When people say "I am waiting on God." Are they afraid to take action in their own lives? When people say "I am waiting on God." Are they afraid to take action in their own lives?
I have heard so many people in the church claim that they know the will of God, and what God's will is for my life. How do we know if this is legitimate or someone simply trying to further their own agenda?
If we are thankful for what we have, we will never set goals or try to improve ourselves or try to solve various problems within society?
How do we know when God truly intervenes?

The Bible serves as a guide for Christian living (2 Timothy 3:16). For example, helping others is God's command, but you still need God's intervention to know WHOM to help. It says in the Bible that you should love your enemies. There is still a question of who, where, when, and how. This is where the Holy Spirit comes in. You ask God for His leading. If God wants you to improve yourself, He will give signs and make it obvious what to do. Personally, I always pray for God's wisdom because God IS wisdom (1 Corinthians 1:24). If God is in you, you're always right, for God is perfect and in control. You have nothing to worry about (1 Peter 5:7, Proverbs 3:5-6).


Find Bible passages by keyword/ topic I am chemistry and biology lecturer. When I teach new concepts such as equilibrium or origin of life or liquids, etc, sometimes I would like to check if there is some interesting passage in Bible that talks about that concept. Of course it is likely there will be something about equilibrium but not something directly related to molecules. The thing is I would like to find passages in the Bible with that concept/topic/keyword. I tried to use Google or similar tools but the results are not very good. Anybody can help with this?

Much to my surprise, when I keyed in the word ‘equilibrium’ into a Christian web site I frequently use, it came up with an article about ‘punctuated equilibrium’: https://www.gotquestions.org/punctuated-equilibrium.html

Another article I found was on DNA – not that you will find anything in the Bible specific to ‘deoxyribonucleic acid’.   The article presents a simple overview of the topic without delving into the complexities of the science:  https://www.gotquestions.org/DNA-Creator.html

The reason for my surprise in finding these articles is that this web site is dedicated to answering questions about Christianity and the Bible.  It is not intended as a scientific guide!  However, it also has links to a whole range of articles on scientific topics, some of which do quote relevant Bible verses.   Some of the topics discussed under the heading of Creation include abiogenesis, palingenesis, natural selection and evolution.  Below is a link to all the scientific topics this site covers:  https://www.gotquestions.org/questions_Creation.html

I am not trying to promote this particular Christian web site, but merely suggest it might be of some use to you.

P.S. These books may also be relevant but you would need a hard copy to find the Bible passages that are listed in the Chapter References and Notes section at the back:

Prof Edgar Andrews, BSc, PHD, DSc, FInstP, FIMMM, CEng, CPhys, is an expert in large molecules and Emeritus Professor of Materials at the University of London:

What is Man? Adam, Alien or Ape? - Edgar Andrews (Elm Hill 2018)

Who Made God? Searching for a theory of everything - Edgar Andrews (EP 2014)

Tom McLeish is Prof of Physics & pro-vice-chancellor for Research at Durham University.  He has awards for his research on the molecular theory of complex fluid flow. This book includes such knowledge when looking at biblical matters: Faith & Wisdom in Science - Tom McLeish (Oxford 2014)

Alister McGrath is a Prof of Science and Religion at Oxford University, qualified in the natural sciences and theology: Inventing the Universe – Why we can’t stop talking about Science, Faith and God - Alister McGrath pp 56, 58 (Hodder & Stoughton 2015)


Why were we created to serve if He is all-powerful? In Revelation 1:6

  and has made us to be a kingdom and priests to serve his God and
  Father--to him be glory and power for ever and ever! Amen.

From the bible we can clearly see that Angels serve God as messengers of information, warriors, destroyers, and protectors.

Why would all-powerful God need servants if he is all-powerful unless serving God means something else. And I'd like to know what the Catholic Church has to say about it?

The question is better answered by understanding why God created at all and CCC 293 tells us the God created all things not to increase his glory, but to show it forth and to communicate it, for God has no other reason for creating than his love and goodness.

The next point CCC 294 continues that God made us to be his sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, [...] The ultimate purpose of creation is that God who is the creator of all things may at last become all in all, thus simultaneously assuring his own glory and our beatitude.

Therefore for his glory and our beatitude, God made us to know Him, love Him and serve Him in this world, and be happy with Him forever in the next. [Cf. Penny Catechism 2].

But really, who is serving who when the LORD himself came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.

What shall one render to the Lord for all his bounty to them? [Cf. Ps 116:12 (RSVCE)]

The way I look at it is that it is an exchange, just as lovers do, God has given us everything we have and in his love and mercy and goodness, even gives us the gifts for us to make a return to him.

  It is truly right and just, our duty and our salvation, always and
  everywhere to give you thanks, Lord, holy Father, almighty and eternal
  God. For, although you have no need of our praise, yet our
  thanksgiving is itself your gift, since our praises add nothing to
  your greatness, but profit us for salvation, through Christ our Lord.
  And so, in company with the choirs of Angels, we praise you, and with
  joy we proclaim: Holy, Holy, Holy Lord God of hosts . . . - COMMON
  PREFACE IV.


What is the origin of the Catechism of the Catholic Church? How old is the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and in what manner was it conceived and instituted?

The current Catechism of the Catholic Church is what is known as a universal catechism; that is, a catechism intended to apply for, and meant for the usage of, the entire Catholic Church. The only prior published universal catechism is the Roman Catechism or Catechism of the Council of Trent, which was published in 1566 at the direction of the Council of that name.

Today's Catechism largely follows the organization of the Roman Catechism: it goes through each clause of the Apostles' Creed, then discusses each of the Sacraments in turn (together with certain other liturgical celebrations), then (after a discussion of sin and morality) runs through the Ten Commandments, and finally turns to a discussion of prayer, beginning with prayer in general, and wrapping up with the Our Father/Lord's Prayer.

The edition of the Catechism available on the website of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops contains the text of the apostolic constitution Fidei Depositum, which accompanied the first publication of the Catechism (in French). This document describes the history of the publication.

In January 1985, Pope St. John Paul II convoked an extraordinary synod of the council of bishops, to celebrate the 20th anniversary of the 2nd Vatican Council. The synod expressed a general desire for a new catechism for the universal Church, and so the following year the Pope organized a commission to draft one.

According to Fidei Depositum, the project went through several revisions, including consultation with individual bishops, with councils of bishops, and with theologians and schools of theology. The French-language version was for some reason the first to be published; in 1993, shortly after its publication, work began on the definitive edition in Latin (the "editio typica"). This was published in 1997, accompanied by the apostolic letter Laetamur Magnopere. All subsequent publications are derived from this edition.

Although the Catechism is new, its contents are not. Nearly every book in the Catholic Bible is quoted at least once; so are most of the Church's ecumenical councils starting with the first council of Nicaea. In addition, many particular councils are cited, and the writings (mostly encyclicals) of 22 popes. The Roman Catechism is often used as a source, as are the Church's liturgical documents (pre-eminently the Roman Missal and Liturgy of the Hours) and the writings of many, many theologians and saints, from Ignatius of Antioch (1st-2nd century) to Blessed John Henry Newman (died 1890). The full list of citations is available here (part 1), here (part 2), and here (part 3).


Did adherents of apocatastasis in the early church believe that the devil and his demons would be restored? While reading a fascinating answer on universalism and apocatastasis, I found 1 Corinthians 15:28 quoted as evidence for the idea that all people will ultimately be restored/saved:

  When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all. (ESV)

According to the linked answer, Origen believed that "all would eventually be reconciled to God," a sort of Christian universalism.  But I notice that 1 Corinthians 15:28 doesn't say "all people" – it says "all things."  And it would seem that the devil and his demons could be included in this "all things," according to this interpretation of the verse.

So, for now, let me ask: did the prominent advocates of apocatastasis in the early church believe that the devil and his demons would ultimately be restored or reconciled to God?

Since "prominent advocates" may not be sufficiently specific, let's limit ourselves to the views of Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Gregory of Nyssa.  If modern scholars have analyzed their writings in order to answer this question, that analysis, in conjunction with quotes from the writings of these fathers, would be great.

Origen does seem to have included demons in his concept of apocatastasis, but this specific teaching as well as the doctrine of apocatastasis in general - the teaching that everyone will be saved in the end - was roundly condemned by the local Council of Constantinople in 453.  The acts of this Council were later accepted by the whole Church at the 5th Ecumenical Council in 553, which explicitly excommunicated anyone following his teachings.  Canon XV of this Council reads:

  If anyone shall say that the life of the spirits (νοῶν) shall be like
  to the life which was in the beginning while as yet the spirits had
  not come down or fallen, so that the end and the beginning shall be
  alike, and that the end shall be the true measure of the beginning:
  let him be anathema.1

All told, there are 24 anathemas against the teachings of Origen that came out of this particular council.

