When was infant baptism rejected in the development of Pentecostalism? Pentecostalism arose out of the Holiness movement, a movement which itself arose out of Wesleyanism/Methodism. But while Wesleyans and Methodists are generally infant baptists, most Pentecostals are credobaptist (believer's baptism). This isn't really too surprising given Pentecostalism's strong focus on being baptised by the Holy Spirit, but it is still an interesting historical development.

At what stage in the development of Pentecostalism was infant baptism rejected? Where there any times of significant disagreement over this amongst Pentecostals?

Regarding the history of Pentecostalism, isolated Christian groups who were experiencing charismatic phenomena such as divine healing and speaking in tongues, eventually came together. The holiness movement provided a theological explanation for what was happening to these Christians, and they adapted Wesleyan soteriology to accommodate their new understanding.  It was not until the early 20th century that the denomination was established under the banner of Pentecostalism.

Pentecostalism or Classical Pentecostalism is a renewal movement within Protestant Christianity that places special emphasis on a direct personal experience of God through the baptism with the Holy Spirit.  It is distinguished by belief in the baptism in the Holy Spirit that enables a Christian to live a Spirit-filled and empowered life. This empowerment includes the use of spiritual gifts such as speaking in tongues and divine healing—two other defining characteristics of Pentecostalism.  Pentecostalism emerged in the early 20th century...  In 1900, Charles Parham, an American evangelist and faith healer, began teaching that speaking in tongues was the Bible evidence of Spirit baptism and along with William J. Seymour, a Wesleyan-Holiness preacher, he taught that this was the third work of grace.  Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentecostalism

Although many of the Christians came out of churches that adopted infant as well as adult baptism by water (Anglicans and Methodists, for example) not all of them did (Baptists).

Believer's baptism (occasionally called credobaptism, from the Latin word credo meaning "I believe") is the Christian practice of baptism as this is understood by many evangelical denominations, particularly those that descend from the Anabaptist and English Baptist tradition. According to their understanding, a person is baptized on the basis of his or her profession of faith in Jesus Christ and as admission into a local community of faith.
The contrasting belief, held in nearly every other Christian tradition, is infant baptism (pedobaptism or paedobaptism, from the Greek paido meaning "child"), in which infants or young children are baptized if one or both parents are already members of the denomination. Such is the practice in the Roman Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Churches, Coptic and Oriental Orthodox Churches, Lutheran Churches, Anglican and Episcopal Churches, and others.
Baptisms are performed in various ways: believer's baptism is typically only by immersion or pouring (also called affusion) and infant baptism by either immersion, affusion, and aspersion (sprinkling). Believer's baptism is often referred to as adult baptism due to the denial that faith can exist prior to the age of accountability. Believer's baptism is also often extended to children so long as they are old enough to earnestly profess their faith.  Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Believer%27s_baptism
See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infant_baptism

However, in order to establish WHEN infant baptism may have been rejected by the Pentecostal movement, it would be necessary to first find documented evidence that showed they ever embraced or practiced infant baptism in the first instance.  I have searched in vain for any reliable source that proves there was a moment in time when either the founders of the Pentecostal movement or the leaders of the various denominations within Pentecostalism denounced infant baptism and said they would no longer perform it.  That does not mean to say such evidence does not exist – only that it is impossible to identify at which stage in the development of Pentecostalism infant baptism was rejected if it was never embraced to begin with.  Pentecostals identify three distinct uses of the word "baptism" in the New Testament:

Baptism into the body of Christ: This refers to salvation. Every believer in Christ is made a part of his body, the Church, through baptism. The Holy Spirit is the agent, and the body of Christ is the medium.
Water baptism: Symbolic of dying to the world and living in Christ, water baptism is an outward symbol of that which has already been accomplished by the Holy Spirit, namely baptism into the body of Christ.
Baptism with the Holy Spirit: This is an experience distinct from baptism into the body of Christ. In this baptism, Christ is the agent and the Holy Spirit is the medium.
Pentecostals believe that the biblical pattern is "repentance, regeneration, water baptism, and then the baptism with the Holy Ghost".  The ordinance of water baptism is an outward symbol of an inner conversion that has already taken place. Therefore, most Pentecostal groups practice believer's baptism by immersion.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentecostalism#Baptism_with_the_Holy_Spirit

After searching various official Pentecostal web sites, I found this article of faith on baptism:

WATER BAPTISM: The scriptural mode of baptism is immersion, and is only for those who have fully repented, having turned from their sins and a love of the world. It should be administered by a duly authorized minister of the Gospel, in obedience to the Word of God, and in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, according to the Acts of the Apostles 2:38, 8:16, 10:48, 19:5; thus obeying and fulfilling Matthew 28:19.
The basic and fundamental doctrine of this organization shall be the Bible standard of full salvation, which is repentance, baptism in water by immersion in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and the baptism of the Holy Ghost with the initial sign of speaking with other tongues as the Spirit gives utterance.
Source: http://www.preachingpoints.com/2009/06/articles-of-faith-of-the-united-pentecostal-church-international/

Given the emphasis placed by Pentecostals on baptism by the Spirit, the resulting speaking in tongues and other gifts of the Holy Spirit, and the official view of adult, or believers’ baptism, it seems doubtful that infants would have been sprinkled with water in some form of infant baptism.


Magi Kings: Good or Bad? Recently I have a doubt related to the Three Magi Kings. Although, we all know that there are "denominations"that celebrate a special day in honor of them, there are others that do not.
In Matthew 2: 1-8 it says:

And, having gathered together all the chief priests and the scribes of the people, He began to inquire of them where the Christ was to be born. They said to him: "In Bethlehem of Judea; because thus it has been written through the prophet:
'And you, O Bethlehem  from the land of Judah, you are by no means the most insignificant [city] among the governors  of Judah; for out of you will come one who rules, who will shepherd my people, Israel. '" Then Herod secretly summoned the magicians and carefully ascertained from them the time when the star had appeared;and, when he sent them to Bethlehem, he said: "Go and make a careful search of the little boy, and when you have found him, come back and inform me, so that I may also go and pay him homage".

Also in Matthew 2:11 he mentions:

And when they entered the house they saw the little child with Mary his mother, and, falling down, they paid him homage. They also opened their reasures and presented gifts: gold, frankincense and myrrh.

From what I understand, what Matthew 2:11 says is the reason why some "denominations" celebrate a special day of "Magi Kings", giving gifts to children.
However, if I do not misunderstand the scriptures, they clearly condemn any kind of magic, as well as the Babylonian practice of trying to obtain information from the stars.
Deuteronomy 18: 10-12 says:

No one should be found in you to let your son or daughter pass through the fire, no one who uses divination, a magic practitioner or anyone looking for omens or a sorcerer, nor one who binds others with curses or anyone who consults a spiritualist medium or a professional event forecaster or anyone who asks the dead. For everyone who does these things is something detestable to God, and because of these detestable things your God is going to drive them out from before you.

Isaiah 47:13 mentions:

You have grown weary with the multitude of your counselors. Let them stand, now, and save you, the worshipers of heaven, the contemplators of the stars, those who spread knowledge in the new moons about the things that will come upon you.

The revelation that those men received did not have good consequences. Aroused the jealous anger of the evil King Herod, which, in turn, led to the flight of Joseph, Mary and Jesus to Egypt and resulted in the murder of all male children of Bethlehem "from two years of age to below"
Is this the reason why some "denominations" do not celebrate the day of the "Three Magi Kings"?

People sometimes make the assumption that the Bible divides everybody - or even every thing - into either 'good' or 'bad'. However that is not the case. The Bible realistically understands that everybody (excepting God himself) is neither perfectly good nor unutterably evil. People can do a mixture of good or bad things. Because some people did some good things (went to worship Jesus at his birth) that does not imply that everything else they did was also good.

Some examples:

Rahab was a prostitute (Joshua 6), but in the book of Hebrews she is commended for her faith, and in the book of James she is "listed among the righteous". That doesn't mean the Bible approves of prostitution, it just means she did some bad things as well as the good.
King David committed adultery and murder, yet was called "a man after God's own heart". That's not to condone adultery and murder, it just means he did some bad things.
Abraham lied about his wife on at least two occasions, saying she was his sister. Again that does not imply that lying is approved of.

On the celebration of the feast of the Magi, the denominations I have been associated with that do not celebrate it have done so simply because it is a lesser festival, and they tend not to celebrate many. They can and do use the story of the Magi for teaching, and there is no thought that their visit was evilly inspired.


Did the forbidden fruit make us wise? The serpent said so. The gnostics said so. Many others say so. But what does Christians say? And how do they interpret the bible?

In my Swedish translation it simply states that Eve gained wisdom, but then I read the Living Bible and there it seems that Eve just thought she would become wise:

  How lovely and fresh looking it was! And it would make her so wise!

They became "wise" in that they now knew (the difference of) Good and Evil. The tree is explicitly called Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, so we should assume it is right that eating the fruit conferred that knowledge. This is also confirmed by them having a different view on their nakedness after eating the fruit.

So, yes, that fruit did confer knowledge of Good and Evil on them.


Was it just Daniel who prayed toward Jerusalem or did all exiles do so? While studying the book of Daniel I came across:

  Daniel 6:10  Now when Daniel knew that the writing was signed, he went home. And in his upper room, with his windows open toward Jerusalem, he knelt down on his knees three times that day, and prayed and gave thanks before his God, as was his custom since early days.

and since it is necessary that Muslims face mecca when praying I wondered if that was some ritual that all exiles followed or if it was only a custom of Daniel.

