What are the requirements for each of the three levels of Glory? In LDS theology, there are three levels of Glory for the Saints.  What are the requirements for reaching each level?  (In other words, what determines who goes to which?)

Also, who goes to Hell (The temporary Spirit Prison), and what determines if one escapes from Hell, or gets cast into Outer Darkness?

Scripture references, links to the official statements, and teaching from the Church are all welcome as valid supportive references.

The three degrees of glory are the telestial, terrestrial, and celestial. Each kingdom is on the order of the law it represents: Telestial law is the law of the world, effectively lawlessness (in the scriptures, this is compared to the glory of the stars), Terrestrial law is a "middle" law (compared to the glory of the moon), and the Celestial law is God's law (compared to the glory of the sun).

There's not exactly a checklist of requirements to pass off before inheriting a higher kingdom.

In the Book of Mormon, Alma teaches that individuals are resurrected with (he uses the term "restored to") a physical body comparable to the law they lived. In other words, individuals who live a telestial law will be raised to a telestial body and thus will inherit that kingdom.

A revelation to Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon opened up the windows of heaven to them, which is detailed in Doctrine and Covenants 76, and it explains the status of those in each kingdom.

Evidently, those in the telestial kingdom will have not chosen to receive a testimony of Jesus, they rejected the gospel, and are "thrust down to hell" (see this question to learn more how this phrase is interpreted), yet they did not deny the Holy Ghost (in other words, they did not come out in open rebellion against God). They will be resurrected last.

Those in the terrestrial kingdom will have received the Spirit and gospel (since LDS theology teaches that everyone will have the opportunity to receive it at some point, either in this life or the next), but did not receive its fulness, by their choice.

Those who inherit the celestial kingdom have faithfully accepted the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ, having: entered into baptism by immersion for the remission of sins and received the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands by those in authority. Within the celestial kingdom are all those who are pure and holy, and even those who have achieved exaltation, God's greatest and eternal blessing to His children, that they become like Him. These souls will be resurrected first.

Now, your question about "hell," being the temporary spirit prison or the eternal darkness. In LDS theology, after death, there is a "spirit paradise" and a "spirit prison." Often it's taught in Sunday schools that they are separate places, like two buildings across the street, but the more I study it, the more I'm realizing that it's two states of being.

Spirit prison is a state for those who already chose not to accept the gospel or would reject it when it is preached to them. Spirit paradise is a state inherited by they who lived the gospel, or at least its teachings, whether or not they received it. Those who did receive it, though, preach to those who did not. Peter mentions this work in 1 Peter 3:18-20. D&C 138 also talks about this work in detail. These spiritual states are only temporary, while the resurrection is awaited. To "escape" that hell, I suppose one would have to accept the gospel, implying repentance and some payment for sins...

Finally, the eternal sense of the word hell is reserved for those who reject God, refuse the gospel, and deny the Holy Ghost. It's understood that these will be relatively few in number, but the sons of perdition, having departed in a sense the family of God, will not receive any glory.

Some people use terms I've used in my answer a little differently in some contexts, but the differences are minute.


What did Jesus mean by " many" beneficiaries of His ensuing blood-shed? At Matthew 26:27-28 (NRSVCE) we read:

  Then he took a cup, and after giving thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you;  for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."

Those words of Jesus are reproduced in the Eucharistic celebration of the Catholic Church. My question is: Why did Jesus use the words "for many" instead of  "for all"?  What are the connotations, including references to the OT, which the Catholic Church attribute to the word "many" as used by Jesus at the Last Supper?

In his Commentary on St. Matthew's Gospel, St. Thomas Aquinas writes:

  “He shall sprinkle,” meaning with His Blood, “many nations” (Is. 52, 15). For many, and for all, because if its sufficiency be considered, “He is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world” (I Jn. 2, 2). But if we consider its effect, it only has its effect on those who are saved, and this is the fault of men.

Although He redeemed everyone, not everyone's sins are forgiven; some people are damned due to their own fault.

Remigius explains it this way (quoted in St. Thomas's Catena Aurea on Mt. 26):

  And it is to be noted that He says not "For a few" nor "For all", but "For many"; because He came not to redeem a single nation, but many out of all nations.


According to Roman Catholicism, what is the soul and its purpose? In the Catholic Tradition does there exist a teaching on the purpose or role of the human soul in the makeup of a human being? I could also settle for a theologian's thoughts and writings on the subject as well.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church has this to say with regard to the soul itself:

  In Sacred Scripture the term "soul" often refers to human life or the entire human person. But "soul" also refers to the innermost aspect of man, that which is of greatest value in him, that by which he is most especially in God's image: "soul" signifies the spiritual principle in man. [363, emphasis in original]

The Catechism emphasizes the unity of the spirit and the body, saying that man "is a being at once corporeal and spiritual" (362), and that "spirit and matter, in man, are not two natures united, but rather their union forms a single nature" (365).  Perhaps most relevant to your question, the Catechism teaches that the human body "is a human body precisely because it is animated by a spiritual soul".

Thus, it's not surprising that the instruction Dignitas Personae (2008) deals with the issue of the personhood of embryos the way it does. Quoting Donum vitae, it reads in part:

  Although the presence of the spiritual soul cannot be observed experimentally, the conclusions of science regarding the human embryo give “a valuable indication for discerning by the use of reason a personal presence at the moment of the first appearance of a human life: how could a human individual not be a human person?”. Indeed, the reality of the human being for the entire span of life, both before and after birth, does not allow us to posit either a change in nature or a gradation in moral value, since it possesses full anthropological and ethical status. The human embryo has, therefore, from the very beginning, the dignity proper to a person. [emphasis added]

N.B. Some have taken the church's teaching of creationism of the soul (see Catechism 366) and argued that we don't know when God creates the soul in each person.  That's likely the argument made by the abortionist you mention, but it's also the exact argument rebutted in Dignitas Personae.  Human embryos, according to Roman Catholicism, are always human persons, and thus have souls from their very beginning.


Why was the Angel Michael fighting the Devil for Moses' body? I get this from the book of Jude. I know the meaning of the chapter as a whole it's just that this verse stuck out. Does anyone have a clue on this event? Here is the verse for reference.

  Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee. [Jde 1:9 KJV]

It appears that the author of Jude was quoting from an apocryphal Jewish scroll known as the Assumption of Moses.

Origen stated in De principiis, III,2,1:

  "We have now to notice, agreeably to the statements of Scripture, how
  the opposing powers, or the devil himself, contends with the human
  race, inciting and instigating men to sin.  And in the first place, in
  the book of Genesis, the serpent is described as having seduced
  Eve; regarding whom, in the work entitled The Ascension of Moses
  (a little treatise, of which the Apostle Jude makes mention in his
  Epistle), the archangel Michael, when disputing with the devil
  regarding the body of Moses, says ..."

A fragment of the Assumption of Moses has been discovered, but it does not include the account of Michael and the devil disputing over the body of Moses, which means that we can not say how this account played out, or why the author of Jude chose to mention it, apart from its apparent support for Jude's theology.


What is an overview of beliefs on how one can lose salvation? Some Christian traditions believe that one can lose his or her salvation, even after a genuine conversion experience and years of faithfulness.

For those who teach this doctrine, what is an overview of the following:

what specifically does one have to do (or not do) to go from having salvation to a state of not having salvation?
does it take just one sin, just one known sin, various degrees of sin or something else?
what is the biblical basis for these conclusions?
how are responses to the "unlosable" position countered?

Many christian groups teach that if you do not continue to repent of each sin, you can lose out on the salvation. Rather than talk about that or compare how different faiths teach that (I'm sure someone else will do a great job answering that way) I would like to point out the one and only unforgivable sin.
Mark 3 (KJV)

28 Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme:
29 But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation.
30 Because they said, He hath an unclean spirit.

Here we see that to "blaspheme against the Holy Ghost" will cause you to "hath never forgiveness"
This is said again in Matthew 12 (KJV)

31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.
32 And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.

This is restated again in Luke 12:8-10 and in a less direct way in Hebrews 6:4-8 and Hebrews 10:26-29
I have talked to a couple of different faiths in the past and found that different faiths have different views of what it takes to blaspheme the Holy Ghost.
Catholics state that while it is an unforgivable sin, there is no sin that cannot be washed away by baptism and penance. So you can have this sin washed away. See Cathechism 1864
John Calvin believed that this sin could not be committed by believers. He came to this conclusion because of Hebrews 6:4-6. See Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion Book III Chapter III Section 22
William W Combs summed most of these beliefs up here. He said that someone would have to have witnessed a sign miracle and then rejected the holy ghost, and he states that sign miracles no longer occur so today believer or not, you can't even commit the sin.
The general consensus of protestants that I have found so far that if you commit this sin, you are no longer able to repent.
The LDS church agrees with protestants about forgiveness not being possible, but they have specifically spelled out what it takes to commit this sin. It is very difficult for someone to commit it. If you do, (as far as I know) it is the only way someone living today can end up living with Satan in "outer darkness." Basically becoming a "son of perdition."
I have not been able to find the view of Orthodoxy churches on this. Specifically if they disagree with the Catholics or not.


What were the motivations of the Council of Trent? Are there any documents maintained by the Roman Catholic Church that provide the original (ie, by the councils themselves) commentary on the declarations of the Council of Trent?

If not, what more recent writings, sanctioned or verified by the Roman Catholic Church, comment on the declarations of the Council of Trent?

