According to Catholic doctrine, would a cloned human being have a soul? Recently I heard from my devout religious acquaintance that, according to Christian (Catholic) faith, a cloned individual wouldn't actually be a person. She explained that a human being consists of a body and a soul (it's the philosophy of St Thomas, the conception is derived form Aristotle, I suppose). As the flesh can be created by scientists, only God can grant something (somebody) with a soul. As cloning is — according to her — an artificial way of creating a man, you can't divide the spirit like you can split the cells.

So I’m asking you a question: Is this really part of Catholic ethics? I understand that the Church is against cloning, but this is the first time I’ve heard that the “effect” of it is, so to say, punished. The same could apply to in vitro conception, but I suppose cloning could be taken as a more radical version of this.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that every human body is human because it has a soul imparted by God.

364 The human body shares in the dignity of "the image of God": it is a human body precisely because it is animated by a spiritual soul, and it is the whole human person that is intended to become, in the body of Christ, a temple of the Spirit:232

Man, though made of body and soul, is a unity. Through his very bodily condition he sums up in himself the elements of the material world. Through him they are thus brought to their highest perfection and can raise their voice in praise freely given to the Creator. For this reason man may not despise his bodily life. Rather he is obliged to regard his body as good and to hold it in honour since God has created it and will raise it up on the last day.233

365 The unity of soul and body is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the "form" of the body:234 i.e., it is because of its spiritual soul that the body made of matter becomes a living, human body; spirit and matter, in man, are not two natures united, but rather their union forms a single nature.
366 The Church teaches that every spiritual soul is created immediately by God — it is not "produced" by the parents — and also that it is immortal: it does not perish when it separates from the body at death, and it will be reunited with the body at the final Resurrection.235

Do read the answer on the status of in-vitro fertilisation, which is the creation of life by artificial (though naturally-based) means. Even though the Church cannot condone the method, it is life. The Holy See has recognised that reproductive cloning produces life, too:

In "reproductive" cloning, one at least gives the newly produced human being, innocent of his/her origin, a chance to develop and be born.

Where God allows human life to be created, it's human life because it has a soul (CCC364). The same would surely apply to a human clone: where God allows such an artificially-created organism to live, it has a soul by the very virtue of that life.
232 Cf. I Cor 6:19-20; 15:44-45.
233 Gaudium et Spes 14 § 1; cf. Dan 3:57-80.
234 Cf. Council of Vienne (1312): DS 902.
235 Cf. Pius XII, Humani generis: DS 3896; Paul VI, Credo of the People of God § 8; Lateran Council V (1513): DS 1440.


Why do Protestant Presbyterians no longer use a congregational Psalter? Growing up in Protestant Presbyterianism, the two great literature influences in my life were the Authorised Version and the Scottish Psalter.

I have visited many Protestant Presbyterian congregations over the last few years and I have seen not a Psalter among them.

Paul encourages the singing of Psalms to the Corinthians, (I Corinthians 14:26) to the Ephesians (Ephesians 5:19) and to the Colossians (Colossians 3:16).

Indeed, to this day, I sing through the 150 Psalms in order on a daily basis, but I now use the Metcalfe trilogy as I find it to be a more accurate rendering of the text.

What is the reason for Protestant Presbyterians no longer using a Psalter ?

I've been going to a Protestant Presbyterian church for 20 years now, with the metrical Scottish Psalter (led by a presentor) the only source of our musical worship up until 2010. It used the 1650 version approved by the Church of Scotland. I can only answer with regard to my particular denomination. Other Protestant Presbyterian groups may have other answers.

There was a special Plenary Assembly of 'my' denomination on 18th and 19th November 2010. I now quote from the official Statement issued from church headquarters. The event was

  "to discuss and resolve the issue of sung praise. The Free Church, for
  the last 100 years has been committed to the avoidance of uninspired
  materials of praise and musical instruments, following what it
  believed was the historical Reformed position on 'purity of worship'
  and the Regulative Principle. Over the last five years though, some
  Free Church ministers and office bearers have questioned whether this
  position is the only scriptural one. After the Assembly asked the
  Board of Trustees to set up a process for resolving the issue, it was
  agreed that the matter would be concluded at a Plenary Assembly to be
  composed of every minister plus an equal number of elders."

The main motion, which came from the Church's Board of Trustees, sought to retain the status quo, which is the

  'avoidance of uninspired materials of praise and musical instruments',
  but give more flexibility in understanding as to what is meant by
  that. But this motion was opposed by Rev.… , who proposed that the
  Free Church give liberty to individual congregations to sing
  scriptural hymns, as well as psalms, if their elders so chose. The
  debate, which lasted Thursday evening and most of Friday, was
  harmonious throughout. Rev....'s motion carried by a majority of 98 to
  84."

Because the 12-point 'Finding of Assembly' is so long a document, I will not copy it here, but I extract these points from it:

Based on the declaration that purity of worship requires that every aspect of worship services, including sung praise, be consistent with the Word of God and with the whole doctrine of the Confession of Faith approved by previous Assemblies, ordained that every service of congregational worship would include the singing of Psalms. Individual congregations could restrict the sung praise to the Psalms, or to include paraphrases of Scripture, and hymns and spiritual songs consistent with the doctrine of the Confession of Faith, and have freedom to permit musical accompaniment to the sung praise in worship, or not. Further, a visiting minister, presiding at a service where such changes had been enacted could exercise freedom not to have those changes.

The next steps were taken by individual congregations of the denomination. Stage 1 - Kirk Session discussion, Stage 2 -  Congregational consultation, Stage 3 Congregational meeting and Kirk Session decision. Different congregations came to different decisions, so you will find some sticking to purely unaccompanied Psalm singing, while others will have those plus other spiritual songs (usually with musical accompaniment.)

Our congregation voted by a clear majority to introduce 'uninspired' words of hymns, with keyboard accompaniment. The recurring reason given by those in favour (which I heard with my own ears) was that they longed to sing the Saviour's name in their sung praise. They wanted to praise the name of Jesus, who is only obliquely referred to in the Psalms (as the promised Messiah). Given that he has now come and is glorified in heaven, with all heaven singing the praises of him who sits on the throne AND the Lamb at the centre of the throne (Revelation 5:6-14 & 7:10-12 & 17 plus 22:1-3), it is fitting for Christians to sing about Jesus Christ, directly. The name of Jesus Christ is inspired, and inspiring. There was also reference to how the musical and poetic gifts of king David, and others, was not restricted only to them, centuries ago, with any kind of law that no others must compose worship music and verse. Heaven's throngs sing and nobody should be surprised, upon arriving there, that they sing new songs (Revelation 5:9) along with old ones (Revelation 15:3). Such views are also common in other Protestant Presbyterian denominations that have expanded their sung praise.

Despite our majority desire, two elders who objected said they would have to resign if the change was enacted, leaving our congregation with insufficient elders to 'run' it. Our of regard for them, no change happened. Yet, later, it did - I know not why. Perhaps some other elders had a word in their ear about blackmail?

I am very aware that this answer does not provide many reasons for this event, but that is because I was not privy to the debate, nor do I have the complete text which was made available by a local elder as well as being on the official denominational website eight years ago. I do not know if it is still on-line. As I was not brought up with the Scottish Psalter, only starting hymn-singing to an organ or piano from my mid-20s onward, and then only the Scottish Psalter 15 years later, and now a mixture of both these past eight years, I simply want to just sing to the Lord my God with a full heart, singing scripturally sound words. I have been known to stop singing at certain points in certain hymns, and a few modern 'choruses' I just will not sing at all. It can be a bit of a mine-field, I know, but the alternative is staying hunkered down in the trenches of 1650. But those last three sentences are merely my personal opinion. If pedants on here want me to remove them, otherwise they will remove my entire answer, I simply mention that that - precisely - exemplifies the entire problem with this vexed question of whether to use only the Psalter, or not.


Is Metatron actually part of Catholic dogma? Metatron is believed by some to be Enoch transformed into an angel. Some time ago on chat someone said that he is part of official Catholic dogma. However, I couldn't really confirm this with a cursory Google search as I keep running into stuff talking about Jewish beliefs. Thus, I'm wondering just how official Metatron is within Catholicism?

I am not a Catholic but I will try to answer anyway.

The term dogma has a specific technical meaning: it refers to a belief that Catholics are required by the Church to accept. There are many beliefs which are not dogmas, even if they are widely held to be true.

The book Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ludwig Ott (1952) is a standard reference. He lists ten beliefs under angelology.

In the beginning of time God created spiritual essences (angels) out of nothing.
The nature of angels is spiritual.
The angels are by nature immortal.
God set a supernatural final end for the angels, the immediate vision of God, and endowed them with sanctifying grace in order that they might achieve this end.
The angels were subjected to a moral testing.
The evil spirits (demons) were created good by God; they became evil through their own fault.
The primary task of the good angels is the glorification and the service of God.
The secondary task of the good angels is the protection of men and care for their salvation.
Every one of the faithful has his own special guardian angel from baptism.
The Devil posesses a certain dominion over mankind by reason of Adam's sin.

Among these, 1, 2, 8 and 10 are listed as "de fide", meaning true by reason of divine revelation; 4, 7 and 9 are "sententia certa", meaning theologically certain; 3 is "sententia communis", meaning commonly believed but not necessarily certain; and 5 is "certa" for the fallen angels and "communis" for the rest. No mention here of Metatron, or anything of the sort.

The Catholic Encyclopedia says under "Angels" that "no proposition touching the angelic hierarchies is binding on our faith". It refers to De Coelesti Hierarchia by Pseudo-Dionysus, and the Summa Theologica by Thomas Aquinas, as containing commonly accepted beliefs about the different types of angel; neither of these mention Metatron, or any figure fulfilling that role. All such writings are seen as speculative, and within the domain that theologians can legitimately argue about. Metatron crops up only in the encyclopedia entry for "Kabbala", but the context is explaining that it is a belief held within Judaism.

