What does it mean for a priest 'to lose faith'? In some movies, often comedies but sometimes not, they show a priest who is experiencing certain troubles/suffering because he 'has lost his faith'. It is possible, in the course of the movie, that the priest 'restores his faith'.

I wonder if such a losing/restoring process has been described more formally in the Bible or elsewhere.

Secondly, I wonder what is the impact on those people to whom the priest preaches, or otherwise serves, while he is in the state of 'having lost his faith'.

In short, it sucks.  It sucks eggs. Really. It's like believing the Gospel, but not having any grace to go with it.

The biggest problem with "losing one's faith" is that your moral compass remains unchanged.  Unlike what I suspect many can do - namely ignore their own internal compass - priests are, by and large, a self-selected lot. People who are attracted to the priestly vocations have a strong sense of right and wrong, and at least in my case, I have a physical reaction to it. At the risk of having too graphic an image, when I act in a way that is contrary to my internal sense of ethics (call it the opposite of integrity), I feel that pain in my stomach that is felt when you need to throw up, but can't.  My heart pounds, my stomach turns, and I feel ill. Stressed seems so quaint a term.  Trust me, its physical.

Jeremiah 20:9 has the prophet telling God:

  But if I say, "I will not mention him or speak any more in his name," his word is in my heart like a fire, a fire shut up in my bones. I am weary of holding it in; indeed, I cannot.

For many of us, real honesty is fundamental to that integrity.  We cannot preach that which we do not believe, lest that feeling arise. Were losing that honesty and commitment to transparency and integrity something that was lost along with one's belief, it would be easy. We would merely be actors playing a part. Being a charlatan or a hypocrite would have no hold on us. But no, sadly, if its your job to preach and minister, you still have to do it.

I would suggest that there are three categories of "losing one's faith," and there are different effects of each.  Hebrews 11:6 says,

  "Who ever would come to God must

  believe that he exists and
  believe he rewards those who do good."

Using that verse as an outline, I would suggest that as Tolstoy said, "Happy [Christians] are all happy alike. But miserable [Christians] are each miserable in their own way."

Category 1a would be what is often called "the long, dark night of the soul."

Many Christian leaders, from Mother Teresa to Billy Graham echo the sentiment of the Middle Ages mystic who describe a period in which God seems to simply be silent. In these cases, the work of ministry is merely a drudge, devoid of the music that God brings.  I would argue this is the least "bad" of the categories of losing one's faith.  No one suggests that God is anything but silent. Your moral compass remains, your theology is in tact, and your ministry can continue as leader and teacher. Individually, it just becomes a matter of work like anything else. You do what you need to do, you don't violate your conscience, and you just eagerly anticipate God's return, both in your life and the next.
Category 1b would be the full on rejection of God's existence.

NPR had an amazingly good story about a Methodist minister who became an atheist.. In that story, she describes the same gut-wrenching feeling that I describe, and speaks of the consequences in her life.  She describes how she came to the rationalization that God is a myth. (If you will forgive the commentary, it seems a natural extension of too cereberal and metaphorical a faith.  It can be a very natural progression from mythic to myth.) In her case, she got up and addressed a convention of atheists, much to the applause of that body, but was then somehow astonished that her temporal boss - the Methodist bishop, fired her.  Grant you, if I spoke glowingly about a competitors product at the competitor's function and urged everyone to ditch my own company in favor of the competition, I would expect to be fired too, but I digress. The point is in that instance, she was able to find both solace and connection in a new group of "believers" (albeit atheist believers), and restore her sense of integrity.  For her, "losing her faith" was simply a job change, and in this day and age, job changes are easy.

In my case as a Baptist minister who found himself desiring a stronger liturgy, changing from the Baptist denomination to the Episcopal one was fairly easy.  I could preach as I wanted, and I could continue to minister. Different clothes but the same God. It doesn't turn your world upside down to modify your faith. It's different when it breaks.
Category 2 is the one that sucks the most.  It says, "God exists, but he is not good."

That is my current dilemma. I won't bore you with the details, but suffice it to say that the circumstances of my life have made it increasingly difficult to believe that God is good. I can only hold on secure in the knowledge that I am not yet ready to "curse God and die," but I'm beginning to like Job's wife a lot more than Job.

You see, it's real work to maintain a love for a God whom you secretly hate. A double-minded man is unstable in all his ways. When a minister loses his faith, the job is the easy part.  Pastors, of course, tend to find alternative employment (I know of one who, after leaving his wife - my college friend and a girl I considered marrying! - became a used car salesman.  Talk about about transferrable skills!).  They do this because they cannot be honest with themselves in ministry.

No, the hard part isn't the money but the music.  You see, for me, God's love is like music. I can live without it, but life lacks color. It lacks joy. I know in turning my back on Him, I turn my back on myself too. I lack purpose, I lack ... music.  I am left only with that gnawing pit in my stomach: Insufficent to expurgate, but sufficient to cause distress. Were I able to deny the existence of God, I could rewrite my life. Absent that, I left in a state of limbo that churns against my very core.

In my case, I console myself with the last lines of "Come, Thou Fount of Every Blessing."  The hymn writer himself was once a pastor, but also gave it up to, in his words, "chase after worldly things."  He so eloquently phrases it:

  Prone to wander, Lord I feel it - Prone to leave the God I love. Here's my heart, O take and seal it, seal it to thy courts above!

If only, I think. If only.  You can imagine how much it sucks to know the music, and yet be bereft of the assurance that it will come to pass. I personally tend to "blow hot and cold," preaching to myself (really the main I reason I preach!) the goodness of God, hoping only that I can convince myself of that fact.  If only I were a better preacher :)

So that, my friend, is what it means to lose one's faith. It is to choose a personal hell in which you get hit on both sides. You become your own worst enemy, and you cannot rest.

If you will forgive the Ferris Beueller riff, "I most heartily do not recommend it."


What is the basis for saying that the Antichrist, man of lawlessness, and the beast of Revelation 13 are all the same? It is generally assumed that the Antichrist, the man of lawlessness, and the beast in Revelation 13 all refer to the same end-time enemy of God.

What is the basis for this assumption?

Irenaeus, a disciple of Polycarp who was a disciple of John, gave these reasons in the second century when the apostolic teaching was fresh in the church.

  And for this reason the apostle says: “Because they received not the love of God, that they might be saved, therefore God shall also send them the operation of error, that they may believe a lie, that they all may be judged who have not believed the truth, but consented to unrighteousness.”   [2 Thess. ii. 10–12.]  For when he (Antichrist) is come, and of his own accord concentrates in his own person the apostasy, and accomplishes whatever he shall do according to his own will and choice, sitting also in the temple of God, so that his dupes may adore him as the Christ; wherefore also shall he deservedly “be cast into the lake of fire:” [Rev. xix. 20.]  [this will happen according to divine appointment], God by His prescience foreseeing all this, and at the proper time sending such a man, “that they may believe a lie, that they all may be judged who did not believe the truth, but consented to unrighteousness;” whose coming John has thus described in the Apocalypse: “And the beast which I had seen was like unto a leopard, and his feet as of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion; and the dragon conferred his own power upon him, and his throne, and great might. And one of his heads was as it were slain unto death; and his deadly wound was healed, and all the world wondered after the beast. And they worshipped the dragon because he gave power to the beast; and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto this beast, and who is able to make war with him? And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things, and blasphemy and power was given to him during forty and two months. And he opened his mouth for blasphemy against God, to blaspheme His name and His tabernacle, and those who dwell in heaven. And power was given him over every tribe, and people, and tongue, and nation. And all who dwell upon the earth worshipped him, [every one] whose name was not written in the book of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. If any one have ears, let him hear. If any one shall lead into captivity, he shall go into captivity. If any shall slay with the sword, he must be slain with the sword. Here is the endurance and the faith of the saints.” [Rev. xiii. 2], etc.  After this he likewise describes his armour-bearer, whom he also terms a false prophet: “He spake as a dragon, and exercised all the power of the first beast in his sight, and caused the earth, and those that dwell therein, to adore the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed. And he shall perform great wonders, so that he can even cause fire to descend from heaven upon the earth in the sight of men, and he shall lead the inhabitants of the earth astray.”  [Rev. xiii. 11, etc.]  Let no one imagine that he performs these wonders by divine power, but by the working of magic. And we must not be surprised if, since the demons and apostate spirits are at his service, he through their means performs wonders, by which he leads the inhabitants of the earth astray. John says further: “And he shall order an image of the beast to be made, and he shall give breath to the image, so that the image shall speak; and he shall cause those to be slain who will not adore it.” He says also: “And he will cause a mark [to be put] in the forehead and in the right hand, that no one may be able to buy or sell, unless he who has the mark of the name of the beast or the number of his name; and the number is six hundred and sixty-six,” [Rev. xiii. 14, etc.]  that is, six times a hundred, six times ten, and six units. [He gives this] as a summing up of the whole of that apostasy which has taken place during six thousand years.
  Book V. Chapter XXVIII.—The distinction to be made between the righteous and the wicked. The future apostasy in the time of Antichrist, and the end of the world.


What is "jubilee(s)"? My Mother in her 90s and in treatment for Alzheimers would frequently go into a state of trance and chant about going to jubilee.

Does "jubilee" or "going to jubilee" refer to heaven or eternity in Christianity?