The teaching is summarized in Michael Pomazanski's Orthodox Dogmatic Theology (3rd. ed):

  The teaching of a restoration (apokatastasis) of creation at the
  Second Coming of Christ is found in Acts 3: 19– 21: Repent ye,
  therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when
  the times of refreshing shall come fom the presence of the Lord; and
  He shall send Jesus Christ, Who was before preached unto you: Whom the
  heaven must receive until the times of restitution (apokatastaseos)
  of all things*.... Here apokatastasis is to be understood as the
  change, renewal and transfiguration of man and the cosmos at the time
  of the General Resurrection, as outlined in the present chapter. It is
  not to be understood as “universal salvation,” that is, the heretical
  Origenist notion that all human beings and even all the demons will
  ultimately enter into everlasting blessedness. The Orthodox
  understanding of apokatastasis is presented in the Ambigua of St.
  Maximus the Confessor, which contain both a refutation and a
  correction of Origenism. (See St. Maximus the Confessor, On the
  Cosmic Mystery of Jesus Christ, p. 56.)2

A primary text of Origen's in this regard seems to come from Book III of his First Principles, wherein it is written:

  Into this condition, then, we are to suppose that all this bodily
  substance of ours will be  brought, when all things shall be
  re-established in a state of unity, and when God shall be all in all.
  And this result must be understood as being brought about, not
  suddenly, but slowly and gradually, seeing that the process of
  amendment and correction will take place imperceptibly in the
  individual instances during the lapse of countless and unmeasured
  ages, some outstripping others, and tending by a swifter course
  towards perfection, while others again follow close at hand, and some
  again a long way behind; and thus, through the numerous and uncounted
  orders of progressive beings who are being reconciled to God from a
  state of enmity3

Some of the writings of Gregory of Nyssa also supported Origen's concept of apocatastasis, which he himself appeared to have accepted from Origen.  These writings were subsequently rejected, however, by numerous Church Fathers, including Barsanufius the Great, Herman of Constantinople, Mark of Ephesus, Maximus the Confessor, and Photius the Great.

Origen was the pupil of Clement of Alexandria.  Clement was charged later with heresy by Photius the Great for some of his Christological teachings, but I could not find any evidence that he influenced Origen's doctrine of apocatastasis (Clement of Alexandria is not acknowledged as a Church Father by the Eastern Orthodox Church.  He is not to be confused with Clement of Rome or Cyril of Alexandria, both of whom are acknowledged in the east to be important Church Fathers.)

I could not locate anything that would substantiate the claim that Gregory of Nazianzus (also known as Gregory the Theologian in the east) ever supported anything like what you suggest.

1  Canons against Origen of the Fifth Ecumenical Council
2  p.349n
3  First Principles, III.VI.6


Are there any Christians who understand Daniel 10 implying that there is an evil spirit prince over each country? The angel (I believe it is Gabriel) says:

  "Soon I must return to fight against the spirit prince of the kingdom
  of Persia, and after that the spirit prince of the kingdom of Greece
  will come."  (Daniel 10:20; NLT)

This assumes an evil spirit ruler over both countries and possibly more.  Are there any Christians1 who understand Daniel 10 implying that there is an evil spirit prince over each country?

1. Any Christian meaning a particular Church or group, etc.

To the question

Are there any Christian traditions that speak of single nations being under the protection of an angel?

The answer is yes. There is the common view among Church Fathers, consistent with Jewish Rabbis, that angels are entrusted to the spiritual care of kingdoms/nations.

This article NATIONS AND LANGUAGES, THE SEVENTY: | Jewish Encyclopedia says:

  According to the Rabbis, each of the seventy nations is placed under
  the protection of a special angel, except Israel, whose protector is
  God Himself (Gen. R. xxxvii.).

And this article Angels | New Advent says:

  Such appearances of angels generally last only so long as the delivery
  of their message requires, but frequently their mission is prolonged,
  and they are represented as the constituted guardians of the nations
  at some particular crisis, e.g. during the Exodus (Exodus 14:19;
  Baruch 6:6). Similarly it is the common view of the Fathers that by
  "the prince of the Kingdom of the Persians" (Daniel 10:13-21) we are
  to understand the angel to whom was entrusted the spiritual care of
  that kingdom, and we may perhaps see in the "man of Macedonia" who
  appeared to St. Paul at Troas, the guardian angel of that country
  (Acts 16:9). The Septuagint (Deuteronomy 32:8), has preserved for us a
  fragment of information on this head, though it is difficult to gauge
  its exact meaning: "When the Most High divided the nations, when He
  scattered the children of Adam, He established the bounds of the
  nations according to the number of the angels of God".

I do not know when the guardian angels of the nations got their commission to explain some fallen angels being princes of certain nations.

Endnote

The Jerusalem Bible Popular Edition note on Dan 10:13 has:

  Michael ('Who-is-like-God?') is the guardian angel of the people of
  God.


What does Jesus mean by saying, "Why do you call me good?" Luke 18:19 (NKJV)
  So Jesus said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God.

My question is: is this contradictory? What does Jesus mean by this statement?

This passage is often used to bolster the claim that Jesus is not God.  The usual misinterpretation is that Jesus is saying that He isn't good, because He isn't God.
The opposite is true.  In this passage, Jesus is establishing His deity.  The Answering Islam site offers a fairly good explanation.

Excerpt:

  In the central passage of chapter 10, Jesus makes the statement:

  I am the good shepherd. (John 10:14)  This establishes his claim to
  deity in a double way. First, because of the criterion above, since he
  calls himself good, and this not only in a general way as "a good
  shepherd" (one of many) but as "the good shepherd".

  It is a simple syllogism:

    No-one except God is good  and      Jesus is good  therefore      Jesus is God

  Somebody might want to argue that here "good" is only qualifying
  something else (i.e. "shepherd"), but we simply observe that in the
  original passage (Luke 18:18 above), it was qualifying "teacher". So,
  the situation is indeed parallel, and the argument applies.

  Second, Jesus calls himself not only "good", but he claims the title
  "shepherd". This is a clear reference back to Psalm 23 and, even more
  important, Ezekiel 34, where God himself is the shepherd of Israel
  (see this discussion). Thus, with this statement Jesus takes upon
  himself yet another title of God.

  Why do we call him good? Because he is - AND he is the Lord God.

A more succinct answer (with the same outcome) can be found on this article about WJD at Heartlight.

  Jesus is challenging the religious leader to wake up and understand
  the truth that stands right in front of him. If he is calling Jesus
  "good," then he must come to understand that Jesus is God and not play
  religious games, but come to truly believe. Jesus isn't denying that
  he is God; Jesus is affirming that he is God and that man truly needs
  to acknowledge that he is. Eternal questions are not simply religious
  speculation, but the core questions of the human soul. Only God can
  answer those questions. So if he is going to ask Jesus this question,
  he needs to pay attention and place his faith in Jesus' answer. So do
  we!


What were the "sons of God" in Genesis 6, according to Mormons? This is similar to this and this other question about the subject, but here I am interested in the LDS church point of view.

It's about this passage in Genesis 6:2 (here according to KJV):

  That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and
  they took them wives of all which they chose.

Note that above is the same text as the Genesis 6:2 in the KJV here at lds.org.

According to one interpretation that I have read is that the "sons of God" were spirit beings who materialized (similar to the ones who visited Abraham in Genesis 18, and Lot in Genesis 19). Another one is that they were part of some group of humankind that married the daughters from the line of Cain.

What is the Mormon interpretation on who these "sons of God" were?

As PyRulez points out, the text from Moses 8:13-16 offers a larger perspective on what was actually going on in Genesis 6:

13 And Noah and his sons hearkened unto the Lord, and gave heed, and they were called the sons of God.
14 And when these men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, the sons of men saw that those daughters were fair, and they took them wives, even as they chose.
15 And the Lord said unto Noah: The daughters of thy sons have sold themselves; for behold mine anger is kindled against the sons of men, for they will not hearken to my voice.
16 And it came to pass that Noah prophesied, and taught the things of God, even as it was in the beginning.

Joseph Fielding Smith in "Answers to Gospel Questions" 1:136-137 (search for the text "first two verses in Genesis, Chapter six") answers the question "Will you kindly explain the meaning of the first two verses in Genesis, Chapter six?" While I am not aware of the official canonicity of this publication, the answer to this question seems in line with the LDS canonized corpus as far as I can tell, and Joseph Fielding Smith was president of the church and I think was president at the time this book was written.
The full text of President Smith's answer is too long to include here in full.  I will paraphrase and quote the most relevant points.
First he states that the notion that the "sons of God" as mentioned in Genesis 6:2 are heavenly beings who came down is false.  (He actually calls it a "foolish notion [that] is the result of lack of proper information".)
President Smith then references Moses 8:13-16 as I have above.  He uses these verses to establish that the "daughters of men" in Genesis 6:2 are actually the daughters of the sons of Noah.  President Smith then offers this commentary:

Because the daughters of Noah married the sons of men contrary to the teachings of the Lord, his anger was kindled, and this offense was one cause that brought to pass the universal flood. You will see that the condition appears reversed in the Book of Moses. It was the daughters of the sons of God who were marrying the sons of men, which was displeasing unto the Lord. The fact was, as we see it revealed, that the daughters who had been born, evidently under the covenant, and were the daughters of the sons of God, that is to say of those who held the priesthood, were transgressing the commandment of the Lord and were marrying out of the Church. Thus they were cutting themselves off from the blessings of the priesthood contrary to the teachings of Noah and the will of God.

So, the answer to your question is that the use of "sons of God" in Genesis 6 is likely a mistranslation or some other error that occurred over the centuries, and according to Moses 8 the daughters of the sons of God (Noah's granddaughters) married the sons of men (men who did not have the priesthood).


