How do Protestant Christians explain gender dysphoria/transgenderism? The Scripture mentions homosexual practises a lot but Scripture seems silent about transsexualism.

This question is asking answers from a Protestant perspective preferably those who uphold the doctrine of Sola Scriptura of the Reformation.

How do Protestant Christians explain gender dysphoria/transgenderism?

I will answer from the perspective of Evangelical Christianity (Reformed).

We Evangelicals believe that transsexuals have a disordered gender identity and is suffering from an extreme form of mental illness:

  Anyone who really believes he is a woman when he is a man (or vice
  versa) is profoundly, dangerously ill.

  (Evangelical: The Transgender
  Phenomenon: Esther O' Reilly, 2016).

Gender dysphoria (DSM-5, 2013) is the mental distress that comes from gender incongruence experienced by transgenders both transsexuals and some of the intersex.

According to science, gender incongruence refers to the (normal) gender identity mismatching the genetic sex. Gender identity is one's gender according to one's sense of the self whilst the genetic sex refers to one's chromosomal sex (XX- female, XY- male) and its phenotype, its outward expression such as appearance of the body and the genitalia.

  "The researchers identified a region of the hypothalamus, known as the
  bed nucleus of the stria terminalis (BSTc), as being responsible for
  sexual behaviour. This area is always larger in men than women.
  However, in their study of six MTF GID sufferers, a female‐sized BSTc
  was present in all subjects. Additionally, the size of the BSTc was
  not influenced by taking sex hormones in adulthood. This implies that
  these individuals had a powerful biological force compelling them to
  be female, rather than just a psychological conviction" (Nicola Tugnet
  et al. 2007).

According to science, the most effective treatment for Gender Dysphoria is the combination of medical therapy (hormones and suyrgery) and psychiatry.

  Gender reassignment (which includes psychotherapy, hormonal therapy
  and surgery) has been demonstrated as the most effective treatment for
  patients affected by gender dysphoria (or gender identity disorder),
  in which patients do not recognize their gender (sexual identity) as
  matching their genetic and sexual characteristics (Selvaggi G, 2011).

Intersex peoples equally blurred the lines of the gender binary and much more so than transsexials because their sex was more deviant than the transsexual whose only deviance is either psychiatric or brain physiology.

  According to research conducted by Anne Fausto-Sterling of Brown University, one in 100 children are born with “bodies that differ from
  standard male or female” biology. This includes those children born
  with both a penis and a vagina, as well as those with vaginal
  agenesis, ovatestes, or genetic disorders such as Klinefelter
  syndrome. Apparently, God sometimes creates humans both male and
  female or neither fully male nor fully female. Intersex persons offer
  a critique of those who believe that gender is a static binary
  assigned from birth and divinely ordained. For example, what about a
  person who is a sexually “mosaic,” which means they have mixed gonadal
  dysgenesis such as the development of both ovaries and testes? It’s
  hard to say because Christian commentators almost never acknowledge
  the existence of these individuals

The Bible itself is sufficient to address our topic (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

Romans 1:20-26

Romans 1:20-26 contain inspired texts of Scripture. In it, Paul had taken steps to condemn the practises common to the roman world of his time but that which argument is so general that its applicability encompasses all generations including that of ours in the 21st century. Paul is alluding Genesis creation in his argument saying that homosexual practices is in the same standing as idolatry (worshiping of idols, image of creatures according to context) because they deviate from the original design.

The teachings of Paul is as follows:

The gender binary (male and female) is the only truth. Romans 1:18

The gender binary is evident, obvious and can be clearly seen. The outward phenotype of the gender binary. Romans 1:20

To believe  gender expression other than the gender binary is to fail in honoring and giving thanks to God. Accepting the other-gender expression is said to be unintelligent since knowing God is knowing his design which is the correct knowledge to uphold by all. There is no wisdom (practical application of knowledge) in such a way of thinking since wisdom is created* by God, that is, his design is all-wise (note Proverbs 8:22-25). Romans 1:21-22

They gave honour to the images of creatures instead of honouring God. Romans 1:23

In such state, God allows them to become  lustful, dishonouring their bodies (as it experience sexual intimacy against the original design per 26-27). Romans 1:24

(i). Because they deny that only the gender binary is the truth and (i).  because they worship idols of the roman pantheon. Romans 1:25

God allows these people both male and female to practise homosexuality which is (i). Degrading passions (ii). indecent acts. Romans 1:26-27

Those who practise these things are like the other people who do improper things. They deserve to die -- both the one who practises and the one who supports such practise Romans 1:28-32

For Paul, the very essence of gender is in the phenotype ("clearly seen") of the sex per Romans 1:18-27. This is understandable as the concept of genetic sex (chromosomes) is unknown in the first century A.D. and thus, the ancients can only refer to what is visible.

Jesus spoke about people "who do not marry" and they are the eunuchs (Matthew 19:12) and Jesus classified them in great detail as (i). naturals eunuch, (ii). man-made eunuchs and (iii). voluntary eunuchism. The second type of eunuch is condemned in the Old Testament but is now blessed by Christ. The natural eunuchs might be those born with genital defects (i.e. transex/hermaphrodites ) and thus, Jesus was insisting on the design of God revealed in the genesis account in that marriage is only for those with the normal physique of the gender binary (Matthew 19:4-6). Why would Christ proscribe this for the natural eunuchs? Due to lack of capability of procreation and most manifestly, due to deformity (alien to the original design -- referring again to Romans 1). In this sense, Christians who strictly follow the Bible should deny marriage to the intersex.

What if the intersex had reconstructive surgery making their genitalia appear "normal"?

Jesus and Paul refers to phenotypic sex in their anthropological  theology. This is all what Biblical data gives us.  We should arrive at our conclusions very carefully with Scripture about medicine for us to decide as we do have authority to judge these things (1 Corinthians 6:1-5).

If the procedure is said to be safe and effective, then Scripture could support the intersex undergoing medical treatment and be eligible for marriage.

1 Corinthians 6:9

Arsenokites - practising homosexuality (NETBible)

Malakoi - effeminate (KJV), catamites (NKJV)

Arsekoites alludes to Levitical Law of Homosexual practise as sinful.

Malakoi - might historically refer to the passive man in homosexual act. Or effeminate behaviour of a man.

Arsenokites should be interpreted in light of Romans 1:18-27 where homosexuals are not using their phenotypic sex in agreement with the original design.

Malakoi is indeed referring to the outward expression of sex. Apparently, Scripture teaches that males should conform to society's standards and practises of masculinity (having authority over the wife, not having long hair, not wearing female clothing etc.).

Other texts 1 Timothy and Jude reiterated these points. The Genesis
account of Sodomy (raping men anally) is obviously a sin for it is
not only homosexual acts but coercive. Two types of sins at that.

We have discovered from Scripture that (1) phenotypic sex is the only basis of determining true gender, and (2) phenotypic gender should match behaviour and it means behaviour should conform to one's phenotypic sex. If male outwardly, be male outwardly. If female outwardly, be a female outwardly. Homosexuality, Gender Dysphoria and Intersex are all deviating from the gender binary  design of God but only Homosexuality is sin per se. Gender Dysphoria is a mental disease and not a sin and it needs paychological treatment not physical mutilation. To follow the world in the hormone therapy and sex change operations for Gender Dysphoric is to be in sin. The Intersex is also not a sin as it is correctly identified as eunuchism. An intersex who enters marriage will be in sin per Matthew 19.

   biblical exegesis

Reformed Evangelicals encourage the gender dysphoric patient to seek counselling from Christian psychiatrists. There are reported gender dysphoric who de-transition albeit suppressing their innate gender identity. There are others who continue to transition whilst receiving (yet righteous) judgment from other Evangelical Christians that they have been in Apostasy. Still, other transgenders received love and compassion despite their transitioning due to gender dysphoria clearly a mental disease. Those Evangelical Christians are hoping and praying that God will change these people with gender dysphoria  in his own timing. And that at the resurrection, our bodies will be conformed to the image of His glorious body, free from carnal defects of any kind.

The intersex (Hermaphrodite) in Christian fellowship

The ancient Church had no understanding of genetic sex and it is a novelty that is available now to God's people. Such a wider understanding influences our modern day Reformed Evangelical churches.

We see from two well-known Reformed Evangelical sites online: (i). Got questions.org and (ii).  CARM ,  about how Evangelicals  view the intersex:

  Transsexualism, also known as transgenderism, Gender Identity Disorder
  (GID), or gender dysphoria, is a feeling that your
  biological/genetic/physiological gender does not match the gender you
  identify with and/or perceive yourself to be.
  Transsexuals/transgenders often describe themselves as feeling
  “trapped” in a body that does not match their true gender. They often
  practice transvestism/transvestitism and may also seek hormone therapy
  and/or gender reassignment surgery to bring their bodies into
  conformity with their perceived gender.

  The Bible nowhere explicitly mentions transgenderism or describes
  anyone as having transgender feelings. However, the Bible has plenty
  to say about human sexuality. Most basic to our understanding of
  gender is that God created two (and only two) genders: “male and
  female He created them” (Genesis 1:27). All the modern-day speculation
  about numerous genders or gender fluidity—or even a gender “continuum”
  with unlimited genders—is foreign to the Bible.

  The closest the Bible comes to mentioning transgenderism is in its
  condemnations of homosexuality (Romans 1:18–32; 1 Corinthians 6:9–10)
  and transvestitism (Deuteronomy 22:5). The Greek word often translated
  “homosexual offenders” or “male prostitutes” in 1 Corinthians 6:9
  literally means “effeminate men.” So, while the Bible does not
  directly mention transgenderism, when it mentions other instances of
  gender “confusion,” it clearly and explicitly identifies them as sin.

