Why is Mary's perpetual virginity a Catholic dogma? I know Catholic dogmas must be accepted to become Catholic. They are non-negotiables as distinguished from doctrines or theological opinions. I know most Catholic dogmas relate to some essential truth about God or Jesus which must necessarily be true in order for Christianity to be true. Others are refutations of various heresies.

Since one must accept dogmas in order to join the Church, what essential truth of or about Christianity relies on Mary's perpetual virginity? If she had relations with Joseph at some point after their marriage, what truth of or about Christianity would be damaged? How is Christianity diminished if she did not remain a virgin?

I believe the O.P.'s question can be interpreted as, “Why is belief in Mary’s perpetual virginity considered so important that the Church makes it an excommunicable offense (heresy) to deny it?”

The first observation to make is that all Marian dogmas have their root in the fundamental Marian dogma, which is that she is Theotokos, the Mother of God. This extraordinary grace exalts Mary—in the order of grace—over all other creatures, even the angels. Only Jesus Christ, who is hypostatically united to the Word is more “full of grace” than she. (See Catechism of the Catholic Church [CCC] 498.)

The dogma of the Theotokos would not have so much importance in itself if it did not follow as a direct consequence of the Hypostatic Union and the so-called communion of properties. Mary can be rightly called Mother of God precisely because Jesus Christ’s human nature is so closely united to the Word (that is, the Divine Person of the Son), that his human actions and states are rightly attributed to his Divine Person. It is perfectly orthodox to say that God—that is, the Divine Son—was born of a woman; grew up in Nazareth; ate, drank, spoke, and laughed; died on a cross; and rose from the dead. For this reason, Mary is rightly and properly called Mother of God. This is, in fact, the solemn teaching of the Council of Ephesus, A.D. 431. The Council Fathers reasoned that, in effect, if they denied Mary the title of Mother of God, they would be denying Jesus’ complete unity as a Person. (See CCC 466.)

In teaching the perpetual virginity Mary, the Church is in no way belittling the beautiful vocation of marriage, nor is she suggesting, in the slightest way, that the marital act and the begetting of children is in any way evil.

However, the Divine Motherhood of Mary forges a special relationship between Mary and the Holy Spirit, which the Scriptures strongly suggest was meant to be exclusive.*

For example, there was no particular reason why the Incarnation could not have occurred by means of the normal process of human generation. The consummation of marriage and the procreation of children are far from sinful, and God could easily and fittingly have used these means to achieve His ends.

However, in fact—as all orthodox, Nicene Christians agree—He chose the even more excellent step of being born to a virgin—that is, without making use of the carnal union. Again, that is not because the carnal union is evil, but because the Virgin Birth is a more manifest sign of the immensity of the Incarnation. (As I am sure the O.P. is aware, the Scriptures abundantly bear witness to the Virgin Birth—to the fact that Joseph was not Jesus’ biological father—especially Luke 1 and Matthew 1.)

The Holy Spirit, by “overshadowing” Mary (see Luke 1:35) with His power, effectively consecrated Mary and her womb to Himself. Again, it was not necessary for God to ask Mary to refrain from consummating her marriage after the Virgin Birth (just as it was not necessary for the Incarnation to take place by means of a virginal conception, and just as it was not strictly necessary for our salvation for God to become incarnate at all). It was, however, most fitting that the womb, once consecrated to God, should remain for Him alone.

Finally, there is also the simple matter of fact. The perpetual virginity of Mary is a historical fact, whose truth or falsehood depends not on theological speculations, but on Mary’s actual condition when she was on the earth. Either she consummated her marriage with Joseph, or she did not. The testimony of the Church Fathers on this question, however, is unanimous. They called her Aeiparthenos, the Ever-Virgin (see CCC 499). As witnesses we might mention the Protoevangelium of James (c. 145 A.D.), a non-Canonical but pious book from the second century; Origen of Alexandria; Hilary of Poitiers; Athanasius; Epiphanius of Salamis; Jerome; and son. (See the article on the perpetual virginity of Mary from Catholic Answers for actual excerpts from the Fathers.)

In other words, the Church affirms the dogma for the simple reason that it corresponds to historical reality.

It should be mentioned that although the Church maintains Mary’s virginity before, after, and even “even in the act of giving birth to the Son of God made man” (CCC 499), the Church does not insist on teaching that the virginity is a physical one (as if the birth of our Lord had no effect on Mary’s body; e.g., that she did not suffer from the pains of childbirth). There is a pious tradition to that effect, but it is not part of the faith.

* At the request of Jon the Architect, here are some other references to the Scriptures that help paint the picture that relationship of Mary to the Holy Spirit was exclusive. (Please note that I said that the Scripture suggests this, without being explicit. The definitive justification for the dogma comes from Sacred Tradition—i.e., the witness of those who knew Mary and Jesus, whose testimony was passed on orally.)

Mary asks the angel how the birth of the Messiah is to take place. (Luke 1:34.) Since Mary is already engaged to be married to Joseph (Luke 1:27), that would be a strange question if she were not intending to remain a virgin.
In all of the Old Testament, the places in which God has a special presence are deemed inviolable: the Holy of Holies of the Temple (especially when God appeared in the cloud there; see, e.g., Leviticus 16:2), the Ark of the Covenant (2 Samuel 6:6-7), theophanies like the Burning Bush (Exodus 3:4), and so forth. None of these presences, however, comes anywhere near the extraordinary presence of God that came to be at the Incarnation. It is likely that Joseph (a faithful Jew steeped in the Old Testament Scriptures) would have feared to consummate his marriage with Mary for this reason.


According to Catholicism, is are there any teachings or traditions about who was the host of the house where Jesus celebrated his Last Supper? According to Catholicism, is are there any teachings or traditions that may shed light on who was the host of the house where Jesus celebrated his Last Supper and how such a host may have known how to prepare for the Lord’s Passover?

12 Now on the first day of the unleavened bread, when they sacrificed the pasch, the disciples say to him: Whither wilt thou that we go, and prepare for thee to eat the pasch?
13 And he sendeth two of his disciples, and saith to them: Go ye into the city; and there shall meet you a man carrying a pitcher of water, follow him;
14 And whithersoever he shall go in, say to the master of the house, The master saith, Where is my refectory, where I may eat the pasch with my disciples?
15 And he will shew you a large dining room furnished; and there prepare ye for us.
16 And his disciples went their way, and came into the city; and they found as he had told them, and they prepared the Pasch. - Mark 14:12-16

Although not strictly a Catholic Church point of view, a good argument can be made that the Upper Room in which the Last Supper (Passover) was held belonged to Joseph of Arimathea.
He was a disciple of Jesus'.

When the even was come, there came a rich man of Arimathaea, named Joseph, who also himself was Jesus' disciple:
Mat 27:57

He was rich.

see above quote

Jesus instructed His disciples to find a man carrying water.

He replied, “As you enter the city, a man carrying a jar of water will meet you. Follow him to the house that he enters,
Luke 22:10

The man carrying water, however, was not the master of the house.  The master of the house was someone different.  The disciples don't ask the servant, but the master where they might prepare.

and say to the owner of the house, ‘The Teacher asks: Where is the guest room, where I may eat the Passover with my disciples?’
Luke 22:11

Joseph of Arimathea evidently partook of that Passover because he has no subsequent problem with touching a dead body.  This would have made him unclean and prevented his partaking of the Passover.

And after this Joseph of Arimathaea, being a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews, besought Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus: and Pilate gave him leave. He came therefore, and took the body of Jesus.
John 19:38

But he also knows Jesus was arrested, tried, and crucified.  He then lays Jesus in his own tomb.

And laid it in his [Joseph of Arimathea] own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock: and he rolled a great stone to the door of the sepulchre, and departed.
Mat 27:60

It is interesting that Joseph of Arimathea may have provided the sites for the beginning and ending of Christ's passion from sufferings to burial.
So, a rich man with male servants who was a disciple of Jesus keeping the Last Supper secret from the authorities, but who has the authority to claim the body.  All of these things point to Joseph of Arimathea.


Did any of the Apostolic Fathers know Paul? Is there any extra-biblical written evidence that any of the Apostolic Fathers (i.e., the early Christian theologians of the 1st and 2nd centuries) knew the Apostle Paul? If so, what is the written evidence that they were taught by Paul or even heard him preach? Are any of them mentioned in the Bible?

A case could be made for Clement of Rome, considered by Irenaeus (Against Heresies III.3.3) and Eusebius (Church History V.6) to be the fourth Bishop of Rome (after Peter, Linus, and [Ana]cletus).

(Apparently, there is some discussion as to whether Linus and Anacletus were essentially “auxiliary bishops” and Clement was Peter’s actual successor.)

In any event, scholars agree that this Clement is the author of the (First) Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians. (A second letter to the Corinthians was also once attributed to him, but scholars now agree that the attribution is spurious.)

A certain Clement is named in Philippians 4:3:

  Yes, I ask you also, true companion, help these women, who have labored side by side with me in the gospel together with Clement and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the book of life.

There is not 100% certainty that this is the very same Clement who was the Bishop of Rome and wrote the epistle, but that is the traditional understanding. Moreover, it is plausible, given that the style of Clement’s epistle to the Corinthians is markedly similar to Paul’s (and the Church in Corinth was founded by Paul, which would explain why Clement was interested in what went on there). Also, Paul likely wrote the letter to the Philippians in Rome (see, e.g., Phil. 4:22), and so the connection between this Clement and Rome is plausible.

If that is the case, then Clement of Rome, an Apostolic Father, would have known St. Paul.