What are the biblical reasons for why a Christian should not participate in an election process I know a not-insignificant number of Christians who believe it is not their duty (nor even their place) to vote in elections. Most of the ones I know don't have reasons for it other than cited "personal conviction".

What biblical reasons could be given as to why Christians should not participate in the governmental process from a general citizenry duty/right/freedom perspective?

related, but not a duplicates of: Does “no part of this world” mean no involvement in politics? &, Politics and Religion

Your referring to the "not-insignificant number" of 8 million  Jehovah's Witnesses?

John 18:36

  Jesus answered, My kingdom (kingship, royal power) belongs not to this
  world. If My kingdom were of this world, My followers would have been
  fighting to keep Me from being handed over to the Jews. But as it is,
  My kingdom is not from here (this world); [it has no such origin or
  source]

Jehovah's Witnesses support God's Kingdom and consider voting for wordly leaders a compromise of faith.

Another supporting scripture:

Psalm 146:3

  Put not your trust in princes, in a son of man, in whom there is no
  help.

There are other supporting arguments, but this is the main train of thought. Ultimately JW's understand God's Kingdom to be the solution for all of man's problems, and do not take a share in working out man's issues through wordly kingdoms.

Consider this lofty claim from the UN (JWs believe this to be the foremost manifestation of the "Wild Beast" of modern day).

  "They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into
  pruning hooks.  Nation will not take up sword against nation, nor will
  they learn war anymore."

Obviously this is not of their origin, but they are claiming to aspire to achieve what God himself has promised through the book of Isaiah, where this is taken from. Isaiah 2:4

One might argue that such a goal is a commendable one, in line with God's "plan". Notice, though, the habit of "anti-God" nations, and how they make such claims:

2 kings 18:31

  Hearken not to Hezekiah, for thus says the king of Assyria: Make your
  peace with me and come out to me, and eat every man from his own vine
  and fig tree and drink every man the waters of his own cistern,

This is a very significant event, because this loud-mouth was representing the king who claimed that no God could stand against him, and he was claiming to be able to give what God himself had promised:

Original source:

Micah 4:4

  But they shall sit every man under his vine and under his fig tree,
  and none shall make them afraid, for the mouth of the Lord of hosts
  has spoken it.

Support of the nations in general by allying with their agendas and seeking out solutions through them (ie, voting) is what JW's consider to be a violation of faith in God and his Kingdom.


How do Trinitarians understand what it means for Jesus to grow 'in favor' with God? Luke 2:52 says

"And Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man." (Berean Study Bible)

From a unitarian perspective, the idea that Jesus, who is a man, grew in favour with God seems pretty straightforward. However, it's not clear to me how Trinitarians understand this part of the verse. Jesus is God, so how does God grow 'in favor' with God? So

Who or what exactly is being referred to by 'God' here on a standard Trinitarian interpretation?

How does Jesus, who is God, 'grow in favor' with the referent of the term 'God' - what does that mean exactly?

According to Philippians 2 we are to have within ourselves the same mind that was in Christ Jesus.  So then Jesus had, in himself, the mind that:
Though he was in the form of God He did not cling onto that but instead He emptied himself by taking the form of a servant. (v. 6-7)
Having been found in human form (servant) he humbled himself by obedience all the way to death. (v.8)
So, Jesus' mindset was that he had let go of the morphe (form) of God and took on the morphe of man.  He knew this about himself.
Obviously growth would be necessary.  He had to grow physically, mentally, etc. from a human fetus.  He had to learn language, custom, etc. as a human child.
By the time the verse in question (Luke 2:52) comes along Jesus is 12 years old.  He knows enough about who He is, at this point, (Phil 2, again) to say:

Luk 2:49  And he said to them, “Why were you looking for me? Did you not know that I must be in my Father's house?”

Literally he says "the Father of me", which is the same sort of claim for which the Jews wanted to kill him later on:

Joh 5:18  This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.

And he has just been in the temple for three days listening and asking questions which amazed everyone who was there:

Luk 2:46-47  After three days they found him in the temple, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions. And all who heard him were amazed at his understanding and his answers.

So Jesus increased in wisdom (mental) and in stature (physical) as a human being.  And also in favor (actually grace) with God and man.  He grew in grace by obedience through humility, as we all must.  This growth was part of his humility...part of the great condescension of Philippians chapter 2...part of the mystery of Godliness.
He did not grasp at the form of God which He had but He emptied Himself and took on our form.  Just as He did not abandon the form of God that He had when he came down (He did not abandon but emptied), so He did not abandon the form of a man when He went back up and lives forever as our mediator, high priest, Lord, and king.


What is the relationship between the Catholic churches of various countries? I currently live in Mexico, where the Catholic church is quite different than the Catholic church I'm accustomed to in the U.S.  This is most obvious to me by the hostility often shown by Catholics (especially clergy) against non-Catholic Christians.  As an anecdotal example, some good friends of mine were actually ex-communicated from the Catholic church in Mexico for refusing to end a Bible study they held in their home with non-Catholic Christians. Stories like this in turn mean that many non-Catholic Christians in Mexico have a very negative view of the Catholic church here, as well.

As I've tried to explore and understand the various differences between the U.S. Catholic church and the Mexican Catholic church, I'm left not really knowing where to start asking questions.

So my first question here is:  How are the Catholic churches in various countries related, and how do they differ?

Countries or regions each have their own bishops conference.

Conferencia del Episcopado Mexicano

United States Conference of Catholic Bishops

But that is as much as they differ.  A bishop, acting as a successor of the apostles (like James as Bishop of Jerusalem) is the leader of his diocese.  Then the priest is the leader of his congregation and establishes the norms for conduct within his parish (i.e. if he doesn't want a bible study to be held there, then there shouldn't be a bible study held there).

To your anecdote, I'm not a canon law expert, but it strikes me as odd if it were a priest telling someone that they're excommunicated.  He may tell them to take a hike, but I don't believe that he has authority to excommunicate someone.  There are offenses, like abortion or helping someone get/perform an abortion that are in themselves automatic excommunication, but what you're describing sounds like disobedience which would require a Bishop's intervention.

In my diocese, we had a similar thing happen with a Religious Ed. teacher who refused to deny things she had written in her master's thesis which were contrary to Catholic Teaching.  To my knowledge, she wasn't even excommunicated for that, just fired (you can read more info than you'd ever want here, but I think it should clarify a few things about the way a diocese is governed).

What Gilbert wrote is perhaps the way things look, but in truth, it is not the congregation who leads things in their parish.  Throughout the Universal Church, priests are the heads of their parishes.

In the documents of Vatican II, the Church provided for additional lay leadership from within the parish in establishing ministries and financial councils but not complete authority and those documents cover the entire Church, not just Mexico or the United States.


Who were the Black Canons on the Augustinian Priory of Inchmahome in Scotland? Recently, while on holiday in Scotland, I visited the ruins of the Augustinian Priory of Inchmahome on the Lake of Mentieth, near to Aberfoyle and Loch Lomond.  The priory was founded in 1238 by the Earl of Menteith for a small community of Augustinian monks, including the Black Canons. The first Prior (Adam) arrived in 1296.  Source: Inchmahome Priory.

The Augustinian monks communicated by using sign language.  During meals, however, they were able to hear the word of God spoken.  St. Augustine apparently said: “Let not your mouths alone be exercised in receiving food; let your ears be also occupied in receiving the word of God”.

After rising at 02:30 for Nocturns, they would attend Matins at 06:00 where there would be readings and Prime.  Terce prayers and spoken Mass took place at 08:00 after which they would work.  At 12 noon there would be Sext prayers and sung Mass, followed by None prayers at 13:30. Dinner at 14:00 then they went back to work till 16:15. After that came Vespers prayers and Compline prayers.  They went to bed at 18:30.

Hard to imagine rising at 02:30 (especially in the winter) and then going to bed at 18:30, especially during a Scottish summer when the sun does not set till after 10 in the evening. However, I digress.

As busy as the monks were all day, what was the purpose/function of the Black Canons?  Who were they and what did they do? Were the Black Canons founded by St. Columba in Scotland or did they originate with St. Augustine?  See: Canon regular (Wikipedia).

Any information on the Black Canons, their origins and function, would be appreciated. Also, if anyone could source the quote attested to St. Augustine that would be useful. Just curious!

"Black Canons" is another name for Augustinian canons regular. They are "black" because of their habit, according to the OED:

  black canon n. [from the colour of the habit worn; compare post-classical Latin canon niger (c 1220)] now chiefly hist. a canon regular of St Augustine (see note at canon n.2 1).

Canons regular are

  Priests who are bound by religious vows and who live in community under a distinctive rule. Originating in the eleventh century, in connection with the reform movement of Pope Gregory VII, they have mainly adopted the Rule of St. Augustine.

A "canon" (Greek: κανών = "rule") is a priest who lives communally with other priests (although the exact meaning has changed throughout history), and "regular" means they follow a rule (Latin: regula) or conduct of life. The Church approves 4 main religious rules properly so-called:

St. Benedict's,
St. Basil's,
St. Augustine's (which the Dominicans also use), and
St. Francis of Assisi's.

Other religious orders use sign language, too, to foster an atmosphere of silence (cf. St. Benedict's Rule ch. 38: "should anything be wanted, let it be asked for rather by a sign than by a word.")

