If Mary is sinless then how is Christ her victory? Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox church believe in the sinlessness of Mary. Although their beliefs differ, they agree on the belief that "Mary was sinless."
If Mary is sinless (i.e. the Catholic belief that Mary was created without the stain of original sin, and also did not sin. OR - the Eastern Orthodox belief that denies original sin, yet claims Mary never sinned) how, then, is Christ Mary's victory?
Christ's sinless life, death, and resurrection is our victory. He is our perfect example. He is the only One who perfectly loved God with all of His mind, soul, heart, and strength. If we say that Mary is also in the sinless category - how is this not robbing Christ of His Glory? Additionally, how is this not demonstrating that Mary cannot say "Christ is HER victory?"  If the doctrine of the sinlessness of Mary is true, she cannot rely on the sinless life of her Son. She cannot fall on her knees in humble gratitude to her Son, accepting His perfect life, because she would have done it without Christ.
Thoughts on how the doctrine of the sinlessness of Mary does not do the following:
(1) robs Christ of His unique office and glory
(2) robs Mary of the opportunity to fall in humble gratitude to her Son's perfect life.
(3) cause us to turn our eyes on Mary also (which consequently robs Jesus of the focus)

The Catholic Church teaches that Mary's immaculate conception was made possible by Christ's sacrifice --- just like any graces that we get.  Specifically, the decree "Ineffabilis Deus", in which Pope Pius IX defined the dogma of the immaculate conception, states the dogma as follows: "The most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin." So it is not correct that "she would have done it without Christ."


Why does the KJV say "people perish" in Pr. 29:18? Can anyone tell me why the KJV translates the Hebrew words yipara am as “people perish” in Pr. 29:18? (The Hebrew word am means people and yipara means unrestrained.) Other translations render yipara am as “the people run wild,” and “the people cast off restraint.” YLT says, “Without a Vision is a people made naked.” Brenton says, “There shall be no interpreter to a sinful nation: but he that observes the law is blessed.” The Lexham English Septuagint says, “A seer will never come to a lawless people, but those who keep the law are most blessed.” The JPS Tanakh: The Holy Scriptures according to the Masoretic Text (1917) translates yipara am as “the people cast off restraint.” What am I missing here?

The Clementine Vulgate has

  Cum prophetia defecerit, dissipabitur populus ; qui vero custodit legem beatus est.

Which the Douay translates as

  When prophecy shall fail, the people shall be scattered abroad: but he that keepeth the law is blessed.

That's close enough to the KJV to suggest the possibility that they may have consulted the Vulgate to try and help understand perhaps a rare word. But then the question arises, why did the Vulgate translate it that way?  Its possible that its based on a Qere (i.e. Massoretic margin note reading) or alternative vowel pointing, but I don't know.

A search for יִפָּ֣רַֽע on Unbound Bible against the Westminster Leningrad Codex reveals that this word occurs only in this verse.  Searching without points יפרע reveals that it occurs also in Leviticus 21:10, where it says the high priest is to "not uncover his head."

The Geneva Bible (1599) also has

  Where there is no vision, the people decay: but he that keepeth the law is blessed.

And Matthew's Bible (1537)

  Wher no Prophete is ther the people perysh: but wel is hym that kepeth the law.

So that seems to have been the standard translation of this at that time.


Was Paul the ideal Christian we were meant to emulate? Did God intend for Paul to show us the kind of Christian life we were all meant to live?

I don't mean every nitty-gritty detail. Obviously things would be different if you were born a woman or mute or disabled, or if you were married or terminally ill, or if you lived in a society that didn't persecute Christians, etc... And I'm not asking in an overly broad sense either: Paul loved God so Christians should love God. I'm talking about Paul's chosen discipleship and evangelism methods.

The algorithm of Paul's life seemed to be to go to a place where the gospel wasn't known, share the gospel and attempt to build a church (sometimes taking years), raise up leaders, double-back to the churches he planted before to make sure they were still following the truth, take mature leaders along with him, and do it over and over again. He also submitted himself to the leadership of Peter, James, and John (the so-called pillars).

This could be seen in contrast to other outreach styles: para-church organizations that don't have pastors, christian musicians/celebrities that go places and preach but don't attempt any church growing, churches that focus primarily on social justice, monk-style Christianity that seeks to escape the world altogether, etc...

I'm not asking whether one is wrong and another is right, but simply if Paul's methods indicate sort of a "best practice".

Here Paul was reproaching, rather tongue-in-cheek, the Corinthians for living such relatively comfortable, lavish lives while Paul and the other Apostles were spending there's on the gospel. Paul seemed to know that what he was doing and the matter in which he was doing it was what God had intended:

  1 Cor 4:9-17 For it seems to me that God has put us apostles on display at the end of the procession, like those condemned to die in the arena. We have been made a spectacle to the whole universe, to angels as well as to human beings. We are fools for Christ, but you are so wise in Christ! We are weak, but you are strong! You are honored, we are dishonored! To this very hour we go hungry and thirsty, we are in rags, we are brutally treated, we are homeless. We work hard with our own hands. When we are cursed, we bless; when we are persecuted, we endure it; when we are slandered, we answer kindly. We have become the scum of the earth, the garbage of the world—right up to this moment. I am writing this not to shame you but to warn you as my dear children. Even if you had ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel. Therefore I urge you to imitate me. For this reason I have sent to you Timothy, my son whom I love, who is faithful in the Lord. He will remind you of my way of life in Christ Jesus, which agrees with what I teach everywhere in every church.

I again want to emphasize that I'm not asking whether the bible shows that every little detail of Paul's life should be copied. I just wonder if there's indications that show that Paul's life of obedience was the life we were meant to imitate; as revealed through scripture.

EDIT: I think I may have been unclear. Paul intentionally said "...imitate me..." as opposed to "...ask God how he wants you to evangelize..." Plus the majority of the book of Acts is following Paul's life, along with most of the non-Gospel new testament being Paul's efforts in building up the church. Certainly all growth is from God, but we're called to sow the seed and water it. My question is to whether Paul was the man with the ideal seed sowing/watering method we were meant to emulate, as it seems to be so in scripture. This is a question of best-practices; principles, not exceptions.

Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ. (1 Corinthians
  11:1, NIV)

Paul, indeed said that we should follow his example, which is to follow the example of Christ.  The ultimate goal in Christian life is to become like Christ. Therefore,

  The Ideal Christian to be imitated is not only Paul, but all the
  Apostles also.

  The Ideal Person to be imitated is Jesus Christ.


Where in the bible is Jesus referred to as Jesus bin Miriam? I've heard that there is a reference to Jesus as 'Jesus bin Miriam' (may have misspelled Miriam), however I can't find the reference.  It may only be in some versions.

Any suggestions?

Citation:  The Jesus of History versus the Christ of Faith 38:07

(Mark 6:1-6)

1 He went away from there and came to his hometown, and his disciples followed him. 2 And on the Sabbath he began to teach in the synagogue, and many who heard him were astonished, saying, “Where did this man get these things? What is the wisdom given to him? How are such mighty works done by his hands? 3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him. 4 And Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor, except in his hometown and among his relatives and in his own household.” 5 And he could do no mighty work there, except that he laid his hands on a few sick people and healed them. 6 And he marveled because of their unbelief. And he went about among the villages teaching.

Edit: The phrase could be just spoken in Hebrew translation in the video; we shouldn't expect that the speaker believed that Mark was written in Aramaic or Hebrew. Some commentaries does mention that it is indeed pejorative to call someone like that. I don't know about any such aramaic original MSS discovered of Mark. You should search on http://www.csntm.org/ for such MSS evidence. Orthodox Jewish Bible which is a weird translation that adds so much Jewish and yiddish terms making it half english translation mentions that phrase; it is an unpopular bible version  --

  Mark 6:3 Is not this one the Naggar (Carpenter), Ben Miryam? The
  brother of Yaakov*, Yosef, Yehuda and Shimon? And, are not his achayot
  here with us? And they were taking offense at Rebbe, Melech
  HaMoshiach.


What does it really mean [not able not to sin] according to Augustine? From this link, it is said that a newly born baby in relation to sin enumerated by Augustine of Hippo is [not able not to sin] (non posse non peccare).

What I thought from that [not able no to sin] sentence is :

X. a newly born baby doesn't have an ability to choose the right thing completely. So, the next time if this baby still live and grown
up (say, his/her age from 5 to 20) - this person will NEVER be able
to obey his/her parents as it's been told "Honor your father and your
mother" from one of the 10 Commandments.  In other words, there is
not even one at a time where this person obey his/her parents.
Because if there is - then that means this person is able not to
sin.

But my Catholic friend say that X is not correct. He said the correct one is :

Y. [not able not to sin] means something like an inclination. After the baby grown up, he/she will be more inclined to disobey the
parents then to obey. So, the frequency she/he disobeyed the parents is much more than she/he obeyed the parents

My friend told me, that's what Catholic point of view from Augustine's [not able not to sin] teaching.

I don't understand how come the correct one is like that. Because to me, if it is the correct one - then logically this person still has the ability not to sin. This person still can choose between to obey -or- not to obey the parents. And obeying the parents, fulfilled that one of the 10 Commandments.

That's why I'm asking here, what does it really mean [not able not to sin] according to Augustine himself actually ? X or Y ?

"then logically this person still has the ability not to sin."

I think this is the logical answer from scripture as well. Neither X or Y are the correct biblical answer, and not just from the New Testament - from the Old Testament as well, and from the ante-Nicene Church that leans more toward Pelagian, free will and the ability to cease from sin.

Let's start with Man's nature however. God tells us explicitly what the curse was. In the Garden, after the sin of Eve - who then tempted Adam, God curses them in the order of their responsibility. The Serpent (Satan) first, then Eve, then Adam.

Let's go through that to understand the curse placed on mankind. Let's look for key concepts here that Augustine and his intellectual heirs claim.

1) Does God say man has lost free will?

2) Does God proclaim from this point forward that man cannot stop sinning?

