According to Dispensationalism is "the land" of Ezekiel 37:24-28 interpreted as "Heaven"? ESV Ezekiel 37:

  24“My servant David shall be king over them, and they shall all have one shepherd. They shall walk in my rules and be careful to obey my statutes. 25They shall dwell in the land that I gave to my servant Jacob, where your fathers lived. They and their children and their children’s children shall dwell there forever, and David my servant shall be their prince forever. 26I will make a covenant of peace with them. It shall be an everlasting covenant with them. And I will set them in their land and multiply them, and will set my sanctuary in their midst forevermore. 27My dwelling place shall be with them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 28Then the nations will know that I am the LORD who sanctifies Israel, when my sanctuary is in their midst forevermore.”

And are the "rules and statutes" the Torah?

It's my understanding that Dispensationalism sees this section of Ezekiel as the millennial reign. I suppose the rules are Torah.

  They and their children and their children’s children will live there forever, and David my servant will be their prince forever” (37:24–25). Though some have attempted to take this prophecy in less than its literal meaning, the clear statement is that David, who is now dead and whose body is in his tomb in Jerusalem (Acts 2:29), will be resurrected. This will occur at the second coming (Dan. 12:1–3), indicating plainly that the restoration of Israel will be subsequent to, not before, the second coming. This requires Christ’s coming before the millennium or in fulfillment of the premillennial promises. The promise that David would be her prince forever must be interpreted as being fulfilled in the thousand-year reign.

Walvoord, John F.. Every Prophecy of the Bible: Clear Explanations for Uncertain Times (p. 183). David C. Cook. Kindle Edition.

Here is Darby,

  Chapter 37 reveals the definitive blessing of the people as a fact, without entering into any details of the events that terminate in this blessing. The dry bones of Israel, of the nation as a whole, are gathered together by the power of God. God accomplishes this work by His Spirit, but by His Spirit acting in power on His people to produce certain effects rather than in giving spiritual life (although it is not to be doubted that those who are blessed among the Jews will be spiritually quickened). The result of this intervention of God is that the dispersed of Israel, hitherto divided into two peoples, are gathered together in the earth, reunited under one Head, as one nation. It is the resurrection of the nation, which was really dead and buried. But God opens their graves and places them again in their land restored to life as a nation. The fact of their division before this operation of God is recognized. But the result of the operation is Israel in their unity as a people. One king should reign over them. This, under God's hand, is the result of all their iniquity, and of the devices of the enemies who had carried them into captivity. David (that is, Christ) should be their king. They should be thoroughly cleansed by God Himself. They should walk in His statutes and His judgments, and dwell forever in their land. The sanctuary of God should be in their midst for evermore; His tabernacle, His dwelling-place, should be among them, He their God and they His people. The heathen should know that Jehovah sanctified Israel when His sanctuary should be there forever. It is the full national blessing of Israel from the Lord Jehovah.

Darby's Bible Synopsis


What does Catholic teaching/theology say about familial relations in hell? This post was triggered by the statement below in History of religion in the Netherlands | Wikipedia:

  Later, In addition to successful sermons, there are failures such as
  the refusal of the heathen Frisian king Radboud to be baptized by
  Wulfram, because he would get to heaven by repenting; Radboud chose an
  afterlife with his ancestors who according Wulfram were in hell.

What does Catholic teaching/theology say, perhaps with scriptural support, about familial relations in hell?

Will the presence of those who were family members on earth aggravate or alleviate the sufferings of other family members in hell?

If I were condemned to hell and God forbid, I met dad, mom, and my brothers and sister, i.e., people I loved on earth,  will this give me any kind of comfort? Will I be "happy" to be with them and they with me? Will we "enjoy" each other's company?

According to the Catholic Church:

  This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called "hell."
  - (CCC 1033)

So hell is not really a physical location but more of a state of being. Thus, although you and your family might all end up in hell, you cannot "meet" them there. It would be like asking if you could meet each other in a state of panic.

While you are dead (ie. before the Last Judgment):

  Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, "eternal fire." The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs. - (CCC 1035)

On the other hand, you could meet up with your family on the Day of Judgment.

  The resurrection of all the dead, "of both the just and the unjust," will precede the Last Judgment. This will be "the hour when all who are in the tombs will hear [the Son of man's] voice and come forth, those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of judgment."
  - (CCC 1038)

So, for a short time (ie. after hearing His voice, but before the "resurrection of judgment"), you could theoretically meet up with your brothers and sisters. This is what Catholics mean when they say "I believe in [...] the resurrection of the body." This is a physical resurrection, not a spiritual one. So if it's physical, it must happen at a location (unlike "where" your soul goes when you die) and thus meeting up should be possible.

I doubt at that point you would find much comfort in each other's company, but nothing precludes it. You are not prevented from being happy, but by that point you (in theory) understand that you will now spend eternity separated from God and you know what that means (unlike while you were alive).


What does Love Mean? 1 John 4:7  NIV

  Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever
  loves has been born of God and knows God.

Whoever loves has been born of God? I'm pretty confident that the majority of people, religious or not, would argue that they know how to Love and that they show their love for people on a daily basis.

So what does Love mean to God?

It would be best here to start from how love is defined in 1 John itself.

In the gospel we have the ultimate display of love. We hate God, and yet God loves us so much that he sent his Son to die for us. In 4:9-11:

  In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his
  only Son into the world, so that we might live through him. In this is
  love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son
  to be the propitiation for our sins. Beloved, if God so loved us, we
  also ought to love one another.

There's a similar verse in Rom 5:6-10 which raises the point that people would hardly even die for a good/righteous person, let alone sinners.

  For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the
  ungodly. For one will scarcely die for a righteous person--though
  perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die-- but God shows
  his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for
  us. Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much
  more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. For if while we
  were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much
  more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life.

So this is the kind of love we are to practise. You may say that Christians and non-Christians alike practise love on a daily basis. But often it stops where it becomes difficult and you must love someone who does not love you, or where you've been offended and you must forgive. Generally speaking, I think the world's standard of love today is to love as long as it feels good or where we get something back.

But this is not to say that Christians always truly love. In reality I think we often fail. Otherwise, 1 John would not need to teach and exhort his readers: 'let us love' (4:7). But the difference for Christians is that we have a reason to love others, even when it is not easy, because God loved us first. If you don't, then it is likely because you don't appreciate what God has done for us (Mat 18:23-35). To learn to love we need to begin with and continue in the gospel.

See also: Eph 5:1-2. Phil 2:1-8. 1 Pet 2:21-25.


What is the difference between evangelizing and proselytizing? Aren't they both focused on converting people? What's the difference?

Evangelism is Christian proselytizing

To proselytize means to attempt to convert a person from one religion to another. To evangelize means to proselytize for Christianity.


What does childbearing have to do with the salvation of a woman? Verse concerning saved:

  12But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. 13For Adam was first formed, then Eve. 14And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. 15Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety. -- 1 Timothy 2

Related verse:

  16Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. -- Genesis 3

Question: Verse 14 clearly addresses Eve eating the apple. Since Salvation is through what Christ accomplished on the cross alone -- what does childbearing have to do with 'she shall be saved in childbearing' ?

As timf quoted:

  they will be saved [eternally] if they continue in faith and love and holiness with self-control, [saved indeed] through the Childbearing or by the birth of the divine Child. - Amplified

Childbearing resulted in the birth of Jesus.
If you look at "she", the "woman" as an image not for each woman as an individual, but as womanhood as a whole, or as Eve specifically, who is mentioned in the verse before, than she, the woman is saved through childbearing - the birth of Jesus.
Or as you can already see promised in Genesis 3, when God addresses the snake:

  And I will put enmity
      between you and the woman,
      and between your offspring and hers;
  he will crush your head,
      and you will strike his heel - Genesis 3:15.

Eve's offspring - singular - will crush the snake's head and destroy it.

Now that still leaves the part of the verse where it says "if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety" ... and that may still sound like this salvation requires works. However notice what it mentions first in this list after childbearing, which as explained refers to Jesus: faith. This faith and resulting life change then results in charity and holiness and sobriety - which are things God does works in us through His Holy Spirit - see for example Gal. 5:22-23.


Different types of Cross shapes significance? What is signified by different kinds of crosses? For example some graves have club(cards game) leaves type edges crosses, some graves have simple crosses?

I think you are referring to the Budded Cross.

The article says,

  A cross with three circles or discs on each arm in a Christian context
  represents the Holy Trinity but was probably also copied from earlier
  Celtic Druidry, where the circles or rings represent the three
  dominions of earth, sky and sea.

  There are several names for this cross, depending on the
  interpretation. These include Budded, Apostles', or Cathedral Cross,
  all implying a religious theme, and Treflée or Botonée1 in a heraldic
  context.

And the Christian Cross, the best-known religious symbol of Christianity.

More crosses here on Wikipedia


Mormonism doctrine of a flesh & bones God How do Mormons explain the apparent contradiction to their belief that God the Father has a body of flesh and bones found in the paralleled scriptures below;

  John 4:24
  God is a Spirit...

  Luke 24:
  ... a spirit does not have flesh and bones...

My question is inspired by the article link below:

Does God the Father Have a "Body of Flesh and Bone"?

Thank you.

Good question.
God is a spirit as we are spirits—each human has a spirit residing within a mortal body. Likewise, Mormons believe God is a spirit residing within a perfected, glorified, and immortal body.
From lds.org:

The Greek text of John 4:24 contains no article before the word spirit. Thus, the Greek phrase can also be understood to mean “God is spirit,” or “God is spiritual.” The Apostle John also wrote that “God is light” (1 John 1:5) and “God is love” (1 John 4:8), but these statements do not mean that God is only light, or that God is love and nothing else. Neither do we understand the statement that “man is spirit” (D&C 93:33) to mean that man is only spirit and nothing else. In the same sense, John 4:24 does not mean that God is only spirit. From latter-day revelation, we know that “the Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit” (D&C 130:22).
In the context of the Savior’s teachings about true worship, the statement in John 4:24 can be seen as commentary more about the nature of worship than the nature of God. Since God is a spiritual being, people must worship Him “in spirit and in truth” (John 4:24), not merely through outward rituals performed at certain locations (see John 4:20–21).
Introduction and Timeline for John 2–4


Where did the darkness come from? In the beginning God said "let there be light" and there was light. And God saw that the light was good. Then God separated the light form the darkness. Where did the darkness come from? I do not have my Bible with me so my quotes my not be verbatim.