For the same reasons as the councils before it, the Council of Trent was held to address current heresies and prevent schisms. Councils are held for the unity and benefit of the Church. Specifically, the Council of Trent was organized and held to address the budding Protestant Reformation and was part of a series of events and actions by the Catholic Church that some historians have dubbed the Counter-Reformation.

Pope Paul III addresses exactly what he hoped to accomplish with the council in his Bull of Indiction.

Among other things, the most notable item is in the first few paragraphs:

  Whereas we deemed it necessary that there should be one fold and one shepherd, for the Lord's flock in order to maintain the Christian religion in its integrity, and to confirm within us the hope of heavenly things; the unity of the Christian name was rent and well-nigh torn asunder by schisms, dissensions, heresies.

And this thought continues just a few sentences later (emphasis mine):

  Wherefore, having been, as we have said, called upon to guide and govern the bark of Peter, in so great a tempest, and in the midst of so violent an agitation of the waves of heresies, dissensions, and wars; and, not relying sufficiently on our own strength, we, first of all, cast our cares upon the Lord, that He might sustain us, and furnish our soul with firmness and strength, our understanding with prudence and wisdom. Then, recalling to mind that our predecessors, men endowed with admirable wisdom and sanctity, had often, in the extremest perils of the Christian commonwealth, had recourse to ecumenical councils and general assemblies of bishops, as the best and most opportune remedy, we also fixed our mind on holding a general council; and having consulted the opinions of those princes whose consent seemed to us to be specially useful and opportune for this our project; when we found them, at that time, not averse from so holy a work, we, as our letters and records attest, indicted an ecumenical council, and a general assembly of those bishops and other Fathers whose duty it is to assist thereat, to be opened at the city of Mantua, on the tenth of the calends of June, in the year 1537 of our Lord's Incarnation, and the third of our pontificate; having an almost assured hope that, when assembled there in the name of the Lord, He, as He promised, would be in the midst of us, and, in His goodness and mercy, easily dispel, by the breath of His mouth, all the storms and dangers of the times.

Other items were addressed, or at least were meant to be, such as reforms, but the Council was mostly held to address and condemn the practices of Protestantism.

The History Learning Site concurs:

  The Council had been called to examine doctrine and reform. Charles V had wanted abuses looked at first in an attempt to please the Protestants and hopefully tempt them back to the church. Once they were back they could look at doctrine. Paul III did not want this as reforms could financially damage him and concessions could diminish his authority.


Thomism, Natural Law and our Fallen Nature One of the foundations of Thomistic philosophy is Natural Law, which at its basis holds that "committing evil does not accord with human nature". (Thomas Storck, "Four Sins that Cry to Heaven."   New Oxford Review, vol. 77, no. 6, July/August 2010).

On the other hand, a basic Christian Biblical doctrine is that we humans have a sinful nature, that is, that we have a propensity towards sin. In Augustinian philosophy, humans are "inescapably predisposed to evil prior to any actual choice, and unable to not sin"1.

It has always seemed to me that in appropriating Aristotle to Christianity, St Thomas Aquinas had committed himself to a Pelagian heresy.

Is there a contradiction between Augustinian and Thomistic anthropologies? And if there is, how, if at all, is it to be resolved?

1. cf. Total depravity | Wikipedia.

I don't agree that this statement (that committing sin is contrary to human nature) is the basis of natural law. Natural law is a consequence of the way God constructed humans and the rest of the universe. It's what makes it wrong, for example, to kill someone; and we call it natural because everyone knows it, even if God hasn't directly revealed it to them.

Still, Thomas did agree that committing sin is contrary to human nature. Did that make him a Pelagianist (that is, someone who believed that humans could overcome sin by their own efforts)?

Thomas was far from a Pelagianist; in fact, he cites Augustine in opposition to it:

  According to the Catholic Faith we are bound to hold that the first sin of the first man is transmitted to his descendants, by way of origin. For this reason children are taken to be baptized soon after their birth, to show that they have to be washed from some uncleanness. The contrary is part of the Pelagian heresy, as is clear from Augustine in many of his books.

(Summa Theologica, First Part, Question 81, Article 1)

But he could consider both humanity's fallen, sinful state and also the original, righteous state. He described original sin as

  an inordinate disposition, arising from the destruction of the harmony which was essential to original justice, even as bodily sickness is an inordinate disposition of the body, by reason of the destruction of that equilibrium which is essential to health.

(Summa Theologica, First Part, Question 82, Article 1; emphasis added)

Thomas believes that humanity was endowed with "original justice", which he describes as "man's will being subject to God" (Summa, First Part, Question 82, Article 3), but that humanity lost this through the sin of Adam and Eve:

  we must explain the matter ... by saying that all men born of Adam may be considered as one man, inasmuch as they have one common nature, which they receive from their first parents; even as in civil matters, all who are members of one community are reputed as one body, and the whole community as one man. Indeed Porphyry says (Praedic., De Specie) that "by sharing the same species, many men are one man."

That is, when Adam and Eve sinned, they changed forever the nature of humanity—they changed what a human being was, spiritually. It's for this reason that all those descended from them have this damaged spiritual state.

Thomas thus believes that "committing evil does not accord with human nature"; and he believes that in humanity's original state (before the Fall) we were able to act in accord with our nature. He believes that the Fall diminished this natural propensity to adjust one's desires in accord with God's will; and not only for the original sinner, but for all those descended from him. He does state that the ability cannot be destroyed entirely, since it is part of our nature,theoretically available to all those with a rational soul:

  the good of nature, that is diminished by sin, is the natural inclination to virtue, which is befitting to man from the very fact that he is a rational being; for it is due to this that he performs actions in accord with reason, which is to act virtuously. Now sin cannot entirely take away from man the fact that he is a rational being, for then he would no longer be capable of sin. Wherefore it is not possible for this good of nature to be destroyed entirely.

Nevertheless, this availability is only in theory (as being part of the nature of the soul); it is not regularly available to us, because this original justice with which God gifted us has been entirely taken away (cf. Summa, First Part, Question 82, Article 4). We can avoid sin sometimes, but never as a matter of course. We've lost most, but cannot lose all, of our ability to act according to our nature.

Thus, it is true that we have a nature which was designed to exhibit a natural justice and propensity to follow God; it is in this sense that "committing evil does not accord with human nature". However, when Thomas considers "Whether man can rise from sin without the help of grace" (First Part, Question 109, Article 7), he concludes:

  For since the lustre of grace springs from the shedding of Divine light, this lustre cannot be brought back, except God sheds His light anew: hence a habitual gift is necessary, and this is the light of grace. Likewise, the order of nature can only be restored, i.e. man's will can only be subject to God when God draws man's will to Himself, as stated above. So, too, the guilt of eternal punishment can be remitted by God alone, against Whom the offense was committed and Who is man's Judge. And thus in order that man rise from sin there is required the help of grace, both as regards a habitual gift, and as regards the internal motion of God.

That is, without the grace of God, humans cannot themselves overcome the propensity to sin which is the manifestation of original sin.

Please see:

What is the difference between Natural Law and Divine Law? | C.SE.
Dictionary: NATURAL LAW | Catholic Culture.


How can common believers be sure that the Church's decisions are correct and not erroneous? There have been some councils, the decisions of which were later reversed by some latter councils. Thus, if your position on a particular matter that was being considered at those councils was too strong, you could easily be excommunicated from the Church as a heretic between those two councils, while you would be just fine after the second one, or the other way around. The most recent example that comes to my mind is probably the incumbent Pope's decision to condone contraceptives. So, the question is: How can common believers be sure that the Church's decisions are correct and not erroneous? Has this matter ever been discussed in history?

The simple answer is know your Bible.  God has given us His Word to guide us.  The church, being filled with sinful men, is going to err and has erred.  But God's word is 'settled in the heavens', is perfect, is truth (John 17:17).  So the primary source for truth must be God's words and not men's words.

It is however difficult sometimes to go against the church and her teaching.  The leaders of any given church have usually studied the Bible a lot more than the average Christian.  But we must also remember that God guides His children into truth, so study your Bible, know it, and then ask God for His Holy Spirit to guide you in all truth.


How do decentralized churches/denominations practically deal with "brothers" from another denomination in light of Matthew 18:17 "If your brother sins against you, go and rebuke him in private. If he
  listens to you, you have won your brother.

  But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that
  'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three
  witnesses.

  But if he won't listen, take one or two more with you, so that by the
  testimony of two or three witnesses every fact may be established.

  If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they
  refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan
  or a tax collector."

It must be noted that the word Church is used in the singular form - not a church, and not one of the churches.

In light of this verse, what happens in a situation where there are two "brothers" from two different denominations, (baptist, presbyterian, pentacostal, etc.) and one of the brothers commits a very scandalous, heinous sin against the other.

Who's church would the sinful brother be taken to?

Either church would have no jurisdictional rights over the other.

As a Catholic I know that there is a canonical process for one to follow...but the RCC is the most centralized religious body in the world.

Have any Protestant pastors here ever had to deal with a situation like this?

If appealing to authority is necessary, then you would have to appeal to authority that the brother in the wrong is submitting himself to. In this case, it would need to be someone in his congregation (or its hierarchy of authority).

The entire goal of the church discipline described in Mt 18 is to win him over to the truth. He ought to have close ties to the people in the congregation he's a part of, and so if those people must cut him off, the hope is that he will care about those lost/damaged relationships enough to reconsider what he's doing and repent.