Lutheranism, Has God ordained all things? According to the Westminster Confession of Faith God has, in some way, ordained everything that comes to pass.

I. God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin; nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.
II. Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass, upon all supposed conditions; yet hath he not decreed any thing because he foresaw it as future, as that which would come to pass, upon such conditions.

Regarding these two points from Chapter III, what would Lutherans confirm, and what would they reject? What is the defense of these confirmations or rejections? Do any Lutheran doctrines stand in an analogous position to these two WCF points?

In my study, I have noticed a heavy Calvinist influence on Lutheranism. In fact, Lutheranism is basically medieval Catholicism, which stresses that the sovereignty of God is absolute over all that is. Guess what? That is the exact first point to Calvinism.

Calvinism logically explorers the idea that the sovereignty of God is absolute. The result is basically this:
God has all power over all things, therefore, whatever happens God either
1) Let it happen, but it was the doing of a freewill being or reality separated from Him by sin (eg earth)
2) Stopped it from happening
3) Made it happen entirely.

Because of this logic, if you claim that God has absolute sovereignty over all that is, you must also claim that all that happens is ordained by God. Most Christian denominations will claim this, but quite a few do quietly, so as not to disturb the complacency of the congregation. Lutheranism is more vocal about it, but like most, has become quieter and quieter over the last century and a half.

As for the problem where you might find a paradox, where God is not the author of sin yet he ordains it by this logic is called antimony, which is actually not a paradox. A paradox is manufactured where an antimony is an observation of two facts, although logically derived in this case, that are seemingly irreconcilable, yet both undeniable. Basically, the Calvinist, and subsequently the Lutheran, is willing to admit this seeming contradiction, but is not willing to abandon the entire theology because it starts with "The sovereignty of God is absolute and over all that is," because it is too well supported in the Scripture.


Is there any significance to the aside in Luke 23:12, regarding Pilate and Herod? In Luke 23, Jesus is taken to Pilate and Herod to be tried for his supposed crimes against Rome and the Jews. In verse 12, there's an interesting aside:

  ¶ And the same day Pilate and Herod were made friends together: for before they were at enmity between themselves. (Luke 23:12, KJV)

Why did Luke include this seemingly random statement in his narrative of Jesus' final hours? Do we know anything about the relationship between Pilate and Herod before Jesus' trial, and why did it change with the trial of Jesus?

Herod the Great, who was Herod's father and King of Judea during the birth of Christ, had been granted his title by the Roman Senate.  As King, he had authority over all Judea and surrounding territories.

Upon the death of Herod the Great, his kingdom was divided among his sons, with Herod Archelaus inheriting the land of Judea, Samaria, and Idumea; Herod Antipas inheriting Galilee and Peraea; and Philip inheriting the land northeast of the Jordan.

Whereas Herod the Great had ruled with an iron fist, things became chaotic under his sons - especially in Archelaus' tetrarchy.  As a result, Augustus Caesar removed Archelaus as tetrarch and placed the territory - which became the Roman province of Judea - directly under the control of a Roman prefect.  Pontius Pilate was the fifth prefect of the Province of Judea.

Following Herod the Great's death, Herod Antipas (the Herod of Luke 23:12) had gone to Rome to lobby to inherit his father's kingdom in toto, but his request was denied.  This, as well as Rome's decision to install a Roman prefect rather than one of Herod's descendants in place of Archelaus - probably led to Herod Antipas' resentment of the Roman prefecture in general and of Pilate in particular.

(The above information can be found in the works of Josephus (Yosef ben Matityahu), a Jewish rebel against Rome who defected and himself became a Roman citizen and chronicler of Jewish history.)

The Byzantine commentator Theophylact (1055-1107) calls attention to the dark amity of Pilate and Herod as a stark reminder for us:

  See how the devil brings together disparate elements for the sole
  purpose of preparing Christ's death, forging a single conspiracy and
  making warring factions friends.  Are we not then ashamed that the
  devil brings peace between enemies in order to kill Christ, while we,
  for the sake of our own salvation, do not even preserve love towards
  our own friends?1

Cyril of Jerusalem (313-386) relates the friendship concluded between Pilate and Herod to a prophesy in Hosea (10:6) and takes a somewhat more positive view of Herod's and Pilate's friendship:

  Having been bound, He came from Caiaphas to Pilate,—is this too
  written? yes; And having bound Him, they led Him away as a present to
  the king of Jarim2.  But here some sharp hearer will
  object, “Pilate was not a king,” (to leave for a while the main parts
  of the question,) “how then having bound Him, led they Him as a
  present to the king?”  But read thou the Gospel; When Pilate heard
  that He was of Galilee, he sent Him to Herod; for Herod was then
  king, and was present at Jerusalem.  And now observe the exactness of
  the Prophet; for he says, that He was sent as a present; for the same
  day Pilate and Herod were made friends together, for before they were
  at enmity.  For it became Him who was on the eve of making peace
  between earth and heaven, to make the very men who condemned Him the
  first to be at peace; for the Lord Himself was there present, who
  reconciles the hearts of the princes of the earth.  Mark the exactness
  of the Prophets, and their true testimony.3

1. Explanation of the Gospel According to St. Luke, tr. from Greek by Chrysostom Press
2. "Jarim" means "wild vine".  Herod, points out Rufinus (340-410), was himself a wild vine, since he was of alien and not Jewish stock.
3. Catechetical Lecture XIII.14


What would be a divine image of a form that is in the water below the earth? And God spoke all these words, saying, "I am Yahweh, your God, who brought you out from the land of Egypt, from the house of slaves.  There shall be for you no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself a divine image with any form that is in the heavens above or that is in the earth below or that is in the water below the earth. You will not bow down to them, and you will not serve them, because I am Yahweh your God, a jealous God, punishing the guilt of the parents on the children on the third and on the fourth generations of those hating me, and showing loyal love to thousands of generations of those loving me and of those keeping my commandments. "
Exodus 20:1-6 - LEB

The famous commandment against idolatry. I've searched and I see that the commandment against picturing forms above the heavens is directed at stopping the worship of other gods, and the one against picturing forms in the earth below would be directed at stopping worshiping the death. What about the "forms that are in the water below the earth"?
At first, Leviathan came to my mind, but that sea monster was in the seas, not in the water below the earth. Do we know of any tradition, either Israelite or of one of their neighbor nations, that had inhabitants in the water below the earth?

The translation "divine image" in the Hebrew is simply פֶּ֫סֶל (pesel), meaning image or idol.  The commandment in Ex 20:4 is a prohibition on making an image or likeness of anything above us, around us or below us in order to worship it.

This prohibition  against worshiping a man-made image/idol extends to everything.  The translation in the LEB, "divine image" is quite infelicitous and so misleading as it implies that the prohibition is only against images of the divine.  The word "divine" is not in the original.

The thrust of the sentence is against making an image of anything in order to worship it.  Ellicott summarises this well:

  (4) Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image.--The two main
  clauses of the second commandment are to be read together, so as to
  form one sentence: "Thou shalt not make to thee any graven image, &c.,
  so as to worship it." … It was not until the days of Hebrew decline
  and degeneracy that a narrow literalism pressed the words into an
  absolute prohibition of the arts of painting and sculpture (Philo, De
  Oraculis, ? 29). Moses himself sanctioned the cherubic forms above the
  mercy-seat, the brazen serpent, and the lilies and pomegranates of the
  golden candlestick. Solomon had lions on the steps of his throne, oxen
  under his "molten sea," and palm-trees, flowers, and cherubim on the
  walls of the Temple, "within and without" (1Kings 6:29). What the
  second commandment forbade was the worship of God under a material
  form. It asserted the spirituality of Jehovah.


Who was Theophylact? As mentioned in this question, this commentary mentions one "Theophylact" who was apparently a contemporary of Athanasius. Wikipedia only provides a list of figures who lived well past Athanasius's time, and in my research, I've only found information about the people on that list. Here's the quote from that commentary:

  Some (for instance, Theophylact) understand this "as it were" to signify that the expression, "drops of blood," was simply parabolic; but it is far better to understand the words in their literal sense, as our Church does when it prays, "By thine agony and bloody sweat." Athanasius even goes so far as to pronounce a ban upon those who deny this sweat of blood.

Theophylact was an Eastern Orthodox archbishop of Ohrid.  He is considered a saint.  He lived from about 1055-1107.

He was involved in two of the causal primary disputes after the Great Schism of 1054 about the filioque and nature of bread Christ used at the Last Supper (either leavened-Greek or unleavened-Latin).

He absolutely refused to bend on the first issue, though acknowledging the Latins may have lacked clear specific language on the issue.  On the second issue, he acknowledged that Christ would have used unleavened bread, but that it was not a binding tradition.

He is well respected for his exegesis of books of the Bible.

History of the Christian Church, Volume IV: Mediaeval Christianity. A.D. 590-1073

Ohrid (Wikipedia)

Theophylact of Ohrid (Wikipedia)

Chrysostom Press


Which Orthodox churches are on the New Calendar, and which are on the Old Calendar? I'm trying to determine whether or not a majority of Orthodox are on the Old or on the New Calendar.  I don't need numbers for this question, but I do need names.

Who are on the Old, and who are on the New?

This wiki claims that the "churches of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Greece, Cyprus, Romania, Poland, Bulgaria, and most of the Orthodox Church in America." are on the New Calendar.

Ok, good start. Is that comprehensive?

This wiki page states that "Those Orthodox Churches which remain in full communion with the New Calendarists and yet continue to use the Julian calendar, include the Orthodox Church of Jerusalem, the Russian Orthodox Church, the Serbian Orthodox Church, and the Georgian Orthodox Church. (The Julian calendar is also used by the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia which has reunited with the Russian Orthodox Church.) Mount Athos subordinate to the Patriarchate of Constantinople also follows the Julian Calendar."