  What about the possibility that those suffering with transgenderism
  have a brain that functions as one gender while the rest of the body
  is biologically the other gender? The Bible does not even hint at such
  a possibility. However, neither does the Bible mention hermaphroditism
  (a condition in which a person has both male and female sexual
  organs), which undeniably occurs (although extremely rarely). Further,
  people can be born with or develop all kinds of different brain
  defects or malfunctions. How can it be said that it is impossible for
  a female brain to be in a male body (or vice versa)?

  With hermaphroditism as evidence, it cannot be said that if the Bible
  does not mention something it does not occur. So, it might be possible
  for a person to be born with a brain wired in such a way that it
  contributes to gender dysphoria. This could also be an explanation for
  some instances of homosexuality. However, just because something might
  have a biological cause does not mean embracing the effects is the
  right thing to do. Some people are wired with a sexuality on
  hyper-drive. That does not make it right for them to engage in sexual
  immorality. It is scientifically proven than some
  psychopaths/sociopaths have brains with severely weakened
  impulse-control mechanisms. That does not make it right for them to
  engage in every deviant behavior that crosses their minds.

  No matter if the gender distortion has a genetic, hormonal,
  physiological, psychological, or spiritual cause, it can be overcome
  and healed through faith in Christ and continued reliance on the power
  of the Holy Spirit. Healing can be received, sin can be overcome, and
  lives can be changed through the salvation that Jesus provides, even
  if there are biological/physiological factors. The Corinthian
  believers are an example of such a change: “And that is what some of
  you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified
  in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God” (1
  Corinthians 6:11). There is hope for everyone, transsexuals,
  transgenders, those with gender identity disorder, and transvestites
  included, because of God’s forgiveness available in Jesus Christ.

(What does the Bible say about the various forms of gender dysphoria? Got.questions.org) (source: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.gotquestions.org/amp/transsexualism-gender-identity-disorder.html)

  The Bible does not address this issue because it was not around at the
  time.  But, No, sex change operations are not okay.  God created
  people as male and female (Gen. 1:27).  People are ordained by God to
  be male or female because it is He who forms them in the womb:

  Isaiah 44:2, "Thus says the Lord who made you and formed you from the
  womb, who will help you, Do not fear, O Jacob My servant; and you
  Jeshurun whom I have chosen." Isaiah 44:24, "Thus says the Lord, your
  Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb, 'I, the Lord, am
  the maker of all things...'" Therefore, to change the gender of a
  person through an operation is a violation of the natural birth gender
  that God has ordained for the person.  It also violates the
  distinction of those attributes which designate a male from a female.
  Furthermore, if, for example, a male becomes a woman and has relations
  with a male, then this would be homosexuality another sin clearly
  forbidden by scripture.

  If anything, this sexual identity dysfunction is due to sin in the
  world.  Transsexuals (those who have changed sexes) and claim to be
  Christian cannot appeal to the problem of a "biological goof" due to
  sin in the world.  It is due to sin, and its effects that such an
  issue of transsexualism even exists and an appeal to a sinful state
  should never excuse further sin.

  Nevertheless, we are not to abandon the transsexual.  Even though the
  person is in sin, the transsexual is still a person in need of full
  redemption, love, grace, and kindness.  We do not convince someone to
  repent by condemning and accusing.  Rather, they need to see the love
  of Christ in us so that His presence might convict and convince them
  of their sin.

(Are Sex Change Operarions Okay? CARM, Matt Slick) (Source: https://carm.org/sex-change-operations)

The new perspective of the 21st century church is genetic sex as the main identifyer of one's real gender. Such a shift in understanding is an influence of modern biological science in which the DNA sequence contains genetic instructions on how we should look like, what gender we are going to be and even to a limited extent on how we would behave. All of these in light of the concept of free will. And so affirming the dualism of body and soul.

Therefore, the Intersex is allowed the sex change operation provided that the Intersex suffers (i).  gender dysphoria, (ii). Has genetic incongruence.

On the other hand, the Transsex is not allowed the sex change operation because of (i). gender dysphoria without genetic incongruence.

The judgment made by our bishops and pastors in Evangelical churches about the transex is a novelty at best. It is a product of wisdom given by the Holy Spirit.

Based on the Evangelical ethics on the Intersex and Transex, The transsex who suffers gender dysphoria must have chromosomal tests to determine if genetic incongruence exists.

If it is proven to be the case,

(i). Sex change operation is warranted

If not,

(i). Christian psychiatrist must be consulted.

This is the current standard of Evangelical churches nowadays.

        ?

Based on Evangelical Tradition, the following should be followed by the Christian patient with gender dysphoria.

(i). Discouraging from Transitioning to the opposite sex. Citing Scripture that phenotypic sex is the end and citing tradition that genetic sex supports this phenotypic sex.

(ii).Counselling by a Christian Psychiatrist

(iii). Antidepressant drugs to off-set the depressive symptoms of Gender Dysphoria

(ix). Practise of Celibacy

(v). In most cases, suicidal gender dysphoric patients will end up dying. Within Evangelical point of view, this is similar to the concept laid out in Scripture: "the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord" (1 Corinthians 5:5). And thus, their death prevented them from further sin and pleases the Lord (Psalm 116:15).

    .

Should the transex also be given medical treatment of gender transition since they have genetic sex (female brain) that is not matching their phenotype (male)?

Intersex (e.g. XX male intersex)
Gender identity - female
Genetic sex - female
Phenotypic sex - male

Transex (e.g. transgender woman)
Gender identity - female Genetic sex - chromosome XY (brain, female per 2009 study)
Phenotypic sex - male

In my analysis of current Evangelical consesus, they should allow gender dysphoric Christian patients to transition medically to the opposite sex since the argument on genetic chromosomal  sex encapsulates the genetic brain physiology too as both arguments have their basis in the biological gender binary expressed in the DNA.

Strictly following Scripture, sex change operation to both transex and intersex shall not occur since Scripture honours phenotypic sex as final teaching on gender without regards to DNA analysis. And that celibacy is mandatory to these people. Their gender dysphoria should be dealt with by prayer and mere oral or intravenous anti-depressant medications. Suicides in this patients (as high as 50% among the population)  are inevitable and does not reduce the glory of God.

Gender dysphoria is a complex issue. Evangelical Christians ,people themselves, will be torn with such a painful problem if experienced first hand or felt through closest loved ones. Naturally, we do not want to compromise our faith but we also do not want our transsex/intersex fellows to suffer pain and to die because of gender dysphoria. Current medical science offers medical transition for gender dysphoric patients as the most effective treatment. Scripture does not seem to accept this concept of medicine based on the Mosaic Law on gender being upheld by the Apostle Paul and our God,  Jesus Christ. The insight of certain Evangelical bishops, pastors and doctors that transition is appropriately allowed by God to those with "genetic gender incongruence" is secondary to Scripture but it does hold authority since it is based on careful analysis of the Scripture appealing to the ancient Chist-centric concept of "  " , such an instance occurred when Jesus heals a man on the Sabbath day. The reservations to gender dysphoric with minor elements of genetic gender (brain physiology versus chromosomal) needs to be addressed by Evangelicals in their churches.Some evangelicals already accepts sex change surgery as a last resort:

   ,    ,
   .

     “

   ,   ,

    .” (
     '
  "
  " , 2015)


Why are many protestants hesitant of the reappropriation of symbols? There are many symbols in Christianity that were, well, borrowed from paganism. Over the last 200 years the history is rich with the reappropriation of pagan symbols to have Christian meanings and purposes. The most obvious are the various Saints of the Catholic church. Whether intentional or not it is clear that quite a few saints have gained the duties of and fully replaced the pagan counterparts. Mary, for example, being a virgin in Christian theology, easily inherited the symbolism that was once Aphrodite's, Isis's and quite a few others. Consequently, she readily acquired then pagan followers too.

There is also the issue of more relevant symbolism, like the cross. Whether Jesus hung on a cross or something else, it is no secret that the cross becoming the symbol of Christianity helped poach many pagan followers from their pagan gods.

All of these symbols being reappropriated has led to many (probably millions) turning to Christianity. And now, more than ever, these symbols are Christian/Catholic through and through. Their pagan counterparts have been all but blotted from the history books.

So in light of the good that it has done, and also in light of the fact that these symbols are a far cry from paganism today, why are so many protestants hesitant of just accepting the now complete reappropriation of these symbols? Is there a somewhat universal Protestant doctrine that sheds light on this? Are there verses that are commonly quoted concerning this issue?

This question was inspired by the attitude that JW's have concerning the symbol of the Cross that is illustrated well here.

Perhaps this could be better understood by looking at the most popular holiday of the world, specifically Christmas. Christmas is supposedly, or commonly celebrated or a celebration of the birth of the Christ Child, Jesus. Now, let’s find in the Scriptures where God instructs us to celebrate the birth of His Son.  There is not one place in either the Old or New Testament telling us to honor our Savior’s birth each year. As a matter of fact, Jesus Himself tells us to remember, His death (Luke 21:14-20; I Corinthians 11:23-26)! Undoubtedly, it is important that He was born, but the fact that He died and how and why He died has farther-reaching and more eternal consequences!

What most people do not fully realize is that Satan has deceived this whole world (Revelation 12:9). Many of the comfortable, familiar customs and traditions of this world have, indeed, been imitated from utter paganism and have nothing to do with proper Christianity. God tells us to prove all things (I Thessalonians 5:21). Before we accept any ritual, we should always inquire into its origins. We must assure ourselves that it does not transgress any of God's laws and that it follows the traditions and practices of the early New Testament church. So, is the sign of the cross really an emblem of true Christianity or is it something far different? Therefore, Christians saying they are saved by the power of the cross is also symbolic of the Power of the Blood of Christ in its inherent purity as it was shed on the cross. As to the shape of, or whether or not the cross had a crossbeam, or was just a stake for torture, is actually irrelevant.

