What is the biblical basis for free will? I have seen several responses to theodicy questions revolving around the concept of "free will."  I am not familiar with any self-contained biblical basis for this belief (that is, no extra-biblical support is required to defend the position).

I am aware that there are several variations of the doctrine of "free will," so I would like to limit answers to "free will" defined as:

the ability of people to make their own choices (no predestination)
applicable to everyone (not limited to groups such as the redeemed)
applicable throughout time (not just before the fall; still applicable today)

Although the Bible does contain a certain amount of direct, doctrinal teaching, much of its teaching comes in the form of stories. In the Old Testament, there are the various narratives of people and nations and their actions, both good and bad. In the New Testament, there is the story of the life of Jesus and of the people who surround him, who do things both good and bad. And much of Jesus' own teaching is in the form of parables, or stories, rather than direct doctrinal style teaching.
We should therefore not expect the Bible to present a theological discourse on free will. Rather, the biblical basis for free will is found largely in the various stories and how they unfold.
Explicit and semi-explicit statements of freedom of choice in the Bible
Having said that, there is at least one passage that explicitly presents humankind as having a choice between good and evil:

See, I set before you today life and prosperity, death and destruction. For I command you today to love the Lord your God, to walk in obedience to him, and to keep his commands, decrees and laws; then you will live and increase, and the Lord your God will bless you in the land you are entering to possess.
But if your heart turns away and you are not obedient, and if you are drawn away to bow down to other gods and worship them, I declare to you this day that you will certainly be destroyed. You will not live long in the land you are crossing the Jordan to enter and possess.
This day I call the heavens and the earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live and that you may love the Lord your God, listen to his voice, and hold fast to him. For the Lord is your life, and he will give you many years in the land he swore to give to your fathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. (Deuteronomy 30:15–20, italics added)

In this passage, God gives the Children of Israel (long after the Fall) an explicit choice between good and evil, asking them to choose life.
Somewhat less explicitly, in the Book of Revelation:

Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with that person, and they with me. (Revelation 3:20)

This passage clearly implies freedom on the part of the human being either to open the door and let the Lord in or not to open the door and leave the Lord outside. This statement occurs in the New Testament, in the final book of the Bible, almost as far after the Fall as the Bible story goes.
Stories in which people are presented as having choice and free will
There are other passages in the Bible that can be read as saying that people have a choice between good and evil, or what is the same, a choice between accepting and following God and not accepting and following God.
However, the most extensive biblical basis for free will comes in the narrative itself. In many stories in the Bible, God gives a direction or a commandment, and the people to whom it is given choose not to follow it. The fact that in these stories God does not prevent people from acting against God's will illustrates the principle that people do have real choice and free will.
Of course, in many stories in the Bible God gives instructions or commandments, and the people to whom they are given do follow them. This supports the principle that it is up to the human beings whether or not to act according to God's will.
Here are some of the stories throughout the Bible in which God gives instructions or commandments and people choose not to obey them:
Adam and Eve
In Genesis 2 we read:

Now the Lord God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. The Lord God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. . . .
The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.” (Genesis 2:8–9, 15–17)

Here God places in the Garden of Eden two trees, one of which he says the people he has created may eat from, and the other of which he says they are not to eat from. Clearly, God is giving Adam (and later) Eve, free will and a choice, or God would not have put these two trees in the Garden.
And yet, in the very next chapter, first Eve, then Adam, eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil knowing that God has told them not to. Eve and Adam, not to mention the serpent, then reap the consequences of their choice to disobey God. In this story, told in Genesis 3, God does not prevent Adam and Eve from eating from the forbidden tree. Clearly they are free to do so. And then they must live with the results of their choice.
This, of course, led to the Fall of Humankind.
And yet, even after the Fall, in the Bible story human beings continue to be given a choice between good and evil actions, and to reap the benefits or to experience the negative consequences of their choices, without God intervening to prevent them from making the wrong choice.
Cain
In fact, the very next such story involves Adam and Eve's firstborn son Cain. You can read the full story in Genesis 4:1–16. Here is the most relevant excerpt:

Then the Lord said to Cain, "Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must rule over it."
Now Cain said to his brother Abel, "Let's go out to the field." While they were in the field, Cain attacked his brother Abel and killed him. (Genesis 4:6–8)

In the story Cain is angry because God has accepted the offering of his brother Abel but not his own offering. God remonstrates with Cain, telling him to overcome the sin that is crouching at his door. But Cain does not listen to God, and instead yields to that sin and kills his brother Abel out of jealousy.
God did not prevent Cain from doing this. Cain was free to carry out his choice to yield to his jealousy and anger even after God pleaded with him not to do so. And Cain had to live with the consequences of his evil choice, as narrated in the rest of the story.
The Children of Israel at Mt. Sinai
Moving on to the book of Exodus, the Children of Israel heard God's own voice proclaiming the Ten Commandments from Mt. Sinai, among which was the commandment not to worship idols. The Deuteronomy version concludes the giving of the Ten Commandments by saying:

These words the Lord spoke with a loud voice to your whole assembly at the mountain, out of the fire, the cloud, and the thick darkness, and he added no more. (Deuteronomy 5:22)

So it is clear that the people heard God himself telling them not to worship idols.
And yet, during the forty days that Moses was then up on the mountain receiving additional laws and commandments from God, we read:

When the people saw that Moses delayed to come down from the mountain, the people gathered around Aaron, and said to him, "Come, make gods for us, who shall go before us. As for this Moses, the man who brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we do not know what has become of him."
Aaron said to them, "Take off the gold rings that are on the ears of your wives, your sons, and your daughters, and bring them to me." So all the people took off the gold rings from their ears, and brought them to Aaron. He took the gold from them, formed it in a mold, and cast an image of a calf.
Then they said, "These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt!"
When Aaron saw this, he built an altar before it; and Aaron made proclamation and said, "Tomorrow shall be a festival to the Lord." They rose early the next day, and offered burnt offerings and brought sacrifices of well-being; and the people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to revel. (Exodus 32:1–6)

In other words, in less than a month and a half from the time that the people heard God's own voice booming the Ten Commandments from the mountain, they broke the commandments against having no other God before him, against making and worshiping idols, and probably several other commandments as well.
Once again, God did not prevent them from doing so. They remained free to break God's commandments, but then had to take the consequences of their actions, as narrated in the rest of Exodus 32.
Solomon and his wives
Moving on to the time of the kings of Israel, King Solomon, son of King David, also violated several of God's commandments, specifically, in taking foreign wives and in building shrines to their gods, as we read in 1 Kings:

King Solomon, however, loved many foreign women besides Pharaoh’s daughter—Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Sidonians and Hittites. They were from nations about which the Lord had told the Israelites, “You must not intermarry with them, because they will surely turn your hearts after their gods.” Nevertheless, Solomon held fast to them in love. He had seven hundred wives of royal birth and three hundred concubines, and his wives led him astray. As Solomon grew old, his wives turned his heart after other gods, and his heart was not fully devoted to the Lord his God, as the heart of David his father had been. He followed Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians, and Molek the detestable god of the Ammonites. So Solomon did evil in the eyes of the Lord; he did not follow the Lord completely, as David his father had done.
On a hill east of Jerusalem, Solomon built a high place for Chemosh the detestable god of Moab, and for Molek the detestable god of the Ammonites. He did the same for all his foreign wives, who burned incense and offered sacrifices to their gods. (1 Kings 11:1–8)

Even though Solomon, who was the king of all Israel, was clearly and flagrantly breaking God's explicit commandments, God did not prevent Solomon from doing so. Rather, God pronounced the consequences of Solomon's actions in the next series of verses: 1 Kings 11:9–13. These consequences were that Solomon's son would have most of the kingdom taken away from him, tarnishing and diminishing Solomon's legacy.
The crucifixion of Jesus
In the New Testament, a prime example of human free will is in the fact that the Jewish religious leaders of the day were allowed to sentence Jesus to death, and that the Romans were allowed to carry out that sentence by crucifying Jesus.
God did not prevent this, but allowed human beings to crucify the Son of God. Yes, this was also part of God's plan. And yet, the people who crucified Jesus were acting for their own reasons, out of their own choice, in order to preserve (as they thought) their own power and position.
However, before that happened, Jesus had already presented sin and repentance as a choice in many of his teachings and parables. Here are just two examples:
If a member of the church sins against you

If another member of the church sins against you, go and point out the fault when the two of you are alone. If the member listens to you, you have regained that one. But if you are not listened to, take one or two others along with you, so that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If the member refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if the offender refuses to listen even to the church, let such a one be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. (Matthew 18:15–18)

Here Jesus tells us that if someone sins, we are to take various steps to get them to admit to it and change their ways. And yet, that person may or may not listen. And Jesus concludes by saying that whatever we bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever we loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. In the context of the teaching, he is saying that whatever choice we make here on earth, that choice will continue to be in effect in the afterlife.
The Parable of the Ten Minas
In the Parable of the Ten Minas as told in Luke 19:11–27 (a variation of this parable also occurs in Matthew 25:14–30), a nobleman entrusts ten of his servants with ten minas, telling them:

Put this money to work until I come back. (Luke 19:14)

The first two do as they are commanded, and make a tenfold or fivefold profit. The third, however, does not do as he is told:

Then another servant came and said, "Sir, here is your mina; I have kept it laid away in a piece of cloth. I was afraid of you, because you are a hard man. You take out what you did not put in and reap what you did not sow." (Luke 19:20–21)