The curse on Eve:

  Genesis 3:16 NASB - To the woman He said, "I will greatly multiply
  Your pain in childbirth, In pain you will bring forth children; Yet
  your desire will be for your husband, And he will rule over you."

the curse on Adam:

  Genesis 3:17-19 NASB - Then to Adam He said, "Because you have
  listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about
  which I commanded you, saying, 'You shall not eat from it'; Cursed
  is the ground because of you; In toil you will eat of it All the
  days of your life. "Both thorns and thistles it shall grow for you;
  And you will eat the plants of the field; By the sweat of your face
  You will eat bread, Till you return to the ground, Because from it you
  were taken; For you are dust, And to dust you shall return."

Nowhere in a plain reading of scripture from the curse do we see a loss of free will, and a transmission of sin through semen. (Traducionism) God cursed the women in childbirth, which is why Paul says this:

  1 Timothy 2:15 NASB - But [women] will be preserved through the
  bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity
  with self-restraint.

and God cursed man with labor pains over the now cursed Earth. The Earth was cursed for the sake of Adam's sin. We also see this as a truth in the very next chapter with Abel and Cain.

  Genesis 4:3-4 NASB - So it came about in the course of time that Cain
  brought an offering to the LORD of the fruit of the ground. Abel, on
  his part also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of their fat
  portions. And the LORD had regard for Abel and for his offering;

Abel brought His best, Cain brought the fruit of the ground - what type of fruit grows on the ground? I don't think the book of Jasher is inspired, but I do think they are correct in their interpretation here - that Cain brought rotten fruit to the alter of God.

In fact, we see the fruit of Abel's effort from Heb 11.

  Hebrews 11:4 NASB - By faith Abel offered to God a better sacrifice
  than Cain, through which he obtained the testimony that he was
  righteous, God testifying about his gifts, and through faith, though
  he is dead, he still speaks.

Abel's faith in God and free will moved Him to provide a better sacrifice to God than Cain provided. And Cain was moved toward jealousy of the love God showed Abel and moved toward temptation, evil desire -

  Genesis 4:5-7 NASB - but for Cain and for his offering He had no
  regard. So Cain became very angry and his countenance fell. Then the
  LORD said to Cain, "Why are you angry? And why has your countenance
  fallen? "If you do well, will not [your countenance] be lifted up? And
  if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door; and its desire is
  for you, but you must master it."

According to God, immediately after the fall, and the curse - Cain had the ability to rule over the sinful desire. He had the ability to not sin, to not murder His brother. Any other interpretation of scripture here, denying Cain's God given ability makes God a liar. Let's say for instance, you take a hard determinism approach of the world, and that God causes everything to have foreknowledge. The logical implications of that are dreadful here. It means not only was God lying to Cain, but He had no actual ability to rule over His sinful desire as God told Him, but God ultimately caused Him to murder Abel.

As I stated from the beginning - this idea is not only contrary to the word of God, it's contrary to what the early Church taught and believed.

Tertullian:

  I find, then, that man was constituted free by God. He was master of
  his own will and power…For a law would not be imposed upon one who
  did not have it in his power to render that obedience which is due to
  law. Nor again, would the penalty of death be threatened against sin,
  if a contempt of the law were impossible to man in the liberty of his
  will…Man is free, with a will either for obedience of resistance.
  (c. 207, Vol. 3, pp. 300-301)

Irenaeus:

  ”Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good
  deeds”…And ”Why call me, Lord, Lord, and do not do the things that I
  say?’…All such passages demonstrate the independent will of man…For
  it is in man’s power to disobey God and to forfeit what is good.”
  (c.180, Vol. 1, p. 519)

Ignatius:

  I do not mean to say that there are two different human natures, but
  all humanity is made the same, sometimes belonging to God and
  sometimes to the devil. If anyone is truly spiritual they are a person
  of God; but if they are irreligious and not spiritual then they are a
  person of the devil, made such not by nature, but by their own
  choice. Pg.61 vol. 1.

Now related to Birth before showing the passage from Clement, let's go to clear scripture on that from two sources, Moses and Ezekiel.

  Deuteronomy 1:39 NASB - 'Moreover, your little ones who you said would
  become a prey, and your sons, who this day have no knowledge of good
  or evil, shall enter there, and I will give it to them and they shall
  possess it.

  Ezekiel 18:20 NASB - "The person who sins will die. The son will not
  bear the punishment for the father's iniquity, nor will the father
  bear the punishment for the son's iniquity; the righteousness of the
  righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will
  be upon himself.

Clement:

  Thus although we are born neither good nor bad, we become on or the
  other and having formed habits, we are with difficulty drawn from
  them. Pg 273 vol.8

As you can see from scripture and the teachers prior to Augustine - the only conclusion is that both X and Y are incorrect. Man is born with free will, and prior to knowledge of sin, we are neither good nor evil - we are born with the ability to cease from sin, and that is what Paul means by being "free from sin" - not just the condemnation, but the desire.

Origen:

  Certain ones of those [Gnostic’s] who hold different opinions misuse
  these passages. They essentially destroy free will by introducing
  ruined natures incapable of salvation and by introducing others as
  being saved in such a way that they cannot be lost.

Now as for what Augustine logically meant?

I think He leaned toward the ability to never cease from sin, it's well known He remained in bondage to lust and sinful desires.


Was Jesus guilty or not guilty by the law? There are two answers in this question which contradict each other:

How does the trial of Jesus compare to the judicial standards of the epoch and of the modern times?

The first answer says that Jesus was guilty of what he was charged.  The second claims that Jesus was not guilty at all but intentionally choose not to defend himself.  So was he guilty or not?

Consider this.

A man walks into a court room and long story short, the judge convicts the man of murder in the first degree. However, the man did not commit the crime. Therefore, he is falsely accused, and falsely convicted. Nevertheless, he was convicted, and he was sentenced to death.

Was Jesus guilty of blasphemy? According to the Sanhedrin, yes. Was Jesus falsely accused and falsely convicted? Yes. God (that is, Jesus) cannot be rightly convicted of blasphemy.

It's a matter of perspective. The Sanhedrin convicted Jesus of blasphemy because they did not believe he was God, just as the judge did not believe the man was innocent. Essentially, it's unjust judgment on the part of the judges. However, Jesus was God, and therefore, he was falsely accused and falsely convicted.


What is the difference between Eastern Orthodox doctrine of deification and the "little g" god doctrine of the Word of Faith movement? I noticed that the Word of Faith movement is under a lot of fire for the "little g" god doctrine, but it appears to me that it is almost, if not exactly, the same as the deification/divinization doctrine taught by the early church fathers and still maintained as Eastern Orthodox doctrine today.

What is the difference between the Eastern Orthodox doctrine of deification/divinization and the "little g" god doctrine of the Word of Faith movement?

[NOTE: At the time I answered this question, where the title and third paragraph now refer to "Eastern Orthodox", they formerly specified "orthodox protestantism", and my answer was tailored to the question as it then stood (that is, after the first revision of the question by Flimzy. Bruisedreed's claim in his explanation for his editing the question subsequent to my answer is made with no support of the assertion that the reference to protestantism was an error by the original poster.]

The difference is that orthodox Protestant doctrine is that there is one God, who is manifested in three persons, and that humans, through baptism, are made part of what Paul calls the Body of Christ (cf. Romans 12:12, 1 Corinthians 12:12, and other places) not that each person is a separate "little god".

One of the proponents of the "Word of Faith" movement, Kenneth Hagin, wrote (in Zoe: The God-Kind of Life (Kenneth Hagin Ministries, Inc., 1989) that God "made us in the same class of being that he is himself," and that the believer is "called Christ" because "that's who we are, we're Christ!", and earlier, in the article, "The Virgin Birth" (Word of Faith Magazine, December 1977) that by being "born again", the believer becomes "as much an incarnation as Jesus of Nazareth".
An orthodox protestant view denies that God made humans in the same class as himself. And while orthodox protestantism accepts that the company of believers is the "body of Christ", and therefore individual believers are members of that body, this is not the same as saying that the company is Christ, since the body without the head is not the same as the head.

The "body of Christ" is not an incarnation in the sense that Jesus of Nazareth was an incarnation, "begotten of his father before all worlds".


Is there a basis for Christian holidays in the Bible? I was just curious if holiday celebrations like Christmas and Easter were written in the Bible, not merely mentioned but specifically indicating that people should celebrate them. It seems to me that celebrations like Christmas and Easter come from older, pagan traditions like Yule and the vernal equinox. For Easter, for example, Wikipedia states:

  Easter is linked to the Jewish Passover by much of its symbolism, as
  well as by its position in the calendar. In many European languages,
  the words for "Easter" and "Passover" are etymologically related or
  homonymous.

It occurred to me that our holidays may be nothing more than pre-Christan pagan traditions (not that such is a bad thing). However, I did a little research and it seemed to me that God of the bible, at least in some ways, thinks that our Christmas celebrations are largely worthless. At the very least, he made it clear that it's not useful to have Christmas trees:

Jeremiah 10 NIV

  1 Hear what the LORD says to you, people of Israel. 2 This is  > what the LORD says:

  “Do not learn the ways of the nations
  or be terrified by signs in the heavens,
  though the nations are terrified by them.

  3 For the practices of the peoples are worthless;
    they cut a tree out of the forest,
    and a craftsman shapes it with his chisel.

  4 They adorn it with silver and gold;
    they fasten it with hammer and nails
    so it will not totter.

  5 Like a scarecrow in a cucumber field,
    their idols cannot speak;
  they must be carried
    because they cannot walk.
  Do not fear them;
    they can do no harm
    nor can they do any good.”

While the above passage doesn't actually mention Christmas, it mentions a common thing done on Christmas. Some people think that the passage does not mention Christmas trees, but rather idols. This only partially true. It is quite clear that the passage describes a Christmas tree, but it's referring to the worship of this tree as an idol as a worthless thing, not necessarily the tree itself as being worthless[1][2]. So it's OK to have Christmas trees—just don't worship them! There is some debate about this, but that is for another question. :) I just included the passage to show the Bible does possibly mention this aspect of how many people currently celebrate Christmas.