SYNCRETISM //
In Romans 1:18-20, Paul declares that things inclusive of God's existence, power, and nature are clearly seen, but men tend to squelch the truth. What God wants man to know; man freely ignores and squelches through the adding of beliefs, customs and traditions that cloak the truth. The truth is still there, hidden behind a screen of falsehoods that most never attempt to remove.

Theologians call this method syncretism. According to Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, syncretism is "the combination of different forms of belief or practice." Syncretism might perchance term in other arenas, like philosophy, but scholars use it most singularly in religious contexts. Syncretize, the verb form of the word, is very illuminating. It means "to attempt to unite and harmonize especially without critical examination or logical unity." In other words, those who syncretize will often attach one belief or tradition to their religion without trying to determine whether it is correct to do so.

Hope this is of help towards answering the question of why some Protestants hesitate to be accepting of symbols or symbolism when it comes or relates to Godly things. Otherwise outside of the bible I am not aware of any universal Protestant doctrine.

I have no degree, however I did two plus years of biblical studies at Toccoa Falls Bible College in North East Georgia, and I have been born again since March 1985. My answer is from those, and my own studies of scripture and many other text and many websites where I researched. I have tried to be as fluent as I could. I am somewhat novice to putting my words out as such.


Why are both Joseph and Manasseh listed as separate tribes in Revelation chapter seven? The Patriarch Joseph had two sons Manasseh, and Ephraim:

  Genesis 46:20  KJV  And unto Joseph in the land of Egypt were born Manasseh and Ephraim, which Asenath the daughter of Potipherah priest of On bare unto him.

Israel gave Joseph an extra share among his brothers in:

  Genesis 48:22  KJV  Moreover I have given to thee one portion above thy brethren, which I took out of the hand of the Amorite with my sword and with my bow.

Both Manasseh and Ephraim were given equal shares of the promised land, when it was divided among the tribes. Manasseh also was given an area outside the promised land.

  Joshua 14:4  KJV  For the children of Joseph were two tribes, Manasseh and Ephraim: therefore they gave no part unto the Levites in the land, save cities to dwell in, with their suburbs for their cattle and for their substance.

  Joshua 22:7  KJV  Now to the one half of the tribe of Manasseh Moses had given possession in Bashan: but unto the other half thereof gave Joshua among their brethren on this side Jordan westward. And when Joshua sent them away also unto their tents, then he blessed them,

In the Revelation chapter 7 Manasseh and Joseph are listed as tribes, but Ephraim is not.

Rev 7:4 through 8     KJV

  And I heard the number of them which were sealed: and there were sealed an hundred and forty and four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel. Of the tribe of Juda were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Reuben were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Gad were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of *Aser***were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of ***Nepthalim* were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of *Manasses ***were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of ***Simeon* were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Levi were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Issachar were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Zabulon were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Joseph were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Benjamin were sealed twelve thousand.

Is the Tribe of Joseph supposed to be Ephraim?

There are actually 14 tribes if you consider Ephraim and Manasseh as additional tribes, but this is an abberation in my opinion since Ephraim inherited his father's portion so there were 13.  Levi was not given land, his offspring being the priests.

As you indicated Joseph received extra share of land which I suspect is what allowed Manasseh to separate from Ephraim as a 13th tribe.  A tribe is essentially a group of people who live together on a single plot of land so by logic if you separate into another plot of land you naturally create a new tribe.

Ephraim however was the oldest and inherited his father's share.  Although the oldest son inherited his father's house it was still his father's house and everything bestowed on that house also belonged to the father as long as he was alive (the house was never divided).

Most people today don't realize that.  Being the oldest was a mixed blessing.  Sure you inherited everything - but that included accountability and responsibility for the house and it's occupants, and deference to his father as long as the father lived.

Interestingly Dan is also missing from Revelations (Ephraim is represented via the mention of Joseph - imho).  This makes the count in Revelations back to 12 tribes.  Why is Dan not mentioned is a more intriguing question to me.


Are there official guidelines for mortifying the flesh in the various Christian denominations? Are there official guidelines for mortifying the flesh in the various Christian denominations? I'm interested primarily in the modern and historical practice exercised in Catholicism.

From the Code of Canon Law:

  Can. 1249 All Christ's faithful are obliged by divine law, each in his
  or her own way, to do penance. However, so that all may be joined
  together in a certain common practice of penance, days of penance are
  prescribed. On these days the faithful are in a special manner to
  devote themselves to prayer, to engage in works of piety and charity,
  and to deny themselves, by fulfilling their obligations more
  faithfully and especially by observing the fast and abstinence which
  the following canons prescribe.

  Can. 1250 The days and times of penance for the universal Church are
  each Friday of the whole year and the season of Lent.

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

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

  Can. 1253 The Episcopal Conference can determine more particular ways
  in which fasting and abstinence are to be observed. In place of
  abstinence or fasting it can substitute, in whole or in part, other
  forms of penance, especially works of charity and exercises of piety.

One's confessor should be aware of any fasting or mortification beyond this, as one can be too ascetic, which might be a sign of pride.

(source; cf. this)


Is there any account of a religious marriage ceremony in the scripture? I was studying the Puritans recently, and discovered something interesting about William Bradford. According to Wikipedia, he married his wife in a civil ceremony, because "the Separatists could find no example of a religious service in the Scriptures", which I immediately found interesting.

So my question is this: Is there any account of a religious marriage ceremony in scriptures? Did the Separatists miss something/exclude a book that is typically considered canonical?

Some time back I dug into this subject of weddings in olden Biblical days, just out of curiosity . This is summary of sort of what I found.

Bible speaks of three "C" of weddings: Contract, Consummation, Celebration. These same things exist today in modern marriages but the order and timing of each stage is different. Ancient Jewish weddings never involved a wedding ceremony like we see today with the bride walking down the aisle to be married in the synagogue.

In fact the present day "wedding ceremony" is something that did not develop for hundreds of years after Jesus rose from the dead. Modern Jewish weddings are as removed and different from the ancient Jewish marriage culture of the first century as Christian weddings are.

There were three states of a marriage in the Bible:

Stage 1: Signing the "ketubbah" contract (Creating the marriage bond)

The bride would chose her husband and her father would sign a legal contract with him called a "ketubbah".
Once this is signed the couple is 100% married but do not have sex yet.
Young children were often married, (arranged marriage) but did not consummate until of age.

Stage 2: The "chuppah": sexual consummation.

Up to 7 years later, the groom is able to raise the money as set out in the ketubbah contract and notifies the father of the bride, who then sets a date to consummate the marriage at the bride's home.
The bride waits with her maidens, for the arrival of the groom and his companions.
The couple enters the chuppah room and consummates the marriage while the companions of the bride and groom wait and celebrate outside or in the next room.
The groom hands the bloodied "proof of virginity cloth" to the witnesses chosen by the bride's parents, who then give it to the bride for safekeeping.

Stage 3: The wedding feast

After consummation, the entire wedding party walks to the house of the groom in a procession for a wedding feast.
At the conclusion of the wedding feast, the couple has completed the ancient ritual of marriage.

There was no "wedding ceremony" in the synagogue in  the first century, performed under a canopy where the bride and groom would hold hands and say, "I do" before an audience of friends and family. This didn’t develop for hundreds of years after Jesus died on the cross as the Passover lamb for the sins of mankind.

A few examples from OT:

The three stages of Isaac's marriage to Rebekah: Gen 24.

Contract (stage 1): Gen 24:33, Gen 24:51-53, Gen 24:57-58. An offer of marriage is proposed. The offer is accepted and Rebekah is married by contract. Gifts and money are given both to the bride and the parents of the bride. Notice that Rebekah was asked if she consented to the marriage.

Consummation (stage 2): Gen 24:64-67. Rebekah and Isaac go to the tent.

Celebration (stage 3): No mention of wedding feast, but one likely happened.

The three stages of Jacob's marriage to Leah: Gen 29.

Contract (stage 1): Gen 29:15-20. Jacob contracts to work for 7 in advance before he gets the girl.

Consummation (stage 2): Gen 29:21-26. Jacob pays the dowry price of 7 years and takes Leah into the tent.

Celebration (stage 3): Gen 29:27-28. He completed the 7 day wedding feast with Leah.

The three stages of Jacob's marriage to Rachel: Gen 29.

Contract (stage 1): Gen 29:27. Jacob contracts to work for 7 MORE years but gets to consummate the wedding at the before he pays the full dowry.

Consummation (stage 2): Gen 29:30. He took Leah into the tent at the beginning of the 7 day feast, then at the end of the 7 day feast he took Rachel into the tent.

Celebration (stage 3): Gen 29:27-28. The 7 day wedding feast was for both girls.

In Ten Commandment, God makes us aware that the adultery and fortification are something against God. This is the testimony by itself that all these three stages of wedding culminating into a marriage was according to God’s requirement. Otherwise there could be no meaning attached to the words adultery and fornication in the Law.


Please explain how the Israelites were supposed to keep the Sabbath year Leviticus chapter 25 describes a "Sabbath year" for the land. Every seventh year the Israelites were not supposed to prune their vines nor plow or plant their fields.

  Lev 25:3-7 (NET) (Lev 25:3) Six years you may sow your field, and six
  years you may prune your vineyard and gather the produce, (Lev 25:4)
  but in the seventh year the land must have a Sabbath of complete rest
  – a Sabbath to the LORD. You must not sow your field or prune your
  vineyard. (Lev 25:5) You must not gather in the aftergrowth of your
  harvest and you must not pick the grapes of your unpruned vines; the
  land must have a year of complete rest. (Lev 25:6) You may have the
  Sabbath produce of the land to eat – you, your male servant, your
  female servant, your hired worker, the resident foreigner who stays
  with you, (Lev 25:7) your cattle, and the wild animals that are in
  your land – all its produce will be for you to eat.