In conclusion, it seems that Metatron is very far from being Catholic dogma, or even a belief that many Catholics hold.


How far is too far when it comes to drinking alcohol? Why does the Bible praise the effects of alcohol? How are we supposed to know when those effects have gone too far? I am mostly confused about this verse:

  Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish, and wine unto
  those that be of heavy hearts. Proverbs 31:6

Phrases like "wine that maketh glad the heart of man" (Psalm 104:15) and "wine, which cheereth God and man" (Judges 9:13) seem to suggest that it's okay to seek the light pre-drunkenness that comes with alcohol.

Does this mean it is okay to get tipsy? How far is too far in the merry-making associated with wine in the Bible?

Short answer: You've gone too far when your drinking no longer glorifies God (1 Corinthians 10:31).

Long answer:

This line can be crossed at different times for different people and in different situations.

A single sip, or even the presence of alcohol can be too much, if it causes another to stumble. 1 Corinthians 8:13.
Drinking for selfish reasons, regardless of how much, is wrong.
Drinking to the point of losing a clear head is wrong. 1 Peter 5:8

Note that some Christians don't necessarily think this means an absolute ban on drunkenness. The argument being that if you choose to get drunk (with a clear mind), and do it under responsible circumstances, it can be okay.  I don't necessarily hold this view, and would ask a person intending to get drunk to examine their motives. See #2.

The only example I can think of where the Bible may be interpreted to specifically permit drunkenness is in the context of medicine. Proverbs 31:6 suggests "wine for those who are in anguish" which seems to be advocating using wine for pain management, which probably indicates some level of intoxication (whether it's means full drunkenness, or simply "tipsy", is subject to interpretation.)  Given that most of us live in societies where other forms of pain killers are available, it would be easy to avoid this use of wine in most cases, if it is an area of trouble on your conscience.
If you drink enough to be harmful or dishonoring to your body, it is wrong. 1 Corinthaians 6:19-20
If you think it's wrong to drink (at all, or in a given situation), then it is wrong.  Romans 2:15


Why would an Archbishop give such long notice of retirement? BBC News reports here that the Church of England's Archbishop of York, John Sentamu, retires on 7 June 2020. The news report is dated 1 October 2018, which 15 months' notice.

This seems very long, even for such a senior post in the Church of England. Why would an Archbishop give such long notice of retirement?

Archbishops in the Church of England, as a rule, must retire on or before their seventieth birthdays. However, in special circumstances, the Queen can  grant an extension of up to one year.

Archbishop Sentamu will be 70 on June 10th 2019. In the ordinary course of events therefore he was scheduled to retire on June 10th, 2019, unless he announced he wished to go earlier.

However, the Queen has granted an extension of almost one year, allowing the Archbishop to defer his retirement until the Sunday before his 71st birthday, Trinity Sunday, 7th June, 2020.

The "news" here is not so much that he is retiring in 2020, as that he is not, as originally expected, retiring in 2019. The real news is the extension, but obviously the date that someone is retiring is considered  more interesting, and newsworthy, than the date that he is not.

As a rule 20 months notice (October 2018 to June 2020) would not be usual.


What are the practical effects of sanctifying grace? My eldest daughter (bless her soul) answered a question in her Catechism work book

Q: "What must we do once we receive sanctifying grace?"

A: "Nothing, it's not real"

So how can I prove to her that sanctifying grace is real?

Answers coming from Bible, Saints and Catholic apologists would be most appreciated.

How refreshingly honest of your daughter to say what she thinks rather than simply give the answer that is expected.   But how prove to her that sanctifying grace is real?  By example, by demonstrating to her that the practical effects of sanctifying grace result in a transformed life to; to illustrate how God’s sanctifying grace sets believers apart for holiness.
This is my understanding of the Catholic view of sanctifying grace:

Sanctifying grace refers to a specific supernatural infusion of God’s grace that makes a person holy and pleasing to God. Deifying grace and perfecting grace are other terms for sanctifying grace, which is believed to be imparted through the Catholic sacrament of baptism. The Roman Church teaches that at baptism, the time when sanctifying grace is received, a person becomes part of the body of Christ and able to receive additional graces for living a holy life.
According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, sanctifying grace is also called the “grace of justification” because it is the grace that makes a soul acceptable or justified before God. This grace transforms a sinner into a holy child of God. Source: What is sanctifying grace?

I realise this comes from a Protestant source, so if this is inaccurate or misleading, please say so.
Another approach might be to simply explain to your daughter that if she wishes to experience the free and undeserved gift of God’s sanctifying grace, first she has to acknowledge it is real, second that she needs it more than oxygen, and third that she first has to empty her hands in order to receive it.

For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God (Ephesians 2:8).

For what it’s worth, when I first came to saving faith in Christ Jesus and presented myself for adult baptism with my husband and our son present, our son asked me, “Mum, does this mean you have to become holy?”  Our son was only 12 years old.  He intuitively realised that my public declaration of my Christian faith necessitated a big change in my life!  Out of the mouths of babes and children...
Perhaps this is the only evidence that matters to children – that they can see how Christians live a life that is different to others, that God’s sanctifying grace has transformed their lives.  It’s a case of walking the walk, rather than talking the talk.  Children are not easily fooled!  Role models might be the answer here - real-life, in your face, modern and even public figures who exemplify the ongoing process of sanctification and grace in their lives, who are a witness to the world that they have been separated from the world and set apart to be holy.


In which denominations is naturism unacceptable? A recent answer on this site made a very broad statement, that "those who live in nudist colonies are not Christians". However, a quick Google search for "Christian naturists" (other search engines are available) shows that there appear to be quite a few people who would disagree with that stance.

Do any denominations specifically stipulate that naturism/nudism is a sin? If so, which?

Bibilically speaking, being "exposed" has always been linked with a shaming - from the time that Adam and Eve realized they were naked and after the fall thus ashamed (Gen 3), to Hosea in which a disgraced and conquered foe was stripped naked, etc...  the general tenor of Scripture is that being naked is an undesirable state.

Since naturism / nudism as a movement is a very new phenomenon (springing in the early 20th century), very few denominations would have felt much need to deal with the issue. There are nudist "churches" (I think of the one at White Tail Resort in VA, for example) but by and large the membership isn't sufficient to warrant the attention of most denominations

All in all, my take on it (and its just my take) is this - being a nudist - i.e. advocating that clothing is unnecessary and socially inhibiting in public - is contrary to scripture mostly because it is an attempt to deny the Fall. In a way, it attempts to deal with the "sin" by stating that it is simply man's invention - a stance that would be at odds with an understanding that God defines what is and is not sin.


Is there any evidence that Paul was a descendant of Jonathan? Paul being a descendant of Jonathan would have some appeal from a devotional perspective since Jesus' more direct saving of Paul could be viewed as fulfilling the covenant of friendship between David and Jonathan and their descendants (1 Samuel 20:42).

From Philippians 3:5 we know that he was from the tribe of Benjamin (like Jonathan) and Paul's other name, Saul, might be more common among descendants of King Saul than among Benjaminites generally. On the other hand, with the purging of the house of Saul (2 Samuel 9:3 indicates that Mephibosheth might be the bottleneck as a sole survivor) there might have been few if any descendants of Jonathan in the first century A.D.

Is there any other evidence supporting or falsifying this possibility or is this merely a wild speculation where even tradition is silent?

Optional bonus question: Has this speculation been written about earlier in Church history? (Allegory and other somewhat fanciful conceits seem to have been more popular earlier in Church history, so I would not be surprised if someone had considered this possibility given its devotional attractiveness.)

I'm not sure if this question has arisen in Christendom. As, most of Christendom is fascinated by Moses, King David, Jesus, Peter, and Paul. I'd say it's 'unlikely' but...there are billions who have gone before us. :) I'm sure it's come up before but I'm not sure that the question has been documented.

As to the question itself. My current understanding is no jew desired to keep a detailed tally of their heritage, with exception to the descendants of David (Luke 2:4) since they were ancient jews, it was their conviction that the Messiah would come through the line of David (2 Samuel 7:12-16). The only identification they, all Israelites, used are two fold. Whom was their parent and what tribe did they come from? As you can see this thread throughout scripture.

The prophetess Anna, daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher (Luke
2:36)
king Saul, son of Kish, a man of the tribe of Benjamin (Acts
13:21)
Bezalel, son of Uri, grandson of Hur, of the tribe of Judah
(Exodus 31:2)
Oholiab, son of Ahisamach, of the tribe of Dan (Exodus
31:6)

If you want a lot of these examples, go here.

In conclusion, someone throughout the ages could've asked this same question but I haven't seen it yet. Also, the jews simply wouldn't ask this question because they were focused on the Davidic line to find the Messiah.


How long did it take to form the Biblical canon? How long did it take to collect all of the writings that eventually formed the first version of the Bible?  In other words, starting with when the first writing was created (I'll say when it was completed rather than started) to when it was first printed/published/etc., how long did it take?

Much of when the Old Testament was written is purely conjecture, but many modern scholars believe that it was written some time in the period when the Persians captured Babylon in 538 BC. Others believe Moses authored the Pentateuch, which is Genesis - Deuteronomy, which would mean that these books were authored some time around 1300 - 1500 BC.

There is also some conjecture that Job is the earliest written account in the Bible, and would predate Moses' writings, although those who hold this theory do not believe that the actual writing of the Book of Job predates the writing of the Pentateuch by much, even though they believe that the actual account of Job happened long before, and many believe Job lived before the flood.

The last book of the New Testament is believed to have been Revelations, written in approximately 68 AD, but yet others believe that this book was written around 95 AD.