My question is really just asking for a bit more than a "sidelong mention" of Christmas trees. Specifically:

Are there other passages which specifically mention Christmas (or some close equivalent, like "Christ's Birthday", etc.), Easter, and other Christian holidays, and which also indicate that we should celebrate them?

Neither Easter, nor Christmas, nor any other Christian holidays that I am aware of are mentioned in the Bible.  Many of the traditions we adhere today are, indeed, pagan in origin.

There's plenty of material on the web to support this.

ChristianAnswers.Net discusses the origin of the name Easter, as well as the Easter Hare (the original Easter Bunny), and Easter Eggs.

You've already covered Christmas trees, and it's already been covered in this question.

However, this doesn't mean that it's wrong to celebrate them.

Christianity isn't about strict observance of rituals.  Celebration is a gift given by God.  What could be more natural than to celebrate the Savior that gave His all for us?


Who is allowed to read the handbook of instructions in the LDS Church? The handbook of instructions published by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is a two volume work. Handbook 2 is published on lds.org, but Handbook 1 is only given to leadership. Are members allowed to read it if they have access to it? Or are they "honour bound" not to read it unless directed or authorized by a church leader?

There's nothing secret on it. Instruction handbooks are distributed to those holding a calling that requires it. Handbook 1 mainly contains instructions for bishoprics and stake presidencies, while the handbook 2 contains instructions for the rest of the organizations of the church; it just happens to be the case that there's way more people holding callings included on the volume 2 (this is why it's more available).

None of the 2 volumes is "honor bound", the only thing they contain is a bunch of instructions and guidelines for those holding a calling that requires it.


According to Biblical Unitarianism does belief in the Trinity disqualify one from salvation? According to Biblical Unitarianism does belief in the Trinity disqualify one from salvation?
*Note:  this is not asking whether non-trinitarianism is true or whether a trinitarian baptism is valid but whether a trinitarian is saved according to Biblical Unitarian doctrine.

No, but here's why.
Biblical Unitarianism is Christian - they believe in a God, creator of all things, His son Jesus and the holy spirit.
They believe in the salvation plan the bible outlines and that it is only possible in and through the name of Jesus and trusting in his sacrifice for all sin.
This arrangement is offered by God through His grace. There is no salvation that men can earn or expect to receive by any 'good works' or law keeping.
God knows the broken and corrupted nature of all men. He knows the cause of it (the devil) and has provided the remedy for it in Jesus.
When we die in this life, we will all die with many wrong understandings and false beliefs - we can never be 100% correct. The deception that has been foisted onto the world includes religious confusion resulting in myriad religions and Christian denominations.
God is well aware of all this and it is entirely covered by the bold paragraph.
If a believer (in God) dies believing a 3in1 God, they have two possible futures.

God has deemed them a 'saint' and will be raised to meet Christ at his return. This is regardless of their 3in1 understanding/belief, but of their faithful living according to the calling God has placed on their life.
They will be raised in the second resurrection with all others to finally know the true God and the salvation offering in Christ.

The very concept of whether a man's teaching/biblical interpretation has any bearing on the salvation God offers through grace via His son is abhorrent. Man has nothing to do with this core process by which God desires for 'all men to be saved'.
For a general overview of salvation as outlined above: Becoming a Christian: Why? What? How? (Biblical Unitarian)


Is anyone familiar with this strange logo resmbling 'nfw'? I see bumper stickers, t-shirts, etc all over the place when passing by Christian colleges with this strange logo that I believe is somehow affiliated with Christianity but I'm unable to identify it.

It looks like there is an 'n' on the left, a 'w' on the right, and something I can't discern in between, possibly an 'f' or a cross or something. The typeface is kind of script or Cyrillic or something. Here is a bad recreation of it:

Am I confused? Is this logo unrelated to Christianity? Can anyone identify it?

It's actually NOTW, and stands for Not Of This World:

It's a reference to Jesus's words in several places, including John 18:36:

  Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.” [ESV]

The logo itself is that of an apparel company that was founded in 2001.


How do the (Roman) Catholic Church and the (Anglican) Church of Uganda view "wife inheritance"? There is a cultural practice in parts of Africa in which a young widow is required to marry her dead husband's brother, male cousin or other relation. This is sometimes referred to as wife inheritance.

The two main Christiam denominations in Uganda are the (Roman) Catholic church and the (Anglican) Church of Uganda. Do these have any objection to, or concerns about,  this practice? If so, on what grounds?

The Catholic church holds that the parties to a marriage must freely consent to it.
From the Catechism:

1625 The parties to a marriage covenant are a baptized man and woman, free to contract marriage, who freely express their consent; "to be free" means:

not being under constraint;

not impeded by any natural or ecclesiastical law.

1626 The Church holds the exchange of consent between the spouses to be the indispensable element that "makes the marriage." If consent is lacking there is no marriage.

Much more specific detail follows.
So any marriage that is forced on one of the parties, either the widow or the husband's brother in the example, is invalid. A marriage such as described that is entered into freely by both parties is valid.
I'm fairly certain that the Anglican church takes the same view.


Can God Change his mind? I was recently thinking about the passage in exodus that talks about how the Israelites fell into sin while Moses was up on the mountain. God said that he would destroy all the Israelites but Moses interceded for them and asked that God spare them and he did.

Can God change his mind about these things, especially when it comes to decisions of mercy?

According to most Christian traditions, God cannot change His mind.

There are those that teach that He can change His mind, a position inherent in Open Theism.  However, this is seen as a heresy by most orthodox Christian traditions.  It denies the omniscience of God.

From http://www.reformationtheology.com/2011/07/does_god_ever_change_his_mind.php

  In recent years though a new movement has emerged called Open Theism.
  This movement has taken Arminianism to its logical intellectual
  conclusion. Knowing the "problem" that complete knowledge of the
  future means that the future is fixed, they have consciously taken the
  position that God does NOT know the future at all. They argue that
  because the future does not yet exist, even God does not know of it.

In layman's terms, if He were to change His mind, it would mean that He was mistaken in the first place.  This flies in the face of the doctrines of Omniscience and infallibility.

There are several passages in Scripture where God appears to change His mind, for example, in cases where He has promised judgment and then "repents".  In those cases, the people repent and turn toward God, and God spares them the judgment He had promised.

I these cases, He is not changing his mind.  had they continued in their sins he would have carried out the promised judgment.  However, since the people repented, He was able to show his mercy.  Further, since God knows the beginning from the end, He knew in advance that they would repent.  He knew that his judgment would not be necessary.

There's a fine article explaining this in further depth at Grace Online Library.

Excerpt:

  The biblical narratives in which God appears to repent, or change His
  mind, are almost always narratives that deal with His threats of
  judgment and punishment. These threats are then followed by the
  repentance of the people or by the intercessory petitions of their
  leaders. God is not talked into “changing His mind.” Out of His
  gracious heart He only does what He has promised to do all along – not
  punish sinners who repent and turn from their evil ways. He chooses
  not to do what He has every right to do.

This is consistent with the Catholic teaching as well.

  In hearing our prayer God does not change His will or action in our
  regard, but simply puts into effect what He had eternally decreed in
  view of our prayer. This He may do directly without the intervention
  of any secondary cause as when He imparts to us some supernatural
  gift, such as actual grace, or indirectly, when He bestows some
  natural gift. In this latter case He directs by His Providence the
  natural causes which contribute to the effect desired, whether they be
  moral or free agents, such as men; or some moral and others not, but
  physical and not free; or, again, when none of them is free. Finally,
  by miraculous intervention, and without employing any of these causes,
  He can produce the effect prayed for.

And Reformed Theology:

  In reading certain narrative portions of Scripture, some have
  incorrectly concluded that God changes His mind. Yet the Bible is
  clear that not only does God not change in His essential nature (Mal.
  3:6) but that He does not repent or change His mind. The Bible
  actually teaches this in a didactic portion. "God is not man, that he
  should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind. Has he
  said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill
  it?" Numbers 23:19.

  For the sake of argument though, lets try to imagine God literally
  changing His mind. I want to explain how this concept is inseparably
  linked with God's omniscience because for God to change His mind, He
  would need to make a decision and then be given new information He did
  not have before, so that He could either see the error of His ways, or
  choose a better course of action. It is important we see this.For God
  to change His mind, it would mean that God is learning new material as
  each day unfolds, and because you and I make that information known to
  God, or He sees that plan A is not working too well, because He is now
  armed with new information, He can make a better decision than the one
  He did previously. However, this idea would totally undermine God's
  exhaustive knowledge of future events (His omniscience) one of the
  very attributes of God. Such a thought is unthinkable. He would not be
  the all knowing God Scripture declares Him to be if indeed He ever
  learnt something. No, He has always had total, complete and infinite
  knowledge of all things from all eternity past.

Thus, the answer would appear to be "no" from the perspective of the major branches of Christianity.


Besides Jesus, is there any other figure in the Bible that would claim that some of the prophecies in the Scriptures were about him? Besides Jesus, is there any other figure in the Bible that would claim that some of the prophecies in the Scriptures were about him?

The below verses from the Gospel of John is where John the Baptist is quoting a prophecy about himself:

  John 1:19-23 (NIV) Now this was John’s testimony when the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem sent priests and Levites to ask him who he was. He did not fail to confess, but confessed freely, “I am not the Messiah.”

  They asked him, “Then who are you? Are you Elijah?”

  He said, “I am not.”

  “Are you the Prophet?”

  He answered, “No.”

  Finally they said, “Who are you? Give us an answer to take back to those who sent us. What do you say about yourself?”
  John replied in the words of Isaiah the prophet, “I am the voice of one calling in the wilderness, ‘Make straight the way for the Lord.’”

John the Baptist quoted from Isa 40:3:

  Isa 40:3 (RSV) A voice cries:
  “In the wilderness prepare the way of the Lord,
      Make straight in the desert a highway for our God".