The darkness appears to have been there from the beginning:

the earth was without form or shape, with darkness over the abyss and a mighty wind sweeping over the water
Genesis 1:2, NABRE


If "Elohim" can refer to angels and demons, then does Jesus being called "God" really prove anything? In arguing for the Trinity, I mentioned that Jesus was called God (Theos in Greek). The rebuttal was that Theos in the Greek is equivalent to Elohim, which can refer to angels, demons, or just about any spiritual including God. Is there a good refutation to that argument?

Great Question! Arguing for the trinity is one of the most complex apologetic tasks you can undertake.

Context is essential to understanding the meaning of any word, especially in Semitic languages (e.g. Hebrew/Arabic) since the same word can have several connected but different meanings. Your questioner seems to be using a faulty analogy since the words are not precisely identical in meaning. Consider challenging with counter questions.
Suggestions for greater clarity:

Consider focusing your question in terms of specific verses - in context, some are clearly referring to angels and others have always been interpreted by Christian and Jewish interpreters as referring to 'God'. Does your interlocutor genuinely believe that the use of 'Elohim' in Genesis 1:1 is referring to Angels (contra millennia of interpretive tradition)?
There is a vast difference between saying that a word can be 'translated' one way and saying it is perfectly equivalent. The Holy God of the bible is not easy to understand and is never fully known (see doctrines of divine simplicity etc.) so the words used in various languages for 'God' are always approximations apart from God's use of his own name. For example, Elohim is plural whereas Theos is simply a generic word for god (not necessarily 'God'). Does your opponent believe that the generic use of 'man' CANNOT we used to refer to humanity (men and women)? If they have not difficulty with that, it shouldn't be difficult to understand how the word for 'strong one' can refer to both angels and God in different verses.

Conclusion: Just as a woman can say she is a member of man-kind to declare that she has the dignity due to all humanity, so Jesus can use Theos/Elohim/God to declare that he is worthy of being worshiped as Creator and Sustain-er of the world.

Some background on the terms themselves: http://embracedbytruth.com/God/Names%20of%20God/Elohim%20and%20Theos.htm


What is replacement theology, and why do I hear it used with a negative connotation? Occasionally when discussing the modern nation of Israel I hear ideas accused of being "Replacement Theology".  What is Replacement Theology, and why is it almost always used in a negative light?

The term is typically applied by Dispensational Theologians when referencing Covenant Theology.

Dispensationalists believe that God is relating to the church during the church age, which we're in right now, however, he related to the Jews during the Mosaic period, using the Mosaic law.  They don't believe, however, that the church has replaced Israel, but rather that the Church is a separate entity to which God relates.  They view the church age as a "parenthesis" during which time, God brings about the salvation of the Gentiles, however, this is still mainly a story between God and Israel.  This theology was first systematized by John Darby, and popularized by Cyrus Scofield, via the Scofield Reference Bible, which was the first major study Bible published in the U.S., hence the theology's popularity today.  The epicenter of this theology today is likely Dallas Theological Seminary.

Many Covenant theologians believe the Church replaces Israel.  This is the reasoning for some of the differences we see between Covenant theology, and Dispensational theology, such as child baptism, which, in Covenant theology is the analogue to Israel's Circumcision, which is, of course viewed oddly by Dispensationalists who believe Baptism to have an entirely different meaning altogether.  Many people call Covenant theology, typically in a negative light, "Replacement Theology", because they view the theology as excluding and nullifying God's promises to Israel.  In this way, they view that the theology is making God out to be liar.  That being said, there's often some muddiness when it comes to understanding what exactly is replaced: the Old Covenant, or the Jews themselves.  I tend to believe it's the former, and not the latter, though there is seem to be some Biblical evidence to support the idea that the majority of Jews today are temporarily, or at least, partially blinded.  (Romans 9-11).

The danger of "Replacement Theology", like any theology, historically speaking, has been the misinterpretation and misuse of that theology for evil means.  A good example of this is the extermination of the Native Americans in North America.  Many of the rationalizations behind this ethnic cleansing revolved around the misunderstood and twisted idea that, since the Church replaces Israel, and many people coming to America at that time considered themselves Christians, then the Native Americans must be our Caananites who should be completely eliminated.  Obviously, this is a tragedy and a great misinterpretation of Scripture for selfish gain.

Now, Dispensationalism often comes hand-in-hand with pre-millenial eschatology, which believes in a relatively complicated timeline that includes several specific things that have been prophesied regarding end times.  These prophecies often include a physical return of the Jews to the land of Israel.  Many Covenant theologians, are Amillenial.  They tend to take Revelation more simply, viewing Christ's return as the overall gist of the book, and many of the details allegorical.  Because of this, they view the modern state of Israel as a different entity altogether than the Israelites of the Bible.  This effectively removes the eschatological viewpoint from the argument on whether or whether not to support Israel.

Ultimately, whether you hear this term at all, and what light it's put into, largely depends on the theological bent of those around you.  I've typically heard it more around Classical or Progressive Dispensationalists, whereas most of my Covenant Theology friends typically take it as an assumed truth, though many haven't really thought out all the implications or details of it.


Why do some traditions *not* celebrate Christmas or Easter in any official fashion? Following-up to these previous questions, why do some traditions not celebrate the birth and death (or, more accurately, His resurrection) of Christ as "official" church "events"?

I understand that celebrating the Communion Table is a celebration of Jesus death - but why not celebrate His birth and resurrection, too, in a "special" way (ie beyond just celebrating His resurrection every Sunday by that being the the church comes together for worship)?

Jehovah's Witnesses don't celebrate Christmas because of the pagan origins of many of our current customs.  They cover this in several articles on their site.  A search of their site returns many. They also reject several other holidays, citing similar reasons.

Several other denominations have similar beliefs, and even within denominations that largely celebrate holidays, there are those with personal convictions about various aspects of holidays and refuse to celebrate to one degree or another.  It's not always a traditional boundary, since most denominations agree that Christianity isn't about rules and regulations, but rather about a relationship with Christ, and His saving grace.

Using a couple of personal examples, I come from a Baptist Church, and most of us celebrate Christmas, have Christmas trees, etc.  However, there are some in my own Church that refuse to have the trees.  I personally don't like telling the kids about Santa Claus because I don't want them questioning whether they can trust me to tell the truth.

Note, that last paragraph was included as an example of personal convictions, not an endorsement or indictment of any person's choice to celebrate in whatever way they see fit.


What is the difference between an apostle and a disciple? Some people use "apostles" and "disciples" interchangeably when talking about the 12 that originally followed Jesus.  Yet, I don't commonly hear the opposite, people using those two words interchangeably when talking about those that follow Jesus after his resurrection and ascension.  When I do hear them interchanged, it doesn't sound correct.  What is the difference between an apostle and disciple?  And does it change from denomination to denomination?

The Oxford Dictionary gives a generic meaning of disciple as:

  A follower or pupil of a teacher, leader, or philosopher.

The specific meaning is given as

  A personal follower of Christ during his life, especially one of the twelve Apostles.

A definition of apostle is

  An important early Christian teacher or pioneering missionary.

Apostle is from the same Greek word as post and conveys the sense of a messenger of Christ.

Prior to the Ascension Peter etc. were essentially following  Jesus and learning from Him. They were disciples. After Whitsun they were teaching about Him. They were His apostles. So the fundamental difference is between learning and teaching.

They also conducted a preaching tour during Jesus' earthly ministry. So at that point they were both.

In practice, though, people often use the terms interchangeably.


Do people who adhere to the Immaculate Conception of Mary believe that Mary and Jesus were both conceived in the same fashion? My Christian training emphasized the uniqueness of the Christ as the only human ever directly created since Adam,thus the only one ever born of woman that could offer a propitiatory sacrifice that would exactly cover the fall of Adam.

Catholics and some Protestants regard Mary as having had a similar special conception that left her perfect to be the mother of God.

My question is if Jesus had to have a perfect mother to be perfect, would not Mary also have had to have a perfect mother to be born perfect?

And her mother  the same and her mothers mother the same and her mothers mothers mother the same etc....

Would it not make much more sense to conclude that just once in all history the Creator of Adam created another perfect human by miraculously adding the necessary spark that initiated  the process known as fetal development from the ovum of Mary?

No, they do not. Jesus was born without sin by virtue of being God. Mary, who was conceived in the usual way, would have had to have some other approach to be sinless. After some thought about how that might have occurred, theologians concluded that

the soul of the Blessed Virgin, in its creation and infusion into the body, was endowed with the grace of the Holy Spirit and preserved from original sin.

(Apostolic Constitution "Sollicitudo Omnium Ecclesiarum", Alexander VIII,  1661; quoted in "Ineffabilis Deus", Pius IX, 1854)
In particular,  the Catechism states:

Through the centuries the Church has become ever more aware that Mary, “full of grace” through God, was redeemed from the moment of her conception. That is what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception confesses, as Pope Pius IX proclaimed in 1854:

The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin.

(Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 491)
That is, essentially, Mary was redeemed, sanctified, and justified (as we all are at baptism) in the moment of her conception, by the merits of her Son's sacrifice extended back in time. There was no need for her to be born of a sinless mother. It was the supreme glory of the Divinity that made it appropriate for Mary herself to be sinless, but she herself didn't have to be born of a sinless one to become that way.