In the Hebrew Bible, Jubilee refers to a set of practices around forgiveness of debts and restoration of land. Basically, every 7 years the people were supposed to hold a "sabbath" for the land and rest from farming. Then in the 50th year (the year after the 7th Sabbath/Sabbatical Year), all land ownership was supposed to resort to it's original tribes/clans/families, all debts be forgiven, all slaves set free, and a general year of celebration and festivity observed. This was known as the "Jubilee Year." See Leviticus 25 for a description of how this was supposed to work.

It's not originally a description of heaven, but it's an image a lot of later Biblical writers would use to describe "heaven" or "the kingdom" or "salvation" and other similar concepts. For example, Isaiah 61 talks about the deliverance of the people by God as the "year of the Lord's favor" when the captives are set free, the cities rebuilt, and the people are too busy celebrating to tend their own flocks, which sounds a lot like the Jubilee year. So Jubilee takes on more meaning as an image of what heaven is supposed to be like.


Why do Catholics teach that Catholics go to hell if they die in a state of mortal sin, but teach some Protestants may go to Purgatory/Heaven? I have heard, according to Roman Catholic professors and dogma, that if we die with a mortal sin on our soul we will go to hell. However, didn't Pope Benedict XVI say that Protestants can achieve heaven? Most Protestants will never receive Reconciliation, so doesn't this imply that those who have mortal sin can still achieve heaven?

The following, represents the Roman Catholic Church, not the context of a document taken out of time condemning active heretics, those who rebelled as Satan did, but those who fell victim to that rebellion.

The affirmation "outside the Church there is no salvation" is explained in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (§846-848) as follows:How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body: Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his Body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.

This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church: Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience—those too may achieve eternal salvation.

Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men.

This situation, although possible, is not nor should it be even remotely considered likely Only possible.

Much of this answer was borrowed from Catholic Answers at Catholic.com.


What are the responses to the "Radical's Critics" argument concerning Genesis 1 and 2? The Radical's Critics argue that there is a discrepancy between the Genesis 1 account of creation and the Genesis 2 account, and thus proving that the doctrine of inerrancy is false.

Has this been addressed by Apologists, and if so, what is the response given by them?

From The Creation Narratives

  "When it is realized that there are two distinct creation stories in
  Genesis belonging to two different periods and derived from two
  different sources, inconsistency becomes intelligible. That it exists
  at all, however, is sufficient to discredit a theory of divine
  inspiration that is obviously out of accord with the facts”.

Since you didn't specify which perspective you're looking for (other than the view of skeptics, which is off-topic considering this site is meant to cover what Christian groups teach), I'm going to provide an answer from a Fundamentalist view - one that holds Scripture to be inspired, inerrant, and infallible.

Before doing so, I need to point out, however, that this site is not here to discuss which view is correct.  We're here to provide answers about what is taught, and believed, not whether the teaching or belief is valid.  I'm going to stick strictly to that guideline here.

Also, There are plenty of Christians that regard the Genesis account as allegory, rather than as actual recorded history. The view is that the Genesis account is along the lines of one of Aesop's fables (or maybe as one of Jesus' parables) - a fictional story with a teaching purpose.  For those that hold such a view, the idea that there is an apparent discrepancy doesn't at all pose a problem.  It wouldn't affect  the doctrine of inspiration at all.  A discrepancy here would only affect those who hold to a literal interpretation of the genesis account (A.K.A. Young-Earth Creationists).  For Young-Earth Creationists, this would pose a problem.

But again, I remind you that this site is not here to debate "who's right".  The answer I'm about to give is not intended to convince anyone that there is no discrepancy, that the Y.E.C. view is correct, etc.  It is merely to provide the answer that would come from someone with that particular perspective.

(That's a lot of disclaimers.  Sorry about that, it's often necessary on this site with this topic.)

Part 1: Is there a discrepancy?

The typical answer to this apparent discrepancy uses common Apologetic rules for resolving apparent discrepancies.  Those rules are summarized on another question on this site:  Rules behind resolving alleged Biblical discrepancies.  These rules are designed to avoid logical fallacies, and keep both sides honest.

Summarizing the ones relevant to this question:

In all logical arguments, the burden of proof must be on the person that is claiming that something exists.

It's impossible to prove the non-existence of something, because you'd have to know everything.  It is possible to claim that something exists because you need only find one example as proof.
If we were discussing "Does God exist" the burden of proof would be on the Christian to prove His existence.
In this case, the question is "does a discrepancy exist?" so the burden of proof is on the person claiming that there is a discrepancy.

If a single plausible explanation for the discrepancy exists, then you have not proved a discrepancy.  the explanation may not be personally convincing to you, but that is irrelevant.  (And again, on this site, we're not here to convince you.)
Many Biblical discrepancies are resolved by simply understanding the context of the passages.  Failure to understand context of certain passages is by far the most common cause of misunderstandings.

With that, let's take a look at how CARM - an organization that meets all of the criteria for being Young-Earth creationists that hold to a literal interpretation of the genesis account, including Books one and two.  On their article on this question, they list all of the apparent discrepancies, and then provide the following answer:

  There is no contradiction between Genesis 1 and 2. Genesis 1 is a
  detailed explanation of the six days of creation, day by day. Genesis
  two is a recap and a more detailed explanation of the sixth day, the
  day that Adam and Eve were made. The recap is stated in Gen. 2:4,
  "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were
  created, in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven." Then,
  Moses goes on to detail the creation of Adam and Eve as is seen in
  verses 7 thru 24 of Gen. 2. Proof that it is not a creative account is
  found in the fact that animals aren't even mentioned until after the
  creation of Adam. Why? Probably because their purpose was designated
  by Adam. They didn't need to be mentioned until after Adam was
  created.

Creation.com puts it like this (One quote out of a rather large article):

  Genesis chapters 1 and 2 are not therefore separate contradictory
  accounts of creation. Chapter 1 is the ‘big picture’ and Chapter 2 is
  a more detailed account of the creation of Adam and Eve and day six of
  creation.

Thus showing that the apparent contradiction could plausibly be simply a misunderstanding of the context, ignoring that the two accounts are given for a different purpose.

With a plausible explanation, we cannot, while remaining intellectually honest, say that a contradiction exists.  No contradiction has been proven.  You can find the explanation personally unsatisfying, and unconvincing, and still believe that a contradiction exists, but that is a different thing than proving a contradiction.

So at best, you can have an unsubstantiated belief that there is a contradiction here.  Last time I checked, skeptics were pretty smug about not adhering to unsubstantiated beliefs.

Part 2: What is the Radical's Critics case?

The Radical Critics case is, therefore, a flawed argument based on logical fallacy and a misinterpretation of the context.

The statement

  “When it is realized that there are two distinct creation stories in
  Genesis belonging to two different periods and derived from two
  different sources, inconsistency becomes intelligible. That it exists
  at all, however, is sufficient to discredit a theory of divine
  inspiration that is obviously out of accord with the facts.”

is rendered moot by the application of consistent rules of interpretation as demonstrated above, as applied to the extreme literal view of Genesis.

It's even more ignorant when you factor in the fact that many Christians believe the creation account to be allegorical with no impact on the doctrine of inerrancy.  Even for fundamentals, the existence of allegory, hyperbole, and other literary devices has no impact on the doctrine of inerrancy.  The arguments put forth claiming that a difference in the two accounts invalidates the inerrancy doctrine is a clear example of the straw-man logical faccacy.

All in all, the arguments hold no water and are easily shown to be ignorant, at best, or intentionally using straw-man arguments while ignoring basic logic at worst.  Either way, they hold no validity when examined without the use of logical fallacy.


What's the difference between judging God and questioning God? In my answer to Can man judge whether God is fair?, I gave an example of the prophet Habakkuk questioning God in a judgmental way. God dealt with Habakkuk patiently, answering his questions.

On the other hand, as that question points out, there are people who judge God by deciding He is not fair that therefore should not be worshipped or trusted.

How do you draw the line between judging and questioning God?  Is it ok to question God, but not to judge Him?

Yes. In questioning God, we are admitting that his knowledge and wisdom is superior to ours:

“Why are you doing this?”
“This doesn’t make sense to me.”
“When will you rescue me from this situation?”

Whereas to judge him would be to assume that our knowledge and wisdom is superior:

“You are wrong to do this.”
“You’ve forgotten about ....”

It's a very thin line, but there is a line.


Why do there appear to be two very different variations of “tongues” in the New Testament? The first variety seemed to be without need for interpretation because all those who heard it heard their own language being spoken.

Acts 2:8 (NKJV):

  And how is it that we hear, each in our own language in which we were born?

The second one the church is warned not to utter without interpretation. Paul said in 1 Corinthians 14:28 (NKJV):

  But if there is no interpreter, let him keep silent in church, and let him speak to himself and to God.

And in 14:23:

  Therefore if the whole church comes together in one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those who are uninformed or un-believers, will they not say that you are out of your mind?

What makes the initial event different from the subsequent?

In reference to the Acts passage:

The believers speaking in native tongues is a throwback to a Midrash on the Sinai event when the Law was received.  The rabbinic retelling has Israel speaking in all the tongues of the world, meaning that this is a monumental act of GOD happening.  The gospel is here, guided by the spirit and is intended for all peoples of the world, thereby undoing the judgement of the tower of babel.

The midrash is from Midrash Tanhuma 26c, as referenced in the book Speaking in tongues: the New Testament evidence in context.

