Is there a logical flow in 2 Timothy 2:4-7? No man that warreth entangleth himself with the affairs of this life; that he may please him who hath chosen him to be a soldier. And if a man also strive for masteries, yet is he not crowned, except he strive lawfully. The husbandman that laboureth must be first partaker of the fruits. Consider what I say; and the Lord give thee understanding in all things. (2 Timothy 2:4-7, KJV)

These statements seem disconnected to me. Considering that Paul is asking Timothy to consider these things, I would think there is some connection between these counsels.

Just like teachers today, Paul is using an illustration. The form his illustration takes is three examples of people who work hard, to show what working for God in Christian ministry is like. There are slight differences in what each example tells us about ministry. To understand it you need to read it in context:

  2:1 You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. 2 And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable people who will also be qualified to teach others. 3 Join with me in suffering, like a good soldier of Christ Jesus.

  4 No one serving as a soldier gets entangled in civilian affairs, but rather tries to please his commanding officer.
  5 Similarly, anyone who competes as an athlete does not receive the victor’s crown except by competing according to the rules.
  6 The hardworking farmer should be the first to receive a share of the crops.
  7 Reflect on what I am saying, for the Lord will give you insight into all this.

  8 Remember Jesus Christ, raised from the dead, descended from David. This is my gospel, 9 for which I am suffering even to the point of being chained like a criminal. But God’s word is not chained. 10 Therefore I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they too may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus, with eternal glory. (2 Timothy 2:1-10, NIV)

In verses 1-3 Paul exhorts Timothy to continue in his ministry through the strength of God's grace. That work is primarily about teaching and passing on the message, but as verse 3 says, the work will involve suffering, like a good soldier of Christ Jesus.

So he then gives his three examples. Here's what I think they communicate:

Christian ministry is like serving as a soldier because it requires a distinct lifestyle. Timothy has to avoid being distracted away from his work by 'civilian affairs', because he isn't working for himself, he's working for God. The Bible talks about this in many other places, such as in Matthew 6:24: you can't serve money and God.
Ministry is like athletic competitions, because you can't cheat. You can't take short cuts, you can't abuse your co-athletes. And like a race, ministry has a reward at the end.
Ministry is like a farmer. When the work is done we will see the results. But farmers do have to work hard, just like we do.

A common theme through these three examples is delayed reward, which is where Paul goes in verses 8-10. Paul is suffering for his ministry, but he knows it is worth it. He endures it because through it he is helping other people obtain salvation and eternal glory. His reward is to share God's glory with his new Christian brothers and sisters.


Can the gloria and sanctus be replaced at the Mass with some other hymn or song? Can the gloria and sanctus be replaced at Mass with some other liturgical hymn or song?
Or can they be partially modified?

General Instruction of the Roman Missal (2003):

53. The Gloria is a very ancient and venerable hymn in which the Church, gathered together in the Holy Spirit, glorifies and entreats God the Father and the Lamb. The text of this hymn may not be replaced by any other text.


Did God die for our sins? The question is simple but I really need an answer...
If Jesus died for our sins then the question would be how could God die?
If God didn't die and it's only the human flesh then God didn't really die for our sins it's just his human form.
I'm Muslim but I've been searching for the truth for a really long time.
If it's Islam I'm willing to stay there.
If it's Christianity I'm really willing to convert.
If it's Judaism I'm willing to convert.

Be aware that this doesn't apply to all christian denominations, but probably most. When we say "dying", it's the physical body that dies. The spirit never dies in the sense of ceasing to exist, be it humans or God.
The resurrection is reuniting the spirit and body.
In resurrecting, Jesus conquered death and opened the path for all humankind to be ressurrected.


Is Baptism by Holy Sprit and Baptism by Fire the same thing? At Matt 3: 11 we see John the Baptist speaking of Jesus:

“I baptize you with water for repentance, but one who is more powerful than I is coming after me; I am not worthy to carry his sandals. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. "

I wish to know if Baptism by the Holy Spirit and Baptism by Fire are two different things, given that the Holy Spirit himself would later appear in the form of fire at Pentacost (Acts 2:3) . How does the Catholic Church interpret the statement of the Baptist ?

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia:

  Those who have held that "water" in the Gospel text is to be taken
  metaphorically, appeal to the words of the Precursor (Matthew 3), "He
  shall baptize you in the Holy Ghost and fire". As "fire" must
  certainly be only a figure of speech here, so must "water" in the
  other texts. To this objection, it may be replied that the Christian
  Church, or at least the Apostles themselves, must have understood what
  was prescribed to be taken literally and what figuratively. The New
  Testament and church history prove that they never looked on fire as a
  material for baptism, while they certainly did require water. Outside
  of the insignificant sects of Seleucians and Hermians, not even
  heretics took the word "fire" in this text in its literal meaning. We
  may remark, however, that some of the Fathers, as St. John Damascene
  (Of the Orthodox Faith IV.9), concede this statement of the Baptist to
  have a literal fulfillment in the Pentecostal fiery tongues. They do
  not refer it, however, literally to baptism. That water alone is the
  necessary matter of this sacrament depends of course on the will of
  Him Who instituted it, although theologians discover many reasons why
  it should have been chosen in preference to other liquids. The most
  obvious of these is that water cleanses and purifies more perfectly
  than the others, and hence the symbolism is more natural.

The Catholic Church considers the fire to be symbolic, just as it does with the water.

But some other denominations take it more literally (e.g. Should We Want to Be Baptized With Fire?), especially when considered in light of John's complete sentence rather than the truncated prooftext quoted in the question and used for eisegesis in the Catholic Encyclopedia excerpt.

  I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh
  after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he
  shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:  whose fan is in
  his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat
  into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.

John is contrasting the two possible final fates that we face.  This literal baptism of fire will occur at the end of the world, when all that have rejected salvation and God's holy spirit will be reduced to ashes.


Thomistic Predestination and Free Will What is the role of free will in Thomistic predestination?

My understanding of Thomist teachings:

people have free will to do what they want
everyone gets sufficient amount of grace (Sufficient for what, if they will go to hell as they live a sinful life.)
God just chooses some for salvation (predestines them), gives them a special amount of grace (efficacious grace) and these will go to Heaven
the others (who got sufficient amount of grace) are reprobates who go to hell

I do not see any real connection between free will and grace - I suppose there is no. Thus, I do not understand how God chooses whom to provide efficacious grace and how this can be aligned with a loving God (e.g. what if he chooses killers etc. for salvation).

The view of Norman Geisler, who was a Thomistic scholar, is that free will and election are not innately contradictory. Geisler wrote the book "Chosen but Free". He explains that while God's choosing and man's free will seem to be contradictory, philosophically they can't be shown to be so.

A key verse for Geisler is 1 Peter 1:1-2 where God's choice is "according to" His foreknowledge. Calvinism claims that God chooses independent of His foreknowledge. Arminianism usually says that God chooses based on His foreknowledge of our faith. But Geisler based on Aquinas simply posits that God's choice doesn't contradict free will.


In which writing(s) did Augustine assert that God exists outside of time? According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, on the entry for “Eternity,” §3 (“The Eternalist View”), it is stated,

  So, beginning with Augustine and Boethius, many thinkers have held the view that God exists apart from time, or outside time.

In which writing(s) did Augustine assert that God exists outside of time? (The English translation and Latin text are preferred.)

Augustine addresses this question in at least the Confessions and the City of God.  In book 11 of the Confessions he deals with the subject of time extensively, and ultimately he decides that it is inherently associated with change.  In City of God he writes:

Time does not exist without some movement and transition, while in eternity there is no change. (11.6)
tempus sine aliqua mobili mutabilitate non est, in aeternitate autem nulla mutatio est

With this definition, it's perhaps unsurprising that he sees God as outside time, and, indeed, the creator of it.

Since then, God, in whose eternity is no change at all, is the Creator and Ordainer of time, I do not see how He can be said to have created the world after spaces of time had elapsed, unless it be said that prior to the world there was some creature by whose movement time could pass. (11.6)
Cum igitur Deus, in cuius aeternitate nulla est omnino mutatio, creator sit temporum et ordinator: quo modo dicatur post temporum spatia mundum creasse non uideo, nisi dicatur ante mundum iam aliquam fuisse creaturam, cuius motibus tempora currerent.

That is, to Augustine, it is logically impossible for time to have existed without God creating it.  Similarly, in the Confessions:

How would innumerable ages pass, which you yourself had not made?  You are the originator and creator of all ages.  What times existed which were not brought into being by you?  Or how could they pass if they never had existence? Since, therefore, you are the cause of all times, if any time existed before you made heaven and earth, how can anyone say that you abstained from working?  You have made time itself.  Time could not elapse before you made time. (11.xiii)
nam unde poterant innumerabilia saecula praeterire quae ipse non feceras, cum sis omnium saeculorum auctor et conditor? aut quae tempora fuissent quae abs te condita non essent? aut quomodo praeterirent, si numquam fuissent? cum ergo sis operator omnium temporum, si fuit aliquod tempus antequam faceres caelum et terram, cur dicitur quod ab opere cessabas? idipsum enim tempus tu feceras, nec praeterire potuerunt tempora antequam faceres tempora.
You made time itself.  No times are coeternal with you since you are permanent.  If they were permanent, they would not be times. (11.xiv)
nullo ergo tempore non feceras aliquid, quia ipsum tempus tu feceras. et nulla tempora tibi coaeterna sunt, quia tu permanes. at illa si permanerent, non essent tempora.