What happens in Heaven when we come into contact with fellow Christians who don't wish to speak to us in this life? Let say for one reason or another, we have friends whom we've drifted apart from in our lives, and they also happen to be Christians. We're all going to meet each other in Heaven, but does the Bible say anything about our unresolved tensions and how we'll see each other from then on?

This is in the realm of speculation, but for sure any Christian in heaven has already been sanctified completely so assuming that we and our friends "make it to the end" and enter heaven, there will be so much goodwill and catching up and learning of why we drifted apart on earth but then immediately forgive each other then focus our attention to have eternal great fellowship while enjoying the presence of God that all causes for drifting apart on earth would have vanished into insignificance.

C.S. Lewis's The Great Divorce, study guide here, has imaginative scenarios of this kind of meeting, including meeting a murderer who has repented.


Why is the Bible seemingly silent on the love which the God the Son has for God the Father? I assume that each member of the Godhead loves each other member of the Godhead. God is, after all, love (1 John 4:8 and 16).

The Gospels are quite explicit regarding the love which God the Father has for God the Son. Jesus himself makes this very clear (John 3:35; and 5:20). Moreover, the voice coming out of heaven at Jesus' baptism addresses the Son as "My beloved Son" (Luke 3:22; Matthew 3:17; and Mark 1:11). (True enough, the voice from heaven is not linked specifically to the Father, but the word Beloved is clearly linked to the Son, not the Father or the Spirit.)

One could say quite accurately that Jesus proved his love for the Father in everything he did and said while he was on earth. On more than one occasion, Jesus made this devotion to his Father's will quite explicit:

  "My food is to do the will of Him who sent Me and to accomplish His work" (John 4:34).

And

  ". . . he that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone; for I do always those things that please him" (John 8:29 KJV).

Logically, then, one could also say that Jesus proved  he loved the Father by doing His will and by obeying Him. In the same way the apostle James emphasized the role which works play in the faith/works duo, perhaps by analogy Jesus in his way of life emphasized the role which loving obedience played in the love/works duo.

In this regard, the apostle John, the "apostle of love" and "the disciple whom Jesus loved," said,

  We know love by this, that He laid down His life for us; and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren. Little children, let us not love with word or with tongue, but in deed and truth" (1 John 3:17-18).

In other words, saying "I love you" to someone is much easier than demonstrating your love for the same person by performing a loving action such as feeding or clothing him, visiting him when he is on his sickbed, comforting him when he has recently lost a loved one through death, or forgiving him when he has sinned against you.

I have no doubt that Jesus loves his Father, but I am curious as to why that love is not stated as explicitly in the Gospels as is the love of the Father for his Son. I suppose a good answer to my question would draw from both Testaments and would be framed in terms which are consistent with the Father-Son relationship which is foreshadowed in the Tanakh (e.g., in Psalm 2) but revealed more fully in the New Covenant.

I believe that the answer to this is something related to the narrative's approach.
We can infer from what we know about the godhead, that the Son loves the Father, but the focus in the gospels narrative is not that, the focus is that the Father loves the Son, then, the Son loves us and the Son obey the Father. I'll try to examplify this with some text.
First: we know that the Son loves the Father because:

this is love: that we walk in obedience to his commands. (2 John 1:5)

Even Christ's obedience (that is found everywhere, like John 4:34, Philippians 2:8, Hebrews 5:8, Romans 5:9, etc, etc) testify his love for the Father. But, as i said, the scriture approaches this relation upside down, not from the Son to the Father, but from the Father to the Son. We read:

[...] the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Now remain in my
love. (John 15:9)

As you said, this is the main perspective, and the reason i see is: this is what we need to understand. I think this verse in John 15:9 shows us the emphasis of the Bible's narrative. The Father loves the son, the Son loves us. This thematic is stressed all over, for example:

For the Father loves the Son and shows him all he does. (John 5:20)

and

[...] just as Christ loved us [...] (Ephesians 5:2)

I know this alone isn't a sound argument, so let us check another examples:
Natural marriage
To be quick: husbands are often told to love their wives

Husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh with them.(Colossians 3:19)

and

Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her (Ephesians 5:25)

But wives are always told not to love, but to respect and submit

Wives, submit yourselves to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. (Colossians 3:18)

and

Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord (Ephsians 5:22)

So, aren't wives suposed to love their husbands? Yes they are, but i think the Bible is silent on that matter because of the text's approch. I think what husbands need to aknowledge is love and wives is subjection.
Parents and children
The same issue we find into children -> parents realtion. "Children, obey your parents" is the instruction of Colossians 3:20 and Ephasians 6:1. Is not a message of love, is a message of obedience, which is, in fact, the most precise manifestation of love, as we saw in the beginning of this study. So, a son is suposed to love his father? Of course, but what he needs to aknowledge from scripture is not love towards his father, but obedience.
Likewise, Christ, the Son, is shown not loving the Father in a theoretical way, but showing his practical love in the form of obedience. This is what we need to aknowledge, because this is the main focus of God's inpired word, regarding the relation Son->Father: He obeys.
Old Testment
I was about to sleep when came to my mind a very insightful thought. The first mention of love in the Bible happens when God say to Abraham

Take now your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love (Genesis 21:12)

This is an example of love in this direction: Abraham->Isaac. But the second mention of love is this

And Isaac [...] took Rebekah, and she became his wife; and he loved her. (Genesis 24:67)

This is an example of love in this direction: Isaac->Rebekah.
If we take Abraham as a figure of God and Isaac as a figure of the Son and Rebekah as a figure fo the Church, we have this: God loved the Son. The Son loved the Church. You see? This is always the natural flow. The next mention of love in the Bible is when Isaac loves Esau in Genesis 25:28, and so forward.
With maybe some little exceptions, the love always take this flow into all the Scriptures. Father->Son->Wife (Thank you, making this research really opened my mind)
Conclusion
At this point, i think we can say that the lack of mentions about the love of the Son towards the Father is really supplied in the plenty of mentions of the Son's obedience. And secondly, i think this "silence" just follows the approach and thematic of the whole Bible argumentation flow about love: The Father loves the Son, the Son obeys the Father and the Son loves his Wife.
@paul-chernoch's answer reminded me of John 14:31, maybe the only mention on the love of the Son towards the Father, and guess what this passage says

I love the Father and do exactly what my Father has commanded me.

Again we see this realtion: i love, therefore, i obey. This is beautiful.


Who is a Christian according to the Catholic Church? How does the Catholic Church define who a Christian is? Is a Christian, according to the Catholic Church, someone who

is baptized,
a member of the Catholic Church or Mystical Body of Christ
something else?

Those who are validly baptized are Christians.  From Lumen Gentium, the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church from the Second Vatican Council:

  The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter. (14*) For there are many who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal. They lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Saviour. (15*) They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ. They also recognize and accept other sacraments within their own Churches or ecclesiastical communities. Many of them rejoice in the episcopate, celebrate the Holy Eucharist and cultivate devotion toward the Virgin Mother of God.(16*) They also share with us in prayer and other spiritual benefits. Likewise we can say that in some real way they are joined with us in the Holy Spirit, for to them too He gives His gifts and graces whereby He is operative among them with His sanctifying power. Some indeed He has strengthened to the extent of the shedding of their blood. In all of Christ's disciples the Spirit arouses the desire to be peacefully united, in the manner determined by Christ, as one flock under one shepherd, and He prompts them to pursue this end. (17*) Mother Church never ceases to pray, hope and work that this may come about. She exhorts her children to purification and renewal so that the sign of Christ may shine more brightly over the face of the earth.


In what order should the books of the (Protestant) Bible be read? The Bible is probably one of the most historically significant books for the Western civilization, so it should be a worthwhile read for many a literature geek.

In which order should it be read, then? Cover-to-cover is hardly a good order, as the New Testament is more significant for western culture and Christianity than the Old Testament (which comes first). I'm looking for the preferred order for a first-time reader.

For reference, the books of the Bible are listed on Wikipedia. Answerers may assume a Protestant Bible, but ones based on others with two testaments are welcome, too.

Reading the Bible as a story is a good way to get a lot out of it and broaden your understanding.

The narrative books in order are:

Genesis
Exodus
Numbers
Joshua
Judges
1 Samuel
2 Samuel
1 Kings
2 Kings
Ezra
Nehemiah
1 Maccabees
Luke
Acts

This is what T3 Bible timeline uses (which we used in our parish Religious Ed. teacher formation), and it was the first time I ever saw the bible as a cohesive story.  Everything else is still good for teaching, refutation etc... but  those 14 books have the story.

Genesis is the story of the Primordial History and the Patriarchs, Exodus - Judges is the beginning of the Mosaic law and the cohesive part of Israel.  1 Samuel - 2 Kings is Saul, David, Solomon and their awful (and occasionally good) descendents.

Ezra and Nehemiah chronicle the exile and return.

Maccabees is the story of the further persecution of the Jews a few hundred years before Christ.

Luke and Acts are the two volume set Chronicling Jesus's life and ministry and the early church.

One thing to point out which struck me as very interesting is to see the folks who show up in Luke's and Matthew's genealogies pop out at you as you work through the story of the Bible.  It makes seemingly unimportant people, like Rahab and Ruth, seem much, much more important when you get to thinking about it.


According to Mormonism, is the Black race cursed and if so what does that imply? I was wondering, since I've heard this a lot and I've done some research about it. I'd like to know what Mormons, at least contemporary Mormons, have to say about this.