And in respect to the Corinthians passages:

They are In respect to the spirit of GOD speaking through someone for the building up and edification of the local church and therefore not necessarily with the intention of evangelism.  The Corinthians used to fake speaking in tounges because they wanted to be seen as spiritual but here Paul is putting an end to that by saying don't speak in tongues in church unless there is an interpreter.

Craig keener, a Pentecostal evangelical conservative scholar has a great commentary on this called 1 + 2 Corinthians, it's totally worth the money.


Similarities and differences between the priesthood of all believers and the LDS priesthood In the LDS Church, all men and older boys are encouraged to obtain the priesthood. Women are also encouraged to receive ordinances in the temple, which Joseph Smith described as entering into an "order of the priesthood" (see 1). Lay men and women have duties similar to ministers in other churches.

This seems quite similar to the idea of the "priesthood of all believers" or "universal priesthood" practiced in other churches, in which it is believed that all believers have the priesthood. Its organization seems to be more informal than the priesthood in the LDS Church.

What are the similarities and differences between these two concepts?

Disclaimer: My knowledge of "priesthood of all believers" is limited, what I write always reflects my understanding of the general doctrine and may differ between denominations.

Authority

Priesthood of all believers (as far as I understand):

All believers have the priesthood, meaning they can, for example baptise. No ordination required, the authority comes from the Holy Ghost.

LDS:

Priesthood is conferred by ordination of someone holding authority to do so (another priesthood holder). All worthy men may receive the priesthood, and are encouraged to do so. Priesthood also entails a convenant with God. Many priesthood holders have a list that traces back who ordained whom and can trace back their priesthood to Joseph Smith (and then, through Joseph Smith, to Peter, James and John and ultimately Jesus Christ himself).

Duty and service

Priesthood of all believers

While all lay people are priests, most congregations have professional ministers. Other functions are filled by the members of the congregation. Degree of central organization differs. Lutherans are very organized, Evangelicals supposedly less so. Since everyone is a priest, it is unclear if the priesthood entails any duties.

LDS

The priesthood entails well-defined duties (notably the ones in D&C 20) which express themselves in the congregational life, for example that every priesthood holder (except deacons) gets the responsibility to regularly visit and care for a number of member families (home teaching). The priesthood is also the reason why a mission is expected of a young adult man, but not of women (which can still go but don't share the same duty).

Everyone is serving in the church one way or another, the specific calling is given by the leadership (the bishop in case of a ward calling), and understood to be inspired. With the exception of Apostles, all callings end after a few years, at which point the person is assigned a different calling. Everyone is lay, including bishops and all higher positions. Anecdotally, my different bishops' professions over the years have included everything from bus driver to university professor.

Conclusion

So, the similarity is certainly that almost all men encountered in the church are priesthood holders. The difference is where the authority to act in God's name (the priesthood) is coming from. Churches which believe in "priesthood of all believers" derive their priesthood from the Holy Ghost. LDS believe that this is not enough, it must be transferred from someone that already has the authority to act in God's name.


According to Reformed Theology, how does one make disciples? According to Reformed Theology, how does one "make disciples"?  Are "making disciples" and "evangelizing" synonymous?

Evangelism is the act of telling someone about Jesus Christ, in the hope that they will convert to Christianity - i.e. that they will become believers in Jesus Christ.

A disciple is someone who is a follower - specifically someone who obeys and puts into practice the teaching of their master. Making a disciple involves teaching people - by education and example - to do what Jesus calls them to do. This is different from someone who is simply a believer. Although belief is a necessary first step to discipleship, someone who is just  a believer may do so without putting his teaching into practice.

Most people and churches who evangelize do hope and expect that their converts will become disciples, and to that extent there is a large overlap. Most churches will do both at least to some extent, and the difference becomes a matter of emphasis.

In the extreme case, a church with a very heavy focus on evangelism can treat their new converts as having 'arrived' i.e. learned and done everything they need to do (with the possible exception of making other converts). All their resources are focussed on the unconverted, seeking to bring them to a point of belief. A church with a strong discipleship focus will teach and mentor new converts more, so that they learn more and follow Jesus better - such teaching continuing for the whole life of a Christian.


Are there any differences between Jesus's commandments and God's commandments? I always read about Jesus's commandments as something new in the bible; those commandments changed the way Christians see the Moshe writings.

The bible  commentaries in this page of Rev 14:12 don't explain about the commandments of God, where saints keep them and have the faith of Jesus, nothing about  Jesus's commandments. So, there are any difference or are the same?

Doubting Thomas said it well in his comment: "Jesus was just elaborating on God's Commandments from the OT; revealing their true meaning.". In that spirit, here's my elaboration.

In Matthew 5:21-48, there are six it has been said statements:

Do not murder
Do not commit adultery
Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce
Do not break your oath
Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth
Love your neighbor and hate your enemy

In each case, Jesus says a little word, "but", and then goes one huge step further. Just to take the last one as an example:

  You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

See the above verses or the full chapter for more.

Finally, note that Jesus Himself saw no difference. As He mentions just before the above verses:

  Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

Matthew 5:17-18


Was Judas a partaker of the feet washing by Jesus? When Jesus washed his disciples feet in John 13, did he wash Judas' feet as well? If he did, does this not mean that Judas has a part in the salvation of Christ?

  John 13:8:  Peter saith unto him, Thou shalt never wash my feet. Jesus answered him, If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me.

Well except that verse 27-30 happened before the washing of the feet...

  John 13:27:  And after the sop Satan entered into him. Then said Jesus unto him, That thou doest, do quickly.

There is nothing in John 13:5 to exclude Judas from the foot washing.  (This was part-way through the meal, v2.)

Further, it is when the foot washing was complete (v21) that Jesus begins to tell the disciples some final truths, including that one of them was about to betray the Messiah.

Therefore, I see no need to re-arrange the order of the events as portrayed in John 13.  Even if the rite of bread and wine came after Judas left, the fact that someone participates in the communion, or not, does not guarantee their salvation (or otherwise)as Judas clearly rejected Christ's offer.

Thus, John 13 records that Judas had Jesus wash his feet, but Matt 26:25, 26 might imply (without saying) that Judas left before the rite of bread and wine.  However, Luke 22:14-23 might also imply that it was after the rite of bread and wine that Judas left.


How do seventh day Sabbatarians explain the lack of Sabbath observing following Spirit led revivals? Thinking a lot about the controversial matter of whether Christians should keep the Sabbath in a strict literal sense (from sunset Friday to sunset Saturday), after looking at the problem from different angles I had a sort of "Eureka moment". This is the insight: if keeping the Sabbath is a moral duty, and breaking it is as immoral as raping, killing, stealing or fornication, you would expect the Holy Spirit to quickly convict someone about the immorality of such an act and lead the person to repentance and adoption of Sabbath observance. This is a no-brainer. Thus, this led me to ask myself: "Ok, so let's look at the evidence. Where am I more likely to find records of what happens when the Holy Spirit moves? Oh wait, in revivals!". Yes. So I decided to look at the outcomes of most revivals I knew about, looking for any evidence of widespread adoption of Sabbath observance (an outcome you would predict to happen if breaking the literal observance of the Sabbath is indeed immoral). However, after doing some investigation on the matter, I couldn't find a single instance of a revival in which Sabbath observance (from sunset Friday to sunset Saturday) was a widespread outcome.
I'm listing below some examples of revivals to illustrate the point:

Uganda's Revival: no widespread Sabbath (sunset Friday to sunset Saturday) observance.
The First Great Awakening: no widespread Sabbath (sunset Friday to sunset Saturday) observance.
The Second Great Awakening: no widespread Sabbath (sunset Friday to sunset Saturday) observance.
The Third Great Awakening: no widespread Sabbath (sunset Friday to sunset Saturday) observance.
1904–1905 Welsh revival: no widespread Sabbath (sunset Friday to sunset Saturday) observance.
Azusa Street Revival: no widespread Sabbath (sunset Friday to sunset Saturday) observance.
Pyongyang Revival: no widespread Sabbath (sunset Friday to sunset Saturday) observance.
Watchman Nee's revivalist ministry: no widespread Sabbath (sunset Friday to sunset Saturday) observance.
Brownsville Revival: no widespread Sabbath (sunset Friday to sunset Saturday) observance.
1949 Argentina Revival: no widespread Sabbath (sunset Friday to sunset Saturday) observance.
1954 Argentina Revival: no widespread Sabbath (sunset Friday to sunset Saturday) observance.
Argentine Revival with Carlos Annacondia: no widespread Sabbath (sunset Friday to sunset Saturday) observance.
Argentine Revival with Claudio Freidzon (check out this book also): no widespread Sabbath (sunset Friday to sunset Saturday) observance.

What explanation do seventh day Sabbatarians provide for the lack of strict seventh day Sabbath observing following so many revivals (in which the Holy Spirit is claimed to have moved) throughout history? If breaking the Sabbath is a terrible sin, shouldn't we expect that the Holy Spirit would quickly lead people to repentance and Sabbath keeping? Then how come we don't see that happening in so many revivals?

This is actually the same time that the Seventh-day Adventist church began.  It came out of revivals in the 1800's
Starting in 1844 after the disappointment of the millerite movement.
Joseph Bates who was one of the first to be convinced of the Sabbath and was a revivalist preacher. See: (Joseph Bates (8 July 1792 – 19 March 1872)
This combined with the understanding of Revelation 12:17 that there would only be a remnant of the church that would keep the commandments and have the testimony of Jesus.