Apparently the Jubilee year is every seventh Sabbath year, but has additional features. If I have misunderstood the text (I think the 49th year counts consecutively and the 50th counts inclusively so they come out the same) please let me know that too. The text does say they could eat the "Sabbath produce", I assume that was whatever grew by itself from the prior year's planting, yet it specifically excludes any grapes.

God does say, in verses 19 to 22, that He will increase the harvest of the sixth year. I wonder how practical this is, and to what extent a miraculous harvest would be needed to provide enough to sow the land and eat through the eighth year. Is there anything in the Bible or history or tradition that would explain this better?

Following the commandments of God requires faith and commitment. While God forbids them to plough the land on Sabbath Year(shemiṭṭah), God also promised them to bless abundantly on the sixth year.

  You may ask, “What will we eat in the seventh year if we do not plant
  or harvest our crops?” I will send you such a blessing in the sixth
  year that the land will yield enough for three years.
  (Leviticus 25:20-21, NIV)

This is the same case for Tithe. While giving 10% of our income to God may seem to be a lost, we are actually gaining. All we have to do is test Him in this.

  Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, that there may be food in
  my house. Test me in this,” says the Lord Almighty, “and see if I will
  not throw open the floodgates of heaven and pour out so much blessing
  that there will not be room enough to store it. I will prevent pests
  from devouring your crops, and the vines in your fields will not drop
  their fruit before it is ripe,” says the Lord Almighty. (Malachi
  3:10-11, NIV)

It was also not easy for the Jews who settled in Palestine during the Zionist movement to observe the Sabbath Year but they somehow managed to observe it.

  Since the Zionist movement began to encourage agriculture in
  Palestine, the observance of shemiṭṭah has become a problem for
  solution. The leaders of the movement, who had the interest of the
  colonists at heart and feared that the shemiṭṭah might jeopardize
  their existence, claimed that the law is now obsolete. (source)

There are also some practical stories where those who observed the Sabbath Year were blessed miraculously.

  Haredi Jews tell stories of groups of Israeli Jews who kept the
  Shmitta and experienced remarkable agricultural events which they
  describe as representative of miracles in fulfillment of the Biblical
  promise of bounty. One famous story is told about the
  then-two-year-old village of Komemiyut during the 1952 Shmittah. The
  village was one of the few who refrained from working the land that
  year. At the end of the Shmittah, farmers searching for seed to plant
  found only wormy, inferior seed that had been rotting for years in an
  abandoned shed. Rabbi Binyamin Mendelson advised them to sow this seed
  anyway, saying "The Almighty who causes wheat to sprout from good seed
  will bless your inferior seed as well," even though it was three
  months after neighboring villages had planted their fields. They did.
  That year the fall rains came late, the day after the Komemiyut seed
  was sown. As a result, the neighboring villages had a meager harvest,
  while the village of Komemiyut, who sowed from the old store, had a
  bumper crop. (source)

As for the 49 or 50 years cycle, Jewish Encylopedia says

  There is a difference of opinion in the Talmud as to whether the
  jubilee year was included in or excluded from the forty-nine years of
  the seven cycles. The majority of rabbis hold that the jubilee year
  was an intercalation, and followed the seventh Sabbatical year, making
  two fallow years in succession. After both had passed, the next cycle
  began. They adduce this theory from the plain words of the Law to
  "hallow the fiftieth year," and also from the assurance of God's
  promise of a yield in the sixth year sufficient for maintenance during
  the following three years, "until the ninth year, until her fruits
  come in" (Lev. xxv. 22), which, they say, refers to the jubilee year.


Is the idea that the pleasures we experience now are mild foretastes of Heaven Biblical? Several authors1 have suggested that the pleasures we can experience in our lives are but a small foretaste of the pleasure we could experience in Heaven.

"It is a sudden and miraculous grace that is in fact evangelism, giving a fleeting of Joy, Joy beyond the walls of the world, poignant as grief . . ." (JRR Tolkien)
"Furthermore, when you understand that earthly pleasures are meant only as a foretaste of the indescribable pleasures that await us, your compulsion to overindulge is tempered by the realisation that no particular pleasure can ultimately satisfy." (Ted Dekker)

I prefer the seemingly widespread notion that the happiness of Heaven is immeasurably greater than even the greatest happiness here. But WHERE is there anything suggestive of this in the Bible itself?
1 Writer Randy Alcorn suggests we CAN imagine Heaven. In fairness to his viewpoint the 'Eye hath not seen nor ears heard..." quote from Corintheans (if fully read through) does NOT mean we cannot contemplate the afterlife.

There are many ways of coming at your question.  In somewhat random order, I suggest the following as answers:

Why do you think another word for heaven is paradise?  Is it because its joys are fewer and less intense than the joys on earth?  There's an ironic phrase that goes "trouble in paradise," which is ironic simply because there is no trouble in paradise!  See Paul's description of what he heard in the "third heaven," which he also called paradise (2 Cor 12:1 ff.).
How could heaven not be better than the best that life has to offer here on earth, since in heaven there will none of the following:  tears, death, mourning, crying, pain (Rev 21:4); the old things (Rev 21:5); thirst (Rev 21:6); ugliness (look at Revelation 21 and its description of the holy city, New Jerusalem); dogs, sorcerers, immoral persons, murderers, idolaters, liars (Rev 22:15); darkness (Rev 21:23); Satan and his demons (Rev 20:10)
How about the positive things heaven has to offer:  the presence of Jesus (1 Thes 4:17); perfect, complete, face-to-face knowledge, and not the knowledge of imperfect reflections as in a mirror (1 Cor 13:10-13); eternal life (John 3:16); all of God's saints from time immemorial to saints whom we knew on earth as family members, friends, acquaintances, mentors (1 Thes 4:13-18, and Revelation, passim); the worship of God without the distractions of sin, time limitations, unanswered questions, trials and tribulations, and a host of factors that cause our fellowship with other believers to be less than joyful here on earth, such as: divisions according to sex, denomination, skin color, national origin, language, culture, customs, appearance in general, in-groups and out-groups, cliques, theological differences, age, and so much more.

I could go on for quite a bit, but I think you get the idea.  I haven't even dipped into the hints of eternal bliss that are found in the Old Testament, and I'm sure there are many.  Maybe I'll revise my answer another time!


Why is "She" used in the Douay-Rheims translation of Genesis 3:15? So this portion of scripture is very famous and important, its called the "proto-evangelum". It is often counted as the first spoken promise of salvation from God to man.

Here is the verse in a modern english version

  I will put enmity between you and the woman,
      and between your offspring[a] and her offspring;
  he shall bruise your head,
      and you shall bruise his heel.” (ESV)

I was reading another question on this site, https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/64450/36043

This question quoted this very familiar verse, but with a minor, but serious difference.

  "I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel. " Genesis 3:15 (Douay-Rheims)

This version says that "SHE" shall crush the serpents head, while every version I have seen always says "he".

This is a very serious discrepancy. The post referenced included a painting of Mary, a song about Mary, a prayer to Mary, and the poster mentioned he/she liked the song included because  "The song also emphasize Mary's role in salvation beuatifully in a very simple way."

So, if one is coming from that perspective, this verse would certainly lend some credence to Mary veneration. So I see why someone who holds that disposition would like this translation.

As for a criterium for the answer to this question, answering any of these questions will be enough.

Why does this translation use "She"?
Do other reliable translations render it this way?
If not, why the discrepency?
Any related historical information, or tie in to catholic/protestent doctrines about Mary would be a fun plus.

From an edition of the Douay-Rheims Bible online I found this:

[15]I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.
[15] "She shall crush": Ipsa, the woman; so divers of the fathers read this place, conformably to the Latin: others read it ipsum, viz., the seed. The sense is the same: for it is by her seed, Jesus Christ, that the woman crushes the serpent's head.

And from the same source we have the Latin...

[15] Inimicitias ponam inter te et mulierem, et semen tuum et semen illius : ipsa conteret caput tuum, et tu insidiaberis calcaneo ejus.

So, it says "she" because of the Latin "ipsa" which according to Google translate means "she."
I have a favorite metaphor when talking about things like the Holy Ghost and Jesus Christ.  Who delivers your mail?  The post office or the postman?  The answer is "yes" because both do, the former having the authority and responsibility to ensure the mail is delivered and the later the duty to put it in your mailbox.
From the perspective of Eve, the only woman standing on the planet at that time, whether you specify "he" in relation to her Son or "she" in relation to her, the consequence remains the same: the defeat of Lucifer.


Are there any major Protestant denominations that have rejected salvation by faith alone? According to the Wikipedia article on Sola Fide:

  "Faith alone" is foundational to Protestantism, and distinguishes it from other Christian denominations. According to Martin Luther, justification by faith alone is the article on which the church stands or falls.

However, are there any major Protestant denominations that have explicitly rejected justification, or salvation, by faith alone?

If so, what do they substitute for Sola fide?

Please provide quotes from, or at least references to, the documents in which any such Protestant denominations reject justification by faith alone and explain their alternate position on justification and salvation.

(Related but not identical question: Protestant denominations that reject solas?)

I intend to respond considering primarily the 'mainstream' Protestant denominations, with minimal (if any) reference to the more obscure sects. This is because I think the term 'Protestant' belongs to those who accept a handful of certain beliefs (trinity, faith-centered outlook, etc) that are often not present in the more rare denominations.

Referring to the same Wikipedia page on Sola Fide, it is stated that Methodism, unlike other Protestant denominations, stresses the value of good works in the attainment of salvation. Granted, this emphasis is hardly comparable to that of the Catholic/Orthodox Christian view on good works. For Methodism, good works is secondary to faith both in order and in value (I would say only the former is true for the Catholic/Orthodox view).