Ok, not comprehensive. If the Wiki page is accurate, the Old Calendar churches include Jerusalem, Moscow, Serbian, Georgian, ROCOR, Mount Athos, and all other Old Calendar churches who are not in communion with Constantinople.

I don't think it is comprehensive, however, as there is a Palestinian Orthodox church in my area that is in communion with Constantinople (and under their authority) who is on the Old Calendar.

I'm also unsure of how to obtain a list of Orthodox churches which are not in communion with Constantinople and who are on the Old Calendar.

This issue gets super confusing, and you probably won't get "comprehensive." The one thing you got going for you is that if you ask any Orthodox Christian which calendar they follow, they'll have an answer for you lickedy-split, due to how divisive this issue has been historically and still continues to be.
Okay. There is actually two distinct "new calendars" and only one "old calendar." The "old" is the Julian calendar, it is a reformed and corrected Roman calendar introduced by Julius Caesar in 46 B.C. A good but slightly technical overview is here. The "new" is actually the Revised Julian or the Gregorian. As you may know the Gregorian is the one we are all familiar with. The Revised Julian is essentially the Gregorian but ties the date of Pascha to the Julian calendar. Few Orthodox churches use the Gregorian exclusively.
From Orthodoxwiki:

-The Julian Calendar churches are: Jerusalem, Russia, Serbia, Georgia, Poland, Sinai, Ukraine, and Japan.
-The Revised Julian Calendar churches are: Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Romania, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Greece, Albania, Czech Lands and Slovakia, Estonia and the OCA.
-The Gregorian Calendar church is: Finland.
A number of the above churches also have some parishes and dioceses which are on a different calendar than their respective primates, most especially the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople in the diaspora, which has many Julian Calendar parishes.

Each Orthodox Church or Jurisdiction has chosen which calendar they will follow. What makes it difficult, and why "comprehensive" will escape us is because so many parishes and dioceses have made calendar decisions that are not always in line with their "mother-Church."
For information on each of the churches listed above, I would suggest visiting Orthodoxwiki.org's list of autocephalous and autonomous churches. Most of the listed Churches' pages include a sidebar that will tell you which calendar they follow. For those that do not, there may be more information in the article. Hope that helps.


Are the services in the Orthodox churches regulated by canon? I just learned that some non-denominational churches in the USA have multiple services each Sunday. They appear to offer the same content, just having different times so they can accommodate a larger audience with differing schedules.

This surprised me a lot. I was under the impression that church law prescribes when to hold a service, up to the time at which it must be held - but maybe I am mixing this up with the prescribed prayer times in monasteries. Or maybe there is really such a prescription for Orthodox churches. I grew up in an Orthodox country, but as an atheist, so my knowledge is patchy.

Is there such a prescription? Could an Orthodox priest decide to hold the same Sunday service twice in his church, if he wanted to?

This surprised me a lot. I was under the impression that church law prescribes when to hold a service, up to the time at which it must be held - but maybe I am mixing this up with the prescribed prayer times in monasteries. Or maybe there is really such a prescription for Orthodox churches. I grew up in an Orthodox country, but as an atheist, so my knowledge is patchy.
Is there such a prescription?

Yes, there are such prescriptions for the Orthodox church, they are described by several books: generally Typika, then Triodion, and Pentecostarion, and for a few cases Octoechos, and Menaion. They contain the order of the services and prescribed time to do it.

Could an Orthodox priest decide to hold the same Sunday service twice in his church, if he wanted to?

There are a few restrictions on a service: the "Divine Liturgy" (Latin: the Mass) can be served only once per day in a single altar. And the priest can make "Divine Liturgy" only once per day. So, if you require to visit more than single Liturgy per a day, you should visit two churches (or two altars in the single church), with two different priest, but you can take part in Eucharist only once per the day too. The priest shouldn't serve the "Divine Liturgy" in the same church on multiple altars simultaneously.
As far as other services like the Hours, Vespers, Matins, the All-Night Vigil, Small Compline, Great Compline, the Midnight Office, the Moleben: I don't know specific restriction to make then more than once per day. However, it just have no sense.

They appear to offer the same content, just having different times so they can accommodate a larger audience with differing schedules.

Yes, if the church has more than one altar, and more than one priest in a state.


What are the expected results of sexual sin? Was listening to K-WAVE yesterday and there was a lot of talk about sexual sin.

What are the expected results of sexual sin?
(More specifically focusing during this life, not the after life or going to hell.)

For example, what are the effects for the person who cheats in marriage or a single man who masturbates?

Does it make the person feel emotionally oppressed on some level or does it just separate them from God spiritually without any effect here?

EDIT
Looking for biblical supported answers that translate to real life examples. According to the program, this is a very big devastating issue that is taking over. They even mentioned that pastors were calling into the anonymous line, asking for help with addictions to pornography, that sex has taken over our schools with kids "sexting", and is used to sells products.

So this "take over" must be very destructive for us - but how ?

Thanks.

The verses in 1 Cor 6 make clear that sexual sins are a special kind of sin:

  Flee sexual immorality. Every sin that a man does is outside the body, but he who commits sexual immorality sins against his own body.

The commentary of David Guzik about this:

  Paul isn’t saying sexual immorality is worse than any other sin; but he does teach that sexual sin has a unique effect on the body; not only in a physical way, but also in a moral and spiritual ways.

How this should be interpreted is however not exactly clear. I heard mentioning somewhere: if someone falls in sexual sins and his missteps are somehow made public, it is hard to see this person without thinking about those particular sins he committed. But that is just one interpretation.

One consequence is certain. Sexual immorality will hinder the spiritual life because they pollute the temple of the Holy Spirit:

  Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own?


What is the Biblical or traditional precedent or command regarding praying before meals? A very common Christian practice is to "say grace" or to "give thanks" before each meal.  What is the Biblical precedent or command for this?  In other words, why do we give thanks then and not before going to bed or going to work or any other common occurrence?

There is definitely precedent:
As Christians, we should be following the example set by Christ, who gave thanks before feeding the multitudes in Matthew 14:19-21 and Matthew 15:34-36. He also did so in Luke 24:30.

  Matthew 14:19-21

  King James Version (KJV)

  19 And he commanded the multitude to sit down on the grass, and took
  the five loaves, and the two fishes, and looking up to heaven, he
  blessed, and brake, and gave the loaves to his disciples, and the
  disciples to the multitude.

  20 And they did all eat, and were filled: and they took up of the
  fragments that remained twelve baskets full.

  21 And they that had eaten were about five thousand men, beside women
  and children.

  Matthew 15:34-36

  King James Version (KJV)

  34 And Jesus saith unto them, How many loaves have ye? And they said,
  Seven, and a few little fishes.

  35 And he commanded the multitude to sit down on the ground.

  36 And he took the seven loaves and the fishes, and gave thanks, and
  brake them, and gave to his disciples, and the disciples to the
  multitude.

  Luke 24:30 (King James Version)

  King James Version (KJV)

  30 And it came to pass, as he sat at meat with them, he took bread,
  and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them.

Paul also did so in Acts 27:35.

  Acts 27:35

  King James Version (KJV)

  35 And when he had thus spoken, he took bread, and gave thanks to God
  in presence of them all: and when he had broken it, he began to eat.

I could go on, citing verses that tell us to be thankful in all things, to pray without ceasing, but those would be weaker, and not specific to your question, so I'll stop with these three examples as Biblical precedent.

There is a command in Deuteronomy about giving thanks after the meal:

  Deuteronomy 8:10

  King James Version (KJV)

  10 When thou hast eaten and art full, then thou shalt bless the Lord
  thy God for the good land which he hath given thee.


What arguments are used by Protestants who object to the use of marijuana, even where it is legal? With the legalization of recreational marijuana in a few states this summer, no longer can the argument against marijuana be that people are supposed to obey those in authority over them (in this instance, the government, who said that marijuana was illegal, but now it is legal) Because marijuana can be used legally now, what arguments do Protestants use against the use of it?

This Protestant (viz., moi) suggests that smoking marijuana is analogous to drinking alcoholic beverages. They are both intoxicating, and they both involve a kind of surrendering to the control of the active drug in each substance.

The most famous verse in the New Testament in this regard is in Paul's letter to the believers in Ephesis:

  And do not get drunk with wine, for that is dissipation, but be filled with the Spirit, speaking to one another in psalms, hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody with your heard to the Lord; always giving thanks for all things in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ to God, even the Father (5:18-20 NASB Updated).

To be sure, Christians can be filled with all kinds of ersatz pleasures (e.g., pornography and sexual immorality, overeating, excessive entertainments and amusements, gossiping, coarse talking and "dirty" jokes, and sensuality, to name but a few), and while God has given us all things richly to enjoy (1 Timothy 6:17), he has also given us some pretty clear guidelines on how (and even if) we are to enjoy them.

Moderation is one such principle; legality is another; the encouraging and edifying of one another is a third; the quality of our witness before a watching world is a fourth; the effects that the exercise of our freedoms might have on another believer who may not share our freedom (see Romans 14 and 15, and 1 Corinthians 6:12 ff. in this regard) is a fifth; and the short- and long-term effects of some pleasures on our bodies, which are temples of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 6:19), to name but a few principles.

In conclusion, the legality of any behavior is but one of many principles we Christians are to be guided by in the things we do, say, and think. Arriving at a godly balance of these principles may be difficult at times, but God the Holy Spirit is ready, willing, and able to guide us into the kinds of behaviors and thought patterns which accomplish both his purposes for our lives and at the same time bring edification to others and glory to himself. In my opinion, pot smoking is not one of those behaviors.