How would Reformed Christians deal with homosexual marriage of individuals prior to their conversion to Christianity? I've been pondering this for several weeks and I believe that the reformed church (really, the church in general) is woefully unprepared to answer the following question:

How would the church deal with a gay couple that were not Christians when married, that then become Christians?

Specifically when we have passages like 1 Corinthians 7:17 (NIV)

  17 Nevertheless, each person should live as a believer in whatever situation the Lord has assigned to them, just as God has called them. This is the rule I lay down in all the churches.

I'm looking for relevant biblical quotations, relevant quotes from reformed scholars past and present, and any statements by reformed churches or denominations that have come out in recent years.

I'm also interested in how circumstances and views change when 1 partner becomes a Christian, when there are children involved, and when both partners become Christians.

As gay marriage becomes more prominent, legal and prolific in our society, questions like this are going to be more and more relevant and the Church must be prepared to deal with an answer these queries.

I'm specifically interested in reformed sources here as they are most relevant to me, but I would be open to other sources that take a similar view of homosexuality.

John Piper addressed a portion of this question in the context of Minnesota's "Same-Sex Marriage Amendment".  Having listened to his sermons on Romans 1 and other statements by him, the following principles are his consistent teaching on the question:

  Marriage is created and defined by God in the Scriptures as the sexual and covenantal union of a man and a woman in life-long allegiance to each other alone, as husband and wife, with a view to displaying Christ’s covenant relationship to his blood-bought church.
  There is no such thing as so-called same-sex marriage, and it would be wise not to call it that.
  Same sex desires and same sex orientation are part of our broken and disordered sexuality owing to God’s subjection of the created order to futility because of man’s sin.
  Therefore, same-sex intercourse, not same-sex desire is the focus of Paul’s condemnation when he threatens exclusion from the kingdom of God.
  Therefore, it would contradict love and contradict the gospel of Jesus to approve homosexual practice, whether by silence, or by endorsing so-called same-sex marriage, or by affirming the Christian ordination of practicing homosexuals.
  The good news of Jesus is that God saves heterosexual sinners and homosexual sinners who trust Jesus, by counting them righteous because of Christ, and by helping them through his Spirit to live lives pleasing to him in their disordered brokenness.

I extracted these from the text of his June 16, 2012 sermon, but left off the last two points that shifted to the Church's attitude toward political action.  Piper obliquely addressed the question of what to do if members of this sort of union were to join his congregation:

  Churches will be faced with new and unheard of cases of discipline. Suppose two so-called “married” men hear the gospel and one of them believes and comes to your church. Will you council “divorce” and moving out?

He also quoted 1st Peter 2:12's encouragement to engage the world with honor:

  Keep your conduct among the Gentiles honorable, so that when they speak against you as evildoers, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day of visitation. (ESV)

I believe we can extrapolate from these principles:

Like any other sin, homosexual practice should be resisted.  If a new believer continues in their habitual sin, it's the responsibility of the Church warn against the dangers of sin.
On the other hand, homosexual desire is like any other temptation.  We should not be afraid of it.  Christians resist temptation with the power of the Holy Spirit.
Same-sex marriage is not binding in the eyes of God and nor should it be binding in the eyes of the church.

So we can safely ignore the teachings on divorce in this case; divorce as understood in the Bible just doesn't apply.  Instead, I think the actual parallel is to the state of voluntary servitude.  That analogy might seem distasteful, but in the Roman world being a bondservant was actually a respectable position.  Many bondservants performed duties that we would recognize as white-collar professions.  More to the point, it was a civic obligation that Paul explained was no longer binding to believers.

Here is Paul's advice:

  Were you a bondservant when called? Do not be concerned about it. (But if you can gain your freedom, avail yourself of the opportunity.) For he who was called in the Lord as a bondservant is a freedman of the Lord. Likewise he who was free when called is a bondservant of Christ.—1st Corinthians 7:21-22 (ESV)

Therefore, it seems to me that a Christian who submitted to a same-sex civic contract before they converted should abstain from sexual intercourse, but honor the other obligations of the union.  That would include financial and parental duties if applicable.  Separation should be seriously considered in order to reduce temptation.  If there is an honorable way to nullify the union, that should be pursued.  If not, nobody should be concerned about it.

Conclusion

It's very likely we will see some missteps and controversy in the next generation.  Our society is increasingly approving of same-sex practice, but the church should not be.  I'll let Piper have the final word:

  One of the most powerful things we can do is fold into our churches men and women who have same-sex attraction and surround them with a bigger vision of life and love and relationships that make it possible for them to flourish in families and friendships. These stories may be one of the most authenticating messages for the Christian gospel.


Overview of Trichotomous vs Dichotomous views of Man There are generally two* views of Man

the Dichotomous (Soul & Body)
the Trichotomous (Soul, Spirit, & Body)

Notably, A W Pink ascribes to the Trichotomous view (or Tripartite).

Also notably, R C Sproul views the Trichotomy as heretical.

Personally, I believe that the Platonic Tripartite view is dangerous or heretical, but the Bible does seem to indicate at least some type of trinitarian mirroring of the image of God in Man.

What is an overview of these two perspectives and how much support is found in the Bible for both?

*An argument can be made for a Quadrichotomous view (Body, Soul, Mind, Spirit), but can be covered in another question

Which is the "safer"/"more Biblical" view, and why?

My instinct is that it might be safer to understand the Dichotomous view primarily based on my own experience in transitioning from a Trichotomous view early in my Christian life.  Having said that, someone like A.W Pink probably has a healthy version of the a Trichotomous view and I would not call it heretical.

My introduction to the Trichotomous view was very early in my Christian life by reading Watchman Nee and just a few years later I tossed out his books as I had then encountered Dr. Martin Lloyd-Jones and saw a clear difference between Biblical exposition and a kind of mysticism that Nee promoted. The reason why the Trichotomous view (in this case) led to a sort of mysticism is that the ‘spirit’ as ‘opposed’ to the ‘soul’ was focused on as the true Godly part, and one was encouraged to sort of ignore the mind, emotions and will and try to reach out for a more ‘spiritual’ state ---- in communion with God.

As I started to read older Bible commentaries and works from reformed theologians from the 16-18th centuries, I noticed a switch to a Dichotomous view that seemed more aligned with a spiritual sense of God through understanding of his Word. To make a long story short I sort of adopted the Dichotomous view without really thinking about it.

Now many years later I will just summarize the perspective that I have found in various older Bible commentaries, in support of the Dichotomous view.

First let me quote a book that others have noted that provides a good summary of both views:

  The dichotomous theory.
   Strong states the theory thus:
  The immaterial part of man, viewed as an individual and conscious life, capable of possessing and animating a physical organism, is called psuche; viewed as a rational and moral agent, susceptible of divine influence and indwelling, this same immaterial part is called. The pneumu, then, is man’s nature looking and capable of receiving and manifesting the Pneumu the psuche is man’s nature looking earthward, and touching the world of sense. The pneumu is man’s higher part, as related to spiritual realities or as capable of such relation. Man’s being is therefore not trichotomous but dichotomous, and his immaterial part, while possessing duality of powers, has unity of substance.

  The trichotomous theory
   This theory holds that man consists of three distinct elements: body, soul, and spirit. The body is the material part of our constitution, the soul is the principle of animal life, and the spirit is the principle of our rational life. Some add to this last statement “and immortal life.” This can, however, not be made an essential part of the theory. Those who take this extreme view hold that at death the body returns to the earth, the soul ceases to exist, and the spirit alone remains to be reunited with the body at the resurrection. (Lectures In Systematic Theology, Henry Clarence Thiessen, P160)

Second let me explain why a good understanding of the dichotomous theory does have some similarities with the trichotomous theory, but better explains that commonality.

The basic situation when looking at many places in scripture where the soul or spirit are spoken of, one quickly finds that the meanings overlap but also convey separate senses. Therefore in general the spirit means something different than the soul even though they are indicating the same vital non physical lfe of man.

From a basic standpoint of occurenes in the Bible in the Old Testament נָ֫פֶשׁ (soul) is used almost always as the English ‘soul’ but commonly just ‘life’ or functions of the mind, will or heart that are more often related to ‘desire’. In the New Testament ψυχῆς (soul) is alsmot always ‘soul’ or ‘life’.  Looking at the word ‘spirit’ we find similar but different meanings.  ר֫וּחַ (spirit) in the Old Testament is almost always ‘Spirit’, ‘spirit’, or ‘wind’. In the New Testament (πνεύματος) it is almost always just ‘Spirit’ or ‘spirit’.

I think this establishes Strong’s definition quite well for the soul is therefore the essential life of man ‘looking earthward’ and the ‘spirit’ that same principle of life breathed (like wind) into man from God, that can look towards and experience God.  One must accept this different cast used by spirit or soul upon the principle of life in man, because later the idea of carnal and spiritual are assigned to these different aspects. This is where the commonality of both views occur.

For example, in 1 Corinthians 2:14-15 we have a phrase a ‘natural man’ does not accept the things of the Spirit of God. Here the natural man is ψυχικὸς psuchikos (natural, of the soul or mind) is used which has a strong relationship to the word soul (ψυχῆς - psychēs).  In verse fifteen in contrast to the carnal man, we find the phrase 'he that is spiritual'. Spiritual πνευματικὸς (pneumatikos) has a strong relationship to the word 'spirit' πνεύματος (pneumatos).  So sometimes 'soul' indicates an identification with the unregenerate parts of man' soul (or essential life) being considered 'carnal' and the regenerate parts of man’s soul (called spirit) being spiritual.  This division is what commentators often notice. For example, in Hebrews where the word of God is said to divide spirit and soul, the carnal and spiritual parts of a man might be understood.