'Sola Methodism': Alone Among The Many

Methodism, like other Protestant denominations, firstly stresses faith. For Methodists, faith can be neglected and lost (unlike Southern Baptists who claim the doctrine of 'once saved, always saved'). Where Lutherans, Anglicans, and other denominations that are more similar to the Roman Catholic sentimentality also place importance on sanctification, Methodists, to my knowledge, are the only mainstream Protestant group that believes sanctifying grace (meaning essentially good works) actually holds a real place of value in salvation. Most other major Protestant denominations only hold that justifying grace (meaning essentially faith in Christ) has salvation-value. According to Methodist thought, "Salvation is not a static, one-time event in our lives. It is the ongoing experience of God's gracious presence transforming us into whom God intends us to be." This nearly liquid-like take on salvation as a process, or as something that is not necessarily fully achieved is contrary to most Protestant viewpoints on the matter, who place stress on the absolutism of faith and assurance of salvation. I think all other mainstream Protestant denominations hold that salvation is achieved on earth itself in such a way that good works follow 'naturally' or in a 'desire' that follows the action of being saved. For Luther, salvation was fully attainable through faith alone while on this earth: "A transfusion of righteousness therefore becomes vitally necessary. This transfusion of righteousness we obtain from Christ because we believe in Him." We see that Luther held that all things of Christian sentiment, including sanctification, not only came down to belief in Christ, but came from belief in Christ, both in order and in value. In other words, the Catholic/Orthodox sentiment of an enduring struggle of the will, and the reoccuring trials that test both the mental faith and the spiritual will (in a way that involves actual value at the moment, independent in value from preceeding faith) becomes obscured. While Methodists might hold to a certain degree within themselves notions such as these (in the sense that good works is secondary to faith in order and value) their official doctrine, as referred to above in a link, rather bluntly asserts a look on salvation as achieved through a 'process' rather than through one event of expressed or felt faith (in other words, though secondary to faith, good works are still somewhat independently meaningful in salvation value). This could be due to Wesley's natural affinity to tradition (unlike most other Reformers, Wesley did not hate with all of his gumption the traditions of the Church). Wesley's favor for tradition, though in less potency than his favor for faith, can be seen in the Wesleyan Quadrilateral.

The Exceptions

The most central limit of this question is that it excludes (by no fault of its own) the many varying opinions within the said denominations. While Methodism is the only 'official' major Protestant denomination that seems to distance itself from Sola Fide, there are several individuals in certain Protestant denominations that hold opinions somewhat independent from their denomination's 'official' doctrine. A shining example of such a person is N.T Wright, who has caused a whirlwind of controversy in his work on Paul. Wright is an Anglican minister who has written several works addressing the topic of justification, and contrary to most Protestant opinions, Wright holds that Paul is not supporting Sola Fide, at least in the conventional sense. Wright supports the idea that good works are actually necessary in one's salvation, to 'prove' as a 'covenant sign' what Wright calls 'final justification'. This theology, whether Wright realizes it or not, is similar in essence to Catholic/Orthodox views of justification. This is only one example of a very popular individual within a denomination that 'officially' accepts Sola Fide, but who in any case does not act nor write as though Sola Fide were true. I think this is the case for many in the said Protestant denominations, but here begins the speculation and here ends the facts about the matter. That being said, there could be more to add to this answer, but I think any more added would detract rather than expand what is true.


What is the earliest historical testimony of the celebration of the nativity of the Lord Jesus Christ? What is the earliest historical testimony (e.g., in writing) of the celebration (i.e., a feast) of the nativity of the Lord Jesus Christ, whether it be on the equivalent of December 25, January 6, or some other date of the Roman calendar?

Attitudes on birthdays
In the early church, birthdays (in general) were not seen as something to celebrate.  For example, in Origen's 8th homily on Leviticus he writes:

But the saints not only do not celebrate a festival on their birth days, but, filled with the Holy Spirit, they curse that day.

According to an article by Andrew McGowan (Bible Review, December 2002; republished by the Biblical Archaeology Society), this is  "a strong indication that Jesus’ birth was not marked with similar festivities at that place and time [early third century]."
Interest in the date of Jesus' birth & Epiphany
There was, however, some interest in the date of Jesus' birth, even though it was not yet a feast date.  Around the year 200, Clement of Alexander wrote

And there are those who have determined not only the year of our Lord's birth, but also the day (Stromata Book I, Chapter 21)

Clement then offers a couple different calculations as to the date - the 25th of  Pachon [May 20] or the 24th or 25th of Pharmuthi [April 20 or 21].  Perhaps more notably for purposes of this answer, he also writes:

And the followers of Basilides hold the day of his baptism as a festival, spending the night before in readings.  And they say that it was the fifteenth year of Tiberius Cæsar, the fifteenth day of the month Tubi [January 10]; and some that it was the eleventh of the same month [January 6].

The Basilidians were a Gnostic group that taught Jesus became God at His baptism.  Their celebration of the Epiphany on January 6/10, which was originally focused on Jesus' baptism in mainstream Christianity as well, provides the first evidence for the feast.  In Eternity Today (Bloomsbury Publishing, 2006), Martin Connell explains how this evidence coincides well with what is known about the rise of Christianity in Egypt.
Shortly after Clement's Stromata, Hippolytus wrote his Commentary on Daniel.  The work, although not extant in the original Greek, has been recovered from a combination of Patristic quotes (primarily catenas - collected verse-by-verse commentaries) and a Syriac translation.  In one passage he writes:

For the first advent of our Lord in the flesh, when he was born in Bethlehem, eight days before the kalends of January [=December 25th], the 4th day of the week, while Augustus was in his forty-second year, but from Adam five thousand and five hundred years.

The "eight days ... the week" clause has generally been thought to be an interpolation.  However, Tom Schmidt has recently provided detailed analysis that suggests the date is original.  His peer reviewed paper "Calculating December 25 as the Birth of Jesus in Hippolytus’ Canon and Chronicon" (Vigiliae Christianae, Volume 69, Issue 5, October 2015) provides further evidence that Hippolytus' writings support a December 25 date for Jesus' birth.
Origin of the Christmas feast
According to McGowan, the earliest celebrations of Christmas most likely occurred sometime between 250 and 300.  Evidence for this comes from the Donatist Christians.  In 411, Augustine of Hippo chides the Donatists for refusing to acknowledge the feast of Epiphany, but does not similarly chide them for not celebrating Christmas.  This implies it was not a point of dispute between the mainstream Christians and the Donatists, suggesting the Donatists also celebrated the feast.  Since this group came into existence no later than 312 and were known to strictly adhere to the then-existent customs, this evidence suggests the Christmas feast likely predates the group.
The first explicit mention of a Christmas feast celebrated on December 25 comes from Roman almanac, dated to 354, that records a Christmas feast on December 25, 336. (Dan Graves, "The 1st Recorded Celebration of Christmas" at Christianity.com)
Although it is a popularly asserted that Christmas was borrowed from pagan culture, that idea does not coincide well with what we know about third century Christianity.  (Many of the modern customs of Christmas were, no doubt, borrowed from the culture at various points, but the date itself does not appear to have been borrowed.)  Instead, the date for Christmas likely stems from the date for Jesus' crucifixion, as strange as that may seem.  This is due to an early tradition that Jesus was conceived on the say day he was crucified, which ultimately stems from a combination Jewish tradition about Biblical figures living exactly the number of years stated in the Bible, combined with philosophical ideas about completeness.
Jesus' birth date, then, was set nine months after His crucifixion/conception date.  In the west, where it was thought Jesus was crucified on Nissan 14 (March 25), Christmas became December 25.  In the east, they used the 14th day of the Greek calendar instead of the Hebrew, putting the dates at April 6 and January 6 respectively.  (See McGowan's article and the numerous sources he cites for additional information.)
Summary
If you are looking for the first unambiguous evidence of a Christmas feast, it comes from a 354 almanac documenting the feast back to 336.  If you are looking for what the evidence says about the actual origin of the feast, the answer is late third century.  If evidence for the Epiphany feast counts, the date can be pushed back to back to the year 200, although that feast was originally primarily about Jesus' baptism (philosophical ideas of the time would say He was most likely baptized exactly 30 years after His birth, so there is some connection regardless).  The earliest evidence for interest in determining Jesus' birthday also dates to around the year 200.


What's the evangelical take on "Tebowing" and genuflection I recently read this blog post from a Catholic blogger who shed some light on the ancient history and purpose of genuflection.

  While striking his pose, Tebow is praying, and I don't believe any person objects to that.  But what is clear is his use of an ancient Catholic practice—genuflection, which is done before Christ in the Eucharist—and only then. For a religion that has no history, no scriptures other than the expropriated scriptures of the Catholic Church, and no sense of sacred and profane, the barrowing (sic) of the gesture becomes fair game.

I don't think the author would have any reason to know much about when Evangelicals do genuflect or if genuflection is even what they'd call it. I'd imagine Tim Tebow is just "taking a knee" and praying like we did in my public high school before a game. But is there any circumstances where an Evangelical Christian would have reason to genuflect or is this just a quick aspiration to the Holy Spirit?

In other words, what is he doing and why is he doing it?

Outside of the Roman Catholic context, genuflection is simply kneeling or bowing to show respect. There's no right or wrong time to do this; the Bible doesn't say we must be on one knee before we take communion, nor that we must not genuflect at any other time.

In evangelical meetings, genuflection is sometimes used; sometimes as a result of an invitation to do so corporately, and sometimes spontaneously as individuals. You're likely to see the latter more frequently in more charismatic churches, where individuals are encouraged to express their worship in their own way, and to see the former more in more conservative churches, where there tends to be more direction from the front. But there's no real rule that I'm aware of in any of the main evangelical churches that says you must genuflect at some particular times. You're just as likely to see the raising of hands, or taking up of other postures, in exactly the same way.