In conclusion, an anecdote. I have a neighbor who claims to be a Bible-believing Christian. He also claims to have the "liberty" to smoke pot. Interestingly, he is also living with a woman who is not his wife (and who is not his first POSSLQ,** either); he is sporadic in his gathering with other believers for worship and fellowship; and he engages in pot smoking with his unbelieving friends. By the way, he lives in a state in which the possession of pot is a crime. If you were to take away the illegality of what he's doing by smoking pot, would you say the rest of his life is a sterling example to Christians and non-Christians alike as to how a Christian should behave?

An acronym used by the Internal Revenue Service, meaning Person of the Opposite Sex Sharing Living Quarters


How do Mormons view this prophecy Joseph Smith seemingly added about himself in Genesis 50:33? Chapter 50 in the book of Genesis is part of the Joseph Smith Translation, written by Joseph Smith himself.

Verses 30 and 33 of this chapter says the following (emphasis added):

  30 And again, a seer will I raise up out of the fruit of thy loins, and unto him will I give power to bring forth my word unto
  the seed of thy loins; and not to the bringing forth of my word only,
  saith the Lord, but to the convincing them of my word, which shall
  have already gone forth among them in the last days;

  ...

  33 And that seer will I bless, and they that seek to destroy him shall be confounded; for this promise I give unto you; for I will
  remember you from generation to generation; and his name shall be
  called Joseph, and it shall be after the name of his father; and he
  shall be like unto you; for the thing which the Lord shall bring forth
  by his hand shall bring my people unto salvation.

With this passage, Joseph Smith added a prophecy to the Bible book of Genesis which was originally written thousands of years ago. This prophecy is about a future seer who was (to be) named Joseph after the name of the seer's father.

For a non-believer at least this looks like a possible attempt by Joseph Smith to retroactively insert a prophecy about himself into the Bible, considering that Joseph Smith was himself a son of a man named Joseph (Joseph Smith Sr.).

However I would assume that Mormons view this passage differently. How do Mormons view it?

Is the passage viewed as a reference to some other individual named
Joseph, who was also named after his father?
Or is the passage viewed as something that God somehow wanted
Joseph Smith to include here?
Or is it viewed in some other manner altogether?

When viewed from the belief that Joseph Smith was not a prophet and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is false, or that the Bible is perfect and unchanged from the day it was written1, the only conclusion is that Joseph was writting himself into history.

When viewed from the belief that Joseph Smith is a prophet and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is true, the only conclusion is that Joseph restored a portion of the Old Testament that had been lost.  A portion that supports his claim of being a prophet of the Lord.

Remember that we believe the Bible is not perfect.  That over the course of time information has been lost (whether deliberately or by virtue of translation, it doesn't matter).  We learn from the Book of Mormon, 1 Nephi 13:25-26 (my emphasis):

  Wherefore, these things [the Bible] go forth from the Jews in purity unto the Gentiles, according to the truth which is in God.  And after they go forth by the hand of the twelve apostles of the Lamb, from the Jews unto the Gentiles, thou seest the formation of that great and abominable church, which is most abominable above all other churches; for behold, they have taken away from the gospel of the Lamb many parts which are plain and most precious; and also many covenants of the Lord have they taken away.

1 Nephi chapter 13 is actually a lengthy prophecy.  It makes for an interesting read.  But, to specifically answer your questions:

(1) No, it specifically refers to Joseph Smith.

(2) The passage is something that God wanted Joseph to include.

(3) Nope, that's it.

1  If you want to discuss how perfect the Bible is, talk to a Jew.  The Jews have a strong opinion about the quality of Christianity's Old Testament, but that's an answer for another question.

EDIT: After reading Luke's comment I wished I hadn't included my footnote as it doesn't actually add anything to the conversation.  But, I'm kinda stuck with it... so I popped over to Judiasm.SO and asked them what they thought.

The most voted answer begins with the statement, "KJV may give the general sense of a translation in most cases. It definitely has a Christian bend and does not always follow the Jewish traditions in translation."  It then provides a number of illustrative examples, including Isaiah 7:14, which illustrates the reason I included the footnote.

The Hebrew word for "virgin" isn't used in the original text.  The word that is used is most commonly translated "young girl."  Does this upset my faith?  Of course not.  But if King James' monks, who I do not believe had authority from God to translate His word, can't be trusted not to bias their translation in favor of their preferred belief, neither can anyone else who does not have, as I believe, authority from God to do so.  From Joseph's journal (today referred to as the "Documentary History of the Church or DHC) we read:

  From sundry revelations which had been received, it was apparent that many important points touching the salvation of man, had been taken from the Bible, or lost before it was compiled. (DHC, vol. 1, p. 245.)

  I believe the Bible as it read when it came from the pen of the original writers. Ignorant translators, careless transcribers, or designing and corrupt priests have committed many errors. (DHC, vol. 6, p. 57.)

I stand by my footnote, despite wishing I hadn't included it, with one exception.  I should not have boldly used the word "strong."


Why do some adherents to the Westminster Standards sing hymns, rather than just psalms? The Westminster Confession of Faith, 21.5, in its list of elements that are "parts of the ordinary religious worship of God," includes the:

  singing of psalms with grace in the heart

The Confession makes no mention of the singing of hymns or other songs, however.  Thus some adherents to the Westminster Standards, like the RPCNA, argue that this indicates a position of "exclusive psalmody," that is, that only selections from the canonical book of Psalms should be sung in worship services.

However, this section of the Westminster Confession is also approved by other Presbyterian denominations, like the PCA and the OPC, which reject exclusive psalmody.  Their worship services often include the singing of psalms, but not exclusively – they also sing hymns and, in some congregations, contemporary praise songs.

The PCA and OPC both use a version of the Westminster Standards that differs in some respects from the one approved by the Westminster Divines in the 17th century.  So why did they not also change this line to more clearly indicate their belief that the singing of other songs is acceptable?

That is: What is the basis for understanding the Westminster Standards as permitting hymns and other non-psalms in worship?

Adherents to this line of the Westminster Standards who nonetheless reject exclusive psalmody argue in three primary ways:

The Westminster divines were divided on the issue
The Confession does not specify that only psalms may be sung
The word "psalms" should not be understood as necessarily referring only to the Book of Psalms

Division at Westminster
J. V. Fesko, The Theology of the Westminster Standards, 357ff., points to evidence that at least some of the Westminster divines rejected exclusive psalmody, and would thus have objected to language in the Confession mandating it.  Two of the passages that the Assembly cited in defense of the "singing of psalms" clause are Colossians 3:16 and Ephesians 5:19, which refer to "psalms, and hymns, and spiritual songs."  These verses were interpreted differently by the two groups: exclusive psalmodists argued that this refers to three divisions of the Book of Psalms, while others saw it as referring first to the Psalms and then to two other types of music.
He quotes Edward Leigh:

The Apostle speaketh of Psalmes, Hymnes and spiritual Songs, Ephes. 5. 19. and Col. 3. 16.  Who can shew any reason to limit his speech to Scripture-psalms?  Why may not one praise God in a Song for our deliverance in 88, or the Gun-pouder treason? (source)

Similarly, the Annotations of Westminster on Ephesians 5:19 read:

But it seemeth most probable that by Psalms he meaneth the Psalms of David—set to the harp or psaltery—by Hymns, certain ditties made upon special occasions—and by spiritual songs, such as were not composed beforehand, and pricked before them with musical notes, but such as men edited by an extraordinary gift. (source)

It would seem, then, that the Confession may have been written in such a way as to permit these views.  Analysis of the Assmebly's proceedings is not possible, as they have been lost, so we must settle the question in other ways.  Those who say that the Assembly did not intend to prohibit exclusive psalmody continue the argument in two primary ways.
Non-psalms not prohibited
John Gerstner sums up the first argument:

[The Westminster Confession] mentions singing of psalms.  It doesn't say psalms exclusively, though the tendency at that time was to sing psalms exclusively. (source; 22:50)

Westminster's Directory of Public Worship goes into more detail but again refers only to psalms:

It is the duty of Christians to praise God publickly, by singing of psalms together in the congregation, and also privately in the family. [...] (source)

Fesko concludes:

The DPW states only that the psalms should be sung, not that they should be sung exclusively.  The DPW is silent regarding the use of non-inspired songs in worship.

"Psalms" includes hymns
For the next argument, Robert Rayburn refers to the lack of mention of "hymns and spiritual" songs in the Westminster Confession:

This omission does not mean that we should sing the Old Testament psalms only.  The Confession uses the word in a wider sense to refer to hymns sung to God. (O Come, Let Us Worship, 95)

That is, the argument goes, the word "psalms" in the Confession would have been understood to include more than the Book of Psalms.   Fesko summarizes the work of Nick Needham:

Recent research surveying the views of a number of sixteenth- and seventeenth-century theologians, such as John Daillie (1584–1670), Matthew Poole (ca. 1624–1679), and Thomas Manton (1620–1677), confirms the broad use of the term psalm to denote scriptural and extra-scriptural religious musical compositions.

For example, Poole, citing Luke 24:44, indicates that understanding "psalms" as a general term was not unheard of:

[Others take psalms] more generally, as the genus, noting any holy metre, whether composed by the prophets of old, or others since, assisted by the Spirit extraordinarily or ordinarily. (source)

Conclusion
Fesko concludes:

the most likely scenario is that the Standards promote the inclusive use of psalmody in worship as a necessary element but are silent regarding the use of non-inspired scriptural songs in worship.