And as the creator of time, God is necessarily outside of it – he does not experience it like we do:

Your 'years' neither go nor come.  Ours come and go so that all may come in succession.  All your 'years' subsist in simultaneity, because they do not change; those going away are not thrust out by those coming in.  [...] Your Today does not yield to a tomorrow, nor did it follow on a yesterday.  Your Today is eternity. (11.xiii)
anni tui nec eunt nec veniunt, isti enim nostri eunt et veniunt, ut omnes veniant; anni tui omnes simul stant, quoniam stant, nec euntes a venientibus excluduntur, quia non transeunt. isti autem nostri omnes erunt, cum omnes non erunt. anni tui dies unus, et dies tuus non cotidie sed hodie, quia hodiernus tuus non cedit crastino; neque enim succedit hesterno. hodiernus tuus aeternitas

English text is from the Dods translation of the City of God and the Chadwick translation of the Confessions.  Latin text is from the City of God and the Confessions on the Latin Library.


Did Paul write the Epistle to the Hebrews? The authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews is an open question. The common scholarly opinion is that the author certainly wasn't Paul.

Most modern Bible translations make no mention of the author, but some older ones such as the King James Version do:

Personally, I find it hard to believe that Paul would have written Heb 2:3-4. In his other letters, he always highlights himself as one of the apostles; here the writer has a very humble attitude and certainly doesn't count himself an apostle.

  Hebrews 2:3-4 (KJV)
   3How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him;
   4God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will?

Was Paul the author of Hebrews? What supports Pauline authorship?

Most hold that Hebrews was not authored by Paul because the style and form of the Greek is so good and fine, compared with the style of Paul's other, non-anonymous, writings. The style of Hebrews is almost as if it were a prepared sermon.

However, it would be hard to disagree that the contents (the theology and doctrine) agree perfectly with that of Paul's teachings. Hebrews sounds like something Paul would say, but the original Greek doesn't read like Paul usually wrote.

Origen, as quoted by Eusebius, had this to say...

  That the character of the diction of the epistle entitled To the Hebrews has not the apostle’s rudeness in speech, who confessed himself rude in speech, that is, in style, but that the epistle is better Greek in the framing of its diction, will be admitted by everyone who is able to discern differences of style. But again, on the other hand, that the thoughts of the epistle are admirable, and not inferior to the acknowledged writings of the apostle, to this also everyone will consent as true who has given attention to reading the apostle…. But as for myself, if I were to state my own opinion, I should say that the thoughts are the apostle’s, but that the style and composition belonged to one who called to mind the apostle’s teachings and, as it were, made short notes of what his master said. If any church, therefore, holds this epistle as Paul’s, let it be commended for this also. For not without reason have the men of old handed it down as Paul’s. But who wrote the epistle, in truth God knows. Yet the account which has reached us [is twofold], some saying that Clement, who was bishop of the Romans, wrote the epistle, others, that it was Luke, he who wrote the Gospel and the Acts

My personal feeling is, because the theology and doctrine matches Paul's other writings so perfectly, coupled with his knowledge of scripture gained by sitting at the feet of Gamaliel (Acts 22:3), that Paul was the author of Hebrews. Perhaps he had someone to assist him as he dictated, or perhaps he simply spent more time grammatically fine-tuning this particular epistle. But the spirit of the letter feels Pauline.


Does God ever impute sin? "Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin." (Romans 4:8; KJV)

The word impute means roughly "to put into" or "to give". We are saved because of Jesus' imputed righteousness.

What does this verse mean? Does God make us sinful in His eyes by giving us sin?

In this passage Paul is quoting from Psalm 32. The King James Version in both cases uses derivatives of the verb to impute. However, other well-respected more modern versions of the Bible do not translate it this way e.g. the NIV or the NRSV.

There is a less common meaning of the word impute meaning "to assign a value to" which is used in finance. In this sense, which may have been in more general use at the time the KJV was written, the verse meaning matches much better to the other translations. Otherwise it seems to suggest that there is a difference between the KJV and modern texts which would likely to be due to the manuscripts used and available to the KJV's translators.


Difference between spirit and soul and consciousness From my reading of the Bible, spirit gives Man a consciousness of God and soul gives Man a consciousness of the self and the body gives Man consciousness of the world. Spirit is also the immaterial part of us, the image of God. When today's seculars use the word consciousness and even some Christian apologists like William L. Craig, what exactly do they mean when they use the word 'consciousness" for example "the hard problem of consciousness" what's the difference between spirit and soul and consciousness from a anthropological tripartite/trichotomy view of the nature of Man?

I assume you want the Biblical meanings, which can differ from modern usage.  Nephesh and psyche often are translated life. When Jesus said greater love has no one than to give his life for his friend (John 15:13), the word translated life in the Greek New Testament is psyche (soul).  Animals as well as humans have this kind of life.  In the Old Testament nephesh (soul) is also used for animals.
The modern term psyche in psychology means something different and is closely related to consciousness.
Spirit (ruha and pneuma) of a human is the ability to relate to God.  God is Spirit.

But the hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father is seeking such people to worship him.  God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.”
(John 4:23–24, ESV)

The Bible doesn't talk about consciousness, but does use conscience.  The Greek term like the English term, from Latin, is a compound word to know with/together.  Paul used this term in Romans 2:15 for the laws written in the human heart.
Thus, from the standpoint of consciousness, the ability to relate to God (spirit) gives us consciousness of God.  With our individual life (soul), we learn to be conscious of self.  The baby first learns that he/she has arms and legs that can move eventually in a controlled manner.
Since you tagged heaven and referred to a tripartite/trichotomy view of man, the Judeo-Christian view of the soul differs from the Greek philosophers with respect  to the bodily resurrection (the body with the soul).  The Greeks thought the soul was freed from the body at death.  1 Corinthians 15 deals with this conflict.

Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?  But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised.  And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain.
(1 Cor. 15:12–14, ESV)


Is reference to "God" as a rock unique to Judeo-Christian usage? Throughout the Old Testament God is likened to a “Rock” and within the New Testament the Rock that Moses struck is identified as Christ.

For who is God, save the LORD? and who is a rock, save our God? (2 Samuel 22:32)
And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ. (1 Corinthians 10:4)

Was such a metaphor for God as a “rock” unique to Israel, or was that a widespread view of Divinity?

I'm unsure of other religions, but regarding Christianity today, the Bible tells us

  "Do not fear, nor be afraid; Have I not told you from that time, and
  declared it? You are My witnesses. Is there a God besides Me? Indeed
  there is no other Rock; I know not one. (Isaiah 44:8)

So when Jesus says

  "on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not
  prevail against it." (Matthew 16:18)

The gates of Hades did not prevail against Jesus, He is the Rock, sinless and risen! Many Christian denominations today still consider Jesus the rock.  Popular hymns written long ago such as "Rock of Ages" also show that individuals many years ago saw this as true.


The Ten Commandments vs Other Laws Good Day,

In the Old Testament Moses was given the Ten Commandments which we all know and try to follow as best as we can. The general usefulness of these Ten Commandments have shaped western law and morals for centuries, they even are the basic rules of any society of any size regardless of what the local religion teaches. I however have a hard time of understanding the purpose of the Commandments and the laws set by Moses in relation to each other.

Were both set of rules given by God?

If yes, then why is it that some laws can contradict the Ten Commandments?
If no, then what was the point of having a set of laws besides from the holy ones (the ten commandments)? And even worse, how is it justifiable to set these laws such that even one law can contradict one of the commandments?

I'm not asking these questions from a position disbelief or critique; I am merely trying to understand the relationship we have to the laws of Moses vs the Ten Commandments. I guess I'm also struggling to understand why we no longer follow the old laws if they were considered to be holy.

The Torah laws consisted of a great deal more than just the 10 Commandments and ceremonial laws.  The Law of Moses can be loosely divided into several sections that overlap somewhat, but this will help to clarify the discussion.

Ceremonial system - includes all the regulations around sacrifices, temples services, annual holy days, circumcision, the priesthood, etc, etc.
Jurisprudence and civil law - includes regulations around how court cases were to be conducted, how wars should be fought, how foreigners were treated, property laws, tort laws, criminal treatment, etc.
Health and Hygiene laws - includes things such as quarantine laws, some dietary laws, purification laws, etc.
Moral Laws including the Ten Commandments and some others (eg, Lev 19:18 and Deut 6:5).
A range of personal ethical laws such as generosity to the poor, attitude to foreigners, respect for authority, the rule of law, safety rules, oaths, tithe, offerings, treatment of animals, treatment of slaves, etc.  Some writers include these laws with the Moral Laws listed above.

Historical Positions

Until at least the 19th century, most mainstream churches taught that the Ceremonial system in the Law of Moses had been fulfilled by Jesus and that the only law incumbent upon Christians was the Moral Law (10 commandments and a few others).  Indeed, the Church of England 1662 liturgy for Holy Communion required the minister to read each of the 10 commandments and the congregation would respond, “Lord, have mercy upon us, and incline our hearts to keep this law.”