I know little of Tebow - I prefer the kind of football where the foot and the ball actually make contact - but it would seem he is prone to kneeling occasionally, perhaps before a big kick or something; this kind of behaviour certainly isn't uncommon in sport (Jonny Wilkinson springs to mind). He might be praying, he might just be focussing his mind - we don't know for sure. We do know it's not necessary to be on one knee in order to pray, but we also know that such a motion may help to focus his mind and spirit on God (assuming he is praying) amid the noise and bustle of the football stadium.


Did John Wesley plagiarize Matthew Henry...? I was consulting some commentaries on Exodus 4:24-26 and noticed that John Wesley's Notes on this passage appear to be taken, in some cases word for word, from Matthew Henry's commentary. Is there a legitimate relation between these two texts? Or perhaps intellectual property rights were not as well understood in John Wesley's day...? I've put the passage that appears to be plagiarized below.

Wesley's notes:

  "It seems the sin of Moses, was neglecting to circumcise his son,
  which perhaps was the effect of his being unequally yoked with a
  Midianite, who was too indulgent of her child, and Moses so of her.
  The Lord met him, and, probably, by a sword in an angel's hand, sought
  to kill him - This was a great change. Very lately God was conversing
  with him as a friend, and now coming forth against him as an enemy. In
  this case of necessity Zipporah herself circumcised the child without
  delay; whether with passionate words, expressing the dislike of the
  ordinance itself, or at least the administration of it to so young a
  child."

  Notes on the Second Book of Moses Called Exodus

Henry's Commentary:

  "1.The sin of Moses, which was neglecting to circumcise his son. This
  was probably the effect of his being unequally yoked with a Midianite,
  who was too indulgent of her child, while Moses was too indulgent of
  her. […] .2. God’s displeasure against him. He met him, and, probably
  by a sword in an angel’s hand, sought to kill him. This was a great
  change; very lately God was conversing with him, and lodging a trust
  in him, as a friend; and now he is coming forth against him as an
  enemy. [...] 3. The speedy performance of the duty for the neglect of
  which God had now a controversy with him. His son must be circumcised;
  Moses is unable to circumcise him; therefore, in this case of
  necessity, Zipporah does it, whether with passionate words (expressing
  her dislike of the ordinance itself, or at least the administration of
  it to so young a child, and in a journey)

  Exodus 4

John Wesley himself explains in the preface to his notes that he very highly regarded Matthew Henry's commentary and that much of his notes were abridgements of Henry's Work.
Addressing those who owned a copy he wrote:

. I do not advise these, much to trouble themselves about any other exposition than Mr Henry's: this is sufficient, thro' the assistance of the Blessed Spirit, to make private Christians wise unto salvation, and (the Lord applying his word) thoroughly furnished unto every good work.

However there were, according to Wesley, two great problems with Henry's work, both a consequence of its size.

. But then it is manifest on the other hand, every one cannot have this exposition. It is too large a purchase: there are thousands who would rejoice to have it; but it bears too high a price. They have not Six Guineas (the London price) in the world, perhaps from one year's end to another. And if they sometimes have, yet they have it not to spare; they need it for other occasions. How much so ever therefore they desire so valuable a work, they must content themselves to go without it.
But suppose they have money enough to purchase, yet they have not time enough to read it: the size is as insurmountable an objection as the price itself. It is not possible for men who have their daily bread to earn by the sweat of their brows, who generally are confined to their work, from six in the morning 'till six in the evening, to find leisure for reading over six folios, each containing seven or eight hundred pages. These therefore have need of some other exposition than Mr Henry's. As excellent as it is in its kind, it is not for their purpose; seeing they have neither money to make the purchase, nor time to read it over.

Firstly, the size of  Henry's tomes, given the cost of printing, meant that it was beyond the ability of most people to afford. Secondly, if they could obtain a copy, they would not have time to read it.
So Wesley was quite open about his notes being, on many passages (but by no means all), mere abbreviations of Henry's.


What is the origin of hands lifting in worship? You don't need to go far to agree that raising hands while singing and worshiping (with music or prayer) is a big Christian tradition.

I've always thought that this was some reference to Psalm 134.2:

  Lift up your hands in the sanctuary, and bless the LORD. (KJV)

Or to 1 Timothy 2:8:

  I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting. (KJV)

So, I can imagine some biblical basis for it. But my question is: When this started on church's history? Is there some theology behind it? Any Father who registered, did or encouraged it? Or is this a thing of modern christian movements?

It goes all the way back to Genesis 29:35 at least with Leah raising her hands in praise to YHWH in naming Judah. As a Biblical Hebrew professor thinking in Hebrew, I find the Old Testament full of hand raising. After the most frequent verb for spoken praise HaLeL (Strong's #1984 & 8416), the word most translated (53 times) as "praise" is the verb YaDaH (Strong's #3034) derived from the word for hand/forearm YaD (Strong's #3027). It's also translated (40 times) as "thank" and (18 times) as "confess".

Praise has always been demonstrated physically as well as verbally, even though often religiously repressed. I was worried of being branded as a heretic when I first tried it in my Baptist church, but it caught on like it was the most natural way to express praise. Once freed, the congregations I've been a part of haven't gone back to suppression. Good enough reason to get your hands up.


How can I be sure someone I know is going to Heaven? I am sure that through my faith my sins have been forgiven and I will get into Heaven.  However, how can I be sure someone else will be forgiven and allowed in Heaven?  Are there any good questions I can ask them to be assured of their own faith?

I would expect actually ask any questions and not try to assume anything from outward appearances.  However, I am assuming that when asking the person they are answering honestly.

Also, I imagine asking these questions of someone who may have first approached me and asked how they could be assured they will get into Heaven.  Perhaps someone who is first approaching Christianity or a believer who is questioning how they'll get in.

The book of 1 John was written for this exact reason.
1 John 5:13 NIV

13 I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of
God so that you may know that you have eternal life.

Throughout the book of 1 John, the author gives many examples of how people doing things and then he tells us whether or not that person is saved. You can take all of the following tests and measure anybody against them to see which direction that, that person is going in.
Repentance is about you no longer following your own desires, but the desires of Christ for you.
2 Corinthians 13:5 NIV

Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith; test
yourselves. Do you not realize that Christ Jesus is in you—unless, of
course, you fail the test?

Question 1: Do you sin habitually?
1 John 5:18-20 NIV

We know that anyone born of God does not continue to sin; the one who
was born of God keeps him safe, and the evil one cannot harm him. We
know that we are children of God, and that the whole world is under
the control of the evil one.

1 John 1:6-76 NIV

If we claim to have fellowship with him yet walk in the darkness, we
lie and do not live by the truth. 7 But if we walk in the light, as he
is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of
Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin.

Question 2: Do you occasionally fall short?
1 John 1:8,10 NIV

8 If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is
not in us. 10 If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a
liar and his word has no place in our lives.

John 8:44 NIV

You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your
father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to
the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his
native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

Question 3: Do you confess your sins?
Psalm 32:3-6 NIV

When I kept silent, my bones wasted away through my groaning all day
long. For day and night your hand was heavy upon me; my strength was
sapped as in the heat of summer.   Then I acknowledged my sin to you
and did not cover up my iniquity. I said, "I will confess my
transgressions to the LORD "—and you forgave the guilt of my sin.

1 John 1:9 NIV

If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us
our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.

Romans 2:5 NIV

But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are
storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God's wrath, when his
righteous judgment will be revealed.

Question 4: Do you obey God?
1 John 2:4-5 NIV

The man who says, "I know him," but does not do what he commands is a
liar, and the truth is not in him. But if anyone obeys his word, God's
love is truly made complete in him.

1 John 5:3 NIV

This is love for God: to obey his commands. And his commands are not
burdensome,

2 John 1:6 NIV

And this is love: that we walk in obedience to his commands. As you
have heard from the beginning, his command is that you walk in love.

Question 5: Do you bear good fruit?
1 John 2:5-6 NIV

5 This is how we know we are in him: Whoever claims to live in him must
walk as Jesus did. 6 This is how we know we are in him: Whoever claims
to live in him must walk as Jesus did.

Question 6: Do you love your brothers?
1 John 2:9-11 NIV

Anyone who claims to be in the light but hates his brother is still in
the darkness. Whoever loves his brother lives in the light, and there
is nothing in him to make him stumble. But whoever hates his brother
is in the darkness and walks around in the darkness; he does not know
where he is going, because the darkness has blinded him.

Question 7: Do you walk in love?
2 John 1:6 NIV

And this is love: that we walk in obedience to his commands. As you
have heard from the beginning, his command is that you walk in love.

Question 8: Do you believe in Jesus?
1 John 3:23 NIV

And this is his command: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus
Christ, and to love one another as he commanded us.

Question 9: Do you hate the things of this world?
1 John 2:15-17 NIV

Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the
world, the love of the Father is not in him. For everything in the
world—the cravings of sinful man, the lust of his eyes and the
boasting of what he has and does—comes not from the Father but from
the world. The world and its desires pass away, but the man who does
the will of God lives forever.

Question 10: Are you persevering in repentance?
James 5:20
let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins.
Acts 17:30

In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all
people everywhere to repent.

Job 36:10

He makes them listen to correction and commands them to repent of
their evil.

2 Timothy 2:19

Nevertheless, God's solid foundation stands firm, sealed with this
inscription: "The Lord knows those who are his," and, "Everyone who
confesses the name of the Lord must turn away from wickedness."

Matthew 3:8

Produce fruit in keeping with repentance.

Revelation 2:19

I know your deeds, your love and faith, your service and perseverance,
and that you are now doing more than you did at first.

You will know them by their fruit.
And finally, Jesus tells us that we will know them by their fruit. The fruit that I just laid forth for you above.
Mathew 7 NIV

15 “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s
clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16 By their fruit
you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or
figs from thistles? 17 Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but
a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and
a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear
good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus, by their
fruit you will recognize them.