I checked this question but it does not address my point, Why did Daniel feel the need to pray towards Jerusalem, even at the cost of his own life?

Does anyone know the answer to my question or where I might find some guidance on this?

Joyce Baldwin's commentary on Daniel says (pg. 129):

  Verse 10 supplies welcome evidence concerning prayer habits during the later biblical period. Windows . . . open toward Jerusalem is a literal understanding of Solomon's petition [at the dedication of the temple], 'When [foreigners] hear about your great reputation and your ability to accomplish mighty deeds, they will come and direct their prayers toward this temple. Then listen from your heavenly dwelling place and answer all the prayers of the foreigners.' (1 Ki. 8:41-43; cf. 2 Ch. 6:34) [Baldwin quotes the KJV, but I added more context and changed it to the NET.] The fact that Jerusalem was in ruins called forth faith that it would again be restored because the God who had set His name on the city was the continuing, unchanging God, in control of history (Ps. 106:44-47; Lam. 3:31-33). Prayer towards Jerusalem is mentioned also in later Greek books: Tobit 3:11; 1 Esdras 4:58.

The Pulpit Commentary on the verse says, "The practice of prayer 'toward Jerusalem' is acknowledged to have arisen in Babylon during the Captivity."

John Gill's commentary says:

  opened "towards Jerusalem"; not towards the king's palace, as if he prayed to him, and so eluded the decree; nor towards the east, as the Heathens did; but towards Jerusalem, which lay to the south of Babylon; and that, either because of his remembrance of that city, his affection to it, and concern for its re-edification; or having some respect to the words of Solomon, 1 Kings 8:33, &c.; and so, according to the Jewish writers, it was the custom of their people. Ben Gersom, on the above place, says, that though they did not pray within the temple, yet they prayed, turning themselves towards it, as much as possibly they could; and even when it was destroyed, as now, yet they in praying turned to the place where it had stood, as Saadiah, Aben Ezra, and Jarchi observe: and chiefly Daniel did this, because the temple was a type of Christ, through whom the persons and prayers of the saints are acceptable unto God.

The Talmud records conflicting opinions on whether Jews should pray toward Jerusalem, and at one point says they are to "mentally turn" toward Jerusalem.

Conclusion: Daniel wasn't the only one who prayed toward Jerusalem during the exile, and many Jews do so today. But it doesn't appear to have been a universal practice, just a common one. He appears to have done so not in compliance with his understanding of the law, but out of remembrance of the temple and defiance of those who competed for his allegiance to God.


How far do most Christians accept Plato's 'the Forms'? I asked a question on Plato's the Forms to Justin Welby (using films as an example of what might reflect God- after all, if Plato was correct, everything reflects something perfect and heavenly).
I got no response from him, but this was what his secretary wrote:

"I’m a bit rusty but recall that Plato considers that there is a perfect ’ heavenly’ model for everything we experience here.  A former Archbishop of Canterbury who was a New Testament theologian, Michael Ramsey, suggested something more startling.  He said, “God is like Christ and in him there is no un-Christ-like-ness at all”.  Does that not stand the platonic ideal on its head?

To expand that concept, it means that there is nothing hidden in the nature of the Almighty (whom we cannot see) which is different from the nature of Jesus as revealed or manifested to human beings.  There are lots of other hints here and now: our appreciation of beauty, the sense of awe which both attracts and repels (see Rudolph Otto on “The Idea of the Holy”) but nothing compares with God as one of us.  The opening words of St John’s Gospel and the Letter to the Hebrews are startling in their vision.  The first employs the Greek idea of ‘Word’ reaching fulfilment in Christ, and the second refers to the culmination in Christ of a preliminary series of revelations.  Very exciting."

Is this the general belief of Christians?
Aren't 'all things' met via Jesus (for instance, what pleasure counts as a 'Jesus' thing and what doesn't?)

Yours is a deep question, to be sure, and I certainly cannot answer it for Christians generally, but only for me personally.  If what you are asking, in essence, is

  Does everything which is beautiful, perfect, awe-inspiring, sui generis, masterful, the zenith, the epitome, the quintessence find its fulfillment, either directly or indirectly, in the triune God?,

then my answer is yes, and I have a feeling a few hundred million Christians worldwide feel the same way. And how could it be otherwise?

Jesus, as the eternal Word of the eternally living God, spoke everything, literally everything, into existence (John 1:3). He fashioned the universe, including our solar system and planet Earth, in such a way that everything on earth, including all living creatures, both animal and human, could live and prosper under His beneficent care.

Some have even suggested that the universe is anthropocentric by God's design. Not that human beings are necessarily the "center" of the universe in the sense that "man is the measure of all things (Protagoras, 485-410 BC), but that the universe is home to (perhaps) the only planet on which the physical beings created in God's image could flourish in mind and body, spirit and soul.

Since all things were created by and for Jesus Christ in accordance with the eternal counsels of the Godhead before anything or anyone (including the angels) came into being, all things point to Him in some way. In other words, everything in our material world which can be named (and some which are not named) are metaphors, analogies, similes, allegories, parables, similitudes, parallels to or for some aspect of God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

God alone had and forever will have the ability to create. We His creatures, on the other hand, have only the ability to invent, and to do so only with tools which have been given us by an all-knowing God, who is all wise, all powerful, and who created us and sustains us by the word of His power. The human species does not possess anything that was not first given to it by God.

I include this last paragraph because Plato believed, if memory serves, that a chair on earth, for example, has a form called "chairness" in heaven. The chair on earth may be well made, sturdy, attractive even, but the chair sui generis is a heavenly form. I for one do not agree with this, though I may be oversimplifying Plato's thought. (Feel free to correct me.)

In other words, as touching anything manmade or man-invented, there is not necessarily an eternal and perfect form in the heavens. Even the inanimate objects and the animate life-forms God created do not have corresponding forms in heaven, though they do, as I suggested earlier, correspond metaphorically to some aspect of God's eternal being.

For example, the very notion of reproduction, whether of microorganisms, vegetation, animals, fish, or human beings speaks of God's inexhaustible supply of good things as reflected in the ability of all living things to be fruitful and multiply, according to their kind. The universe, we are told, is constantly expanding, and why not? God has no limits, and while the universe is neither infinite nor eternal (at least from the perspective of eternity "past," when all there was, was God), it certainly speaks of God's limitlessness or infinitude. All metaphors, of course, "break down" eventually, because they are, in a sense, only substitutes, as it were, for some aspect or attribute of God's eternal being.

God is love. God is a God of relationships. Within the Godhead are Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, each of whom love one another, share in the very same nature, and are in accord regarding their Plan for the Ages. Each may have a different role, as it were, but even then, when Jesus trod this earth there was nothing He did in which the Spirit and the Father did not also participate, each according to His role. For example, the Father directed the Son to do X; Jesus obediently did X; and He did so in the power of the Holy Spirit.

At Jesus' baptism, we have a wonderful illustration of this cooperation within the Godhead. The Son enters into the waters of baptism (a metaphor, I suggest, for the baptism He would one day experience at the cross) so as to fulfill all righteousness (a theme I will not develop here). As He emerged from the water, praying, heaven opened; the Spirit in the form of a dove descended bodily and remained on Him; and a voice from heaven said,

  "You are my well beloved Son; in You I am well pleased!" (conflation of Mt 3:16,17; Mk 1:9-11; Lk3:21,22; Jn 1:32-34).

The very notion of love, as it is seen in the human species, may be a pale imitation at times of the Love of God, but it nevertheless reflects, albeit faintly at times, His love.

  "Greater love hath no man than this: that a man lays down his life for his friend,"

Jesus said. He in fact did that very thing, but with a twist: He gave His life for the godless, the sinners, the unrighteous, His enemies (Rom 5:6 ff.).

In conclusion, I guess I would be most comfortable in saying that the best metaphors (and I use the word as a hypernym, of sorts, for all the words denoting similitude in one way or another) as emanating from the created order of things, via language and ideation, are related to the higher values and attributes of the human species, such as love, self-sacrifice, loyalty, beauty, wisdom ("Go to the ant, thou sluggard"--Proverbs), knowledge ("and Adam knew Eve . . ."), the use of giftedness for the greater good, inventiveness, awe, joy, peace, and many other such things, including, perhaps, irreducible complexity and the interrelatedness of all things under the sovereignty of Almighty God.

  "For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be the glory forever! Amen" (Romans 11:36 NIV).


Why did the popes begin issuing encyclicals? It appears as if heavy duty instructions to the world at large began with Pope Leo XIII in the late 19th century.

How did it come about that he issued so many encyclicals?  Did he set a precedent for future popes to emulate in their teaching office?

Check 'em out for yourself

That is actually a fairly accurate assessment. Most of the documents which came out of the Vatican were Papal Bulls, and they would be one, possibly two, per papacy. You can find most of them at papalencyclicals.net. Unfortunately, we didn't even bother keeping the documents from Gregory the Great through until the Renaissance (poss. later, you can find the exact information in the book Europe: A History (sorry, I am far too lazy to go through the relevant 200 or so pages to be more specific)) Leo XIII changed that. (Don't know if it was the assertion of infallibility, the Immaculate Conception, or what), but since then there have been exponentially more documents released by the Vatican.