Rising in the middle of the night is normal for all orders' monks; the midnight prayers are called matins, which means "morning" (cf. St. Benedict's Rule ch. 8 or Ps. 118:62: "I rose at midnight to give praise to thee.").

What you quote of St. Augustine comes from ch. 3, ¶2 of his Rule. St. Benedict's Rule ch. 38 is similar; he prescribes a weekly reader, who reads aloud for the other monks while they eat: "[Spiritual] Reading must not be wanting at the table of the brethren when they are eating."


What are the biblical arguments against Arianism? In the same spirit of the question: What are the Biblical arguments against modalism?

Arianism, the idea that the Son is inferior to the Father, is considered a heresy by most Christian denominations. What are common Biblical and theological arguments against Arianism?

Some background regarding Arianism
To answer the question, it is important to understand that Arianism is a Trinitarian heresy that denies the divinity of the Second Person of the Trinity. Specifically, Arius held that the Son, or the Word, was created out of nothing, and that there was a time when He did not exist. The Son was, therefore, the Father’s first creature, but not God in the proper sense. Arius’ views represent the most extreme form of a current called subordinationism.
It is important to recall that Arius never denied the identification of the Word with Jesus Christ. (If anything, he tended to deny the full humanity of Christ, like Apollinarius of Laodicea, but this was not at the heart of the controversy associated with him.)
Biblical passages
In order to refute Arianism, it is sufficient, therefore, to find passages in the Scriptures that show that the Son is fully God, with just as much right to be called “God” as the Father.
St. John’s prologue
The most straightforward passage is the prologue of St. John’s gospel:

Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God (John 1:1).

I include the original Greek, because the grammar of the text makes a subordinationist interpretation impossible. Notice how the words have a perfect chasmic structure (which is lost in English): the second half of each sentence is always repeated as the first half of the next (ὁ λόγος with λόγος; τὸν θεόν with θεὸς); this was a common rhetorical device in antiquity. St. John must, therefore, be identifying θεὸς with τὸν θεόν, and τὸν θεόν is clearly and unambiguously God.
There is also a reference here to Genesis chapter 1:

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.

If the Word was with God “in the beginning,” then Arius’ claim that there was a time before the Son existed is refuted; moreover, since there was only God “in the beginning,” that Word must be God.
Note that St. John clearly identifies the Word with the Son, and both with Jesus Christ, in the following passage:

And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. (John 1:14).

“Glory” is something that the Old Testament attributes only to God. Therefore, we may also legitimately use any passages in which Jesus attributes divinity to himself as a refutation of Arianism.
Jesus’ own claims to divinity
Jesus made a number of claims to divinity, although, at least at first, his claims were not often open and explicit, so to as to avoid causing scandal during his ministry.
One of the most explicit claims is found at John 8:58-59:

Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple.

The key phrase is “I am,” which recalls Exodus 3:14, where God solemnly reveals His holy name:

God said to Moses, “I am who I am.” And he said, “Say this to the people of Israel, ‘I am has sent me to you.’”

Jesus is claiming, at a minimum, to be greater and older than Abraham, but that is not sufficient to arouse such a violent reaction from the Pharisees: they understand him as claiming to be God.
There are also Jesus’ claims to be one with the Father:

[Jesus said,] “I and the Father are one.” The Jews picked up stones again to stone him (John 10:30-31).
“I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me” (John 17:20-21; the chapter continues with similar claims).

Jesus also makes an affirmation of His divinity just before his crucifixion, and it is the immediate cause of the charge of blasphemy:

Jesus said to him, “You have said so. But I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven” (Matthew 26:64).

This one might be less obvious, but Jesus is putting together passages from Daniel 7:13-14 and Psalm 110:1. Taken individually, the passages are ambiguous: the “Son of Man” in Daniel 7 seems to refer most directly to the People of Israel. When in Psalm 110, the Lord says, “Sit at my right hand,” the meaning is metaphorical. However, when the passages are taken together and applied to Jesus, we see that Jesus is interpreting the passages to mean that the “Ancient of Days” (who is clearly God) asks the “Son of Man” (in this case Jesus) to sit at his “right hand,” which is a place of equal honor and dignity. Jesus’ persecutors, at any rate, seem to have understood him in this way.
There are also the numerous times, particularly (but not only) in John’s gospel, in which Jesus reveals something important about himself beginning with the words “I am.” (“I am the vine,” “I am the good shepherd,” and so on.)
We could also add that Jesus accepts without protest acts of worship, whereas his disciples in analogous circumstances protested vigorously. For example, compare

Jesus heard that they had cast him [the man born blind] out, and having found him he said, “Do you believe in the Son of Man?” He answered, “And who is he, sir, that I may believe in him?” Jesus said to him, “You have seen him, and it is he who is speaking to you.” He said, “Lord, I believe,” and he worshiped (προσεκύνησεν) him (John 9:35-38).

to

And the priest of Zeus, whose temple was at the entrance to the city, brought oxen and garlands to the gates and wanted to offer sacrifice with the crowds. But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of it, they tore their garments and rushed out into the crowd, crying out, “Men, why are you doing these things? We also are men, of like nature with you” (Acts 14:13-15).

In a similar vein, there is also the profession of faith by St. Thomas the Apostle:

Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side. Do not disbelieve, but believe.” Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!” (John 20:27-28).

We could also mention that Jesus performs actions that are explainable only by his Divine Nature: his miracles, the way that he can read people’s intimate thoughts (see, for example, Mark 2:8), and even forgive sins:

And when Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “Son, your sins are forgiven.” Now some of the scribes were sitting there, questioning in their hearts, “Why does this man speak like that? He is blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?” (Mark 2:5-7).

Jesus never challenges the principle that God alone can forgive sins (at least by His own authority, or ἐξουσία), but he does communicate the power to forgive sins:

And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you withhold forgiveness from any, it is withheld” (John 20:22-23).

It is not a mistake that most of the citations here are from the Gospel of John. St. John seems to have been particularly concerned with emphasizing Jesus’ divinity, perhaps because a current of subordinationism was already present in the early Church.
Passages from other New-Testament writers
It is not only Jesus himself who claimed to be divine, but his disciples taught his divinity in the other New-Testament writings.
Examples from the Pauline epistles
The clearest of these affirmations come from St. Paul. For example, there is the famous Christological hymn from Philippians 2:

Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father (Philippians 2:5-11).

This passage is extremely rich. Among many other things that could be said, I note the following:

St. Paul says that Jesus Christ is “in the form of God” (ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ). The expression “form of God” sounds strange to us, but at the time of Paul (especially in a Greek-speaking and fully Hellenized area such as Philippi in Macedonia) the term would have made people think immediately of Aristotle’s μορφή (form) and Plato’s εἶδος (idea or form). Paul is essentially saying that God has the divine μορφή, or nature, in our parlance. In other words, Jesus is fully divine. Notice that later on Paul says that Jesus takes on the “form” (μορφή) of a slave (i.e., of man). So μορφή is Paul’s term for “nature.”
Jesus “did not count equality with God [literally being equal to God, τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ] a thing to be grasped,” but neither did he divest himself of that equality. Rather his “emptying himself” consisted in taking on human nature, and, above all, in dying on the Cross.
Paul says that all creatures (in heaven, on earth, and below the earth, by which Paul means, “the good angels, man, and even the demons”) should “bend the knee.” But this kind of honor is reserved only to God.

There is also a similar passage in the Letter to the Colossians:

He [Jesus Christ] is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross (Colossians 1:15-20).

Although Arius left no extant writings, one can imagine that he seized on Colossians 1:15 (that Christ is the “firstborn of all creation”) as “proof” for his doctrine. He would soon have encountered a problem, however, because the “firstborn” is a technical term that specifically implies the right to inherit; in other words, one need not infer from this passage that Jesus is a creature. He could hardly be a creature in any case if he is “before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church”— such things can only be attributed to God. (The phrase “fullness of God,” in fairness, is something of a modern gloss, because the words “of God” do not appear in the original Greek. Still, true ontological fullness, or πλήρωμα, could only dwell in God.) As with the term μορφή from the passage in Philippians, in St. Paul, the term “image” (εἰκών) does not mean “imitation,” but rather “exact likeness.”
Examples from the preachings of the Apostles
Other affirmations of Christ’s divinity can be found in the preachings of the Apostles after Pentecost. For example, there is St. Peter’s discourse at Pentecost:

This Jesus God raised up, and of that we all are witnesses. Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this that you yourselves are seeing and hearing. For David did not ascend into the heavens, but he himself says,

The Lord said to my Lord,
Sit at my right hand,
until I make your enemies your footstool [Psalm 110:1].

Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified (Acts 2:32-36).

So Jesus has the prerogative of pouring out the Holy Spirit (v. 33), a power that can attributed only to God. As Jesus himself did during his trial, St. Peter applies Psalm 110 to Jesus, attesting that Jesus sits at the right hand of God, which, in the Jewish mentality, means that he has honor and dignity equal to God.
After Peter cures a lame man, he makes a discourse at the Portico of Solomon. There, he says, in part:

But you denied the Holy and Righteous One, and asked for a murderer to be granted to you, and you killed the Author of life, whom God raised from the dead (Acts 3:14-15).