  Keeping in mind documents like these which I will quote to avoid
  needless opposition :

  "Cain was cursed with dark skin; he became the father of the Negroes,
  and those spirits wh are not worthy to receive the priesthood are born
  through his lineage."
  (Mormon Doctrine, pp. 102)

  "Negroes in this life are denied the priesthood; under no
  circumstances can they hold this delegation of authority from the
  Almighty" (Mormon Doctrine, 10th printing, pages 527-528)

  "The gospel message of salvation is not carried affirmatively to
  them... Negros are not equal with other races where the receipt of
  certain spiritual blessings are concerned."(Bruce R. McConkie:
  Highlights From His Life & Teachings. Horn, Denis B.(2000))

I will now UPDATE the preface because the previous quotes were seemingly not enough to avoid needless opposition. I am not doing this to simply mock, I am doing this to get a satisfactory answer meaning truth.

Quotes from MORMON PROPHETS that are considered to be
infallible teachings of the LDS, or supposedly so, we shall see.

  Because of [Cain's] wickedness he became the father of an inferior
  race...the mark which was placed on Cain and which his posterity
  inherited was the black skin. (Prophet Joseph Fielding Smith, the way
  of perfection p. 101, 107)

  Some classes of the human family...are black, uncouth, uncomely,
  disagreable and low in their habits, wild and seemingly deprived of
  nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed
  upon mankinnd. The first man who committed the odious crime of killing
  one of his bretheren will be cursed... the Lord put a mark upon Cain
  which is the flat nose and black skin.

  Shall I tell you the law of God in regards to the African race? If the
  white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed
  of Cain, the penalty under the law of God is death on the spot. **This
  shall always be so.

  (2nd Prophet of the LDS Church, Brigham Young, "Journal of Discourses," Vol. 7, Pages 290 & 291)

  The intermarriage of the Negro and white races, a concept which has
  heretofore been most repugnant to most normal minded people... There
  is a growing tendency...toward the breaking down of the race barriers
  in the matter of intermarriage between whites and blacks, but it does
  not have the sanction of the Church and is contrary to Church
  doctrine.  (8th Prophet of the LDS Church, George Albert Smith, letter to Virgil H. Sponberg (critic of the anti-black ban), May 5, 1947, quoted in Lester E. Bush, Mormonism's Negro Doctrine: An Historical Overview, p. 42)

Here are some links :

http://www.mormonthink.com/QUOTES/blacks.htm

http://apostake.com/phicholmedici/racist-quotes-by-the-prophets/

http://www.mormonthink.com/QUOTES/blackintermarriage.htm

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Mormonism_and_racial_issues/Racial_statements_by_Church_leaders

Please, if somehow the LDS's official Church teaching has changed, explain in your answer the difference between the old theology and the new theology, that is a prerequisit to get your answer validated, thank you in advance.

I will restate that the book Mormon Doctrine, written by Bruce R. McConkie, is not Mormon doctrine, nor ever has been.

  We [the First Presidency of the church] decided that Bruce R. McConkie’s book, 'Mormon Doctrine' recently published by Bookcraft Company, must not be re-published, as it is full of errors and misstatements, and it is most unfortunate that it has received such wide circulation. It is reported to us that Brother McConkie has made corrections to his book, and is now preparing another edition. We decided this morning that we do not want him to publish another edition1

Mormon doctrine on blacks and the priesthood can be found in Official Declaration 2, which in summary says:

  The Book of Mormon teaches that “all are alike unto God,” including “black and white, bond and free, male and female” (2 Nephi 26:33). Throughout the history of the Church, people of every race and ethnicity in many countries have been baptized and have lived as faithful members of the Church. During Joseph Smith’s lifetime, a few black male members of the Church were ordained to the priesthood. Early in its history, Church leaders stopped conferring the priesthood on black males of African descent. Church records offer no clear insights into the origins of this practice. Church leaders believed that a revelation from God was needed to alter this practice and prayerfully sought guidance. The revelation came to Church President Spencer W. Kimball and was affirmed to other Church leaders in the Salt Lake Temple on June 1, 1978. The revelation removed all restrictions with regard to race that once applied to the priesthood.

See also this article on Race and the Priesthood

On Mormon doctrine, mormonnewsroom says:

  Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.

--EDIT--

You mention Mormon prophets are infallible but James E Faust puts what mormonnewsroom (above) said clearer:

  We make no claim of infallibility or perfection in the prophets, seers, and revelators

Also, a bit of the history, of blacks and the priesthood, is found in the introductory paragraph of Official Declaration above (now in bold). I have heard this referred to as cultural doctrine. Because of racism during early church history, some of that bled into church practice and teachings but without any doctrinal foundation (remember church leaders are not infallible). Official Declaration 2 is the LDS church's official stance on blacks and the priesthood and was meant as a clarification for the church that had gone astray in this teaching.

1 https://books.google.com/books?id=xAm4qGyN2OYC&pg=PA179&lpg=PA179&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false


What is the meaning of John 13v31? Now-At this time-the Son of Man is glorified-is having been glorified- in the glory of His Father in the past-and John 17v5 glorify me with the thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was. v32  If God was glorified[aorist] The Father will also glorify [future] Him in Himself...at once. The moment Jesus returns to Heaven He will be back in Him, in the Father, which is glory for Jesus. [Not the moment He is on the cross].

Before creation- glory with the Father.

At the cross-separation from the Father.[why ..forsaken me?]

After the cross Heb12v2 who for the joy that was set before Him endured the cross.

It is glorious for the Father to have an obedient Son.

It is glorious for the church to have a perfect Saviour.

It is glorious for Jesus to fulfil the Law.

"in Him/in Himself" occurs three times in v31 and 32. These verses are about the Father Son relationship and here the past relationship of glory with the Father guarantees to Jesus the future glory despite what man will do to Him on the cross.

Does the evangelical Protestant tradition objectively say what Jesus considers to be the greatest source of His glory ?

You ask: Does the evangelical tradition objectively say what Jesus considers to be the greatest source of His glory?  Not that I am aware of, although Protestant evangelicals believe in the triune nature of God.  While on earth, Jesus purpose was to glorify his Father in heaven and this he did by being obedient unto death.  In so doing, Jesus was glorified by God the Father.  The glory of one is the glory of the other:

  ”The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven” (Hebrews 13).

The Protestant evangelical view of the meaning of John 13:31 is that the glorification of the Son of Man (Jesus) and the glorification of God (the Father) are inextricably intertwined by virtue of the fact that Jesus (Son of Man and Son of God) is part of the One Being of God.

Jesus gave up the glory he already had in heaven, alongside the Father, in order to be born of a woman (John 1:14.)  As you point out (in John 17:5), before his death Jesus prayed to his Father to be glorified in God’s presence with the glory he had before the world began.  This glorification occurred at Christ’s resurrection and exaltation to God’s right hand (Hebrews 2:9).  The Bible also speaks about future glory, when Christ returns “in the glory of his Father” (Matthew 16:27).

As to what Jesus may have considered to be “the greatest source of his glory”, John chapter 12 gives us a few clues.  This event happened after Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem before the Passover.  Jesus tells his disciples:

  ”The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified” (John 12:23).

This does not mean a literal hour, or at that specific moment in time.  Jesus’ words refer to what is about to happen – his betrayal, his death, his resurrection.  Jesus speaks of “the hour” to which everything else has lead, the culmination of his ministry on earth.  The glorification comes as a result of his death, resurrection and exaltation.  This is borne out in Jesus’ next words when he acknowledges the reason he has come to this moment in time:

  ”Father, glorify your name!” Then a voice came from heaven, “I have glorified it, and will glorify it again” (John 12:28).

Moving forward to John 13:31, after Judas goes out to betray Jesus, there is no turning back.  Jesus knows that events have been set in motion that will lead to his death, and through his death and resurrection, God’s plan of salvation will be accomplished.  That is why he could say:

  ”Now is the Son of Man glorified and God is glorified in him.  If God is glorified in him, God will glorify the Son in himself, and will glorify him at once” (John 13:31-32).  NOTE: Some manuscripts do not have verse 32

The glory is all about the vindication of God’s sovereignty, God’s holiness, righteousness and justice.  Jesus’ sacrificial death on the cross and his resurrection will result in salvation for all who come to saving faith in what God, in Jesus, has done to defeat sin and death.  The glory of the Father and the glory of the Son are bound together because they, along with the Holy Spirit, are one in unity and one in purpose.  God is the King of Glory (Psalm 24:7-10) and Jesus is called “the Lord of glory” (1 Corinthians 2:8):  “None of the rulers of this age understood this, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.”


In Marian Consecration, does invincible ignorance apply to grace as well as sin? So, I consecrated myself to Mary about 12 years ago following St. Maximilian Kolbe's formula.   What I didn't realize until yesterday night, reading "33 Days to Morning Glory" in preparation of my re-consecration along with my wife's, was that whatever I said to the effect of "I'll offer up my terrible headaches for the suffering in Sudan" was supposed to be spiritually derailed by Our Lady's intercessory powers.

Now, I'm speaking purely of spiritual realities and whatever St. Louis de Montfort's idea of Marian Consecration; and in that, did I unknowingly give away my spiritual ability of "deferring graces" (I'm not sure if that's a thing, but whatever people talk about when they say "offer it up" is what I mean) or did I retain the ability?

Also, was my consecration in some way inauthentic through not fully being aware of what I was doing?

This applies to anything in Catholic doctrine.

If you are not fully aware and have not given your full consent consciously, knowingly and soberly, that thing is not binding. In other words, you have the ability to say, 'Hey, I didn't know what I was doing and I take it back'.