Of course, it could have to do with the fact that not only was in inexpensive to print documents (the offset press was invented 8 years before his election), it was also possible to transmit data across the Atlantic in real time (the trans-Atlantic telegraph cable was first laid in 1866). Though it might also have had to do with the declarations of Vatican I. Though the teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff had been long established, this was (as near as I can tell) the first time that the authority was so clearly laid out.

And then another reason he might have written was the Holy Spirit (he's always makin' mischief).


Why do Salvation Army members wear uniforms in the church? I have seen Salvation Army church members going to church in white uniforms. Here is a sample image  (source).

What is the role of uniforms in the Salvation Army?

Is it compulsory for them to wear uniforms in the church?

As a Soldier of The Salvation Army, I wear my uniform, in the same way others might wear a cross around their neck or something, the uniform identifies the wearer as a soldier of The Salvation Army, but more importantly as a Christian.

This excerpt from the New Zealand. Fiji, Tonga Website answers the questions "Does a soldier have to wear the uniform, and why?"

  Today, not all Salvationists wear uniforms—it has become a personal choice. But the reasons for wearing a uniform are unchanged—to show a commitment to a war against evil; a personal testimony to the wearer's own Christian faith and practice; and to signify to those in need that the wearer is available to help or listen.


What exactly does it mean that Jesus Christ is the son of God? What does it mean to a Christian that Christ is the son of God? On the one hand, obviously, the normal biological meaning of son does not apply. On the other hand, "we are all children of God", but Jesus seems to be more so.

That God offered up His only son as a sacrifice for humanity's sins is often used as an argument to demonstrate God's love for humanity. This would imply that God loves Jesus more than His other children, that this sacrifice was particularly hard, indicating that Jesus has a filial relationship with God in a sense that we would understand. It implies that sending His son to his death was extremely painful to Him, more so than the deaths of His other children.

Now, these arguments seem to me to be a clear anthropomorphisation of God, Christians seem to be attributing human characteristics such as the love of a father --not metaphorically as when referring to humanity as God's children, but in a very literal way-- to God. This seems to clash with another central tenet of Christianity which states that God is beyond our understanding, that we cannot fathom His plan. If so, then any attribution of human emotion to Him would be wrong.

So, my question is how do Christians interpret Christ being the "Son of God"? What exactly does that mean? I realize the answer will depend on the particular denomination of Christianity whose views are being expressed. I am particularly interested in an overview of the more popular churches such as the Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox but welcome answers explaining the views of any group as long as the group in question is clearly stated.

NOTES

I have read the posts below, but though related, none of them addresses the same question:

If Christ is considered the 'Son of God' then how is He a part of a Trinity?
Does the Bible have any proof that Jesus Christ is the Only-begotten Son of God?

This one was quite interesting, and the accepted answer states that His "sonship" is unique, one-of-a-kind, and distinct from all others, which brings us straight back to my question, how is it distinct?
"Jesus Christ God's Only Son Our Lord"

Again, very interesting, but it while it explains the contradiction inherent in Christ being the only Son of God while we are all His children, it does not explain in what sense Christ is a son of God.

I'll try to answer this from several different views - the main three (Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox) and also the LDS view, since the LDS view is significantly different from the other three, and deserves a distinct treatment.

The mainstream Christian view (Protestant, Orthodox, Catholic) is covered by Apologetics Press in this article:  What Does it Mean to Say Jesus is the "Son of God"?.  The answer, for most Christians, has its roots in the Jewish understanding of the terms.  Bear in mind that this refers to the title "Son of God", and doesn't negate the teaching that Jesus is God.

An excerpt from the article:

  The earliest Christians were Jews who were familiar with at least two
  distinct applications of the term “son of God.” In the first place,
  the term had a general application to all Israelites. When their
  ancestors were held in Egyptian bondage, Moses was sent to Pharaoh
  with these words: “Thus says the Lord: Israel is My son, My firstborn.
  So I say to you, let My son go that he may serve Me” (Exodus 4:22-23;
  see also Hosea 11:1). Through the years, Yahweh loved, protected,
  comforted, and chastened Israel, just as a loving parent would nurture
  and discipline children (Malachi 2:10; Isaiah 66:13; et al.).

  The second usage was more specific. Historically, the term had a royal
  connotation for many nations of the Ancient Near East. It was
  commonplace for Egyptian, Babylonian, Canaanite, and Roman rulers to
  be called “son of God” (Fossum, 1992, pp. 128-137). These kings even
  were deified and surrounded by legends about their miraculous
  births—often including stories of gods copulating with humans
  (Sanders, 1993, pp. 243-245). This royal connotation also was known in
  Israel, although they did not deify their kings (O’Collins, 1995, p.
  117).

  When the New Testament writers referred to Jesus as “Son of God,” they
  sometimes employed the term in ways that echoed these two common uses.
  After those who threatened the life of the child Jesus died, Joseph
  was given instructions in a dream to return from Egypt to his
  homeland. When Matthew reported this event, he said it fulfilled Hosea
  11:1: “When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called
  my son” (see Matthew 2:15). In other words, Jesus was God’s Son as an
  Israelite, and in a real sense, the True Israelite.

The link above is a fair Protestant understanding.  The Catholic teaching is the same, and though I can't currently find a reference, i believe it is the same in Eastern Orthodoxy.

Also, in the mainstream Christian view, Jesus, in His human incarnation, was conceived supernaturally (without sex) in the womb of Mary, enabling her virgin birth.  This would certainly set Him apart as different from the rest of us.  In a sense, he is the Son of God because God was the one who caused Mary to conceive.  (I'm probably saying that badly).

As for God having a unique love toward Jesus, in Gill's commentary on Matthew 3:17

  in whom I am well pleased. Jehovah the Father took infinite delight
  and pleasure in him as his own Son, who lay in his bosom before all
  worlds; and was well pleased with him in his office relation, and
  capacity: he was both well pleased in him as his Son, and delighted in
  him as his servant, Isaiah 42:1 he was pleased with his assumption of
  human nature; with his whole obedience to the law; and with his
  bearing the penalty and curse of it, in the room and stead of his
  people: he was well pleased with and for his righteousness, sacrifice
  and atonement; whereby his law was fulfilled, and his justice
  satisfied. God is not only well pleased in, and with his Son, but with
  all his people, as considered in him; in him he loves them, takes
  delight in them, is pacified towards them, and graciously accepts of
  them. It would be almost unpardonable, not to take notice of the
  testimony here given to the doctrine of the Trinity; since a voice was
  heard from the "father" in heaven, bearing witness to "the Son" in
  human nature on earth, on whom "the Spirit" had descended and now
  abode. The ancients looked upon this as so clear and full a proof of
  this truth, that they were wont to say; Go to Jordan, and there learn
  the doctrine of the Trinity. Add to all this, that since this
  declaration was immediately upon the baptism of Christ, it shows that
  his Father highly approved of, and was well pleased with his
  submission to that ordinance; and which should be an encouraging
  motive to all believers to follow him in it.

  Also from the Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary

  And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is—Mark and Luke give it in the direct form, "Thou art." (Mr 1:11; Lu 3:22).

  my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased—The verb is put in the
  aorist to express absolute complacency, once and for ever felt towards
  Him. The English here, at least to modern ears, is scarcely strong
  enough. "I delight" comes the nearest, perhaps, to that ineffable
  complacency which is manifestly intended; and this is the rather to be
  preferred, as it would immediately carry the thoughts back to that
  august Messianic prophecy to which the voice from heaven plainly
  alluded (Isa 42:1),

The LDS view is a bit different - LDS doctrine includes the idea that God is actively procreating in Heaven, and produces "spirit children".  These spirit children choose the human lives they will lead, so all of us pre-existed in Heaven with our actual spiritual father.  In LDS theology, Jesus was the first, and chose to be perfect and to suffer as he did to redeem man, as was God's plan.  Lucifer was another child of God, who wanted to offer salvation by removing the penalties of the law, thus destroying our free agency.

See Pre-Mortal Life - Mormon Wiki


Demon Possession of Jesus' Time - Today's Diagnosable Mental Disorders? Quite a few of the things Jesus and his disciples had to address they had diagnosed as "demons". Today we call things of similar symptoms "disorders".

Epilepsy: Matthew 17:14-16

Multiple Personality Disorder: Mark 5:1-20

For lack of time I cannot give an exhaustive list, yet its easy to find quite a few. Yet I see that "pharmaceuticals" and other drugs tend to be the fallback and treatment.

What connection, if any, exists between the ancient diagnosis and modern ones? Is there any distinctive difference between them?

I'm going to self identify for the purposes of this answer. I have a multitude of mental illnesses. Schizoaffective disorder (hallucinations of all types, delusions of several types, mania and major depression) and OCD as well the lesser subsyndromal OCD (obsessive behaviour and intrusive thoughts). On bad days the Dyslexia (trouble with language) and Autism (experiencing reality differently) are also a problem. All my symptoms are under control though sometimes I still experience hypomania and depression but not mania and major depression.
I understand your concern that I might be demon possessed however such concerns are not realistic. My brain is broken the methods by which it is corrected is a medication by no biblical definition would it fit demonic possession.

Luk 13:16  And ought not this woman, being a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan hath bound, lo, these eighteen years, be loosed from this bond on the sabbath day?

Mental diseases are no different than physical diseases. They are satanic bondage and oppression/bondage/affliction is not possession. The woman in Luke 13 was bound by the devil and a child of God. This is why:

pos·ses·sion pəˈzeSHən/Submit noun
1.the state of having, owning, or controlling something.
2.an item of property; something belonging to one.