  Isa 40:3 (NASB) A voice is calling,
  “Clear the way for the Lord in the wilderness;
  Make smooth in the desert a highway for our God".

  Isa 40:3 (NKJV) The voice of one crying in the wilderness:
  “Prepare the way of the Lord;
  Make straight in the desert
  A highway for our God".

  Isa 40:3 (TLB) Listen! I hear the voice of someone shouting, “Make a road for the Lord through the wilderness; make him a straight, smooth road through the desert".


Rephrase: Does the Bible claim itself to be inerrant? Before I go on, I do realize that biblical claims for the inerrancy of the Bible is in fact self-satisfying and therefore questionable (at least in a court room), but bear with me.

The old testament scripture is verified by Jesus's obvious regard for it as He quotes it all the time (See Matt. 19:4, Mark 10:6, Heb 4:4, Acts 7:3, the list goes on...).

I could see the words of Jesus while he was on earth (mainly the gospels) verified as Jesus allowed the Holy Spirit to help the apostles remember what they had heard (John 14:26).

But what about the epistles and apocalyptic books? We can obviously assume that the apostles writing the books knew mostly what they were talking about as they spent so much time with Jesus, but there's a pretty big leap from that to infallible. We also don't know who wrote some books (Hebrews for example), how do we know these are the words of God?

Worth mentioning is 2 Timothy 3:16:

  All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.

But how do we know what "Scripture" Timothy is referring to here? And as for the "canonization" of the books, are we just trusting that God safeguarded the accuracy of the Bible by guiding the decisions of those involved in the Council of Trent and Synod of Hippo, for example?

If there is no such claim, why did some Christian denominations start believing it was inerrant?

Thanks and God Bless!

CLARIFICATION: I know any answer supporting the inerrancy of the Bible can't, by nature, be a perfect proof because of the recursiveness, but I think it worthwhile to find out if the Bible claims itself to be inerrant or if people just assumed it was later.

See "The Case for Christ" by Lee Stroebel, chapter 3, section "A High Degree of Unanimity" (I can't post it here, because "No part of this publication may be reproduced" etc.) It talks about the rigorous process used to select books as part of the canon. They had to be written by apostles or eyewitnesses to them, they had to conform to existing Christian doctrine, and they had to be accepted by the community at large. Even today there are some eastern churches that don't accept the book of Revelation.


When Was The Gospel of Luke Written? I have been trying to search this on the web and it seems I keep getting conflicting information. Apparently, modern scholars believe the Gospel of Luke was written in the second century AD. If this is true then why do we include it in our Bibles? Why do people read it if it was written much later? And then, I read some info about it being written in the 60s AD. I tried to search this on StackExchange but no luck. Could you help me out?

If you accept its own testimony then Luke was written:-

Before the Acts of the Apostles and by the same author as the writer of Acts (compare Acts 1:1 with Luke 1:1-4);

The author of Acts was, at times, a companion of Paul on his missionary journeys:
about 49 AD, Acts 16:10-18;
about 54-57 AD, Acts 20:4-21:19; and
about 59-62 AD, Acts 27:1-28:30.

All these passages are the "we" passages.
There is so much detail in Acts which has been confirmed by archaeology that it has been said that it would need a bigger miracle for it to have been made up than for the author to have genuinely accompanied Paul on his journeys.

Seeing as Paul died about 65 AD it is obviously not possible that Acts was written mid 2nd century.  It seems a compelling argument to me and many others that Acts was written before certain events which would have been included in it if it had been written later.  These events include possibly:
The death of Paul, the death of Peter, the death of James the first Pastor of the church at Jerusalem 62 AD; the first Jewish Roman War 66-70 AD; the change in attitude of the Roman authorities towards Christianity with the beginning of the Roman persecutions under Nero; the Great Fire at Rome.

The most natural explanation why these events are not included in Acts is that Acts was written before these events.
What Acts presents is the prevailing situation before Nero.  The persecutors of the church were the Jewish authorities who struggled to get the Roman authorities to be interested in trying to suppress the new "sect".

The author of Luke claims to have "had a perfect understanding of all things from the very first" Luke 1:3.  In other words he is claiming that he is in a perfect position, he is ideally qualified to tell Theophilus the history of the events from his perspective, making use of eyewitness accounts.

The author is at pains to warn his readers of the coming destruction of Jerusalem, that when they see certain things happening then they should flee from Jerusalem. (Jerusalem was destroyed at the end of the Jewish-Roman War, 66-70 AD.)  Obviously such warnings are superfluous and disingenuous if Jerusalem has already been destroyed.  On this understanding Matthew, Mark, and Luke were written before 66 AD and John's Gospel was written after 70 AD.

Supporting such a view, in 1972, a Spanish-Catalan Jesuit scholar, Father Jose O'Callaghan of Barcelona claimed that the Dead Sea Scroll papyrus 7Q5 was a fragment of Mark's Gospel, it was from Mark 6:53.  Seeing as the community at Qumran was destroyed by the Romans about 66 AD this means that Mark's Gospel must have been written before 66 AD.  In other words 7Q5 is evidence of the early authorship of at least Mark's Gospel.  And if Mark could predict the coming destruction of Jerusalem then why not Luke and Matthew?

The dismissal of scholars of the possibility of Matthew, Mark, and Luke being written before the destruction of Jerusalem betrays a fundamental failure on their part to appreciate that this prediction of our Lord could have easily been a product of his understanding of the Old Testament.  The prediction of the destruction of Jerusalem is not merely in these three gospel accounts: it is also found in the book of Daniel:

and after three score and two weeks shall the Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince shall come and destroy the city and the sanctuary, and the end thereof shall be with a flood (i.e. "an overwhelming")... Daniel 9:26.

Though conservative evangelicals would say it was written about 535 BC, even the generally accepted date for the writing of Daniel amongst "the scholars" is about 165 BC.  There were many portions of the book of Daniel found amongst the Dead Sea Scrolls dateable to more than 100 BC.
There is no compelling reason to suppose the three Synoptic Gospels were written after the destruction of Jerusalem.  Our Lord could have been merely quoting the book of Daniel.
For more on 7Q5 see "The Jesus Papyrus" by Carsten P. Thiede and Matthew D'Ancona or "The First New Testament" by David Estrada and William White.
Finally, a related question and answer is found here:  Who assigned the gospel authors originally?


What is the source of the phrase "in your chamber bewail your sins"? In the Imitation of Christ, Thomas à Kempis writes (Book I, Chapter XX, paragraph 5):

  If you desire true sorrow of heart, seek the privacy of your cell and
  shut out the uproar of the world, as it is written: “In your chamber
  bewail your sins.”

Does “In your chamber bewail your sins” refer to a particular Scripture passage, or is something else in mind?

The Rev. William Benham's translation (available at Project Gutenberg) references this as Psalm 4:4. That translation renders the sentence thus:

  If thou wilt feel compunction within thy heart, enter into thy chamber and shut out the tumults of the world, as it is written, Commune with your own heart in your own chamber and be still.

The ESV translates Psalm 4:4 thus:

  Be angry, and do not sin;
      ponder in your own hearts on your beds, and be silent.

The Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition might be closer to the Vulgate used by Thomas' community since the Septuagint on which it is based might vary a bit from the Hebrew texts preferred by the ESV translators. It translates the verse (4:5, because the annotation text is treated as verse 1):

  Be angry, and sin not: the things you say in your hearts, be sorry for them upon your beds.

"be sorry for them upon your beds" is reasonably close to "in your chamber bewail your sins".


Why does St. Paul say that a husband is "divided" between his wife and God? According to Catholic theologians, why does St. Paul say that a husband is "divided" between pleasing his wife and pleasing God?
Can't a husband please God by pleasing his wife? Or is that what Paul meant?
1 Cor. 7:32-33:

But I would have you to be without solicitude. He that is without a wife, is solicitous for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please God.
But he that is with a wife, is solicitous for the things of the world, how he may please his wife: and he is divided.

The Navarre Bible New Testament Compact Edition's Note on 1 Cor 7:25-38

The excellence of virginity and celibacy has to do with the love of
God: the unmarried person can dedicate himself or herself to God more
fully than a married person can. "Both the sacrament of Matrimony and
virginity for the Kingdom of God come from the LORD himself. It is he
who gives them meaning and grants them the grace which is
indispensable for living them out in conformity with his will" (CCC,
1620).
[...]

It is plain but explaining ...
For the individual what is best for that person is the vocation to which one has been called to. So if God calls one to be married, that's the best for that person. If God calls another to virginity or celibacy, one achieves their sanctity by responding to that call and living truthfully their vocation in life.
The Church has always held and upheld the excellence of virginity and celibacy over marriage1 for the simple reason that those who have received it please God directly without the mediation of an earthly and noble love. They live here and now Jesus' own calling[cf. Mt 19:12] and what will be our state in the age to come.

1. cf. Virginity or Celibacy for the Sake of the Kingdom | General Audience 10 March 1982 | Pope St. John Paul II [the Great].


Does God hate unborn children? Did God hate unborn Esau?

  Romans 9:11 Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good
  or bad ... 13 Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I
  hated.”

How does this square with the concept that God loves everyone? How should I know He didn't hate me as a child?

Romans 9:13 is quoting one of my favorite verses in all of scripture - Malachi 1:2-5.  Here's what it says:

2 “I have loved you,” says the Lord.
“But you ask, ‘How have you loved us?’
“Was not Esau Jacob’s brother?” declares the Lord. “Yet I have loved Jacob, but Esau I have hated, and I have turned his hill country into a wasteland and left his inheritance to the desert jackals. ”
4 Edom may say, “Though we have been crushed, we will rebuild the ruins.”
But this is what the Lord Almighty says: “They may build, but I will demolish. They will be called the Wicked Land, a people always under the wrath of the Lord. 5 You will see it with your own eyes and say, ‘Great is the Lord—even beyond the borders of Israel!’