And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the
remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the
testimony of Jesus Christ. - Rev 12:!7


Does a Christian have a responsibility to participate in government? I have heard it said many times that it is the responsibility of Christian to participate in their government, specifically that every Christian has the responsibility to vote. Is there some biblical justification for this belief? I know that the government of the US is dramatically different than what existed in Biblical times, but is there some precedent set forward by scripture that would validate this?

I am wondering about the US system of government specifically, as it is largely based around citizen participation, and as an American.

No, there is no Biblical imperative for us to participate in government in the way you describe.  The New Testament doesn't say much about our relationship with government, because the emphasis is on our membership in Christ.  We are to be less concerned with things of the world, and more concerned with the things of God.

Here's what the Bible does say about our relationship to government:

Give to Caesar what is Caesar's

  Luke 20:22-25 (ESV)
  22  Is it lawful for us to give  tribute to  Caesar, or not?” 23  But he perceived their  craftiness, and said to them, 24  “Show me  a denarius. Whose likeness and inscription does it have?” They said, “Caesar's.” 25  He said to them, “Then  render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.”

Jesus is saying here that since we do live under the authority of a human government, we ought to honor that authority.  This is not an imperative to participate in government, but it is an imperative to obey our government (when it does not conflict with our obedience to God, of course).  In this case, Jesus is referring to paying taxes, but I believe that the principle applies to honoring government laws and regulations in general.

Submit to authorities

  1 Peter 2:13-15 (ESV)
  13   Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, 14  or to governors as sent by him  to punish those who do evil and  to praise those who do good. 15  For this is the will of God,  that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people.

  Romans 13:1 (ESV)
  13 Let every person  be subject to the governing authorities. For  there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.

Again, we ought to submit to authorities.  And again, there is no indication here that we ought to participate in government - only that we ought to submit to it.

Our true citizenship is in heaven

  Philippians 3:20 (ESV)
  20  But  our citizenship is in heaven, and  from it we  await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ,

Although we are under the authority of earthly governments, we ought to remember that our true citizenship is in heaven.  Participation in earthly government, while acceptable, should not be our focus.


According to the Southern Baptist Convention, what is the biblical basis for involving the church in politics? I live in Kentucky, and a predominant preacher in this state is a man named Paul Chitwood, who is the executive director of the Kentucky Baptist Convention. In 2015, Chitwood wrote an article called Kentucky Baptist and marijuana. My concern is not whether a child should be taken from their parents for consuming a plant that’s less harmful than sugar.

According to the Southern Baptist Convention, what is the Biblical basis for using the government’s aggression against people who do not live up to their own ideological standards- such as people with dependency issues?

The Southern Baptist Convention in the Public Sphere

There is no evidence that the SBC believes itself to be barred from issues relating to public policy, and there is much evidence to the contrary.  First, let's look at the SBC's understanding of the Resolutions it issues (emphasis mine):

  [...] Covering a wide range of theological, social, and practical topics,
  resolutions educate our own people about important moral, ethical, and
  public policy issues; speak to the broader culture about our beliefs;
  and provide helpful tools for our churches and entities to speak with
  authority in the public square about the biblical application of
  timely and timeless matters. [...]

  -Southern Baptist Convention: A Closer Look

Other Examples of the SBC opining on Public Policy

Let me give four easy examples of official SBC resolutions which relate to public policy and were given in the last three years:

Resolution on Immigration (2018)
Resolution on Defunding and Investigating Planned Parenthood (2017)
Resolution on Freedom of the Press (2016)
Resolution on Women Registering for the Draft (2016)

Concluding Answer

Paul Chitwood believes that the legalization of marijuana will have a detrimental effect on the well being of children.  He therefore decided to publicize and garner support for this issue within the churches of the SBC.  His decision to involve the SBC in a question of public policy is consistent with the stated principles of the SBC and is also consistent with SBC precedent.

(While I acknowledge that this answer is not Biblical, it does draw on official SBC sources as requested by the original questioner's bounty description, "Looking for an answer drawing from credible and/or official sources."  Given the theocratic nature of all cultures found within the Bible, seeking Biblical support on this issue may well be an anachronistic endeavor.)


Can a pope name his successor? Is it possible for a pope name his successor?

There are some that believed that the Prince of the Apostles, St Peter, actually named his successor, but this tradition can in no way be verified. There is also some disagreement that St Linus may not have been his first successor.

  All the ancient records of the Roman bishops which have been handed down to us by St. Irenaeus, Julius Africanus, St. Hippolytus, Eusebius, also the Liberian catalogue of 354, place the name of Linus directly after that of the Prince of the Apostles, St. Peter. These records are traced back to a list of the Roman bishops which existed in the time of Pope Eleutherus (about 174-189), when Irenaeus wrote his book “Adversus haereses”. As opposed to this testimony, we cannot accept as more reliable Tertullian’s assertion, which unquestionably places St. Clement (De praescriptione, xxii) after the Apostle Peter, as was also done later by other Latin scholars (Jerome, Illustrious Men 15). The Roman list in Irenaeus has undoubtedly greater claims to historical authority. This author claims that Pope Linus is the Linus mentioned by St. Paul in his 2 Timothy 4:21. The passage by Irenaeus (Against Heresies III.3.3) reads:

  After the Holy Apostles (Peter and Paul) had founded and set the Church in order (in Rome) they gave over the exercise of the episcopal office to Linus. The same Linus is mentioned by St. Paul in his Epistle to Timothy. His successor was Anacletus.

  We cannot be positive whether this identification of the pope as being the Linus mentioned in 2 Timothy 4:21 goes back to an ancient and reliable source, or originated later on account of the similarity of the name. - Pope St. Linus (67-76)

Traditionally there have been three ways the College of Cardinals could elect a new pope: election by acclamation  quasi ex inspiratione, election per compromissum and election of the Roman Pontiff by secret ballot.

In Pope John Paul's Apostolic Constitution UNIVERSI DOMINICI GREGIS, He suppressed the first two possible manners of electing a successor and the only way to elect a new pope is by secret ballot.

  Finally, I have deemed it necessary to revise the form of the election itself in the light of the present-day needs of the Church and the usages of modern society. I have thus considered it fitting not to retain election by acclamation  quasi ex inspiratione, judging that it is no longer an apt means of interpreting the thought of an electoral college so great in number and so diverse in origin. It also appeared necessary to eliminate election per compromissum, not only because of the difficulty of the procedure, evident from the unwieldy accumulation of rules issued in the past, but also because by its very nature it tends to lessen the responsibility of the individual electors who, in this case, would not be required to express their choice personally.

  After careful reflection I have therefore decided that the only form by which the electors can manifest their vote in the election of the Roman Pontiff is by secret ballot.

No where is it mentioned that a pope may name his successor personally. Can a pope actually name his successor before he dies?

This has happened in early times, but is not something likely to happen now. Pope Felix IV nominated his successor, Boniface II, although his papacy was disputed by some of the Roman electors. Boniface, in turn sought to nominate his own successor, but withdrew after strong opposition.


How is the Vulgate rendering of Romans 5:12 explained (Roman Catholic perspective)? The Greek text (Textus Receptus) of Romans 5:12 reads:

  δια τουτο ωσπερ δι ενος ανθρωπου η αμαρτια εις τον κοσμον εισηλθεν και
  δια της αμαρτιας ο θανατος και ουτως εις παντας ανθρωπους ο θανατος
  διηλθεν εφ ω παντες ημαρτον

Which one fairly literal translation (The Orthodox New Testament Praxapostolos) renders:

  Therefore, even as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and thus death passed to all men, on account of
  which all have sinned

But the Vulgate translates the final phrase ("on account of which all have sinned" - εφ ω παντες ημαρτον) as in quo omnes peccaverunt.  The Douay-Rheims translation of the Vulgate reads therefore:

  Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world and by sin death: and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.

The implication is that somehow all have sinned in Adam - i.e. they inherit the guilt of Adam's sin.  Unless I am misunderstanding the apparatus, there is no variant in the Greek text that supports this wording.  John Chrysostom - a 4th century Greek Doctor of the Roman Catholic Church - does not seem to interpret the verse this way in his homily on the passage.

My understanding is that the verse appeared this way in Latin in Augustine's De Peccato Originale, which also introduced the term "original sin" in the west, though perhaps that was not the first occurrence.

It seems that the Augustinian-Vulgate understanding of this verse has seeped into other English translations to various degrees.  While the King James is close to the literal translation above (And so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned), other translations follow more closely the Latin meaning.  The ESV and RSV state, for example, ... and so death spread to all men because all sinned (i.e. cause and effect are transposed).

Is there some reasoned explanation for the apparent departure of the Vulgate from the Greek text of Romans 5:12?

(Perhaps this should be posted in BH instead, but since the passage of interest touches on theological differences between Christians I thought to post it here.)

In this case, in quo is a very literal translation of the Greek ἐφ' ᾧ, which is preposition ἐπῐ́ ruling the dative article ᾧ. In Latin, ἐπῐ́ translates to in. As Quintillian said, "Noster sermo articulos non desiderat", our language does not use articles, so the article has to become something else. Here it becomes a relative pronoun, and goes to ablative to satisfy Latin syntax.