King Alfred the Great of England based his original civil code of law on section (2) above - Jewish jurisprudence.  That is, while not adopting the Jewish laws directly, he used them to inform his civil code.

In the history of the Church, there have been several official theological positions regarding the ceremonial laws in the Pentateuch.  Here is a short list (I will ignore such refinements as Adamic Law and Noahide Law as extra-Biblical ideas):

Position #1: The entire Mosaic Law should be kept.

Position #2:  The Ceremonial System should be kept, including sacrifices and holy days, but not the priesthood and temple parts.  The Ten Commandments should also be kept.

Position #3:  Only the Holy days should be observed, and the Ten Commandments kept.

Position #4:  Only the Moral Law should be kept and possibly the personal ethical rules as well

Position #5:  No law should be kept because we "under a covenant of grace".

Position #1 is not possible because the temple does not exist and neither does the priesthood.  If this position had been intended by God, then God would have preserved both the priesthood and the temple.

Position #2 is similarly inconsistent - the Ceremonial System cannot be implemented without the temple and priesthood - the Pentateuch makes this very clear.  Even the Jews understand this.  Many Jews want to re-start the whole ceremonial system but realise that without the temple and priesthood they cannot.  Therefore, they do not do it.

Position #3 is equally inconsistent as Position #2.  The ONLY way to keep the annual holy days is as per the extensive regulations in the Leviticus, including its sacrifices; but all these requirements need the temple and priesthood, and thus cannot be implemented.

Position #4 as stated above, used to be that of most churches.  (Now many are not clear.)  The usual justification for keeping the Ten Commandments as opposed to the ceremonial laws was based on several observations:

The stated purpose of the Jewish ceremonial system was as a teaching device to inculcate the plan of salvation (Heb 9:8, 9, 11-14, 10:1) and had no salvific function (Heb 9:9, 10:4, Ps 51:16, 17, 1 Sam 15:22).  That is, it used symbols to teach about the coming Messiah.  When Messiah arrived and offered sacrifice for sin and the example of the exemplary life, the ceremonial system’s usefulness ceased to exist.
Even in Old Testament times, the ceremonial system had been misunderstood and abused and did not provide propitiation but only symbolised the sacrifice of Jesus (yet to come), eg, Isa 1:10-17, Ps 40:6-8, 51:16, 17, 1 Sam 15:22, Hos 6:6, Prov 15:8, 21:3, Jer 6:20, Micah 6:6-8, etc.  Therefore, in New Testament times, after the reality of Jesus had come, its value was gone.
When Jesus died on the cross, the ceremonial system was finished and the temple curtain diving the Holy from the Most Holy Place was torn in two from top to bottom (Matt 27:51, Mark 15:38, Luke 23:45, see also 2 Cor 3:13-16) to symbolise this.
No sacrifices were ever offered by the Apostles and no Jewish feasts were celebrated by them .
The council at Jerusalem excused Christians from the ceremonial law requirements except for the prohibition about eating blood (a health regulation!)  See Acts 15:29.
The famous passage in Col 2:14-17 discusses the “handwriting of ordinances” – a clear reference to Moses’ hand-written law (ceremonial regulations + the annual Sabbaths) on a scroll placed outside the Ark of the Covenant (Deut 31:25, 26), while the 10 commandments were written by the finger of God on stone and placed inside the Ark (Ex 40:20).
Jesus encouraged people to keep the moral law (Matt 5:17-19, John 15:10, etc), for example when approached by the rich young ruler (Matt 19:18, 19, Mark 10:19).  However, the 10 commandments are not the only binding requirements that remain as shown by Jesus in Matt 22:36-40 as He listed at least two more.  Therefore, even position #4 is incomplete.

Position #5 is untenable as encouraging lawlessness (1 John 3:4) and anarchy, and is unbiblical.  Paul specifically tackles this problem by saying a number of times that by grace we should uphold the [moral] law (Rom 6:15, 7:7-12, 14, etc).

Thus, there is much debate (still) about what laws are still relevant today.  Some of the plagues of medieval Europe that devastated much of the population were often stopped (at least on some regions) by implementing the hygiene and quarantine health laws in the Torah.  Every church group has a different position that are often historically based rather than really Biblically based.


How do Trinitarians explain John 17:3? Unitarians use John 17:3 to affirm their faith that the Father alone is the only true God. They would say that this is the strongest evidence that there is only one person who is true God. Thus, the Nicene Creed saying that Jesus was "true God from true God" would appear to be contradictory to John 17:3 based on Unitarian perspective.

  And this is eternal life, that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.
  John 17:3 (ESV)

How do Trinitarians explain John 17:3? Can I have an answer with an elaboration on the passage itself, a patristic quotation and also with scholarly citation from Trinitarian perspective?

That scripture verse that you mention was used by Arius to maintain that Jesus was not of same nature as Father. However, his objection was resolved.

St. Thomas explains the difficulty you mention in his commentary on the gospel of John 17; on this point he writes:

  Secondly, we should explain the phrase, you the only true God. It is
  clear that Christ was speaking to the Father, so when he says, you the
  only true God, it seems that only God the Father is true God. The
  Arians agree with this, for they say that the Son differs by essence
  from the Father, since the Son is a created substance, although he
  shares in the divinity more perfectly and to a greater degree than do
  all other creatures. So much more that the Son is called God, but not
  the true God, because he is not God by nature, which only the Father
  is.

  Hilary answers this by saying that when we want to know whether a
  certain thing is true, we can determine it from two things: its nature
  and its power. For true gold is that which has the species of true
  gold; and we determine this if it acts like true gold. Therefore, if
  we maintain that the Son has the true nature of God, because the Son
  exercises the true activities of divinity, it is clear that the Son is
  true God. Now the Son does perform true works of divinity, for we
  read, "Whatever he [the Father] does, that the Son does likewise"
  (5:19); and again he said, "For as the Father has life in himself,"
  which is not a participated life, "so he has granted the Son also to
  have life in himself" (5:26); "That we may be in his true Son, Jesus
  Christ. This is the true God and eternal life" [1 Jn 5:20].

  According to Hilary, he says, you the only true God, in a way that
  does not exclude another. He does not say without qualification, you
  the only, but adds and Jesus Christ whom you have sent. It is like
  saying: that they know you and Jesus Christ whom you have sent to be
  the one and only true God. This is a pattern of speaking that we also
  use when we say [in the Gloria]: "You alone, Jesus Christ, are the
  most high, together with the Holy Spirit." No mention is made of the
  Holy Spirit because whenever the Father and the Son are mentioned, and
  especially in matters pertaining to the grandeur of the divinity, the
  Holy Spirit, who is the bond of the Father and Son, is implied.

  Or, according to Augustine in his work, The Trinity, he says this to
  exclude the error of those who claim that it is false to say that the
  Father is God, and the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God; while
  it is true to say that the Father and the Son and Holy Spirit are one
  God. The reason for this opinion was that the Apostle said that
  "Christ [is] the power of God and the Wisdom of God" (1 Cor 1:24). Now
  it is clear that we cannot call anyone God unless he has divine power
  and wisdom. Therefore, since these people held that the Father was
  wisdom, which is the Son, they held further that the Father considered
  without the Son would not be God. And the same applies to the Son and
  the Holy Spirit.

Also in Summa Contra Gentiles St. Thomas Aquians sets up various objections (that Arius used) against opinion that Jesus is God here (among objections is one that uses John 17:3.) He resolves them here. It is benifical to read objections and answers for detailed solutions to the objections.

St. Thomas argues that in God there is begetting, fatherhood and sonship in book IV of Summa contra gentiles (see chapters from 1 to 14) where he also refutes opinions of Protinus and Sabellius.


In Protestant churches, who is the authority in interpreting the Bible? I need a better understanding of Protestant teaching on who has the authority to interpret Sacred Scripture.

Protestants believe in the Priesthood of all Believers, which is to say that protestants believe that all Christians have a direct connection with God--there is no need to go through a Priest.  That's not to say that they don't have Priests or Pastors or other figures of leadership, but they don't fulfill the role of mediator between man and God, that they do in the Catholic tradition.
As such, every protestant believer is essentially expected to read scripture directly--not simply listen to teachings from scripture, presented by priests (as I know many Catholics choose to do).
This leads to two distinct phenomenon:

Some protestants try for a sort of "Lone Ranger Christian" approach, interpreting scripture on their own, sometimes cherry-picking the interpretations they like, discarding others.
This phenomenon is a point of great criticism from Catholics, but I believe is much more spoken about than actually experienced in practice.

The more common and practical experience is that by encouraging all protestants to do their own Bible study and interpretation, the end result is that all protestants interpret scripture.  As the as Proverbs says, iron sharpen iron.  When protestants examine scripture individually, and in groups, and discuss their views and opinions, it allows the group as a whole ownership over the interpretation, which can be a big benefit.

Of course, there can be drawbacks, and all methods of scriptural interpretation can be abused.


What Christmas traditions have roots in Jewish traditions? There are many traditions in modern Christmas celebrations, that Jesus would not be familiar with.