Incidentally, both denominations mentioned in the question encourage the singing of psalms in worship, but not to the exclusion of appropriate hymns:

Congregations do well to sing the metrical versions or other musical settings of the Psalms frequently in public worship. Congregations also do well to sing hymns of praise that respond to the full scope of divine revelation. (OPC DPW II, B.2.c; cf. PCA BCO 51-3)


Apostle John lived in Ephesus - what sources claim that? Which earliest sources does Christianity posses that claim that apostle John spent the last years of his life in Ephesus?

Revelation 1:9 explicitly states that John was on the island of Patmos when he wrote revelation:

  I, John, your brother and companion in the suffering and kingdom and patient endurance that are ours in Jesus, was on the island of Patmos because of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus.

That he would have been exiled there is common:

  "Early tradition says that John was banished to Patmos by the Roman authorities. This tradition is credible because banishment was a common punishment used during the Imperial period for a number of offenses. Among such offenses were the practices of magic and astrology. Prophecy was viewed by the Romans as belonging to the same category, whether Pagan, Jewish, or Christian. Prophecy with political implications, like that expressed by John in the book of Revelation, would have been perceived as a threat to Roman political power and order. Three of the islands in the Sporades were places where political offenders were banished." (Pliny Natural History 4.69-70; Tacitus Annals 4.30)[9]

Patmos is an island very close to the city of Ephesus, the major port city of the day.  Indeed, Revelation 2 - 3 is a series of letters to the 7 cities in Western Turkey, and Ephesus is by far the largest of them.  This is not surprising, since Rome pretty much cleared Jerusalem of Jews in 70AD (actually completely destroyed Jerusalem in 125AD!) thus resulting in a diaspora that moved many of the writers to Western Turkey and Galatia.  Indeed - every one of the Epistles written to a city or region in Turkey or Greece.

Were we to receive word that a certain person was familiar with the Bronx, Manhattan, Newark, Hoboken, and we have written correspondance to them where he claims to be at Hsing Hsing prison - especially absent any transportation - it would not at all be unreasonable to assume he is from New York.

When tradition thus states that John was living in the biggest city of the area, and we have written correspndance that shows how close he was, it's a really safe bet.


Does the story of the Rich Young Ruler preclude Jesus from having any money of his own? Jesus, himself, said this:

  Matthew 19:21 If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.

Ref.  http://biblehub.com/matthew/19-21.htm

And yet, Jesus clearly had some money that was kept, for Judas was, according to John, 'the one who held the purse.'

My question is, when Jesus was a carpenter, did he give his wages directly to the poor immediately after having earned them?  It would seem contradictory if he would have kept the money he earned and spent it on himself - for that would not be "perfect" by his description in Matthew 19:21.

Jesus continuously said things that got to the heart of the matter. This example is no different.

In your quote from Matthew we see a young man that wants to know what good thing he must do to get eternal life. Eventually, Jesus says what you have quoted.

What the man then does and what Jesus says immediately after revels what Jesus meant.

  22 When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.

You see he loved his wealth more than life! He was willing to forego eternal life in the Kingdom of God for money here on Earth! Jesus got to the heart of the matter for that young man; the thing that was keeping him from truly following God. He goes on to say:

  23 Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”

This verse is highly debated, but most agree on at least this: Jesus is saying that for a man like this one, gaining eternal life will never happen as long as money is in his way; as long as love for money is in his heart.

But the most important part follows:

  25 When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, “Who then can be saved?”

  26 Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”

You cannot save yourself! Whatever you do, you cannot satisfy God's wrath. You will still deserve death. But by God's super-abundant grace, you can be saved.

So you see the issue was not money, specifically. The issue is anything that is in your way from truly loving God and following Him wholeheartedly. It is then that His grace will save you and you will gain eternal life.1

The short answer to your exact question in light of the above:

Though Jesus likely gave to the poor regularly, he almost certainly earned and used money in the same way we do. He needed to make a living just like everyone else. Also, he was not making a description of "perfect" as much as he was showing that a perfect man has nothing between himself and God.

Though I have not given a doctrinal perspective, I think I have represented the majority of Christianity in the interpretation of these verses.

1) ADDENDUM

There are other teachings from Jesus that say the same thing but use other things as the example that comes between you and God. Jesus did say you must "hate" your entire family and yourself before you can be His follower Luke 14:26. If we follow the plain logic that your question and comments adhere to then we are stuck asking what the disciples did: If all with a family are doomed "Who then can be saved?" And Jesus then would correct us and saying "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible." So you see, again, the issue is anything that comes between you and God. Whatever that thing is is actually much less important.

The scripture is filled with encouragements to remove all things that cause you to stumble and not follow God. The language in them is rough and ridiculous if you think it is literal prescriptive advice.  Here are a few:

Mark 9:43 and Matthew 18:8 - "If your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out." Surely, you are not to cut off parts of your body. It is equally ridiculous to blame your eyes for engaging in fornication. However, it is not ridiculous to blame your lusts on the filthy television you watched last night, for example.
1 Corinthians 8:9 Says to even remove things from your life that can cause others to sin - "Be careful, however, that the exercise of your rights does not become a stumbling block to the weak." There is no ridiculous language in these verses; it is straight forward and gives a real example: eating animals that have been sacrificed to idols (though I admit that is less of a problem today).
Luke 14:26 -- “If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple. And whoever does not carry their cross and follow me cannot be my disciple." If we take "hate" literally then it is in contrast with the second greatest commandment. Clearly, the message is that there must be nothing between you and God; to be a disciple of Christ you must be all in or not in at all; you must remove or change anything from your life that prevents you from following Him wholeheartedly.


Did the Christian practice of having a prayer before Bible study evolve during Martin Luther's time? In Eric W. Gritsch's book, A History of Lutheranism, he reports,

  He memorized whole portions of the Bible (available in the Latin
  translation of St. Jerome, c. 348-420) and used various existing
  methods of interpretation. "Sometimes one important statement occupied
  my thoughts for a whole day," Luther recalled later, and he reminded
  others that Bible study should always begin with prayer rather than
  the assumption that diligence and intelligence would facilitate a
  proper reading.

  Luther found this kind of approach to Bible study confirmed in the
  writings of the great church father Augustine rather than in the
  scholars of the Middle Ages. What Augustine had to say in The Spirit
  and the Letter (De spiritu et litera) decisively shaped Luther's early
  struggles with the Bible.

The author cites a primary source, one of Martin Luther's letters.

Anyway, is this where all modern Christians get their prayer-before-Bible-study habit? How did individualized Bible study evolve since the Reformation?

The Tie Between Luther and Augustine

Luther entered an Augustinian monastery when he became a monk, so it is not surprising that he was heavily influenced by Augustine.  An excellent survey of the one real letter we have of Augustine's that treats his overall view of prayer (not specifically applied to the study of the Bible) is in the 4 Principles on Prayer from Saint Augustine (The Gospel Coalition, 2014).  The first principle is that you must have the right heart - one which rests on the primary rule of scripture - love.  Love for God first, and other people second.  Augustine was essentially teaching that proper attitude for prayer flows out of the core teachings of scripture.  Essentially, he is saying a prayer should seek for God's will, and God's primary guiding principle in his will is love.

From another source on this same point, but regarding how this core principle also informs how to approach the scriptures.  The Scriptural Roots of St. Augustine's Spirituality (Stephen N. Filippo) - here Augustine is speaking:

  Therefore: 1. set your sights on God alone as the only object of your love and enjoyment, while enjoying other men only for the sake of Him; 2. be truly charitable to all who cross your path, for it is not by accident or random chance that they come into your life; and 3. go to the Divine Physician for the cure to your wounds (sins). Thus are laid down the three most important pre-requisites for correctly reading Sacred Scripture: charity towards God, neighbor and self; without which none can be faithful to the Truths taught in the Bible.

In the same way, Luther's teaching of seeking the guidance of the Holy Spirit in prayer prior to studying scripture is an attempt to seek for God's insight and will into what his word means, and how we should apply it to our life in our current circumstance.  The implied rule which Augustine makes explicit is that we need to approach with the right heart, and Luther's prayer ensures that we aren't relying solely and pridefully on our own understanding.

So, I'm not sure that we can draw a direct parallel between Augustine and Luther on this point, but it certainly makes sense that following the teachings of Augustine would lead Luther to this position.

Consider Luther Lived in a Unique Time with respect to availability of the Bible

Despite the above, I think it's vital to understand the context around Luther's time in history and just how pivotal his teaching on biblical interpretation was to the burgeoning Protestant Reformation.

Consider that while the early church did have many copies of the books that make up what we call the Bible today, and did have many extant copies, biblical books and codexes would have been very expensive and prized possessions.  There would have been a lot more group and oral discipleship with shared texts, when they were available.  It wasn't until about - you guessed it - Luther's time that Bibles became widely available for individual's to study regularly on their own.

Consider the following rough history of Biblical availability to bring home this point:

Approx 100 AD - completion of all 27 books that now make up the New Testament
315 AD - Athanasius identifies the 27 books of the NT
382 Jerome's Latin Vulgate manuscript is produced (OT and NT)
500 Scriptures have been translated into over 500 languages
600 In areas of the Catholic chruch, Latin is only language allowed for Scripture
1384 Wycliffe is the first person to produce a hand-written manuscript copy of the complete Bible (OT and NT).
1455 Gutenbery invents the printing press - the first mass-produced Bibles become available (first book produced by him was the Latin Gutenberg Bible)
1522 Martin Luther's German New Testament is produced
1526 Tyndale's New Testment is the first NT printed in the English language
1535-1611 Explosion of additional Bible's produced, perhaps culminating in the King James Bible from an English perspective, in 1611.