He is, of course, referring to Jesus’ trial, in which Barabbas was released in his place. Peter affirms not only Jesus’ innocence, but his authority over life itself; this authority can only be God’s. Moreover, the title of “Holy One” in the Old Testament refers to God. (See, for example, Isaiah 30:12.)
We could point to other passages, but these are the clearest.
Conclusion
In summary, we can say that St. John’s gospel makes a very deliberate attempt to demonstrate Jesus’ divinity, and (more centrally to our question) the full divinity of the Word or Son. It is in his gospel that all of the most explicit claims to that divinity can be found.
However, the other Gospels, as well as the other New-Testament writings, make many assertions that imply Jesus’, and hence the Son’s, divinity. Among these, the clearest are St. Paul’s Christological hymns, but there are many other passages that imply, hint at, or otherwise confirm the divinity of Christ.


Why are the Ammonites excluded instead of the Midianites in Nehemiah 13? Now Balak son of Zippor saw all that Israel had done to the Amorites, and Moab was terrified because there were so many people. Indeed, Moab was filled with dread because of the Israelites.
The Moabites said to the elders of Midian, “This horde is going to lick up everything around us, as an ox licks up the grass of the field.”
So Balak son of Zippor, who was king of Moab at that time, sent messengers to summon Balaam son of Beor, who was at Pethor, near the Euphrates River, in his native land. (Numbers 22:2-5a, NIV)

On that day the Book of Moses was read aloud in the hearing of the people and there it was found written that no Ammonite or Moabite should ever be admitted into the assembly of God, because they had not met the Israelites with food and water but had hired Balaam to call a curse down on them. (Our God, however, turned the curse into a blessing.) When the people heard this law, they excluded from Israel all who were of foreign descent. (Nehemiah 13:1-3, NIV)

Why did the Israelites at the time of Nehemiah exclude the Ammonites and Moabites from entering the Temple, when it was originally the Midianites and Moabites who hired Balaam?

Four distinct nations

First, it's important to understand that each of the four nations (other than Israel) mentioned here is distinct from the others, though they did have various interrelationships. Here are their origins in the Hebrew Table of Nations, and their territories at the time of the conquest of the Holy Land.

It is surprisingly difficult to find a map online that shows the territories of all four of these nations in a single view. Here is a 1748 map by Emanuel Bowen (source) that gives the general idea of where they were located geographically at the time of the conquest:

(If anyone can point me to a more contemporary freely available map that covers all four of these nations, please do so. Thanks!)

The Amorites

The Amorites were descendants of Ham through his son Canaan:

  The sons of Ham: Cush, Egypt, Put and Canaan. (Genesis 10:6)

  Canaan was the father of Sidon his firstborn, and of the Hittites,
  Jebusites, Amorites, Girgashites, Hivites, Arkites, Sinites,
  Arvadites, Zemarites and Hamathites. (Genesis 10:15-18, italics added)

During their history they had wide-ranging territories both within the land of Canaan (Palestine) and in the Transjordan area, and even projected themselves across the Fertile Crescent into Babylonia. At the time of the Israelite conquest of the Holy Land, they occupied parts of the southern hill country of Canaan, and the area east of Jordan that had been the northern part of Moab's territory and the western part of Ammon's territory.

The Amorites had earlier pushed the Ammonites east from the Jordan, and had pushed the Moabites out of the northern part of their territory at the southern end of the Jordan, so that in addition to the hill country of Judea in southern Canaan proper, they also occupied a swath of land on the other side of the Jordan that separated the Ammonites from the Jordan and the Ammonites and Moabites from each other.

Since they were Canaanites, the Amorites were considered mortal enemies of the Israelites.

The Midianites

The Midianites were descendants of Abraham through his wife Ketura:

  Abraham had taken another wife, whose name was Keturah. She bore him
  Zimran, Jokshan, Medan, Midian, Ishbak and Shuah. Jokshan was the
  father of Sheba and Dedan; the descendants of Dedan were the
  Ashurites, the Letushites and the Leummites. The sons of Midian were
  Ephah, Epher, Hanok, Abida and Eldaah. All these were descendants of
  Keturah. (Genesis 25:1-4, italics added)

The Midianites lived in the territory south of Moab and Edom, stretching down into the area east of the Gulf of Aqaba, which is the eastern finger of water running northward from the Red Sea.

Moses' wife Zipporah was a Midianite (see Exodus 2:15-22), and Moses had friendly relations with his Midianite family after the Exodus (see Exodus 18; Numbers 10:29-33).

However, starting with Numbers 22:1-7, relations between Israel and Midian deteriorated.

The Moabites and Ammonites

The Moabites and Ammonites were descendants of the two sons of Lot, Abraham's nephew. See Genesis 19:30-38.

The Moabites lived in the area east of the Dead Sea, south of the Ammonites. Their territory had earlier extended north to the southern end of the land east of the Jordan, but had been pushed out of the northern part of their territory by the Amorites.

The Ammonites lived in the area east of the Jordan River, north of the Moabites. However, by the time of the conquest they had been pushed farther east, away from the Jordan. The Amorite territory also separated the Ammonites from their kinsmen, the Moabites.

Presumably because they were relatives of Abraham, Israel was not allowed to attack Moab or Ammon during the initial conquest of the Holy Land (see Deuteronomy 2:9, 18-19, 37).

However, during the period of the Judges, and right through to the period of united kingdom of Israel and the divided kingdoms of Judah and Israel, there was frequent conflict between the Israelites and the Moabites and Ammonites.

Now to address the question:

  Why are the Ammonites excluded instead of the Midianites in Nehemiah
  13?

Nehemiah 13:1-3 refers to something "found written in the Book of Moses." This is a reference to this passage from the book of Deuteronomy:

  No Ammonite or Moabite or any of their descendants may enter the
  assembly of the Lord, not even in the tenth generation. For they did
  not come to meet you with bread and water on your way when you came
  out of Egypt, and they hired Balaam son of Beor from Pethor in Aram
  Naharaim to pronounce a curse on you. However, the Lord your God would
  not listen to Balaam but turned the curse into a blessing for you,
  because the Lord your God loves you. Do not seek a treaty of
  friendship with them as long as you live. (Deuteronomy 23:3-6)

Notice that there are two reasons given for the exclusion:

"They did not come to meet you with bread and water on your way when you came out of Egypt."
"They hired Balaam son of Beor from Pethor in Aram Naharaim to pronounce a curse on you."

Hiring Balaam to curse the Israelites

There is no record, aside from Deuteronomy 23:3-6 and the reference to it in Nehemiah 13:1-3, of the Ammonites being a party to the hiring of Balaam. As quoted from Numbers 22:2-5 in the question, it was the Moabites and Midianites who hired Balaam to pronounce a curse on Israel. And the Midianites are definitely not the same as the Ammonites. So the second point applies primarily to the Moabites.

However, it is possible that the Ammonites, who were the close kin of the Moabites, were considered guilty by association.

This is the most likely reason that the Ammonites are excluded instead of the Midianites in Deuteronomy 23:3-6. The Ammonites are closely associated with the Moabites, since they are descended from two brothers.

The Midianites are a more distant foe geographically.

The Midianites are also slightly closer kinsmen to the Israelites, being descendants of Abraham, as compared to the Moabites and Ammonites, whose nearest common ancestor with the Israelites was Abraham's father Terah. This closer kinship with the Midianites might also have contributed to the substitution of the Ammonites for the Midianites in the exclusion from the assembly. See, for example, the first half very next verse in Deuteronomy:

  Do not despise an Edomite, for the Edomites are related to you.
  (Deuteronomy 23:7)

The Edomites were the descendants of Esau, Jacob's brother, and thus were the closest relatives of the Israelites--who were descended from Jacob.

Not meeting the Israelites with bread and water

There is conflicting testimony about whether the Israelites actually passed through Moabite territory on their way to the conquest of the Holy Land. It appears that they at least passed through the edges of Moabite territory:

  Then the Israelites traveled to the plains of Moab and camped along
  the Jordan across from Jericho. (Numbers 22:1)

The plains of Moab were at the northern end of Moab's original territory, east of the southern end of the Jordan and the northern end of the Dead Sea. This territory had earlier been taken from them by the Amorites--whom the Israelites had now defeated. This is the scene of Balaam's three attempts to curse Israel in Numbers 22-24. Technically this was not Moabite territory at that time, but it had historically been Moabite territory.

The events of Numbers 25, in which the Israelite men get involved with Moabite women and their gods, bringing a plague upon themselves, also seems to take place in, or close to, Moabite territory.

And Deuteronomy 2:8-23 tells of the segment of the Israelite's travel "along the desert road of Moab" (Deuteronomy 2:8).

Similarly, the Israelites seem not to have passed through the territory of the Ammonites, though there is conflicting testimony about this as well.

This conflicting testimony is highlighted in the story of Jephthah in Judges 10:6-12:7. Specifically:

  Then Jephthah sent messengers to the Ammonite king with the question:
  "What do you have against me that you have attacked my country?"

  The king of the Ammonites answered Jephthah’s messengers, "When Israel
  came up out of Egypt, they took away my land from the Arnon to the
  Jabbok, all the way to the Jordan. Now give it back peaceably."