A few things to note about the context:

Even this "hatred" is in the context of love. The whole point is God telling Israel how much He has and does love Israel.
This "hatred" is a comparative preference for Israel over its enemy Edom. If, say, my wife hates Rosie O'Donnell, she would, most likely, expect me to hold her in contempt as well.  (Note: I'm not saying what one should do, but rather, what one is likely to do. In any case, with Rosie O'Donnell, it's pretty universal, so the point is moot.) God blessed Jacob, just as he promised he would - and he didn't out and out give up on Edom. But, comparatively speaking, he clearly preferred Israel over its enemy.
This is talking not about unborn children, but about nations. Notice how the text seemlessly moves from Esau to his descendants, the nation of Edom. (Incidentally, Obadiah lists some of the complaints against Esau / Edom.)


What fancy word describing a church's stance on the Eucharist most closely applies to Mormonism? Do Mormons believe in transubstantiation, or consubstantiation, or the Lutheran "sacramental union", or the Calvinist "mystical presence", or perhaps a more Zwinglian "purely symbolic" approach?

Is there a quick and easy way to sum up the Mormon view on the Eucharist such as I have enumerated above? (Leaving aside the fact that they use water rather than wine or grape juice)

In the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints the Eucharist is generally called "the Sacrament." Though priesthood authority is required to administer it, there is no concept of transubstantiation or cosubstantiation. The act of taking the bread and water is a token of rememberance of Christ and a renewal of baptismal and other covenants necessary for repentance.

More information about the Sacrament can be found here


Did any early church fathers, other than Augustine, condemn or write about numerology? I came across this quote by St.Augustine:

  “The good Christian should beware of mathematicians. The danger already exists that mathematicians have made a covenant with the devil to darken the spirit and confine man in the bonds of Hell.”   - St.Augustine of Hippo

It is my understanding that mathematicians at the time were associated with astrology and numerology, hence St.Augustine's harsh words. Did any of the other early church fathers condemn or write about numerology? If so, was the numerology different from modern Christian/Jewish numerology like the Bible Code or Torah Code?

I don't think there is any hot opposition to numerology directly made by the early church. The opposition is more about the so called 'mathematics' that you found Augustine complaining about. Even earlier, around AD 383, there is an interesting Canon against 'mathematics' that Bishops who assembled at Constantinople defined.

  CANON XXXVI
  They who are of the priesthood, or of the clergy, shall not be magicians, enchanters, mathematicians, or astrologers; nor shall they make what are called amulets, which are chains for their own souls. And those who wear such, we command to be cast out of the Church. (NICENE AND
  POST-NICENE FATHERS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH, P170, PHILIP SCHAFF)

To interpret the remaining of that Canon in the twelfth century Balsamin makes an interesting comment:

  “Magicians” are those who for any purpose call Satan to their aid. “Enchantors” are those who sing charms or incantations, and through them draw demons to obey them. “Mathematicians” are they who hold the opinion that the celestial bodies rule the universe, and that all earthly things are ruled by their influence. “Astrologers” are they who divine by the stars through the agency of demons, and place their faith in them.(NICENE AND
  POST-NICENE FATHERS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH, P170, PHILIP SCHAFF)

I think this is pretty reliable and shows that the church was not opposing mathematics as we know it, or even numerology specifically (although any deeply superstitious element of numerology that assumed an influence of pagan gods would naturally be condemned) but rather the Greek and Roman quasi religious pagan beliefs in fate and destiny as a result of the planets being gods and supernatural powers. These were the mathematical religious philosophical groups that the church seems to oppose.

Actually the Catholic church at a early period starting using a lot of mystical interpretation techniques that borders on numerology depending on how we define it. Jewish groups before and after Christ also engaged in various numerology to explain scripture in mystical and sometimes plainly outrageous ways. Basically numerical mysticism was only opposed if it had a pagan sub framework but numerology derived from scripture even if to predict the future from a prophecy was okay. Predicting the future from a pagan mathematical system would have been considered an occultist divination, naturally condemned. The idea of a pure non-religious belief in numbers as having a hidden meaning probably did not exist at the time but would probably not have been opposed very much as numbers came from God who made the week to have seven days, etc. So your only numerology option in the church was a biblical based one that condemned all pagan based alternatives.

What your question does make me wonder about is how do the three wise men fit into all this as they seemed to be mathematicians and astrologers somehow finding Christ. Of course I don't support those subjects either but it does make the gospel account seem interesting that Christ could even use such methods to draw pagans to him.


Does God punish people for their ancestors' sins or not? Exodus 20:5 (NASB) says,

You shall not worship [idols] or serve them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me,

But Ezekiel 18:20 (NASB) says

The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself.

How are these two passages reconciled?

I believe you are asking two questions.  I'll answer the one in the heading first:
Does God punish people for their ancestors' sins or not?

Yes, in the Christian traditions (majority of the denominations) God absolutely does "punish" the children of those who committed sin - else there would be no original sin.

1 Corinthians 15:22 KJV

  For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

and

Romans 5:12-21 KJV

  12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by
  sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

  13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed
  when there is no law.

  14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that
  had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is
  the figure of him that was to come.

The second question is:

How can Exodus 20:5 and Ezekiel 18:20 be reconciled?

Reading the end of Ezekiel 18 explains it:

Ezekiel 18:30-32 NIV

  30 “Therefore, you Israelites, I will judge each of you according to
  your own ways, declares the Sovereign Lord. Repent! Turn away from all
  your offenses; then sin will not be your downfall. 31 Rid yourselves
  of all the offenses you have committed, and get a new heart and a new
  spirit. Why will you die, people of Israel? 32 For I take no pleasure
  in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign Lord. Repent and live!

Therefore, to repent and come to God will stop the inherited sin.  In a similar regard, mainstream Christianity teaches that believing in Jesus (thus repenting) will stop the cycle of sin (see original sin) and allow you to live.  Exactly what it means to "believe" in Jesus differs by denomination.

TLDR:

God punishes people for the previous generation's sin.  Repenting stops this cycle but doing nothing continues the sin's wrath.


Why is God said to have married a couple? As I understand it, the Catholic Catechism states that divorce is an impossibility because "What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." (Mark 10:9). Is this understanding complete and correct?

If so, how is it that God is the one said to be marrying the people (presumably through the person of the officiant), whereas it is merely man that is trying to divorce? It seems peculiar to me that forming the bond is viewed as God's role, whereas dissolving it is only Man's role.

The Essentials

Marriage is a Sacrament.

The Church has nothing to do with a divorce. (That's a civil matter).
The passages in Matthew 19 and Mark 10 are pretty clear about Moses permitting divorce because the peoples' hearts had hardened, while the original law is that "two shall become one flesh" which Jesus pointedly reminds his audience.  (You're Doing It Wrong!).

If the Sacrament of Marriage is entered into, then God is by definition involved and the Church by its own rules CANNOT be the instrument of its dissolution.  The Church neither supports nor condones divorce in such a case.  In that case the Church will not issue a Decree of Nullity.

If the Sacrament of Marriage was not entered into (via a defect of some kind, details in the Code of Canon Law1) then God wasn't in the marriage from the beginning, and the Church can issue a decree of Nullity.  It takes a Tribunal to determine this (a non-trivial process) and the two are then free to marry.

In case(4) a civil divorce decree and the Decree of Nullity will match up. In case (3) they won't, and the two are not free to marry (validly, in the church).

The above is consistent with the verses you cite, there is no contradiction.

Discussion
There is a point cited in Genesis, and in Mark 10 / Matthew 19:5 about  how "a man shall leave his father and mother, and the two shall become one flesh."  The intent divined from Scripture is that marriage does something profound and permanent.

Matthew 10: 6-9
3 He said to them in reply, "What did Moses command you?"
4 They replied, "Moses permitted him to write a bill of divorce and dismiss her."
5 But Jesus told them, "Because of the hardness of your hearts he wrote you this commandment.
6 But from the beginning of creation, 'God made them male and female.
7 For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother (and be joined to his wife)
8 and the two shall become one flesh.' So they are no longer two but one flesh.
9 Therefore what God has joined together, no human being must separate."

The Catechism expands upon that in addressing the Sacrament of Marriage:

The marriage bond
1639 The consent by which the spouses mutually give and receive one
another is sealed by God himself.  From their covenant arises "an
institution, confirmed by the divine law, . . . even in the eyes of
society." The covenant between the spouses is integrated into God's
covenant with man: "Authentic married love is caught up into divine
love."
1640 Thus the marriage bond has been established by God himself in
such a way that a marriage concluded and consummated between baptized
persons can never be dissolved.  This bond, which results from the
free human act of the spouses and their consummation of the marriage,
is a reality, henceforth irrevocable, and gives rise to a covenant
guaranteed by God's fidelity. the Church does not have the power to
contravene this disposition of divine wisdom.