The point of the above is that within the Catholic world, there was very little need for anyone to develop any techniques for personal Bible study at all much between the time of Augustine and Luther, just because the average person didn't have access to (nor was encouraged to pursue a direct study of) the Bible.  In fact, at the time of Luther it was not typically the case that a priest in the Catholic church would have necessarily ever studied or even held a Bible. It's not surprising to me at all that the topic is a difficult one to research as there was no need for an interpretive method prior to about the time of Luther, given these facts.

So Luther's teaching was filling a burgeoning need, which is why I think it "got so much press" at the time and why we still have references back to it today.

The Broader Biblical Teaching on Where/How we get any Insight or Knowledge

I was unable to find really any other teaching like Luther's from other early sources.  But I think this brings up the final line of reasoning, that none of Luther's (or Augustine's) teaching is really new , so to speak - it all is directly and deeply rooted in the teaching that comes easily and directly from the Bible itself. There are so many quotes from Paul on relying on God's wisdom and on being filled with insight from above and the Mind of Christ, rather than human understanding - including specific references to teaching/doctrine, that I will only give a few examples:

  1Co 1:5 For you were made rich in every way in him, in all your speech and in every kind of knowledge (NET) [we gain knowledge in Christ]
  1Co 2:15 The one who is spiritual discerns all things, yet he himself is understood by no one. (NET) [spiritual discernment versus the earthly discernment]
  Eph 1:8 that he lavished on us in all wisdom and insight. (NET)
  Eph 1:17 I pray that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give you spiritual wisdom and revelation in your growing knowledge of him, (NET)
  Phi 1:9 And I pray this, that your love may abound even more and more in knowledge and every kind of insight (NET) [Great quote directly tying love to spiritual understanding as per Augustine's teaching]
  Col 1:9 For this reason we also, from the day we heard about you, have not ceased praying for you and asking God to fill you with the knowledge of his will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding,

Jesus also has some good quotes about the topic, for example he tells the disciples:

  26 But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything, and will cause you to remember everything I said to you. (John 14:26, NET)

Jesus also goes on at length several times about the fact that the words he spoke and the deeds he did were not his own, but the words and deeds that the Father showed him.  In the same way, as Jesus is an example to his disciples (all believers), we should seek the words and deeds of the Father.  This fits well within Luther's instruction on praying and asking for insight from the Holy Spirit whenever studying scripture.


When and how did Martin Luther arrive at the justification by faith? When and how did Martin Luther arrive at the justification by faith teaching? Was it something that he came up with as a result of his stance against the indulgences and later against the Pope, or did he arrive at this teaching even prior to those events?

First to understand the background to the story that Luther recalls,  Luther used to hate Romans 1:17. He struggled with this verse in particular, and the phrase 'God's righteousness' in particular, because he always read it in the sense which it was preached by the Catholic theologians at the time. At that time this verse was understood as the "formal or active righteousness" with which "God is righteous and punishes the unrighteous sinner." In other words, Luther while believing in God and having some faith in Christ struggled with Romans 1:17 before his 'confidence burst' and his faith began to posses him more violently. This is why Romans 1:17 is brought up in his recollections but actually plays little part in his explaining his actual beliefs later on. This he did, regarding justification by faith, most fully in his lectures on Galatians, although Romans as a whole still held an important place as well.
His experience or turning point in breaking through on his understanding of Romans 1:17 is referred to as his 'Tower Experience' because  it occurred in the tower of the Black Cloister in Wittenberg (later Luther’s home) at an undetermined date between 1508 and 1518.
Luther, before overcoming his doubts about Romans 1:17, used to think 'God's  righteousness' in the gospel 'was revealed', not in giving perfect righteousness freely to sinners forever apart from the fact they were sinners, but in punishing sinners and rewarding the righteous.  Luther, originally as a monk, viewed the gospel as an extension of the law, not a way to find freedom from its curse. Only later did he discover that a person is saved by faith, without works of the law entering into the equation.  He always saw that faith produced many works, but not allowing those works to take part in the subject of justification, where we 'passively receive' righteousness as a gift, apart from our own merit, was something he learned later on. I think the Romans 1:17 'tower experience' that he had was probably during his lectures on Romans which began in the year 1516.
Before this experience He says he had faith but it was not clear yet:

For a long time I went astray [in the monastery] and didn’t know what I was about. To be sure, I knew something, but I didn’t know what it was until I came to the text in Romans 1 [:17], ‘He who through faith is righteous shall live.’ That text helped me. There I saw what righteousness Paul was talking about.82 Earlier in the text I read ‘righteousness.’ I related the abstract [‘righteousness’] with the concrete [‘the righteous One’] and became sure of my cause. I learned to distinguish between the righteousness of the law and the righteousness of the gospel. I lacked nothing before this except that I made no distinction between the law and the gospel. I regarded both as the same thing and held that there was no difference between Christ and Moses except the times in which they lived and their degrees of perfection. But when I discovered the proper distinction—namely, that the law is one thing and the gospel is another—I made myself free.” (Luther's Works, Volume 54, P442).

 In 1545, he describes his own experience at greater length. He seems to take a longer view if it, like a growing faith and struggle that begins by referring to his days as a monk, his weak faith in his earlier days as a Biblical Professor and finally his overwhelming sense of what Romans 1:17 really meant. He recalled these experiences  when describing the events that occurred in the year 1519 when he got into trouble with the Pope. To understand at what point in his thinking 1519 occurs it is helpful to know that Luther first lectured on Romans at around the year 1516, he also lectured a preliminary version of Galatians and Hebrews shortly after this time. However, he did not lecture on Galatians, formally, in the format in which they were published, until around 1531. It took around 16 years for his faith to really explode in the form of Galatians, long after he had kicked the hornets nest in Rome.
In fact, this gripping realization of justification by faith made him revisit his old lectures and begin to rewrite them as early as 1519. It is just before this time that he made his breakthrough in the 'tower experience'. Removing his misunderstanding of that verse, his faith seems to have broke into a full confidence and the verse that used to trouble him became an anchor that symbolized his overwhelming conviction that began slowly years before and grew more and more years later. Here we find he began to revise his work on the Psalms in 1519 and his breakthrough over his doubts about Romans Chapter 1:17 that had 'stood in his way' until this point.

Meanwhile, I had already during that year returned to interpret the Psalter anew. I had confidence in the fact that I was more skilful, after I had lectured in the university on St. Paul’s epistles to the Romans, to the Galatians, and the one to the Hebrews. I had indeed been captivated with an extraordinary ardor for understanding Paul in the Epistle to the Romans. But up till then it was not the cold blood about the heart,but a single word in Chapter 1[:17], “In it the righteousness of God is revealed,” that had stood in my way. For I hated that word “righteousness of God,” which, according to the use and custom of all the teachers, I had been taught to understand philosophically regarding the formal or active righteousness, as they called it, with which God is righteous and punishes the unrighteous sinner.
Though I lived as a monk without reproach, I felt that I was a sinner before God with an extremely disturbed conscience. I could not believe that he was placated by my satisfaction. I did not love, yes, I hated the righteous God who punishes sinners, and secretly, if not blasphemously, certainly murmuring greatly, I was angry with God, and said, “As if, indeed, it is not enough, that miserable sinners, eternally lost through original sin, are crushed by every kind of calamity by the law of the decalogue, without having God add pain to pain by the gospel and also by the gospel threatening us with his righteousness and wrath!” Thus I raged with a fierce and troubled conscience. Nevertheless, I beat importunately upon Paul at that place, most ardently desiring to know what St. Paul wanted.  (Luther's Works, Volume 34, P336-337).
At last, by the mercy of God, meditating day and night, I gave heed to the context of the words, namely, “In it the righteousness of God is revealed, as it is written, ‘He who through faith is righteous shall live.’ ” There I began to understand that the righteousness of God is that by which the righteous lives by a gift of God, namely by faith. And this is the meaning: the righteousness of God is revealed by the gospel, namely, the passive righteousness with which merciful God justifies us by faith, as it is written, “He who through faith is righteous shall live.” Here I felt that I was altogether born again and had entered paradise itself through open gates. There a totally other face of the entire Scripture showed itself to me. Thereupon I ran through the Scriptures from memory. I also found in other terms an analogy, as, the work of God, that is, what God does in us, the power of God, with which he makes us strong, the wisdom of God, with which he makes us wise, the strength of God, the salvation of God, the glory of God.  (Luther's Works, Volume 34, P336-337).

He continues to explain the effects of his experience about Romans 1:17 and how he later found additional support through Augustine. He  already had his doctorate in theology in October 19, 1512 and may seem strange that he did not encounter Augustine's work on the subject until years later, but it is a very specific one which Luther mentions, called 'The Spirit and the Letter.'

And I extolled my sweetest word with a love as great as the hatred with which I had before hated the word “righteousness of God.” Thus that place in Paul was for me truly the gate to paradise. Later I read Augustine’s The Spirit and the Letter, where contrary to hope I found that he, too, interpreted God’s righteousness in a similar way, as the righteousness with which God clothes us when he justifies us. Although this was heretofore said imperfectly and he did not explain all things concerning imputation clearly, it nevertheless was pleasing that God’s righteousness with which we are justified was taught. Armed more fully with these thoughts, I began a second time to interpret the Psalter. And the work would have grown into a large commentary, if I had not again been compelled to leave the work begun, because Emperor Charles V in the following year convened the diet at Worms.49. (Luther's Works, Volume 34, P336-337).