So much for linguistics; what does ἐπῐ́ + dative mean?  According to Wiktionary, which sources Liddell & Scott:

  (with dative)

  on, upon

    καθέζεται ἐπὶ θρόνῳ. //
    kathézetai epì thrónōi. //
    He sits down on the throne.

  in
  at, near
  over
  in honor of
  against
  in addition to, over, besides
  (with duplication of head noun) after

    ὄγχνη ἐπ’ ὄγχνῃ γηράσκει //
    ónkhnē ep’ ónkhnēi gēráskei //
    One pear after another ripens.

  in the power of
  according to
  (of conditions or circumstances) in, with
  (of time, never in proper Attic) at, on
  (of time) after
  (expressing a cause) on account of, for
  (expressing a purpose) for
  (of a condition) on
  for (i.e. in exchange for)
  (of a name) for
  in charge of

In all, 19 different senses. So which one of the 19 is right?  That depends on context, and different translators might validly pick different options here. The Praxapostolos you quoted picks sense 14, "(expressing a cause) on account of, for". The Latin in is closer to senses 1, 2 and 3.

Of course, the sentence must make sense theologically, so not all senses may be used, but if one does not start with a position where the sin of Adam cannot be the same original sin all inherit, then one can definitely come to this reading.


Under what conditions can a "good" or "charitable" act actually be sin? In spite of a prevalent cultural attitude towards sin that excuses misbehavior if a person had "good intentions", most Christian traditions do not seem to include the persons feelings in the matter when defining an action as sin or not. However the converse does not seem to be as frequently addressed. Are there Christian traditions that have specific teachings about a "good" action being still sinful under some conditions? If so, what are do these teachings consider the basis of sin and how would a worldly good dead not meet those conditions?

Lets use an example:

Where I live street beggars are common place. Just as common place is the act of fishing in ones pocket for a coin or two to leave with them. Where in any Christian traditions teaching would this be dealt with as a potential sin trap? How would these teachings define sin in such a way that even an act of deliberate charity could be considered sinful?

Note: For the purpose of this question we can rule out what the beggar chooses to do with the money. This isn't about unintended consequences of that action down the road. Likewise I would eliminate "sins of omission" from the discussion in so far as this isn't about what else I could have done with the money or what more good I could have done and didn't.

The Catholic position holds that for grave (mortal) sins, one must be fully aware of the sinful act and commit it with full intention of doing so. If you have not, then you aren't culpable. Venial (minor) sins, looking at the catechism, doesn't appear to be as clearly specified so I think it's reasonable to assume that these may be committed inadvertently. However, while social ramifications may occur despite your intentions and knowledge, they aren't necessarily incredibly serious offenses either. As mentioned in the Catechism:

1873 The root of all sins lies in man's heart. The kinds and the gravity of sins are determined principally by their objects.

So, if one commits an action that would be sinful, but has not sinned in one's heart (if it was unintentional or accidental through no fault of your own) then you are not culpable for the sin. Conversely, if one performs a good deed yet does so for reasons that are amoral, the person would have sinned.

An example of this would be Jesus' rebuke of the Pharisees. They acted according to the letter of the Law because they were commanded to uphold it. However, in their hearts, they harbored pride and greed, among other sinful thoughts. In Matthew 23:27-28, Jesus describes this with a metaphor:

27 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you are like to whited sepulchres, which outwardly appear to men beautiful but within are full of dead men's bones and of all filthiness. 28 So you also outwardly indeed appear to men just: but inwardly you are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.

Jesus also states earlier in this chapter, in verse 23:

23 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you tithe mint and anise and cumin and have left the weightier things of the law: judgment and mercy and faith. These things you ought to have done and not to leave those undone.

Here this shows that they have sinned in their attitudes, but even so, their works were good. So what Jesus is calling them to do is to reform their hearts, but continue to do good works as they have been.


Do any Bibles contain the Book of Nathan the Prophet and/or the History of Nathan the Prophet A possible reference to the Book of Nathan is described in 1 Chronicles 29:29:

  "Now the acts of David the king, first and last, behold, they are written in the book of Samuel the seer, and in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the book of Gad the seer."

A possible reference to the History of Nathan the Prophet is described in 2 Chronicles 9:29:

  "Now the rest of the acts of Solomon, first and last, are they not written in the history of Nathan the prophet..."

I seek information on the whereabouts of these writings and whether they are considered to be authentic by either the Christian or Jewish religious community.

It may be the views of Judaism on the matter of this ‘Book [or History] of Nathan’ that has given rise to questions about existence or authenticity. The Book of Nathan the Prophet and the History of Nathan the Prophet are among 19 “lost books of the Tanakh”. They may be the same text, but they are sometimes distinguished from one another. As no such text is found in the Tanakh, some assume that text has been lost or removed from earlier ones.

The Bible itself speaks of such prophets and their writings. There are two passages in the Old Testament that speak of them. First, there is 1 Chronicles 29:29 which goes up to the death of King David and mentions

  “Samuel the seer, the records of Nathan the prophet and the records of
  Gad the seer.”

Second, there is 2 Chronicles 9:29 which is about the reign of King Solomon:

  “As for the other events of Solomon’s reign, from beginning to end,
  are they not written in the records of Nathan the prophet, in the
  prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite and in the visions of Iddo the
  seer..."

The Bible appears to says very little but elsewhere we find additional information that enables a complete picture to be put together.

The New International Study Bible (1987 edition) gives such helpful information in its ‘Author, Date and Sources’ section to the introduction of 1 Chronicles (page 566) that I now quote from it.

  “According to ancient Jewish tradition, Ezra wrote Chronicles… but
  this cannot be established with certainty…  In his recounting of
  history long past the Chronicler relied on many written sources. About
  half his work was taken from Samuel and Kings; he also drew on the
  Pentateuch, Judges, Ruth, Psalms, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations and
  Zechariah… There are frequent references to yet other sources: ‘the
  book of the kings of Israel’ (9:1; 2Ch 20:34; cf. 2Ch33:18), ‘the book
  of the annals of King David’ (27:24), ‘the book of the kings of Judah
  and Israel’ or ‘…of Israel and Judah’ (2Ch 16:11; 25:26; 27:7; 28:26;
  32:32; 35:27; 36:8). ‘the annotations on the books of the kings’ (2Ch
  24:27). It is unclear whether these all refer to the same source or to
  different sources… In addition, the author cites a number of prophetic
  writings: those of ‘Samuel the seer’ (29:29), ‘Nathan the prophet
  (29:29 2Ch 9:29), ‘Gad the seer’ (29:29), ‘Ahijah the Shilonite’ (2Ch
  9:29), ‘Iddo the seer’ (2Ch 9:29; 12:15; 13:22), ‘Shemaiah the prophet
  (2Ch 12:15), ‘the prophet Isaiah’ (2Ch 26:22), ‘the seers’ (2Ch
  33:19)… He did not invent, but he did select, arrange and integrate
  his sources to compose a narrative ‘sermon’ for post-exilic Israel as
  she struggled to find her bearings as the people of God in a new
  situation.”

There is a need to see the book of Nathan the prophet, the book of Gad the seer and the history of Nathan the prophet in that context.

Now come the chronological factors. Please note that 1 Chronicles 29:29 also mentions “the records of Gad the seer” and his name crops up again in 1 Samuel 22:5 where we find that it is the prophet Gad, not Samuel, who gives instructions to David.

  “But the prophet Gad said to David, ‘Do not stay in the stronghold. Go
  into the land of Judah. So David left and went to the forest of
  Hereth.”

That is significant because it was the prophet Samuel who had earlier anointed the boy David to be king (1 Samuel 16:1-13) but when Gad is mentioned David is still king-in-waiting as king Saul continues to reign. This is where a bit of chronology and age of the characters involved needs to be worked out.

Samuel was born in 1105 B.C. and he was an old man when he anointed Saul to be king (1 Samuel 8:1-5) and Saul reigned for 40 years from 1050 to 1010 B.C. (Acts 13:20-21).  David reigned from 1010 to 970 B.C.  This means that Samuel was 55 years old when Saul came to the throne and he would have been 95 years old if he had lived long enough to see David become king.  But Samuel died long before then, while Saul was still alive and before David became king (1 Samuel 25:1).

Samuel anointed Saul then later God told Samuel to anoint David.  However, it is the prophet Gad, not Samuel, who gave instructions to David to depart into the land of Judah (1 Samuel 22:5). That is because Samuel was a very old man.  Likewise, it is Nathan who rebukes David after he takes Bathsheba to be his wife (2 Samuel 12:7-10). That is because Samuel had died.

Samuel lived long enough to anoint David to be king, but not long enough to see him sit upon the throne.  Nathan and Gad took over from where Samuel left off.  God used these men as his messengers and as his scribes.  It is they who record the events of King David’s reign, from beginning to end.  Their writings, their books, were never lost because they exist today within the books of Samuel and Chronicles.  God used Samuel to write part of the history of Israel as the time of the judges was drawing to a close, and the time of the kings beginning; then God used men like Nathan and Gad to continue writing that history of God’s dealings with His people during the times of the kings. The writer of the Chronicles in the Old Testament drew upon those, and other sources, to make a comprehensive compilation of that history, to help the post-exilic Israelites.

In summary, the answer to your question is that the writings you ask about have been incorporated into the Old Testament itself, in various places as detailed above, so in that sense they have not been ‘lost’. The originals may have had more material but those originals are not available just as none of the original manuscripts of any and all of the Bible (the autographs) are not available. They are considered to be authentic, certainly by Christians, and to the extent that they are in the ancient Hebrew scriptures, Judaism also accepts them.  All Bibles have Nathan’s writings as source material that has been incorporated into various parts of it, parts with other book names; it’s just that there is no ‘Book of Nathan’ on its own.