The church holds that the two remain married unless as a result of the investigation and ruling of a Tribunal, a defect is uncovered that demonstrates that the sacrament was not in fact entered into/conferred upon the couple.
If the sacrament was conferred, the church will NOT issue a decree of nullity.  Divorce is a secular proceeding that won't change the Church's position that the two remain husband and wife.
If the sacrament is found to not have been conferred, due to a defect, then a Decree of Nullity may be issued and the two are free to marry.  (The sub text here is that "you weren't validly married if the sacrament was not present").
The core concept is that a marriage is until death do us part.  (Or as now said, "as long as we both shall live").  The marriage is viewed as far more than a contract or a ceremony, it is a sacrament, which is generally defined as a visible sign of invisible Grace.  In the case of marriage, that Grace is the unification of two people into one.  This requires profound selflessness and commitment.
To put it in coarser terms, if you aren't serious about this whole unity thing, you are not entering the marriage honestly.  (Dishonest entry into marriage is one of the defects that can be found by a Tribunal considering Nullity decrees).  By design, as the Church teaches it, marriage is meant to be a calling of service to each other and to the community.  It is one of three Vocation (the two others being priesthood and the vocation of the single life) so the Church encourages those considering marriage to take it seriously.  This points to the marriage being a Good Thing(TM) well beyond its goodness for the two getting married.  It's good for the whole community.  An older teaching presents marriage from a slightly different angle.
"GAUDIUM ET SPES (article 48)"

The intimate partnership of married life and love has been established by the Creator and qualified by His laws, and is rooted in the jugal covenant of irrevocable personal consent.  Hence by that human act whereby spouses mutually bestow and accept each other a relationship arises which by divine will and in the eyes of society too is a lasting one.  For the good of the spouses and their
off-springs as well as of society, the existence of the sacred bond no longer depends on human decisions alone.  For, God Himself is the author of matrimony, endowed as it is with various benefits and purposes. (St. Augustine, De Bene coniugali PL 40, 375-376 and 394, St. Thomas, Summa Theologica, Suppl. Quaest. 49, art. 3 ad 1, Decretum pro Armenis: Denz.-Schoen. 1327; Pius XI, encyclical letter Casti Connubii: AAS 22 (1930, pp. 547-548; Denz.-Schoen. 3703-3714.)  All of these have a very decisive bearing on the continuation of the human race, on the personal development and eternal destiny of the individual members of a family, and on the dignity, stability, peace and prosperity of the family itself and of human society as a whole.  By their very nature, the institution of matrimony itself and conjugal love are ordained for the procreation and education of children, and find in them their ultimate crown. Thus a man and a woman, who by their compact of conjugal love "are no longer two, but one flesh" (Matt. 19:ff), render mutual help and service to each other through an intimate union of their persons and of their actions.  Through this union they experience the meaning of their oneness and attain to it
with growing perfection day by day. As a mutual gift of two persons, this intimate union and the good of the children impose total fidelity on the spouses and argue for an unbreakable oneness between them. (Pius XI, encyclical letter Casti Connubii: AAS 22 (1930), pp. 546-547; Denz.-Schoen. 3706)

1 Code of Canon Law 1083 to 1094 lists impediments, (I only include some examples):
SPECIFIC DIRIMENT IMPEDIMENTS
Can.  1083 §1. A man before he has completed his sixteenth year of age and a woman before she has completed her fourteenth year of age cannot enter into a valid marriage. §2. The conference of bishops is free to establish a higher age for the licit celebration of marriage.
Can.  1085 §1. A person bound by the bond of a prior marriage, even if it was not consummated, invalidly attempts marriage.
Can.  1087 Those in sacred orders invalidly attempt marriage.
Can.  1088 Those bound by a public perpetual vow of chastity in a religious institute invalidly attempt marriage.
Can.  1089 No marriage can exist between a man and a woman who has been abducted or at least detained with a view of contracting marriage with her unless the woman chooses marriage of her own accord after she has been separated from the captor and established in a safe and free place.
Can.  1090 §1. Anyone who with a view to entering marriage with a certain person has brought about the death of that person’s spouse or of one’s own spouse invalidly attempts this marriage.  §2. Those who have brought about the death of a spouse by mutual physical or moral cooperation also invalidly attempt a marriage together.
Can.  1091 §1. In the direct line of consanguinity marriage is invalid between all ancestors and descendants, both legitimate and natural. §2. In the collateral line marriage is invalid up to and including the fourth degree.
§3. The impediment of consanguinity is not multiplied.  §4. A marriage is never permitted if doubt exists whether the partners are related by consanguinity in any degree of the direct line or in the second degree of the collateral line.
Can.  1092 Affinity in the direct line in any degree invalidates a marriage.
Can.  1094 Those who are related in the direct line or in the second degree of the collateral line by a legal relationship arising from adoption cannot contract marriage together validly.


Why don't Protestants engage in monasticism? One distinction between the vast majority of Protestant denominations and those of the Roman Catholic Church and Orthodox Church is the lack of monasteries and a monastic class. What is an overview of why Protestant denominations generally don't have monks?

Luther and Calvin
Protestant negativity toward monasticism can be traced back to the Reformers, particularly Martin Luther.  Luther was himself a monk, and after his conversion, he became progressively more opposed to the practice.  In 1537, he wrote that monastic vows "must be absolutely abolished."  He also frequently and enthusiastically attacked monasticism in his writings and sermons.
Other reformers, like John Calvin, followed him.  Calvin devotes a large portion of Book 4, Chapter 13 of his Institutes to the question.  He speaks somewhat favorably of Augustine's depictions of early monasticism, but he widely criticizes the 16th-century version, saying that "no order of men is more polluted by all sorts of foul vices" (4.13.15) and using words like "abominable" and "pestilential" to describe monasticism and its errors (4.13.12).
Doctrinal Criticisms
A concise criticism of monasticism can be found in the Augsburg Confession, the primary confession of the Lutherans.  Article 27, On Monastic Vows, admits that the monasteries were once "profitable to the church," but lists a number of evils that had been introduced by Luther's time, such as:

Propensity toward ensnaring the weak and ignorant (5-8)
Elevation of the monastic vows to being meritorious in themselves (11)
Elevation of monasticism above other vocations (13)
Rejection of the command to marry (18-21)
Holding people to vows perpetually, without recourse, especially those entered into too early (27-33)

Thus, the confession concludes:

So many wicked opinions are inherent in the vows, namely, that they justify, that they constitute Christian perfection, that they keep the counsels and commandments, that they have works of supererogation. All these things, since they are false and empty, make vows null and void.

Calvin and Luther's objections to the practice follow along these same lines, and also include denunciations of the "idleness" of monastics (Calvin, 4.13.10).  Given these objections, and the enthusiastic criticism of the practice by these and other early Protestant leaders, it's not surprising that monasticism has not generally existed among Protestants.
Early Reaction
An example of early Protestant reaction against suspected monasticism can be found in a 1641 Puritan pamphlet entitled The Arminian Nunnery, written in relation to a small religious community called Little Gidding. The author's initial concerns include women "watching and praying all night," their "canonical hours," and the decorations of their chapel, all of which "strongly savour of Superstition and Popery."
These concerns were not assuaged by the fact that two of the women, thirty and thirty-two years of age, were virgins who had given themselves to fasting and prayer.  The author attacks this as "a contemplative idle life" that insinuates that other callings are not service to God.  He admits the point that the women "had made no Vows," but finds many vestiges of Catholicism worthy of criticism.
The Arminian Nunnery thus mirrors several of the criticisms mentioned above, particularly those of rejection of marriage, the elevation of monasticism above other professions, the concern over vows, and the idleness of monastics.
Modern Day
Some modern Protestant "monastic" communities exist, among Anglicans and more generally within Protestantism.  Notably, other than in the most conservative Anglican orders,  even these tend to avoid at least some of the issues raised in Augsburg, by relaxing or not requiring vows of celibacy, poverty, or obedience.


Are silent prayers heard? Growing up in the church, silent prayers are pretty much part of how I pray.  However, challenging assumptions, I'm curious to know how biblical this is.

Every prayer I've found in the Bible is spoken out loud.  So, what is the biblical basis for praying silently?  Is there any biblical indication that praying silently is just as effective and beneficial as praying out loud?

Both Genesis 6:5 and 1 Chronicles 28:9 (and myriad other passages) indicate God can understand our thoughts.

So, can God "hear" our silent prayers? Of course!

Is it better to pray out loud than to pray silently? Since there seem to be no instances in the Bible of a recorded silent prayer (other than in the Epistles where Paul writes how he prays for people, or even writes a prayer to the Lord) - I don't think you could make the argument that praying silently is "better" than praying out loud.

However, I also think that since God looks at our motives, and we are told to "pray in secret", that silent prayers are going to be as effective if they are of the same heart as our aloud ones.


Are there any documented cases of paranormal activity preceding or during an exorcism? Movies such as The Exorcist have popularized the notion of paranormal phenomena surrounding an episode of demonic possession. And after reading of someone's personal experiences with Catholic exorcists, I can't help but feel even more interested in this subject matter. Are there any documented cases of paranormal phenomena taking place prior to and/or during an exorcism? Answers need not be restricted to the Catholic Church, any documented instance of demonic deliverance performed by any denomination where paranormal phenomena was reported is fine.

Are there any documented cases of paranormal activity preceding or during an exorcism?
Generally speaking such questions are more interesting for those who are somewhat curious in such matters than more so on an academic level. At least this is my own take on it.
That said, it is not in the interest of those who have suffered directly from the hands of the Demon through what we call a demonic possession. Victims of such events have the right to live normal lives. Some information about their past is truly no one’s business.
Only in very rare cases does the Catholic Church reveal information about what has transpired just before or during an official exorcism.
A few of the cases that may be permitted are historically known as such:

Exorcists are allowed explain the details to the bishop of the local diocese.
Exorcists may divulge what has happened during exorcisms during the process of beatification or canonization of a particular individual.
Exorcists May be required by law to give testimony in civil court during legal proceedings.
Other cases may exist.

The local Ordinary (bishop) is the only person that may accord permission to a priest of his diocese to perform an exorcism. As such an exorcist is answerable to the bishop of that diocese and no one else.

Can. 1172 §1. No one can perform exorcisms legitimately upon the possessed unless he has obtained special and express permission from the local ordinary.
§2. The local ordinary is to give this permission only to a presbyter who has piety, knowledge, prudence, and integrity of life.

However it does happen that Exorcists Priests are required to shed light on such proceedings in court, as in the case of Anneliese Michel. Sadly not all exorcisms are successful as this one points out.