-Google dictionary

Mar 3:25  And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand.

Demon possession is the opposite of salvation. It is to be owned and controlled by the devil. To be filled with the devil in the same manner in which those who are saved are filled with the Holy Spirit. Spiritual houses are not divided against themselves either you belong to God or you do not.

2Co 10:5  Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

Those who have religious intrusive thoughts (unwanted random thoughts generated by broken neural pathways about religious figures) and personality disorders have to put up with things which would scare normal Christians. Just because our burden is greater does not mean we belong to the devil. It means we must have medication to help us cast down that which does not conform to the word of God.

Job 2:9  Then said his wife unto him, Dost thou still retain thine integrity? curse God, and die.

Your tempted to commit adultery; we're tempted to commit adultery. We're tempted to curse God and die; you're not. Our temptations and faults don't make us evil in the manner of demonic possession.

Jas 5:11  Behold, we count them happy which endure. Ye have heard of the patience of Job, and have seen the end of the Lord; that the Lord is very pitiful, and of tender mercy.

We just are more patient than you.


Assuming the Gospels are eye-witness accounts, how were certain events recorded where Jesus was alone? For instance, the temptation in the desert. It was only Jesus and Satan there. Who could have recorded that?

Or the prayers of Jesus in the garden of Gethsemane? Jesus went up alone while the disciples slept. Who could have recorded the words He spoke there as an eye witness?

Using Occam's razor, there is no reason to expect a supernatural medium for the transmission of this information to the disciples. Jesus spent three years with his disciples. They had plenty of time to sit around the campfire, telling stories.


What is the difference between Anglo-Catholicism and Catholicism? I read about Anglo-Catholicism and what I found is that there aren't differences between them and Catholic (in term of doctrine).
Am I wrong?

If I'm not in wrong, the only difference is in the Pope's authority vs the authority of the Archbishop of Canterbury (or the Queen of England), so why they do not come together?

I can't understand the schism.

Granmirupa, in fact you are wrong. There remain considerable differences between most who consider themselves "Anglo-catholic" and those who self identify as Catholic, other than whether the Archbishop of Canterbury, or the Bishop of Rome exercises authority over the church. One of the differences between [Roman] Catholics and Anglo-catholics is that it's much easier to define who is a Roman Catholic. Simply put, a Roman Catholic is a person who accepts the authority of the Bishop of Rome, and accepts the correctness of those doctrines and dogmas, like the doctrine of transubstantiation, the Assumption of the Mother of God, the doctrine of purgatory, and the church's rules regarding the celibacy of the Clergy, and the existence of seven sacraments, that the Catholic church demands that the faithful believe.

An Anglo-Catholic, especially in the present times, is a much more nebulous identification. The present use of the term dates only as far back as the last 3/4 or 1/2 of the nineteenth century, when certain Divines in the Church of England began to reconsider, and recover some of the customs and ceremonial of the Roman Catholic Church, and began to develop greater appreciation for some parts of Roman Catholic theology. Some of these individuals, including John Cardinal Newman and Henry Manning, joined the Catholic Church, but others, like John Keble and Edward Pusey continued in the Anglican Communion, and continued to subscribe to the thirty nine articles, which rejected the doctrines of transubstantiation, and purgatory, denied the supremacy of the pope, the necessity of unmarried clergy, held that there were two, and not seven, sacraments, and denied that the Apocrypha (deutero-canonicals) were to be included in the Canon of Holy Writ. Also, at the time of the origin of the Anglo-catholic movement, the Roman church still insisted that all liturgy be in Latin, while the 39 articles required that Anglican liturgies be in a language that the people could uncerstand. The result was a series of volumes such as the Anglican Missal, which incorporated most of the form and structure of the Mass, but in English, and with some additions to the prayer of consecration in the English prayer book. During this period, Briggs and Frere produced a psalter which helped re-introduce plainsong tunes (using Sarum, rather than Latin rite endings) for singing the Psalter, and other canticles. And while Anglo-catholics recovered some of the practices relating to rites that the Roman Church considered sacraments, like extreme unction, confessions, and holy orders, the understanding of these rites was never changed so that they were considered sacraments; article 25 (of the thirty nine), still explicitly is the official position of Anglicans, that

  There are two sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel, that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord
  Those five commonly called sacraments, that is to say, Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and extreme Unction, are not to be counted for sacraments of the Gospel...

Anglo-catholiism was never universal in any branch of Anglicanism. In most dioceses, there might be a number of Anglo-Catholic Parishes (sometimes only one or two), while most of the rest of the parishes and missions in the dioceses were Anglican (or in the US, Episcopalian), at the same time as in other dioceses, there might be a larger proportion of Anglo-catholics, and a smaller number of those who were not.

More recent events have cast made the situation even more confusing. There are a small number of Anglo-catholic parishes which are socially progressive, so that they support the Ordination of Women to the clergy, and perhaps other recent social movements. A number of others who self-identify as "Antlo-Catholic" have rejected some of these recent developments, and have joined one of the "continuing" groups. Further, some in the Anglo-catholic movement have come to hold views more aligned to the Roman Catholic church in areas such as the doctrine of purgatory, and some of the more recent Marian developments (e.g., the dogma of the Immaculate conception of the Mother of God), though this is not the official position of any Anglo-catholic group of which I am aware [Note: I am not meaning to represent that there are no Anglo-catholics who hold these view; I'm just not aware of them.]

As to the recent developments of the Anglican personal ordiariate, note that this affects only customs and ceremonies of the liturgy. Presumably, those choosing to take advantage of the terms of Benedict's ordinariate, are still required to adopt the doctrines to which the Catholic Church demands all adherents of the western rite subscribe, such as transubstantiation, and the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome.

So the reasons Anglo-catholics (or at least the Anglo-catholic authoring this answer) do not come together with those who profess the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome, is that there are several areas where there is great difference of opinion about matters of the Faith and the Church. I would also note that since the changes in Roman Catholic theology that have occurred since World War II, (used, not because I mean to suggest that war had much to do with the changes in theology itself, but mainly because it provides a convenient marker for the period of time), and especially since the second Vatican council, do seem to make the differences between Anglo-catholics on the one hand, and Catholics, on the other, at least seem less than they once did.


If an individual sins because God "hardened their heart", does that make God the direct responsible of the sin (i.e. a sinner)? In the Bible we find passages such as:
Exodus 7:3-4

3 But I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, and though I multiply my signs and wonders in Egypt, 4 he will not listen to you.

Exodus 11:9-10

9 The Lord had said to Moses, “Pharaoh will refuse to listen to you—so that my wonders may be multiplied in Egypt.” 10 Moses and Aaron performed all these wonders before Pharaoh, but the Lord hardened Pharaoh’s heart, and he would not let the Israelites go out of his country.

Romans 9:16-18

16 It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. 17 For Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

Joshua 11:20

20 For it was the Lord himself who hardened their hearts to wage war against Israel, so that he might destroy them totally, exterminating them without mercy, as the Lord had commanded Moses.

I have two questions:

When God hardens someone's heart, does this override the individual's free will, rendering the individual for all practical purposes a puppet subject to God's manipulation?
Assuming that the answer to 1) is yes: If someone operates in a "heart hardened by God" state, and in that state the individual sins, given that the individual was being manipulated by God, does that free the individual from moral responsibility and make God the direct responsible of the sin (i.e. a sinner)?

'I will harden' indicates that God's presence (the very presence of he who is I AM) causes a hardening of the wicked heart.
'I (being present) will (cause to) harden the heart of Pharoah.'
That the heart of the wicked hardens in the presence of I AM ( that is to say when Moses is present and God is with Moses) is entirely due to them.
It is their own culpability.
I think the burden of 'proof' or the necessity of 'evidence' is upon those who assert that God, who alone is righteous, is 'responsible' for sin.
If this be regarded as a merely philosophical question then it would be off-topic on this site.


What is the creationist view on animals equipped with lethal weapons? If God created the world with the intention that his creatures should live in harmony (as pictured in Isaiah 11:6-9) why did he create some animals with lethal weapons?

Why do spiders make webs to trap insects? Why do scorpions have venomous stings? Why do lions have teeth that are great for eating meat but lousy for eating grass?

The answer is He didn't create animals with lethal weapons in the beginning.  In the beginning (Genesis 1) there was no death, thus no animal ate another.  "By man came death" through the entrance of sin. (1 Corinthians 15:21, Romans 6:23)  Therefore after sin animals began to devour one another.  A full 40 minute well done presentation on the creation and fall of man is found here- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQmLVU_nvo8

Hope that helps :)


Female Sunday School teachers for 17, 18 year old male students? This verse has been used to say that women should not hold the office of pastor:

  I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.  1 Tim 2:12.

Yet at least among LC-MS Lutheran congregations, I have observed female "worship leaders", choir directors, lectors, communion distributors, congregation presidents, and more notably,  Sunday School teachers.  Clearly speaking, every one of these offices has "authority" or "teaches" males. These would include in some cases indirectly whole congregation (worship leader) or direct authority and "teaching" for Sunday school students who are men by US standards (18) or ancient standards (late teens, perhaps).

Q: How have denominations (or other church movements) that have held scripture forbids female pastors responded to the general blanket proscription which seems to be found in this verse?

Since you asked "How have nominations (or other church movements) that have held scripture forbids female pastors responded to the general blanket proscription which seems to be found in this verse?" I'll answer that only, with the disclaimer that I'm neither saying that women should or should not preach.  I have my belief on the subject, but my belief is irrelevant to the question.