Now, God does not like people making solemn promises to Him and later taking it back , as we see in the Old Testament (which is why I try to limit what I promise God, and instead ask Him for the grace necessary to do a thing which is for His glory).

Your case is slightly different, though. Your intentions were to pledge something to God (through Our Lady), and had a good intention to offer your sufferings for a greater good (of the suffering of other people). That said, it would be wise to only 'defer' graces which don't include those garnered by your headaches or anything you pledged. If it was a light-hearted pledge but with a good intention, I can't see any reason why Our Lady or Our Lord wouldn't allow you to take the pledge again in order to set things straight, so to speak. On the other hand, if you really knew what the pledge was and fully consented, then taking it back now ( or wanting to take back the ability to use those same graces for other things also) kind of defies the purpose of a pledge altogether,as I'm sure you'll agree.

God is the most rational person I know ;) He'll know and understand. I wouldn't lose sleep over it, as God knows your intention is good, and your question's very existence is physical proof of that.

My advice would be a solemn prayer to Our Lord or Our Lady and whoever you pledged to asking that you amend your pledge to include a limited set of your sufferings as offerings, so, as you desire, you can defer your graces as you please. Personally, I might start asking God to use His graces as HE pleases, isn't that the perfect way to use them? Still working on getting off my high horse to hand Him the reigns over, though.


Did any Church Fathers write anything about mental illnesses? Did any of the Church Fathers write about what today with modern medicine we know to be mental illnesses?

Perhaps, but not as psychology might understand it today. Mental illness was generally thought to be caused by demonic possession, or by some sort of spiritual shortcoming like falling to temptations or passions. There was of course no thought of a biological basis for mental illness like a chemical imbalance.
Mark 5:1-20
Mark 5:1-20 tells the story of Jesus exorcising a man who had an "unclean spirit," who was constantly crying out and self-harming(!) "cutting himself with stones." The demons asked to be cast into a nearby swine instead, and Jesus does this; subsequently, "about two thousand" pigs ran into the sea. (Bible text)
In the comments to the question, Lesley lamented that it would be difficult to corral Church Fathers on any particular verse. Luckily, I came across a great collection of commentary on Mark on Google Books. (Full disclosure: I discovered this book while looking for sources for the quotations collected in the wonderful Catena app.) It is heartening to read the commentary on this text, for the Church Fathers emphasize Jesus' compassion for the man possessed by demons:

[The man possessed by demons] asked for respite, without deception, in his anguish, and our Lord in his kindness granted this request. His compassion for the demoniac is a rebuke to the demons, showing how much anguish his love suffers in desiring that humans should live.

--St. Ephrem the Syrian, Hymns on Paradise

You energumens, afflicted with unclean spirits, pray, and let us all earnestly pray for them, that God, the lover of humankind, through Christ, may rebuke the unclean and wicked spirits, and deliver the faithful from the dominion from the adversary.

--Constitutions of the Holy Apostles
Acedia
It's unlikely that you will find the Church Fathers talk about depression or anxiety using those words, but you do find references to acedia. Acedia has been defined as lack of care, a sort of spiritual listlessness. It was particularly dangerous to monks, Evagrius of Pontius thought; it lead to monks imagining themselves fantasizing about their former lives and other work. Acedia makes them at once restless and the days long, but also lazy and resentful of their fellow monks (source for long quotation):

First of all he makes it seem that the sun barely moves, if at all, and that the day is fifty hours long. Then he constrains the monk to look constantly out the windows, to walk outside the cell, to gaze carefully at the sun to determine how far it stands from the ninth hour [or lunchtime], to look this way and now that to see if perhaps [one of the brethren appears from his cell]. Then too he instills in the heart of the monk a hatred for the place, a hatred for his very life itself, a hatred for manual labor. He leads him to reflect that charity has departed from among the brethren, that there is no one to give encouragement. Should there be someone at this period who happens to offend him in some way or other, this too the demon uses to contribute further to his hatred.

The monastic John Cassian rendered acedia (perhaps more sympathetically) as "weariness or dejection of heart".
Other quotations
The aforementioned Evagrius of Pontius also wrote about sadness (I encourage you to read the whole thing):

"A prisoner of barbarians is bound in irons; a prisoner of the passions is bound with sadness. [...] One who is continuously afflicted by sadness but pretends to impassibility is like a sick person who feigns health. As a sick person is shown up by the colour of his complexion, so one who is caught in the passions is exposed by sadness. [...] The sunrise is pleasant for all people, but the soul caught in sadness takes scant pleasure even in this."

The 4th century St. Ephrahim the Syrian wrote a prayer, frequently recited during Great Lent, whose Slavonic version asks to take from us a spirit of despondency.
St. Luke, Archbishop of Crimea (1877-1961) wrote more about despondency, but perhaps not in a way that's very palatable to modern psychology, saying:

Despondency is a great danger that waylays a Christian on his path to Christ. It is a diabolical temptation. All the saints were subjected to these attacks from the spirits of darkness, and in the vast majority of cases, by prayer, fasting, and vigils Christians have conquered the spirit of despondency brought on by the devil.

Healing
For an excellent reconciliation of the Church Fathers and our modern understanding of psychology and therapy, see here:

The Church Fathers taught that healing takes determination and resolve. St. Gregory of Sinai, for example, noted: “We energize [virtues] according to our resolve ...” Some of the Fathers taught that determination arises from the incensive power of the soul. St. Nikitas Stithatos wrote: “Our incensive power ... serves as a weapon” that provokes determination and resolve and thus is in accord with the will of God. He continued: “When our desire and our intelligence, in a way that accords with nature, aspire to what is divine, then our intensiveness is for both of them a weapon of righteousness ...” (Philokalia IV). For the Christian efficacy is not only “self efficacy” but ‘God-empowered efficacy.’ The words of the psalmist come to mind: “He who dwells in the shelter of the Most High, who abides in the shadow of the Almighty, will say to the Lord, ‘My refuge and my fortress; my God, in whom I trust.’ For he will deliver you from the snare of the fowler and from the deadly pestilence …” (Ps 90:1–3). The Christian can follow the spiritual wheat that was gleaned from our holy western Church Father, the Blessed Augustine: “Pray as if everything depends on God, and work as if everything depends on us.”xi
The efficacy of the therapeutic synergy of clinical science and the healing mysteries of Christ is our trust and dependency on the living God who sustains and governs all that occurs in the universe.


Is the Pope morally obliged to submit to every secular authority? Among the Protestant faith a believer is to submit to the government:

  Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human authority: whether to the emperor, as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right. (1 Peter 2:13-14, NIV)

I am unsure about medieval historical details but I had the impression that there were struggles between the Catholic church and  the state. I have the impression that the Pope tried to argue supremacy over the state in opposition to the words of Peter.

My main question is not, 'Did the Pope really try to do this?' My question is does the modern day Pope teach his duty to submit to secular authority?

According to catholic teaching is the Pope morally obliged to submit to every secular authority?

It's a mistake to interpret the 1 Peter passage as meaning "every conceivable human authority". It means only those that have legitimate authority over you. People in Roman Israel were not expected to obey the laws of Roman Britain, unless visiting there. Likewise a US citizen is not expected to obey the laws of France while in the US.

Christians have also recognized that there are situations which override this passage. If the state forbids you to worship or follow God, that is not something you should obey. If the state commands you to kill and persecute those of a particular race, that is not something you should obey. Jesus himself demonstrated this by refusing the commands of the religious authorities to stop teaching.

On the specific case you ask about, the Pope is head of state of the Vatican, and as such is his own 'human authority'. That doesn't mean he is immune to the rules of that state, as is the case with most heads of state. If he were to violate the rules of the Catholic Church he would, as I understand it, be subject to discipline.

Regarding other countries' authorities: countries rules mostly don't extend to those who who are not citizens and not present in the country. Visiting heads of state are usually subject to diplomatic immunity, and so other countries' rules again don't apply.

In the unlikely event that the Pope found time to study for a fine arts degree, and that he didn't do so at a Vatican institution, I don't see any reason to think he wouldn't abide by the rules of the institution.

Finally: the Pope has only been in his office a week. If you want to find out what his teaching is on this subject, I recommend waiting.


Do Reformed theologians understand the Catholic Church and the Papacy to have been true heirs of Peter until the Reformation? In other words, say, in the fourth century, were they "on track" and the legitimate heirs of the reins of Christianity, so to speak but then went off track toward the middle ages? Or do they consider the authority of the Popes and all to have been illegitimate all along?

It is clear from John Knox's words, recorded at his meeting with Queen Mary at Holyrood in 1561 (accompanied by Lord James Stewart) that the reformer regarded the Papacy to be an intrusion and the mass to be an idolatrous sacrifice. He quite clearly regards both to be without warrant, from their inception.

‘Take one of the chief points, Madam, which this day is in controversy betwixt the Papists and us.

The Papists have boldly affirmed that the Mass is the ordinance of God, and the institution of Jesus Christ, and a sacrifice for the sins of the quick and the dead. We deny both the one and the other.

We affirm that the Mass, as it is now used, is nothing but the invention of man, and, therefore, is an abomination before God, and no sacrifice that ever God commanded.

Now, Madam, who shall judge betwixt us two thus contending? It is no reason that either of the parties be further believed, than they are able to prove but insuspect witnessing. Let them prove their affirmatives by the plain words of the Book of God, and we shall give them the plea granted.

What our Master Jesus Christ did, we know by His Evangelists; what the priest doeth at his Mass, the world seeth.