Anna Elisabeth "Anneliese" Michel (21 September 1952 – 1 July 1976) was a German woman who underwent 67 Catholic exorcism rites during the year before her death. She died of malnutrition, for which her parents and priest were convicted of negligent homicide. She was diagnosed with epileptic psychosis (temporal lobe epilepsy) and had a history of psychiatric treatment, which was overall not effective.
When Michel was 16, she experienced a seizure and was diagnosed with psychosis caused by temporal lobe epilepsy. Shortly thereafter, she was diagnosed with depression and was treated by a psychiatric hospital. By the time she was 20, she had become intolerant of various religious objects and began to hear voices. Her condition worsened despite medication, and she became suicidal, also displaying other symptoms, for which she took medication as well. After taking psychiatric medications for five years failed to improve her symptoms, Michel and her family became convinced she was possessed by a demon. As a result, her family appealed to the Catholic Church for an exorcism. While rejected at first, after much hesitation, two priests got permission from the local bishop in 1975.3 The priests began conducting exorcism sessions and the parents stopped consulting doctors. Anneliese Michel stopped eating food and died due to malnourishment and dehydration after 67 exorcism sessions. Michel's parents and the two Roman Catholic priests were found guilty of negligent homicide and were sentenced to six months in jail (reduced to three years of probation), as well as a fine.
Several films are based on her story, among them the 2005 film The Exorcism of Emily Rose and the award-winning 2006 film Requiem, as well as the 2011 film Anneliese: The Exorcist Tapes.
Exorcism
The priest Ernst Alt, whom they met, on seeing her declared that "she didn't look like an epileptic" and that he did not see her having seizures.[12] Alt believed she was suffering from demonic possession and urged the local bishop to allow an exorcism. In a letter to Alt in 1975, Michel wrote, "I am nothing; everything about me is vanity. What should I do? I have to improve. You pray for me" and also once told him, "I want to suffer for other people...but this is so cruel". In September of the same year, Bishop Josef Stangl granted the priest Arnold Renz permission to exorcise according to the Rituale Romanum of 1614, but ordered total secrecy. Renz performed the first session on 24 September. Michel began talking increasingly about "dying to atone for the wayward youth of the day and the apostate priests of the modern church", and she refused to eat towards the end. At this point, her parents stopped consulting doctors on her request and relied solely on the exorcism rites. 67 exorcism sessions; one or two each week, lasting up to four hours, were performed over about ten months in 1975–1976.
Prosecution
After an investigation, the state prosecutor maintained that Michel's death could have been prevented even one week before she died.
In 1976, the state charged Michel's parents and priests Ernst Alt and Arnold Renz with negligent homicide. The parents were defended by Erich Schmidt-Leichner; their lawyers were sponsored by the Church. The state recommended that no involved parties be jailed; instead, the recommended sentence for the priests was a fine, while the prosecution concluded that the parents should be exempt from punishment as they had "suffered enough", which is a criterion in German penal law, cf. § 60 StGB.
Trial
The trial started on 30 March 1978 in the district court and drew intense interest. Before the court, doctors testified that Michel was not possessed, stating that this was a psychological effect because of her strict religious upbringing and her epilepsy, but the doctor Richard Roth, who was asked for medical help by Alt, allegedly told her during the exorcism, that "there is no injection against the devil, Anneliese". Schmidt-Leichner said that the exorcism was legal and that the German constitution protected citizens in the unrestricted exercise of their religious beliefs. The defense played tapes recorded at the exorcism sessions, sometimes featuring what was claimed to be "demons arguing", to assert their claim that Michel was possessed. Both priests said the demons identified themselves as Lucifer, Cain, Judas Iscariot, Belial, Legion, Hitler and Nero among others; they further said that she was finally freed because of the exorcism just before her death.
The bishop said that he was not aware of her alarming health condition when he approved of the exorcism and did not testify. The accused were found guilty of manslaughter resulting from negligence and were sentenced to six months in jail (which was later suspended) and three years of probation.[18] It was a far lighter sentence than anticipated,7 but it was more than requested by the defense, who had asked that the priests only be fined and that the parents be found guilty but not punished. The Church approving such an old fashioned exorcism rite drew public and media attention. According to John M. Duffey, the case was a misidentification of mental illness.

Anneliese Michel
If one desires document cases of paranormal activity, allow my to suggest three sources. One is of demonic activity, one is in the case of an exorcism and one is about thee most famous exorcist known. All three are saints.
Pope Gregory the Great (540-March 12, 604) reveals an interest story in his Dialogues about demonic manifestations. The Dialogues are a collection of four books of miracles, signs, wonders, and healings done by the holy men, mostly monastic, of sixth-century Italy, with the second book entirely devoted to a popular life of Saint Benedict.
Strictly speaking this example is not of an exorcism, but given as an historical note.

Chapter Seven: of Andrew, Bishop of Funda.
But as I am thus busied in telling the acts of holy men, there cometh to my mind what God of his great mercy did for Andrew, Bishop of the city of Funda: which notable story I wish all so to read, that they which have dedicated themselves to continency, presume not in any wise to dwell amongst women: lest in time of temptation their soul perish the sooner, by having that at hand which is unlawfully desired. |114 Neither is the story which I report either doubtful or uncertain: for so many witnesses to justify the truth thereof may be produced, as there be almost inhabitants in that city. When, therefore, this venerable man Andrew lived virtuously, and with diligent care, answerable to his priestly function, led a continent and chaste life: he kept in his house a certain Nun, which also had remained with him before he was preferred to that dignity; for assuring himself of his own continency, and nothing doubting of hers, content he was to let her remain still in his house: which thing the devil took as an occasion to assault him with temptation: and so he began to present before the eyes of his mind the form of that woman, that by such allurements he might have his heart wholly possessed with ungodly thoughts. In the meantime it so fell out, that a Jew was travelling from Campania to Rome, who drawing nigh to the city of Funda, was so overtaken with night, that he knew not where to lodge, and therefore, not finding any better commodity, he retired himself into a temple of the god Apollo, which was not far off, meaning there to repose himself: but much afraid he was, to lie in so wicked and sacrilegious a place: for which cause, though he believed not what we teach of the cross, yet he thought good to arm himself with that sign. About midnight, as he lay waking for very fear of that forlorn and desert temple, and looked suddenly about him, he espied a troop of wicked spirits walking before another of greater authority: who coming in took up his place, and sat down in the body of the temple: where he began diligently to inquire of those his servants, how they had bestowed their time, and what villany they had done in the world. And when each one told what he had done against God's servants, out stepped a companion, and made solemn relation, with a notable temptation of carnality he had put into the mind of |115 Bishop Andrew, concerning that Nun which he kept in his palace: whereunto whiles the master devil gave attentive ear, considering with himself what a notable gain it would be, to undo the soul of so holy a man; the former devil went on with his tale, and said that the very evening before he assaulted him so mightily, that he drew him so far forth, that he did merrily strike the said Nun upon the back. The wicked serpent and old enemy of mankind hearing this joyful news, exhorted his agent with very fair words, diligently to labour about the effecting of that thing which he had already so well begun, that for so notable a piece of service, as the contriving the spiritual ruin of that virtuous Prelate, he might have a singular reward above all his fellows. The Jew who all this while lay waking, and heard all that which they said, was wonderfully afraid: at length the master devil sent some of his followers to see who he was, and how he durst presume to lodge in their temple. When they were come, and had narrowly viewed him, they found that he was marked with the mystical sign of the cross: whereat they marvelled and said: "Alas, alas, here is an empty vessel, but yet it is signed": which news the rest of those hell-hounds hearing, suddenly vanished away. The Jew, who had seen all that which then passed among them, presently rose up, and in all haste sped himself to the Bishop, whom he found in the church: and taking him aside, he demanded with what temptation he was troubled: but shame so prevailed, that by no means he would confess the truth. Then the Jew replied and told him, that he had cast his eyes wickedly upon such a one of God's servants; but the Bishop would not acknowledge that there was any such thing. "Why do you deny it," quoth the Jew, "for is it not so true that yesternight you were brought so far by sinful temptation, that you did strike her on the back?" When the Bishop, by these particulars, |116 perceived that the matter was broken forth, he humbly confessed what before he obstinately denied. Then the Jew, moved with compassion to his soul, and tendering his credit, told him by what means he came to the knowledge thereof, and what he heard of him in that assembly of wicked spirits. The Bishop, hearing this, fell prostrate upon the earth, and betook himself to his prayers: and straight after he discharged out of his house, not only that Nun, but all other women that attended upon her. And not long after, he converted the temple of Apollo into an oratory of the blessed Apostle, St. Andrew: and never after was he troubled with that carnal temptation: and the Jew, by whose means he was so mercifully preserved, he brought to everlasting salvation: for he baptized him, and made him a member of holy Church, And thus, by God's providence, the Jew having care of the spiritual health of another, attained also himself the singular benefit of the same: and almighty God by the same means brought one to embrace piety and virtue, by which he preserved another in an holy and godly life.

PETER. This history which I have heard worketh in me fear, and yet withal giveth me cause of hope.

GREGORY. That is not amiss, Peter, for necessary it is that we should both trust upon the mercy of God, and yet, considering our own frailty, be afraid: for we have now heard how one of the cedars of Paradise was shaken, and yet not blown down, to the end that, knowing our own infirmity, we should both tremble at his shaking, and yet conceive hope, in that he was not overthrown, but kept his standing still.

The next example, is  I will bring up is about St. Mary of Jesus Crucified. This saint was canonized on May 17, 2017 and was actually possessed by the demon on two separate occasions. The last one was for forty days.
Amongst the phenomenon that that exorcists (2) noted down in her process of canonization was that the day she was freed from the Demon was the the body of the saint seemed to be all burnt up and smelled like burned sulphur. She eventually came out of the successful exorcisms with no injuries whatsoever.
This can be read in the French edition on the life of Mary of Jesus Crucified (Vie de Soeur Marie de Jesus Crucifie (1846-1878) by P. Estrange). Of interest is chapter VII (pages 105-123). Not sure a full edition exists in English. An abridged edition will lack the details of the original works.
In conversion between the exorcist(s) and the Demons, the Devils refused to use the names of Jesus or Mary. The referenced the pope an and bishops as the ”White Robe” and “Purple Robes”. Jesus was often referred to as ”The Chief”. Mary was referred to as ”The Blue Robe”. (These are the polite phrases employed by the Grappin!
Because of the sanctity of this saint, Our Lord did not allow the Demons to use the body of St. Mary of Jesus to make sexually suggestive acts because she had never sinned in this domain.
The final example concerns the Cure d’Ars also known as St. John Vianney. St. John Vianney is thee most famous Catholic Exorcist that the Church has ever seen.
Monsignor François Trochu, the postulated of the cause of beatification and canonization of Jean Vianney dedicates a whole chaper (XI) to The Curé of Ars and the Devil (pages 222- 243) mentions numerous things the Demons’ paranormal activity.
They include that following:

Excrement smeared on religious paintings.
Noises of various forms and types.
Sensations of mice or rats running over one’s body.
Satan’s  manifesto to the saint: ”Magister Caput” (The Master or The Chief)
Devil refuses to call Jesus by his name or use the name of Mary or acknowledge the authority of a bishop. Thus stated, the Evil One employs phrases like The Boss for Jesus; The Blue Robe for Mary, the Mother of Jesus; The Purple Robe for the bishop! St. John Vianney referred to the Devil as the  Grappin! The Devil not wanting to be made fun of, called the Cure d’Ars the *Potato Eater because of his continuous fasting and eating only a potato only, every 3 or 4 days.