We don't know exactly when the books of the Bible were written, but we can, through cross-referencing external sources, determine when the historical figures in the Bible lived. Either way, the common consensus is that the writing of the books of the Bible began some time after 1500 BC, and concluded prior to 100 AD. This would be a period of about 1600 years.

The first known "canonization" of the Scripture was proposed by Marcion of Sinope around 140 AD. Since then there have been multiple canons of Scripture proposed, with different ones accepted by various groups, containing anywhere from 66-81 books. Currently, the typical Protestant Bible is a 66 book canon, from the 4th century synod which listed 39 books of the Old Testament. The typical Catholic Bible has 73 or 74 books, from the 4th century synod which listed 46 books of the Old Testament (5 books were merged into other books in this list, making a total of 51 books), and some Catholic Bibles also contain 2 Esdras. Both the Protestant and the Catholic New Testaments are the same 27 books.

This information is compiled from a huge variety of sources, including many different pages from Wikipedia, BibleResources.org, ichthys.com, etc.


What are the minimum requirements for becoming pope? If the conclave decided for whatever reason to choose a person who was not overwhelmingly qualified such as a cardinal or other prominent bishop, what requirements need that person have fulfilled to be eligible for election?

I assume they have to be Catholic obviously, but any other requirements?

The Answer

You asked what were the minimum requirements for becoming a pope. So I will not entertain all the minutia associate with papal elections.

First of all, a pope is simply a bishop who has universal authority over the Church1. Other bishops only have authority over their particular Churches, though they may exercise authority over the universal Church if they are joined by other means (i.e., an oecumenical council or in union with another bishop).

Further, bishops are bishops by virtue of the fact that they are recipients of the sacrament of priesthood. To eligible to receive this sacrament, one must be a baptized man2.

Therefore, because the papacy is simply an office of a bishop (or episcopate) with universal authority, the only requirements for holding the office of the pope, the papacy, are the requirements for holding an office of a bishop. The only requirements for holding the office of a bishop are those required to receive the sacrament of the priesthood. Therefore there are only two requirements:

One must be male
One must be baptized

All other "requirements" are merely practical requirements--that is to say, it is very doubtful the Church will elect a non-practicing Christian despite the fact he was baptized as a baby and a male. Despite the fact he is eligible, he is practically disqualified on account of his apostasy.

Side Note

There is room for speculation in the Church on whether popes can lose their office save the occasions of death and resignation. St. Robert Bellarmine is infamous for speculating such. While this is in the realm of speculation, the Church in general has moved strongly away from such thoughts. It is popularly held that popes are popes until they aren't popes--that is to say, a pope doesn't stop being pope because you don't like him.

Sources

1http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/882.htm

2http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1577.htm


Nature of salvation in the Old Testament Possible Duplicate:
  Who saved people before ~33AD?

(This question I address to those Christians who believe that salvation once acquired cannot be lost. I am specifically after the answer to the following question from that perspective)

I have always thought of salvation in the New Testament as of having the eternal life. In the New Testament we are told by John that we can get this eternal life by means of believing into the Only-begotten Son of God Jesus Christ:

  For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that
  whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting
  life. (John 3:16)

  These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the
  Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye
  may believe on the name of the Son of God. (1st John 5:13)

However, when I am trying to look at the nature of the concept of salvation in the Old Testament, I get a bit confused about the concept of salvation that had place at those times.

First of all, the Old Testament people, of course, didn't have any knowledge of the existence of the Only-begotten Son of God and almost all of them died before this knowledge of Him was given to the human kind. However, it seems that some of them still were saved even though they died before Jesus' first coming:

  There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see
  Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the kingdom of
  God (Luke 13:28)

From this verse we can say that at least Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and all the prophets were saved even before Christ's crucifixion (I take it as an axiom that anyone who has the right to be in the kingdom of God is a saved person).

Now the question is at what point of their life were they acquiring that salvation? It seems that in the New Testament this point of time in people's lives is kind of more spelled out - the moment when people turn to Christ in their hearts while hearing the Gospel and pray to Him for the first time, but what about the Old Testament? At what moment of their life it was clear that they were also among those who would enter in the future into the kingdom of God (which means they were also among those who are saved)?

From a Reformed perspective, we look at the Old Testament promises, and the respondents' trusting God as what qualifies them as righteous and grants salvation.

God chose Abraham and made a covenant with Him (a series of 3 promises you can read in Genesis 21). Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.

Isaac was the son of the promise. He was obedient and faithful to his father and God by willingly laying on the altar at Moriah (Abraham was a really old dude at this point, and it's pretty unreasonable to assume that Isaac was powerless to at least escape this sacrifice, if not overpower Abraham).

Jacob was the son of the promise. His act of faith was recorded with his actions on his deathbed, that he blessed Joseph's sons with the promise of God.

Joseph was the son of the promise. His faithful acts delivered Israel in a time of famine, and lead to Moses leading the people out of Egypt so that God would display His power to His people.

This list goes on. It isn't that each of these men was sinless and trusted Christ, it's that each one was sinful and trusted God in His word that He would bless them (and no small part of that blessing is that they have been included in the bloodline of the Messiah).

Over time, we begin to understand more of the promise. The author wrote concerning this in 2 Samuel 7:12-17. This is a continued promise that God will establish David's kingdom forever and will claim father-hood over this line of people. Isaiah later writes concerning that God's people would "know His name" and God would grant salvation to all ends of the Earth through the Messiah.

Today, it has been revealed that Christ was the fulfillment of the promise to Abraham and that being a "son of the promise" was not fleshly, but spiritual, trusting God. Because it has been revealed that Christ was the fulfillment of the promise, by placing faith in Christ, you trust that God has taken care of your sins on His own account and you are adopted as a son of God and are covered by the promise that God made to Abraham. You are saved the same way that Abraham was saved: by believing God (and, as James 2 would add, demonstrating that belief in your actions).


When was papal supremacy accepted by the entirety of the Catholic Church? The Catholic Church has an unbroken list of Popes from Peter through Francis I. Was there a time when all, or at least the vast majority of, Christianity recognized them as the supreme authority over all Christianity?

A book I'm reading (Thomas Bokenkotter. A Concise History of the Catholic Church. New York, NY: Doubleday, 2004) said that the church at the Council of Nicaea "knew nothing of the doctrine of papal supremacy." Is this accurate? Where might I find a source to back this up?

Bearing that in mind, I'm looking for something after 325. Wikipedia suggests my answer may lie in the fifth century. I’d like to find a historical answer if at all possible, from a neutral source, but if that isn’t possible, I’d prefer to find a Catholic opinion on the matter.

INTRODUCTION

The history of the Roman Catholic Papacy of course is long and convoluted, but we can briefly touch on various events, time markers, and players on the stage during the first 500 years of Christianity that help shape and define the idea.

Let’s start with a definition of Papacy.  The Papacy is the office of Pope of the Roman Catholic Church extending from the apostle Peter to the present Pope.  As such, the Pope is the supreme head of the whole Church with complete authority over matters of doctrine and practice (faith and morals).  The Papacy relies on the ideas of Peter as “rock”, a unique power to “bind and loose”, and possession of the “keys to the kingdom”.

Was there a time when most of Christianity recognized this supreme authority?  Kind of, but not really.  Sources follow comments.

HINTS

As mentioned, the Papacy took time to fully develop, but hints of it surfaced within the first generation.  Clement of Rome wrote an epistle circa 95 CE that suggests that one "tribe" will have a priestly authority, as Levi did over the other 11 tribes.  The power to forgive sins, of course, is the whole point of authority.

In 155 CE, Anicetus of Rome and Polycarp of Smyrna argued over the observance of Passover (aka Easter).  In 175 CE, Victor of Rome attempted to excommunicate all of Asia Minor led by Polycrates over the same issue.  It was not until the Council of Nicea ruled with Constantine as its guarantee in 325 CE that the Roman view of Easter prevailed.  It took the State’s authority to force a certain spiritual authority at this early stage.

Tertullian circa 195 CE follows in the footsteps of those who disagreed with Rome’s budding authority.  He first mentions how Rome was usurping the authority given to Peter alone.  Cyprian circa 220 CE will quickly follow, but in a positive note of Rome’s authority; that is, it is necessary as a visible unity of the Church.  In the next breath, however, Cyprian will maintain the right of the bishops to disagree with heresy wherever it arises, as they did over the validity of heretical baptism.

AGREEMENT

Evidently it was in Leo the Great, however, when the full Papacy idea had completely blossomed.  This was circa 450 CE.  This is the time when even Alexandria will fully comply and acknowledge the Easter times of Rome.  The argument used was how could Mark, Peter’s successor, teach something in Alexandria that was not taught in Rome?  Disagree and there goes one’s claim to being an apostolic church.

Besides, Pope Leo successfully persuaded Attila the Hun from invading.  Who could argue God wasn’t on his side?

CONCLUSION

The doctrine or more loosely the idea of “papal supremacy” residing in Rome predates Nicea.  We clearly see Pope Victor of Rome exercising this supremacy, although the rest of the Church disagreed with him.  We also understand Tertullian and Cyprian seeing Rome claiming this authority.  Again though, while Rome may claim it, the rest of the Church does not completely agree with it.  One may claim supreme authority, but that doesn’t mean one checks their brain at the door against heresy.

Yet in Leo the Great, the Papacy is fully known and exercised with at least all of the Church submitting.  No doubt individuals would disagree, but the patriarchs of Alexandria, Jerusalem, Constantinople, and Antioch would evidently all submit.  Even still there was one exception to this authority who came to be the Oriental Orthodoxy.  This was “sub groups” within a couple of the patriarchs.  Of course, 500 years later, the Eastern Orthodox will also disagree.  500 years after that, the Protestants also disagree.