  Jephthah sent back messengers to the Ammonite king, saying:

  "This is what Jephthah says: Israel did not take the land of Moab or
  the land of the Ammonites. But when they came up out of Egypt,
  Israel went through the wilderness to the Red Sea and on to Kadesh.
  Then Israel sent messengers to the king of Edom, saying, 'Give us
  permission to go through your country,' but the king of Edom would not
  listen. They sent also to the king of Moab, and he refused. So Israel
  stayed at Kadesh.

  "Next they traveled through the wilderness, skirted the lands of Edom
  and Moab, passed along the eastern side of the country of Moab, and
  camped on the other side of the Arnon. They did not enter the
  territory of Moab, for the Arnon was its border." (Judges 11:12-18)

Here the Ammonites claim that the Israelites not only entered their territory, but seized it.

Jephthah, however, denies that the Israelites took any Moabite or Ammonite territory, and says that the Israelites went around the eastern edge of the territory of Moab. (He is silent on whether the Israelites passed through Ammonite territory.)

The Ammonites seem to have been attempting to get the Israelites to give back the land east of the Jordan that the Amorites had taken from them earlier, which the Israelites then took from the Amorites. Apparently the Ammonites still considered it their land.

This conflicting testimony is also reflected in the description of the tribal allotment of Gad:

  This is what Moses had given to the tribe of Gad, according to its
  clans:

  The territory of Jazer, all the towns of Gilead and half the Ammonite
  country as far as Aroer, near Rabbah; and from Heshbon to Ramath
  Mizpah and Betonim, and from Mahanaim to the territory of Debir; and
  in the valley, Beth Haram, Beth Nimrah, Sukkoth and Zaphon with the
  rest of the realm of Sihon king of Heshbon (the east side of the
  Jordan, the territory up to the end of the Sea of Galilee). These
  towns and their villages were the inheritance of the Gadites,
  according to their clans. (Joshua 13:24-28, italics added)

Whether or not the Israelites actually transited any Moabite or Ammonite land, the first charge against the Moabites and Ammonites was a lack of hospitality, expressed in the words Moses addressed to the Israelites: "They did not come to meet you with bread and water on your way" (Deuteronomy 23:4).

As (somewhat distant) kinsmen of the Israelites through Abraham's nephew Lot, the Israelites could reasonably have expected that the Moabites and Ammonites would be hospitable to them as they passed through their territory, based on the ancient Middle Eastern code of hospitality.

Instead, the Moabites forced the Israelites to skirt their territory, attempted to bring a curse down upon them through hiring Balaam, and (through their women) seduced them into committing adultery and worshiping other gods besides the Lord.

The Ammonites also refused entry into their land, as suggested in various passages quoted above, and in this passage:

  But Sihon would not let Israel pass through his territory. He mustered
  his entire army and marched out into the wilderness against Israel.
  When he reached Jahaz, he fought with Israel. Israel, however, put him
  to the sword and took over his land from the Arnon to the Jabbok, but
  only as far as the Ammonites, because their border was fortified.
  (Numbers 21:23-24, italics added)

Clearly although the Israelites approached the border of Ammonite territory, they were not allowed entry. The "fortified border" was closed to them, and blocked them from entering or passing through.

tl;dr answer

Neither the Moabites or the Ammonites were hospitable to the
Israelites as they passed through, even though they were distant
kinsmen. Instead, they blocked the Israelites, opposed
them, and caused them problems.
Though the Ammonites are not mentioned in Numbers 22 as a party to
the hiring of Balaam to curse the Israelites, they may have been
considered guilty by association, given that they were close kinsmen
of the Moabites.

There are many passages throughout the Old Testament recounting a long history of hostility by the Moabites and Ammonites against Israel.

The exclusion of the Moabites and Ammonites from the assembly of the Lord was a result of their lack of hospitality, and even outright hostility, against Israel when the Israelites passed through their territories. This was contrary to the law of hospitality that should have been in effect for their distant kinsmen.

The Midianites were closer kin to the Israelites, and were also initially less hostile to them. This is reflected in the friendly relations between Moses and his Midianite family after the Exodus. However, hostilities did flare up between the two nations, as recorded in the books of Numbers, Joshua, and Judges. These battles seem to have decimated the Midianites to the point that they faded away as a serious enemy.

In contrast, the Moabites and Ammonites continued to be recurring enemies of Israel throughout its history, and there are many diatribes against them in the Prophets.

Deuteronomy and Nehemiah reflect this greater antipathy against the Moabites and Ammonites as compared to the Midianites, as well as the fading away of Midian as a serious enemy early on in the history of the nation of Israel.


What is the basis for the belief that the wise men did not arrive in Bethlehem until several months after the birth of Jesus? Many depictions of the nativity have both the shepherds and the wise men at the stable on the night of Jesus' birth.  However, it is commonly held that the wise men did not arrive until several months after the birth of Jesus.

What specifically is the basis for this belief?

That the wise men did not arrive until Jesus was a child and no longer an infant is derived from several Scriptures, particularly in Matthew.
Matthew chapter 2: KJV

8  And he sent them to Bethlehem, and said, Go and search diligently for the young child; and when ye have found him, bring me word again, that I may come and worship him also.
9  When they had heard the king, they departed; and, lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was.
11  And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and frankincense, and myrrh.
13  And when they were departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him.
14  When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt:

In these Scriptures Jesus is referred to as a child and not a babe. In the following scripture is where it is thought that Jesus was at least a year old and maybe as old as two when the Wise men arrived.
Mat 2:16  KJV

Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently enquired of the wise men.

Even though this is not definitive it is a pretty strong argument that Jesus was no longer a babe.


According to Roman Catholic Doctrine, does everyone spend time in purgatory? As I understand it, the Roman Catholic Church teaches that there is place of suffering called Purgatory where people spend time being purged of the sins they committed on earth.  However, it seems that in the Confessional, a priest absolves people of their sins.

So, does Catholic teaching indicate that everyone goes to purgatory, including priests and cardinals and popes, or do some people avoid purgatory altogether?  Would someone who dies immediately after leaving the confessional avoid purgatory completely?

Anyone who dies in sin, but not Mortal Sin, goes to Purgatory. This would include Priests and Bishops (the Pope is the Bishop of Rome).
There are specific cases that the Church says the person will go straight to heaven. We say Mary was assumed into heaven; she did not go to Purgatory. Martyrs are also said to go straight to heaven according to religion facts.:

If a person is martyred for the faith, miracles are not necessary to be declared a saint. As mentioned above, the purpose of canonization is to verify that the person is now in heaven, and all those who die as martyrs are believed to go straight to heaven.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

1030    All who die in God’s grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.
1472    To understand this doctrine and practice of the Church, it is necessary to understand that sin has a double consequence. Grave sin deprives us of communion with God and therefore makes us incapable of eternal life, the privation of which is called the “eternal punishment” of sin. On the other hand every sin, even venial, entails an unhealthy attachment to creatures, which must be purified either here on earth, or after death in the state called Purgatory. This purification frees one from what is called the “temporal punishment” of sin. These two punishments must not be conceived of as a kind of vengeance inflicted by God from without, but as following from the very nature of sin. A conversion which proceeds from a fervent charity can attain the complete purification of the sinner in such a way that no punishment would remain.84 (1861, 1031)


Is Obeying a Stay at Home Order Biblical or Not Biblical As a protestant, is a general stay at home order fall under Romans 13:1

Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.
Romans 13:1 ESV

Or Acts 5:29

But Peter and the apostles answered, "We must obey God rather than men.
Acts 5:29 ESV

So, by not gathering are we denying a Command of God, or are ok in not doing so when ordered?

Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters.
Matthew 12:30 ESV

And they devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.
Acts 2:42 ESV

The crucial element is to determine the underlying purpose of the various 'stay at home', 'shelter in place' or other restrictive orders.  If the cessation of preaching in the name of Christ is the goal of those orders then Acts 5 is in view.  If the various public health agencies have no such ulterior motive then...Romans 13.  We need not be a kingdom divided against itself (Matthew 12) and teaching, fellowship, and prayer (Acts 2) are all still possible while the breaking of bread together is awkward but also still possible in one fashion or another.

I think that Hebrews 10:25, in immediate context,

  And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works,
  not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near. - Hebrews 10:24-25

is addressing those individuals who are in the habit of avoiding the assemblage of the brethren and, in the larger context, those individuals are in that habit because of the deceptive nature of sin and, even more specifically, the fear of persecution.

  But recall the former days when, after you were enlightened, you endured a hard struggle with sufferings, sometimes being publicly exposed to reproach and affliction, and sometimes being partners with those so treated. For you had compassion on those in prison, and you joyfully accepted the plundering of your property, since you knew that you yourselves had a better possession and an abiding one. Therefore do not throw away your confidence, which has a great reward. For you have need of endurance, so that when you have done the will of God you may receive what is promised. - Hebrews 10:32-36

If believers were not coming together of their own volition because of fear of conviction of sin from within the assemblage or fear of persecution from without then I believe Hebrews chapter 10 might apply.  However the stay at home orders and advisories, the business closures and limitations that have been implemented voluntarily and under order are ostensibly for our own good and the good of those with whom we are limiting contact.  If we gather together we can infect each other within the church and without the church.  Now, depending upon what sort of tinfoil hat one might wear from time to time, one might conceive of an anti-christian power lurking in the shadows of a "stay at home order" and either instigating or taking advantage of this interruption in the Church's gathering together (and one might be correct) but both the 'spirit' and the 'letter' of these human regulations have no obvious connection to the persecution of our or of any particular faith.

