who fall here into great perplexity.  They are afraid that they may be proclaiming two Gods, and their fear drives them into doctrines which are false and wicked.  Either they deny that the Son has a distinct nature of His own besides that of the Father, and make Him whom they call the Son to be God all but the name, or they deny the divinity of the Son, giving Him a separate existence of His own, and making His sphere of essence fall outside that of the Father, so that they are separable from each other.
To such persons we have to say that God on the one hand is Very God (Autotheos, God of Himself); and so the Saviour says in His prayer to the Father, “That they may know Thee the only true God;” but that all beyond the Very God is made God by participation in His divinity, and is not to be called simply God (with the article), but rather God (without article).  And thus the first-born of all creation, who is the first to be with God, and to attract to Himself divinity, is a being of more exalted rank than the other gods beside Him, of whom God is the God, as it is written, “The God of gods, the Lord, hath spoken and called the earth.”  [...]
The true God, then, is “The God,” and those who are formed after Him are gods, images, as it were, of Him the prototype.  But the archetypal image, again, of all these images is the Word of God, who was in the beginning, and who by being with God is at all times God, not possessing that of Himself, but by His being with the Father, and not continuing to be God, if we should think of this, except by remaining always in uninterrupted contemplation of the depths of the Father. (Commentary on the Gospel of John, 2.2; paragraph breaks and bold added)

A century later, John Chrysostom argued the opposite side, noting other biblical texts supporting the full divinity of Christ, and remarking on the grammatical issue:

“Yet observe,” says he, “the Father is named with the addition of the article, but the Son without it.” What then, when the Apostle says, “The Great God, and our Saviour Jesus Christ” (Tit. ii. 13); and again, “Who is above all, God”? (Rom. ix. 5.) It is true that here he has mentioned the Son, without the article; but he does the same with the Father also, at least in his Epistle to the Philippians (c. ii. 6), he says, “Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God”; and again to the Romans, “Grace to you, and peace, from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.” (Rom. i. 7.)
Besides, it was superfluous for it to be attached in that place, when close above it was continually attached to “the Word.” For as in speaking concerning the Father, he says, “God is a Spirit” (John iv. 24), and we do not, because the article is not joined to “Spirit,” yet deny the Spiritual Nature of God; so here, although the article is not annexed to the Son, the Son is not on that account a less God. Why so? Because in saying “God,” and again “God,” he does not reveal to us any difference in this Godhead, but the contrary; for having before said, “and the Word was God”; that no one might suppose the Godhead of the Son to be inferior, he immediately adds the characteristics of genuine Godhead, including Eternity, (for “He was,” says he, “in the beginning with God,”) and attributing to Him the office of Creator. (Homilies on the Gospel of John, 4)


What did Jesus think he was? What does the biblical Jesus (as opposed to the historical Jesus) think he is?

a rabbi
the son of a carpenter
the child born in the house of David
the king of the Jews, about to be anointed with oil, to save Jerusalem from all oppression and be the light of the world
a pious Jewish man well-versed in the Hebrew scriptures at the time and carefully cites some sources from the Hebrew scriptures in order to serve his purpose and make himself seem credible, genuine, and sincere to his community
a traveler who wants anybody who has ears to hear to listen to him
a man holding a grudge against the Pharisees, even though one of the Pharisees shows hospitality by inviting him to his house
a prophet that foretells what shall happen to the Son of Man, which turns out to be him
his disciples seem to treat him like a teacher, a rabbi, and sometimes refer to him as "lord" (whether or not "Lord" is the correct translated term is another story)
complex relationship with his "Father"

Compared to modern Rabbinical Jewish mashiach, it is implied that Jesus presumably thought that he was the Jewish messiah, the King of the Jews. Wearing a crown of thorns and being labelled "King of the Jews" at his crucifixion and resurrection. Plus, some say that his resurrection really did happen in history. His resurrection seems to be most significant, because without it, he would be a dead messiah, and that means he would be no messiah.

The common Christian answer goes straight to the words Jesus spoke in John 8:58

  Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was,
  I AM."

This is understood now, and was understood at the time, as Jesus claiming to be God, referring to the the words God spoke to Moses from the burning bush.

This is covered in much greater detail at Let Us Reason Ministries.

Excerpt:

  Who do you say Jesus is? Jesus asked this same question to his
  disciples about what others thought of him and then asked what they
  thought of him.

  Jn.5:37: "And the Father himself, who sent me, has borne witness of
  me. You have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape.
  ‘Jesus gives the source of his commission, which is from the Father
  personally. It is the Fathers voice and form they have not seen, yet
  Christ has.