Rome clearly believes in its Papacy.  It has done so for some 2,000 years as the idea of an “authority” over the whole with binding and loosing powers and the keys to the kingdom surfaces within the first generations after the final apostle’s death and carries through today.  The rest of Christendom, however, never really agreed with the view from Rome.

SOURCES

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11451b.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_papacy
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a9p4.htm

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ii.ii.xliii.html

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.vii.x.html

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.x.xxiv.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Leo_I

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc3.iii.viii.xvi.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oriental_Orthodoxy


What is the reasoning behind the belief that Eve was NOT created on the sixth day? I was talking with someone recently and the question was raised as to when Eve was created.  I immediately replied that she was created on the sixth day, albeit later in the day than Adam.  One person seemed surprised by that concept.  It appears that there are two positions on this.

What, then, is the basis for the belief that Eve was not created on the sixth day, but on a later day?

The Biblical basis for claiming that Eve was created after the sixth day is one from inference instead of literalism.

The account in Genesis 1 starts with all the creatures first, then man on the sixth day. Chapter two continues on describing a different time of creation, or a smaller, second creation, if you will.

The story in Genesis two has Adam created separately, then God places him in the garden (verse 15). Then God decides that Adam should not be alone so he brings all the beasts to Adam to name them. Because of the wording, some literalists say that God made separate beasts right in front of Adam to be named; Adam then names all of them (verses 19-20).

Adam found none of the beasts suitable for his helpmate, so God put him into a sleep then made Eve from his rib (verses 21 -22).

The inference is that naming all the beasts would take a good deal of time. Even assuming that there were less kinds then there are today, seeing all of them, examining them, then deciding a name for all of those kinds would surely take longer than a day. Unless God brought the beasts to Adam in rapid fire succession, and Adam named them just as quickly, literalists holding this position insist that the event took a long time, much longer than a day.

Proponents of this view must neglect a literal reading of these verses, however. The final verse in Genesis 1, declaring the close of the sixth day, unmistakably puts the creation of mankind then. Takers of this view simply state that they are two separate stories with two separate lessons and neither is necessarily literal or more valid than the other.

A random source


On what basis do Christians sometimes claim to know what God's intentions are? For example, some Creationists will explain dinosaur bones as "God placed them there to test us" - even if God did place them there, isn't it presumptuous to speculate what the motivations were?

This is what Luther calls the theologia gloriae.1

The most obvious way to the cognition of God is to follow the footsteps of creation. The creation speaks a powerful language.2 Scholasticism has understood the natural cognition as a way of salvation.3

Scholastics think of God and man from the same viewpoint of natural causality and connect the cognition of God per ea, quae facta sunt4 with a particular ethical view of man and his works.5

This connection builds the base, upon which Luther critisizes the theologia gloriae: That person does not deserve to be called a theologian who looks upon the »invisible« things of God as though they were clearly »perceptible in those things which have actually happened«6

For him, real cognition does only happen by cognition of Cross of Christ: theologia crucis.

And finally a biblical quote (found this here):

  Matthew 24:36    (NLT)
  Mark 13:32 (NLT)

   36 “However, no one knows the day or hour when these things will happen, not even the angels in heaven or the Son himself. Only the Father knows.

1: See Heidelberg Disputation, Thesis 19
2: Walther von Loewenich, ''Luthers theologia crucis'', p.19
3: About the question what scholastics say about Rom 1:20, see Pierre Bühler, ''Kreuz und Eschatologie'', p.106
4: literal translation: ''by the things that have been made''
5: Theodor Dieter, ''Der junge Luther und Aristoteles'', p.109
6: WA 5,388,5f.: Non ille digne Theologus dicitur, qui invisibilia Dei per ea, quae facta sunt intellecta conspicit


Who is Jesus' Father? Jesus talks about his father a lot. Is it Yahweh? How do we know that when Jesus says, "My father" he means Yahweh from the Old Testament?

Multiple ways, though not all of them are obvious in the English translation.
Jesus refers to himself with 'I AM' in a manner as to make a direct connection to Yahweh from the Old Testament.

“Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!” John 8:58
God said to Moses, “I am who I am. This is what you are to say to the Israelites ‘I am has sent me to you.’”      Exodus 3:14

http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Names_of_G-d/YHVH/yhvh.html
EDIT
Somebody wanted more specificity, so if you read the whole passage Jesus says clearly to the Jews...

Jesus replied, “If I glorify myself,(BN) my glory means nothing. My Father, whom  you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me.    John 8:54

Doesn't get much clearer than that. The God of the Jews is Yaweh. Jesus says that the God they claim is his Father.


What is the Biblical basis for the idea that spiritual gifts are no longer relevant? There is a verse that some denominations use to say that the gifts are not operative since the days of the Apostles. Where is that verse?

1 Corinthians 13 8 is a verse sometimes referred to as supporting the theory that some spiritual gifts no longer operate.

  Love never fails: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.

This  article discusses the question from the perspective of Grace Community Church California, concluding that some gifts no longer operate.


Are Convent Schools only for orphan children? I just want to know whether Convent Schools are only for orphan children? Or can Christian children who have not lost their parents also attend such a school? Can non-Christian children attend a convent school?

I did my schooling until high school in a convent school.

Answers:

1) No, I'm not a  orphen. This may have cleared you first question but still for your information, convent schools are open for any students whose parents  or organisation can effort tuition fees little more than other school under government (and in return  improved facilities and guidance).

2) I'm a Christian but we had lot more non-Christian students than Christian student in our school regardlessly orphen or not.

3) Sure, students are selected to the school based on they abilities and talents but not caste or religion.


According to the Catholic Church, can you cook food while you're fasting? Can you cook food while you're fasting? And eat it afterwards? I have often made dinner for others during a fast. And I have also made dinner for myself but waited until the fast was over to eat it.

What is the Catholic doctrine on this question? Are there any rules about this?

Cooking and fasting are two different subjects that have to be considered here. In days gone by when the Church had the Lenten fast for 40 days, no one would question the idea of cooking for your main meal of the day. People have to eat.

There is absolutely no problem in preparing to cook food for after your fast, even if it were animal flesh.

The rules of fasting and abstinence are totally silent on the subject of how, what or when one should cook food. Thus you should be able to prepare your food accordingly. That said, it would seem to be of poor taste to cook a meat dish on Good Friday for the next day. If I had to prepare a meat dish early for Easter I would choose to do it on Holy Saturday.

  The Rules for the Roman Catholic Church

  The Code of Canon Law prescribes (Canons 1250-1252):

  Can. 1250: The penitential days and times in the universal Church are every Friday of the whole year and the season of Lent.

  Can. 1251: Abstinence from meat, or from some other food as determined by the Episcopal Conference, is to be observed on all Fridays, unless a solemnity should fall on a Friday. Abstinence and fasting are to be observed on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday.

  Can. 1252: The law of abstinence binds those who have completed their fourteenth year. The law of fasting binds those who have attained their majority, until the beginning of their sixtieth year. Pastors of souls and parents are to ensure that even those who by reason of their age are not bound by the law of fasting and abstinence, are taught the true meaning of penance.


Which church traditions regard Constantine the Great as a Saint? Constantine  was the emperor of the Roman Empire who legalized Christianity and called the Counsel of Nicaea, among other thing. Which church traditions regard Constantine the Great as a Saint?

It appears that Emperor Constantine the Great is venerated as a saint in the Catholic Church, according to catholic.org:

  Constantine was the most dominating figure of his lifetime, towering over his contemporaries, including Pope Sylvester I. He presided over the Council of Nicaea, gave extensive grants of land and property to the Church, founded the Christian city of Constantinople to serve as his new capital, and undertook a long-sighted program of Christianization for the whole of the Roman Empire. While he was baptized a Christian only on his deathbed, Constantine nevertheless was a genuinely important figure in Christian history and was revered as a saint, especially in the Eastern Church.

Catholic.org gives his feast day as May 21.

A page on the official website of The Antiochian Orthodox Church describes Constantine as a saint:

  The Orthodox Church sees Constantine as the emperor who assisted the early Church in evangelizing the Roman Empire. For this reason it honors him as Saint Constantine Equal-to-the-Apostles [Constantinos Isapostolos].

Although I was unable to find an official statement by the Oriental Orthodox Church to the effect that they revere Constantine as a saint, the website of the Western Prelacy of the Armenian Apostolic Church of America, one of the churches in the Oriental Orthodox Communion, lists June 16 as the feast day of "Sts. King Constantine and his mother Helena". Thus, at least one of the Oriental Orthodox Churches considers him a saint.

The Wikipedia article on Constantine states that he is venerated as a saint by "Eastern Orthodox Christians, Byzantine Catholics, and Anglicans" (and in a footnote that he is recognized by the Oriental Orthodox Church), but I can find no specific backing for the "Anglican" claim from any reliable Anglican source. It also puts Constantine on a list of people celebrated in the Lutheran calendar, but notes that the Lutheran church "does not officially recognize saints".

My best supported answer, then, is that Constantine is recognized as a saint by the Eastern Orthodox Church, by the Catholic Church (particularly the Oriental sui iuris churches), by at least one of the (several) Oriental Orthodox churches, and perhaps by the Anglican Communion churches.


What was it like in the Temple at the time of Jesus? In the New Testament, there are many stories of Jesus and the apostles spending time in the Temple teaching and preaching. The apostles also do this after the resurrection.

What was the structure of events at the temple? Was it somewhat free-form, where people could freely gather and talk about things? I would think there would have to have been some openness in the temple, if the priests, who were against him, did not prevent him from preaching. But surely there must have been regularly scheduled, organized rituals and ceremonies that took place there, also? Were they preaching during between times?