Baptists are one example of a denomination that has historically held that women should not be preachers.  These days, there's division on that, but historically, this is a good group to use as an example.

A short version of how it's handled in the Baptist Churches I've dealt with, women are allowed to teach Sunday School classes to children and to other women.

Children are generally divided by age group, with either male of female teachers.
Teens are generally taught by a (male) Youth Pastor.
Adult Sunday school is either led by the (male) Pastor for all 18 year-olds.
On some subjects, adult men and women are split up into two groups.  For example, every so often, Sunday School focuses on "how to be a Godly husband/wife".  During this type of session, men are taught by a man, women are taught by a woman.

Of course, my experience in Baptist Churches is very limited.  I've attended probably less than 10 baptist Churches in my life, and have only been a regular member at two of those.  However, having friends in Baptists Churches all over the place, this is pretty typical.

There's an article at Baptisthistory.org  that covers the view that see/hear in baptist circles:  Perspectives on Women in Baptist Life

Some Excerpts:

  Perspectives on Women in Baptist Life by Leon McBeth

  I would like to make three disclaimers at the beginning of this
  article. First, my perspective obviously is that of a man. I feel
  totally inadequate to write on the roles of women. When I say "we" in
  this paper, I mean generally men. When I say "you," I mean women. If
  any readers detect areas of ignorance, prejudice, misunderstanding,
  and lingering chauvinism, I can only ask that you bear with me with
  whatever degree of patience the Lord will give you.

  Second, my perspective is that of a historian. My academic preparation
  has been in history, and most of my waking hours are devoted to a
  study of our Baptist heritage. If I draw my insights and examples
  primarily from Baptist history, you will not be unduly surprised.

  Third, my perspective is that of a participant. I cannot discuss the
  role of women in Baptist life in the same way that I can, say, the
  formation of the Southern Baptist Convention or the rise of the
  Separate Baptists in the eighteenth century. The changing roles of
  Baptist women, while a question with deep historical roots, is going
  on today. It affects my church today; it affects my students; it
  affects my denomination here and now; and it affects me. Almost daily
  I counsel with seminary students who feel called to ministry, many of
  whom are women. In my church I receive the Lord’s Supper from the
  hands of a woman deacon. Sometimes when our pastor is absent, we hear
  a sermon from our associate pastor, a capable, well-prepared, and
  articulate ordained minister who wears a dress. This is no theoretical
  ivory tower topic, but one in which all of us are daily involved. Yet,
  one who writes as a participant must guard against loss of
  objectivity.

  With that introduction, let us examine some perspectives on women in
  Baptist life.

  From the Angle of Service, We Depend on You

  I tell you nothing new in saying that from day one in Baptist history,
  women have served faithfully in Baptist life. You have nurtured,
  sustained, encouraged, and preserved our churches. Without your loyal
  and effective service through the generations, our churches and our
  denomination would be far different, if they would be at all.

  ...

  From the Angle of Missions, We Follow You

  No fact of Baptist history is clearer than the fact that women have
  set the pace for Baptist involvement in missions. While it is true
  that William Carey had little support from his wife Dorothy, on this
  side of the water two women helped set the stage for our present
  Baptist work among the nations. They were Ann Judson in the North and
  Lottie Moon in the South.

  ...

  From the Angle of Scripture, We Puzzle Over You

  "What does the Bible say?" That question is and has always been
  vitally important for Southern Baptists. For us the teachings of the
  Bible have been determinative, and still are. For the overwhelming
  majority of Southern Baptists, a clear word of Scripture settles any
  question of faith or practice among us.

  However, not all words from the Bible are equally clear. We read that
  women are to keep silent in the church, but we are not sure whether it
  means in that social setting or for all time to come. We have
  competent and dedicated Southern Baptist Bible scholars who genuinely
  believe that the New Testament forbids women to exercise a teaching or
  ministerial role in the church. We have other equally competent and
  dedicated Bible scholars who believe that the New Testament, properly
  interpreted, does not disqualify women from being called of God and of
  fulfilling that call in positions of ministry in the church. So it is
  not a question of whether one believes the Bible, but of how we
  understand the Bible.


Was there no word for son in law in Biblical Koine Greek? I find it hard to believe that there was no word for that kind of thing but this source explains that Jesus' genealogy is harmonized by that claim. I really want that claim to be true and solidly backed up. I'm at a loss as to how to find out how to back up that claim though.

Why are Jesus' genealogies in Matthew and Luke so different?

In the Bible the Greek word ‘hyuos’ which translates into English as ‘son’ can also mean a legitimate son, a son artificially constituted, a descendant, a son as implying connection in respect of membership, service, resemblance, manifestation, destiny, etc. (Source: Wm.D.Mounce Interlinear)
With regard to Luke 3:23: “Jesus was known as the son of Joseph.  Joseph was the son of Heli.”

NLT Study Bible Note: “If this is actually Mary’s genealogy, then Joseph was Heli’s son-in-law, a possible understanding of the Greek sentence.”
ESV Study Bible Note: “Some commentators have suggested that Heli was Mary’s father, but that there were no male heirs in the family, so Heli adopted Joseph as his “son” when Mary and Joseph were married.”

I hope someone who actually knows Greek will be able to give you a satisfactory explanation as to whether there was a word for "son-in-law."
As far as I know, Luke is recording Mary’s genealogy and Matthew is recording Joseph’s. Matthew is following the line of Joseph (Jesus’ legal father), through David’s son Solomon, while Luke is following the line of Mary (Jesus’ blood relative), through David’s son Nathan. Regarding Matthew's genealogy, this article may be helpful: https://www.gotquestions.org/14-generations.html


Theology question: why hasn't God stopped Satan and his demons? I'm just trying to find some theological or philosophical discussion of why God hasn't stopped Satan and his demons. Why not imprison them? Why not take away their free will? Why not annihilate them? Why allow them what dominion they have over us?

I recognize that, according to traditional Christianity, God will subject them to eternal punishment at some point in the future. But this seems on the face of it to be a far less desirable alternative: i.e., the courses of action I mention above seem better for everyone. I've looked in a few thinkers (Aquinas, Leibniz, ...), but I can't find anyone addressing this question.

Thanks!

It makes more sense when you look at it from an eternal perspective.  Yes, Satan and his followers cause us a lot of trouble in this life, but our life on Earth is not about our life on Earth.  It's essentially a test, to see if we will be faithful and obedient to God's commandments.  But that would be a meaningless question without opposition to provide a (seemingly) good reason to not want to.

That's Satan's role in the plan.  (See the first 2 chapters of Job, for example.  See also 1 Corinthians 10:13, which explicitly reiterates the point demonstrated in Job, that God does not allow Satan to do certain things that we would not be able to bear.)  He rebelled against God and sought to destroy God's work, but God is still able to find a useful purpose for Satan to serve.  But we are assured that after the end of this world, when the time of testing and mortality is over, that Satan will be cast into hell for all eternity. (Revelation 20:10)


Is the Old Testament a Jewish book? Is the Old Testament a Jewish religous book and should it be discarded by Christians today? If not what does it add to Christians today?

You are asking two completely separate questions.

1. Is the Old Testament a Jewish book?

Insofar as the Torah was revealed first to the Jews, yes. As Romans 9 points out

  Theirs [The Jews] is the adoption to sonship; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. 5 Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of the Messiah, who is God over all, forever praised

But, is the promise made to Jews alone?  Paul continues:

  It is not as though God’s word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. 7 Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children. On the contrary, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.”[b] 8 In other words, it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring.

Whether or not we are descended from Abraham (or even Isaac) here is irrelevant - Paul admits it is not the children by physical descent who are God's children. Whilest I am always a little bit leery of putting the church in the place of the Jews in all things, it is fair to say that we are heirs of the same promise.

2. Should it be discarded?

Jesus himself said in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5:17)

  "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

Futhermore, Paul - the biggest opponent of "the law" if there ever was one - even he says (Galatians 3:17):

  17 What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. 18 For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on the promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise.

He goes on to call the law a "pedagogica" - think of it as a nanny - that leads us to Christ. It is the thing that makes us aware of our sin

In Romans 7, he makes the same point:

  Nevertheless, I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.”[b] 8 But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of coveting. For apart from the law, sin was dead. 9 Once I was alive apart from the law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. 10 I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death. 11 For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death. 12 So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good.

In all these things, the OT law still has a purpose - it makes us aware of our need for God.

Frankly, it also tells us who God is.

So, in short, no, we can't discard the OT - it's the foundation without which grace makes no sense.


If a priest makes a major mistake during confession, can he later talk to the person to correct themselves? Say that a person comes to confession and the priest gives bad advice or otherwise makes a major mistake during confession. To give a very clear example, say that a confession went like this:

Penitent: Father, I've murdered someone.
Priest: That's not a sin, don't worry about it.
Penitent: Really? Thanks Father!

Only after reflection did the priest realize he misheard the penitent and didn't realize he was confessing a mortal sin. The dilemma here is that he is under the seal of confession, but he made a major mistake and now the person thinks that it's okay to commit a mortal sin.
A more subtle example might be a priest hearing a confession that he was unsure was sinful, but after reflection, research, and prayer, he realizes that his spur of the moment words was incorrect.
Would the priest be allowed to talk to the person after confession, or during future confessions, in order to correct himself?

Is a priest permitted to talk about a person's confession to the penitent after the penitent's sacramental confession?