Because he did not do what his master told him to do, he was punished by having the money confiscated from him instead of being rewarded by being put in charge of ten or five cities, as had happened to the first two servants, who had done what their master told them to do.
In this parable, the master, who is clearly a figure representing God, entrusts money to his servants, gives them a command, and then allows them to handle the money as they see fit. Those who handle it well as commanded are rewarded, and those who do not are punished.
And once again, the master, representing God, does not intervene to prevent them from acting contrary to his will, but rather gives them freedom to choose to obey or not to obey, and to reap the reward or the punishment for their actions.
Passages supporting the principle that all people have free will
Though none of these stories imply that free will is not available to any class of people, such as the evil vs. the good or the unredeemed vs. the redeemed, or Christians vs. non-Christians, there are several passages in the Bible that build an increasing case that all people have free will.
Ezekiel 18
In Ezekiel 18, God pronounces an end to the practice, common in many ancient cultures, including the Hebrew culture, of whole families being punished for the sins of the head of the household.
God then says that "the one who sins is the one who will die" (Ezekiel 18:4), establishing individual responsibility for a person's good or evil choices and behavior, and individual consequences for that behavior.
The chapter then goes into detail saying that if a man is righteous and does what is good, he will live. But if that man's son does what is evil and violent, that son will die for his sins. But if that man's son sees what his father has done, and instead does is good and right instead, he will live.
The chapter ends with these words:

Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, all of you according to your ways, says the Lord God. Repent and turn from all your transgressions; otherwise iniquity will be your ruin. Cast away from you all the transgressions that you have committed against me, and get yourselves a new heart and a new spirit! Why will you die, O house of Israel? For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone, says the Lord God. Turn, then, and live. (Ezekiel 18:30–32)

In this chapter, God establishes individual responsibility for one's own sins or good behavior, and calls on people to repent from evil behavior and do what good instead, so that they may live instead of dying.
This is once again a clear presentation of a choice between good and evil on the part of the human being. And it rests that choice squarely on the shoulders of each individual human being.
The Sheep and the Goats
Turning to the New Testament, Jesus' final teaching in the Gospel of Matthew before the events of Holy Week is his account of the Sheep and the Goats, or the Judgment of the Nations, as told in Matthew 25:31–46. It opens with these words:

When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. (Matthew 25:31–33, italics added)

Note that Jesus states that all the nations, not any one specific nation or group, will be called before the Son of Man. He is speaking of a universal judgment on all people.
He then proceeds to say, in narrative form, that people who have done good things for him by doing good things for their fellow human beings who are in need will go to eternal life, but people who have not done good things for him by not doing good things for their fellow human beings who are in need will go to eternal punishment.
All of the preceding passages from the Bible show that whether or not we follow God's commandments and do good things for our fellow human beings is a choice on our part. This passage in the Gospels extends that principle to all the nations, meaning to everyone on earth.
God's Righteous Judgment
Finally, moving on to the Epistles, Romans 2:1–15 also speaks of the judgment that God will execute on all people. Within that passage Paul says:

For he will repay according to each one's deeds: to those who by patiently doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; while for those who are self-seeking and who obey not the truth but wickedness, there will be wrath and fury. There will be anguish and distress for everyone who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. For God shows no partiality. (Romans 2:6–11, italics added)

And immediately following this:

All who have sinned apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous in God's sight, but the doers of the law who will be justified. When Gentiles, who do not possess the law, do instinctively what the law requires, these, though not having the law, are a law to themselves. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, to which their own conscience also bears witness; and their conflicting thoughts will accuse or perhaps excuse them on the day when, according to my gospel, God, through Jesus Christ, will judge the secret thoughts of all. (Romans 2:12–16, italics added)

In this passage, Paul explicitly applies the final judgment to Jews, "Greeks" (pagan polytheists), and Gentiles, by which he likely means non-Jews and non-Christians, even though technically it means non-Jews. These general terms cover all the groups of people that existed in Paul's world. And he says that all of these classes of people will be judged for eternal life or for wrath and fury according to their righteous or unrighteous actions, and that this will be done by God, through Jesus Christ.
Paul, then, explicitly applies to all people what Jesus applied to "all the nations" in Matthew 25:31–46, as referenced above.
These passages, taken together with the others, provide the biblical basis for the belief that this freedom to choose between good and evil is not limited to particular groups such as the redeemed (however they are defined), but extends to people of all groups and all nations.
Summary and conclusion
Deuteronomy 30:15–20 states explicitly that God sets before us a choice between obeying or disobeying God. The same choice is strongly implied in Revelation 3:20, which says that Christ knocks on the door, and comes in only if we open the door for him.
There are also many stories in the Bible that provide examples of human beings both before and after the Fall being given choices between good and evil, and then experiencing the good or bad consequences of their choices and actions. The ones mentioned above are just a few among dozens, if not hundreds of such stories in the Bible. In these stories people sometimes choose the good path, and other times they choose the evil path.
Finally, among other passages that could be quoted, Ezekiel 18, Matthew 25:31–46, and Romans 2:1–16 establish individual responsibility for good and evil choices and actions, and extend the judgment and reward or punishment for those choices and actions to all the nations, including Jews, "Greeks," and Gentiles.
All of this provides a solid basis in the Bible for the belief that:

Humans are not predestined, but have the ability to make their own choices.
This applies to all groups, both the good and the evil, both the redeemed and the unredeemed.
Humans have this ability throughout time, both before and after the Fall.


To what extent (if any) does the Catholic Church recognize adoption? Assuming the Church recognizes adoption, if a man or woman were to invite another to live together as a loving relationship as parent and child, but without any secular legal process, would the Church recognize the adoption?

I ask this because some Catholics in history and today have lived/live in a land where there is no secular legal process to recognize an adoption.

If the legal document is required, why does secular law have such an impact on Church teaching? (In some countries adoption is completely illegal.)

By "recognize" I mean if it would be a mortal sin if at some point in time the 2 parties changed their minds on the nature of the relationship and decided to get married, or the parent giving up and cutting all ties with the child. So the adoption being just as permanent and having the same dignity as a biological parenthood.

…without any secular legal process, would the Church recognize the adoption?

No.

Canon Law defers to civil authorities for the legal recognition of adoption. For example, adopted children must be legally recognized as such before adoptive parents can baptize them (Can. 877 §3).

1983 Code canon 110 deals with adoption:

  Children who have been adopted according to the norm of civil law are considered the children of the person or persons who have adopted them.

Regarding

  why does secular law have such an impact on Church teaching?

see:

  Can. 22 Civil laws to which the law of the Church yields are to be observed in canon law with the same effects, insofar as they are not contrary to divine law and unless canon law provides otherwise.

It's possible that in the future the Church might devise a "mechanism or procedure…to secure the institute of adoption."

For more information on the divine, natural, civil, and ecclesiastical laws aspects of marriage, see How Marriage Became One of the Sacraments: The Sacramental Theology of Marriage From Its Medieval Origins to the Council of Trent by Philip L. Reynolds, §16.5 "Thomas Aquinas on Marriage in Law" pp. 686-715 (PDF pp. 718-747).


Since Satan was defeated by Jesus on the Cross, why is he still allowed to vex us today? In the Revelation it says that Satan was overcome by Salvation, and yet he continues to vex Christians today.

I know that at the great white throne judgment he will be cast into the lake of fire, but it seems that once we give our lives to Christ, and we have through the Grace of God, been plucked out of Satan's hands, that he would no longer have any power to trouble us.

Revelation 12:9-12  KJV  And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night. And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death. Therefore rejoice, [ye] heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time.

Since the Christian has already rejected Satan and his ways and been given eternal life through Jesus, why does Satan still have the power to vex us?

One of the theological problems that has plagued theologians and Christians generally throughout the church age is theodicy.

At the heart of theodicy is an apparent contradiction.  On the one hand you have an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving, and holy God, whose purpose concerning humankind is to redeem a people for His glory.  This people, composed of members of every ethnic group in the world, will one day bear the image of God's well beloved Son and our Savior, Jesus Christ, who came to earth to destroy the works of the devil (1 John 3:8).

On the other hand you have a powerful, cunning, hate-filled, unholy spiritual being, originally created sinless by God, but who allowed pride to enter his heart and rebelled against God's authority.  It is Lucifer, a fallen angel, who is responsible not only for introducing sin into the universe but also for much of the misery on planet Earth.  His goal is to usurp God's Lordship in the universe and to dethrone God.  His modus operandi is to kill, steal, and destroy (John 10:10); in short, to do everything within his finite, though awesome, power, and for his own glory and honor, to defeat the works of God.  As Martin Luther said,

  "His craft and power are great, And armed with cruel hate, On earth is not his equal" (A Mighty Fortress Is Our God).

How, then, can we reconcile these two seemingly irreconcilable truths?  Can they in fact be reconciled?  I suggest the greatest existential problem which has confronted humankind from the Garden of Eden to today has in its solution the answer to these difficult and vexing questions.

There are three phrases which together can frame an answer to your question about the seemingly unnecessary protraction of Satan's diabolical activities.  Each phrase begins with the letter C, and they are:

  the C osmic war
  the C ross of Christ
  the C hurch of God

The cosmic war between God and Satan, which rages on planet Earth, the focal point and stage for this epic struggle between good and evil will ultimately be won by God.  As you pointed out in your question, God's Salvation is in one sense a fait accompli, but more on that in the next point.

God has not been silent since Satan first challenged His power in the rebellion he instigated in heaven.  In the counsels of eternity God had a plan, and when God has a plan, no one and nothing can prevent that plan from coming to fruition.  Victory is assured, but on God's terms, not ours.