From a web page titled "The Synagogue":

Generally, any Jewish male could lead a prayer or read and translate Scripture. Every service began with specific readings that had been prescribed by the scribes and rabbis. Most commonly read was the shema (“hear”) passage (Deut. 6:4-9). Nearly every service gave much attention to reading sections from the Law, the Prophets, and especially the Psalms. The congregation would stand as Scripture was read (cf. Neh. 8:1-8), and the reader was forbidden to take his eyes off the scroll in order to ensure that the word of God was communicated accurately (cf. Luke 4:16-20). Following a reading, a male in the synagogue (usually prepared in advance) would seek to apply the Scripture to life in the form of a brief sermon. Visiting rabbis were frequently asked to bring sermons to local synagogues (see Acts 13:15ff.).
In addition to a worship location, the synagogue also served other functions in a community. It was a school for training Jewish children in the Laws and ways of the Lord. It was not uncommon in the first century to find young children hard at work in synagogues memorizing the Torah, or Law of Moses. The synagogue also served as something of a community center for festivals, times of mourning and fasting, and as a center for feeding strangers and the poor. Sometimes the synagogue functioned as a court of law in which important questions regarding God’s law were decided. People could be banned from the synagogue (Jn. 9:22; 12:42), and sometimes corporal punishment (administered by the hazzan) could be applied for rebellion against the authorities — usually 39 lashes to honor God’s commandment (cf. Deut. 25:3).

I don't know, but Jesus and his Jewish apostles could have preached during the sermon time.  Or, they could have spoken while people were gathered for school or community activities.


According to proponents of penal substitutionary atonement, why do we still die? According to the theory of atonement known as penal substitution, the sin of a person is atoned for by the work of Jesus – he paid the penalty for the sin himself when he died, satisfying the requirement of God's wrath.

However, it appears that people still die. According to proponents of penal substitution, why do we still die if Jesus already died in our place?

Proponents of penal substitution, like Louis Berkhof (ST, 6.2.1), indeed argue that Christ has "removed the penalty of sin" and that therefore "the penal element is removed from death."  So why do Christians still die?  Two arguments are given:

God continues to use death to sanctify his followers and increase their unity with Christ
Creation continues to suffer the effects of sin until Christ's final victory

Berkhof emphasizes the first of these two points.  He argues that death is not required for perfect sanctification, noting that Enoch and Elijah didn't die.  But God still typically uses death for the "spiritual advancement," the sanctification, of his people:

  [The effects of death] serve to humble the proud, to mortify carnality, to check worldliness and to foster spiritual-mindedness. In the mystical union with their Lord believers are made to share the experiences of Christ. Just as He entered upon His glory by the pathway of sufferings and death, they too can enter upon their eternal reward only through sanctification.

Wayne Grudem (ST, 811) argues similarly, and explains the difference between punishment and discipline (cf. Romans 8:28):

  When we do experience pain and suffering in this life, we should never think it is because God is punishing us (for our harm).  Sometimes suffering is simply a result of living in a sinful, fallen world, and sometimes it is because God is disciplining us (for our good). (ST, 811)

Millard Erickson and R. C. Sproul, on the other hand, emphasize the continuing effects of the Fall as the cause of death in Christians.  Erickson argues that the "temporal consequences" of sin continue, despite the eternal consequences of it being erased for believers.  Now,

  we must experience physical death simply because it has become one of the conditions of human existence.  It is now a part of life, as much so as are birth, growth, and suffering, which also ultimately takes its origin from sin. (CT, 1179)

"This is not a denial of the fact of justification," Erickson contends, "but merely evidence that God does not reverse the course of history."  R. C. Sproul uses the language of Romans 8, the groaning of Creation, to argue that some effects of sin, like physical death, will only be conquered in the last day:

  The full benefits of Christ’s work will not be consummated until He returns to bring the new heaven and earth (source)

Indeed, all four of the theologians quoted here look forward to the conquering of physical death when Christ returns, and they all agree that the eternal punishment that sin deserves has been nullified through the cross.  But they emphasize different reasons for the continued physical death of Christians: as a means of sanctification and as a continued effect of the Fall.


Is there a respectful way to dispose of old or worn out scriptures? I'm finding myself accumulating various copies of the scriptures, and honestly, I don't need all of them laying around. Nowadays I study, read, and mark them electronically.

So now I'm looking to declutter my living space. Throwing them away feels kind of weird... donating them does too, since some are marked up from my studies, have personal notes in them, or have my name engraved on the front.

I'll probably just keep one or two nice printed copies for guests or convenience.

Is it bad to throw scriptures away? Is there a better way?

Note: I live in a rural area and it's common to burn our own trash, since we don't have a sanitation service here. But I'm definitely open to options that don't involve burning. :) -- And actually, an option that doesn't involve burning, if there is one, would be good so that the answer applies to more people.

Mary Fairchild belongs to the Calvary Chapel denomination, and she writes:

  There are no specific scriptural instructions on how to dispose of an
  old Bible. While God's Word is holy and to be honored (Psalm 138:2),
  there's nothing sacred or hallowed in the physical materials: the
  paper, parchment, leather, and ink.

She suggests that, instead of discarding or disposing it, a person should consider donating it to a ministry or someone who wants one.

Christian, Protestant, conservative, evangelical, fundamental, and non-denominational people on gotquestions.org (I think they're Fundamentalists.) write:

  There is no "biblical" way to dispose of an old/damaged/ruined Bible,
  as the Bible itself does not address this question. It is, therefore,
  a matter of personal conviction. It is important to understand that it
  is not the paper, binding, and ink that are "sacred" or "holy." It is
  the Word of God that is holy, not the material it is printed on. We
  are not to worship or idolize the Bible. The purpose of the Bible is
  to teach us about Jesus the Savior and the salvation He provides and
  to point us to worship Him with all our heart, soul, mind, and
  strength. The paper and ink of a Bible are merely the means through
  which God communicates His Word to us.

Like Mary Fairchild, they advise donating to the donator's descendants or others who want it.

Catholics agree! I will let them speak for themselves.

  There is no specifically mandated means of disposing of old Bibles.
  Some Catholics follow a custom of disposing of religious articles that
  have been blessed either by burying or burning them, but even that is
  not mandated by law. If the Bible has been blessed you might choose to
  follow that custom. If not, dispose of it as you would any other book.
  If it’s still in fair condition, you might put it on a book donation
  table to benefit someone else.

Jon M. Sweeney does not really mention the LDS Church, but he does have a rather strong opinion of what to do about any type of holy book -- be it Christian, Jewish, Muslim, whatever -- that the asker may find helpful, for the reason that the asker belongs to the LDS denomination:

  You don't burn them. You never, ever burn them.

  You bury them.


Do the Dead Sea scrolls describe any prophecy which was fulfilled after they were written? Is there any manuscript among the Dead Sea scrolls, which foretold something that happened after the manuscript was written?

Yes!

The Dead Sea Scrolls are not themselves a unique set of content, but rather a collection --rather like someone's private library-- of various texts from the time period that were all preserved together and help us understand the state of those texts at a specific point in time.

One example would be the Isaiah scroll, a basically complete copy of the entire book of Isaiah in one place. The book of Isiah was written ~750 years before Christ and includes many specific descriptions of what is life, dead and resurrection would be like.

  Isaiah 53:7-9 (ESV)
  He was oppressed, and he was afflicted,
  yet he opened not his mouth;
  like a lamb that is led to the slaughter,
  and like a sheep that before its shearers is silent,
  so he opened not his mouth.
  By oppression and judgment he was taken away;
  and as for his generation, who considered
  that he was cut off out of the land of the living,
  stricken for the transgression of my people?
  And they made his grave with the wicked
  and with a rich man in his death,
  although he had done no violence,
  and there was no deceit in his mouth.

You can see these verses on the scroll here. If you are interested there are lots of commentaries available on the hundreds of specific things Isaiah foretold about the Messiah that were fulfilled in the person of Jesus.

Also be aware that other works besides canonical scriptural texts were among the scrolls found. There are other works from the time period. The find has no particular affect on what text are or are not considered scripture any more than looking at the titles in a pastor's library today would prove one way or another what he believed, but the quality and quantity of texts found together do provide collaborative evidence for the integrity of other copies of the texts that were found elsewhere and in smaller chunks.


How can we trust the Bible after it has been translated to another language? Islam considers the Qur'an to be authoritative only in its original language. Many teachings even claim it is a sin to read in any language but it's original, and while not all adhere to this belief, learning Arabic specifically to read or recite the Qur'an is common even in countries where it is of no other use.

On the other hand Christians openly encourage translations into other languages.

What does Christianity believe about the Bible that makes this possible? Are translations generally considered authoritative in their target languages in the same way that the original text was?

The different between the Quran and the Christian Bible is that the Islam teaches that the Quran was dictated in Arabic and written down - in only one language and thus saying and reading it in this language is deemed more valuable.

The Christian bible was written by men, inspired by God, having their own style, grammar and vocabularly. i.e. the greek of Luke (who was an educated man) is quite different to the greek of Mark (who wasn't educated).

Furthermore, the bible was written in 3 languages, Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek.

The new Testament writers quoted from a translation of the bible. The Septuagint is a greek translation of the old testament which the N.T writers used as their old testament scriptures, so they were already using a translation.

So it is more the message of what is being said rather than the words themselves that are important.

Yes, some details and nuances of the original are lost in translation, the general gist and message can still be conveyed accurately and authoritatively.


If God cannot tempt anyone, what is the meaning of the following scriptures? In light of James 1:13, I would like to know the meaning of the remaining scriptures quoted below.

James 1:13

  Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man.