The other thing of notice, that I have found commentaries often do, when they context does not allow a carnal or spiritual division, is refer to the 'seat of emotions' as the soul  and the 'mind' denoted by spirit, such as loving God with 'soul and mind', or 'who knows the thoughts of a man accept the spirit of a man'? (Math 22:37, 1 Cor 2:11)

Conclusion: A  dichotomous view is a safer view as it seems more grounded in the Bible and in reformed theology. In an in-depth analysis of the soul and the spirit, one finds different aspects of the 'same single vital immaterial life God breathed into Adam' called soul or spirit. However, the soul and spirit often denote different aspects of that life. In a believer, in the struggle of sin, they often denote the difference between the carnal and spiritual mind and affections, for the soul looking heavenward (spirit) is very actively opposing its former lusts (soul looking earthward). When this distinction is 'over pressed', however, a 'Trichotomous view' is established that is not common with earlier theologians. In its more extreme version, like in Watchman Nee, it starts to promote ‘super spirituality’ and ‘mysticism’ that could become ‘less safe’ as it no longer rests on spirituality by God's word but by 'inner motions' and 'senses' - actually encouraging a carnal view of the spiritual life.


Is repentance of sins possible outside the Gospels? Does every human being, at least once in their lifetime, have a genuine chance to repent of their sins, turn away from them and start living a righteous life? If so, does this also include people who never hear the Gospel? What does repentance of sins look like for a non-Christian who dies never having the Gospel preached to them?
I would be interested in an overview of main Christian viewpoints regarding these questions.

Is repentance of sins possible outside the gospel?

Yes, since God plants conscience in every person's heart. But see next paragraph below.

What does repentance of sins look like for a non-Christian who dies never having the gospel preached to them?

Since they haven't heard a proper presentation of the Gospel, their repentance will be far from what is needed for Christian conversion.  They may simply repent from being lazy, or even as trivial as repenting from a habit of driving over the speed limit.  I did both when I was young, but those repentance didn't save me because that's NOT the kind of repentance needed for salvation.  Even a self-serving atheist can repent from that kind of "sin".

Does every human being, at least once in their lifetime, have a genuine chance to repent of their sins, turn away from them and start living a righteous life? If so, does this also include people who never hear the gospel?

Again, without proper gospel presentation, it depends on what "righteous life" means.  Every religion has their own version.  It can simply mean living a decent life following the ethical standard that either myself or my preferred society defines for me.  That is NOT what righteous life means to Christianity, which is living according to God's standard, not my own standard.  Genuine chance requires genuine understanding of the magnitude & character of the offense, which in Christianity means:

realizing that we have been following our human made standard, even though it can be very decent and sacrificial
realizing that the main aggrieved party is God our creator, not only our fellow human beings
realizing that the main offense is our failure to center our whole life to honor and love God instead of ourselves, not merely the failure to follow some moral code, even if the moral code is already one of the best (such as the OT code)

So the answer is: Yes, to those who understood properly the gospel message, No to everyone else.
Concluding thoughts
Proper Christian repentance is intimately linked to faith in Jesus Christ (see this article).   But the object of our faith (Jesus Christ) needs to be communicated FIRST by the gospel presentation, which in turn genuinely informs the challenge for proper repentance that leads to faith, which in turn leads to salvation.  So this question is masking an underlying question: Will everyone who has not heard the gospel before they die have a genuine chance to hear it? which has been answered in your other question: What is an overview of Christian viewpoints on the eternal destiny of individuals who die never hearing the Gospel?


What problems, if any, do Christadelphians have with the Apostles' Creed? As a follow-up to previous questions, I'd like to know: Do Christadelphians disagree with or "reinterpret" any phrases in the Apostles' Creed?

Here's the context: I'm listening to an audio series in which the Apostles' Creed is used as the framework for "Christian theology," implying that those who believe the Apostles' Creed are orthodox.  But in this series, non-trinitarians are not considered orthodox.

This makes me wonder – how do certain non-trinitarian groups understand the Apostles' Creed?  Do they accept it as written, or simply reject it?  Or perhaps they accept it, but interpret particular phrases in ways that trinitarians don't?

Here, I'm most interested in how early Christadelphian leaders, like John Thomas and Robert Roberts, viewed the creed.  If they did not address the Apostles' Creed in their writings, I'd be interested in the analysis of more recent Christadelphian theologians (in overview style, if there is disagreement).

Related: Same question for Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Oneness Pentecostals, and Swedenborgians.

Christadelphian beliefs impact on their view of the Apostle’s Creed, though that Creed is not something mentioned much (if at all) in their literature.

Their literature does make it clear how antagonistic they are towards all the fundamental doctrines of what they call ‘Christendom’, so that we can conclude they would never subscribe to that Creed. To substantiate this, let me quote from ‘Who Are The Christadelphians?’ pp 3, 6, 8.

  “Convinced that this is the only Scriptural constitution of the ‘one
  body’, of which Jesus Christ is alone the head, and Who has no
  personal representative on earth, we repudiate the popular churches,
  and all their adjuncts, as no part thereof, and affirm that there is
  no salvation within the pale of any of them. For we hold that the
  religious opinions and sacramentalism of all orders and classes of men
  in ‘Christendom’ so-called are nothing more than that ‘strong
  delusion’ sent of God upon all mankind that they should believe a lie,
  that they might all be condemned. We object to the fundamental
  doctrines of Christendom; the religion of the churches and chapels is
  a negation of Bible teaching on almost all points. We hold it to be
  ‘the abomination of the earth’ with all dissenting names and
  denominations, aggregately styled ‘names of blasphemy’, of which the
  European body politic, symbolised by the eight-headed,
  scarlet-coloured beast is said to be ‘full’.”

On that basis, they could not possibly assent to the Apostles’ Creed, for that would align them with an ancient tradition which they despise and which they claim is cursed of God. Yet, technically, they could agree with it, if their interpretation of the doctrines involved was understood as the meaning. For example, the Creed expresses belief in “the resurrection of the flesh”. Christadelphians do believe that when Christ returns, they and the Jews will be resurrected with physical bodies on to the earth (but not to heaven).  That, however, falls far short of orthodox Christian teaching about all the dead being resurrected.

You mentioned their repudiation of the Trinity doctrine, and here is what Roberts said about it in ‘Christianity Astray’ p 108

  “A contradiction, a stultification, an impossibility.” “There were not
  two or three eternal persons before ‘the man Christ Jesus’, but ONE –
  God the Father, whose relation to the Son was afterwards exemplified
  in the event related by Luke (i. 35)… Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is
  not ‘the second person’ of an eternal Trinity of Gods [sic], but the
  manifestation of the ONE ETERNAL CREATOR.”

Regarding Jesus Christ, Walker writes in ‘Truth About The Trinity’ p 13,

  “The Father was manifest in the flesh, not a pre-existent co-eternal
  Son, which is impossible.”

And in ‘Constitution of the Christadelphian Ecclesia’ p 13 we read,

  “That ‘Christ’s nature was immaculate’ is among the doctrines to be
  rejected.”

This means that although they could agree with the Creed on many points, their rejection of Christ’s pre-mortal existence, denial that he had a sinless nature when on earth etc. means that their idea of who Christ is differs vastly from the Christ of the Creed even though the Creed does not spell such details out.

The Apostles’ Creed is, on the surface, a very simple declaration of basic Christian faith, yet there are so many denominations (like the Christadelphians) who will not be aligned with it, the question, ‘Why not?’ can only be answered with, ‘Because the early Church circa A.D. 400 came up with it, and such new groups so differ from mainstream Church doctrine, they cannot be identified with that which they claim was already corrupted by then.”


According to Catholics, who are "the elect"? Calvinists believe that God unconditionally elects certain people to believe, these are His "elect"

I am trying to figure what Catholics believe. This article states "A true biblical understanding of “election” must involve man’s truly free response"
While this article says "[A Catholic] certainly is free to disagree with the Calvinist interpretation, but he also is free to agree."

Do Catholics believe the elect are those unconditional chosen by God or conditionally chosen by God? Do Catholics have to believe that election involves man's truly free response, or are Catholics free to agree or disagree?

According to Catholicism, who are “the elect”?

In a nutshell, this term for Catholics refers to the Church Militant and the Church Triumphant.

Here follows what the Catholic Encyclopedia has to say on the subject of the Elect:

  Elect

  Denotes in general one chosen or taken by preference from among two or more; as a theological term it is equivalent to "chosen as the object of mercy or Divine favour, as set apart for eternal life". In order to determine the meaning of the word more accurately, we shall have to study its usage both in the Old Testament and the New.

  The Old Testament

  The Old Testament applies the term elect, or chosen, only to the Israelites in as far as they are called to be the people of God, or are faithful to their Divine call. The idea of such an election is common in the Book of Deuteronomy and in Isaiah 40-66. In Psalm 104:6 and 43 and 105:5, the chosen ones are the Hebrew people in as far as it is the recipient of God's temporal and spiritual blessings; in Isaiah 65:9, 15 and 23, they are the repentant Israelites, as few in number "as if a grain can be found in a cluster" (ibid., 8); in Tob., xiii, 10, they are the Israelites remaining faithful during their captivity; in Wisd., iii, 9, and iv, 15, they are God's true servants; in Sirach 24:4, 13 and 46:2, these servants of God belong to the chosen people.

  The New Testament

  The New Testament transfers (excepting perhaps in Acts 13:17) the meaning of the term from its connection with the people of Israel to the members of the Church of Christ, either militant on earth or triumphant in heaven. Thus 1 Peter 1:1, speaks of the elect among the "strangers dispersed" through the various parts of the world; 1 Peter 2:9, represents them as "a chosen generation, a kingly priesthood, a holy nation, a purchased people", called from darkness into God's marvellous light. St. Paul, too, speaks of the elect (Romans 8:33) and describes the five degrees of their election: they are foreknown, predestined, called, justified, and glorified (loc. cit., 29, 30). He returns to the idea gain and again: 2 Thessalonians 2:12 sq.; Colossians 3:12; Titus 1:1-2; 2 Timothy 2:10. St. John gives the title of elect to those who fight on the side of the Lamb against the powers of darkness (Revelation 17:14). According to Luke 18:7, God hears the cries of his elect for vengeance; according to the first two Evangelists he will shorten the last days for the sake of the elect (Matthew 24:22, 24, 31; Mark 13:20, 22, 27).