According to the Catholic Church, could a "Jesus-name" baptism ever be considered a valid baptism? Related: What is the earliest extrabiblical teaching of baptism using a trinitarian formula?

According to Oneness Pentecostals and others, baptizing in the name of Jesus, instead of the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, is the correct form, and they point to Acts 2:38, 8:16, 10:48, and 19:5 as evidence for this position.

Of course, critics will argue that the main reason for this argument is that its proponents are avowed non-trinitarians.  Still, it seems theoretically possible to me that even a trinitarian Christian, on this scriptural basis, might conclude that it is legitimate to baptize a new trinitarian Christian "in the name of Jesus."

So, my question.  Would the Catholic Church ever recognize a baptism "in the name of Jesus" (i.e., without the trinitarian formula) as a valid baptism? If the baptizer and baptized were both Nicene trinitarians at the time of the baptism, might a "Jesus-name" baptism be considered valid?  Are there any other conditions that could be met that would make it valid?  By "valid," I mean that the baptized would not be required to be rebaptized upon conversion to Catholicism.

Perhaps suggesting "no," the Catechism reads:

  In the Latin Church this triple infusion is accompanied by the minister's words: "N., I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." [1240]

But on the other hand, Cyprian suggests that Pope Stephen thought "Jesus-name" baptism was acceptable:

  But, says [Stephen], the name of Christ is of great advantage to faith and the sanctification of baptism; so that whosoever is anywhere so-ever baptized in the name of Christ, immediately obtains the grace of Christ [Epistle 74.18]

No, it could not be considered valid in that form.  (Per the current teaching of the church).  Valid baptism (per the Catholic Church) requires use of water and the Trinitarian form.

From the Catechism:

  1239 The essential rite of the sacrament follows: Baptism properly speaking. It signifies and actually brings about death to sin and entry into the life of the Most Holy Trinity through configuration to the Paschal mystery of Christ. Baptism is performed in the most expressive way by triple immersion in the baptismal water. However, from ancient times it has also been able to be conferred by pouring the water three times over the candidate's head.
  CCC 1240 In the Latin Church this triple infusion is accompanied by the
  minister's words: "N., I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of
  the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." In the Eastern liturgies the
  catechumen turns toward the East and the priest says: "The servant of
  God, N., is baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of
  the Holy Spirit." At the invocation of each person of the Most Holy
  Trinity, the priest immerses the candidate in the water and raises him
  up again.

The shorthand for the above is "use of the Trinitarian form and water."

  CCC 1271 Baptism constitutes the foundation of communion among all
  Christians, including those who are not yet in full communion with the
  Catholic Church: "For men who believe in Christ and have been properly
  baptized are put in some, though imperfect, communion with the
  Catholic Church. Justified by faith in Baptism, [they] are
  incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called
  Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers by the
  children of the Catholic Church. Baptism therefore constitutes the
  sacramental bond of unity existing among all who through it are
  reborn."

That is a kinder statement than the one from the Council of Trent some centuries ago, which you can find at this link, in a summary from a ruling by The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith:

  The Council of Trent, confirming this tradition, defined that Baptism
  administered by heretics in the name of the Father, the Son and the
  Holy Spirit, with the intention of doing what the Catholic Church does
  is true Baptism (cf. DH 1617).

Without all three, and the use of water, the test for validity is not met.

The Code of Canon Law requires that the baptizing official determine whether or not a previous baptism was valid before baptizing someone.  If a person had a valid baptism, a second one will not be administered. (Per the Nicene Creed "I confess one baptism for the forgiveness of sins ... ").

  (Canon 864)Every person not yet baptized and only such a person is able to be baptized.

Canon Law further states:

  Canon 869 §2. Those baptized in a non-Catholic ecclesial community
  must not be baptized conditionally unless, after an examination of the
  matter and the form of the words used in the conferral of baptism and
  a consideration of the intention of the baptized adult and the
  minister of the baptism, a serious reason exists to doubt the validity
  of the baptism.

The test of correct matter and form in your question is easily discerned: if it lacks the proper matter and form of water and the Trinity, it does not meet the test of validity in the eyes of the Roman Catholic Church.

An example mentioned in this question, and included in the previous link shows the detailed treatment given to establish validity or not (example being a Mormon Church).

The conclusion is that the rite/sacrament must meet the test of validity, or it will be held invalid by the Catholic Church:

  Summing up, we can say: The Baptism of the Catholic Church and that of
  the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints differ essentially,
  both for what concerns faith in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, in
  whose name Baptism is conferred, and for what concerns the
  relationship to Christ who instituted it. As a result of all this, it
  is understood that the Catholic Church has to consider invalid, that
  is to say, cannot consider true Baptism, the rite given that name by
  the Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints.


How does Sola Scriptura understanding of the Bible affect the anagogical sense of the Bible? A few times on this site, I've mentioned Jesus' commands that we should take Mary into our home when he tells John to 'behold his mother'.  This is based on the idea that much of scripture can also be interpreted for its 'eternal significance', not to say that John didn't know exactly what he was writing, but that the Spirit was moving him to write something that would be applicable to us today.

The senses of Scripture
According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.
... The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, "leading"). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.

CCC 115,117.3
I don't want to make any incendiary comments because I don't want this question picked apart as much I desire a historical analysis of Protestants either denying or affirming an anagogical understanding of Sacred Scripture. But, it seems to me as if Sola Scriptura presents only the literal and allegorical senses, but doesn't really lead anywhere.
Therefore it seems Sola Scriptura is opposed to the anagogical sense, because it is more of an understanding based on the application of the scriptures. This is what makes the rapture and Young Earth Creationism the only rational application of the scriptures to some who rely on literalism. Conversely it makes the gnostic understanding or 'bible code' understanding the only rational application to others who go rely on allegory.  But, I believe, these strict interpretations are not the norm for a majority of Protestants.
So what I would like to know is, to those who believe in Sola Scriptura, when do you decide whether or not to exclude interpretations based on the anagogical sense of scripture?

It is true that sola scriptura is in some sense a reactionary doctrine. It's largely set against extra-Biblical revelation, rather than "wrongly" interpreting the Bible itself. In itself, a sola scriptura position does not necessarily oppose an allegorical or anagogical meaning, though it would resist interpreting an otherwise historical-looking passage in solely metaphorical terms. The original reformers were not shy about using anagogical interpretation for homilectic purposes, provided the anagogical meaning is also found in Scripture. So the basic suspicion is about finding new beliefs from non-literal reading. This comes from the "clarity of Scripture" doctrine more than from sola scriptura itself, though the two are closely related.

My favourite example of the "four senses" is Dante's exposition of Psalm 113:1-2 (aka 114:1-2) in his letter to Can Grande della Scala. The Psalm text reads, in the Douay-Rheims:

  When Israel went out of Egypt, the house of Jacob from a barbarous people, Judea was made his sanctuary, Israel his dominion.

Dante explains how the text supports multiple simultaneous meanings:

  If we look at it from the letter alone it means to us the exit of the Children of Israel from Egypt at the time of Moses; if from allegory, it means for us our redemption done by Christ; if from the moral sense, it means to us the conversion of the soul from the struggle and misery of sin to the status of grace; if from the anagogical, it means the leave taking of the blessed soul from the slavery of this corruption to the freedom of eternal glory.

None other than John Calvin writes (Institutes of the Christian Religion II.8.15, edition of 1559, translated by Henry Beveridge in 1845):

  We again, instead of supposing that the matter has no reference to us, should reflect that the bondage of Israel in Egypt was a type of that spiritual bondage, in the fetters of which we are all bound, until the heavenly avenger delivers us by the power of his own arm, and transports us into his free kingdom. Therefore, as in old times, when he would gather together the scattered Israelites to the worship of his name, he rescued them from the intolerable tyranny of Pharaoh, so all who profess him now are delivered from the fatal tyranny of the devil, of which that of Egypt was only a type.

I would count this as an anagogical interpretation of the Exodus, along the same lines as Dante, and even using substantially the same terminology of spiritual slavery and freedom. More specifically, this is an example of typology, where historical Biblical events are interpreted as prefiguring the nature, life and teaching of Christ. The nice feature of typology from a Protestant perspective is that it adds to the plain reading of the text, rather than replacing it.

In general, Calvin does not seem to mind adding a meaning to the text, when it's a matter of finding "the moral of the story" (so long as that moral is consistent with what the Bible says elsewhere). What he doesn't like is any attempt to use a symbolic meaning in opposition to the literal meaning, especially if he suspects someone of trying to "explain away" moral precepts. Also, these readings are used to illuminate pre-existing doctrine, rather than to justify beliefs that aren't otherwise founded in Scripture. This is where the sola scriptura comes in: from the beliefs that nothing essential to salvation can be found outside the Bible, and that Scripture is perspicuous, it would follow that nothing new can be discovered by anagogical interpretation.

The same pattern holds for Martin Luther, who explicitly uses the term "anagogical" in his Dictata super Psalterium (1514), and often employs typological interpretation. Luther also argues for the perspicuity of Scripture; in On the Bondage of the Will (1525) he says "I will have no one part of it called obscure" (Sec. 37) and objects to the idea that special help is required to extract meaning from the Bible. But this does not stop him from using anagogical reading to further explain any point of Christian belief.