There is a lack of general information on this subject, but the short answer is yes, but only after having received permission from the penitent himself to do so.

  A priest may ask the penitent for a release from the sacramental seal to discuss the confession with the person himself or others. For instance, if the penitent wants to discuss the subject matter of a previous confession a particular sin, fault, temptation, circumstance in a counseling session or in a conversation with the same priest, that priest will need the permission of the penitent to do so. For instance, especially with the advent of "face-to-face confession," I have had individuals come up to me and say, "Father, remember that problem I spoke to you about in confession?" I have to say, "Please refresh my memory," or "Do you give me permission to discuss this with you now?"

  Or if a priest needs guidance from a more experienced confessor to deal with a difficult case of conscience, he first must ask the permission of the penitent to discuss the matter. Even in this case, the priest must keep the identity of the person secret. - The Seal of the Confessional

While there are now apps such as Confession that can assist during the examination of conscience, you cannot receive sacramental absolution via the internet or on the phone.  Matters of conscience are forbidden by Rome over the phone, e-mail, internet and other forms of modern communication when the sacrament of confession is involved. This would apply to a priest talking to a penitent about any matter of conscience involving a past confession. The internet is never a safe place for such conversations.

  “It is essential to understand well the sacrament of penitence requires the personal dialogue between the penitent and the confessor and the absolution by the confessor,” Vatican spokesman Federico Lombardi told reporters on Wednesday. “This cannot in any way be substituted by a technology application.”

  “One cannot talk in any way about a ‘confession via iPhone,’ ” Lombardi said. - Vatican issues warning for new Confession app


How does spiritual maturity affect our hermeneutic (how we interpret the Bible)? The are various Bible passages that compare learning to the phase of infancy to adulthood. I assume children and adults have a similar hermeneutic, in terms of logic, yet they do not see things the same way. I wonder how we can broaden our view of exegesis to account for different stages of spiritual maturity. Are there any common ways of looking at scriptures through the eyes of a child, compared to that of an adult?
Here are some samples:

When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me.(1 Corinthians 13:11)
I gave you milk, not solid food, for you were not yet ready for it. Indeed, you are still not ready. 3 You are still worldly. For since there is jealousy and quarreling among you, are you not worldly? Are you not acting like mere humans? (1 Corinthians 3:2-3)
Anyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness. 14 But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil.
1 Therefore let us move beyond the elementary teachings about Christ and be taken forward to maturity, not laying again the foundation of repentance from acts that lead to death, and of faith in God. (Hebrews 5:13)

To answer the difference between the interpretation of the Bible from a child in Christ, compared to a man in Christ, we must first acknowledge that the Bible adheres to two forms of wisdom, heavenly and devilish. Both kinds of wisdom can come from studying scripture. The first comes from studying with faith and submission, the second comes from study not mixed with faith:

  13 Who is wise and understanding among you? Let them show it by their good life, by deeds done in the humility that comes from wisdom. 14 But if you harbor bitter envy and selfish ambition in your hearts, do not boast about it or deny the truth. 15 Such “wisdom” does not come down from heaven but is earthly, unspiritual, demonic. 16 For where you have envy and selfish ambition, there you find disorder and every evil practice.
  17 But the wisdom that comes from heaven is first of all pure; then peace- loving, considerate, submissive, full of mercy and good fruit, impartial and sincere. 18 Peacemakers who sow in peace reap a harvest of righteousness. (James 3:13-18)

From this we see that doctrine is not just intellectual but spiritual.  In fact the first thing to do to attain wisdom is not to go to Bible College (although that is good to do) but to pray for wisdom.

  I keep asking that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious Father, may give you the Spirit of wisdom and revelation, so that you may know him better. (Ephesians 1:17)

And

  If any of you lacks wisdom, you should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to you. (James 1:5)

Therefore, when we realize wisdom does not come primarily from study and learning but by God, through His Spirit, we can appreciate that faith is a kind of knowledge, and without it, the Scripture will become meaningless to its reader.

  18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. (1 Corinthians 1:18)

What this means to a believer is that obedience to faith in Christ will provide more wisdom than study.  In fact, a person may seek God through His word, obey Him for many years, and attain great wisdom in love and the fruits of the Spirit, then lose most of it through sin.  Just as Samson eventually lost His strength through constant neglect, so we can lose the knowledge we have. Yet Samson (was) renewed in strength again.

So how does this affect 'How we interpret the Bible?'  How does our level of spiritual growth, or strength, affect our interpretation?

First, when we habitually sin, we lose sight of God's grace in Christ.  We no longer believe it the way we did, no matter what we say to ourselves.  Second, the basic things, the milk of God's Word becomes the only thing that remains sensible to us.  We think about what we have done, how we ought to live, How we have been faithful, how we have failed. We no longer have faith to rest our eyes upon God and what He has done. Our focus turns inward in weakness, rather than Godward in joy.

Therefore, the child looking at the Bible can only see the rules, what he can do, what he cannot do. The child worries about how he might be punished, and how to avoid it. The adult can only see Christ, what He has done, how glorious He is.  The adult will believe and give His life over to God for that great love, which has been made known to Him in Christ's dying love. The child will judge others, become puffed up through an appearance of wisdom, will argue motivated by jealousy. A child will be envious of the adults' freedom through their faith.

From these different perspectives, the child will rarely see the same things from the Scripture that the adult sees.  Children are fascinated by novelties; the adult is absorbed in realities. The child will question if their parents in Christ understand anything. They will easily follow new theological trends and discount godly men from the past, as being irrelevant to our world today. Yet most children will eventually grow into adults and realize:

  What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.(Ecclesiastes 1:9)

The adult will see nothing but Christ in everything, and all else will be considered folly and shame. This will affect his interpretation of every Scripture, from every angle. This can't be explained under a technical theory of exegesis; it is spiritual.

  This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual realities with Spirit- taught words. 14 The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit. (1 Corinthians 2:13-14)


What is the difference between Evangelical and Protestant? Just the other day, I heard somebody talking politics and contrasted the Roman Catholic church's political influence with "the Evangelical vote". In this sense, as is often done in US media, the word seem to be used as a synonym of 'Protestant'.

However I get the feeling there is another layer to this. Where did the term 'Evangelical' come from and how is it distinct from 'Protestant'. Used properly, what group(s) is it generally understood to include or what world view does it describe?

"Evangelical" is certainly difficult to pin down! The Encyclopedia of Christianity says

  [In America] it covers a wide range of not completely harmonious uses, from the Pentecostal churches to the peace churches, Missouri Synod Lutherans, Southern Baptist Convention, Holiness movement (eg Church of the Nazarene), charismatic groups (including Roman Catholics), and evangelicals in the mainline denominations. 1

and there seems to be a flourishing cottage industry of evangelicals writing books and articles worrying about how to define themselves.

History

John Stott emphasized that evangelicalism does not see itself as an innovation or deviation from orthodox Christianity. Doctrinally speaking, evangelicals are able to find many precursors - for example, Stott identifies Augustine as a "proto-evangelical", on the basis of his view of grace. 2

The term "evangelical", which derives from the Greek evangelion (gospel, good news), does not seem to have been used to describe a distinct group within the church until roughly the Reformation era. Martin Luther picked it up, and today the German word Evangelisch is not really distinguishable from Protestantisch - unlike in the English-speaking world.

Stott and others have identified several related movements that have identified themselves as evangelical. The following listing is from John Hitchen, who argues that evangelicalism has tended to define itself in opposition to tendencies in the church, or society, at large.

  The Reformers - against medieval Catholicism.
  The First Evangelical awakening - against the 'deadness' of the contemporary church.
  The Second Evangelical awakening - against the Deism, laxity and Unitarianism in the early 18th century church.
  The Clapham Sect and early 19th Century evangelicals - against lack of 'seriousness' and nominalism in the established church(es).
  The 'Fundamentalists' of the early 20th century - against proponents of the Social Gospel and Higher Criticism.
  The mid 20th century evangelicalism - against Liberal theology and Neo-orthodoxy.3

Other modern listings might include subgroups emphasizing social justice, the gifts of the Spirit, or ecumenism, although the boundaries here may not be very sharp 2.

Defining attitudes

In all of these cases, the groups involved did share some common doctrines or positions - in particular, they were trying to preserve or restore 'essential' or 'original' Christian practice and belief. They also share a desire for conversion of the world - in this regard, Stott contrasts it on either side with the fundamentalist position (stand aloof from the world) and the liberal position (adapt to the world) 2.

David Bebbington identified four ideas that form a 'common core', or 'quadrilateral of priorities':

  conversionism, the belief that lives need to be changed;
  activism, the expression of the gospel in effort;
  biblicism, a particular regard for the Bible; and what may be called
  crucicentrism, a stress on the sacrifice of Christ on the cross.4

This is a more 'sociological' classification of evangelicals, in terms of their prevailing attitudes rather than any particular point of doctrine. Evangelicals may be strict about doctrine, but the actual content of doctrine isn't tremendously distinctive from 'ordinary' Protestant beliefs, with the exceptions of (1) a stronger view of Biblical authority than many others have, and (2) a related commitment to 'pure' or 'mere' Christianity 5. The Bebbington scheme has gained some currency, though Stott for one was uncomfortable with all the -isms, and the low profile of God. He preferred this formulation of evangelical priorities:

  The revealing initiative of God the Father, the redeeming work of God the Son, and the transforming ministry of God the Holy Spirit. 2

Politics

In terms of American politics, I don't think it's straightforward to predict where evangelicals will end up. Moreover, the media tend to use the classification fairly carelessly, as a synonym for 'conservative Christian' or 'Republican churchgoer'. In fact, I think there is a great diversity of political beliefs among evangelicals (though the two-party system suppresses that diversity at the polls). Part of this is generational or age-based, but I also have a sense that some political points spring fairly naturally from the evangelical worldview.