  If it be asked why the name elect was given to the members of the Church Militant, we may assign a double reason: first, they were freely chosen by God's goodness (Romans 11:5-7, 28); secondly, they must show in their conduct that they are choice men (Ephesians 4:17). In the sentence "many are called, but few are chosen", the latter expression renders a word in the Greek and Latin text which is elsewhere translated by elect (Matthew 20:16; 22:14). It is agreed on all sides that the term refers to members of the Church Triumphant, but there is some doubt as to whether it refers to mere membership, or to a more exalted degree. This distinction is important; if the word implies mere membership in the Church Triumphant, then the chosen ones, or those who will be saved, are few, and the non-members in the Church Triumphant are many; if the word denotes a special degree of glory, then few will attain this rank, and many will fail to do so, though many are called to it. The sentence "many are called, but few chosen" does not, therefore, settle the question as to the relative number of the elect and the lost; theologians are divided on this point, and while Christ in the Gospels urges the importance of saving one's soul (Luke 13:23, 24), he alternately so strengthens our hope and excites our fear as not to leave us any solid ground for either presumption or despair.

Simply put the Elect are those saved and are in heaven, thus forming the Church Triumphant and the Church Militant on earth.

What is the Church Militant?

  The Church on earth, still struggling with sin and temptation, and therefore engaged in warfare (Latin militia) with the world, the flesh, and the devil.

And what is the Church Triumphant?

  The Church of all those in heavenly glory who have triumphed over their evil inclinations, the seductions of the world, and the temptations of the evil spirit.


What is the biblical basis for classifying the Eucharist as an offering or sacrifice? It is commonly believed in Catholicism that the Eucharist/Lord's Supper/Communion is a "sacrifice" or "offering."

For example, one website states,

  The Eucharist is a true sacrifice, not just a commemorative meal, as "Bible Christians" insist.

What is the biblical basis for this belief?

Note:

"offering": προσφορά
"sacrifice": θυσία

Among other scriptures, the biblical basis for the Eucharist/Communion/Lord's Supper being an offering (προσφορά) or sacrifice (θυσία) is derived from 1 Cor. 10.
In 1 Cor. 10:18, the apostle Paul wrote,

Consider Israel according to the flesh. Are not those who eat the sacrifices partakers with the altar? 1
βλέπετε τὸν Ἰσραὴλ κατὰ σάρκα οὐχὶ οἱ ἐσθίοντες τὰς θυσίας κοινωνοὶ τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου εἰσίν

"Israel according to the flesh" refers to those Israelites physically descended from the patriarch Israel (Jacob) and his son Levi who participated in offering and eating the sacrifices at the altar in the Temple (cp. Deu. 18:1; Lev. 7:15-18).
The apostle Paul was concerned with the Corinthians partaking of heathen sacrifices offered to demons. By doing so, they would be partaking of the same sacrifices with demons.
In 1 Cor. 10:20, he wrote,

But [I say] that the things that the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons and not to God. But I do not desire for you to be partakers with the demons.
ἀλλ᾽ ὅτι ἃ θύει τά ἔθνη, δαιμονίοις θύει καὶ οὐ θεῷ οὐ θέλω δὲ ὑμᾶς κοινωνοὺς τῶν δαιμονίων γίνεσθαι

The apostle Paul describes how sacrificing to an entity causes one to be a partaker of that sacrifice with the entity. Ergo, because the heathens sacrifice to demons, they become partakers of that sacrifice with the demons. One of the fundamental beliefs concerning sacrifices was that the entity to whom the sacrifices were offered also participated in the sacrifice, this by means of the altar upon which the sacrifice was offered. The altar in Judaism, as well as heathen cultures who practiced sacrifices, represented the deity to whom the sacrifices were offered.
In Synonyms of the Old Testament: Their Bearing on Christian Faith and Practice, Ch. XVI, p. 310, Robert Baker Girdlestone wrote,

The altar, θυσιαστήριον, is mentioned in about twenty passages, in most of which the Jewish altar is referred to. In 1 Cor. 10.18, St. Paul reminds the Corinthians that in the case of Israel those who eat the sacrifices becoming in so doing partakers with the altar. By this he evidently means that while the altar (which represented God) had part of the victim, the sacrificer had another part; thus the sacrifice, being consumed partly by God (through means of the fire on the altar) and partly by man, forms a bond of union between the one and the other.

Finally, in 1 Cor. 10:21, the apostle Paul wrote,

You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons.
οὐ δύνασθε ποτήριον κυρίου πίνειν καὶ ποτήριον δαιμονίων οὐ δύνασθε τραπέζης κυρίου μετέχειν καὶ τραπέζης δαιμονίων

The Greek word τράπεζα, translated as "table," is a synonym for "altar" (θυσιαστήριον). For example, in Mal. 1:7, it is written,

You offer polluted bread 2 upon My altar. And you say, "Wherein have we polluted You?" When you say, "The table of Yahveh is contemptible."
מַגִּישִׁים עַל מִזְבְּחִי לֶחֶם מְגֹאָל וַאֲמַרְתֶּם בַּמֶּה גֵאַלְנוּךָ בֶּאֱמָרְכֶם שֻׁלְחַן יהוה נִבְזֶה הוּא

In his commentary on Mal. 1:7, Franz Delitzsch wrote,

The table of Jehovah is the altar, upon which the sacrifices (i.e., the food of God) were laid.

Likewise, in his commentary on Mal. 1:7, Rabbi David Kimchi wrote,

"The table of Yahveh" - It is the altar, and so it said in Eze. [41:22] regarding the altar, "This is the table that is before Yahveh."
שלחן יהוה - הוא המזבח וכן אמר ביחזקאל על המזבח: זה השלחן אשר לפני יהוה

Having established that "table" = "altar," how does one partake of the table of demons (1 Cor. 10:21)? Evidently, it is by offering sacrifices to demons (1 Cor. 10:20). If one partakes of the table of demons by sacrificing to demons, how does one partake of the table of the Lord (i.e., table of Yahveh)? By analogy, one partakes of the table of the Lord by offering sacrifices to the Lord.
partake of the table of demons : offer sacrifices to demons ::
partake of the table of the Lord : offer sacrifices to the Lord
Of course, what are these sacrifices to the Lord? There can be no doubt that the apostle Paul is referring to "the cup of blessing which we bless," that is, "the communion of the blood of Christ," and "the bread which we break," that is, "the communion of the body of Christ" which he mention only two verses earlier (1 Cor. 10:16). In other words, the cup and bread of the Eucharist are indeed sacrifices offered to God on His altar/table.

Footnotes
1 Henry Alford: "in a strict and peculiar sense,—the altar having part of the animal, the partaker another part; and by the fact of the religious consecration of the offered part, this connexion becomes a religious connexion."
2 Franz Delitzsch: לֶחֶם, bread or food, does not refer to the shew-bread, for that was not offered upon the altar, but is the sacrificial flesh, which is called in Lev. 21:6, 21:8, 21:17, the food (לֶחֶם) of God


Where did Catholics and Catholicism come from? Catholicism seems to have begun so quickly after the dispersion of the Apostles that I'm wondering where even it even came from.

I'm especially curious to know when Christians began calling themselves Catholics instead of...Christians:

  Acts 11:25-26 ESV So Barnabas went to Tarsus to look for Saul, and when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. For a whole year they met with the church and taught a great many people. And in Antioch the disciples were first called Christians.

Assuming we know when it happened...I'm equally curious as to why it happened.

I don't think they called themselves Catholics instead of...Christians. They called themselves Catholic and also as Christians. Just like Catholics do even today.

Incidentally the same place where Christians got their name as Christians, is the same place where the Church was first called Catholic. That is at Antioch. The very first reference to the term Catholic is found in a farewell letter by St. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch. Around the year A.D. 107, he wrote, "Where the bishop is present, there is the Catholic Church" (To the Smyrnaeans 8:2). Note that he doesn't explain what the term means. Thus, the second century of Christianity had scarcely begun when the name of the Catholic Church was already in use.

In the English language, the first known use of the term is in Andrew of Wyntoun's Orygynale Cronykil of Scotland (~1420 AD), "He was a constant Catholic/All Lollard he hated and heretic." (src)

The reason why they used the term Catholic is because they believed being universal, that is being same everywhere with regards to what was believed, is one of the four marks of the true Church.


Who developed the doctrine of Biblical Inerrancy first - Catholics or Protestants? This article on Christian Fundamentalism says that it is developed by Protestants at Princeton University.

This Catholic source on Biblical inerrancy says that it has always been with the Catholics. Even prior to the Second Vatican Council, it was believed by Catholics that the Bible was without error.

I even answered an earlier Christianity.SE question on the history of inerrancy here, using different sources.

Do Protestants and Catholics each have their own versions of "Biblical inerrancy"? Or could it be that one theological tradition was inspired by the other? If Protestants are descended from the Catholic church, then how did they "lose" their own doctrine of inerrancy, as the sources seem to imply? Basically, was the doctrine of inerrancy a Catholic doctrine first, or a Protestant doctrine that later got borrowed by Catholics, or a doctrine evolved twice independently during the course of Christian history?

This selected Aerarius' answer to What are the main differences between the Catholic and Protestant definitions of Biblical inerrancy? said:

  There is not any real difference between the Catholic teaching on
  inerrancy of Scripture and the generic "Protestant" view [...].