If we human beings and not God were all-powerful and in charge of the universe, we probably would have thought it wise to destroy Satan and his angels from the get-go, annihilating him and his cohorts by fiat, thus sparing humankind from the ravages of sin and death.  I know that's how I would have done things!

Thank God, however, we are not God!  Our point of view is finite and flawed; God's point of view and plan are infinitely wise in both conception and implementation.  Moreover, not one of His attributes is compromised in any way as He brings His plan for the ages to fruition.

What if God were to have annihilated Satan the very moment pride entered Lucifer's heart?  After all, He is all-powerful, is He not?  Yes, of course.  God is much more than the possessor of awesome power, however, and He most definitely is not a cosmic bully who zaps His enemies the very moment they begin to rebel.  God created sentient beings in the first place (angels first and then humankind) so they could enter into relationship with Him by their own choice.  He gave us all the ability to make decisions.  The prohibition God gave to our first parents would not make sense otherwise.  Why tell someone not to do something if they cannot do otherwise?  That's not freedom; that's something altogether different.

In other words, God is all about relationships.  He did not create angels and human beings because He needed them; He did so in love, so they would have the privilege of glorifying and enjoying Him forever.  God also takes delight in His creatures, especially when they willingly and wholeheartedly love, worship, serve, and adore Him.

Furthermore, God's delight in us extends to every child of His, each one of whom is unique and has something uniquely special to offer God.  That is true not only here on earth, but it will be especially true in heaven, where we will be distracted neither in our worship of God nor in our service for God.

We must not take lightly the radical freedom we have on earth to choose to obey or disobey God. How we exercise that freedom determines our eternal destiny, and God desires that as many people as possible join His forever-family.  Sin, however, prevents this from happening.  Since we all are fallen creatures in need of God's forgiveness and cleansing, God provided a way whereby He could justly and righteously put away the sin that separates us from Him.  He did so by making the greatest sacrifice possible:  by giving us His well beloved Son, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

The cross of Christ, then, was the means whereby holy God could atone for our sins, thus turning aside His righteous anger from us and onto Christ, "the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world."

  "For it was fitting for Him, for whom are all things, and through whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory, to perfect the author of their salvation through sufferings" (Hebrews 2:10 NAS).

The cross of Christ, then, was fallen humanity's only hope.  The "perfection" of which the writer to the Hebrews speaks is not sinless perfection but "a fitness for the fulfilling of the office assigned to Him" (see Everett F. Harrison in “The Theology of the Epistle to the Hebrews,” Bibliotheca Sacra 121:484, October-December 1964:338).   In other words, Jesus was the high priest who offered Himself as a sacrifice for sin, once and for all, and through the unimaginable suffering He endured in being crucified, we have been redeemed--set free--through His shed blood.

At the cross, Jesus wrestled with Satan and won.  Satan indeed had bruised Jesus' heel, but Jesus had dealt Satan a death blow (see Genesis 3:15), which brings us to the final phrase.

The Church of God is a living organism composed of believers in Jesus, each one of whom has placed his or her faith in Him and received Him into their lives as Savior and Lord.  Through the Church of God, the Body of Christ, God demonstrates to the world and to Satan and his minions that God will prevail, but only after the church universal is complete and the last "living stone" is added to the superstructure of which Christ is the chief cornerstone (see 1 Peter 2:4-8).

After the church is gathered up to heaven (1 Thessalonians 4:16,17), the earth will undergo a cataclysm unlike any other it has experienced since the beginning of time.  Through the events of the Great Tribulation and the Battle of Armageddon spoken of in Revelation, the earth as we know it will be destroyed; Satan, the archenemy of God and of His saints, will be cast forever into the lake of fire, along with his minions; and the unbelieving portion of humanity who refused to repent of their sins will along with Satan be cast into the lake of fire.  God will then usher in a new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells forever (see Revelation 20:7-21:8).

In the meantime, the church of God has to endure much suffering.  If our God and Savior, our Lord Jesus Christ, the pioneer of our salvation had to be perfected through suffering--and he had committed no sin, can we as His redeemed people, whose sins were nailed to His cross, expect any less (see Colossians 2:14)?  Suffering is hard, but for those who endure it there are great rewards:  patience, endurance or perseverance, proven character, God's comfort to us and through us to others, and hope, because as Paul points out,

  "and hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out within our hearts through the Holy Spirit who was given to us" (Romans 5:3-5).

In conclusion, God allows Satan to remain on the scene today, for a time, because God's timetable, though fixed, cannot be rushed.  Furthermore, God's forbearance and patience are not to be construed as slackness.  As Peter said,

  "The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish , but that all should come to repentance" (2 Peter 3:9 KJV).

While for a time God will allow Satan to do his best to make life difficult for us, we can take comfort in Martin Luther's great hymn:

  And though this world, with devils filled, should threaten to undo us,
   We will not fear, for God hath willed His truth to triumph through us:
   The Prince of Darkness grim, we tremble not for him;
   His rage we can endure, for lo, his doom is sure,
   One little word shall fell him.

  That word above all earthly powers, no thanks to them, abideth;
   The Spirit and the gifts are ours through Him Who with us sideth:
   Let goods and kindred go, this mortal life also;
   The body they may kill: God’s truth abideth still,
   His kingdom is forever.

Another hymn which underscores the importance of endurance in running the race set before us, is Isaac Watt's "Am I a Soldier of the Cross?":

  Am I a soldier of the cross,
   A follower of the Lamb,
   And shall I fear to own His cause,
   Or blush to speak His Name?

  Must I be carried to the skies
   On flowery beds of ease,
   While others fought to win the prize,
   And sailed through bloody seas?

  Are there no foes for me to face?
   Must I not stem the flood?
   Is this vile world a friend to grace,
   To help me on to God?

  Sure I must fight if I would reign;
   Increase my courage, Lord.
   I’ll bear the toil, endure the pain,
   Supported by Thy Word.

  Thy saints in all this glorious war
   Shall conquer, though they die;
   They see the triumph from afar,
   By faith’s discerning eye.

  When that illustrious day shall rise,
   And all Thy armies shine
   In robes of victory through the skies,
   The glory shall be Thine.


What's the main point of supplication prayers? What's the point of supplication prayers when the living believers are asking the other living ones to pray for them? I mean apostle Paul asked other believers to pray for him. Why did he do that while he himself could pray for himself?

I think prayer (especially supplication prayer) is one of those things that can't be removed from the context of the Gospel, and then properly understood.

First, God desires to have a relationship with us.  This is the whole reason he sent Jesus.  He loves us enough, even though we are born with our fist to the sky against him, to send Jesus to die.  It's against this context that we look at prayer.  If he loves us this much, doesn't it stand to follow that he wants to have a relationship with us?  (The answer is yes.)  If this is the case, then praying for another person isn't a burden, it's a privilege and a joy provided only to those who can approach the throne of grace with confidence. (Hebrews 4:16)

Next, in this relationship, he wants us to acknowledge his complete and total provision for us.  He, being the creator of everything, has, by definition, given us absolutely every good thing we have (James 1:17: Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows.)  It's in this truth that he desires to be glorified, as a God who provides all good things.

Prayer must be seen as more than simply "what we can get by asking", because God gives us several things that we never ask for, such as breath when we're young, friends, sunshine, etc.  So if that's the case, it leads me to a couple of conclusions: First, God desires to bless us (Matt 7:7) (I walk a thin line here... I'm not talking about "prosperity Gospel" here.  He gives us what he knows is best for us, not what we think is best for us.)  And second, God asks us to pray in supplication, because he wants to bless us, and he wants to be seen, rightly, as the one who blesses.  It's a way he can build our dependency on him.

Ask any dad.  They know what their children want before the ask, but they want their kids to ask, so that when the provide their children with what they want, their children are thankful for the provision.  If the provision is given without the asking, the gratitude is far less likely to happen, because we're inherently selfish people.  Christianity is like growing up in reverse.  Instead of us learning to be more independent, we learn to be more dependent upon God.  The strongest Christian is the one who is the most dependent on God, and least dependent on self.

Now for the meat of the question: Why should other people pray for other people, when we can pray for ourselves. I think this again comes down to relationship.  Praying for someone else means you set aside your own selfish thoughts for a while, and think about somebody else.  Praying for somebody else means you come alongside that person and acknowledge that you're "on their side", and you too would like to see God's provision for that person's life, and you're likely to rejoice with that person when God does provide.  It's a way to communally love one another and share in someone else's sufferings.

So prayer is more a tool that changes the one praying than it does the circumstances around the prayer.  It leads us into dependence on God, and into community with one another.  It binds the church to God, and binds the church members to one another, encouraging unity within the church.  Paul's mission, and ours as well, should therefore do more than simply spread the Gospel to the unbelieving, unknowing world, it should also help to grow the Gospel within those who believe. Supplication for others helps that.


Is there a word for describing the existence of a unique or controversial interpretation of Christianity within a denomination? So obviously different sects or denominations have different interpretations and apply different emphasis to various teachings of the bible, but I'm wondering if there is a word to describe when a person or sect has a certain belief that is unique from other versions of Christianity. For instance, if someone believes that Jesus visited the Americas (Mormonism), or that he did not die in crucifixion and went on to have a family, or even something extremely trivial and specific like, for instance, (I'm just making this up off the top of my head) Jesus was a born as a breached birth.

How could you say, "The Breachers  (again, I'm making this up and am not trying to be disrespectful) have a _________ where they believe Jesus was born as a breached birth." Is there a word that could fill that blank that would mean "a unique or controversial interpretation of a specific aspect of Christianity"?