What Christmas traditions have their roots in Jewish celebrations, that Jesus would recognize?

The Feast of the Circumcision of Jesus is a Christian celebration of the circumcision of Christ in accordance with Jewish tradition.

This feast is celebrated by Catholics who follow the Extraordinary Rite of the Mass on January 1st. The feast is celebrated on the octave day of Christmas, thus concluding the ancient tradition of celebrating major feast days (Christmas, Easter and Pentecost) for eight days.  This is also the day that Jesus received his Most Holy Name.

There is also the Feast of the Holy Name of Jesus , which is celebrated on another date than on January 1st in the Roman Catholic Church.

  The Feast of the Holy Name of Jesus is a feast of the liturgical year celebrated by a number of Christian denominations, on varying dates. In Roman Catholicism the month of January is traditionally dedicated to the Holy Name of Jesus.

  In the Latin Rite Catholic Church it is observed as an optional memorial on 3 January by Catholics following the present General Roman Calendar. Franciscans, Carmelites, and Augustinians kept the feast on 14 January; Dominicans on 15 January; in some localities the date was 8 January, in others 31 January, in some localities in Great Britain on 7 August. The Society of Jesus, i.e., the Jesuits, celebrates the Holy Name of Jesus on 3 January as the order's own titular feast.


What is the Biblical basis for believing God is the same throughout the Old and New Testament? My first ever question here is:
What is the Biblical basis for believing that God is the same throughout the Old and New Testaments, especially when one might struggle to reconcile the apparent contradiction between God being love and God being a jealous God simultaneously?
Scriptural support for my question:

God is love. (1 John 4:16)
Love is not jealous or boastful. (1 Corinthians 13:4, RSV)

Then the Old Testament verses in apparent contrast to the two above from the New Testament:

For I the Lord your God am a jealous God. (Exodus 20:5)
For the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God. (Exodus 34:14)

There is reference to God not changing in both the Old Testament and the New Testament:

 I the Lord do not change. So you, the descendants of Jacob, are not
destroyed. (Malachi 3:6)
Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever. (Hebrews
13:8)

While God has not changed, there are some things that have changed, such as God's dealing with mankind based on the death & resurrection of Jesus Christ.
As stated:

He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but
also for the sins of the whole world. (1 John 2:2)

God has dealt with mankind based on covenants or testaments, so there is a distinction between Jew, Gentile, and the Church of God.

Do not cause anyone to stumble, whether Jews, Greeks or the church of
God (1 Corinthians 10:32)

In the New Testament there is still reference to God being a jealous God:

Are we trying to arouse the Lord’s jealousy? Are we stronger than he?
(1 Corinthians 10:22)
Or do you think Scripture says without reason that he jealously longs
for the spirit he has caused to dwell in us? (James 4:5)

The apostle Paul refers to being jealous:

I am jealous for you with a godly jealousy. I promised you to one
husband, to Christ, so that I might present you as a pure virgin to
him. (2 Corinthians 11:2)

But he states that it is a "godly jealousy".
This is a really big topic, which may raise more questions, but to wrap up what I'm saying, 1 John 2:2 talks about Jesus satisfying God's wrath against sin. That is the difference, we now have a better covenant/testament based on better promises.

But in fact the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs
as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one,
since the new covenant is established on better promises. (Hebrews
8:6)


Can I have my marriage blessed in the Roman Catholic Church? I married a Catholic divorcee in a non-Catholic church.

Can I have my marriage blessed in the Catholic Church?

If you have already married this Catholic in a non-Catholic church, then if you wish for the Church to recognize your marriage as valid(and thus sacramental) she first needs to apply for and receive a declaration of nullity regarding the previous marriage, and then you both need to go through a process called convalidation. (Code of Canon Law 1156-1160).

Note: As far as the Church is concerned, the Catholic is the one upon
whom the responsibility of "doing it right" is placed when marrying a non Catholic, but that's water under the bridge at this point in your case.  My wife (my then fiancé, Catholic, while I was not) took the trouble to get our "doing it right" process begun before we were married, to include various dispensations requested, our pastoral counselling together with the priest, pre cana, and all that.  (I later came into the Church).

The first step to arriving at a convalidation of your marriage is to meet with a local Catholic priest, or someone in the chancery at the nearest Catholic diocese, and discuss the details of the previous marriage(s) and your current marriage to see what the process is.  Each situation has its own nuances.

Important Note: a declaration of nullity is not the same thing as a divorce.

If the Catholic's previous marriage was already annulled ("declaration of nullity" was issued for that marriage), then efforts at convalidation will take a different course and a lot less time.

How do I know this?

Six years in the RCIA ministry working with this issue, among others.

Related question here

See also this question

What is an annulment?

  "Annulment" is an unfortunate word that is sometimes used to refer to
  a Catholic "declaration of nullity." Actually, nothing is made null
  through the process. Rather, a Church tribunal (a Catholic Church
  court) declares that a marriage thought to be valid according to
  Church law actually fell short of at least one of the essential
  elements required for a binding union.


The degrees of efficacy in the Eucharistic Celebration The Catholic Church teaches infallibly that the Eucharist is a sacrifice that is necessary to consume to attain salvation, as an airplane is necessary to cross great distances.

  Gospel of St. John 6:53-56

  53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the
  flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.
  54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I
  will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and
  my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood
  remains in me, and I in them.

  The Didache (AD 70)

  "Assemble on the Lord’s day, and break bread and offer the Eucharist;
  but first make confession of your faults, so that your sacrifice may
  be a pure one. Anyone who has a difference with his fellow is not to
  take part with you until he has been reconciled, so as to avoid any
  profanation of your sacrifice [Matt. 5:23–24]. For this is the
  offering of which the Lord has said, ‘Everywhere and always bring me a
  sacrifice that is undefiled, for I am a great king, says the Lord, and
  my name is the wonder of nations’ [Mal. 1:11, 14]" (Didache 14 [A.D.
  70]).

  St. Justin Martyr (AD 155)

  "God speaks by the mouth of Malachi, one of the twelve [minor
  prophets], as I said before, about the sacrifices at that time
  presented by you: ‘I have no pleasure in you, says the Lord, and I
  will not accept your sacrifices at your hands; for from the rising of
  the sun to the going down of the same, my name has been glorified
  among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to my name,
  and a pure offering, for my name is great among the Gentiles . . .
  [Mal. 1:10–11]. He then speaks of those Gentiles, namely us
  [Christians] who in every place offer sacrifices to him, that is, the
  bread of the Eucharist and also the cup of the Eucharist" (Dialogue
  with Trypho the Jew 41 [A.D. 155]).

We know that God sees this sacrifice as perfect, but as to the one giving/consuming the sacrifice it is another matter. Does God always give us all the ordinary graces that come with its consumption regardless of our dispositions(state of grace presupposed)?

The Question in it's formality:

Assuming that we are in a state of grace, can the Eucharist be more or less beneficial to us based on our dispositions?

Scenario Examples:

((1)) Two men, in a state of grace, consume the Eucharist. But the first man has a sundays-only-catholic attitude while the second man is on fire for God, both of them believe in the real presence but neither of them worship Jesus in the Eucharist. Do they receive equal blessings of God?

((2)) Two women, in a state of grace, consume the Eucharist. But the first woman regards the Eucharist as merely a symbolic act, while the second woman recognizes and worships Christ in the Eucharist. Do they receive equal blessings of God?

PS: Yes the Eucharist takes away all venial sins regardless of dispositions provided we are in a state of grace, but that is just taking away, I am speaking of what it can potentially give based on our dispositions.
The extras if you want.

The sacrament in itself is sufficient for giving grace, but the dispositions of the recipient can hinder the action of the sacramental grace.
Discussing whether one can receive the Eucharist daily, St. Thomas Aquinas writes (Summa Theologica III q. 80 a. 10 co.):

There are two things to be considered regarding the use of this sacrament.

The first is on the part of the sacrament itself, the virtue of which gives health to men; and consequently it is profitable to receive it daily so as to receive its fruits daily. Hence Ambrose says (De Sacram. iv): "If, whenever Christ's blood is shed, it is shed for the forgiveness of sins, I who sin often, should receive it often: I need a frequent remedy."

The second thing to be considered is on the part of the recipient, who is required to approach this sacrament with great reverence and devotion. Consequently, if anyone finds that he has these dispositions every day, he will do well to receive it daily. Hence, Augustine after saying, "Receive daily, that it may profit thee daily," adds: "So live, as to deserve to receive it daily." But because many persons are lacking in this devotion, on account of the many drawbacks both spiritual and corporal from which they suffer, it is not expedient for all to approach this sacrament every day; but they should do so as often as they find themselves properly disposed. Hence it is said in De Eccles. Dogmat. liii: "I neither praise nor blame daily reception of the Eucharist."

The "woman [who] regards the Eucharist as merely a symbolic act" of your second scenario disbelieves in transubstantiation and is thus a heretic; she thus receives "unworthily, [and] shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord" (1 Cor. 11:27).


Were there implicit laws not referenced in the Acts 15 letter to gentile believers? In Acts 29 the Jewish Christian Elders in Jerusalem sent a letter to the gentile believers throughout the world, instructing them to be at peace, and stating that they were not required to follow Jewish tradition.