If this be the case, we have from the article on the Catholic position:

  The Traditional Understanding of the Doctrine of Biblical Inerrancy Prior to the Second Vatican Council

  The traditional understanding of the doctrine of biblical inerrancy is
  perhaps most powerfully and clearly expressed by St. Augustine
  [354-430] in one of his letters to St. Jerome [340-2 to 420]:

  For I confess to your Charity that I have learned to yield this
  respect and honour only to the canonical books of Scripture: of these
  alone do I most firmly believe that the authors were completely free
  from error. And if in these writings I am perplexed by anything which
  appears to me opposed to truth, I do not hesitate to suppose that
  either the [manuscript] is faulty or the translator has not caught the
  meaning of what was said, or I myself have failed to understand it . .
  . I believe, my brother, that this is your own opinion as well as
  mine.1

  1. Letter 82, i, 3 in Philip Schaff (ed)., Letters of St.
  Augustine: The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church,
  First Series, vol 1 (Grand Rapids, MI: WM. B. Eerdmans, 1994)
  348.

Therefore if by Biblical inerrancy is meant that the authors of the canonical books of Scripture were completely free from error, then from Catholic tradition, this Catholic understanding preceded the 1978 Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy by over 1550 years. And the latter statement is:

  Biblical inerrancy, as formulated in the "Chicago Statement on
  Biblical Inerrancy", is the doctrine that the Bible "is without error
  or fault in all its teaching"; or, at least, that "Scripture in the
  original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to
  fact". - Source: Biblical inerrancy | Wikipedia.


Are there any Church traditions or legends that state what species of fish Tobias caught in the Book of Tobit? Are there any Church traditions or legends that state what species of fish the young man Tobias caught in the Book of Tobit according to the Catholic, Orthodox or other local churches of the East?

  The Book of Tobi is a book of scripture that is part of the Catholic and Orthodox biblical canons, pronounced canonical by the Council of Hippo (in 393), Councils of Carthage of 397 and 417, Council of Florence (in 1442) and confirmed for Roman Catholics by the Council of Trent (1546). - Book of Tobit (Wikipedia)

Here is what the Book of Tobit has to say about Tobias and the fish:

  1 And Tobias went forward, and the dog followed him, and he lodged the first night by the river of Tigris. 2 And he went out to wash his feet, and behold a monstrous fish came up to devour him. 3 And Tobias being afraid of him, cried out with a loud voice, saying: Sir, he cometh upon me. 4 And the angel said to him: Take him by the gill, and draw him to thee. And when he had done so, he drew him out upon the land, and he began to pant before his feet. 5 Then the angel said to him: Take out the entrails of the fish, and lay up his heart, and his gall, and his liver for thee: for these are necessary for useful medicines. 6 And when he had done so, he roasted the flesh thereof, and they took it with them in the way: the rest they salted as much as might serve them, till they came to Rages the city of the Medes. - Tobit 6: 1-6.

The Jewish Encyclopedia states that the Book of Tobit is was probably composed between 200 and 50 B.C.

Anchor Bible by Lopukhin (Толкование на книгу Товита) says that some people attribute it to "sabot" or "alsabut" in Arabic language, others think it is pike. The latter is especially due to the fact that pike is common among Jews and is a clean fish.

Please note that the success of usage of that fish was not due to the nature of the fish itself, as noted in that Anchor Bible later, but due to the prayer, as note A. Glagolev and Prof. Drozdov in the cited works.


Are Left handers servants of the devil? For thousands of years, the Devil has been associated with the left hand in various ways and is normally portrayed as being left-handed in pictures and other images.

In the seventeenth century it was thought that the Devil baptised his followers with his left-hand and there are many references in superstitions to the "left-hand side" being associated with evil.

We say "do the right thing" thus favoring the right side to the left one. Jesus is portraited using his right hand and on the contrary, Devil using the left.

What are the traditions of the Church towards left handness?

Traditionally, and not just in the Church, the right hand was considered more "noble" than the left, probably just because there are a lot more right-handed than left-handed people.  As a result, the Church's traditional rubrics specify that some ceremonial actions be performed with the right hand, even if the person performing them is left-handed. For example, I believe priests are supposed to distribute communion with the right hand.  This also applies to some actions that are not strictly governed by rubrics; for example, even though I'm left-handed, I make the sign of the cross with my right hand.

Until fairly recently, this sort of preference for the right hand was much more visible in secular society too.  For example, my father, who was (like me and two of my four siblings) left-handed, was forced, as a child, to learn to write with his right hand.  The preference also shows up in the English language, not only in phrases like the ones you mentioned in the question, but also in single words like "dexterous", "ambidextrous", and "sinister".

Finally, to answer the original question: No, I'm not a servant of the devil.


Why is God three persons rather than four or more? This question is about the Holy Trinity. Did the Scriptures explained that God is necessarily three persons?

[ This question doesn't challenge the Trinity if it is true but rather, the question, if answered will be for the benefit of the Trinitarian]

This question is covered in other places such as here

The bible does not anywhere in it say that god is clearly three persons. That is a human perception of what is written. There are many scriptures such as John 1;1 that obscurely support it.  There are many more scriptures that suggest that God and Jesus are separate such as 1 Corinthians 11;2.

There is, however, no scripture that comes out and says directly Jesus, Jehovah, and the holy spirit are 1 being.


Changes in Rome since Trent versus the Evangelicals I am aware that there have been two wide spread movements to bring the Evangelical and Roman Catholic Churches closer together (ECT and ECT2).  My question is this: What has changed in Roman Catholic doctrine since the Council of Trent when the split was fully made and the evangelical movement anathematized by Rome?  Have all of the changes that have encouraged these movements been from the side of the Evangelicals?

It's not that doctrine has changed as much as the importance of the arguments. The Roman Catholic Church and many Evangelicals now agree that much of the arguments were semantic, and political and cultural opposition played a large role (especially ongoing political rivalries between France and Germany and the Turkish threat in the Mediterranean). So what has changed isn't really doctrine, but rather the importance of wording those doctrines in certain ways versus others.

It is actually Evangelicals who have changed their doctrines, which is the reason for the recent ecumenical successes. In fact, the Second Vatican Council's Decree on Ecumenism states that ecumenical activity cannot result in changing any aspect of the Catholic faith. For example, Post Conciliar Document Number 42 says that the purpose of ecumenism is to transform the thinking and behavior of non-Catholics so that eventually all Christians will be united in one Church. It states, "This unity, we believe, dwells in the Catholic Church." In other words, "unity" means that all Christians will become Roman Catholics.

The reality of it is that the Roman Catholic Church is engaging in ecumenical dialog with Protestants and Orthodox, calling them "separated brethren," and claiming to respect their beliefs. But at the same time, it still officially declares that they are heterodox because of these same beliefs. Some Catholics have expressed concern over this.


What are the requirements for godparents in the Roman Catholic Church? I talked to quite a few people today about Catholicism. I asked one couple questions about being godparents, because they were godparents for another child. However, this couple is not even Catholic. They also were not married in the Catholic Church. I was under the impression that godparents were required to be active members of the Catholic Church.

What are the requirements for godparents in the Catholic Church? Does the Catholic Church sometimes disregard the rules regarding godparents?

Disclaimer: Though I am a Catholic, I am not a canon lawyer, nor a theologian, nor a priest. I am reasonably certain that my answer is correct and in accordance with Church law; but if I am in error I will gladly receive correction.
Unfortunately, it appears that such a couple as you describe is not eligible to be godparents at a Catholic baptism.
The Code of Canon Law for the Latin Church has a whole chapter on godparents—"sponsors" is the technical term—but before we go there, let's talk about the Catholic theology of baptism.
The Catholic understanding of baptism differs from that of some Protestant denominations in that Catholics consider baptism as a necessary thing. The  Catechism of the Catholic Church calls baptism

the basis of the whole Christian life, the gateway to life in the Spirit ... and the door which gives access to the other sacraments. Through Baptism we are freed from sin and reborn as sons of God; we become members of Christ, are incorporated into the Church and made sharers in her mission.

(paragraph 1213)
Describing what the Sacrament of Baptism actually does, the Catechism explains:

it signifies and actually brings about the birth of water and the Spirit without which no one "can enter the kingdom of God." [cf. Titus 3:5, John 3:5]

(paragraph 1215; emphasis added)
This being the case, the Church reasons, why would one not want to baptize one's children at as early an age as possible?

Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all men are called. The sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation is particularly manifest in infant Baptism. The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth.
Christian parents will recognize that this practice also accords with their role as nurturers of the life that God has entrusted to them.

(paragraphs 1250, 1251)
The Church therefore considers it very important to ensure both that children are baptized and that baptism is used as an introduction to and support for their Christian and Catholic life. To that end, they have several canons discussing baptism, who can be baptized, requirements for parents of children being baptized, and (importantly for our question) requirements for baptismal sponsors. These requirements are essentially the same in the Latin Church's Code of Canon Law as they are in the Code of Canons for the Eastern Churches, which governs the Eastern Catholic sui iuris churches. I'll review the Latin Church's rules.
The rules appear in Book IV, Part I, Title I, Chapter IV of the Code of Canon Law, "Of Sponsors".
The sponsor at an infant or child baptism has two functions: first, to stand as a witness for the parents' desire to have their child baptized; and second, to help the child grow up leading a Christian and Catholic life (cf. canon 872). With this in mind, the Church imposes restrictions on potential sponsors intended to ensure that they can appropriately fulfill this second function. The restrictions appear in canon 874, section 1. Each sponsor must:

be designated by the one to be baptized, by the parents or the person who takes their place, or in their absence by the pastor or minister and have the aptitude and intention of fulfilling this function;

This restriction makes sure that the sponsor is close enough to the family that they will be easily able to interact with the child, and that they are willing and able to do what a sponsor needs to do.

[They must] have completed the sixteenth year of age, unless the diocesan bishop has established another age, or the pastor or minister has granted an exception for a just cause;

This is to make sure that they are psychologically mature enough to ensure that the child does what a Catholic needs to do—even when it's not easy for the child, and when it's not easy for the sponsor.

[They must] be a Catholic who has been confirmed and has already received the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist and who leads a life of faith in keeping with the function to be taken on;

This is the restriction at the core of your question. The restriction here is to make sure that the sponsor understands what, exactly, is involved in leading a Catholic life, and in helping another to do so.