What is the Biblical basis for saying one won't be healed if they lack sufficient faith? I've heard it said in discussion with teachers in a Pentecostal church, "If you pray and believe, God will heal you." The teaching seems especially motivated by passages like Mark 5:34 and Mark 10:52 that quote Jesus saying, "Your faith has healed you." One member of the church was even later heard saying, "I prayed for healing, but I wasn't healed because I didn't have enough faith."

What is the Biblical basis for the proposition, "If you don't have enough faith that God will heal you, then he will not heal you"?

Great question. I found a few scriptures that partially satisfy your parameters, but the only one that really suggests that miracles/healing were adversely affected by a lack of faith is below:

And when the sabbath day was come, he began to teach in the synagogue: and many hearing him were astonished, saying, From whence hath this man these things? and what wisdom is this which is given unto him, that even such mighty works are wrought by his hands?
Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.
But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house.
And he could there do no mighty work, save that he laid his hands upon a few sick folk, and healed them.
And he marvelled because of their unbelief. And he went round about the villages, teaching. (Mark 6:2–6 KJV)


Did John Wesley reject the Athanasian Creed? I've seen a few examples online of people claiming that John Wesley objected to the "hell" clauses of the Athanasian Creed, such as on the United Methodist Church website:

United Methodists are not required to believe every word of the affirmations. Church founder, John Wesley himself did not agree with a historic (Athanasian) creed, because he disliked its emphasis on condemning people to hell.

Similarly, on a blog:

Yet later in his life, Wesley became uncomfortable with the damnatory clauses of the Athanasian Creed, which have no parallel in the other two creeds.

The clauses in question appear to be:

Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled; without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.
they that have done evil, into everlasting fire (WP)

A little bit of research has revealed one place where Wesley discussed the creed, saying:

I, for some time, scrupled subscribing to that creed; till I considered (1.) That these sentences only relate to wilful, not involuntary, unbelievers; to those who, having all the means of knowing the truth, nevertheless obstinately reject it: (2.) that they relate only to the substance of the doctrine there delivered; not the philosophical illustrations of it. (Sermon 55, On the Trinity; emphasis in original)

This seems to indicate that at some point in the past, he was unsure or unsatisfied with the wording of the creed, but later decided that it was acceptable.  I find this weak evidence for the "did not agree" claim.  Furthermore, this sermon was delivered in 1775, when Wesley was 71 years old, making me doubt the "later in his life" claim (though he did live another 16 years).
My question, therefore, is: did John Wesley explicitly reject any clause of the Athanasian Creed in any of his writings?  I am particularly interested in knowing if such a rejection exists in his writings between 1775 and his death in 1791.

A Google Books search yielded only two documents from the time period you referenced that mention the Athanasian creed — and only one of them actually deals with Wesley's writings during that time period.

John Wesley's father wrote a letter (dated October 19, 1725) to his son during the time he was supposed to have taken orders. The letter is "intended to resolve some doubts with regard to the Athanasian creed":

  "You seem staggered at the severe words in the Athanasian creed. Consider, their point is levelled against, and only against obstinate heretics. A distinction is undoubtedly to be made, between what is wilful, and what is in some measure involuntary. God certainly will make a difference. We don't so well know it. We therefore must leave that to him, and keep to the rule, which he has given us."

  — Memoirs: With A Review Of His Life And Writings

Secondly, an excerpt from John Wesley's journal (towards the end of December 1760). In a letter to Lloyd's Evening Post, he addresses the charge that some earlier comments "falsify the first Article of the Athanasian Creed":

  "But how so? Why, I said 'The fundamental doctrine of the people called Methodists is, whosoever will be saved before all things it is necessary that he hold the true faith.'"

  — An extract of the Rev. Mr. John Wesley's Journal


Did Jesus perform miracles as a child? I heard that there are some early books which tell of Jesus performing some miracles when he was a child. What are those books? And what are the miracles described in those books?

Are descriptions of Jesus performing miracles as a child, before he began His ministry, acceptable according to the canonical Bible?

The Bible itself seems to indicate that Jesus performed no miracles until His ministry began.  Non-biblical sources may disagree, but they are non-biblical.

John 2 records to miracle at the wedding in Cana, where Jesus turns water into wine.  John completes the account with the following statement:

  This, the first of his signs, Jesus did at Cana in Galilee, and manifested his glory. And his disciples believed in him.  John 2:11 ESV

So, John records this as the first miracle.


On what side was Jesus' stab wound? I've always believed that Jesus was stabbed in his left side. That seems to be the common belief. How is that notion supported?

I can't find anything the tells me absolutely in which side he was stabbed, so if there is anyone who says it was the right side, how is that supported?

From BibleHub:

  Pierced his side - Which side is not mentioned, nor can it be certainly known. The common opinion is that it was the left side. Car. Frid. Gruner (Commentatio Antiquaria Medica de Jesu Christi Morte, 30-36) has attempted to show that it must have been the left side. See Wiseman's Lectures, pp. 161, 162, and Kuinoel on John 19:34, where the arguments of Gruner are fully stated. It is clear that the spear pierced to the region of the heart.

The link really says it all.  John 19:34 only said that his side was pierced.  Beyond that, there is speculation (and a source commentray making the point) but nothing can be ascertained for certain.


Did Abraham, David and Solomon think having many wives was sin? Did Abraham, David and Solomon think having many wives and concubines was sin?

There were specific instructions for the king of Israel to not acquire many wives for himself, since that could have the effect of turning his heart away from the Lord.  This text predates the first king of Israel, so I would say that David and Solomon should have known that this was forbidden.

(Note:  the Bible did not actually forbid them from polygamy, but from having a whole bunch of wives.)

  "When you come to the land that the LORD your God is giving you, and
  you possess it and dwell in it and then say, 'I will set a king over
  me, like all the nations that are around me,' you may indeed set a
  king over you whom the LORD your God will choose. One from among your
  brothers you shall set as king over you. You may not put a foreigner
  over you, who is not your brother. Only he must not acquire many
  horses for himself or cause the people to return to Egypt in order to
  acquire many horses, since the LORD has said to you, 'You shall never
  return that way again.' And he shall not acquire many wives for
  himself, lest his heart turn away, nor shall he acquire for himself
  excessive silver and gold.  Deuteronomy 17:14-17 ESV

As for Abraham specifically, aside from the affair with Hagar, he stayed married to one wife (Sarah) until she passed, after which he married Keturah and had children with her.

The Bible does not explicitly state that polygamy was forbidden, yet it would have been instructive to note that God created Adam and Eve--not Adam and Eve and Shirley and Tina and...


What exactly is the process of becoming a Jesuit? I have heard that becoming a Jesuit is one of the hardest and longest religious ordinances in the world. What exactly is the purpose of making the process so long and what exactly does it entail? I would also like to know if there is a female version of the Jesuits as I understand it is not open to women?

Before going on into what is necessary to become a Jesuit, it must be understood that it is a clerical Order and as such is not open to women since women can not be ordained priests in the Catholic Church. The Jesuit Order is only permitted to have a small number of Brothers within the Order.

St Ignatius desired to found an Order that would be able to be called by the pope to aid him in any circumstances whatsoever, and as such a Jesuit must have a great deal of intellectual studies under his belt in order to fulfill any assignments given to them by the Holy See (pope). Jesuits make an additional vow of obeying the Pope regarding missions at their final profession to the usual three vows of poverty, chastity and obedience.

  St. Ignatius was strongly influenced by the Renaissance and wanted Jesuits to be able to offer whatever ministries were most needed at any given moment, and especially, to be ready to respond to missions (assignments) from the Pope. Formation for priesthood normally takes between 8 and 14 years, depending on the man's background and previous education, and final vows are taken several years after that, making Jesuit formation among the longest of any of the religious orders.

  At this point, the novice pronounces his First Vows (perpetual simple vows of poverty, chastity and obedience and a vow to persevere to final profession and ordination) and becomes either a Scholastic (entering onto the path of priesthood) or a Jesuit brother (technically known as a "temporal coadjutor", but officially styled "brother" today). The scholastics (who may be addressed by the secular title "Mister") and the Brothers (addressed by the title "Brother") of the Society of Jesus have different courses of study, although they often overlap. - Jesuit formation

Here is a sample of the steps it takes to become a Jesuit:

  1.Recognize vocation. This is the most important part of the entire formation process, and the first step of discernment. The vocations website of the Jesuits describes this initial process as hearing, answering, and considering God’s call to enter into the Society of Jesus. During this stage of consideration, men are called candidates.

  2.Become a Novice. Once a candidate decides to respond to his vocation, he enters the novitiate. This is a two year program for men to “pray, work and learn” about the Society of Jesus. During the first year, novices must partake in the “Long Retreat,” a thirty day silent retreat in which they complete the full Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius. Novices also participate in a variety of experiments, often including ministering to the homeless or sick, and partaking in a pilgrimage (most of the crazy formation stories come from this part). In their second year, novices are assigned a “Long Experiment” which Martin calls an “extended supervised ministry” often in a Jesuit school. Martin also notes that technically during this stage, novices are indifferent between being brothers (not ordained) or priests (ordained), however if they feel more called towards priesthood, they may become scholastics during these years as well.

  3.Pronounce first vows. At the end of the novitiate, novices commit to poverty, chastity and obedience, which they have already been living during the novitiate. At this point, men promise to “enter the Society fully at the end of formation,” and officially become Jesuits. (Also, at this point the suffix “SJ” is added to their names).

  4.Complete First Studies. The now-vowed Jesuits must receive 1-4 years of education in philosophy and theology, depending on their previous training, while engaging in part time ministry as well. They study either at Fordham University, St. Louis University, Loyola University in Chicago, or sometimes abroad. During this stage, Jesuits can be referred to as either scholastics (future priests) or brothers, depending on which ministry they feel called to.