1 Kings 22:21-23

  Then a spirit came forward and stood before the LORD and said, 'I will entice him.'"The LORD said to him, 'How?' And he said, 'I will go out and be a deceiving spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.' Then He said, 'You are to entice him and also prevail. Go and do so.' "Now therefore, behold, the LORD has put a deceiving spirit in the mouth of all these your prophets; and the LORD has proclaimed disaster against you."…

2 Thessalonians 2:11

  For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie

Judges 9:23

  God stirred up animosity between Abimelek and the citizens of Shechem so that they acted treacherously against Abimelek.

1 Samuel 16:14

  Now the Spirit of the LORD had departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the LORD tormented him.

Many people do not realize that believers and non-believers alike receive a default protection from God. They have a "hedge" around them similar to the hedge described as around Job. If it were not so, Satan and his evil spirits would do be able to do as they please.

  "Have you not put a hedge around him and his household and everything he has?" (Job 1:10)

However, God will allow us to be tempted: To the faithful, temptations are allowed in the form of trials in order to bring to surface our sins so that we can then, by faith, overcome them. To the unfaithful, temptations are allowed because they seek it out purposely in their own presumption, and eventually when mercy is played out, God allows them to be exposed to an over-mastering temptation from Satan.

So in this context, it is not God who tempts, but God who allows.  Satan and his demons are the tempters, and tempts us by bringing to surface the natural sinful inclinations already present in our hearts.

When Scripture describes "an evil spirit from God", or "God stirred up animosity", or sending forth "strong delusion" or "a deceiving spirit", this must be read in context as God allowing it.

A clear example of things being attributed to God when in fact it is Him allowing it, is found in Job. It is described by a messenger that "The fire of God fell from the heavens and burned up the sheep and the servants" (Job 1:16). However, from earlier in the scripture, we know that it was Satan who did this and it was merely allowed by God:

  The Lord said to Satan, "Very well, then, everything he has is in your power, but on the man himself do not lay a finger." (Job 1:12)

Deeper spiritual understanding is necessary to understand the reason of God's actions in these circumstances. Many times, it is a judgement where God has withdrawn His mercy because the person did not repent. Other times, as in the case of Job, it was necessary. After all, did Job not repent in the end? Through this trial he realized something he otherwise would not have.


What is the difference between Tradition and Revelation according to Catholicism? From what I think I understand, the Catholic Church believes that there is no direct revelation from heaven to lead the church, and that the scriptures alone are not enough to rely on, this is why they balance Tradition (big 'T') with scripture.

  Sacred Tradition comes from Christ. It's the full, living gift of
  Christ to the Apostles, faithfully handed down through each
  generation. It is through Tradition that the Holy Spirit makes the
  Risen Lord present among us, offering us the very same saving Word and
  Sacraments that he gave to the Apostles!

  Understanding Catholic Tradition is essential to understanding the
  Catholic Church and the Catholic Christian faith. (see Catholic Tradition)

Example of some scriptures used to support the concept of Tradition:

  "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you
  were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter." (2 Thess
  2:15)

  "For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you...." (1 Cor
  11:23)

  "For I handed on to you as of first importance what I also
  received...." (1 Cor 15:3)

If I had to answer my own question I would say that revelation is received directly from God, and Tradition is passed down from one man to another:

  This is the most basic meaning of Catholic Tradition: it is the true
  Faith itself, given to the Apostles by Christ and faithfully
  transmitted to each new generation. (Catechism, 77-78)

But what is meant by, "true Faith?" (big 'F'?) or, "to have the Holy Spirit make the Risen Lord present among us?" Does this mean that Tradition is more than just words and stories passed form one generation to the next? Is it understood to carry with it a divine fullness of knowledge that makes revelation obsolete? If I had to make up my own analogy; if revelation were like wifi, is Tradition a boot-disc that get's passed down by succession? It seems to me that having the Lord present among us by the Holy Spirit through Tradition is not much different than having the Lord speak to us through the Holy Spirit by Revelation. What's the difference?

First of all, it's important to understand that the Catholic Church does not believe that there has been, nor will be, any new public revelation from God since the Ascension of Jesus; Jesus was "God's Last Word", the full and perfect Word of God. (Perhaps this is what you meant by saying "the Catholic Church believes that there is no direct revelation from heaven to lead the church"?)

Though there have been some private revelations to individuals or groups, and many claimed revelations, none of these belong to the "deposit of faith"—the knowledge and teachings which the Church believes to be divinely sourced and definitively true. This latter kind of knowledge is the revelation of the Word of God Jesus Christ.

This revelation is complete—again, as the Catechism says (quoting St. John of the Cross):

  In giving us his Son, his only Word (for he possesses no other), he spoke everything to us at once in this sole Word—and he has no more to say... because what he spoke before to the prophets in parts, he has now spoken all at once by giving us the All Who is His Son.

(St. John of the Cross, The Ascent of Mount Carmel, 2, 22, 3-5; quoted in Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraph 65)

But though the revelation is complete, the interpretation of what has been revealed to us in and through Christ is ongoing:

  even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries.

(Catechism, paragraph 66)

In Catholic understanding, tradition is a part of revelation, just as scripture is. The Gospels and the rest of the New Testament were written down to preserve the message the Church received from Christ; but in addition the apostles handed on

  by the spoken word of their preaching, by the example they gave, by the institutions they established, what they themselves had received—whether from the lips of Christ, from his way of life and his works, or whether they had learned it at the prompting of the Holy Spirit.

(Dei Verbum section 7, quoted in Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraph 76. Dei Verbum is the Dogmatic Constitution [teaching and doctrinal document] on Divine Revelation promulgated by the Second Vatican Council in 1965.)

This orally transmitted part of revelation has come down, the Church believes, directly from the apostles:

  "In order that the full and living Gospel might always be preserved in the Church the apostles left bishops as their successors. They gave them 'their own position of teaching authority.'" Indeed, "the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved in a continuous line of succession until the end of time." This living transmission, accomplished in the Holy Spirit, is called Tradition, since it is distinct from Sacred Scripture, though closely connected to it.

(Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraphs 77–78; the quotations are from Dei Verbum again.)

Thus this Tradition is more than just "passed down from one man to another"; it's passed down from the Lord Himself, and from His Apostles, by their divinely instituted teaching authority, and its truth is preserved by the oversight of the Holy Spirit. Through the passing down of this tradition from Jesus, the Holy Spirit remains present and alive in the Church:

  The Father’s self-communication made through his Word in the Holy Spirit, remains present and active in the Church: "God, who spoke in the past, continues to converse with the Spouse of his beloved Son. And the Holy Spirit, through whom the living voice of the Gospel rings out in the Church—and through her in the world—leads believers to the full truth, and makes the Word of Christ dwell in them in all its richness."

(Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 79. The quotation is from Dei Verbum section 8.)

Thus tradition, as one part of the Deposit of Faith, is a source of our understanding of God:

  "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture make up a single sacred deposit of the Word of God" (Dei Verbum 10), in which, as in a mirror, the pilgrim Church contemplates God, the source of all her riches.

(Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 97)


How do Reformed Baptists view Dispensationalism? What is the "official" stances of Reformed Baptists on Dispensationalism?

What biblical base do they claim for such views?

If, as a group, they would generally not teach Dispensationalism, are there aspects of it viewed as biblical?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GrwL5pXHbc

This video is very helpful at seeing the overlap and distinctions between Reformed Baptist theology and Dispensationalism.

First of all, you'd have to define Reformed Baptist. I prefer to define it as someone who holds to the 1689 London Baptist Confession. The LBCF1689 is a covenantal confession which by definition rejects dispensationalism.

It's hard to boil down into a small post the biblical basis for 1689 Federalism (covenant theology), but it is based on letting Scripture interpret Scripture, especially the New Testament as a fuller revelation of the Old. It also recognizes the typological relationship between Israel and the Church.

As with most systems, there is some overlap of good material. Dispensationalism rightly recognizes some of the problems with traditional Paedobaptist covenant theology, for instance, but their "solution" ultimately goes much too far.


Where does the book of Job come from? What I mean is the following:

Job stands out as being as old as the Torah (if not older)
None of the characters are Israelites (especially if it was Abrahamic time when Israel didn't even exist)
Every other book can be traced back by tradition, the author is fully unknown

So how did the Jews get a hold of Job scriptures? or does it not have an answer and is left to theory?

As to your question regarding origins, we do not know the author or the means of revelation of the book of Job.

What we do know is that there is an ancient tradition including the book in Hebrew scripture. The book makes no reference to the patriarchs or the law or the prophets but it is consistent with teachings therein and is commonly considered to predate those writings in scripture.

As to your point that none of the characters are Israelites, I would point out that the language and ideas used are very consistent with Hebrew scripture. e.g. the names of God: Yahweh, Adonai, Elohim, El, Eloha, Shadai, Creator; angels, Satan, priestly functions, atonement, integrity, iniquity etc. The idea of self righteousness vs the Righteousness (graciousness) of God; spiritual warfare etc. The writer does not define any of these terms or ideas. He presumes that the reader is familiar and that implies that there was a common tradition, perhaps written, perhaps oral, that predated the writing of the book. The book of Job is a grand introduction, an overture to the revelations that follow in scripture.

As to your question of theorizing about the revelation and preservation of the book of Job, or scripture in general, I would point out that there are many similar questions concerning other scripture. e.g. how did Melchizedek, a contemporary of Abraham, come to know and practice the same priestly functions that Job practiced? And the patriarch, Abraham, honored him; and the New Testament approves them. It appears that A & M & J had a common tradition. Joshua chapter 10:13, and 2 Sam 1:18 references the book of Jasher, which is lost to us. What was Jasher? Where did it come from? Where has it gone?