Now, doth not the Word of God plainly assure us, that Christ Jesus neither said Mass, nor yet commanded Mass to be said, at His Last Supper, seeing that no such thing as their Mass is made mention of within the whole Scriptures?’

Reformissio - John Knox and Queen Mary
The Meeting between Queen Mary and John Knox, by Robert Inerarity Herdman 1829-1888.


What do Orthodox Christians mean when they talk about the Real Presence in the Eucharist? The Orthodox Church is one of several denominations that teach the Real Presence, but they don't all have the same understanding of this doctrine. What is the Orthodox understanding?

We Eastern Orthodox take Christ at His word that "if you do not eat My Flesh and drink My Blood, you have no life in you." Indeed this is a hard saying---who can accept it? In my limited understanding as a babe in Orthodoxy (I entered the Orthodox Church but a year ago), we just accept it as a holy Mystery and try not to qualify it in philosophical terms. From my limited understanding and knowledge of Roman Catholic doctrine, this distinguishes our dogmatic approach towards the Holy Mysteries from theirs. However, I think the Eucharist is a mystical experience for both of us.

First and foremost, the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus are not objects to be understood cataphatically or apophatically, but instead they are our food, and God Himself in us. They are primarily to be experienced (insofar as one experiences food), and only secondarily to be understood.


Do Evangelicals see Catholics as pagans? This question is based on my personal experience. Some time ago I had a discussion with a friend of mine who's an evangelical pastor.

In a very subtle way, he was asserting that I actually believe in a false God, and that the only way to the truth is convert myself.

I was quite astonished of such discussion, both because I follow and love ecumenical movements which tends to find common paths rather than deep differences, and because this vision seems to be integralist to me.

Of course the discussion truncated there and I didn't want to take it up again because it was really a sad situation.

So my questions are:

Does evangelicalism really consider all non-evangelicals like pagans, because they are worshiping a false God?
Which other Christian confessions have this vision?
Is evangelicalism really an integralist confession?

Evangelicalism is not in itself a "confession". It is more of a general grouping of similar confessions. As such, it is a bit hard to pin down on a specific point of doctrine like your question calls for.

That being said, we could paint with a broad brush and describe some of general leanings. Every one of these will be wrong for at least some Evangelicals.

There are some evangelical groups that consider some other evangelical groups to be apostate* (not true churches). However, these tend to be exceptions rather than the norm.
Most evangelicals tend to hedge salvation more on the basis of belief rather than church membership. In other words, even if they believe the Roman Catholic church to be a bogus organization and many of its doctrines to be false, they will acknowledge that some of its members are legitimately Christian.†
Most evangelicals specifically reject many of the doctrines, most of the structure and all of the authority of the Roman Catholic church. Those that do accept any of the above do not recognize it in full, but only in the parts that are in agreement. They would reject almost everything to do with Mary, but might agree one some points about Christ. They will reject the notion that any Pope could ever speak infallibly while agreeing that Scripture invokes a system of appointed leaders over churches.
Most evangelicals believe that due to the dangers of the false doctrines woven in among some true ones, it would be a bad idea to place ones self under the sole direction of the Roman Catholic church. As such, people who do are often regarded with much skepticism as the creed they have hence subscribed to is dubiously compatible in any way with their own.
The issue of where to draw a line between a "false God" and "the right God not properly understood" is a tricky one to draw. Most evangelical circles would use some of the more basic and early creeds (such as the Apostles & Nicene Creeds) as a measuring stick for whether the right God was being worshiped. A non-triune God or a religion that doesn't recognize Jesus as God's only son for example would be considered to be worshiping a false God, while if those and some other elements were in place but his works and words were badly misinterpreted it may be just a matter of mistaken doctrine without actually being a "false God".

For an overview of the issues involved here, I highly recommend carefully reading a blog post from my friend Kevin Bywater entitiled Do Muslims, Mormons, and Christians Worship the Same God? in which he works to articulate the core theological problem involved no matter whether the right answer is yes or no. As one of the basic points, he notes that "Worshiping God wrongly is tantamount to worshiping the wrong god(s)."

In light of the previous point, Catholisism started out with some of these same creeds and many participants still hold to them. However evangelicallism would, in general, say that it has wandered very far from them with all the things it has added. In doing so, the waters are so muddy that's its hard to get a pure drink of living water there.

Most Evangelicals also recognize that there are Catholics and there are Catholics. Some in the US might be viewed as partners and there are even major ecumenical talks always going on somewhere or another. On the other hand much of Latin America and Europe are so far gone from even Catholic teaching that it would be impossible for most evangelicals to recognize them as Christian.

One notable reference on this would be the Westminster Confession. While only some subsets of evangelicalism would fully hold to this confession, it is indicative of their varying positions that in it's original format, Chapter XXV Article VI identifies the Pope as the antichrist himself:

  There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ: nor can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the Church against Christ, and all that is called God.

More importantly, it is to be noted that this statement has been removed from the revised version most commonly used in the US and much of the rest of the world in modern Reformed churches. The statement now accepted by most people holding to this particular confession reads simply:

  There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ. Nor can the Pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof.

* I have avoided using the term "pagan" because the context of your question indicates we probably don't have a common understanding of what it means.

† My personal stance on this issue is that salvation is a gift from God. Correct belief isn't what saves us. Therefore it is possible for some who believe straight up wrong things about salvation to be saved. However this is no excuse to not seek to learn which doctrines are true, and God uses his word properly preached as an instrument in effecting salvation so we should put high priority on true teaching even though we know it isn't necessarily a matter of salvation whether people believe exactly the right doctrine.


Is there any sense in being baptized as an adult after being baptized as an infant? Around the time I was born, my parents were going to a Lutheran church. As such, I was baptized as an infant. In most cases in the Bible, baptism is connected with receiving the Holy Spirit. If so, then that may explain why I don't remember when I became a believer. However, there ARE verses such as those in Mark and Luke (below) that make a reference to believing as well, which I couldn't have done as a baby.

Mark 16:16 (NLT)
Anyone who believes and is baptized will be saved. But anyone who refuses to believe will be condemned.
Luke 3:3 (NLT)
Then John went from place to place on both sides of the Jordan River, preaching that people should be baptized to show that they had repented of their sins and turned to God to be forgiven.

(Emphasis mine.)
As such, I am considering being baptized again as an adult. After all, I can now say that I believe and that I have repented, but there is little or nothing in the Bible about being baptized twice. Also, infant baptism doesn't seem to have become widespread until at least a century after Christ (Wikipedia).
I consider myself non-denominational on the side of Wesleyan, but I'll take answers from any viewpoint.

I'm Catholic, but I think this is sort of normal Christian advice, let me know if it doesn't make sense (logically at least).

Canon IX of the Seventh Session of Trent teaches that baptism leaves an indelible mark on the soul of the faithful that cannot be removed:

  If any one shall say that in the three sacraments, Baptism, to wit, Confirmation, and Orders, there is not imprinted on the soul a character, that is, a certain spiritual and indelible sign, on account of which they cannot be repeated; let him be anathema.

But, if for whatever reason you had reason to believe that your original baptism was not valid (not just insufficient), then you'd probably want to get baptized (you don't need to call it re-baptized) because baptism is necessary for salvation and justification of the sinner (ibid. Canon IV):

  If any one shall say that [any or all of the] the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous, and that without them, and without the desire thereof, men, through faith alone, obtain of God the grace of justification; though all [the sacraments] be not necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.

(the same logic is applied to Marriage and Annulment of Marriage)

But, the best advice is to follow the advice of your spiritual advisor. Don't go into baptism for the 'feeling' of it.


Which English translation of the Bible does the Orthodox church use? By Orthodox I intend both the Greek Orthodox and the Russian Orthodox, and if there are any differences.

As you probably know, the Greek Orthodox Church and the Russian Orthodox Church are particular jurisdictions of the Eastern Orthodox Church.  What follows I think fairly characterizes all jurisdictions in the United States.

There is no official English translation of the Bible recommended for Orthodox in the United States, but as far as I know the guidance is fairly consistent across jurisdictions:

Old Testament

English translations of the Septuagint are preferred over translations of the Masorah.  While there are a few different English translations of the Septuagint available, generally the translation that is in the Orthodox Study Bible is recommended.

New Testament

Despite the fact that the New King James Version is included in the aforementioned Orthodox Study Bible, clergy seem to almost always recommend first the King James Version, then the Revised Standard Version.  As far as I have seen, the New Revised Standard Version is universally condemned.

I should note that for Liturgical use there are special translations in the service books.  The New Testament lectionary comprises a Gospel book that is kept at the altar and an Apostol, which contains the lectionary readings from Acts and the Epistles.  I think, but am not sure, that almost all Gospel and Apostol books used in services are based closely on the King James Version.  There are also Old Testament readings - especially Psalms - and these readings are in the service books themselves (i.e. there is no lectionary version of the Old Testament similar to the Gospel book and the Apostol).

All this is not to say that there are other English translations that some Orthodox Christians use.  There is, for example, the 2-volume Orthodox New Testament -based closely on the 1904 Constantinopolitan Patriarchal Text (very similar to the Majority Text) - which includes extensive Patristic commentaries.  There is also a more modern English translation of the Patriarchal Text that has been compiled by Fr. Laurent Cleenewerk.  Fr. Lawrence Farley prefers to use the New American Standard Bible in his "Coffee Cup Commentaries".  I am sure others can enumerate many other versions that are occasionally used by Orthodox Christians.


From a trinitarian perspective, how do you biblically reconcile Jesus dying and Jesus being God? I've heard non-trinitarians say, "The Bible says God can't die, therefore Jesus isn't God.