Final example: Philipp Melanchthon wrote in the Apology of the Augsburg Confession (1530), commenting on Numbers 28:4, "The Law had pictures or shadows of future things. Accordingly, in this spectacle Christ and the entire worship of the New Testament are portrayed." His commentary on John's gospel also makes use of allegory, where for example Mary is seen as sometimes representing the Church, and sometimes the individual believer, in addition to being literally Mary.

Later Protestants have often resisted overly "fanciful" allegorical interpretations, under which the literal meaning is lost, and one has to resort to complex and obscure symbolism. They would all still accept those interpretations that are explicitly stated in the New Testament (such as the "sign of Jonah" in Matthew 12:39), however. Modern Biblical literalism is partly a reaction against this kind of reading, and goes further than the original reformers did. The sola scriptura and clarity motivations are the same, just more strongly expressed, about whether there can be anything in the non-literal meaning of the Bible that is not also in the literal sense.


What was the justification of morality in Puritan Antinomianism? As far as I know, Puritans were devout Calvinists. According to Theopedia, Antinomianism is associated with disobedience to the established authority, so it may be connected with the idea of lawlessness, immorality, or licentiousness. Was this term merely a pejorative adjective for people who disagreed with the established religious authority, like legalism? Or did the Puritan antinomians really have their own theology on justification before God, and if so, how did the Puritan antinomians thought they were justified? What was the purpose of God's moral laws then?

This question was previously posted on the History.SE, but it was closed for being off-topic. Hopefully, it's on-topic here.

From the theopedia article you refer to:

Antinomianism ... is a pejorative term for the teaching that Christians are under no obligation to obey the laws of ethics or morality. Few, if any, would explicitly call themselves "antinomian," hence, it is usually a charge leveled by one group against an opposing group. (emphasis added)

and:

Calvinists have also drawn charges of antinomianism. In the history of American Puritanism, Roger Williams was accused of antinomian teachings by the Puritan leadership of New England.
Theological charges of antinomianism typically imply that the opponent's doctrine leads to various sorts of licentiousness, and imply that the antinomian chooses his theology in order to further a career of dissipation. The conspicuous austerity of life among surviving groups of Anabaptists or Calvinists suggests that these accusations are mostly for rhetorical effect. (emphasis added)

In the particular example cited of Roger Williams, he was a separatist and had a different conception of religious liberty than many of his contempories, however, an unqualified charge of 'antinomianism' against him is not well supported: His efforts to secure a charter for the colony on Rhode Island and to serve as it's governor there demonstrate clearly that he did believe in civil law and civil authorities.
In summary, the answer to:

Was this term merely a pejorative adjective for people who disagreed with the established religious authority, like legalism?

Is Yes.
This renders your other questions somewhat moot, as well as being based on either a false or confused premise:  Protestants in general, including the Puritans, do not believe in justification by the law. They believe that the law was given to restrain wickedness, convict of sin and lead men to a knowledge of their need for a saviour. Disagreements about the right use of the law stem more from arguments over whether it has an ongoing utility in the spiritual life of a believer (eg in regards to gaining assurance of salvation, as a guide during the process of sanctification etc.) rather than whether it has any role in society at large and it's application towards Christians as citizens.


Why was Jesus called the King of the Jews? In Luke 23:38 it is written,

There was a written notice above him, which read:
THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS

Why was the notice placed at the crucifixion proclaiming Jesus to be King?

Jesus was hailed as the Messiah - the "Anointed One" (in Greek 'Christos' from which we get Christ).  The Messiah was thought to be the one who would restore the kingdom of Israel.  (Which, of course, Christians believe he did in the heavenly sense, but not the earthly sense.) You anoint a King, of course, which is where the confusion begins.

Indeed, the "Zealots" of which Simon Zealotes was a member, assumed that Jesus' plan was to be the King of this new newly restored Israel.  It was assumed that the Christ would give Israel its land back and be its new ruler. In Jeremiah 23 it says of this Messiah:

  “The days are coming,” declares the Lord,
      “when I will raise up for David[a] a righteous Branch,
  a King who will reign wisely
      and do what is just and right in the land.
  6 In his days Judah will be saved
      and Israel will live in safety.
  This is the name by which he will be called:
      The Lord Our Righteous Savior.

So, when Pilate is questioning Jesus (in John 18), he inquires along these lines, asking of Jesus if he is a King.  To this,

  36 Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place.”

  37 “You are a king, then!” said Pilate.

  Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king. In fact, the reason I was born and came into the world is to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me.”

The Jews' rejection of Jesus as their king is thus made explicit, when in John 19, Pilate says:

  “Shall I crucify your king?” Pilate asked.

  “We have no king but Caesar,” the chief priests answered.

Whether or not Jesus was a "King" then, is a matter of interpretation.  To be sure, in Revelation, when he returns it is written on his thigh that he is "King of Kings and Lord of Lords", but to lower it to merely earthly place is to denigrate who He really is.

Finally, it should be understood that Pilate was mocking Jesus with the sign. John continues:

  19 Pilate had a notice prepared and fastened to the cross. It read: jesus of nazareth, the king of the jews. 20 Many of the Jews read this sign, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city, and the sign was written in Aramaic, Latin and Greek. 21 The chief priests of the Jews protested to Pilate, “Do not write ‘The King of the Jews,’ but that this man claimed to be king of the Jews.”

  22 Pilate answered, “What I have written, I have written.”

Pilate was contemptuous saying "See, this is what a would-be King of the Jews is".  The Chief Priests knew it and tried to change it. But if Pilate's going to mock somebody, he does it fully.


Is baptism a form of exorcism, or is that just a Hollywood myth? I never watched this film, but the synopsis alone is eerie. Read this article.

  She then runs to the safety of a church, knowing that baptism is a
  form of exorcism.

Is this true? Can baptism be a form of protection against Satan? Is Satan really a person, or does this film carry a strong Faustian theme? Why would Satan be afraid of baptism and not a Jewish mikveh? Is baptism made up of holy water?

The answer to this would really depend on what tradition you come from.  Some traditions teach that it is baptism in water that brings salvation.  Thus, it could be argued that baptism, bringing salvation to an individual, would be the inception of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.  This, then, would, in fact, be a sort of protection.

However, for traditions that believe water baptism is a physical representation of a spiritual reality that has already occurred, water baptism is just one of many acts of obedience, and would, therefore, not really provide any additional protection.

However, this is probably mostly Hollywood fantasy, as there are very few people in Hollywood who have ever read the Bible or have any idea what is in it. :)


What is the difference between the doctrines of "Perseverance of the Saints" and "Eternal Security?" The terms "Perseverance of the Saints," "Eternal Security," and the phrase "once saved, always saved" are a bit fuzzy in my head.  I understand the general concept behind them, but what are the differences between these various views or doctrines?

Put simply, perseverance of the saints refers to the Calvinistic view that since Christians are chosen (or "elect") by God prior to conception, it is impossible to lose salvation - if we have it, we've always had it, if we "lose it," we never had it to begin with.

Eternal Security (Also known as "Free Grace") is the view that once someone believes in Jesus Christ as the their Lord and savior, they have eternal life.

"Once saved, always saved" is generally attributed to the former view, as it has to do with Calvinistic predestination, whereas the latter view says that once you make the "decision" to believe, you can't lose your promise of eternal life regardless of subsequent actions.


In what ways did orthodox trinitarianism diverge from Tertullian's proto-trinitarianism? Tertullian is well known as the first Latin writer to use the word "trinity" (trinitas) and as a proponent of trinitarian doctrine in general. But there were many trinitarian controversies between his time and that of the Nicene Creed. Books and articles about the doctrine often say that it was not "settled" until then (or later).

What aspects of Tertullian's doctrine of the trinity are claimed by scholars to be opposed to later orthodox formulations of the doctrine? And where specifically in his writings do such scholars point to make their case?

Tertullian did not have the benefit of the Johannine comma (1 John 5:7), so he appears to have taken a bold step forward in talking about the Trinity. Roger E. Olson, Christopher Alan Hall (The Trinity, page 31) say that Tertullian stumbles in his attempts to explain trinitarian relationships, but despite occasional missteps is a reliable guide and avoids the twin hazards of tritheism and modalism.

He believed that God, who made the world out of nothing through his Son, the Word, but Jesus was created, not eternally pre-existent - as we see in Against Praxeas chapter 6, where Jesus had been in the Father's mind as part of the eternal plan  (my emphasis):

  He first put forth the Word Himself, having within Him His own inseparable Reason and Wisdom, in order that all things might be made through Him through whom they had been planned and disposed, yea, and already made, so far forth as (they were) in the mind and intelligence of God.

In speaking of the Trinity, he said that the Son is distinct from the Father, and the Spirit from both the Father and the Son (Against Praxeam, 25):

  Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, produces three coherent Persons, who are yet distinct One from Another. These Three are one essence, not one Person, as it is said, I and my Father are One, in respect of unity of substance not singularity of number.

He further distinguished the Father, the Son and the Paraclete (Holy Spirit) in Against Praxeam, 13:

  For we, who by the grace of God possess an insight into both the times and the occasions of the Sacred Writings, especially we who are followers of the Paraclete, not of human teachers, do indeed definitively declare that Two Beings are God, the Father and the Son, and, with the addition of the Holy Spirit, even Three, according to the principle of the divine economy, which introduces number, in order that the Father may not, as you perversely infer, be Himself believed to have been born and to have suffered, which it is not lawful to believe, forasmuch as it has not been so handed down.

Then, Tertullian saw Jesus as subordinate to the Father, which in most respects is very much contrary to modern theology, as briefly described below.