For example, the evangelical environmental movement makes perfect sense within the context of the history above. It's a matter of engaging with the world in a positive way, in order to take care of it (and it can be seen as oppositional, like in the Hitchen list above). Equally, many evangelicals care about social and economic injustice in a manner that doesn't match the stereotype that evangelicals ipso facto have right-wing views.
This is not to say that evangelicals are automatically left-wing or liberal either! Probably, most evangelicals would be considered socially conservative, and may even regard such issues as overriding priorities when choosing candidates. For what it's worth, I don't think that an evangelical's 'ideal' US political party would greatly resemble either the Republicans or the Democrats, but they do seem to be the only games in town.

1. Encyclopedia of Christianity (Wm. Eerdmans, 2001) under "Evangelical Movement"
2. Evangelical truth: a personal plea for unity, integrity and faithfulness, John Stott (InterVarsity Press, 2005)
3. What it means to be an evangelical today, John M. Hitchen, Evangelical Quarterly 76(1):47-64, 2004.
4. Evangelicalism in modern Britain: a history from the 1730s to the 1980s, D. W. Bebbington (Unwin Hyman, 1989).
5. The Evangelical Anglican Identity Problem, J. L. Packer (Latimer House, 1978).


What is the Book of Mormon equivalent of John 3:16? Christians technically aren't supposed to have a "Canon within the canon" (i.e. a subset of Scripture that is somehow "more scriptural" then everything else) but in practical effect, we do.  If someone is interested in learning the Christian faith, nine times out of ten, someone will say, "Read the Book of John," if not actually just whip out John 3:16 and start quoting. (Very few, for example, would say 'start with Leviticus'. The truly erudite would say, "Read the Book of Romans," but I digress...)

So, I've read through Mormon exhibits that tell me about the journey of Lehi & Nephi, of the battle that Helaman fought, and of the final burial of the Scriptures by Moroni - but what I want to know is this - what is the "core teaching" of the Book of Mormon that would be the most fair for me to evaluate? Not to discount the remainder of the LDS scriptures, but is there a "go-to text" that should be looked at first?

In other words, what is the abridged "canon within the canon" of the Book of Mormon?  Where do I begin when the guys in the white shirts say, "read this?"

If any such "unofficial canon within a canon" existed in the Book of Mormon, it would have to be in 3rd Nephi, from chapter 11 to approximately chapter 28.  This is from the record of Nephi, a distant descendant of the Nephi from the beginning of the book, who lived through a time period that our modern calendar counts as the 0030s AD: the time of Christ's mortal ministry, his death and resurrection.

This part of the record recounts how, at some point soon after the resurrection of Jesus Christ in Jerusalem, (the exact time frame is not given, but it is said to be "in the ending of" the same year,) the resurrected Lord appeared to the people of the Nephites.  He spent some time among them, teaching them about the principles of the Gospel and how the Law of Moses had been fulfilled in him, re-organizing the church among them in light of this fundamental shift in the law, and blessing and healing all who came unto him.

In fact, if "the guys in the white shirts" do come by and visit you, it's quite likely that 3rd Nephi chapter 11 will be one of the first things they invite you to read.  This section of the narrative is widely considered to be one of the most beautiful and spiritual parts of the Book of Mormon.


How long were Jacob and Rachel married? For various reasons, I've always wondered how long Jacob and Rachel were married before her death.  Rachel's death (shortly after giving birth to Benjamin) is record in Genesis 35:16-18.  As a result I've always tried to guesstimate the length of their marriage from the age difference between Benjamin and his older brothers, but unless some details are hiding in the original Hebrew that are lost in translation, it doesn't seem to me that there are enough details in Genesis to have any real idea.

Is there anything I'm missing?  Are there any details that make it possible to estimate (with any accuracy) how long Jacob and Rachel were married before her death?

Let us leave aside the age of Jacob, it is possible to deduce the a number of other facts about his chronology.

Following his deception of Esau, Jacob left Beersheba (Gen 28:9) and went to Paddan-aram (Gen 29) and worked for his uncle Laban for 7 years (Gen 29:20) for the hand of Rachel but ended up having to marry Leah as well as Rachel (v27).  As a result, he had to work for another 7 years (v30) for the second wife as well.
Gen 30 describes the birth of the first 11 sons (and 1 daughter, Dinah) of Jacob born in the that second 7 year period.  It was at the end of the second seven year period that Joseph was born (Gen 30:25ff) and that Jacob wanted to leave but was persuaded to stay longer.
Jacob worked a total of 20 years for Laban (Gen 31:38).  At the end of this, Joseph is 6 years old.
At the end of 20 years, Jacob had to deceive Laban (Gen 31:20) and flee for his life and left to return to Beersheba but actually settled in Shechem (Gen 33:18).  At this point, Joseph was the youngest son (Gen 33:2) and the only child of Rachel.
An unknown time later, he moved to Bethel (Gen 35:1).  (This must have been at least 1 year later.)
Later still, the moved to Ephrath (Gen 35:16).  This must have been at least 1 year later.)  It was during the move to Ephrath that Benjamin was born and Rachel died.  This means that it was a minimum of 13 years in Paddan-aram plus at least 2 more years that Jacob was married to Rachel.  That is a minimum of 15 years.  Joseph at this point must have been at least 8 years old.
We also know that by the time Joseph was 17 years old (Gen 37:2) his mother had been dead for some unknown time before.  This was 11 years after leaving Paddan-aram.  If Rachel died just (say) two years before Joseph was 17, that is at the age of (say) 15, then Jacob and Rachel would have been married for 13 years in Paddan-aram plus another 9 years, a total of no more than 22 years.

All this means that Jacob was married to Rachel for some time between about 15 years and 22 years.  The uncertainty arises from the unknown time between Jacob leaving Paddan-aram and arriving in Ephrath which was presumably at least 2 years (with Bethel in between) and when Joseph was 17 years old.

My best guess (that is all) is that they were married for about 18 years on the basis that it was about 5 years between Paddan-aram and Ephrath and about 6 years before Joseph's 17 birthday.  [That is Joseph was about 11 years old when Rachel died??]  But that is a guess.


According to the Catholic Church is it sinful to address someone who is transgender by the gender they identify as? Is it a sin against charity to confirm a transsexual lifestyle by using pronouns (such as she to address a transwoman) that the church says is an offense against the Natural Law?

There are a number of points to address in this question.

Transsexualism
Confirming someone in sin
Sins against charity

There are lots of things in this answer which many people will find objectionable or hurtful or blind or disaffirming, but the question asks for the Catholic point of view.

I’m also aware that there are always difficult cases, and this answer may well engender other questions, “But what about...?” Such questions are better asked separately, as the question asked here is succinct in itself.

And, this answer deliberately avoids answering “How can I avoid the occasion of sin?” because that’s pastoral advice.

Transsexualism

The word transsexual doesn’t appear in the Catechism as that’s not recent enough. However, it does appear in two Vatican documents and has been noted as ethically unacceptable to anthropology.

  The Holy Father, in his homily during the Inaugural Mass in St Peter’s Basilica, pointed out, with a very incisive expression, how the First World “is exporting its spiritual toxic waste” to Africa and other developing areas. One of these poisons is the so-called “gender theory”, which, heavily disguised, is starting to infiltrate associations, governments and even some ecclesial environments in the African continent, judging from what the Pontifical Council for the Family tells us.

  The agents of various international institutions and organizations start from real problems, which must be dutifully resolved, such as the injustice and violence suffered by women, infant mortality, malnutrition and famine, problems related to housing and work. They propose solutions based on the values of equality, health and liberty: sacrosanct concepts, but rendered ambiguous by the new anthropological meanings that are given to them. For example, equality of people no longer just means equal dignity and access to fundamental human rights; but also the irrelevance of the natural differences between men and women, the uniformity of all individuals, as though they were sexually undifferentiated, and therefore the equality of all sexual orientations and behavior: heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, transsexual, polymorphous. Each individual has the right to freely practice (and change, should they wish) their choices in line with their drives, desires and preferences.

  This ideology is spread by reproductive health centers, local educational meetings and international TV programs broadcast via satellite. Collaboration of African governments and local groups, including ecclesial groups, is sought, and these groups usually don’t realize the ethically unacceptable anthropological implications of this.

  — Cardinal Antonelli, then President of the Pontifical Council for the Family, 2009

Transsexualism is a choice — even if it’s a choice which one is felt to be forced to make. It is a choice driven by preference, or desire, or a perceived need (“drive”) to reject God’s ordered creation and substitute a man-made one. The substituted creation doesn’t even need to have been surgically created: it is sufficient to say “I am not a man; I am a woman.” Cardinal Antonelli warned ten years ago that society would validate this man-made creation and even mandate its recognition — for example by forcing women to allow transwomen to compete in women’s sport, or compelling speech in the form of pronouns and the like.

As the question here indicates, such a man-made creation is contrary to the natural order as created by God, to Natural Law. The desire for it is called “disordered” for that reason. That’s not a polemical or pejorative word; it’s purely objective, meaning “outside the natural order”.