  Christ who is called the exact image of the invisible Father is the
  voice that the people heard. He then says that they search the
  Scriptures in them you think you have eternal life but they testify of
  me."(v.39) The Son is said to be the eternal life with the Father. Are
  we to believe the Scriptures testify of only a human being and not God
  himself? In the end of the discourse Jesus says in vs.46-47 "If you
  believed Moses you would believe Me; for he wrote about me. But if you
  don’t believe his writings, how will you believe my words?"

  When did Moses write of him? Deut.18:15-19: "The LORD your God will
  raise up for you a Prophet like me from your midst, from your
  brethren. Him you shall hear, "according to all you desired of the
  LORD your God in Horeb in the day of the assembly, saying, 'Let me not
  hear again the voice of the LORD my God, nor let me see this great
  fire anymore, lest I die.' "And the LORD said to me: 'What they have
  spoken is good. 'I will raise up for them a Prophet like you from
  among their brethren, and will put My words in His mouth, and He shall
  speak to them all that I command Him. 'And it shall be that whoever
  will not hear My words, which He speaks in My name, I will require it
  of him." Jesus claims to be the prophet Moses spoke of that should
  listen to. Notice that it says they did not want to hear the voice of
  the Lord anymore or see his glory in Horeb. Then God says he will put
  his words in a future prophets mouth if they do not listen to his
  words, God will require it of him." This very thing Jesus said of
  himself in Jn.8:24 "Therefore I said to you that you will die in your
  sins; for if you do not believe that I am (He), you will die in your
  sins."

This is also famously covered in C.S. Lewis's Trilemma

  "I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing
  that people often say about Him: I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great
  moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God. That is the one
  thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of
  things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either
  be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg
  — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice.
  Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or
  something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him
  and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord
  and God, but let us not come with any patronising nonsense about his
  being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did
  not intend to. ... Now it seems to me obvious that He was neither a
  lunatic nor a fiend: and consequently, however strange or terrifying
  or unlikely it may seem, I have to accept the view that He was and is
  God."


What is the Anglican teaching on Hell? What is the official teaching on hell in the Church of England? (Anglican).  Please include sources.

The 39 articles of faith make no mention of hell, so what other source makes statement on the doctrine of hell?

Here is a list of all the official Anglican statements of belief that talk about hell:
The 39 Articles of Religion
Contrary to what you say, the 39 Articles do mention hell, in Article 3:

As Christ died for us, and was buried; so also it is to be believed, that he went down into Hell.

The Book of Common Prayer
The word "hell" appears in two contexts in the BCP: the Apostles' Creed (Morning Prayer, Evening Prayer, and the three baptism services), and the Athanasian Creed:

that he went down into hell, and also did rise again the third day (Apostles)
Who suffered for our salvation: descended into hell; rose again the third day from the dead (Athanasian)

Summary
And that's it. The Church of England has no other statements of faith that we can use. There are no other authoritative documents that can give an official answer. Beyond the statement that Christ descended into Hell after his death, the Church of England has no official teaching on the subject.
Obviously Anglicans (individually, and often corporately) have more complex and deeper beliefs about Hell, but these are the only official statements.


Was There a '7' Associated With the New Covenant? I have heard from several places that Covenant making often involves the number 7 in some way. I don't ever recall a mentioning of a 7 associated with Jesus institution of the Eucharist and his death and Resurrection. Is there a '7' to be found somewhere in Jesus sacrifice or is Jesus use of the words 'Covenant' in the institution narrative make a '7' unnecessary?

We do know that the sabbath happens on the seventh day. It is also the case that the Hebrew word for seven stands not only for a number. Sheba is also a verb, “and it means to swear a covenant oath – literally to ‘seven oneself"

  see. Genesis 21:27-32

The sabbath is not so much a day for the Father to rest, but stands as a sign of the covenant God made with creation.  “The sabbath symbolized man’s God-given destiny: to rest in God’s blessing and holiness for all eternity”

So the number seven is an "covenant oath". When making covenant oaths the lord would also establish outward signs of that covenant oath.  Christ is his earthly Minestry did the same.

The Seven sacraments of the Catholic Church according to Saint Augustine are

  outward signs of invisible Graces

These graces, given to the Church by our lord and savior, are covenant oaths, signs of the new covenant.

For more information check here:

http://rcdow.org.uk/att/files/faith/catechesis/baptism/sacraments.pdf

There is indeed a "7" accociated with the new Covenant, they are the Seven Sacrements of the Catholic Church.