First of all, does the Bible even say that God can't die (I assume it does, or at least it implies it). I believe that God can't be snuffed out of existence. If it does say it or imply it, in what sense is the word "die" or "death" used, and what evidence or reason do you have for your answer?

I know that Trinitarians distinguish Jesus dying (biological death of His body) and God hypothetically dying (being snuffed out of existence), but how do we prove this difference biblically? I hope that's a coherent question. To clarify, some non-trinitarians would say that distinguishing meanings of death in the Bible is just ad hoc or grasping for straws. How do we prove that this difference in meaning is biblical and not ad hoc?

The Doctrinal Position
Trinitarian position usually includes the doctrine of Jesus's having two natures in one person (Hypostatic Union).  Armed with both the doctrine of Trinity and the Hypostatic Union, the standard explanation of what happened when Jesus died on the cross is as follows:

The Divine nature of Jesus did not die or cease to exist
Neither God the Father nor God the Holy Spirit died on the cross
The body of God the Son in his human nature died and was buried
Although the human body of God the Son died, the hypostatic union of two natures was never separated, broken, or compromised

Source: Did God Die on the Cross?: The Trinity and the Crucifixion
Answering your questions
Q1: Does the Bible even say that God can't die?
Answer: Yes, see several Bible verses such as

Isa 40:28: ... The Lord is the everlasting God, the Creator of all the earth. ...
1 Tim 1:17: All honor and glory to God forever and ever! He is the eternal King, the unseen one who never dies; he alone is God. Amen.
Deut 33:27: The eternal God is your refuge, and his everlasting arms are under you. ...

Q2: [paraphrase] How do Trinitarians explain that Jesus truly died as a human being but yet retains His Divine Nature who never die?
Answer: Quote from the article above for the explanation:

As mentioned above, human nature doesn’t cease to exist in death; rather, the body perishes but the soul/spirit lives to God. Jesus’s human nature—like ours—still existed in his death, because the soul/spirit is immortal and thus the human nature still lives in/not in the presence of God. If Jesus’s human nature died/ceased to exist for three days, this would indicate not only a death of his soul, but also a split in his person—only half of Jesus would exist for three days while his body was in the tomb. We need to affirm, then, that the human soul/spirit of Jesus remained alive (thus, his nature did not die), but that he experienced a real human death like all of us: body in the ground, soul/spirit with the Lord. And his resurrected body, like ours one day, was raised imperishable and he now lives as the God-man who will never die again.

Q3: What's the Biblical evidence for the answer of Q2?
Answer:
STEP 1: Trinitarians look at the Bible verses below as the starting point (with straightforward plain sense interpretation).

Jesus is God: see supporting Bible verses such as

John 1:1,14: In the beginning the Word already existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was God. ... So the Word became human and made his home among us. He was full of unfailing love and faithfulness. And we have seen his glory, the glory of the Father’s one and only Son.
John 10:30: The Father and I are one.

Jesus died: some supporting Bible verses:

John 19:30-33: When Jesus had tasted it, he said, “It is finished!” Then he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.  It was the day of preparation, and the Jewish leaders didn’t want the bodies hanging there the next day, which was the Sabbath (and a very special Sabbath, because it was Passover week). So they asked Pilate to hasten their deaths by ordering that their legs be broken. Then their bodies could be taken down. So the soldiers came and broke the legs of the two men crucified with Jesus. But when they came to Jesus, they saw that he was already dead, so they didn’t break his legs.
Mark 15:37: Then Jesus uttered another loud cry and breathed his last.
1 Pet 3:18: ... He suffered physical death, but he was raised to life in the Spirit.

STEP 2: Trinitarians then came up with the doctrinal position above as the straightforward logical way to reconcile them, yielding the explanation in the answer to Q2 above.
Conclusion
The straightforward meaning of the Bible verses and the explanation preclude having to "grasp for straws".


What is the basis for Lutheran single predestination, as opposed to double predestination? I was reading this question, What were the main doctrinal disagreements between Luther and Calvin?, and one of the differences between the two was Calvin believed in double predestination, while Luther believed in single predestination.

So according to my understanding:

Double Predestination – God mandates who goes to Heaven AND Hell,
Single Predestination – God mandates ONLY who goes to Heaven.

Could somebody give a Lutheran support for single predestination?

Related Question: What is the basis for Calvinist double predestination, as opposed to single predestination?

EDIT: I realize that my idea of Single predestination is, in fact, the definition of Calvinist Double predestination. Would the answer kindly provide a concise definition of Lutheran Single Predestination in addition to support?

I'll try to answer in two parts: first by summarizing the Lutheran belief concerning salvation, secondly by summarizing the Lutheran belief about who is saved.

First, the Lutheran belief concerning salvation is basically that we are saved by God's grace on account of Christ's sacrifice, and that nothing we do can gain us or earn us this salvation.  We receive the benefits of Christ's death and resurrection through faith, and this faith itself is a work of God.  Lutherans rely on passages such as Ephesians 2:8-9 and Romans 10:13-17.  Note too, that salvation is broader than going to heaven; it is being bodily resurrected at Christ's return and being brought into the new, restored creation.

Second, Lutherans believe that Christ died for the sins of all people and that God wants all people to be saved (see, for example John 3:16, 1 John 2:2, 1 Timothy 2:4-6).  However, not all people are saved.  Why?  Lutherans would say that we don't know why.  That is, if my first sentence of this paragraph is true, then the logical question is "why is not everyone saved?"  The Lutheran answer is, "we don't know, because God doesn't tell us."

This, then, leads into the concept of single predestination.  That is, we are saved because God saves us.  Why not everyone is saved we don't have the answer to, because God doesn't tell us why.  Calvinism attempts to answer this question by "filling in the blanks," if you will, by stating that God chooses who will not believe and that Christ didn't actually die for the sins of everyone.

As a follow-on, Lutherans believe that - without Christ - we are actually condemned already, as Jesus states in John 3:18.  This is because Adam and Eve's sin caused all of creation to be condemned, so we are born condemned.  Thus, Jesus came to save us from the condemnation in which we already were.  Therefore, it is not as if we were born into some neutral state where we could either "be saved" or "be condemned."  Actually, we were condemned already, so Christ saves us from this condemnation.


What is the Biblical Basis for God the Holy Spirit having a spouse? The following are taken from Pure Devotion to Mary by St. Louis de Montfort

By the light which the Holy Spirit will give you through Mary, his faithful spouse, you will perceive the evil inclinations of your fallen nature and how incapable you are of any good apart from that which God produces in you as Author of nature and of grace.

The Holy Spirit, finding his dear Spouse (Mary) present again in souls, will come down into them with great power. He will fill them with his gifts, especially wisdom, by which they will produce wonders of grace.

What is the Biblical Basis for the belief that God the Holy Spirit has a spouse?

What is the Biblical Basis for God the Holy Spirit having a spouse?
This is a metaphor for the Virgin Mary as having been espoused by the Holy Spirit as she became pregnant through the overshadowing of the Paraclete.
The best place to start is at the Annunciation.

26 And in the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent from God into a city of Galilee, called Nazareth,
27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.
28 And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.
29 Who having heard, was troubled at his saying, and thought with herself what manner of salutation this should be.
30 And the angel said to her: Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found grace with God.
31 Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and shalt bring forth a son; and thou shalt call his name Jesus.
32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the most High; and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of David his father; and he shall reign in the house of Jacob for ever.
33 And of his kingdom there shall be no end.
34 And Mary said to the angel: How shall this be done, because I know not man?
35 And the angel answering, said to her: The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the most High shall overshadow thee. And therefore also the Holy which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
36 And behold thy cousin Elizabeth, she also hath conceived a son in her old age; and this is the sixth month with her that is called barren:
37 Because no word shall be impossible with God.
38 And Mary said: Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it done to me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her. - Luke 1:26-38

Catholic Answers has this little bit to add:

Was the Blessed Virgin Mary Joseph’s spouse or the Holy Spirit’s spouse?
Answer:
St. Joseph was the husband of Mary in the common usage of the idea of marriage.
The pious custom of referring to the Holy Spirit as the spouse of Mary is a symbolic expression of Mary’s perpetual virginity and the virgin birth of Jesus. It is not meant in a literal manner but rather in terms of Mary’s singular devotion to God and unique relationship to the Trinity. It is similar to how religious sisters sometimes refer to Jesus as their spouse.
Scripture contains several examples of a mystical spousal relationship:

For your Maker is your husband, the LORD of hosts is his name . . . (Isaiah 54:5).

. . . as the bridegroom rejoices over the bride, so shall your God rejoice over you (Isaiah 62:5).

. . . my covenant which they broke, though I was their husband, says the LORD (Jeremiah 31:32).

I feel a divine jealousy for you, for I betrothed you to Christ to present you as a pure bride to her one husband (2 Cor. 11:2).

The following may be of interest to some:

Bride of Christ (Wikipedia)
Marriage like Christ and the Church (Ephesians 5:22-32)


Is the validity of the ransom contingent on Jesus being God? In discussing the trinity, I've often heard people say that "only God could perform the ransom" or that "only the creator of life could defeat death." What is the basis for these claims?

To give some context, non-trinitarians, such as Jehovah's Witnesses, believe that Jesus was a perfect man in the same manner as Adam, but Adam was not God, therefore the ransom doesn't necessarily need to be by God, but it does need to be by a corresponding perfect man. (Romans 5:12-21; 1 Timothy 2:5, 6)

What is the basis (Biblical or otherwise) for believing that Jesus must also be God in order for his ransom to be valid, especially within the framework of the Recapitulation theory of atonement?