[They must] not be bound by any canonical penalty legitimately imposed or declared;

In other words, they have to be in good standing with the Church, and not be at risk of passing on any opinion to the child, or engendering any opinion in the child, which might not be congruent with Church doctrine.

[They must] not be the father or mother of the one to be baptized.

This is so that the child gets a "second chance" in the event that the parents are (or become) unable or unwilling to raise the child Catholic.
Because the couple you mention do not fulfill the requirements of part (3), they would unfortunately be ineligible to be godparents.
It may be possible for the priest to ask the bishop to dispense from that particular canon; I would imagine, given the importance the Catholic Church attaches to baptism, that a dispensation would probably not be granted even if it's possible.


Does Catholicism have a notion of "the God in me"? While being interviewed on the NPR radio show "On Being," lobbyist, lawyer, and nun Sister Simone Campbell said of developing compassion for her political opponents (at around 31:30),

  A few years ago on retreat, my retreat director did push me to realize that I have a list that, of folks that I call 'mistakes of God' and, you know, [jokingly] people that should have been voted off the island, it was God on an off day, [the audience laughs and she continues in a serious tone] but you know what? I came to realize that  if I was at odds with the God in them, then I'm at odds with the God in me.

This last statement struck me as something a Buddhist or Hindu practitioner would say, not a Catholic. Do any Catholic doctrines or Traditional teachings explain a Catholic notion of the God in you and the God in me, where recognition of the divine aspect of or in another person demands or motivates compassion?

Sister Simone kindly responded to my email asking this question. She said:

  "If I just said Holy Spirit, it would slide over like water. Also to an interfaith audience who doesn't necessarily hold a Trinitarian faith it seemed more inclusive to me. I also know that God continues to create us at every moment so it isn't just the "image" of God but God who keeps us loved and alive."


How does washing your face and anointing your head hide that you are fasting? How does washing your face and "anointing your head" hide the fact that you are fasting?

  But you, when you fast, anoint your head, and wash your face; (Matthew 6:17)

It wouldn't, except that people might expect you to be like "The hypocrites":

They neglect their appearance, so that they may appear to others to be fasting.

(Matthew 6:16)
You might expect this dialogue:

Hey Joe, you OK these days? Man, you gotta take care of yourself, you know, shower once in a while, wash the hair, right?
Hey man, lay off, I'm fasting, you know?
Oh, hey, fasting! Well nothing wrong with that, man. Good on you!

And "they have already received their reward". If you look after your appearance, only God, "who sees what is hidden" and will repay you.


Is the sign of the Cross as well as the crucifix a Catholic “trade mark”? Why do Catholics have crucifix in their home and Churches; priest, bishops, cardinals, popes and the faithful wear crucifix in their neck and make a sign of the cross before and after prayer and always say “In the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, amen”. Would this mean that the culmination of the Catholic Faith of salvation was on Christ death and His triumph over death in order for a man’s death to sin will be brought back to immortal life in unity to Christ? If this is so, the sign of the cross will forever in history and the age to come to be remembered and not forgotten in our hearts. Are there theological, history, catechism, canon on this?

Is the sign of the Cross as well as the crucifix a Catholic “trade mark”?

The Catholic Church does not have a trade mark on this subject, but the sign of the cross, crosses and crucifixes are extremely popular in the liturgy and in private devotions.

The Crucifix is a visual reminder for the Catholic faithful of the enormous price Jesus paid for our salvation.

Why do we have to make the Sign of the Cross physically?

There are several reasons why we make the sign of the cross physically.

Man is composed of a soul and a body.
As such the body is united in the prayer of the soul though a physical action.
The sign of the cross sets us apart from other men.
Our salvation was secured by the Cross which hung the Savior of the World.

  The Devil flees from the sign of the cross.
  The sign of the cross is a blessing in itself.
  The first “sign of the cross” that early Christians made was tracing a small cross on their foreheads. Around the year 200, Tertullian, an early Christian theologian, wrote about this sign: “In all our travels and movements, in all our coming in and going out, in putting on our shoes, at the bath, at the table, in lighting our candles, in lying down, in sitting down, whatever employment occupies us, we mark our forehead with the sign of the cross.” By the fifth century, other Christian writers reveal that the sign of the cross was also being made on the lips and on the chest. Over time, Christians began making large crosses over their bodies as Catholics do today. It is unknown exactly when and how that developed, but the sign of the cross as we know it today is probably about 1000 years old. - Why do Catholics make the Sign of the Cross?

The Sign of the Cross is the sign of the Christian, that is to say, it is the outward sign which distinguishes the Christian from other men. And why is this?

  1st. Because it recalls to him who makes it, and to those who see it made, that Jesus Christ is the God of Christians and the Lord of their whole lives. Because it reminds us that God has loved us so much as to give Himself up for our sakes to suffer on the Cross, and that we must love Him with our whole hearts. It places incessantly before our eyes Jesus Christ crucified; and Jesus crucified is the Divine and living rule of life to each one of His disciples, and His sacred Cross their moral law. The sign of the Cross recalls to him who makes it with reverence and devotion that he is bound to imitate in his daily conduct the penance, mortification, humility, meekness, patience, detachment, chastity, and obedience of his Master; His love for His heavenly Father and His Blessed Mother, and toward all men; His mercy to His enemies, and His love of suffering.

  2nd. The Sign of the Cross is distinctively the sign of the Christian, because it reminds him of the blessed eternity which awaits him. It was after His passion and death that Jesus rose again. And by His Cross He entered into glory. And so it must be with His disciples. Their glory in heaven must be the full fruition of the crucified life they have led on earth, like unto the life of their Saviour. The Gospel also declares to us that when He shall come at the last day to judge the world, the sacred sign of the Cross shall appear in the heavens, to be recognized by the elect with thankfulness and love, and by the reprobate with fear and trembling; for then shall it be the disciples of the Cross, and none but they, whom He will acknowledge for His Own.

  3rd. It is the sign of the Christian because it brings before his mind the most important doctrines of the Catholic religion. It recalls the mystery of the holy and undivided Trinity, for in making it we say, In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; three persons, but one God. In the name; and not, In the names. And also the mystery of the Incarnation, that is to say, the coming down of the Son of God from Heaven to earth, to assume a body and soul like ours in the womb of the Blessed Virgin Mary; for, in saying "In the Name of the Son," we move the hand down from the forehead to the breast, a lively image of the annihilation of the Son of God, who reposes in the hearts of the faithful, as formerly in the chaste womb of Mary. And, again, the mystery of the Redemption, since it was upon the Cross He died to wash away our sins, to merit for us pardon and salvation, and to open the gates of Heaven which sin had closed. And the mystery of the Church of God, that great society of the disciples of Jesus Christ, that perfect union, holy, Catholic, and apostolic, of the children of the Cross; since, being the same for all, it is necessarily the sign of their union in one body under one head: a most distinctive mark of the Catholic Church, for it recalls by its unity that the Church is one, and by its universality that the Church is Catholic. - The Sign of the Cross

As well as being traditionally placed in Catholic homes and churches, it is also a sacramental.

    The altar of the New Covenant is the Lord's Cross, from which the sacraments of the Paschal mystery flow. On the altar, which is the center of the church, the sacrifice of the Cross is made present under sacramental signs. The altar is also the table of the Lord, to which the People of God are invited. In certain Eastern liturgies, the altar is also the symbol of the tomb (Christ truly died and is truly risen). – Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1182

  It has long been a tradition of Catholic families to hang crucifixes throughout their homes, or to even have a crucifix embedded into the foundation of the house. Some merely hang the crucifix on the walls of their home as a reminder of Christ’s redemptive sacrifice, but beyond this it is also a sacramental, used in devotion to Our Lord and as a guard against evil.

  The tradition is hard to date exactly; the earliest Christians did not openly display the crucifix partly to not scandalize the weak, and partly to avoid subjecting it to the ridicule of Pagans. Instead they carried and used veiled symbols in art, for example an anchor, to refer to the Cross of Jesus. However, by the 5th century, the open depiction of the crucifix had become widespread; by the 6th century veneration to the Cross was firmly established. The Christian Faithful not only used it in art and to hang on walls but also on household utensils and plates, medals, lamps, toys, combs, the seals of wine-jars, and even on water-pipes.

  The two traditions that have lasted and remain prevalent in the lives of Catholics today are to wear a crucifix and to place them throughout the home.

  They are often hung on the wall, but standing crucifixes which stand on a table are also popular. The Vatican’s exorcist, Gabriele Amorth, encourages the faithful to keep a crucifix in every room.

  Prayer in front of a crucifix is encouraged as a means of focusing contemplation on Christ. Many of the saints practiced this, both in everyday prayer and also when they were suffering. Catherine of Siena was known to look upon a Crucifix for hours each day and when Joan of Arc was martyred, she asked a member of the clergy present to hold a crucifix before her. - Why have Crucifixes and Crosses in the Home?

The exorcist Fr. Gabriele Amorth has stated that the crucifix is one of the most effective means of averting or opposing demons.

  Roman Catholic (both Eastern and Western), Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Anglican and Lutheran Christians generally use the crucifix in public religious services. They believe use of the crucifix is in keeping with the statement by Saint Paul in Scripture, "we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God". (1 Cor 1:23-24) - Crucifix (Wikipedia)

The pectoral cross of prelates May be either an actual cross or a crucifix.

  A pectoral cross or pectorale is a cross that is worn on the chest, usually suspended from the neck by a cord or chain. In ancient and medieval times pectoral crosses were worn by both clergy and laity, but by the end of the Middle Ages the pectoral cross came to be a special indicator of position worn by bishops. In the Catholic Church, the wearing of a pectoral cross remains restricted to popes, cardinals, bishops and abbots. The modern pectoral cross is relatively large, and is different from the small crosses worn on necklaces by many Christians. Most pectoral crosses are made of precious metals (platinum, gold or silver) and some contain precious or semi-precious gems. Some contain a corpus like a crucifix while others use stylized designs and religious symbols.