  5.Brothers move on to specialized training and advanced degrees. Following first studies, vowed Jesuit brothers must receive graduate education in Theology, and often additional advanced degrees in their area of interest. For this reason, most Jesuits have graduate degrees in Theology, and often a masters or doctorate in another field as well. Brothers then enter active ministry at a Jesuit apostolate (any placement operated by the society).

  6.Scholastics complete regency. Regents participate in 2-3 years of full-time work in Jesuit ministry. This can be at a high school, college or university, or elsewhere.

  7.Scholastics move on to Theology studies. They must complete 4 years of graduate level theology studies. This training is more intensive than the brothers’ as it is geared towards preparing the Jesuit for ordination. During the first two years while awaiting ordination, scholastics are called ordinandi.

  8.Scholastics are ordained to the transitional diaconate. In their second year of Theology studies, Jesuit scholastics officially become clergy.

  9.Transitional Deacons are ordained to Priesthood. Following the third year of Theological studies, after six months to a year in the diaconate, Jesuits are ordained to the priesthood. Newly ordained priests typically spend a year in ministry at a Jesuit parish.

  10.Priests and Brothers become Tertians. After an undefined period of time following advanced studies or ordination, Jesuit brothers and priests enter a year-long renewal of spiritual training called tertianship. They again have to complete the full spiritual exercises of St. Ignatius. At the end of this year, all Jesuits may apply to take final vows.

  11.Pronounce final vows. Final vows are not actually an action on the part of the Jesuit brother or priest, rather the essentially serve as the ratification of the First Vows they took by the Society of Jesus. The Superior General invites the Jesuit to reaffirm his First Vows of poverty, chastity and obedience thus marking the end of formation. Jesuits also make a vow to obey the Pope regarding missions at this time as well. - How to Become a Jesuit


According to Catholicism, Can God annihilate the soul? Catechism of the Catholic Church

  362 The human person, created in the image of God, is a being at once corporeal and spiritual. The biblical account expresses this
  reality in symbolic language when it affirms that "then the LORD God
  formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the
  breath of life; and man became a living being." Man, whole and
  entire, is therefore willed by God.

  366 The Church teaches that every spiritual soul is created immediately by
  God - it is not "produced" by the parents - and also that it is
  immortal: it does not perish when it separates from the body at death,
  and it will be reunited with the body at the final Resurrection.

The Catholic Church teaches that the soul is immortal because God breathed the breath of life into the man.

My argument here is that, if God created the man in His likeness and breathed His life into the man, it would mean that man or the soul was created to be immortal, just like God. If this is true, then it would mean that even God himself cannot reverse the immortality that was imparted into the man!

According to Catholicism, is God able to annihilate the soul? Can God make the soul vanish forever?

In the Summa Theologica (First Part, Question 104, Article 3), Aquinas asks "Whether God can annihilate anything?" He concludes,

Some have held that God, in giving existence to creatures, acted from natural necessity. Were this true, God could not annihilate anything, since His nature cannot change. But, as we have said above, such an opinion is entirely false, and absolutely contrary to the Catholic faith, which confesses that God created things of His own free-will, according to Ps. 134:61: "Whatsoever the Lord pleased, He hath done." Therefore that God gives existence to a creature depends on His will; nor does He preserve things in existence otherwise than by continually pouring out existence into them, as we have said. Therefore, just as before things existed, God was free not to give them existence, and not to make them; so after they are made, He is free not to continue their existence; and thus they would cease to exist; and this would be to annihilate them.

In other words, Aquinas believes that since God creates things because he wants to, and because he loves them, we must believe that it was possible for him not to give things (including the soul) existence, and similarly at least theoretically possible for God to fail to continue them in existence.
However, the very next question he considers is "Whether anything is annihilated?" (emphasis added) His conclusion is:

Some of those things which God does in creatures occur in accordance with the natural course of things; others happen miraculously, and not in accordance with the natural order, as will be explained. Now whatever God wills to do according to the natural order of things may be observed from their nature; but those things which occur miraculously, are ordered for the manifestation of grace, according to the Apostle, "To each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit, unto profit" (1 Cor. 12:7); and subsequently he mentions, among others, the working of miracles.
Now the nature of creatures shows that none of them is annihilated. For, either they are immaterial, and therefore have no potentiality to non-existence; or they are material, and then they continue to exist, at least in matter, which is incorruptible, since it is the subject of generation and corruption.2 Moreover, the annihilation of things does not pertain to the manifestation of grace; since rather the power and goodness of God are manifested by the preservation of things in existence. Wherefore we must conclude by denying absolutely that anything at all will be annihilated.

In other words:

If God annihilates something, he will do it either (a) as part of the natural course of things, or else (b) as a miracle, to display his power or for some other teaching purpose.
But in nature, we see that no created entity is annihilated in the natural course of things. Either they are material, and the matter constituting them continues in existence even after they die or are worn down to nothing; or else they are immaterial, in which case (since they are pure form with no accident) it is impossible for them to fail to exist.
Furthermore the annihilation of entities does not constitute a display of God's grace and power; these are best displayed by God's maintaining things in existence:

For you love all things that are
and loathe nothing that you have made;
for you would not fashion what you hate.
How could a thing remain, unless you willed it;
or be preserved, had it not been called forth by you?
But you spare all things, because they are yours,
O Ruler and Lover of souls,
for your imperishable spirit is in all things!

(Wisdom 11:24–12:1)
Thus, since God does not annihilate anything either in the natural course of events or as a miracle, we must believe that nothing at all—including the soul—is ever in fact annihilated.

1 Psalm 134 in the Septuagint, 135 in the Hebrew numbering.
2 That is, Thomas claims, because beings are generated out of matter, and they degenerate and decay (they are corrupted) back into matter, the matter itself is not corruptible. Matter can be formed into new entities, and these entities can decay back into matter, but the matter itself is not created nor destroyed—it is not corruptible.


What is the difference between an Apostate and an Antichrist? The bible dictionary defines Antichrist as:

  "A word used by John to describe one who would assume the guise of
  Christ but in reality would be opposed to Christ. In a broader sense
  it is anyone or anything that counterfeits the true gospel or plan of
  salvation and that openly or secretly is set up in opposition to
  Christ. The great antichrist is Lucifer, but he has many assistants
  both as spirit beings and as mortals."

There isn't a definition given in the bible dictionary for what an Apostate is. but the guide to the scriptures describes Apostasy as:

  "A turning away from the truth by individuals, the Church, or entire
  nations."

So it would appear that we have two different definitions, one pretends to be, but secretly isn't, the other simply turns away. But then there'e this scripture in the Doctrine and Covenants:

  "And after they have fallen asleep the great persecutor of the church,
  the apostate, the whore, even Babylon, that maketh all nations to
  drink of her cup, in whose hearts the enemy, even Satan, sitteth to
  reign—behold he soweth the tares; wherefore, the tares choke the wheat
  and drive the church into the wilderness." (D&C 86:3)

So now we've got two words describing one person. Lucifer is apparently both and apostate and and antichrist.

My question is, what is the significant difference? Can you be one without being the other?

The Greek ἀντίχριστος, meaning 'antichrist', is used in 1 John and 2 John to refer specifically to an opponent of Christ.  On the other hand, an apostate is someone who has voluntarily left his or her former religion. The apostate need not be in opposition to the former religion and, depending on circumstances, could even be on good terms with those who remain behind. The secularisation of many Western countries, particularly in Europe, means that a large proportion of the populations could be regarded as apostates.

The LDS Teachings, Chapter 12, states:

  Apostasy is turning away from the Church and ultimately denying the faith.

This usage of the term 'apostate' does not imply any opposition to Christ.

On the other hand, the Latter Day Saints Doctrine and Covenants, Section 86, refers to:

  3 And after they have fallen asleep the great persecutor of the church, the apostate, the whore, even Babylon, that maketh all nations to drink of her cup, in whose hearts the enemy, even Satan, sitteth to reign—behold he soweth the tares; wherefore, the tares choke the wheat and drive the church into the wilderness.

This usage of the term 'apostate' is unusual. In normal usage, you can be an apostate without being the other.


What is the Biblical basis for saying that wives can divorce their physically abusive husbands? Some Christians teach that it is acceptable to divorce a physically abusive spouse. Some would even say that someone in that situation should do so. What is the Biblical basis for this?

Society would generally say that the sane response would be to divorce an abusive spouse. I'm trying to find scriptural support for this, but the only related verses I can find say "Do not divorce" or "If you divorce and remarry, it's adultery."

Some Christians would say that the abusiveness of the husband is proof that he is not a Christian, and the wife is therefore able to divorce him based on Paul's words in 1st Corinthians 7.

The key point is in bold.

  1 Corinthians 7:10-15 ESV To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife. To the rest I say (I, not the Lord) that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her. If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved. God has called you to peace.

This is a hotly contested passage in Christendom and there are varying interpretations of what Paul is trying to say, but what is clear is that if a Christian and non-Christian are married and the non-Christian wishes to divorce, the Christian is no longer bound to that person. But, can the Christian initiate the divorce even though Paul's example is about the non-Christian initiating it? If the non-believing spouse claims to be a Christian, can one deduce that is their fruits (i.e, actions) that confirm their Christianity and not them merely stating so?

Those that believe you can divorce a sexually faithful yet abusive spouse would answer both questions with "Yes." This is, I believe, a more liberal interpretation of this passage. Those that hold this view are forced to create a standard by which a spouse's actions needs to be compared to in order to determine their "true" Christianity. What about non-physical abuse, anger, or lack of love? Going down this slope to an extreme could lead one to create a trump card out of most any spousal imperfection and use it to justify divorce for petty (selfish) reasons.

Fortunately, God doesn't work in technicalities ☺. He knows the heart of every divorce initiator and which ones were truly "valid" or not.