A disorder is not sinful. Although the Catechism pre-dates gender theory and transsexualism, it talks explicitly of same-sex attraction, and the principles can be applied to all sorts of disorders.

  2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

What is sinful is giving in to the disorder and going against God’s will for his creation. Again, in terms of homosexuality:

  2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,¹⁴⁰ tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.”¹⁴¹ They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

  2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

Even though those paragraphs can be applied to any disorder, transsexualism applies another layer. By saying “I am not a man; I am a woman,” or even “I am neither male nor female,” the person is saying “God got it wrong, and I’m putting it right.” Not only is that pride, but it is supplanting God.

Thus becoming a transsexual, acting on the desire or drive, is a mortal sin:

  1874 To choose deliberately — that is, both knowing it and willing it — something gravely contrary to the divine law and to the ultimate end of man is to commit a mortal sin. This destroys in us the charity without which eternal beatitude is impossible. Unrepented, it brings eternal death.

Confirming someone in sin

On this point, the Catechism is clear:

  1868 Sin is a personal act. Moreover, we have a responsibility for the sins committed by others when we cooperate in them:

  by participating directly and voluntarily in them;
  by ordering, advising, praising, or approving them;
  by not disclosing or not hindering them when we have an obligation to do so;
  by protecting evil-doers.

  By confirming someone in their sin — by using a disordered pronoun in the question’s example — we approve it. That act is sinful in itself, and again may even be a mortal sin because we deliberately choose something which is contrary to divine law.

Sins against charity

Any sin is a sin against God. A sin against charity is a sin against divine charity.

  2093 ...The first commandment enjoins us to love God above everything and all creatures for him and because of him.

  2094 One can sin against God’s love in various ways:

  indifference neglects or refuses to reflect on divine charity; it fails to consider its prevenient goodness and denies its power.
  ingratitude fails or refuses to acknowledge divine charity and to return him love for love.
  lukewarmness is hesitation or negligence in responding to divine love; it can imply refusal to give oneself over to the prompting of charity.
  acedia or spiritual sloth goes so far as to refuse the joy that comes from God and to be repelled by divine goodness.
  hatred of God comes from pride. It is contrary to love of God, whose goodness it denies, and whom it presumes to curse as the one who forbids sins and inflicts punishments.

  The question does not ask “It is uncharitable to confirm a transsexual lifestyle?” but “Is it a sin against charity to confirm it?”

Confirming the sinful lifestyle could certainly be said to confirm the hatred of God, hatred which comes from the pride of the one who has rejected him. God loves everyone just as they are, and to accede in the rejection of that love when someone seeks to “improve” upon creation is to accede in the rejection of God.

In that regard, yes: it is a sin against charity.

It is also uncharitable. The Spiritual Works of Mercy include

counselling the doubtful
instructing the ignorant
admonishing the sinner
comforting the sorrowful

...all of which may be relevant where someone is wrestling with how they deal with being the creation of God that they are.

¹⁴⁰ Cf. Gen 19:1–29; Rom 1:24–27; 1 Cor 6:10; 1 Tim 1:10
¹⁴¹ CDF, Persona humana 8


Is Mary omniscient (by participation, not by nature)? I'm mainly interested in an Orthodox or Catholic response. Although any protestant denomination which has a high Mariology is welcome to answer (eg Anglocatholics, high church Lutherans). If your denomination teaches that Mary "was just an ordinary women" then this question isn't for you: please don't bother answering.

Mary is seen as the supreme and perfect example of theosis (to use an Orthodox term). She is said to have maximum justification, maximum sanctification, maximum glorification. She experiences the beatific vision to the maximal extent possible for a created human being. She is as full of God's grace as it is possible to be. Fr Sergius Bulgakov once said that to look at Mary is to look at the Holy Spirit, for she is the most perfect and direct manifestation of the gifts of the Spirit, almost like a second incarnation (but don't worry, he didn't actually go that far and call her a second incarnation).

It is common Catholic teaching that Mary is "Mediatrix of all graces", which means that all the gifts of God to us also pass through her. My understanding of this doctrine is that Mary is up in heaven constantly praying for us, and that her will is so perfectly aligned with the will of Christ that she only prays for things which God desires, and therefore every one of her prayers is directly answered. Therefore, every single grace that God sends to us is also associated with a prayer from Mary, as she is always praying for God's will to be done exactly as it actually gets done.

Part of theosis is that you become God by participation in the divine nature, while remaining human in essence. Presumably by becoming God by participation you also adopt some of the divine attributes. It seems to me that Mary would share in God's omniscience because she is perfectly divinized and able to pray continuously for exactly those things and everything which God himself desires ("all Graces"). But to do this it would seem that she needs to know everything that God knows, so that she can pray accordingly (otherwise it would be possible for her to pray in a way which is not in accord with God's will due to her ignorance and therefore she would be imperfect and not the mediatrix of all graces)

Does all this mean that Mary participates in God's omniscience?

Whether Mary has no share in the Omniscience of God
Objection 1 it would seem that Our Lady partakes in God's divine nature by the singular fact that prayers addressed to her are proven efficacious time and again;

... pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death.
... Despise not my petitions, but in thy mercy hear and answer me.
... Pray for us, oh Holy Mother of God; that we may be made worthy of the promises of Christ.

Prayers for the recited in liturgies for the saints saints are usually asked to be heard "In Jesus' Name".
Objection 2 furthermore, it is necessary to be present to the one to whom we are addressing prayers

Through his Word, God speaks to man. By words, mental or vocal, our prayer takes flesh. Yet it is most important that the heart should be present to him to whom we are speaking in prayer: "Whether or not our prayer is heard depends not on the number of words, but on the fervor of our souls."
CCC 2700

If your prayers are addressed to Mary, then you must request her presence in the communion of saints. If you recite the "Hail Mary" as a mental prayer, then she must be able to listen to our thoughts.
Objection 3 Mary, is the Channel of Grace (i.e. Mediatrix of all Graces) therefore, she has a share in all divine plans because all grace flows from the source through her.  Therefore Grace flows into our souls through unseen powers that she must be a party to.  Because these powers are invisible and unrestrained, we must refer to them as omniscient.
On the contrary,  Mary's glory is not in being omniscient, or sharing in any of the mighty attributes of God alone.

The Mother of God was above the angels as regards the dignity to which she was chosen by God.
Summa Theologica - 3rd part, Question 30, Article 2, Reply to Objection 2

I answer that even being greater than the angels does not necessarily put her closer to the infinite power of God; just the closest to the infinite power of God.  If we see the Holy Spirit in her, it is because she best reflects the Holy Spirit.

the Virgin Mary is the Church's model of faith and charity. Thus she is a "preeminent and . . . wholly unique member of the Church"; indeed, she is the "exemplary realization" (typus) of the Church.
CCC 967

She is a model for the Church because of this, if she were omniscient, she would cease to be a model and become an idol.
Reply to Objection 1 Prayers to Mary are unique because of her "singular cooperation with the action of the Holy Spirit".

Mary is the perfect Orans (pray-er), a figure of the Church. When we pray to her, we are adhering with her to the plan of the Father, who sends his Son to save all men. Like the beloved disciple we welcome Jesus' mother into our homes, for she has become the mother of all the living. We can pray with and to her. The prayer of the Church is sustained by the prayer of Mary and united with it in hope.
CCC 2679

This isn't participation in God's omniscience, it is still asking for her intercessory prayers.  But it is on an very intimate level. We trust implicitly that prayers addressed to Our Lady will find favor with God; and it is through the grace of God that this is done.
Reply to Objection 2 clearly if this were true of Mary, it would be true of all the Saints in Heaven who are the subject of intercessory prayer and is the general case of Objection 1 ignoring the fact that prayers to other saints are often done "In Jesus Name" 1..  Ipso Facto, prayers addressed to Mary are a special case - but does it require omniscience to read thoughts?
No, for this is a charism given to the saint by God as evidenced by St. Pio's ability as a confessor to read hearts.

To this task he brought an advantage that few confessors have, the ability to read hearts. Padre Pio's charism enabled him to know when someone was being deceitful in confession or simply had forgotten a serious sin, perhaps through lack of an adequate examination of conscience. In such cases he was able to tel the penitent exactly what they did and when, as well as any relevant circumstances.
EWTN - Padre Pio - Confessor

And no one claimed that Padre Pio could read all souls - just those who came to him in the confessional.  Therefore it doesn't require Omniscience (which is total) to read a soul or hear thoughts.
Reply to Objection 3  again, drawing on the previous answer, Mary as the Mediatrix of all Graces, if proclaimed as the Fifth Marian Dogma might fit in as a 5th charism of Our Lady defined by the Church.  Being the Mother of God and having a Virgin Birth didn't make her Omnipotent; Her Assumption did not make her Omnipresent;  Her Coronation as Queen of Heaven and Earth only confirmed her Benevolence, but did not make her Omnibenevolent. Therefore there is no reason to believe that her role as Mediatrix would make her Omniscient.
However, the confirmation of the would be a great step forward in opening our hearts to God's omnipotence

The fifth Marian dogma would certainly improve the world situation through the prayers of Mary to her divine Son.
...
It will make Catholics realize that just as Mary, through the merits of Jesus Christ, has become co-redemptrix, mediatrix of all graces and advocate for the whole human race, we too share in Mary’s threefold roles for the salvation of humankind.
Zenit Daily Dispatch - Interview With Syro-Malabar Cardinal Vithayathil

1. St. Thomas would have probably posited these in an alternate order