Your question about 'theorizing' really involves the bigger idea of unanswered questions in scripture. God's answer to Job's numerous questions about 'how...' and 'why...' is not a detailed explanation. God's answer to all of Job's questions is, simply: 'I am Creator! Look around you! You don't think I know what I am doing...?' Implicit is (theory): God's eternal plan, God's faithfulness to Bless his covenant/plan to you, and man's ability to faithfully bless God back; man's ability to 'know that I am LORD...' (numerous references throughout scripture. Search it...e.g. Ezekiel 60 times) Proverbs 25:2 says: 'It is the glory of God to conceal a matter; to search out a matter is the glory of kings.' Job's place in scripture is a tremendous harmony... It's necessary for each of us to connect the dots in our own attitude of faithfulness and reverence... (...blessed be the name of the LORD... 1:21)


Why do Catholics make the sign of the cross at the Eucharist? I know that no where in the Catholic Rite of Communion does it state that the communicant must make the sign of the cross after reception of the Eucharist in either species. So why is it that so many children are taught to do so in preparation of their First Eucharist?

Why do Catholics make the sign of the cross at the Eucharist?

It is an act of Catholic piety!

Before going on into the main body of my answer, I would like to point out that in the Extraordinary Form of the Mass, Communion was given in to communicants in the following way:

As the priest places a Host directly from the chalice into the mouth of each communicant, he prays for life everlasting.

Holding the Sacred Host in his right hand, the priest makes the sign of the cross with it and says:

Corpus Domini nostri Jesu Christi custodiat animam tuam in vitam aeternam. Amen.

An example of this can be seen in the YouTube video explains how a priest performs these sacred actions in very clear detail (1:42:00 and following): The Latin Mass Explained and Demonstrated for Priests.

In the Mass of Paul VI, the sign of the cross is not made by the priest at communion, unlike that of the Extraordinary Form of the Mass. And although it is not prescribed by the Church for the faithful to make the sign of the cross at communion, many do so. The laity are simply carrying on this pious tradition themselves. In the Old Rite the priest made the sign of the cross. In the New Rite, the faithful make the sign of the cross. It is a natural and organic liturgical development that should be encouraged.

Should we make the sign of the cross when we receive communion?

  The rubrics don’t call for the faithful to cross themselves after receiving Communion. If a person wants to do it, as a personal act of piety, there is nothing that stops him, however.

  The Church asks that we receive Communion reverently, either by slightly bowing before receiving (if we receive standing up) or by kneeling (which is always an option). Communicants should respond with “Amen” when the minister says, “The Body of Christ” or “The Blood of Christ.”

  One word of caution regarding crossing oneself: It isn’t advisable to do it too quickly after receiving Communion. If a person raises his hand too quickly to cross himself, he risks striking the ciborium or chalice, which could cause an accident with the Eucharist. Before making the sign of the cross it is better for the communicant to wait a second for some distance to open up between himself and the minister. - "Ask a Priest: Should we make the sign of the cross when we receive communion?"

Some of the faithful are either taught or encourage to perform this pious act(Gestures and Postures), but it is not found in the General Instruction Of The Roman Missal (Vatican Source).

Many catholic make the sign of the cross at various occasions of their daily living and communion is one of those important moment the faithful feel called to make this pious act of devotion.

  The sign of the cross permeates a Catholic’s prayer life, from the public prayer of the Mass to private prayer around the dining room table. The priest opens Mass by leading the congregation in the Sign of the Cross. At the end of the Mass, he blesses the people “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,” and they cross themselves as he blesses them. At home, when Catholics pray before meals, they usually open and close the prayer by making the sign of the cross. In Catholic schools, the prayers the school prays in common usually begin and end with the sign of the cross.

  The sign of the cross often introduces and closes other prayers, but it is a prayer in itself and can also be prayed on its own. Sometimes Catholics make the sign of the cross, with or without words, at other times as well. Many Catholics will cross themselves when they pass by a Catholic church or chapel where the Eucharist is present. Some may make the sign as they drive past a cemetery as a quick prayer for the dead who are buried there. Sometimes Catholics may make a quick Sign of the Cross when receiving bad news, or when sirens pass, as a way of praying for those involved.

  Praying the sign of the cross is so common that we often rush through it without thinking much about it. But the sign of the cross is an ancient tradition with deep theological meaning.

  The sign of the cross, in words and in action, reminds us of the two central realities of our faith: who God is (the Trinity) and what God has done for us (the Cross). These are the core of why Catholics do the sign of the cross. - Why do Catholics make the Sign of the Cross?

We should constantly recall to ourselves when and if we make the sign of the cross at communion time that without the passion and death of Our Lord Jesus Christ on the Cross, we would have no Mass or Holy Communion.

At Mass we participate in Calvary

  Vatican City, Nov 22, 2017 / 03:40 am (CNA/EWTN News).- On Wednesday Pope Francis said that when we attend Mass, it is as if we are approaching Jesus on the Cross at Calvary, and that at every Eucharist we not only experience Christ’s redemption, but we participate in it.

  “When we go to Mass, it is as if we go to Calvary, the same,” Pope Francis said Nov. 22. “This is the Mass: to enter into this Passion, death, Resurrection and Ascension of Jesus.”


Does the Catholic Church officially recognize Protestants as Christians? I have always thought that the Pope did not recognize the validity of the faith of those outside of the Catholic church, but in comments from a different post I am surprised to find out I may be confused. It may be because I read old books and things have changed in more recent history.

Most Protestants believe that anyone who genuinely believes in Christ alone for the forgiveness of their sins is saved. I am one of them.  I believe simply believing in Christ without adding anything else to the mix, including church denomination, brings eternal life to anyone.

My question is does the Catholic church accept that Christians like me have eternal life, yes, or no? If so, when did the Catholic church begin to recognize the faith of those outside of her church and understand that as believers they will be in heaven?

I am not interested in if Catholicism recognizes my baptism, or other sacraments that may have been administered to me, but rather the eternal life which has been granted to me by believing in Jesus.   I am interested to know if my salvation as a whole, outside the Catholic church, is recognized by my trust in Chrst?

From Catholic Answers article Does "no salvation outside the Church" include non-Catholic Christians?, non-Catholic Christians are specifically addressed in the Catechism:

  The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who
  are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic
  faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under
  the successor of Peter. Those who believe in Christ and have been
  properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion
  with the Catholic Church. With the Orthodox churches, this communion
  is so profound that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would
  permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist. (CCC 838)

The way I read this, the answer is "yes, but they don't have the full Truth. If they've been properly baptized and believe in Christ, they are associated with the Church, but imperfectly."

This agrees with Catholic Answers article What is the relationship between the Church and baptized Protestants?

  Full Question

  What relationship does the Catholic Church perceive to exist between
  itself and various Protestants (the baptized ones who still accept
  their faith)?

  Answer

  Validly baptized Protestants are regarded as true Christian brothers
  and sisters who are in imperfect relationship with the Church. The
  nature of the imperfections is as varied as Protestantism itself. The
  idea at work here is that the faith is an incarnational thing, not
  just a "spiritual" (disembodied) thing—just like Jesus himself. Thus,
  it is possible to be out of union with the Church "bodily"
  (structurally, sacramentally, liturgically), yet still have a
  spiritual unity with the Church. Likewise, it is possible to be
  "bodily" united to the Church yet cease to be in communion with her
  spiritually (as an apostate Catholic is if he keeps going to Communion
  yet rejects the creed or continues unrepentant in grave sin). The
  latter form of disunity with Church is more serious than the former.

Also, from EWTN Global Catholic Network article Some Things That Catholics Do Not Believe (Item # 7):

  Catholics do not believe that Protestants who are baptized, who lead a good life, love God and their neighbor, and are blamelessly
  ignorant of the just claims of the Catholic Religion to be the one
  true Religion (which is called being in good faith), are excluded from
  Heaven, provided they believe that there is one God in three Divine
  Persons; *that God will duly reward the good and punish the wicked;
  that Jesus Christ is the Son of God made man, who redeemed us, and in
  whom we must trust for our salvation; and provided they thoroughly
  repent of having ever, by their sins, offended God.

  Catholics hold that Protestants who have these dispositions, and who
  have no suspicion of their religion being false, and no means to
  discover, or fail in their honest endeavors to discover, the true
  Religion, and who are so disposed in their heart that they would at
  any cost embrace the Roman Catholic Religion if they knew it to be the
  true one, are Catholics in spirit and in some sense within the
  Catholic Church, without themselves knowing it. She holds that these
  Christians belong to, and are united to the "soul," as it is called,
  of the Catholic Church, although they are not united to the visible
  body of the Church by external communion with her, and by the outward
  profession of her faith.

  Very different is the case of a person who, having the opportunity,
  neglects to learn from genuine trustworthy sources what the Catholic
  Religion is and really teaches, fearing, that were he to become
  convinced of the truth of the Catholic Faith, he would be compelled by
  his conscience to forsake his own religion, and bear the worldly
  inconveniences attached to this step. This very fear shows a want of
  good faith, and that he is not in that insurmountable ignorance which
  could excuse him in the sight of God, nut that he is one of those of
  whom it is said in Psalm xxxv. 4, "He would not understand that he
  might do well."

  Fairness, no less than common sense, teaches that a man should study
  and examine the teaching of the Catholic Church from Catholic sources
  before condemning her. Surely no man ought to reject Catholic doctrine
  if he has not made himself well acquainted with them. Nor is is fair
  to form a judgment from misrepresentations made by ill-informed,
  interested, or prejudiced persons; one should rather, by the study of
  authorized Catholic works, judge of the truth with that calm and
  unprejudiced mind which the all-important subject of Religion
  deserves. Thus having heard both sides, you will be in a state to pass
  a right judgment and not in danger of being misled by prejudice.