  For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements:  that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell. Acts 15:28-29 ESV

This is obviously in response to the circumcision party, and it's fairly obvious that they're saying circumcision and the dietary laws were not required of gentiles, but it doesn't seem to saying anything about the laws we still consider core (murder, covetousness, stealing, etc).

Was there some implicit set of laws that was not referenced, but would be understood by both parties to be in effect?

The laws that were stated here are laws about ones self not pertaining to love. We know from the new testament that the thing we are commanded to do is to love.

  John 13:34 NIV

  A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; as I have
  loved you, that you also love one another.

We also know that it is love which fulfills the law.

  Romans 13:10

  Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of
  the law.

In the letter that you're quoting in your question, the Elders are telling people about the laws that are not under the law of love. Thus you don't have to worry about those laws. For the law is fulfilled in love.

  Matthew 22:37-40 (NIV)

  37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and
  with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first
  and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your
  neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on
  these two commandments.”

The laws that you're asking about: stealing, murder, covetousness we are still commanded to follow because those are under the law of love.


Is there is any external source about Demas, Paul's fellow worker? Demas appears at Colossians 4:14 and Philemon 24 as a fellow worker of Paul's ministry, and maybe as Luke's partner like Mark was Aristharcus partner.

But in 2 Timothy 4:10 he appears having abandoned Paul. There is any tradition source about this story? Any ancient reliable source about Demas?

Demas is mentioned in the Acts of Paul and Thecla, an apocryphal work attested by Tertullian around AD 190.

In this work, Demas is portrayed as a troublesome "follower" of Paul.  Paul is portrayed as teaching the value of chastity, and Demas opposes him:

  [Paul] deprives young men of wives, and maidens of husbands, saying, There is for you a resurrection in no other way, unless you remain chaste, and pollute not the flesh, but keep it chaste.

Demas encourages a young man, whose fiancee has been influenced by Paul's teaching, to oppose Paul before the governor, who then scourges Paul and throws him out of the city.

Other than this account, there does not appear to be much tradition related to Demas.  A man by that name is also mentioned in On the Seventy Disciples, as one who "became a priest of idols."  But he has no entry in the Catholic Encyclopedia, nor the Encyclopedia of Ancient Christianity, suggesting that little more is known about him.


Is it fair to say that the Anglican Church was originally intended to be a 'middle ground' between Catholics and Protestants? I was having a discussion with a friend and he made the claim:

  The Anglican Church was originally intended to be a 'middle ground' between Catholics and Protestants.

This seemed half-true to me, but I thought the origins were more based in the interests of Henry the VIII and having an English National church distinct from the Continental Church. My understanding is that the Constitutional documents are meant to be 'inclusive' but I wouldn't have described them as a 'middle ground'.

My question is: Is it fair to say that the Anglican Church was originally intended to be a 'middle ground' between Catholics and Protestants?

There were many people involved in the formation of the Anglican church, and they had different purposes for it.

The most prominent initial issue was of course Henry VIII's desire to get a divorce. But equally significant was the authority of Rome in England: Henry passed laws prohibiting legal appeals to Rome, and removing the church's authority to make laws. He had a theological mind and even wrote a book on the sacraments, but it's hard to establish exactly what he thought a lot of the time. Still it seems that many of the stages of the reform had his input. He wanted English language Bibles to be used in churches and I think he was personally opposed to shrines to saints, relics and pilgrimages.

Thomas Cranmer was the Archbishop of Canterbury at the time of the Church of England's break with Rome and for about twenty years afterwards, and was thoroughly committed to protestant theology. While he was limited somewhat during Henry's reign, during Edward's reign he was able to enact most of the reforms he desired. He wrote the Book of Common Prayer and an early draft of what would become the 39 Articles, which together define what Anglicanism is.

After Edward died his sister Mary became queen. She was strongly Catholic, and reversed the laws which had made England independent of the Catholic Church. She also executed many protestant leaders, including Cranmer.

Mary's sister Elizabeth became queen next, and was protestant. But she was a pragmatist, and wanted a strategy to avoid the violence of her sister's reign. With her reign the via media (middle road) became that strategy. The official doctrine of the church, as shown in the 39 Articles, was thoroughly protestant, but concessions and space was made for the more Catholic people of England. Anglicanism has always kept bishops and rejected the ecclesiological reforms of many continental churches (or Scottish Presbyterianism). The liturgical desires of the puritans were rejected, with churches given the freedom to decide what style to use (what is now called high and low, or somewhere in between).

So the answer to this question depends on what you call the 'original Anglican church'. Mary's reign was only five years, so there were only five years of Catholic dominance between the two protestant eras. There were only 11 years between Henry and Elizabeth. Elizabeth's Anglicanism was not what Henry and Cranmer created, but I think it's close enough so say that the via media has been part of Anglicanism since the beginning. What is five years compared to the four and a half centuries since then?


Why did John the Baptist preach repentance through water baptism and specifically how is that different than repentance through ashes and sackcloth? Are there any records that explain why baptism was used for repentance when the Jews already had a method of repentance by putting ashes on them and wearing sackcloth?  This seemingly worked as noted in various parts of the bible (e.g. Ninevites in book of Jonah)

What made repentance through baptism unique?

What made repentance through baptism unique?

Baptism existed prior to John in the conversion of someone to Judaism and in the ordination of priests. Calls for repentance had existed before John particularly before the Babylonian captivity.

We have from the dead sea scrolls a picture of ascetics forming a religious community apart from what they considered an apostate or secular Israel from a century before to possibly overlapping with John’s time.

The combination of a call to repent (change one’s mind) and take seriously one’s heritage, obligations to God, and course of one’s life and a symbolic cleansing indicative of putting away the old life and becoming faithful to observe the law was an appeal to the individual to make a decision about how he lived his life and to make a public demonstration reflecting his desire to change.

Baptism was symbolic and declarative more than efficacious. It was also preparatory.

  John 1:23  He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness,
  Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Esaias.

What was being "made straight" were the hearts of men called to repent.


Did Zachariah ask for a son to God? This is related to this question.

I found this verses from Qur'an.

Surah 19:1-7

  Kaf- Ha-Ya-'Ain-Sad.
  (This is) a mention of the mercy of your Lord to His slave Zakariya (Zachariah).
  When he called out his Lord (Allah) a call in secret,
  Saying: "My Lord! Indeed my bones have grown feeble, and grey hair has spread on my head, And I have never been unblest in my invocation
  to You, O my Lord!
  "And Verily! I fear my relatives after me, since my wife is barren. So give me from Yourself an heir,
  "Who shall inherit me, and inherit (also) the posterity of Ya'qub (Jacob) (inheritance of the religious knowledge and Prophethood, not
  the wealth, etc.). And make him, my Lord, one with whom You are
  Well-pleased!".
  (Allah said) "O Zakariya (Zachariah)! Verily, We give you the glad tidings of a son, His name will be Yahya (John). We have given that
  name to none before (him)."

Assuming God (Jehovah) never revealed these things to Muhammad (no offence to Muslims), how did Muhammad know about Zachariah's prayer? Did he compose it? We know very well that there are many twisted stories of the Bible and Torah in Qur'an. I assume that Muhammad overheard these stories from the Jews and Christians around him and recited these stories whichever parts he remembered, which leads to incomplete story or sometimes even twisted.

If Muhammad did not compose this, there must be some traditional stories or some unauthentic books on this account.

There was this question on this site: “Was Jesus Crucified?, which I believe was closed and deleted. There were some good answers for that question which made many things clear as to why Quran deviates from Bible on many events and one of this is because Mohamed was more influenced by Gnostic and other literatures than by actual Bible account of the events.

There are some references from Quran to the events in Bible, which when seen even from neutral perspective clearly shows ignorance of the geographical location and historical dates of these events.

One example is the story of Samaritans and Moses where Muhammad places the Samaritans at the time of Moses when such people had not existed at that time.

Another place he confuses Mary, mother of Jesus with Miriam, sister of Aaron and Moses. These two women lived 1500 years apart. The Quran says.

  She brought (the babe) to her people, carrying him (in her arms), They said: “O Mary! Truly a strange thing has thou brought! “O sister of Aaron, thy father was not a man of evil, nor your mother a woman unchaste!” Q. 19:27-28

This is repeated in verse 66:12 where Muhammad calls Mary, daughter of `Imran.

The reason for this is because Mary and Miriam are both translated in Arabic as Maryam. Muhammad heard Jesus’ mother was Maryam and also Aarron’s sister was called Maryam. He thought the two are one and the same.

Also Muslims say that Jesus was not crucified but God deceived them by planting a lookalike on cross.

Why would Muhammad say something that is contrary to all Gospels? That’s because Muhammad’s knowledge of the Scriptures was based on hearsay. He personally had not read the Bible.

At the time of Muhammad, there were Christians groups in the Northern Arabia and Damascus who were called Nestorian. They thought that it is impossible to kill the Son of God. Based on this belief they had developed a doctrine that maintained God must have tricked the Pharisees and the person who was crucified must have been someone else who took the resemblance of Jesus. That is how Muhammad came to know about the story of crucifixion. His knowledge about the Bible was superficial as well as sketchy and shows that he had very little understanding of the Bible.