A standard term for this is the noun distinctive.  It is used to identify the beliefs or practices that separate one denomination or tradition from another, as opposed to those beliefs that they have in common.

For example, here are several examples of how this is used:

"Lutheran Theological Distinctives"
"Passing on the PCA distinctives to the next generation"
"Although the vast majority of Christian doctrines and beliefs are things that we hold in common, there are some 'Methodist distinctives,' and it is important for us to understand them." (source)
"[The] argument elevates aspects such as Anglican 'distinctives' in worship and liturgy, sacred time and space, decency or orderliness and sources of religious authority, at the expense of [...] more primary themes." (source)


How does Ravi Zacharias reconcile prayer with free will? I have been struggling with a question about prayer and free will.  For background, please watch this 6 minute youtube clip where Ravi Zacharias answers a question about free will. The question asked was "why doesn't God intervene and prevent people from committing bad things?" His answer is basically if God interferes then there is no free will and with no free will there is no love. I fully agree and understand the answer given by Ravi.

My question is "When we pray for others, how does God work in their lives and still respect their free will?"  The way I see it, the answer can go two ways:

Maybe God uses his sovereignty and breaks the law of free will and works in their lives. If that is so, then we are not really free.
Or, God works in their lives some how maintaining their free will. If that is the case then why is prayer required as God can still work in everybody's lives and make every person good but still maintain free will.

I'm not fully satisfied by either option.  How does Ravi Zacharias answer this conundrum?

Ravi Zacharias sort of assumes (but I don't think ever tries to prove) that God is sovereign, and in that sovereignty has decided to give us wills of our own.
To begin the chapter "Does Prayer Make Any Difference?" in Zacharias' book Has Christianity Failed You? Zacharias states that

Christianity does not promise that you will have every question fully answered to your satisfaction before you die, but the answers it gives are consistently consistent. There may be paradoxes within Christian teaching and belief, but they are not irreconcilable.

Though he is speaking from the context of sorrow and unanswered prayer he does touch a bit on how our wills related to God's in prayer:

Through Jesus' prayer in Gethsemane we learn the most important thing about prayer -- that it is ultimately a conversational relationship in which God does for you what you cannot do for yourself. It is not trying to persuade God to rethink his will but the means through which God reshapes you into a person who desires his will and is content to receive it, regardless of what it entails.
This is not fatalism. It is not defeat. It is not confusion. It is not a cop-out. It is sometimes easier to resist God's will than to have faith and confidence in God and in his specific purpose for each one of us.

In The Grand Weaver (excerpt here), he retells a story written by Arnold Fine, of high school sweethearts, separated by a parent, that re-meet in their old age. The story ends with "How good the work of the Lord is", but Zacharias notes that there are three wills in play in addition to God's; "the work of a sovereign God leaves all of us overwhelmed at the way God weaves the threads."
Zacharias makes no attempt to fit the free will vs. determinism argument into a logical framework that makes perfect sense and fits in a shiny box1 -- in whatever way God may work in and through people, he does it in a way that does not override their freedom. In his book Walking from East to West, he says that God works "from the shadows", nudging, pushing, and guiding, rather than forcing and dominating.

1 Like many apologists, Zacharias tends to avoid internal theological debates, preferring to focus on presenting or defending the common beliefs of [a subset of] Christianity.


In Catholic teaching, to what scripture is each of the seven sacraments referenced? In Catholic teaching, to what scripture (OT and NT) is each of the seven sacraments referenced?

The seven sacraments are:

Baptism,
Confirmation (or Chrismation),
the Eucharist,
Penance,
the Anointing of the Sick,
Holy Orders and
Matrimony.

Summarized from http://catholic-resources.org/ChurchDocs/Sacraments.htm as pointed out by Reluctant_Linux_User:

Baptism -  Mathew 28:19 - "Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit"
Confirmation - Acts 8:17; 19:6 - "Then they laid hands on them and they received the holy Spirit."
Eucharist - Luke 22:14-20 - The Last Supper
Penance1 - James 5:16 - "Therefore, confess your sins to one another"
Anointing of the Sick - James 5:14 - "Is anyone among you sick? He should summon the presbyters of the church, and they should pray over him and anoint [him] with oil in the name of the Lord"
Holy Orders -  Acts 6:6 - "They presented these men to the apostles who prayed and laid hands on them."
Matrimony - Genesis 2:24 - "That is why a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, and the two of them become one body."

I suggest reading the article linked about for more scriptural support and more information about how and why they are performed.

1. cf. Penny Catechism Q.283. When did our Lord institute the Sacrament of Penance? A. Our Lord instituted the Sacrament of Penance when he breathed on his Apostles and gave them power to forgive sins, saying: 'Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven.' John 20:23


According to Catholicism, if we can thank God for our fortunes why can we not blame him for our misfortunes? If God is all knowing and omnipotent and we are to thank him for all of the boons we have received why can we not also "thank" him for all the misfortunes he has set upon us?

I always see people thank God when something good happens to them, but when something bad happens they never even mention his name.

Actually, it's an apostolic concept to see misfortune as the stuff of sanctification, and thankworthy—"all joy:"

  James 1:2-4 (DRB) My brethren, count it all joy, when you shall fall into divers [trials]; 3 Knowing that the trying of your faith worketh patience. 4 And patience hath a perfect work; that you may be perfect and entire, failing in nothing.

You probably don't see people thanking God for bad things often because, more often than not, people are oblivious to this theology.

In Catholicism moreso perhaps than any other 'denomination' there exists a rich theology of penance, meaning that an understanding is more prevalent that penance is God's gift for sanctification—that He would allow things we are owed for our sins and much more anyway to actually serve to restore us and sanctify us.

The kind of thanks, though, is different between receiving goods and receiving trials, quite obviously; God wants directly to give all people good things, but He wants only indirectly, to solve a problem He'd rather didn't exist, that is, to give them trials.


How do those who reject the deity of Christ understand the 'sameness of honor' in John 5? John 5:21-23 (DRB) For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and giveth life: so the Son also giveth life to whom he will.1 22 For neither doth the Father judge any man, but hath given all judgment to the Son. 23 That all men may honour the Son, as they honour the Father.2 He who honoureth not the Son, honoureth not the Father, who hath sent him.

There are only two possibilities here:

"as they honor the Father" describes being honored as common to the Father and the Son, but not necessarily of the same degree
"as they honor the Father" describes equality of honor

Question

How is it argued that the former is meant? (isn't it a bit like saying 'honor your parents as you honor God,' which is severely misleading?)
Isn't "as they honor the Father" redundant given this interpretation?

1 Notice that 'so also' refers to enjoying the very same perogative, one which doesn't admit of 'degree' (raising the dead either occurs or it doesn't—and clearly Jesus is speaking of something clearly unique to the Son, not a 'prophetic' ability to raise the dead with God's help: cf. "to whom He will").

2 In the Greek, it's even stronger, since the tenses are thus: "all men may honor the Son even as they do [currently] honor the Father." Which was and is of course by acts of the fullest worship.

Jehovah's Witnesses believe a bit of both of those possibilities, depending on what kind of "honor" is being referred to. To the same degree as the Father is honored as "Judge of all the earth" (Gen. 18:25), they honor the Son as Judge. However, they do not honor the Son as being the Father or as God. Given the context of John 5:23, Jehovah's Witnesses qualify the "sameness of honor" assigned to the Father and Son to their respective roles as the judges of mankind.
Here are some Watchtower articles which discuss the meaning of John 5:23 (bold mine):

"Passing Over From Death to Life" - w64 12/1 p. 714-715
13 The Sender is greater than the one sent. Jesus himself said that. (John 13:16) God the Greater sent the Son the Lesser, for which reason Jesus also said: “The Father is greater than I am.” (John 14:28) The Father the Greater appointed the Son the Lesser to be a judge, committing all the judging with reference to mankind to the Son, who died sacrificially for them. If we humans respect the Father’s power to appoint, we ought to honor the one whom he appoints as judge. Just as we should honor God the Father who is “the Judge of all,” so we should honor the Son whom he appoints to judge mankind. Certainly if we do not honor the Son as God’s appointed judge, we do not honor God the Father who clothed his Son with judicial power. We cannot claim to honor God the Father and at the same time rightly ignore the Son as judge.
14 Our everlasting life depends on our thus honoring the Son as judge in the same way as we honor the heavenly “Father who sent him.” Today, by means of John’s written account in the Holy Bible, we are hearing Jesus’ words in this regard. If, after thus hearing, we do as Jesus said, namely, ‘believe on him that sent me,’ we shall have everlasting life. This life we shall enjoy in God’s promised righteous order of things under his kingdom.

"Source of His Life" - w62 10/1 p. 592
ALL along the evidence has been mounting up from John’s own writings that Jesus Christ was the Son of God. This very fact in itself argues that Jesus as a Son was dependent upon God and was not equal to God. A son is not greater than his father, but must honor his father, according to God’s command. As God’s Son, Jesus said: “I honor my Father.” (John 8:49) How, then, can anyone say he was making himself God or the equal of God when he said: “The Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son: that all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him”? (John 5:22, 23, AV) In those words Jesus was not telling us to honor him as being the Father or as being God. He did not say we were to honor the Son as much as the Father.
34 Look at Jesus’ words again and see why he said he was to be honored just as the Father is to be honored. Jesus said that the Father had appointed him to be judge, to act as the deputy or representative of God the Supreme Judge. Hence as God’s appointed Judge the Son deserved to be honored. By honoring the Son we show respect for God’s appointment of the Son as Judge. If we do not honor the Son as Judge, then we do not honor “the Father which hath sent him.” But that does not mean we honor the Son as being God himself or honor the Son as much as God himself, who sent the Son.