The truth is although Romans was the place where he made his initial breakthrough it was not the place where his faith finally rested on. For this we must turn to Galatians.  In fact Luther hardly has any comments at all under Chapter 1:7 in his works on Romans, but in every verse of Galatians, Luther uses as one more opportunity to pound and pound away at the doctrine that changed his life forever. No bible commentary on any book in the Bible since can pretend in any way to have had the same impact on the world.
As a result of the revolutionary changes in Luther and his dramatic growing faith is there is a problem with Luther's Works in that he had to re-write many things and where the need was not urgent he seems to have left them as they were.  Romans is a little thin on doctrine compared to Galatians, as he wrote it years before, it is also was not needing much revision, so Luther probably found most of it still acceptable to him even under his enlarged views years later.
His commentary on Galatians was when he was crystal clear in 1531 and he does not seem to have had enough time to fully rewrite everything before to measure up to his final stage of assurance and knowledge.  Therefore regarding the timing of his understanding of the doctrine that in many ways resulted in the Protestant church, I would say that his faith was crystallized around 1517 with Romans and from there it grew until it exploded with Galatians in 1531.  He seems to have hung his faith not on Romans at all by this point. Galatians was his eventual favorite work and the essential Luther.
For anyone interested in reading Luther, He wrote his works on Genesis after Galatians so they are not in any need up of updating at all and are a good place to start after Galatians. Some of his earlier works however must be viewed and even possibly corrected by comparing them to Galatians.
After all his years Luther clearly favored his writing on Galatians above all else. I am sure he would have instantly agreed to the burning of all his books if he might keep his work on Galatians. It is here where you find Luther's views in the doctrine of salvation by faith, apart from works. One can't understand Luther at all without reading it. Anyone who has read it will understand why. I challenge anyone interested in Luther to read his work on Galatians in order to begin to understand him.

Luther described his relation to the epistle in more vivid terms. “The Epistle to the Galatians,” he once said at table, “is my epistle, to which I am betrothed. It is my Katie von Bora.”  (Luther's Works, Volume 26, Introduction)


Famous theologians or saints who held that there were no valid Popes during the Great Western Schism? St. Catherine of Siena and St. Vincent Ferrer, for example, disagreed about who the valid Pope was during the Great Western Schism.

Are there famous theologians or even saints who lived during the Great Western Schism and who considered none of the papal claimants valid popes?

According to William Morgan in "The Great Schism of the West and the Catholic Church Today," St. Vincent Ferrer did not recognize any of the claimants towards the end of the schism (source):

  Disaster struck for Papa de Luna when his most important supporter, St Vincent Ferrer, decided that he was pertinaciously dividing the Church, and so was a schismatic and no longer Pope. The miracle working Dominican saint never recognised the Urbanist claimants. Rather was he now a sedevacantist, looking to the General Council to resolve the Schism.


After resurrection, which one (if any) of the Mormon heavens will be here on earth? This question is about the three heavens (or kingdoms) in Mormon cosmology: the celestial, terrestrial, and telestial.

The accepted answer to this other question says that

  After the resurrection of the body, all people (except the very worst)
  will live in one of the three heavens. According to a vision of Joseph
  Smith, God dwells in the celestial kingdom, and Jesus and the Father
  are enthroned there.

According to Mormons the reward in heaven is attained after the resurrection in which the individual receives a physical (non-spirit) body. For this reason it would be reasonable that each of the heavens are on some planet-like body that supports biological life.

Also, the accepted answer to this other question indicates that God's Kingdom would rule over the earth after the Second Coming of Christ.

So the questions I wanted to ask are:

Is the Kingdom of God that is expected to rule the earth the same
("politically" speaking) as any (or all) of the 3 heavenly kingdoms
(celestial, terrestrial, and telestial)?
Will the people living in any one of those 3 heavenly kingdoms
actually be living here on earth?

Your first question:

  Is the Kingdom of God that is expected to rule the earth the same
  ("politically" speaking) as any (or all) of the 3 heavenly kingdoms
  (celestial, terrestrial, and telestial)?

In Mormonism (and even other faiths) the Kingdom of God/Heaven can mean different things in different contexts.  Specifically the Kingdom of God on Earth can mean His Church as it is established now (speaking of the Restored Church in the LDS belief).  This is an excerpt from the above linked page:

  The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the kingdom of God
  on the earth but is at the present limited to an ecclesiastical
  kingdom. During the millennial era, the kingdom of God will be both
  political and ecclesiastical (see Dan. 7:18, 22, 27; Rev. 11:15; JST
  Rev. 12:1–3, 7 [Appendix]; D&C 65) and will have worldwide
  jurisdiction in political realms when the Lord has made “a full end of
  all nations” (D&C 87:6).

We also believe (I am LDS) that Christ will appear to all on the Earth (the Second Coming) and at that time many things will take place.  I won't go into all the specifics but after this Second Coming, Christ will rule on Earth for a thousand years.  This time is called the Millennium.  At his coming all that were less valiant will be consumed in fire and those that remain will be worthy of either Celestial or Terrestrial glory - in other words the telestial will be consumed.  This is also a Kingdom of God.

After the Millennium the Earth itself will receive Celestial Glory and only the Celestial will remain. This answers your second question, in that yes, we believe that the Celestial Kingdom will be here on earth. This is a continuation of the previous Kingdom of God.  All of the Plan of Salvation for Mormons is to continue on to Eternal Progression and as they progress they continue forward in God's Kingdom.

It has not been revealed to us where the other kingdoms will be but they will also be on a physical world.


Does this passage imply salvation cannot be lost? How would this passage be interpreted by someone who believes that salvation can be lost?

John 10:27-30 ESV

  My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give
  them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch
  them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater
  than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand.
  I and the Father are one.”

I would argue that the passage has no direct implication that Salvation cannot be lost.

The verse simply says "No one can snatch them from the hand of God". It could have different meanings such as

No one can take them away by force
No one can steal them
No one is strong enough to fight with the hand of God
No one can throw them down to Hell once they are in Heaven

It seems to indicate that there are no outside forces strong enough to fight against God.

It also seems to imply indirectly that anyone can walk away from the hand of God with their own freewill. Anyone can choose to believe in Jesus and later choose to deny Him again.

  For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through
  the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again
  entangled in them and overcome, the last state has become worse for
  them than the first. For it would have been better for them never to
  have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back
  from the holy commandment delivered to them. What the true proverb
  says has happened to them: “The dog returns to its own vomit, and the
  sow, after washing herself, returns to wallow in the mire.” (2 Peter
  2:20-22, ESV)


According to Catholicism, if there is human dignity is there also an angelic dignity? If there is human dignity is there also an angelic dignity?

What does Catholcism say about this?

If there is human dignity is there also an angelic dignity?

First of all, what is a Catholic definition of dignity

  The excellence that deserves recognition and praise in a person or thing. Highest in dignity is God, whose superiority over all creation is the basis for adoration. (Etym. Latin dignitas, dignity, worthiness, worth.)

St. Thomas Aquinas responds in the affirmative: Yes the angels possess an angelic dignity.

  From what has been said above (I:108:6), it may be shown that some angels are sent in ministry by God. For, as we have already stated (I:43:1, in treating of the mission of the Divine Persons, he is said to be sent who in any way proceeds from another so as to begin to be where he was not, or to be in another way, where he already was. Thus the Son, or the Holy Ghost is said to be sent as proceeding from the Father by origin; and begins to be in a new way, by grace or by the nature assumed, where He was before by the presence of His Godhead; for it belongs to God to be present everywhere, because, since He is the universal agent, His power reaches to all being, and hence He exists in all things (I:8:1). An angel's power, however, as a particular agent, does not reach to the whole universe, but reaches to one thing in such a way as not to reach another; and so he is "here" in such a manner as not to be "there." But it is clear from what was above stated (I:110:1), that the corporeal creature is governed by the angels. Hence, whenever an angel has to perform any work concerning a corporeal creature, the angel applies himself anew to that body by his power; and in that way begins to be there afresh. Now all this takes place by Divine command. Hence it follows that an angel is sent by God.

  The empyrean heaven belongs to the angelic dignity by way of congruity; forasmuch as it is congruous that the higher body should be attributed to that nature which occupies a rank above bodies. Yet an angel does not derive his dignity from the empyrean heaven; so when he is not actually in the empyrean heaven, nothing of his dignity is lost, as neither does a king lessen his dignity when not actually sitting on his regal throne, which suits his dignity.

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, man should respect the angels as being created spiritual creatures that aid us here on earth.

  In Brief

  350 Angels are spiritual creatures who glorify God without ceasing and who serve his saving plans for other creatures: "The angels work together for the benefit of us all" (St. Thomas Aquinas, STh I, 114, 3, ad 3).

  351 The angels surround Christ their Lord. They serve him especially in the accomplishment of his saving mission to men.

  352 The Church venerates the angels who help her on her earthly pilgrimage and protect every human being.

  353 God willed the diversity of his creatures and their own particular goodness, their interdependence and their order. He destined all material creatures for the good of the human race. Man, and through him all creation, is destined for the glory of God.

  354 Respect for laws inscribed in creation and the relations which derive from the nature of things is a principle of wisdom and a foundation for morality.

An interesting note is that St. Gregory of Nazianzen teaches us that the sacerdotal dignity of ordained Catholic priests surpasses the dignity of the angels, who have a high esteem and reverence for the priesthood.


Are There Names for the Sundays in Eastertide? I've done some digging and it seems that there may or may not be names for the individual names of the Sunday's in Eastertide. So the question is, are there names for each individual Sunday?
Thank you!