Post-Nicene view

Some centuries after the Nicene Creed was formulated, the Catholic Church introduced the filioque clause to the Nicene Creed, stating that the Holy Spirit comes from the Father and from the Son, a subtle novelty that Tertullian certainly never taught. This clause was rejected by the Orthodox east.

Eusebius of Caesarea still saw the Nicene Creed as a full expression of Subordinationist theology, but this view was soon rejected. Roman Catholicism is firmly non-Subordinationist, in the Arian or Semi-Arian sense, but does accept a relational subordinationism of Son to the Father. Different views are held amongst Protestants, but most do not differ significantly from the Catholic position.

This site discusses the Catholic doctrine that the second person of the Trinity was the Son of God from all eternity and also criticises the view of some evangelicals that the second person of the Trinity only became the Son of God at his incarnation. The Catholic position differs from that of Tertullian  but we see that other, minority views do still exist.

According to the Orthodox Church, the Son or Word is derived from the Father who alone is without cause or origin. This is not a subordination in time, since the Son is co-eternal with the Father or even in terms of the co-equal uncreated nature shared by the Father and Son.


What reforms did Erasmus seek for the church? I've long wondered about this. Wikipedia's article on Erasmus notes:

  While he was critical of the abuses within the Church and called for reform, he kept his distance from Luther and Melanchthon and continued to recognise the authority of the pope. Erasmus emphasized a middle way, with a deep respect for traditional faith, piety and grace, and rejected Luther's emphasis on faith alone. Erasmus therefore remained a member of the Catholic Church all his life. Erasmus remained committed to reforming the Church and its clerics' abuses from within. He also held to Catholic doctrines such as that of free will, which some Reformers rejected in favour of the doctrine of predestination. His middle road approach disappointed and even angered scholars in both camps.

So what "abuses" was he critical of, and what kinds of "reforms" did he want?

Owen Chadwick, in his book The Reformation, gives a few lists of the vices Erasmus saw in the church:

Erasmus was not fired by a reforming passion or zeal. But his sensible and scholarly nose was otherwise offended by the stink of corruption. He despised ignorance, superstition, obscurantism, and wished to cure them. Because his pen was able to portray those vices in the most entertaining light, he could communicate his own contempt to countless other minds. The diffused effect of writings like The Praise of Folly (1511) or The Colloquies (1518) cannot be calculated.
Educated men were mumbling all these things about the clergy, about monks and popes, corruption and graft, popular superstition and idolatrous practices. Erasmus expressed, and brilliantly, what they were barely articulating; and educated Europe laughed. ... More than any other single man, he lowered the European reputation of popes and clergy, monks and friars, and (above all) of the theologians.
Above all the theologians. He once described a contemporary as 'a scab of a fellow, theology incarnate'. He condemned them as pedants, logic-choppers, manipulators of meaningless notions, constructors of syllogisms, warriors over terms. 'A man might sooner find his way out of a labyrinth than the intellectual mazes of the Realists, Nominalists, Thomists, Albertists, Occamists, Scotists.'
(Chadwick, pp. 32-33)

Erasmus made efforts to simplify theology:

In 1503 he published the Enchiridion militis Christiani (handbook for the Christian warrior), an attempt to expound the lines of this true theology. It was a simpler theology, more primitive, more Biblical, less tangled in logical subtlety and more direct to the human soul, stripped of the layers of glosses and authorities and commentaries.
(Chadwick, p. 38)

He is probably best known for his Bible scholarship. He remains hugely influential in the field of textual criticism, and it was important to him that people be able to read the Bible in their own vernacular. Unsurprisingly then, his hero was Jerome, the great fifth-century Bible translator. Luther and Tyndale based their Bible translations on Erasmus' text. Given his interest in making the Bible accessible to commoners, it should come as no surprise that he also wished for hymnody to be accessible:

Modern church music is so constructed that the congregation cannot hear one distinct word. The choristers themselves do not understand what they are singing, yet according to priests and monks it constitutes the whole of religion.
(Erasmus, Commentary on 1 Corinthians 14:19)

He disliked when religious extravagance and superstition become substitutes for simple faith:

Erasmus and his fellows were impatient, contemptuous, angry with the superstitions of the people. Those superstitions, cults of statues, visits to Madonnas that rolled their eyes or to bleeding Hosts, seemed to be not mere harmless vehicles of a rude devotion, not merely vulgar and credulous, but the bane of true religion. The people cultivated a religion of external acts and substituted pilgrimage, an indulgence, a relic, for a genuine change in heart and life. It is the better side of Erasmus, the concern for true religion, which turned his satire into the severest form of condemnation. 'Perhaps thou believest that all thy sins are washed away with a little paper, a sealed parchment, with the gift of a little money or some wax images, with a little pilgrimage. Thou art utterly deceived.' 'Without ceremonies perhaps thou shalt not be a Christian; but they make thee not a Christian.'
(Chadwick, pp. 38-39)
We kiss the old shoes and dirty handkerchiefs of the saints and neglect their books, the more valuable relics; we lock up their shirts and clothes in cabinets adorned with jewels, but as to their writings on which they spent so much pains, and which are still extant for our benefit, we abandon them to mouldiness and vermin.
(Erasmus, Preface to Jerome)

He opposed paid indulgences, and in his Right Fruitful Epistle in Laud and Praise of Matrimony he indicated that he believed priests should be allowed to marry. His pamphlet Julius Excluded from Heaven portrays Pope Julius II (1503-1513) as worldly, arrogant, and tyrannical.
It's easy to see how well many of his views accorded with those of the reformers. But of course, he came to oppose them and their teachings.

Like Erasmus, many educated men would have preferred the Church to be ridiculed into good sense and efficiency and purity of life. But a man who is holding property will not be mocked out of it. There were forces more potent at work, both to maintain the existing state of the Church, which would not be altered without violence and illegality, and to ask whether the existing state of the Church was not the symptom of a deep-seated and moral disease. There was a celebrated saying of the sixteenth century: 'Erasmus laid the egg and Luther hatched it.' It is certain, at least, that Erasmus alone would not, and could not, have hatched it.
(Chadwick, p. 39)


Why is the number 666 considered evil? People always make jokes about the number 666 and how it's evil and such. What is the basis of this?

It is the number of the Beast in Revelation:

  Revelation 13:18 (ESV)
   18  This calls for wisdom: let the one who has understanding calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man, and his number is 666.

Its significance is often claimed to be that the Emperor Nero, during whose reign Revelation was written, has a name with the numerical value 666. Citing Wikipedia:

  The Greek spelling, "Nerōn Kaisar", transliterates into Aramaic as "נרון קסר", nrwn qsr. The Aramaic spelling is attested in a scroll from Murabba'at dated to "the second year of emperor Nero." Adding the corresponding values yields 666.

Personally, I'm not really satisfied with this explanation at all and am waiting for other answers.


What is the Biblical Basis for Sola Scriptura? Possible Duplicate:
  What is the basis for Sola Scriptura?

Is there anywhere in the Bible that says Christians should be Sola Scriptura?

The Bible has trouble being self-referential, since the Bible did not exist as a collection until after the individual books were written.  Also, any time someone was writing a book that would later become scripture, the writer was generating new thoughts not seen in earlier books of scripture.    So, for any writer to say, "Only trust scripture" is disingenuous, since the writer was taking inspiration from other sources himself, even if that other source was a direct revelation from God.


How is the feet-washing ritual observed during Lent? How is the feet-washing ritual observed during Lent? How many denominations actually do this, besides the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of England? What is significance of maintaining this tradition to the modern era, and can anyone get its feet washed or wash the feet of others?

According to en.wikipedia.org , Foot washing is observed by many denominations, not only Roman Catholics. But in non-catholic denominations, the rite is not necessarily observed during Lent only.

Excerpt from Wikipedia:

  Protestant practice:

  Foot washing is observed by numerous Protestant and proto-Protestant
  groups, including Seventh-day Adventist, Pentecostal, and Pietistic
  groups, some Anabaptists, and several types of Baptists. Foot washing
  rites are also practiced by many Anglican, Lutheran and Methodist
  churches, whereby foot washing is most often experienced in connection
  with Maundy Thursday services and, sometimes, at ordination services
  where the Bishop may wash the feet of those who are to be ordained.
  Though history shows that foot washing has at times been practiced in
  connection with baptism, and at times as a separate occasion, by far
  its most common practice has been in connection with the Lord's supper
  service. The Moravian Church practiced Foot Washing until 1818. There
  has been some revival of the practice as other liturgical churches
  have also rediscovered the practice.

  The observance of washing the saints' feet is quite varied, but a
  typical service follows the partaking of unleavened bread and wine.
  Deacons (in many cases) place pans of water in front of pews that have
  been arranged for the service. The men and women participate in
  separate groups, men washing men's feet and women washing women's
  feet. Each member of the congregation takes a turn washing the feet of
  another member. Each foot is placed one at a time into the basin of
  water, is washed by cupping the hand and pouring water over the foot,
  and is dried with a long towel girded around the waist of the member
  performing the washing. Most of these services appear to be quite
  moving to the participants.

In some churches, the Bishop may wash the feet of those newly ordained deacons.

Examples:

Unification Church USA.  Source
The Church of England: Source  (Notes 14)

  14 Foot-washing

  Before the Welcome, the bishop may wash the feet of the newly ordained
  deacons. Appropriate hymns or chants such as Ubi Caritas may be sung.
  After the foot-washing, John 13.12-17 may be read.