How are the broken bones in the Shroud of Turin seen to be consistent with the bones of Jesus not being broken? Many Christians believe that the Shroud of Turin is authentic. Recent research demonstrates how two nails pierced the right foot of Jesus, and the first nail actually went through his heel bone.

Additionally there are images of the right knee that show it to be severely swollen and indicate a fracture of the Patella bone.

According to those who believe that the Shroud is authentic, how do they see this as consistent with prophecy in John 19:36 that none of the bones can be broken to be a proper sacrifice?

Recent research demonstrates how two nails pierced the right foot of Jesus, and the first nail actually went through his heel bone.

A photograph of the shroud of Turin is below. A more legitimate source is: www.shroud.com

The short answer is: The majority of the professionals that had access to the shroud determined that there were no broken bones on the man whose image appears on it. They also determined that one nail was used on both the feet. If someone believes the shroud is the authentic burial cloth of Christ, this view, called the "classic" view, has no discrepancies. A more specific answer is below.

Both parts of your statement above (before and after the comma) have not been proven. Your first link ("Recent research") corresponds to a research paper that hypothesized two nails going through Christ's feet; experts disagreed (see below). It was also not agreed that any bones were broken (see below). This research was done by Paul C. Maloney, titled: “Joseph M. Gambescia, M.D. and the Position of the Feet on the Shroud of Turin. The History of an Investigation.” Incidentally, this research paper was not centered around whether or not any bones were broken; it was centered around how many nails went through Christ’s feet. He thinks there were two.

The first sentence from this research paper, from Mr. Maloney, states:

  “I’d like to offer a disclaimer right at the beginning. I am not a medical doctor. I am a trained historian.”

HOW MANY NAILS WENT THROUGH CHRIST'S FEET?

This is an ancient Roman square nail; photo courtesy of Paul Maloney.

Mr. Maloney acknowledges disagreement as to the number of nails:

  “Most medical observers have interpreted the data on the cloth as pointing either to two nails in the feet …or one nail.”

Mr. Maloney continues with his hypothesis:

  “There were two nails on the right foot, and one wound in the left… [Dr. Gambascia] admitted that his colleague on the STURP team, Dr. Robert Bucklin, a forensic pathologist, did not agree with him… Here were two highly trained medical professionals with differing opinions. At least they did agree on one thing: the left foot was nailed across the right foot.”

In this research paper, Mr. Maloney says he thinks the man on the shroud's right foot was firmly set against something, making his right foot unable to move. He says that Dr. Gambescia and him believe that the man in the shroud's right foot was nailed first and that his left foot was placed over his right and nailed so that there were two nails going through his feet; one through his left and two through his right. They believe this from the blood patterns that show up on the shroud. I was unable to use the diagrams from the research paper. This picture approximately exemplifies the position of the feet referred to by Mr. Maloney.

(source: developinglivingstones.com)

Mr. Maloney specifies the blood patterns:

  ”…the large blood stain at the ‘terminus’ of the frontal shin aligned perfectly with the heel!!! …Could this be right? I was filled with all kinds of doubts.” (Pg. 13) …In the latter view the ‘rosette’ pattern in the center of the right foot is plausibly set forth as proof that a nail penetrated the sole of the foot at that point.” (pg. 19) …When thus aligned, the large blood stain at the frontal right foot area located at the end of the frontal shin …was itself positioned automatically over the heel …of the right foot on the dorsal end, directly above the dark stain in that area. This fact suggested to me that Dr. Gambascia might be right -that there was probably a wound in the ankle/heel area. (pg. 38) … If one nail were used for the feet, as is commonly accepted in this “classic” discussion of the imprints of the feet on the Shroud, and the left foot has moved up and down creating the pattern we now see for the left foot, what would prevent the right foot from also swiveling on that single nail? Gambesca’s view -two nails in the right foot- offers the best explanation. With two nail wounds the right foot could not move at all.” (Pg. 44) …there is an important comparative distinction between the imprint of the right foot and that of the left. The question here is: Why is the right foot preserved as a “full” imprint whereas the left only preserves the rivulets -but no convincing “full” imprint of the foot itself?” (pg. 74)

This is a photograph of the blood from the feet of the man in the shroud.

According to Mr. Maloney, there was no blood found on the center of the left foot of the man on the shroud. He thinks it doesn’t show up on the shroud because he thinks that’s where the nail was. He thinks the blood flowed off and around his left foot, not leaving a mark. He states:

  “…it is important to realize that the center mark of the top left foot is hypothesized; it does not show up anywhere on the Shroud -either dorsal or frontal.”

In this same research paper, Mr. Maloney stems away from the shroud to what he actually thinks happened when Christ was crucified. He calls this: “The Crucifixion Simulation.”

THE CRUCIFIXION SIMULATION (From: Mr. Maloney)

  “The following reconstruction of the events …The right foot was firmly grasped and the first nail was pounded into the front of the ankle, down through the heel and into the upright of the cross. Then the left foot was placed on top of the right foot and a second nail was driven, this time through the center of the left foot, down into the center of the right foot and into the upright of the cross. Thus the right foot was firmly anchored to the upright and could not move, but the left foot, nailed with only one nail, could pivot up and down around this nail. At first the blood oozing from the nail wound on the bottom of the victim’s left foot flowed in a long narrow flow toward the toes. Some of the blood dripped to the ground and some, following the shank of the nail, onto the top of the right foot. But clearly, at first, the victim could maintain his position, albeit briefly, with the left foot pointing in a generally downward direction. During his time on the cross, as the victim raised himself, then sagged from exhaustion, the movement of the left foot would have smeared the blood from the wounds on the top of the right foot. But much of the blood from the left foot would have dripped off from the edge of that foot onto the ground rather than directly onto the top of the right foot. When the Man of the Shroud was removed from the cross and laid on one end of the Shroud cloth, the various preparations for quick burial having been made, the end of the dorsal cloth was first tucked over the right foot, then the frontal end of the Shroud was pulled over the body. The inward tilt of the left foot combined with the tucking of the cloth around the right foot prevented any stain from the top left foot wound from leaving any mark on the Shroud cloth. The dorsal end of the cloth was tucked just enough to cover the feet including the top center wound area of the right foot without touching the ankle. Thus the dorsal end of the cloth prevented any markings or imprints, except for the frontal ankle wound and the inlets of blood, from being transferred to the frontal end of the Shroud.

DID A NAIL GO THROUGH CHRIST'S HEEL BONE?

This is a dorsal view of the shroud showing the legs and back of the feet.

According to Mr. Maloney:

  ”When thus aligned, the large blood stain at the frontal right foot area located at the end of the frontal shin… was itself positioned automatically over the heel… of the right foot on the dorsal end, directly above the dark stain in that area. This fact suggested to me that Dr. Gambescia might be right -that there was probably a wound in the ankle/heel area.”

OTHER SOURCES -WAS THE HEEL OR KNEE BONE BROKEN?

From: “Evidences for Testing Hypothesis About the Body Image Formation of the Turin Shroud.” (pdf)

  ”No broken bones are evident on the body image. (Bucklin 1982, Ricci 1989)”

From: “Computerized Anthropometric Analysis of the Man of the Turin Shroud.” (pdf)

  ”The Man of the Shroud has his feet bent forward and this is very important for the measurement…the position of the heel changes considerably if measured with a “hammer” or outstretched foot.”

From: Andy Weiss, Shroud Exhibit and Museum, Inc. (pdf)

  ”According to Dr. Petrus Soons and other medical experts such as radiologists and doctors I have personally spoken to who have come to our museum from the local hospital, there are absolutely no broken bones on the body, contrary to some who claim so.”

ARE THERE IMAGES OF THE RIGHT KNEE THAT INDICATE A FRACTURE?

The link you’ve provided of “there are images of the right knee” states:

  ”No signs of broken legs are visible, neither from a frontal nor a dorsal view. The right knee seems to have a swelling above the knee cap as can be seen in the discussion.”

The discussion states:

  ”Most probably the swelling above the right knee cap is due to internal knee injuries having caused bleeding into the knee capsule, hemarthrosis… If such a swelling comes up after a bump of the knee cap against a hard surface, an xray photo often reveals a knee cap fracture. Therefore the TSM has most likely got a knee cap fracture probably by knocking his right knee against a hard surface.”

The first sentence in the next paragraph is interesting:

  ”It appears that the feet have been nailed by a single nail.”

CONCLUSIONS

From a scientific perspective, science has made it clear that they know the man on the shroud was a scourged and crucified man but they can’t indicate who the man on the shroud is. There is no one definitive answer as to whether or not the man on the shroud’s bones were broken because the shroud experts disagree.

From a religious perspective, your question only relates to people that believe the shroud of Turin is the authentic burial cloth of Christ. Those people are left to make their own opinions as to which expert carries more weight and as to how they interpret the scriptures. Some would only consider the NT passage and some would consider all three (below). I am not aware of any particular church that states their opinion on the matter. For those of us with absolute faith that Christ is The Messiah, none of this matters because our correct and incorrect interpretations of science and religion don’t affect his messiahship.

SCRIPTURE

Exodus 12:46, KJV

  ”It must be eaten inside the house; take none of the meat outside the house. Do not break any of the bones.”

Psalm 34:20, KJV

  ”…he protects all his bones; not one of them will be broken.”