Are There Names for the Sundays in Eastertide?
The short answer is yes. But it will depend on the denomination and century involved as the Catholic Church has actually adapted a new Liturgical Calendar in 1969.

Eastertide or Paschaltide is a festal season in the liturgical year of Christianity that focuses on celebrating the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. It begins on Easter Sunday, which initiates Easter Week in Western Christianity, and Bright Week in Eastern Christianity. There are several Eastertide customs across the Christian world, including sunrise services, exclaiming the Paschal greeting, clipping the church, and decorating Easter eggs, a symbol of the empty tomb. The Easter lily, a symbol of the resurrection, traditionally serve as the chancel flowers that decorate the chancel area of churches throughout Eastertide. Other Eastertide customs include egg hunting, eating special Easter foods and watching Easter parades.
The first eight days constitute the Octave of Easter and are celebrated as solemnities of the Lord.

First Sunday of Easter

Easter Sunday
Sunday of the Resurrection of Out Lord Jesus Christ

Second Sunday of Easter

Divine Mercy Sunday
Quasimodo Sunday
Bright Sunday
Low Sunday
Sunday in Albis
Antipascha (Eastern Christianity)
New Sunday
Renewal Sunday
Thomas Sunday

Third Sunday of Easter

Misericordia Sunday
Good Shepherd Sunday (Extraordinary Form of the Mass)
Sunday of the Myrrh-bearers (Greek Orthodox Church)

Fourth Sunday of Easter

Jubilate Sunday
Good Shepherd Sunday
Vocations Sunday
Sunday of the Paralytic (Greek Orthodoxy)

Fifth Sunday of Easter

Cantate Sunday (Extraordinary Form of the Mass of the Catholic Church)
Sunday of the Samaritan Woman (Greek Orthodox)
Fifth Sunday of Holy Pascha [Greek Orthodox)

Sixth Sunday of Easter

Sunday of the Man Born Blind (Oriental Churches)
Ascension of Our Lord Sunday (when transferred as a feast in the Ordinary Form of the Catholic Church)
Rogation Sunday

Seventh Sunday of Easter

“Exaudi” Sunday (Extraordinary Form)
Sunday of the Roses
“Second feast of the flowers" (Armenian)

Eighth Sunday of Easter

Pentecost
Whit Sunday


Why doesn't 1 Timothy 5:21 indicate that angels are part of the Godhead? I was doing a little historical reading, and I read a little John Biddle (an English Unitarian).  He makes the argument that the phrase "in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" in the great commission (Matt 28:19) doesn't prove that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three Persons in one God, since a similar phrase is used in scripture but saying "elect angels" rather than "Holy Ghost," and that nobody would dare suggest that angels are part of the Godhead:

  1 Timothy 5:21 (KJV) I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels,...

(Despite his argument, I actually knew a guy at my last church who did argue that the angels are part of the Godhead, but that's neither here nor there.)

So my question is, how do orthodox Trinitarians explain the difference between the formula of "Father, Son, Holy Ghost" and why that formula is taken to mean that God subsists in three Persons, whereas the formula "God, Jesus Christ, Elect Angels" is not taken to mean that angels are Persons of the Godhead?

Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, (Matthew 28:19, NIV)
I charge you, in the sight of God and Christ Jesus and the elect angels, to keep these instructions without partiality, and to do nothing out of favoritism. (1 Timothy 5:21, NIV)

The core difference is those two emphasised words. Matthew 28:19 is asserting that the three persons of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit have one name — one reputation, one identity. The way you share your name with your spouse or family, showing your close united relationship, is a little bit like the way that the persons of the godhead share a name. 1 Timothy 5:21 merely says that they are all in the one place watching us, without suggesting any kind of unity.
(The word translated sight in 1 Tim 5:21 is ἐνώπιον enopion.)


How do restorationist Christian churches cooperate with mainstream Christian churches? It's not hard to see how mainstream and nondenominational Christian churches cooperate with each other: it's common for them come together in community, charities, and many points of doctrine. This is refreshing, because there are many resources and discussions about the differences within Christianity. Some Christian churches even have classes about other ones.

How do restorationist Christian churches, which typically fall outside the notion of mainstream for their notably different/augmented beliefs, cooperate and coincide with other Christian faiths? What are their shared values?

In your answer, feel free to comment on lifestyle, culture, community involvement, service, morality, doctrine, charities, humanitarian efforts, missionary work, etc. You may mention specific restorationist churches using reliable citations (and official sources if possible).

I think you'll get broad differences of opinion on such a question. On the one hand, two churches may work together on a project which both agree is worthwhile despite differences in doctrine on the grounds that as long as we both agree on the goal, we can co-operate. Others refuse to work with other churches that differ from them by some sufficient degree because they don't want to give the impression that they are endorsing these beliefs, or that these beliefs do not matter.

Evangelicals and Catholics have frequently worked together on the pro-life movement and on religious freedom issues. But I'm hard pressed to think of other examples.

This certainly isn't a new issue. Recall the Puritans and the Separatists in the 1600s: they had similar beliefs, but the Puritans believed that the strategy should be to reform the established church, while the Separatists said that they should separate and form their own churches.


What are the biblical arguments that the Bible canon is NOT closed? Related: What are the biblical arguments that the Bible canon is closed?

Most people are familiar with the warning in the Book of Revelation:

  "And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this
  prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and
  out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this
  book." Revelation 22:19

Many people assume this scripture refers to the Bible canon as a whole, and therefore claim that the Bible is the fullness of God's Word and that direct revelation from God is closed. The Catholics also believe that there is no more direct revelation, they believe that the Bible is the fulness of God's written Word, but they rely on Tradition, which is passed down through apostolic succession, for the interpretation of scripture, and believe scripture and Tradition combined provide them with a fullness of truth. Then there are other denominations that claim the heavens are not closed and that God continues to provide new revelations to prophets on earth, and that the Bible is not the complete word of God, and therefore rely on other books in addition to the Bible as well as new revelations—as they are revealed—for a fullness of truth.

What are the biblical arguments that the Bible canon is not closed?

Note: When I say "Bible canon" I mean to communicate canonical books or scriptural canon, not changing the books within the Bible, but receiving new books and revelations as scripture that compliment the Bible.

The main argument is an argument from silence. This can take two forms:

There is no list of books of the Bible anywhere in Scripture.
Scripture nowhere prohibits people from adding books to the canon.

Another argument says that a closed canon can lead to bibliolatry (elevating Scripture above God).

You can see such arguments made here and here.

Proponents of an open canon could also argue that the very idea of a "canon" is foreign to Scripture.

In theory, they could use the same arguments that continuationists use. But there is generally little overlap between the two groups.


What kind of movement or denomination in Christianity made being a Christian a personal/individual choice? What kind of movement or denomination in Christianity made being a Christian a personal/individual choice?

I recently watched a random YouTube video. Random, because I had no idea how I got there. The person was Jessica Kellgren-Fozard. Basically, she's born in a Quaker family. But she didn't say that. She said her mother was Quaker, and when she became 16, she made a choice to become Quaker. Her way of expressing essentially emphasized her individual choice.

I am also aware that Baptists share the same mindset. Baptists may say that they are Christians, and they are raising children to become Christians, but the children have to make choice whether or not they want to become Christian. In other words, Christianity has become a personal/individual choice for Baptists.

Then, there are Catholics. In Roman Catholicism, there seems to be no way to become non-Catholic. A person is born into a Catholic family, baptized as a baby, raised Catholic and remains Catholic. That person may not attend church permanently, not tithe, not even believe in God, but that person is still Catholic.

Is the emphasis on individual choice a Protestant characteristic?

The earliest reference I can find to individuals confessing their faith in Christ and asking to be baptised (as an adult believer) thereby making a  personal choice, dates back to the early 16th century when the Anabaptists rejected infant baptism and went about re-baptising  adults who had previously been baptised as infants:

The early Anabaptists formulated their beliefs in the Schleitheim Confession, in 1527. Anabaptists believe that baptism is valid only when the candidate confesses his or her faith in Christ and wants to be baptized. This believer's baptism is opposed to baptism of infants, who are not able to make a conscious decision to be baptized. Anabaptists are those who are in a traditional line with the early Anabaptists of the 16th century. Other Christian groups with different roots also practice believer's baptism, such as Baptists, but these groups are not seen as Anabaptist. The Amish, Hutterites, and Mennonites are direct descendants of the early Anabaptist movement. Schwarzenau Brethren, Bruderhof, and the Apostolic Christian Church are considered later developments among the Anabaptists.
The name Anabaptist means "one who baptizes again". Their persecutors named them this, referring to the practice of baptizing persons when they converted or declared their faith in Christ, even if they had been baptized as infants. Anabaptists required that baptismal candidates be able to make a confession of faith that is freely chosen and so rejected baptism of infants. The early members of this movement did not accept the name Anabaptist, claiming that infant baptism was not part of scripture and was therefore null and void.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anabaptism

I also found a reference to Martin Luther (taken from his Small Catechism) on the subject of the sacrament of holy baptism, which quotes Mark 16:16:

Christ, our Lord, says in the last chapter of Mark: He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.  https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Luther%27s_Small_Catechism#IV._THE_SACRAMENT_OF_HOLY_BAPTISM

Although I could not find anything to suggest that Martin Luther denounced infant baptism and promoted the view that only believing and consenting adults should make a decision to come forward for baptism as a declaration of their faith in Christ Jesus, that does not mean to say such a quote does not exist.  The emphasis on individual choice is a distinct Protestant characteristic which came out of the Protestant Reformation.