During his youth days while listening to Christian preachers in the market of Okaz, he heard many Biblical stories, but because he did not read that book personally, he confused many of its events as also the protagonists and this may be one of the reason for Surah 19:1-7.


According to Catholicism did Pope Linus know that he was the Pope and Head of the Church? If the paltry evidence that Linus became the first bishop(?) of Rome it is odd that Paul's letter "Romans" does not mention him while it mentions:

Phebe, Priscilla, Aquila, Epaenetus, Mary, Adronicus, Junia, Amplias, Urbane, Stachys, Apelles, Aristobulus, Herodion, Narcissus, Tryphena, Tryphosa, Persis, Rufus, Asyncritus, Phlegon, Hermas, Patrobas, Hermes, Philogus, Julia, Nereus and last, and apparently not the least: Olympas.

Did I miss anybody? If so, I apologize and meant you no disrespect!

So if we accept the testimony of a Catholic that Linus was the first bishop of Rome, it is certainly not evident in the scriptures.

But assuming that he was the first bishop of Rome by the Catholic definition of that term, then he was made the Poppa of the Church, the head of the Church (universal?) and the "vicar" of Christ. Would he have been aware of the role as defined today by Catholicism?

Unfortunately, possibly due to a clerical oversight, while Paul defined the role of deacon (which does not include creed-writing) he failed to mention the role of Christ's "vicar" (IE: being the head of the Church).

So how would Linus have any clue as to what his job entailed except by what Paul had described as the role of a bishop?:

  1Ti 3:1-13 KJV - 1 This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. 2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; 3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; 4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; 5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) 6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. 7 Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil. 8 Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre; 9 Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience. 10 And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless. 11 Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things. 12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well. 13 For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.

Now, I don't see "vicar of Christ" there in Paul's instructions, so how would Linus know to think of his job as being the Head of the Church, Christ's vicar, etc. Those were later inventions.

So isn't it disingenuous to refer to Linus as the first "Papa" seeing he had no role in Rome,  is only mentioned once in the scriptures and that in association with another person of whom we know nothing about?

Linus would not know he was the head of the Church because Paul, the Apostle who wrote a huge chunk of the NT and that specifically was the part that relates to the gentile saints (all the other scrolls being directed to Jews). Paul wrote:

  Eph 5:23 KJV - 23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

So isn't it disingenuous to refer to Linus as the first "Pope"? Or would he in fact have consciously been incorporated into an existing organization that ruled the church universal?

Would he have been aware of the role as defined today by Catholicism?

I'm not an expert in Church history. But as far as I know, one of the problems that lead to the great schism in 1054 was that the bishop of Rome saw himself as leading bishop of the Church while the eastern bishops were claiming that the bishop of Rome never had more power than the other bishops.

If I understand the information in the article about that schism in the German Wikipedia correctly, this difference was caused by changes in the former western part of the Roman empire.

If my understanding is correct, this would mean that the western bishops (which includes the one of Rome) had the same opinion than the eastern ones before those changes took place.

In other words: Before those changes (beginning with the split of the empire in the year 395) the bishop of Rome would have shared the opinion of the eastern bishops: He would have claimed that he does not have any special role.

  ... the "vicar" of Christ ...

According to the sermon held by a priest in the parish I was living some years ago, it was some pope in the renaissance (this is only about 500 years ago) who claimed that he had this title.

The priest also said that the Church denies that any pope ever legitimately had this title - at least in the way it was understood by that renaissance pope.  All  of this predates Linus.


Is there an evidence about the doctrine of Christophany in the New Testament? The doctrine about Christophany teaches that before the eternal Son was incarnated he already appeared in the Old Testament as the Angel of the Lord.

The question is if there is a New Testament backround about this.

Yes, before Jesus was born there was references to the Angel of the Lord. Take a look at Exodus 23:20

  "See, I am sending an angel ahead of you to guard you along the way and to bring you to the place I have prepared."

You could say that Jesus protected the true Christians both spiritually and physically. It also refers to this angel bringing them to a place God prepared. This could be referring to Jesus's sacrifice opening the way to salvation for all men.

God also foreshadows more about this angel in the next verse of Exodus 23:21:

  "Pay attention to him, and obey his voice. Do not rebel against him, for he will not pardon your transgressions, because my name is in him."

"because my name is in him". This could be referring to Jesus being a perfect reflection of his father. This could also be talking about the translation of Jesus's name.

  "(Je′sus) [Lat. form of the Gr. I·e·sous′, which corresponds to the Heb. Ye·shu′aʽ or Yehoh·shu′aʽ and means “Jehovah Is Salvation”]."

These are all from the Old testament.

The new testament also has scripture that show Jesus was around even before man and the earth. Most people don't accept my bibles rendering of John 1:1&2, however it still shows that the Word or Jesus was around before the earth and even helped create it.

Here is another verse from John 1:14

  "So the Word became flesh and resided among us, and we had a view of his glory, a glory such as belongs to an only-begotten son from a father; and he was full of divine favor and truth. 15 (John bore witness about him, yes, he cried out: “This was the one of whom I said, ‘The one coming behind me has advanced in front of me, for he existed before me.’”)

This same thought is reiterated later in Colossians 1:16. There are a few other scriptures, but I think this should cover it enough.


Did Jesus command His Disciples to Worship Him? Did Jesus command His Disciples to Worship Him?
Any verse from the Bible proves that?

TLDR:

The Disciples worshiped Jesus on at least two occasions (Matthew 14 & 28).
Studying these two stories is the most logical place to look to see if Jesus commanded them to worship him.
Their actions were God-worship, not mere respect.
The worship was permitted, not forbidden as idolatry (and punished).
The context of the scene (words and actions of Jesus and his disciples) indicate at the very least an invitation to worship, or more strongly a command to worship him.

Argument:

The disciples worshiped Jesus, and he did not correct them for doing so:

  16 Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which
  Jesus had directed them. 17 And when they saw him they worshiped him,
  but some doubted. 18 And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority
  in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go therefore and make
  disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father
  and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all
  that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the
  end of the age.” (Matthew 28:16-20)

Barnabas and Paul, after healing a man, refused to accept the people's worship, because they knew they were not divine:

  8 Now at Lystra there was a man sitting who could not use his feet. He
  was crippled from birth and had never walked. 9 He listened to Paul
  speaking. And Paul, looking intently at him and seeing that he had
  faith to be made well, 10 said in a loud voice, “Stand upright on
  your feet.” And he sprang up and began walking. 11 And when the crowds
  saw what Paul had done, they lifted up their voices, saying in
  Lycaonian, “The gods have come down to us in the likeness of men!” 12
  Barnabas they called Zeus, and Paul, Hermes, because he was the chief
  speaker. 13 And the priest of Zeus, whose temple was at the entrance
  to the city, brought oxen and garlands to the gates and wanted to
  offer sacrifice with the crowds. 14 But when the apostles Barnabas and
  Paul heard of it, they tore their garments and rushed out into the
  crowd, crying out, 15 “Men, why are you doing these things? We also
  are men, of like nature with you, and we bring you good news, that you
  should turn from these vain things to a living God, who made the
  heaven and the earth and the sea and all that is in them." (Acts
  14:8-15)

The Apostle John tried to worship an angel, but was rebuked for doing so and told to worship God alone:

  8 I, John, am the one who heard and saw these things. And when I heard
  and saw them, I fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who
  showed them to me, 9 but he said to me, “You must not do that! I am a
  fellow servant with you and your brothers the prophets, and with those
  who keep the words of this book. Worship God.” (Revelation 22:8-9)

King Herod received the worship of his subjects and did not stop them from doing so, and so the Lord struck him down because of it:

  21 On an appointed day Herod put on his royal robes, took his seat
  upon the throne, and delivered an oration to them. 22 And the people
  were shouting, “The voice of a god, and not of a man!” 23 Immediately
  an angel of the Lord struck him down, because he did not give God the
  glory, and he was eaten by worms and breathed his last. (Acts
  12:21-23)

So to answer your question, Jesus made it clear by example and comparison with other Scripture that it was proper for him to receive our worship, but not earthly kings, angels or even his own followers. Following his commissioning of his disciples, Jesus was not struck down, but instead lifted up into heaven.

Jesus' statement that "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me" is a call to worship by implication, because only God has that authority, and the proper response to an encounter with God is to offer worship.

Additional Support:

Lest there be any confusion as to the nature and degree of the Disciple's worship of Jesus, we have the story of Jesus walking on water:

  25 Shortly before dawn Jesus went out to them, walking on the lake. 26
  When the disciples saw him walking on the lake, they were terrified.
  “It’s a ghost,” they said, and cried out in fear.

  27 But Jesus immediately said to them: “Take courage! It is I. Don’t
  be afraid.”

  28 “Lord, if it’s you,” Peter replied, “tell me to come to you on the
  water.”

  29 “Come,” he said.

  Then Peter got down out of the boat, walked on the water and came
  toward Jesus. 30 But when he saw the wind, he was afraid and,
  beginning to sink, cried out, “Lord, save me!”