John 19:31-34, KJV

  ” The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for that sabbath day was an high day,) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away. Then came the soldiers, and brake the legs of the first, and of the other which was crucified with him. But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs: But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water.”


Where in the Bible does it mention that every person has a guardian angel? The Bible talks about various angels such as Saint Gabriel and Saint Michael.  Where in the Bible does it mention that every person has his/her own guardian angel?

The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that there is a guardian angel for each person.  It is well to recall that while the Catholic Church does not confine its teaching to sola scriptura, there is scriptural support for the teaching that angels are assigned as protectors.  Angels engage in a variety of tasks as described in scripture, to include protection of the faithful.  In English the term "guardian angel" is a way to describe an angel who protects someone.

  The angels in the life of the Church

  334 In the meantime, the whole life of the Church benefits from the
  mysterious and powerful help of angels.

  335 In her liturgy, the Church joins with the angels to adore the
  thrice-holy God. She invokes their assistance (in the funeral
  liturgy's In Paradisum deducant te angeli. . .["May the angels lead
  you into Paradise. . ."]). Moreover, in the "Cherubic Hymn" of the
  Byzantine Liturgy, she celebrates the memory of certain angels more
  particularly (St. Michael, St. Gabriel, St. Raphael, and the guardian
  angels).

  336 From its beginning until death, human life is surrounded by their
  watchful care and intercession.  "Beside each believer stands an
  angel as protector and shepherd leading him to life." (203) Already here
  on earth the Christian life shares by faith in the blessed company of
  angels and men united in God.

St Basil notes this in his description of the distinction between spiritual beings:

  (203) St. Basil, Adv. Eunomium III, I: PG 29,656B.
   All the angels,
  having but one appelation, have likewise among themselves the same
  nature, even though some of them are set over nations, while others of
  them are guardians to each one of the faithful.

Scriptural verses that inform this teaching include:

Matthew 18:10

  10 "See that you do not despise one of these little ones, for I say to
  you that their angels in heaven always look upon the face of my
  heavenly Father.

Hebrews 1:14

  "Are they [i.e. angels] not all ministering spirits sent out to serve
  for the sake of those who are to inherit salvation?"

Luke 16:22

  22 When the poor man died, he was carried away by angels to the bosom
  of Abraham.

Psalm 34:7

  The angel of the Lord encamps around those who fear him, and he
  delivers them

Psalm 91:10-13

  10 no harm will overtake you, no disaster will come near your tent.
  11 For he will command his angels concerning you to guard you in all
  your ways;   12 they will lift you up in their hands, so that you will
  not strike your foot against a stone.   13 You will tread on the lion
  and the cobra; you will trample the great lion and the serpent.

Job 33:23-24

  23 1 If then there be for him an angel, one out of a thousand, a
  mediator, To show him what is right for him and bring the man back to
  justice,

  24 He will take pity on him and say, "Deliver him from going down to
  the pit; I have found him a ransom."

Zech 1:11-14

  11 And they answered the angel of the LORD who was standing among the
  myrtle trees and said, "We have patrolled the earth; see, the whole
  earth is tranquil and at rest!"    12  Then the angel of the Lord
  spoke out and said, "O LORD of hosts, how long will you be without
  mercy for Jerusalem and the cities of Judah that have felt your anger
  these seventy years?"   13  To the angel who spoke with me, the LORD
  replied with comforting words.   14 And the angel who spoke with me
  said to me, Proclaim: Thus says the LORD of hosts: I am deeply moved
  for the sake of Jerusalem and Zion,

Tobit 5:17

  Tobit said, “Blessing be upon you, brother.” Then he called his son
  and said to him: “Son, prepare whatever you need for the journey, and
  set out with your kinsman. May God in heaven protect you on the way
  and bring you back to me safe and sound; may his angel accompany you
  for your safety, son.”


Have the dietary prohibitions of Acts 15:20 been applied to Christians today? An answer to this question references Acts 15:20, which says --

  (19) Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, (20) but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood. (21) For from ancient generations Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues.”

James, in the presence of "[t]he apostles and the elders," (verse six) is talking about what he believes should be required of Gentiles that wanted to join the disciplines.

In Christianity, are there any formal, historical doctrinal statements -- creeds, canons, catechisms, confessions, etc. -- that specifically address dietary regulations such as those found in Acts 15:20?

My current understanding is informed by passages like Acts 10:9-16, 1Cor 10:23-33, and the manifold passages that tell us that Christians are not under the law.

Note the distinction between this question, which asks about regulations for consumption, and the referenced question, which asks about regulations for slaughter. I'll leave it to the moderators to determine whether the two are similar enough to close the present question.

There never were any dietary Laws enforced in the New Testament aside from polite rules derived from brotherly love and the desire for peace during the time of transition between the shadows of the Old Testament and the realities found in Christ.

Jesus called the crowd to him and said, “Listen and understand. What goes into someone’s mouth does not defile them, but what comes out of their mouth, that is what defiles them.” (NIV Matthew 15:10-11)
I am convinced, being fully persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for that person it is unclean. If your brother or sister is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy someone for whom Christ died. (NIV Romans 14:14-15)

The rule established in Acts 15:20 for new converts does not contradict the truth that no food is unclean in itself, even blood! as established by Acts 10:15, Romans 14:14, 1 Corinthians 8, etc. In Acts we simply find instructions being given to Gentiles to bring a noble death to specific matters that would enflame, outrage, shock their prejudices and cause discord among Jewish converts. In a sense many Jews would need to have been treated as 'weaker brothers' in the matter of blood and certain meats sacrificed to idols, etc. because after having learning to associate God's ceremonial displeasure with these activities, though not sinful in themselves, for so long, it would have been difficult for them to unravel these symbolic things from their consciences. This natural revulsion on things morally neutral would be hard to unlearn especially when they had learned to hate them so much and to distinguish themselves from Gentile sinners partly by these differences. This created a situation where new converts should 'become a Jew unto a Jew' on harmless abstinence, for any behavior otherwise would be inflammatory actions ruining the love of Christian fellowship. It would give occasion for scandal and all over nothing.
Paul adopts the same 'love principle' in advising believers to abstain from eating meats sacrificed to idols, if in so doing it harms a brother's faith. There is really nothing special here in Acts that contradicts Paul. What might make this decision in Acts appear strange is that real sins are joined up with neutral matters. The similarity is not in that they are all sins but that they all especially would bring discord, inflammatory reaction, provocation to anger and general destruction to the gospel taking shape within synagogues around the region.  In addition, in all these things the Romans and Greeks had no moral objection to and all had some role within their idolatries, especially those that had temple prostitutes. This rule maintained a peaceful atmosphere for the true liberty of the gospel to grow and allowed a natural and noble death of some of the harmless shadows and ceremonial symbols of the Old Testament in brotherly love.
Lastly, there is some Jewish history that proves this temporary kindness to weaker brothers was related to the Jewish expectations on Gentile converts before Christ based on the covenant God made with Noah.

Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything. “But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it. (NIV Genesis 9:3-4)

As this covenant with Noah is considered to have been made with all mankind, Jew and Gentile, the Jews called 'the seven Noachic commandments', which, according to them, were binding upon all Gentile proselytes. These were a prohibition

(1)  of idolatry,  (2)  of blasphemy,  (3)  of murder,  (4)  of incest,  (5)  of robbery and theft,  (6)  of eating blood and strangled animals, and  (7)  an injunction of obedience to magistrates. (Alfred Edersheim, Bible History Old Testament - Vol 1)

This further explains the theological footprint or Biblical context at this critical time of history.  All the more reason for Gentiles to gain respect of outsiders and Jewish brethren at a time of incomprehensible changes and upheaval of religion and not force a shock on the community unnecessarily.
Given the situation then, looking for creeds or canons about an old shadow of the realities found in Christ is not to be expected and if one turned up most Christians would simply reject it as being opposed to the arguments in the scriptures.


Was the Scapegoat of Leviticus an allusion to Barabbas? There are several similarities between the selection of the Scapegoat, and the selection of Jesus as our sacrifice.

Leviticus 16:7  KJV  And he shall take the two goats, and present them before the LORD at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.
Matthew 27:17   KJV  Therefore when they were gathered together, Pilate said unto them, Whom will ye that I release unto you? Barabbas, or Jesus which is called Christ?
Leviticus 16:8  And Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats; one lot for the LORD, and the other lot for the scapegoat.
Matthew 27:21  KJV   The governor answered and said unto them, Whether of the twain will ye that I release unto you? They said, Barabbas.
Leviticus 16:9  And Aaron shall bring the goat upon which the LORD'S lot fell, and offer him for a sin offering.
Leviticus 16:10  But the goat, on which the lot fell to be the scapegoat, shall be presented alive before the LORD, to make an atonement with him, and to let him go for a scapegoat into the wilderness.
Matthew 27:26  KJV  Then released he Barabbas unto them: and when he had scourged Jesus, he delivered him to be crucified.

Do these passage suggestion a connection betwen the Scapegoat of Leviticus and the figure of Barabbas in the passion narrative?

I suspect not.

For two reasons:

The "goat upon which the Lord's lot fell" was still used as an offering. Barabbas was simply released.
It makes more sense that Jesus is the type both of the sin offering and the scapegoat -- especially given how repetitively the sacrificial system prefigured the Messiah in many other aspects. This repeating imagery amounts at last to layers of nuanced meaning which resolve into a fuller picture of the Messiah than any one (or select few) of the metaphors could have provided.