The Cure d’Ars was so well known in this subject of expertise that he was allowed for life to perform exorcisms at Ars, with the bishops permission at his own discretion.

At one point the Devil burned John Vianney’s bed. The Story of the Cure of Ars How the Devil hates the conversion of sinners and the Cure of Ars knew this.


Do any Church Fathers comment on the merciful Nature of Stoning (Catholicism)? The Mosaic Law's penal system (among others) includes the severe punishment of death by stoning. To be a little gruesome here: it takes a while to be killed in this way, and so there would theoretically be sufficient time (and impetus) for repentance and penitence before God—and consequently the punishment would take care of most or all of the temporal punishment due to the sin committed.

One Scripture especially comes to mind:

  1 Corinthians 5:1-5 (DRB)  It is absolutely heard, that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as the like is not among the heathens; that one should have his father's wife. 2 And you are puffed up; and have not rather mourned, that he might be taken away from among you, that hath done this deed. 3 I indeed, absent in body, but present in spirit, have already judged, as though I were present, him that hath so done, 4 In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, you being gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus; 5 To deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Question

Do any Church Fathers write along these lines (the merciful/practical, and not merely penal, nature of the death penalty)?

Do any Church Fathers comment on the merciful nature of stoning (Catholicism)?

The short answer seems to be no. No Church Father seems to have written on the subject of the merciful nature of stoning.

Some have written on the subject of capital punishment, but opinions seem to be a little bit complicated in their analyses of that subject.

The Catholic Encyclopedia offers no supporting writings of any of the Church Fathers in its’ article on Stoning in Scripture

  Palestine being a very rocky country, the abundance of stones made it natural to use them as missiles. Stone throwing might be merely a mark of hatred and contempt (2 Samuel 16:6-13), or the means of carrying out murderous intentions against which provision had to be made in the Law (Exodus 21:18, Numbers 35:17). Stoning to death which was at first an expression of popular fury analogous to "lynching", later came to be a natural and legally recognized method of execution. It was this regulated by law as an appointed means of capital punishment (Deuteronomy 17:5-7; Acts 7:58). Death by stoning is prescribed in the Pentateuch as the penalty for eighteen different crimes including Sabbath-breaking, but for one crime only — murder — is it the penalty prescribed in all the codes. The execution of the criminal usually took place outside the city walls, and according to Deuteronomy 17:7, the witnesses in the case were to cast the first stone: "Thou shalt bring forth the man or the woman, who have committed that most wicked thing, to the gates of thy city, and they shall be stoned. By the mouth of two or three witnesses shall he die who is to be slain.... The hands of the witnesses shall be first upon him to kill him, and afterwards the hands of the rest of the people". (Deuteronomy 17:5-7). Stoning is also mentioned in Acts 7:57-58, as the means by which Stephen the first Christian martyr was put to death: "And casting him forth without the city, they stoned him."

In fact, the Church Fathers have written very little on the subject of the death penalty at all and it seems any reference to stoning is not included.

  How did the earliest Christians view the practice of capital punishment?

  To borrow a phrase from social media: It’s complicated.

  The issue arises in just a handful of documents from the first three centuries, and those few instances are sometimes vague, ambivalent or wavering. They resist the most ardent modern efforts to find consistency.

  In the first century, Clement of Rome lamented the unjust execution of biblical heroes at the hands of wicked rulers (1 Clement 45). “The righteous were indeed persecuted, but only by the wicked. They were cast into prison, but only by the unholy; they were stoned, but only by transgressors; they were slain, but only by the accursed.” He spoke of specific instances of people wrongly accused and killed. But he did not say, or even imply, that the death penalty could never be administered justly, or that only the unjust would execute a death sentence.

  Around A.D. 150, St. Justin Martyr said that Christians of his time “refrain from making war upon our enemies” and would rather die than take a life in self-defense (“First Apology,” 1.39). Justin was, of course, living in a time of persecution, when Christians had neither the means nor the authority to wage war or sentence anyone to death. It is difficult to say whether he intended to claim absolute pacifism as a perennial norm for Christians. If he did, he would have placed himself outside the mainstream of Christian thought.

  Perhaps the strongest and clearest early-Christian statement against the death penalty comes from Athenagoras of Athens (around A.D. 177). Responding to those who accused Christians of ritual murder, he said: “We cannot endure even to see a man put to death, though justly. … How, then, when we do not even look on, … can we put a man to death?” (“A Plea for the Christians,” 35).

  Again, however, the statement is not as binding as it might seem. He was defending the Church against the specific charge that its liturgies included child-murder. His intention was to establish that Christians were peace-loving people. He was not laying down universal moral principles.

  Indeed, in the next generation, Clement of Alexandria, took quite the opposite position: “When one falls into any incurable evil,” Clement said, “… it will be for his good if he is put to death” (Stromata 1.27). And Clement was, in fact, laying down moral principles.

  Yet Clement’s position was not universal. His contemporary Tertullian, a North African, decisively opposed the practice of capital punishment, claiming that the Creator “puts his interdict on every sort of man-killing” (“On the Shows,” 2). Tertullian was (like Justin) a pacifist who believed that Christians should not serve in the military. In this, he found company with Hippolytus, a Roman priest who urged pastors to deny baptism to any soldier whatsoever. “A military man in authority must not execute men. If he is ordered, he must not carry it out” (“Apostolic Tradition,” 16.9).

  Yet we know, from the graves in the Roman Catacombs, that the early Christians were amply represented in all the branches of the military. Pacifism may have been the ideal of men like Tertullian and Hippolytus. But in the time of Marcus Aurelius, there was an entirely Christian unit in the Roman army.

  As the third century turned over to the fourth, Lactantius, a prominent Christian intellectual, opposed capital punishment, as it was the cause of death for many of his co-religionists during the Diocletian persecution. And Lactantius held this position as long as Christians were vulnerable. Yet, later — once Constantine, a Christian, had taken the imperial throne — the same Lactantius spoke in favor of the emperor’s right to impose the death penalty.

  The early Christians’ treatment of capital punishment differed essentially from their condemnation of certain other forms of killing — abortion and infanticide, for example, and the blood sport of the gladiatorial games. In each of those cases, the judgment was consistently straightforward, unhesitating and unequivocal.

  But when modern scholars survey the first Christians’ positions on the death penalty, they come to vastly different conclusions.

  Cardinal Avery Dulles said: “The early Christians evidently had nothing against the death penalty … [T]he Fathers and Doctors of the Church are virtually unanimous in their support for capital punishment.”

  The great Fathers of the fourth and fifth centuries — Ambrose, Chrysostom, Augustine — recognized the right of the state to execute criminals, but urged rulers not to exercise that right. St. Ambrose told a Christian judge named Studius: “You will be excused if you do it, but you will be admired if you refrain when you might have done it” (“Letter,” 50).

  Ambrose’s disciple, St. Augustine, characterized the good Christian ruler as “slow to punish, but ready to pardon” (“City of God,” 5.24). He justified capital punishment when there was “no other established method of restraining the hostility of the desperate.” Then, he said, “perhaps extreme necessity would demand the killing of such people” (“Letter,” 134).

  Augustine recognized the state’s right to wield the sword, but he hoped that lethal use would be extremely rare. “As violence is used toward him who rebels and resists, so mercy is due to the vanquished or the captive, especially in the case in which future troubling of the peace is not to be feared” (“Letter,” 189).

  The later Fathers synthesized the various testimonies of their predecessors and concluded that mercy should predominate among Christian peoples, and life should be spared in all but the rarest cases. In this they speak with the same voice as the Catechism of the Catholic Church, St. John Paul II (Evangelium Vitae, 56) and indeed all the recent popes, the bishops of the United States and all the bishops’ conferences that have issued statements on the subject.

  In this matter as in most matters, we see consistency between the earliest Fathers and our current leaders and teachers — and greater clarity with the passage of time. - The early Church and the death penalty

Although the Church Fathers write little on to subject of capital punishment, the subject of stoning is obviously lacking. No obviously Church Father writes about the merciful nature of stoning as a form of execution at all.


Why do Jehovah's Witnesses exclude pagan influences from their doctrine? To my understanding, Jehovah's Witnesses try to exclude pagan influences from their practice.  Whether or not they do, what is their reason for doing this?

Based on this 15 December 2007 article from The Watchtower, called Can a Pagan Holiday Be Made Christian?, the answer comes from 2 Corinthians 6:14-17 (New World Translation).

  14Do not become unevenly yoked with unbelievers. For what fellowship do righteousness and lawlessness have? Or what sharing does light have with darkness? 15Further, what harmony is there between Christ and Be´li·al? Or what portion does a faithful person have with an unbeliever? 16And what agreement does God’s temple have with idols? For we are a temple of a living God; just as God said: “I shall reside among them and walk among [them], and I shall be their God, and they will be my people.” 17“‘Therefore get out from among them, and separate yourselves,’ says Jehovah, ‘and quit touching the unclean thing’”; “‘and I will take YOU in.’”