  31 Immediately Jesus reached out his hand and caught him. “You of
  little faith,” he said, “why did you doubt?”

  32 And when they climbed into the boat, the wind died down. 33 Then
  those who were in the boat worshiped him, saying, “Truly you are the
  Son of God.” (Matthew 14:25)

In this instance it is unmistakeable that the worship was an admission of divinity; walking on water had long been viewed by many cultures in the ANE as a sign of divinity.

What is worship? It is a two-way communication. We bask in the glow of God's glory and reflect it through our lives. Worship is a process whereby God communicates some of His qualities to us, like a signet ring on wax or a relief on clay. Here Peter asks Jesus to call him, and Jesus commands him, "Come." This command enables Peter to temporarily walk on water. Jesus has communicated part of his divine nature to Peter, closing the loop in this act of worship. Thus Jesus' word to Peter, "Come", was a call to worship.


Why is Christianity so despised in the World? Since its inception, Christianity has been ill received through out the world. This is true not only of people, but of Governments as well.
It is easy to understand why the Sanhedrin was so opposed to Jesus, since he was messing up their little playhouse, but since the main themes of his teachings were peace and harmony, why are these ideas so abhorrent?

John 13:34  KJV A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.
Matthew 22:21  KJV  They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's
Matthew 5:7  KJV  Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.
Mat 5:44  But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

Are these precepts so opposed to the power struggles and quest for riches that most societies believe they must be eradicated?
What are the arguments used that vilify Christianity?

Jesus said,

  If the world hates you, you know that it hated Me before it hated you.
  19 If you were of the world, the world would love its own. Yet because
  you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore
  the world hates you. 20 Remember the word that I said to you, ‘A
  servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted Me, they
  will also persecute you. If they kept My word, they will keep yours
  also. 21 But all these things they will do to you for My name’s sake,
  because they do not know Him who sent Me.

  John 15:18-21

Satan has power in this world and will persecute the followers of Jesus until he is destroyed. Sometimes the hatred is irrational, sometimes it is excused by the actions of so-called Christians. Nevertheless the real reason is because Jesus is hated by Satan. He cannot touch Jesus so he goes after those who are dear to Him. Sometimes Jesus allows it for a purpose, to build our character, but sometimes he does not allow it.

It is not the Christian principles that people hate. Most of the time they do not know what Christians believe. It is the hatred put in their hearts by the enemy himself.

The truth is, if you were in the path of destruction, would Satan
 care? No, he would leave you just as you are. However if you are in
 the path of righteousness, and bringing other souls from perdition
 into salvation, Satan would hate you. So he would do everything in his
 power to kill you, hurt you, discourage you, or make you doubt.
 EVERYONE in the Bible that followed God was persecuted, hurt, and
 sometimes killed. Most of the prophets were murdered. Jesus Himself
 was murdered, hurt, persecuted, and called demon-possessed. If you
 follow Christ this is what you might face one day.


Where does C. S. Lewis teach that a virtuous attitude can be developed by acting virtuously? I recall reading something by C. S. Lewis some time ago in which he recommends that a person who wants to develop a virtuous, right attitude in some area of life should begin acting virtuously in that realm, even though his attitude is wrong.  After a time, Lewis says, the virtuous actions will lead to the development of a virtuous attitude.

Recently this struck me as a particularly Aristotelian approach to moral development.  One introductory textbook relates Aristotle's view this way:

  We should perform acts that resemble virtuous acts, that resemble what we would do if we had the disposition.  In this way we build up the right habits.  If the disposition I wish to acquire is liberality, the way to acquire it is to ask how I would behave if I possessed the habit and continue to behave that way. (Ronald Nash, Life's Ultimate Questions, p. 152)

I'd like to explore how this idea might fit in the framework of sanctification, but unfortunately I don't remember where I read it.

Where in the works of C. S. Lewis does he teach that a virtuous attitude can be developed by acting virtuously?

Indeed, in chapter 6 ("Human Pain") of The Problem of Pain, Lewis explicitly connects the idea to Aristotle:

Kant thought that no action had moral value unless it were done out of pure reverence for the moral law, that is, without inclination, and he has been accused of a 'morbid frame of mind' which measures the value of an act by its unpleasantness. All popular opinion is, indeed, on Kant's side. The people never admire a man for doing something he likes: the very words 'But he likes it' imply the corollary 'And therefore it has no merit'. Yet against Kant stands the obvious truth, noted by, Aristotle, that the more virtuous a man becomes the more he enjoys virtuous actions.

But probably his most extensive treatment of the idea comes in chapter 9 ("Charity") of book III ("Christian Behaviour") of Mere Christianity, in which he writes:

It would be quite wrong to think that the way to become charitable is to sit trying to manufacture affectionate feelings. Some people are "cold" by temperament; that may be a misfortune for them, but it is no more a sin than having a bad digestion is a sin; and it does not cut them out from the chance, or excuse them from the duty, of learning charity. The rule for all of us is perfectly simple. Do not waste time bothering whether you "love" your neighbour; act as if you did. As soon as we do this we find one of the great secrets. When you are behaving as if you loved someone, you will presently come to love him. If you injure someone you dislike, you will find yourself disliking him more. If you do him a good turn, you will find yourself disliking him less. ...
The Germans, perhaps, at first ill-treated the Jews because they hated them: afterwards they hated them much more because they had ill-treated them. The more cruel you are, the more you will hate; and the more you hate, the more cruel you will become—and so on in a vicious circle for ever.
Good and evil both increase at compound interest. That is why the little decisions you and I make every day are of such infinite importance. The smallest good act today is the capture of a strategic point from which, a few months later, you may be able to go on to victories you never dreamed of. An apparently trivial indulgence in lust or anger today is the loss of a ridge or railway line or bridgehead from which the enemy may launch an attack otherwise impossible.
Some writers use the word charity to describe not only Christian love between human beings, but also God's love for man and man's love for God. About the second of these two, people are often worried. They are told they ought to love God. They cannot find any such feeling in themselves. What are they to do? The answer is the same as before. Act as if you did. Do not sit trying to manufacture feelings. Ask yourself, "If I were sure that I loved God, what would I do?" When you have found the answer, go and do it.


How did Zipporah know that God was going to kill Moses? How did Zipporah come to know that God was going to kill Moses?

  Exodus 4:24–25 (NASB)
  Now it came about at the lodging place on the way that the LORD met him and sought to put him to death. 25 Then Zipporah took a flint and cut off her son's foreskin and threw it at Moses' feet, and she said, "You are indeed a bridegroom of blood to me."

Moses surely would have told Zipporah about God's command to circumcise. While we have to speculate about the details, the Pulpit Commentary suggests a plausible sequence of events.

The suggestion is that it was the eighth day after the birth of their second son; that the first son had already been circumcised; and that Zipporah talked Moses into not circumcising the second.

  The narrative of verses 24-26 is obscure from its brevity; but the most probable explanation of the circumstances is, that Zipporah had been delivered of her second son, Eliezer, some few days before she set out on the journey to Egypt. Childbirth, it must be remembered, in the East does not incapacitate a person from exertion for more than a day or two. On the journey, the eighth day from the birth of the child arrived, and his circumcision ought to have taken place; but Zipporah had a repugnance to the rite, and deferred it, Moses weakly consenting to the illegality.

The commentary goes on to suggest Moses may have become seriously ill, and recognized it was a judgment for his weakness. He no doubt would have said something to Zipporah, who then might have needed to do the circumcision because of Moses' weakness, but complained about it. According to the commentary, the complaint likely referred to both circumcisions.

The commentary acknowledges that the language suggests a miraculous appearance, but that it could refer to an illness as well.


What is the Plan of Salvation in LDS theology? I know it's different than most Christian faiths' beliefs, and I know the missionaries teach it... I know it's a big part of Mormon curriculum and doctrine, and this site is replete with questions about seemingly every part of it, but would someone connect the dots and piece it together here in an overall summary? Why is it needed in LDS doctrine, what questions does it answer?

The LDS Plan of Salvation can be found on the official LDS website here.

In summary, the following are the main points:

We all once lived as spirit children of God in our premortal life.  While we were in our Premortal life, our Heavenly Father presented us with his plan of happiness, as described in Abraham 3:22-26
We chose, in our premortal life, to come to this earth, this existence, to follow the plan of Eternal Progression.  We are now in our Mortal Life.  During our mortal life, we are able to grow in ways we couldn't in our premortal life. The purpose of our current life is to grow, to prepare to be worthy of eternal life, to prove ourselves worthy, and to help others to know of God's plan.
When we die, we will be judged and received into a Kingdom of Glory.  The level of glory we inherit will depend on the depth of our conversion and our obedience to the Lord's commandments

This, of course, only scratches the surface, and the LDS Plan of Salvation encompasses not only salvation, but exaltation.

The most basic LDS explanation of what Salvation is:

  In the doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,
  the terms “saved” and “salvation” have various meanings. As used in
  Romans 10:9-10, the words “saved” and “salvation” signify a covenant
  relationship with Jesus Christ. Through this covenant relationship,
  followers of Christ are assured salvation from the eternal
  consequences of sin if they are obedient. “Salvation” and “saved” are
  also used in the scriptures in other contexts with several different
  meanings.

There are actually six definitions of Salvation in LDS theology, all defined here. (Click the "view more" link.)