What does it mean to say the Bible is the "Word of God" and how is it justified? How has the phrase the "Word of God" been understood (as applied to The Bible) in the Christian tradition? I assume different sects of Christianity answer this differently and I'm interested in hearing all answers, specifically with regard to the doctrine of the infallibility of The Bible.

I'm familiar with 2 Timothy 3:16:

  "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for
  reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness..."

However, what is the definition of "Scripture" and why are the letters of the New Testament considered scripture?

Karl Barth believed that Jesus is the Word of God, but that the written Bible is NOT the Word of God. He believed that the Bible becomes the Word of God when preached by the church. See https://postbarthian.com/2018/08/20/karl-barths-doctrine-of-the-word-of-god-in-threefold-form/

  Barth then argues the Bible becomes the Word of God when it is
  proclaimed by the living human voice of the Church, and only in that
  event may the Bible be rightly called the Word of God. Barth explained
  "the Bible, then, becomes God’s Word in this event, and in the
  statement that the Bible is God’s Word the little word 'is' refers to
  its being in this becoming. It does not become God’s Word because we
  accord it faith but in the fact that it becomes revelation to us."

On the other hand, Fundamentalists, Evangelicals, and even Catholic traditions going back to Augustine subscribe to various theories of inerrancy and canon formation. This article has some intersting points to make about where the ideas of inerrancy come from:

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/did-fundamentalists-invent-inerrancy/

Many people rely on their view as handed down to them by their church statement of faith, denominational position, or an ecumenical creed. One such creed is the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy:

http://www.romans45.org/creeds/chicago.htm

Here is the summary statement of the much longer document:

I. SUMMARY STATEMENT

God, who is Himself Truth and speaks truth only, has inspired Holy Scripture in order thereby to reveal Himself to lost mankind through Jesus Christ as Creator and Lord, Redeemer and Judge. Holy Scripture is God's witness to Himself.
Holy Scripture, being God's own Word, written by men prepared and superintended by His Spirit, is of infallible divine authority in
all matters upon which it touches: It is to be believed, as God's
instruction, in all that it affirms; obeyed, as God's command, in all
that it requires; embraced, as God's pledge, in all that it promises.
The Holy Spirit, Scripture's divine Author, both authenticates it to us by His inward witness and opens our minds to understand its meaning.
Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching, no less in what it states about
God's acts in creation, about the events of world history, and about
its own literary origins under God, than in its witness to God's
saving grace in individual lives.
The authority of Scripture is inescapably impaired if this total divine inerrancy is in any way limited of disregarded, or made
relative to a view of truth contrary to the Bible's own; and such
lapses bring serious loss to both the individual and the Church.

Some people rely on certain Bible passages to justify their beliefs about what the Bible is. Thessalonians equates the Scriptures with God's universal, authoritative, and powerful truth:

  13 And we also thank God continually because, when you received the
  word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as a human
  word, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is indeed at work
  in you who believe. (1 Thessalonians 2:13)

Peter's words are used to establish that Paul's letters are part of Scripture:

  16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of
  these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to
  understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the
  other Scriptures, to their own destruction. (2 Peter 3:16)

Similar bootstrapping techniques are used to tie in the other New Testament letters and books. As for the supernatural power and efficacy of the Word of God:

  12 For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any
  double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit,
  joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.
  (Hebrews 4:12)

On the other end of the spectrum, you have people whose justification for the Bible being the Word of God is because it is self-authenticating. The Holy Spirit applies the words of the Bible to a person's life and they are transformed. Their personal experience gives witness to their belief. I began as person who accepted it as told to me by people I trusted (creedal) and ended up as a person who experienced the power of the Bible to change my life. For example, my Bible Study leader in college asked us all to memorize Galatians 2:20-21:

  20 I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ
  lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the
  Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. 21 I do not set
  aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through
  the law, Christ died for nothing!”

A month later, my fear of death went away. In like fashion, I attended a retreat to study Philippians, and Joy entered my heart and overcame a decade of depression. A passage in Isaiah and a Psalm stopped the nightmares I used to have all the time. The Sermon on the Mount helped me to not feel poor and incapable of helping others. I could go on and on. Ultimately, it is the believer's personal experience of deliverance and growth that proves that the Bible is the Word of God.


Why is the Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception treated differently? I know that the Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception is a seemingly immoveable feast.  Unlike the other holy days the obligation is not transferred when it falls on a Saturday or a Monday (so you have to go to Mass two days in a row, and daily communicants whip out their tiny violins to play a festive round of Stabat Mater).

But this year, the Immaculate Conception is on a Sunday, and the readings and everything are transferred to Monday but there is no addition obligation to attend Mass. So, my question is, what is so much more superlative about having the requirement to attend Mass abrogated every few years on one day for one feast and why is the Immaculate Conception more important than other Marian Feasts or All Saints Day (or Corpus Christi or Ascension Thursday, which are always transferred to Sundays in my diocese)?

Is it only acceptable to celebrate a Christ/Trinity oriented feast day on a Sunday (Like Divine Mercy Sunday, Trinity Sunday or Christ the King of the Universe)?

What is so much more superlative about having the requirement to attend Mass abrogated every few years on one day for one feast?
Code of Canon Law which guides Feast Days says the following:

1246 §1. Sunday, on which by apostolic tradition the paschal mystery is celebrated, must be observed in the universal Church as the primordial holy day of obligation. The following days must also be observed: the Nativity of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Epiphany, the Ascension, the Body and Blood of Christ, Holy Mary the Mother of God,  her Immaculate Conception, her Assumption, Saint Joseph, Saint Peter and Saint Paul the Apostles, and All Saints.
§2. With the prior approval of the Apostolic See, however, the conference of bishops can suppress some of the holy days of obligation or transfer them to a Sunday.

So the canon law makes it clear that the bishops' council has the authority to suppress some of the holy days of obligation or transfer them to a Sunday. And that is exactly what the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops chose to do on December 13, 1991.ref That is, they chose to remove the precept to attend Mass if a holy day of obligation (excluding Nativity) falls on a Saturday or on a Monday.
Why did they choose so? That cannot be answered by us. Only the bishops can. They might have considered the culture, local tradition etc., before deciding so.
It is to be noted that not all Conference of Catholic Bishops chose this. For example in India we do have to attend mass on two consecutive days even if a a solemnity falls on a Saturday or on a Monday.
Why is the Immaculate Conception more important than other Marian Feasts or All Saints Day (or Corpus Christi or Ascension Thursday), which are always transferred to Sundays in my diocese)?
Actually Immaculate Conception is less important than Advent Sunday and that is the reason it is transferred to the next day. But All Saints Day / Corpus Christi / Ascension are more important than Ordinary Sundays and hence the local bishops conference can decide to move them to the next Sunday of the Ordinary Time.
Is it only acceptable to celebrate a Christ/Trinity oriented feast day on a Sunday?
Yes. As the saying goes, "Our Lord's Day is the Lord of All Days". But there are exception to this rule. The ranking of the days according to their priority are:

The Paschal Triduum and Easter Sunday
The solemnities of Nativity of the Lord, the Epiphany, the Ascension, and Pentecost
Sundays of Advent, Lent, and Easter season
Ash Wednesday
Weekdays of Holy Week up to and including Thursday
Days within the Octave of Easter
Other Solemnities
Sundays of the Year

So as per the above list Sundays of Advent have more priority than the the solemnity of the Immaculate Conception, hence the solemnity of the Immaculate Conception is moved to the next day.
There is an exception to the third item on the list above. That is, if the Solemnities of a particular calendar falls on Sundays of Advent, Lent, and Easter then the local bishop can choose to celebrate them instead of the Sunday. The order of such solemnity are:

The solemnity of the principal patron of the place, city or state
The solemnity of the dedication or anniversary of the dedication of one's own church
The solemnity of the title of one's own church (the mystery or saint to which it is dedicated)
The solemnity of either the title or the founder of a religious institute

For example, if a diocese's patron saint is Mary under the Title of Immaculate Conception (like my diocese), the feast of Immaculate Conception is celebrated on December 08 in that diocese alone when the rest of the Church celebrated the Advent Sunday.
(Just of of curiosity: //festive round of Stabat Mater// Isn't Stabat Mater suppose to be a sorrowful song?? )


What does "people of good will" mean in Encyclicals? Many encyclicals are directed not only to Catholics but to all "people of good will". Just a few examples:

Laudato si:

  Why should this document, addressed to all people of good will, include a chapter dealing with ...

Pacem in Terram:

  [...] and to the Clergy and Faithful of the entire Catholic World, and to all Men of Good Will.

Populorum Progressio:

  To the Bishops, Priests, Religious, and Faithful of the Whole Catholic World, and to All Men of Good Will.

Is there an official understanding by the Catholic church of what people of good will mean?

I searched through the Cathecism, but the two references to good-will that exists are not related to the above. I also searched the Catholic Encyclopedia, without success.

This use is generally a reference to the Greater Doxology which goes, in its second verse, "et in terra pax hominibus bonae voluntatis": "And peace on Earth to the people of good will."

This is a translation of (part of) Lk 2:14, which goes in Greek "καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς εἰρήνη ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκίας": "And on Earth peace, to men good will", which has a slightly different sense. The Latin translation is traditionally attributed to St. Hilary of Poitiers in the mid-4th Century. This translation predates the Vulgate, but this part shows up the same in the Vulgate (in the previous verse, Jerome says in altissimis Deo where Hilary says in excelsis Deo).

Following the sense of the Greater Doxology and of the Scriptural passage, "men of good will" is a reference to those men who are well disposed to hear the Word of God and take it to heart, and who are referred to by the angels in the Gospel.