  In many Christian denominations, the pectoral cross symbolizes that the person wearing it is a member of the clergy, or that the wearer is a member of the higher or senior clergy. However, in many Western churches there are an increasing number of laypeople who choose to wear some form of a cross around their neck.

  Throughout the centuries, many pectoral crosses have been made in the form of reliquaries which contain alleged fragments of the True Cross or relics of saints. Some such reliquary pectorals are hinged so that they open to reveal the relic, or the relic may be visible from the front through glass.

  One of the earliest mentions of a pectoral cross is its mention by Pope Hilarius in 461. In 811 Nicephorus sent Pope Leo III a golden pectoral cross. At this time, pectoral crosses were worn by both clergy and laity.

A pectoral cross worn by the 7th-century female teenager of the Trumpington bed burial


What is the significance of apostolic succession in Anglicanism? So my understanding of the issue is as follows: the C of E says it has apostolic succession and it’s bishops can trace themselves back to the apostles.

But I thought one of the principles of the Reformation was the idea that priests are not raised above people or not separate from them?

So my question is if the second part is true, why does it matter that bishops trace themselves back to Christ?

Sorry if this a silly question. Thanks in advance!

Your question is going to be very broad indeed, due to the nature of the Anglican Communion generally and the spectrum of attitudes to Apostolic Succession, particularly, within its very wide and welcoming embrace.

  The Anglican Communion "has never officially endorsed any one particular theory of the origin of the historic episcopate, its exact relation to the apostolate, and the sense in which it should be thought of as God given, and in fact tolerates a wide variety of views on these points".

Wikipedia

This reference in the Wikipedia article is attributed to :

  Jay, Eric G. The Church John Knox Press(1980), p.291 quoting the Anglican-Methodist Unity Commission Report 1968 p.37


What is the basis for Systematic Expository Preaching? Related: What is the basis for Topical Preaching?

Expository preaching is, in short, preaching through the Bible or a complete portion of the Bible and expounding upon the topics and applications therein. For example, my Pastor is currently working his way through Luke, connecting each portion to earlier chapters, relating what we read to the context of Luke, and expounding on the topics and lessons in the passage.

What is the triumvirate basis for this method? That is, what is the

Scriptural Basis. Obviously this is the #1 basis, but I'm not aware of any passages specifically addressing this, so you might need...
Reasonable Basis. What's the logical, practical point of expository preaching? What's a logical argument for it?
Traditional Basis. I've heard that many preachers in the past used this method, so that's a good starter argument in its favor. Who or what denominations have used this method in the past? Do they specify a reason?

(I'm not asking for experience as I don't think that could be particularly helpful here. If you think it is, by all means, reference it)

In a nutshell, systematic expository preaching ensures that the Word is preached, the whole Word is preached, and that the pastor has less of an opportunity to rehash his own opinion or stick to a "canon within the canon."
Bryan Chapell, author of Christ-Centered Preaching (which is probably the best preaching text since John Broaddus), says:

The thing that I think is most advantageous in an expository method is not only are we being bound to the message of scripture, but the preacher then has the authority of God's Word with which to challenge or encourage people. That one says: "this is not me as a preacher talking. This is what God says to you based upon what this text means." So the chief advantage, I think, is the preacher is allowed to operate with the authority of what God says.
There are other advantages: if one is dealing in an expository approach -- main points, subpoints coming from the text -- I think you create an informed listener. People who listen to expository preaching over time learn to see how scriptures develop, and therefore their own interpretative skills grow. There is the advantage that the preacher is not bound to his own thoughts and opinions. Particularly if he moves consecutively through a text, he is forced to deal with subjects that might not normally appear to his own mind.
The advantage of that additionally is he can address subjects that, had he thought them up, might appear to have been too pointed with perhaps sensitive issues in the congregation. If he is simply moving through the text, he might be able to deal with the subject of gossip where, if he had simply brought that up as the theme for the week and it had no connections to previous weeks he might seem to be responding to his own hurt -- that somebody gossiped about him and so he was just going to get them back in the sermon this week. So expository preaching has the advantage of authority, has the advantage of teaching, has the advantage of pushing us beyond our own opinions and enabling us to touch sensitive subjects without appearing to pick on people.

By preaching systematically, the preacher also has the added benefit of an economy of scale when it comes to preparation. For any text, one needs to really be conversant wit the whole book, before picking out a pericope. If, however, you stay in the same book for several sermons in a row, you're already immersed in what the single writer is saying.
One cannot stay in a single book forever, though, because to do so will deprive listeners of the rest of the Scripture (hence the advantage of a lectionary, which is not systematic!).


What is the Catholic interpretation of John 12:32? According to John 12:32 (NRSV):

And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all peoplea to myself.”
aJohn 12:32 Other ancient authorities read all things

Yeshua seems to be saying- without exception- that each and every individual, or even every thing, will eventually be drawn/dragged to himself. Or does he mean that even an average North Korean inherently knows that the Catholic gospel is true, so they are freely wicked people for refusing the Church’s dogmas?
What is the Catholic interpretation of John 12:32?

No, St. John does not mean "everyone" when he says "all things".

From lession 5 of St. Thomas Aquinas's commentary on Jn. 12:

  Here we may note that the Father draws and the Son also draws: "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him" (6:44). He says here, I will draw all things, in order to show that the same action belongs to both of them. And he says, all things, and not "all men," because not all men are drawn to the Son. I will draw all things, that is, the body and the soul; or all types of men, such as Gentiles and Jews, servants and freemen, male and female; or, all who are predestined to salvation.

From his Catena Aurea on John 12, lesson 4, he quotes St. Augustine:

  What is this all that He draws, but that from which the devil is cast out? He does not say, All men, but, All things; for all men have not faith. He does not mean then all mankind, but the whole of a man, i.e. spirit, soul, and body; by which respectively we understand, and live, and are visible. Or, if all means all men, it means those who are predestined to salvation: or all kinds of men, all varieties of character, excepting in the article of sin.


Is the ICOC trinitarian? ICOC is the "International Church of Christ". They are mainly charismatic.

Knowing their faith a little bit, I can't decide if they are. I can't remember the mention of the Trinity in their views.

The International Church of Christ, has its origins in the Restoration Movement (sometimes called the Campbell-Stone movement). When it developed and then split from the churches of Christ group in the 1980s and 90s it retained the Trinitarian views of its background.

The London ICoC website: http://www.thelondonchurch.org//ChurchWide/ContentPage.aspx?PageTitle=Beliefs&Region=London notes in the "What We Believe" section -

  Number 1. There is one true God, the only God that exists, the God of Abraham, Jacob and the sons of Israel, who reveals himself to the
  world as The Father, Son and Holy Spirit. (Deuteronomy 6:4; Isaiah
  45:5; Matthew 28:19; 2 Corinthians 13:14).

  Number 2. Jesus of Nazareth is the prophesied Messiah, the Son of God and the one and only Saviour of humanity (Mark 14:62; John 1:29-34; Acts
  4:12).

  Number 5. Rebirth and entry into the Kingdom of God is by repentance and baptism for the forgiveness of sins and the indwelling of the Holy
  Spirit (Acts 2: 36-41; John 3:3-5; 1 Peter 3: 20-21; Romans 6: 3-7).

  Number 7. The life of the church is to be characterised by the fruits of the Holy Spirit, by each member’s individual devotion to Jesus Christ and
  by the Christians’ corporate responsibility to one another (Galatians
  5:16-25; Ephesians 4:1-3?).


What is the context of Chesterton's quote, "When we bind our hearts, we free our hands"? In anticipation of watching the new Ragamuffin movie, I'm watching an interview with Rich Mullins. Here's the transcript.  During the interview, he is seeking to explain what it means by "centering yourself on 'Love everybody'" in contrast to a certain rigidity when it comes to holiness.

At 22:30, Mullins quotes G. K. Chesterton, who says, "When we bind our hearts, we free our hands."  I had never heard this quote before, and I'm not 100% sure I get what is being said.

Where does this quote come from, and what did Chesterton mean by it?

My thanks to Peter Turner for recommending the book Orthodoxy (Dodd, Mead & Co., 1908) to me some time ago, and therefore making this answer possible. Thanks to Kindle full-text search, I found the following in Orthodoxy chapter 5, The Flag of the World:

Love is not blind; that is the last thing it is. Love is bound; and the more it is bound the less it is blind.
This at least had come to be my position about all that was called optimism, pessimism, and improvement. Before any cosmic act of reform we must have a cosmic oath of allegiance. A man must be interested in life, then he could be disinterested in his views of it. "My son give me thy heart;" the heart must be fixed on the right thing: the moment we have a fixed heart we have a free hand.

[My emphasis. The quotation "My son give me thy heart" is from Proverbs 23:26. "Thy" is the choice of the Douay-Rheims version, where the KJV has "thine".]
The overall context of the chapter is Chesterton's rejection of the philosophical abstractions of optimism and pessimism: neither of these is sufficiently rooted in the real world.  He argues that we must feel an allegiance to the world in order to be champions for its improvement. The optimist, he says, is likely to declare that it is in no need of improvement; the pessimist, that improvement is not possible: "Can [the ordinary man] hate it enough to change it, and yet love it enough to think it worth changing?" The comparison with romantic love is that we do not love abstractly - we love particular people for who they are. Regardless of good or bad points about the world, we are invited to see the world as worthy of our interest, and worthy in itself rather than as an exemplar of goodness or badness.
In general, Chesterton finds ideals which are disconnected from real experience to be insincere and futile. This is placed in contrast with the Christian faith, founded on a specific individual who said and did surprising things. He found that while he could not build his life around - for example - the abstract notion of Goodness, he could do so for the specific person of Christ. It is not only a matter of psychological "fit", but a practical one, since Christ does a better job than Abstract Goodness at supplying actual moral guidance. Further, Abstract Goodness cannot love or be loved: Christ can.