Salvation from Physical Death
Salvation from Sin
Being Born Again
Salvation from Ignorance
Salvation from the Second Death
Eternal Life, or Exaltation

A somewhat shorter version than the one linked to at the beginning of the article can be found here.

As for how one achieves Salvation, the teaching differs from mainstream Christianity.  Whereas the vast majority of Christianity believes that salvation is by Faith alone, with no works attached, LDS teaching is different. In LDS theology, only General Salvation is attained through Faith in Christ alone.

From Elder Theodore M. Burton

Assistant to the Council of the Twelve
July 1972:

  As I listened to the radio a few days ago, I heard a minister tell his
  listeners: “Confess Christ and you shall be saved. Admit Christ into
  your heart and he will save you.”

  Then he quoted Ephesians 2:8 for his clinching argument: “For by grace
  are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift
  of God.” [Eph. 2:8]

  Then he gave his final advice: “Is this too much to ask of you?
  Thousands and hundreds of thousands have found lasting peace and
  happiness by accepting Christ as their Savior. Join with us in
  Christian faith and you shall be saved.”

  I wonder how many people have been lulled into a false sense of
  security by such teaching. As a missionary knocking at the doors of
  people, I had literally hundreds of people tell me that they were not
  interested in learning more about Jesus Christ, for they were already
  saved. The shocking thing about this is that they were right. What
  that minister said was true, but the difficulty is that it was not the
  whole truth.

  ...snip...

  The true value of the sacrifice of Christ means much more than this
  general salvation which comes to all mankind. There is an additional
  salvation that God has planned for his children. This additional
  salvation is an individual salvation and is conditioned not only upon
  grace, but also upon obedience to gospel law. One of the prophets in
  the Book of Mormon explained why he and his associates were so
  concerned about teaching more about Jesus Christ, as he wrote:

So the general salvation is through faith in Christ alone, but that's just the beginning.  There are, in Salvation, more than one level of Glory, which is, as stated above "conditioned not only upon grace, but also upon obedience to gospel law.".

However, this is not seen within LDS teaching as a works-based salvation, even at this level.  There is somehow, in LDS theology a difference between obedience, and earning your way in.  More from the article quoted above expands upon this.

  Exaltation comes as a gift from God, dependent upon my obedience to
  God’s law. No works I do solely of my own power can bring this to
  pass. Only by the grace of God has this course been opened to me, but
  only through obedience to the laws of God can I claim my inheritance
  in the celestial kingdom of my Heavenly Father as a son within his
  family. I cannot be exalted in my sins, but must work until I overcome
  them.

  Amulek the prophet explained this most clearly as he said of God:

  “And I say unto you again that he cannot save them in their sins; for
  I cannot deny his word, and he hath said that no unclean thing can
  inherit the kingdom of heaven; therefore, how can ye be saved, except
  ye inherit the kingdom of heaven? Therefore, ye cannot be saved in
  your sins.” (Alma 11:37.)

But later on in the article, Burton again teaches that works are a result of faith.  But the fact remains that in LDS theology, works are required. Perhaps not as a way of "buying" our way in, but as a sign, in that, if we don't have works, it's a sure sign that we don't have faith. Often, the following is quoted as support for this belief.

  James 2:14-26 (KJV)

  14 What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but
  does not have works? Can faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is
  naked and destitute of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them,
  “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the
  things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? 17 Thus
  also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.

  18 But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me
  your faith without your[a] works, and I will show you my faith by
  my[b] works. 19 You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even
  the demons believe—and tremble! 20 But do you want to know, O foolish
  man, that faith without works is dead?[c] 21 Was not Abraham our
  father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar?
  22 Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by
  works faith was made perfect? 23 And the Scripture was fulfilled which
  says, “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for
  righteousness.”[d] And he was called the friend of God. 24 You see
  then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.

  25 Likewise, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she
  received the messengers and sent them out another way?

  26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works
  is dead also.

And also, the lack of good works/righteousness as a sign of not really being Faithful is stressed in Matthew 15:8, which is heard in almost every Sunday School class I attended when I was attending the LDS Church.

  These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from
  me.

Burton goes on to define those works:

  Those works, which follow the true exercise of faith, include
  repentance, baptism, receipt of the Holy Ghost, and continued
  righteousness to the end of our lives.

Burton expands a bit on those who do not obey the Law in full:

  God said of those who were not willing to pay the full price of
  exaltation through full obedience to his whole law: “Therefore, when
  they are out of the world they neither marry nor are given in
  marriage; but are appointed angels in heaven, which angels are
  ministering servants, to minister for those who are worthy of a far
  more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory.

This is the opposite of Mainstream Christianity, which believes that as imperfect beings, we cannot be fully obedient, and thus is the distinction - the splitting of hairs between the "mainstream" understanding of "by faith alone".  Mainstream Christianity says "I can never be good enough to add a single iota to my salvation.  I am miserable and wretched, and I rely solely on God's mercy because even my righteousness is as filthy rags to Him."   The LDS teaching, on the other hand, is that we must be fully obedience, and we are able to be fully obedient, and those that achieve this attain the highest form of exaltation.


What is the biblical basis for requiring that a pastor/preacher/teacher/etc be paid for their ministry? What is the biblical basis for requiring a minister to be paid for their work?

Put another way, what is the biblical basis for supporting the notion of a solely-vocational pastor?

Note - I am NOT looking for a biblical basis that paying a minister anything  is OK: there are myriad passages that could be turned to for that. This is exclusively about a mandate for such recompense.

In 1 Cor. 9:14, the apostle Paul wrote,

  Likewise, the Lord ordered that those who preach the Gospel should make their living from the Gospel.

  οὕτως καὶ ὁ κύριος διέταξεν τοῖς τὸ εὐαγγέλιον καταγγέλλουσιν ἐκ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου ζῆν (TR, 1550)

In his commentary on 1 Cor. 9:4, John Gill wrote,

  "Even so hath the Lord ordained"

  That is, the Lord Jesus Christ (in Matt. 10:10; Luke 10:7-8), it is an order and appointment of his that his ministering servants, who labour in preaching his Gospel, should be sufficiently taken care of, as to a comfortable livelihood; he has not indeed fixed it in the same way as the priests and Levites had theirs under the law; but as the one was just and right, that they should be maintained out of the things belonging to the temple and altar, and live on them, so it is his will and pleasure,

  "that they which preach the Gospel;"

  that continue to do so, that labour, and not loiter in the word and doctrine, who do the work of the ministry fully and faithfully, and not bear the name only of Gospel preachers: should live of the Gospel; not the Gospel itself, which is spiritual, and not corporeal food; but the sense is, that in consideration and because of their preaching the Gospel, they should be supplied with the proper necessaries of life:

I bolded what is of utmost importance. I preach the Gospel, but I do not do so "fully." It is not my sole occupation. I am not fully committed to doing so. But those who are, whose sole purpose is to preach the Gospel, they should be fully supported. Else, how shall they devote themselves to fully laboring in the word?

The apostle even confessed that he had the authority to forbear working (1 Cor. 9:6). Would Christianity have grown and thrived the way it did without the apostle Paul devoting his entire self to preaching the Gospel?


How is Article XVII of the Articles of Religion defended by Arminians? The beginning of Article 17 (XVII) of the Articles of Religion seems to me to clearly teach Calvinistic predestination:

  Predestination to Life is the everlasting purpose of God, whereby (before the foundations of the world were laid) he hath constantly decreed by his counsel secret to us, to deliver from curse and damnation those whom he hath chosen in Christ out of mankind, and to bring them by Christ to everlasting salvation, as vessels made to honour.

So I found it rather interesting that William Beveridge mentions that some Arminians have interpreted this article differently:

  One Article (the 17th Article) has sometimes been wrested into an Arminian interpretation, but the attempt cannot be looked upon as other than a failure. (Short History, 106)

My reading inclines me to agree with Beveridge's analysis, but before passing too firm a judgment, I'd like to understand how Arminians interpret this article to favor their viewpoint.  I'm not interested in the approach of those who simply reject the article or significant portions of it.

Among those Arminians who hold to the Articles, how do they defend Article 17?

We are elected “in Christ”, as both the article and Ephesians 1 affirm.  In the OT, Israel were the elect people of God with God choosing them to show his love to the rest of the world and to be an example of a Godly society.  This did not guarantee the salvation of every Israelite.  If a non-Jew wanted to be part of the elect people of God, s/he could by their own free choice decide to become a proselyte,  whereby all the blessings of election are conferred.
Being elected 'in Christ' means that God has predestined the members of Christ's body to show forth his love to the world and to be an example of a Godly society.   He also chooses that these people will have life eternal. By declaring and living in allegiance to Christ one is made part of this 'new Israel',  and thereby one gains both the benefits of salvation (as pre-destined by God that we should), and also the task of witnessing to God's glory by word and action, as God also has chosen for us.
I am fairly certain that the above free-will view was not what the author(s)  of Article 17 intended,  but they do seem to have left the back door open to those who do not believe that everything is predetermined and that we are mere puppets in God's play. I will gladly walk in through that back door and give myself to the task of evangelism (a task which is undermined by such Augustinianism and Calvinism).