Is there precedent for a carnivorous interpretation of Genesis 1:30? Hugh Ross and others of the old-Earth creationist organization Reasons to Believe, who claim to have a literal interpretation of Genesis, believe that Adam and Eve were vegetarian before the Fall (Genesis 1:29), but that carnivorous animals of today were carnivorous then as well. They say that Genesis 1:30:

  And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.” And it was so.

is stating that all of Earth's major ecosystems are based on green plant life, and is not saying that all animals were herbivores.

Is there any historical or linguistic precedent for this interpretation? In other words, did any Jewish or early Christian scholars interpret Genesis 1:30 as anything like this? If so, what linguistic subtleties do they point to that results in a carnivorous interpretation of 1:30, but a non-carnivorous interpretation of the preceding verse?

If you don't mind me referencing Rashi, a French Medieval rabbi, his understanding of Genesis 1:30 makes note that both humans and animals were on the same footing with regard to food.

Nothing is explicitly stated about how both humans and animals before the fall would otherwise acquire their nutrients, i.e., if humans were omnivores and if carnivores were carnivorous. After the flood, God permits humans to eat all living things, which includes meats. (Gen. 9:3)

It's worth noting in Genesis 4 that animal offerings were a thing and after the fall, Adam and Eve were given clothing from animals. In any case, whether or not carnivores were carnivorous is speculative as the text isn't explicit.


Sisters giving the concluding talk in a sacrament meeting, where did my source go? Broad context: I have seen at least one question on this site asking about the customs in LDS meetings regarding women, and this question sometimes comes up offline as well. I think I remember, not too long ago (2013 or 2014), I read or heard official communication reminding/ stating that there is no objection to women giving concluding talks in a sacrament meeting (I am certain the notion that priesthood holders should have "the last word" in a meeting didn't just creep in in my ward).

But when looking for that communication on lds.org, I didn't find it. I thought it was a letter from the First Presidency, but I think I would have found that. I didn't find it in the handbook either. Did something like this get mentioned in a world-wide leadership training or the General Conference? Does anyone know what I am looking for, or does my memory fail me here?

I believe you have misremembered in this case.

LDS First Presidency letters to all members used to be available at http://www.ldschurchnews.com/letters, which now redirects to Deseret News. It seems http://www.ldschurchnewsarchive.com/letters has the former content of that site.

The First Presidency never issued a general statement on women giving or not giving the last address of a sacrament meeting.

FYI, two points about this tendency:

It is highly customary for talks from visiting authorities such as High Councilors or Stake Presidents to come at the end of a meeting. These are always men.
For the rest of the of the time, as you pointed out, it is most common for men to give the last address, though there's no policy for or against this. There's no real reason other than habit.

Another gender-based order (this time, in reverse) that is common in some places is for men to give the invocation, and women to give the benediction -- thus allowing women get the last last word ;)


How can a Christian effectively explain the seeming contradiction between Gen 1:31 and Gen 6:6? Gen 1:31 (KJV)

  And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

Gen 6:6 (KJV)

  And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart

The heart of the accusation seems to stem from the literal interpretation of the language. The first passage suggests that God is satisfied in his works while the second suggest that God is dissatisfied with his works. How should each of the scriptural passages be interpreted in light of each other and within their own context?

The specific translation used here isn't necessarily the translation that must be used.

I know that this question could be applicable to the Bible Heuristics site, and if the nature of answers suggests that to be the best approach I will move it there.

The answer to your question is really quite simple. God said that what He created was very good indeed (or really good, or better than good) prior to the fall of man and woman.
With the fall of our first parents, both they and the world they inhabited were spoiled permanently. Paul wrote that

". . . the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now" (Romans 8:20-22 NASB Updated Version).

That spoliation became worse and worse, to the point where God "repented" of His having created humans in His image. Remember, the Bible tells us that humanity had become so depraved that

". . . every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually" (6:5).

Think of the "absolute" terms in that verse:

every intent

only evil

and evil continually

This may sound flip, but if I were God, I would've wanted to

". . . 'blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky; for I am sorry that I have made them.'"

The good news, however, comes in verse 8, which is certainly a pivotal verse in Genesis:

"BUT Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD."

In conclusion, what God created good, man spoiled. There is no contradiction between these two facts.
Take a homely analogy. Cancer is ravaging a person's intestinal tract. The only recourse is to remove the cancerous intestines and transplant into the body of the cancer patient the healthy intestines from an organ donor who has just died. Is the transplant cruel or unfair, or does it contradict the Hippocratic Oath in any way? Of course not. Out with the diseased body part, and in with the healthy body part, to give the cancer survivor a new lease on life. He or she will still die, but their life could be extended for many years.


To the LCMS Lutherans, how is the Bible the word of God? A. The Bible is the Word of God.
(means, all the words we read are the Words of God)

B. The Bible contains the Word of God.
(means, not all the words we read are the Words of God)

C. other than A and B.

Example :

  I decided that while I was with you I would forget everything except
  Jesus Christ, the one who was crucified

The speaker is human, the Apostle.
The question is : are those words above the words of God ?

To me, the answer is no. Those words are the words of human not the words of God.

If I say that those words are the words of God, --->

then (X) the "I" in those words means God himself ---->

Then (Y) it become : through the mouth of the Apostle, God tell the hearers/readers that He (capital H) decided while He was with them, He would forget everything except His Second Person of His Trinity, the one who was crucified.

Because X and Y to me feel awkward, I conclude [not all the words we read in the Bible are the Words of God]. Then it's B. But this is only my own logic.

That's why I would like to know :
according to the LCMS is it A ? B ? or C?
If C, what is it ?

Thank you.

View A reflects the LCMS view.

  We believe, teach and confess that all Scripture is given by the inspiration of God the Holy Spirit and that God is therefore the true Author of every word of Scripture.  [Emphasis mine]

Concerning the use of the personal pronoun 'l', this may be on point:

  We therefore reject the following views:
  ...
  That the Holy Spirit did not inspire the actual words of the Biblical authors but merely provided these men with special guidance....

Further, the LCMS acknowledges that this position is not explicitly stated in the Book of Concord, but believes it to be the correct, historical Lutheran position:

  We recognize that the Lutheran Confessions contain no distinct article on the nature of Holy Scripture and its interpretation, but we acknowledge and accept the confessional understanding of the nature of Holy Scripture and of the proper theological principles for its interpretation.


Where does Augustine say that Adam and Eve were in Eden for just six hours before sinning? In Calvin's Commentary on Genesis, he spends some time dealing with the question of how long Adam and Eve were in the garden of Eden together before they sinned.  He writes:

  The opinion has been pretty generally received, that they fell on the day they were created; and, therefore Augustine writes, that they stood only for six hours. (commentary on Genesis 3:6)

I haven't been able to confirm that Augustine actually wrote this.  I have found mention of six hours in Dante's Paradiso (Canto 26), but so far nothing from Augustine.

Did Augustine say six hours, and if so, where?

Did Augustine say six hours, and if so, where?

Probably not.

  Finally, Calvin erroneously claims Augustine for the view that Adam
  and Eve fell after a mere six hours. (emphasis added)

This is from John Calvin: Student of the Church Fathers1 in which Lane references Saint Augustin dans l’oeuvre de Jean Calvin2

1. John Calvin: Student of the Church Fathers (Anthony N. S. Lane, A&C Black, Jan 1, 1999, p.220)
2. Saint Augustin dans l’oeuvre de Jean Calvin (Luchesius Smits,
 Van Gorcum, 1957)


How do the Eastern Orthodox interpret this verse from Psalm 69:3? O God, be attentive unto helping me; O Lord, make haste to help me.
  Let them be shamed and confounded that seek after my soul.
  Let them be turned back and brought to shame that desire evils against me.
  Let them be turned back straightway in shame that say unto me: Well done! Well done!
  Let them be glad and rejoice in Thee all that seek after Thee, O God,
  and let them that love Thy salvation say continually: The Lord be magnified.
  But as for me, I am poor and needy; O God, come unto mine aid.
  My helper and my deliverer art Thou, O Lord; make no long tarrying.
  (Psalm 69, The Psalter according to the Seventy, Psalm 70:3 in Western Bibles)

What is meant by "Well done. Well done."?

I am interested in answers from authorised Eastern Orthodox sources.

In writing about this particular verse in his Exposition on the Psalms, Augustine understands that those who tell us "Well done, Well done" are flatterers, whom he classifies as a different sort of persecutor:

  Two are the kinds of persecutors, revilers and flatterers.  The tongue
  of the flatterer doth more persecute than the hand of the slayer: for
  this also the Scripture hath called a furnace. Truly when the
  Scripture was speaking of persecution, it said, Like gold in a
  furnace it hath proved them (speaking of Martyrs being slain), and
  as the holocaust’s victim it hath received them [Wisdom 3:6]. Hear
  how even the tongue of flatterers is of such sort: The proving, he
  saith, of silver and of gold is fire; but a man is proved by the
  tongue of men praising him [Proverbs 27:21]. That is fire, this also
  is fire: out of both thou oughtest to go forth safe. The censurer hath
  broken thee, thou hast been broken in the furnace like an earthen
  vessel. The Word hath moulded thee, and there hath come the trial of
  tribulation: that which hath been formed, must needs be seasoned; if
  it hath been well moulded, there hath come the fire to strengthen.
  Whence He said in the Passion, Dried up like a potsherd hath been My
  virtue [Psalm 21:15]. For Passion and the furnace of tribulation had
  made Him stronger.…