Irenaeus of Lyons is generally credited with being the first to fully present Recapitulation Theory. He explains that Jesus saves humanity be undoing the error of Adam by succeeding where Adam failed. A significant portion of this is to reveal the Father to all (and so includes Moral Influence as part of Recapitulation). The other aspect is the Recreation of Man.

Revelation of the Father

In the preface of Book V of his Against Heresies, Irenaeus summarizes his theory of atonement:

  For it is thus that thou wilt both controvert them in a legitimate manner, and wilt be prepared to receive the proofs brought forward against them [the heretics], casting away their doctrines as filth by means of the celestial faith; but following the only true and stedfast Teacher, the Word of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, who did, through His transcendent love, become what we are, that He might bring us to be even what He is Himself. [Emphasis mine]

So, according to Irenaeus, Jesus's goal is to make us 'what He is Himself' by being 'becom[ing] what we are' to be our 'true and stedfast Teacher'.

Now, one could argue that a perfect (non-divine) man could do this, but Irenaeus disagrees. He opens Chapter 1 of Book V with

  For in no other way could we have learned the things of God, unless our Master, existing as the Word, had become man. For no other being had the power of revealing to us the things of the Father, except His own proper Word. For what other person “knew the mind of the Lord,” or who else “has become His counsellor?”

Now this is a reference to Paul's letter to the Romans (which in turn refer to Isaiah, Jeremiah and Job):

  Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out!

For who has known the mind of the Lord?
Or who has become His counselor?

Or who has first given to Him
And it shall be repaid to him?

  Romans 11:33-35 NKJV

Irenaeus is asserting, based on Paul, that only God knows God's mind. He concludes that only the Divine Word of God could reveal the Father to the world. This logic parallels what Christ explained to Philip:

  [Jesus said] "If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; and from now on you know Him and have seen Him." Philip said to Him, "Lord, show us the Father, and it is sufficient for us." Jesus said to him, "Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how can you say, 'Show us the Father'? Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak on My own authority; but the Father who dwells in Me does the works. Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father in Me, or else believe Me for the sake of the works themselves."  [John 14:7-11 NKJV]

Christ reveals the Father because the Father is in Him and He is in the Father. Of course, it is could be argued that this does not need to mean that Jesus is divine, but Trinitarians certainly interpret it that way. And it is certainly Irenaeus's understanding that Jesus could only accomplish this if He were God.

Revelation as Mediation

You mention

  For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time [1 Timothy 2:5-6 NKJV]

as an example that 'ransom doesn't necessarily need to be by God, but it does need to be by a corresponding perfect man'. I don't think that this is the correct understanding of that passage. Of course, Chalcedonian Trinitarians have no problem with this statement since they affirm that Christ is fully God and fully man, but I would like to place this passage in the context of 1st Century Hellenized Judaism.

Philo of Alexandria, a Hellenized Jew and contemproray of Christ, provides some insight. Much of theology involves the idea of the Logos, the Word of God. Early Christians may not of drawn directly on Philo, but (especially in regards to Johnian Christology) they like were influenced by the same sources. Philo describes the Word as 'High Priest', 'Mediator', 'Advocate', and 'expiator of sins'. (I need to find a good online source for Philo so I can link to quotes.) 1st Century Hellenized Judaism was not foreign to the idea that Word of God, though God, operated, at least figuratively, independantly of God (the Father in Trinitarian parlance). God (the Father) is too transendent, too unknowable, to be directly revealed to man One of the principle activities of the Word (or sometimes Wisdom) is to be the Mediator between God and man, to reveal God to man. (Recall that Irenaeus asserts that this why Christ came.)

To a 1st Century Hellenized Jew, the phrase 'there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus' would be shocking because it identifies the Divine Logos, the Mediator between God and men as the man Jesus Christ. They were already familiar with the idea that an aspect (loosely speaking) of God was the Mediator that revealed the true Nature of God to man, and that job could only be done by God. The Epistle to Timothy takes that concept at attaches it to a man, thus requiring Jesus to be both man and God. To the Timothy, the verse would sound something like "There is one God and the Logos, who is also the man Jesus Christ, who gave Himself a ransom for all". The ransom must be God because only the Logos could be the Mediator.

The Recreation of Man

You also mention Romans 5:12-21 where Paul famously compares Jesus, the Second Adam, to Adam (the First Adam). Jesus is described as succeeding and bringing life where Adam failed and brought death. This is the heart of Recapitualation. Again, let's take a look at Philo. One of the titles of the Logos is 'the Heavenly Adam'. Recall that Paul calls the Son the Image of God and associates the Son with the 'method' of creation:

  He [, the Son,] is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. [Colossians 1:15-16]

Philo made this same connection with the Logos (although, of course, Philo did not identify the Logos with Jesus). The Logos is the Image of God. In particular, this was the tied to the creation of man:

  Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth. [Genesis 1:26 NKJV]

In his commentary on this verse, Philo identified the the Logos as the Image of God and the Heavenly Adam. The Earthly Adam was created in the image of the Logos. Paul seems to work along similar lines, but Irenaeus takes it further than Paul. At the end of Chapter 1 of Book V, he concludes

  [A]t the beginning of our formation in Adam, that breath of life which proceeded from God, having been united to what had been fashioned, animated the man, and manifested him as a being endowed with reason; so also, in the end, the Word of the Father and the Spirit of God, having become united with the ancient substance of Adam’s formation, rendered man living and perfect, receptive of the perfect Father, in order that as in the natural (Adam) we all were dead, so in the spiritual we may all be made alive. For never at any time did Adam escape the hands of God, to whom the Father speaking, said, "Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness." And for this reason in the last times (fine), not by the will of the flesh, nor by the will of man, but by the good pleasure of the Father, His hands formed a living man, in order that Adam might be created (again) after the image and likeness of God.

So Irenaeus assets that just as the earthly Adam was created in the image of God, the only way for man to be made spiritually alive was for the Logos to become united to the flesh of Adam.


If Catholics have to be open to new life how can they practice Natural Family Planning? I listened to a Christoper West audio recordings where he explains the theology of the body of JP2 writings.

He keeps on saying how important it is to be open to new life within the marital act(sex). Using contraception is prohibited because it violates the very act of love.

I noticed though among Catholics who practice NFP (natural family planning) that they solely use it to prevent new life. I'm talking about people who have no problem to conceive a child. I never hear them saying we are trying to conceive a baby. I only see the announcements how they 'again' got pregnant unexpectedly. Probably because they made a mistake in calculations or couldn't abstain.

My question is: Doesn't this set NFP to the same level as contraception? Does the child always need to be expected?

I know there is nothing wrong to have an unexpected baby or to postpone having a baby. Don't the couples' always trying to avoid pregnancy changing the meaning of NFP use? Didn't it become to be 'open to new life but always try to prevent it'?

This sounds like a great question to ask on Catholic Culture but since that's not up, I'll give it a shot here.

If therefore there are well-grounded reasons for spacing births, arising from the physical or psychological condition of husband or wife, or from external circumstances, the Church teaches that married people may then take advantage of the natural cycles immanent in the reproductive system and engage in marital intercourse only during those times that are infertile, thus controlling birth in a way which does not in the least offend the moral principles which We have just explained.
Neither the Church nor her doctrine is inconsistent when she considers it lawful for married people to take advantage of the infertile period but condemns as always unlawful the use of means which directly prevent conception, even when the reasons given for the later practice may appear to be upright and serious. In reality, these two cases are completely different. In the former the married couple rightly use a faculty provided them by nature. In the later they obstruct the natural development of the generative process. It cannot be denied that in each case the married couple, for acceptable reasons, are both perfectly clear in their intention to avoid children and wish to make sure that none will result. But it is equally true that it is exclusively in the former case that husband and wife are ready to abstain from intercourse during the fertile period as often as for reasonable motives the birth of another child is not desirable. And when the infertile period recurs, they use their married intimacy to express their mutual love and safeguard their fidelity toward one another. In doing this they certainly give proof of a true and authentic love.
Bl. Pope Paul VI Humane Vitae p16

So, you've got good cause to be concerned.  However, I don't think one ought to level a blanket judgement on any couples motives for using NFP until one gets to know them!  And in getting to know them one can suggest a deep-dive reading into the purpose of the marital act as unitive and procreative.  If at that point you want to "council the ignorant" then, by all means go for it, you'll probably get a better reaction than if they used other forms of contraception!
Dr. Janet Smith says in Contraception Why Not that it is the conversation that couples have each time they make love which makes NFP different.  The conversation around love making and the openness to children each time makes a world of difference. The conversation can include reasons you don't want to have kids right now, reasons you do want them, differences of opinion.  But there's no inherent barrier to baby making, I think that's openness and living in accord with God's plan for your family.
Then, each act is not a question of whether or not to use a condom, but whether or not it prudent to have a baby. And prudence, oddly enough, is the chief of the Cardinal Virtues.


How long did David live? From my general knowledge, I know that David lived 70 years.  Can be this be demonstrated with the Bible?
In 1 Kings 2:10, 11 we find how long he reigned over Israel:

So David slept with his fathers, and was buried in the city of David.
And the days that David reigned over Israel were forty years: seven years reigned he in Hebron, and thirty and three years reigned he in Jerusalem.

So, how long did David live?

70 years

  David was thirty years old when he became king, and he reigned forty years.
  2 Samuel 5:4