If Christians were forbidden to gather while all other groups retained permission then I have no doubt that Acts 5:29 would be a righteous rallying cry:

  And when they had brought them, they set them before the council. And the high priest questioned them, saying, “We strictly charged you not to teach in this name, yet here you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching, and you intend to bring this man's blood upon us.” But Peter and the apostles answered, “We must obey God rather than men. - Acts 5:27-29

As it stands, regardless of how opportunistic ungodliness and evil may become, the Christian rallying cry must be something more akin to

  Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience. Romans 13:1-5

coupled with the overarching command of our Lord and Savior to love God and love our neighbor:

  “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.” - Matthew 22:36-40

We must not respond from a spirit of fear nor of bravado.  Jesus is able to protect and even strengthen and build His church in the midst of difficulty.  Indeed, faith is perfected in fire just as gold is refined and, as so many around us slide into fear and despair, who can say how many will be led toward that narrow gate of salvation in Christ by the spirit of God producing the fruits of the Spirit in us through trying times.  Remaining in Christ, the true vine, is the key to producing fruit that remains and fruit is not for our benefit.

  But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. - Galatians 5:22-23

By the grace of God and His provision of technology we can still lawfully 'assemble' in ways that our forefathers could never have dreamed; we can still spur one another on to love and good deeds, and we can study and pray to have an answer ready for any that ask us of the hope that we have.  The one prerequisite is that we must have hope to be inquired.  Be of good courage, brethren, the Lord has gone before us and the battle belongs to Him.


Do any Christian scholars contrast Islamic eschatology with Christian eschatology? Are there any Christian scholars (and their works) that comment on Islamic eschatology, and/or contrast it with Christian eschatology? As an example of a Muslim scholar coming at this question from the opposite side, Imran Hosein wrote "Jerusalem In the Qu'ran", which looks at both Christian and Muslim eschatology from a Muslim perspective.

No doubt there are Christian scholars who have studied Islamic eschatology but, although I have read a small number of books on Islam, I have not read any specifically about Islamic eschatology. However, a search of the internet found at least one interesting example from Joel Richardson, with enough preview information to suggest it could be recommended to the OP for his interest. I find that Richardson is not a scholar in the usual sense of the word, but a Christian preacher and author.

Joel Richardson (Antichrist: Islam's Awaited Messiah) speaks (page xv) of having  Muslim friends all over the world and stresses (page xviii) that 'the purpose of this book is by no means to "bash" Muslims in any way.'

Richardson says (page 22) his book is "first and foremost a study of Islamic Eschatology (end-time belief) and those specific Islamic doctrines and practices that seem to correlate in quite an astonishing way to the biblical descriptions and prophecies of the last-days." He claims (page 23) that his is the first comprehensive popular study of Islamic Eschatology as it relates to biblical eschatology.

On the one hand, Richardson sees Islam as the future of the world, but on the other hand, his theme appears apocalyptic. Islam may be the future, but the future is a dark place.


Would God allow all of humanity to be celibate? God created the world with a process that involves sexuality to bring more people to existence to serve him. It doesn’t seem sustainable; if everyone achieved the degree of spirituality that the continent clergy has, then the population would decrease and no more people would serve God.

Why would God benefit from the prohibition of an act which gives existence to other humans that will potentially also serve Him?

I read the argument “better focus to serve God by ignoring sexual impulses and distractions,” but in that case having children while controlling sexual impulses and abstaining from time to time makes more sense.

Would God allow all of humanity to be celibate?

The short answer is no.

This goes directly against what God said to Adam:

  28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. - Genesis 1:28

God would not allow humanity to disappear by such an act to transpire.

Besides man has free will and as such it would be extremely doubtful that every man, woman and child would voluntarily remain celibate for life.

  The Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church asserts that "Freedom is the power, rooted in reason and will". It goes on to say that "God created man a rational being, conferring on him the dignity of a person who can initiate and control his own actions. God willed that man should be 'left in the hand of his own counsel,' so that he might of his own accord seek his Creator and freely attain his full and blessed perfection by cleaving to him."" The section concludes with the role that grace plays, "By the working of grace the Holy Spirit educates us in spiritual freedom in order to make us free collaborators in his work in the Church and in the world." - Free will in theology


Why does the LDS church believe that alcohol was forbidden, despite being common in the Bible? The Word of Wisdom prohibits members of the LDS church from drinking alcohol, but alcohol is quite common in both the Tanach (Jewish bible) and the New Testament.  Why does the LDS church believe that alcohol was acceptable to those in Biblical times, but not now? In other words, what is the reason that alcohol use was a major part of religious life in biblical times, but forbidden now to LDS church members?

(I am not a Christian, much less a Mormon, so I apologize if I have made any mistaken assumptions in my question)

Latter-Day Saints agree and understand that the use of alcohol was permitted, and in some specific instances even formally encouraged in worship rituals, in ancient Judaism and Christianity.  The revelation recorded in Section 89 of the Doctrine and Covenants explains that this is not an eternal principle, but a specific one for our day, given specifically in response to modern conditions:

  1 A Word of Wisdom, for the benefit of the council of high priests,
  assembled in Kirtland, and the church, and also the saints in Zion—

  2 To be sent greeting; not by commandment or constraint, but by
  revelation and the word of wisdom, showing forth the order and will of
  God in the temporal salvation of all saints in the last days—

  3 Given for a principle with promise, adapted to the capacity of the
  weak and the weakest of all saints, who are or can be called saints.

  4 Behold, verily, thus saith the Lord unto you: In consequence of
  evils and designs which do and will exist in the hearts of conspiring
  men in the last days, I have warned you, and forewarn you, by giving
  unto you this word of wisdom by revelation

  (emphasis added)

There are two important points given here.  First, that the Word of Wisdom was given for "the temporal salvation of [the] saints in the last days," and not generally throughout all of history, and second, that it is given "in consequence of evils and designs which do and will exist in the hearts of conspiring men in the last days."

The Word of Wisdom covers more than simply a prohibition on drinking alcohol; it covers basic principles of health and good diet, and also proscribes the use of tobacco and "hot drinks," which has been interpreted by Church leaders as meaning addictive beverages such as coffee and caffeinated teas.

Any American who was old enough during the 1990s will probably remember the Big Tobacco lawsuits.  When one considers the evidence that came out then, plus any number of less well-covered issues regarding industrial-scale food production over the past few decades, the manipulations of the "evils and designs which ... exist in the hearts of conspiring men" become plain to see, which really weren't an issue in earlier ages.


In Catholicism, in case of emergency Is it valid to baptise a large assembly of people with a fire hose? In an emergency is it possible to baptise a large group of catechumens (around 100 or more) with a firehose or some other "group baptism" method, such as walking outside during rain? The catechumens would presumably consent to being baptised.

I imagine that if a group was baptised with a firehose, the Trinitarian formula would only be pronounced once, but I have a hunch that who ever is doing the baptising has to pronounce the Trinitarian formula each time for every individual in the congregation, but I'm not sure: it seems inconvenient, inefficient, infeasible and impractical in an emergency situation because it would take too long to baptise them all individually. It seems to be that a "group baptism" would be the most effective thing to do in an emergency, assuming that it is allowed.

According to the Catechism, any person can perform baptisms in an emergency, but it is doubtful whether the use of a firehose would be considered valid or, more importantly, necessary:

1256: The ordinary ministers of Baptism are the bishop and priest and, in the Latin Church, also the deacon.57 In case of necessity, anyone, even a non-baptized person, with the required intention, can baptize58 , by using the Trinitarian baptismal formula. The intention required is to will to do what the Church does when she baptizes. The Church finds the reason for this possibility in the universal saving will of God and the necessity of Baptism for salvation.59
12:58: The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.
1259 For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament.
1281: Those who die for the faith, those who are catechumens, and all those who, without knowing of the Church but acting under the inspiration of grace, seek God sincerely and strive to fulfill his will, can be saved even if they have not been baptized (cf. LG 16).


Which God do Muslims pray to according to Catholic, Orthodox and main-stream Protestant tradition? Which God do Muslims pray to according to Catholic, Orthodox and main-stream Protestant tradition?

They believe that God cannot be One and Three at the same time. They believe that God can only be One. They believe that God cannot have a Son equal to Him. Consequently, they believe that God could not have sent His Son (which they believe God doesn't have) to the world to give salvation to those believing into Him (they take Jesus only as a prophet from God). That makes their "God" quite different from Christian God. In fact, if you tell this description of God to any Catholic, Orthodox and main-stream Protestant believer, he would tell you that that kind of God does not exist. I know of at least one council that took place in Christian circles (the Orthodox council in 1180) that has declared that "God of Muslims is not the God of Christians, but rather a distorted concept of God created in Muhammad's mind". Perhaps, same declaration might have been made in the Catholic and Protestant camps of main-stream Christianity.