  Our Saviour gave no hope of salvation to the Samaritan woman unless
  she entered the one true Church of the tine, saying to her who was
  destitute of a sure guide: "You adore that which you know not; we
  adore that which we know; for SALVATION IS OF THE JEWS". (St John iv.
  22.) So likewise there is no salvation for any one who, having by God's grace come to the knowledge of the truth, obstinately refuses to
  join the true Church of God.

That third paragraph on, particularly the very last sentence, indicates to me that the hope of salvation for protestants doesn't extend to those that flat-out refuse to learn about what the Catholic Church really teaches.


When does a tradition become a Tradition? When does a tradition became a Tradition, equally accepted and honored as the Bible? Or is a Tradition instigated by the Pope? Can anyone provide a specific example of a Tradition they hold equally viable with the scriptures?

From The Catholic Catechism:

  82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, “does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honoured with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence.”

So the Catholic Church bases its beliefs on the truths revealed to it by God; that is, on Revelation from Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. This revelation comes in two parts: Scripture, which has been written down, and Tradition, which has been passed along by word of mouth.

In keeping with the Lord’s command, the Gospel was handed on in two ways:

orally “by the apostles who handed on, by the spoken word of their preaching, by the example they gave, by the institutions they established, what they themselves had received—whether from the lips of Christ, from his way of life and his works, or whether they had learned it at the prompting of the Holy Spirit”;

in writing “by those apostles and other men associated with the apostles who, under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit, committed the message of salvation to writing.”

(Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 76. The quotes are from the dogmatic constitution Dei Verbum of the Second Vatican Council, paragraph 7.)
Christ established his apostles, and their successors, to shepherd the Church; and he promised to be with it always, guiding and guarding it. The Church as a whole, therefore, and in particular the order of bishops in communion with the Pope, ultimately decide what is and what is not revealed truth. The God-given ability to do this rightly, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, is called the Magisterium of the Church:

“The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living, teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ.” This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.

All the faithful share in understanding and handing on revealed truth. They have received the anointing of the Holy Spirit, who instructs them and guides them into all truth.

“The whole body of the faithful... cannot err in matters of belief. This characteristic is shown in the supernatural appreciation of faith (sensus fidei) on the part of the whole people, when, ‘from the bishops to the last of the faithful,’ they manifest a universal consent in matters of faith and morals.“

(Catechism of the Catholic Church. The quotes are from Dei Verbum paragraph 10 section 2, and from the dogmatic constitution Lumen Gentium of Vatican II.)
Tradition in the sense I'm speaking of is not a liturgical or devotional practice handed down through the ages. Helpful as these may be for private and communal worship of God, they are not things passed along to the whole Church, as needful for our salvation. As you've asked for examples, we're talking about things like the various beliefs regarding the Mother of God, the understanding of the nature of the Trinity, the belief in Purgatory, and so on. Indeed, the decision regarding which books were to be included in the canon of the Bible is itself a matter of tradition, though not proposed as dogma until the 16th century.
Tradition can be developed in a number of ways. Sometimes, as with the Assumption or the Immaculate Conception, it begins with a very widespread belief and practice of the whole Church. Sometimes (as with the Trinity) it begins with a rather abstract theological discussion. Often, though not always, these are eventually set out formally as in the Creed, or propounded as a dogma:

The Church’s Magisterium exercises the authority it holds from Christ to the fullest extent when it defines dogmas, that is, when it proposes, in a form obliging the Christian people to an irrevocable adherence of faith, truths contained in divine Revelation or also when it proposes, in a definitive way, truths having a necessary connection with these.

(Catechism, paragraph 88)
So if the question is literally When does a tradition become Tradition? the answer is, it doesn't; either it is, all along (because it was given us by the Holy Spirit), or it never was. If the question is When do we know that a tradition is Tradition? the answer is more or less As soon as we see that the whole body of the Church must, has, and does accept it.


Where did the Young Earth Creationist doctrine originate? I heard the other day that the literalist interpretation of biblical creation (A literal 7 day creation of the universe) isn't the classical historical interpretation that past Christians held. I was told that YEC was a relatively recent interpretation.

Meaning, has genesis historically been interpreted as figurative/metaphorical (and to what degree if so?) by past Christians?

If so, was YEC the default view? Were there "Old earth creationists" (or anyone who would be analogous to them) in the deep historic past?

On a side note, when did alternative non-literal interpretations of Genesis come about?

To be clear, this question is not the same as: Where does the belief that the Earth is relatively young (6000 years) come from?

Because I am asking about the origins of the doctrine itself, not seeking debate of the particularities of the doctrine and whether or not they are true.

If we go back to the earliest Christian teachers we will find a substantial focus on metaphorical and spiritual meanings of the Bible, more than maybe a modern Christian might expect. Roger Forster and Paul Marston write in "Reason and Faith" (Monarch, 1989):

In [the Church Fathers] there was, compared with today, a much greater emphasis on allegorical meaning of scripture. Thus, for example, Psalm 90:4 and 2 Peter 3:8 led many of them to take an allegorical interpretation of the 'days' in Genesis 1 to mean millenia. This view is expressed, for example, by Barnabas, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Methodius,  Lactantius, Theophilus and John of Damascus.

That was not the universal view:

Basil specifically refers to 24 hour periods, yet later writes: "Whether you call it a 'day' or whether you call it 'eternity', you express the same idea.
Chrysostom, who appears to take the 'days' literally in his homilies, repeatedly emphasises that ideas are being given 'concreteness of expression' in Genesis 1-3, to help our 'limited human understanding'. Thus on the 'rib' used to form Eve, he writes: "Don't take the words in human fashion; rather interpret the concreteness of the expressions from the viewpoint of human limitations. You see, if he had not used these words, how would we have been able to gain knowledge of these mysteries, which defy description".

Origen writes (around 231 AD):

What man of intelligence, I ask, will consider it a reasonable statement that the first and the second and the third day, in which there are said to be both morning and evening, existed without sun and moon and stars, while the first day was even without a heaven? And who could be found so silly as to believe that God, after the manner of a farmer, 'planted trees in a paradise East of Eden'? ... And ... when God is said to 'walk in the paradise in the evening, ... I do not think anyone will doubt that these are figurative expressions which indicate certain mysteries through semblance of history.

Augustine of Hippo writes:

Of what fashion these days were, it is either very hard or almost impossible to think, much more to speak. As for ordinary days, we see that they have no morning or evening but as the sun sets and rises. But the first three days had no sun, for that was made on the fourth day.

Augustine thought that the Genesis language reflected the Angelic perspective, which could know something either directly in God or in its later actual being.
The issue was not thought of as a crucial one to Christian belief.
The scientific evidence that pointed to an extremely old earth did not arise until the 18th century. This redating was not at the time generally taken as a 'disproof' of either Genesis or Christianity, and many of the scholars supporting it were Christian.
Significant Christian opposition to the geological dating did not arise until the early 20th century, with the Fundamentalism revival. Leading early exponents were George McReady price and Henry Morris. The Wikipedia article gives an excellent overview of the history.


Are there Christians that try to change the date of Second Coming through their actions? I have always assumed that the date of Parousia (the Second Coming of Jesus) is fixed and that humans cannot change it. The wish that it would be soon is one of longing and fulfilment, not one of trying to influence God. Recently I heard the president of a country asking Christian leaders to ask Jesus to change his mind and come soon to remove the sinners as the police are having problems coping. (Who this is, is irrelevant to the question - he plans to rule till the Second Coming in any case so he might have ulterior motives for asking.) I then wondered if he belonged to a grouping or church (he has many wives so I am not sure about this) that believes that Christians can influence the date as some of Judaism does.

In another question on this site, the question was more about what God was waiting for before the Second Coming took place. Another question asked about the affect of prayer on God's plan. To these there are a couple of answers but this is not relevant to my question either as I want to know if there are religious groups that actively strive to bring the date forward and who they might be. Which Christian leaders feel that they can heed his call in a meaningful way and what would they do?

An example would be groups that concentrate intensely on missionary work to speed up the coming of Jesus through the promise that if the whole world have heard the message, 'then the end will come'. (Matthew 24: 14). Or a group that pray for an earlier date. Or do good works. Etc etc.

Please see this FMS' answer to What are the different views regarding the order of events for end-times prophecy? It would appear that on the list, the first two are the ones a person or a group can influence.

  the full number of the Gentiles come into the Church
  the "full inclusion of the Jews in the Messiah's salvation, in the wake of the full number of the Gentiles" (#2 will follow quickly on,
  in the wake of, #1)

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, 674 begins by saying

  The glorious Messiah's coming is suspended at every moment of history
  until his recognition by "all Israel".

Therefore if full number of Gentiles come into the Church and all Israel recognize the Messiah, the fulfillment of these two things will be two less things suspending the LORD's return.

Some Jews upon coming into the fullness of their religion in the Catholic Church, realize this perhaps with a clarity that say even cradle Catholics don't. One such convert is Alphonse Ratisbonne who after his conversion,

  [...] moved to the Holy Land and with his brother Theodor founded a
  congregation of nuns --  the Congregation of Our Lady of Sion -- to
  pray for the conversion of the Jews.

The other thing that must happen before the LORD comes is the gospel is to be preached to ALL nations. This is the mission of the Church.

The Church, full of hope also prays,

  Maran atha ("Our Lord, come!") or Marana tha ("Come, Lord!") - "Amen Come Lord Jesus!" cf. CCC 451 and the prayers of the Advent Season.

Therefore the Church's preaching to the Nations, The Church's hopeful prayer and those of her children imploring the LORD to come and not delay, and her apostolate and those of some groups within the Church for the conversion of the Jews, is what the Church does to advance or at least to prepare for the glorious coming of the Messiah.

Endnote

Of course all those who also pray the LORD's prayer also join the Church in praying for the coming of the Kingdom

  Thy Kingdom come.