Now, here is my question: if that kind of God does not exist - especially given the fact that there is only One God in this universe - then which God do all Muslims pray to? Of course, we can say that they are praying to a non-existent God, which is not the God, but rather merely their idea of God, their concept of God. Simply put, they are praying into the air, emptiness. At first, this kind of answer looks fine to me, but if you give it a second thought, then you could tell that their description or their concept of God is in fact the same as the concept that some humans (including Jews) had about God before the coming of Christ. Of course, we can discard all the cases of those humans who believed in the existence of many gods, but Muslims believe in the existence of only One God. Does that mean that all people who lived prior to Christ's coming and believed in the existence of only One God also prayed into the air? A case of the Gentile Cornelius comes to my mind who was praying to God and whose "prayers came up for a memorial before God" (Acts 10:4) and the following words of Peter in his regard: "Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth Him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with Him" (Acts 10:34-35). From this I gather that the Gentile Cornelius did not pray into the air.

Realistically, there are just 4 possibilities:

Christians and Moslems are praying to the same God. We all basically believe the same things and believe in the same God.
Christians and Moslems are praying to the same God. One or the other (or both) have wrong and confused ideas about God, but God is understanding of our ignorance.
There is more than one God, and Christians and Moslems are each praying to their own.
Christians are praying to the true God, and Moslems to a false and non-existant God, or vice versa.

Number 1 is very popular today, but is objectively and provably false. One need only read the Bible and the Koran, or listen to Christians describe their faith and Moslems describe their faith, to see that the two contradict each other on many important points.

Number 3 is logically impossible. Both Christians and Moslems believe there is only one God. If there is more than one God, then both Christianity and Islam are false and both are praying to a false God. We can't both be right. Either one is right and the other wrong, or we are both wrong.

That leaves 2 and 4. As this is christianity.stackexchange.com and not islam.stackexchange.com, let me proceed based on the assumption that Christianity is true. Then either Moslems are praying to a false, non-existant God, or they are praying to the true God even though they have many inaccurate beliefs about him.

Clearly God hears the prayers of Moslems in the literal sense, that is, he is aware that they are praying and knows what they are saying. But does he accept them as addressing himself?

I think that's very hard to say. Suppose you sent a letter to the president of the United States in which you made some request or suggestion. Would he reply positively? If you mis-spelled his name or showed ignorance about some unimportant fact about him, I doubt it would make a difference. If you indicated that you thought he was a Republican rather than a Democrat and asked him to do things to further Republican policies and hurt the Democrats, I don't think he'd agree to it just because you wrote him a letter. He'd recognize that the letter was intended for him, but so misunderstanding of his actual self, his plans and goals, as to be largely irrelevant.

In any case, Christians believe that salvation is through Christ and Christ alone. So whether God hears the prayers of Moslems as being to him and not to a false god, if Christianity is true Moslems are not saved, because they very clearly and explicitly reject Christ. That's surely the important point. If a Moslem prayed for God to lead him to truth, I think God would honor that, just as he would if a pagan or an atheist made such a prayer.

Addendum to my answer

After writing this, I happened to read the story of Jesus and the Samaritan woman. At one point: 'The woman said to Him, "Sir, I perceive that You are a prophet. Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, and you Jews say that in Jerusalem is the place where one ought to worship." Jesus said to her, "... You worship what you do not know; we know what we worship, for salvation is of the Jews.' [John 4:19-22, NKJV]

Note that Jesus didn't say that the Samaritans worshipped a false God or that their worship was in vain because they had important facts about God wrong, he said, "You worship what you do not know". This seems to imply that God accepted their worship as sincere and legitimate despite their ignorance. I think that indicates that at least some cases of my option 2 above are possible.


Killing in the Benedictine Rule Is the injunction in the Benedictine rule “Deinde non occidere” interpreted to forbid the killing of brutes, or only humans?

The quotation comes from the beginning of Chapter 4 of the Rule, where St. Benedict lists the "instruments of good works". The list begins by quoting several of the commandments:

  In the first place, to love the Lord God with the whole heart, the whole soul and the whole
  strength.

  Then one’s neighbour as if oneself.

  Then, not to kill.

  Not to commit adultery.

  Not to steal.

  Not to covet.

  Not to utter false witness.

So it seems that these "instruments" were intended to be understood just as the commandments were ordinarily understood. In particular, this commandment forbids killing people, not lower animals.

The Rule also allows the sick and infirm to eat flesh meat (Chapter 36), which would seem incompatible with a general injunction against killing animals.


Why did God create Adam and Eve so that they would sin? According to If Adam and Eve were perfect, why did they choose to sin? the serpent tricked Eve into eating the apple.

So either the serpent or humans sinned because of free will. But God is sovereign which means he defined exactly what free will is and also knows the outcome of every variation. He still chose the variation which eventually resulted in sin.

It seems to me like God wanted them to sin. He is almighty and could create humans who won't sin even if they had free will. It's not the free will which made them sin but the emotions and wills which God also gave them.

So why did God create Adam and Eve so that they would sin?

You are not the first thoughtful person ever to have thought what you think about the
"free will of man" and the sovereignty of God. (I put the free will of man in quotation marks, because I think it more accurate to say "man's ability to decide," or "man's ability to make decisions." The only will which is truly free belongs to God, and He alone is free to do whatever He wills--anything, that is, which is in keeping with His character.)

Years ago I read Arthur W. Pink's book, The Sovereignty of God, and I remember being introduced to the term antinomy. Antinomy is defined as "a contradiction between two statements, both apparently obtained by correct reasoning."

If memory serves, Pink suggested that "free will" and God's sovereignty comprise an antinomy which cannot readily be explained--if ever! His "answer" (again, if memory serves) may seem like a cop-out, but it may be closer to the truth than one might at first think.

Verses such as Isaiah 55:8 and 9 should give us pause in this regard:

  "'For my thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways,' declares the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways And My thoughts than your thoughts'"(NASB, Updated Edition).

God is infinite. God inhabits eternity. We are finite. We inhabit time. Not to be flip or irreverent, but "apples and oranges."

God's sovereignty and His foreknowledge do not MAKE things happen. From our Monday-morning-quarterback armchair, we critique God's game and say, "Boy, if I were the quarterback I would have done things differently," and then go on to explain how and why we'd do things differently if we were G--I mean, the quarterback! Doesn't work that way.

God, of course, knows the end from the beginning and the beginning from the end. That is why He is called the Alpha and the Omega (see Revelation 1:8, 21:6, and 22:13). God, unlike us, has no time constraints. Since He knows what is going to happen well in advance of when it actually happens, He can "plan ahead," as it were, to cover all contingencies. (This last sentence is outrageously humanistic and perhaps even hyperbolic, but I include it simply to illustrate a truth.)

God's planning ahead includes His plan of salvation, and we need to thank Him and be in awe of Him for that very reason. As the hymn writer put it:

  O, the love that drew salvation's plan,

  O, the grace that brought it down to man,

  O, the mighty gulf that God did span

  At Calvary

His plan was not a spur-of-the-moment thing; no, it originated in the eternal counsels of God (see Revelation 13:8, Ephesians 1:11, and 1 Peter 1:20). In a sense, Christ's death on behalf of Adam and his fallen race was a fait accompli (my translation: "a done deal") even before Jesus was conceived of the Holy Spirit in the womb of the virgin Mary!

I suggest the central question you seem to have in mind could be paraphrased as follows:

  Does God's knowing something will happen, make it happen?

I suggest the answer is no; it does not. The only person to whom my answer truly makes sense is God Himself; again, because we are creatures of time. Our perspective is constrained by what happened in the past, not by what might happen in the future. Oh, we can appreciate, intellectually, the concept of "the eternal counsels of God," but in actuality our intellectual appreciation falls far short of the mark of God's perfect understanding of His eternal counsels.

Years ago, my godly father suggested to me that God inhabits the eternal present. That makes sense to me. God does, however, accommodate us finite critters by revealing His truth in terms of past, present, and future. Those constructs are just that: constructs. Believe it or not, there was a "time" when the only person who existed was God, and if it weren't for the love of God which "drew salvation's plan," God would not have created the angels or us, His image bearers.

So we've come full circle. God's thoughts are not our thoughts, and God's ways are not our ways. As far as north is from south, and as far as east is from west, so far are God's thoughts and ways beyond ours. The expression "hindsight is 20/20" may be fairly accurate as touching human affairs, but as touching God's plans and purposes, the expression simply does not work, nor could it ever.


Why do Indian Christian women wear head coverings? It is known that many Indian Christian women wear head coverings during religious services. They may cover their heads with the end of a sari, which is a traditional garment worn by Hindu Indian women.

This is in fact a Christian tradition coming from Paul:

  I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions just as I handed them on to you. But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the husband is the head of his wife, and God is the head of Christ. Any man who prays or prophesies with something on his head disgraces his head, but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled disgraces her head—it is one and the same thing as having her head shaved. For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or to be shaved, she should wear a veil. For a man ought not to have his head veiled, since he is the image and reflection of God; but woman is the reflection of man. Indeed, man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for the sake of woman, but woman for the sake of man. For this reason a woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man or man independent of woman. For just as woman came from man, so man comes through woman; but all things come from God. Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head unveiled? Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair, it is degrading to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering. But if anyone is disposed to be contentious— we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God. (1 Corinthians 11:2-16)

For an exposition of what the last verse means: 1 Corinthians 11:16.

So the question is rather why Western women do not go to Church with their heads covered: Uncovering the Head Covering Debate.

In cultures where headcovering is the norm anyway, there is less push to abolish the custom and thus women still wear the head covering. It was also in fact a Christian custom.