What churches eat undercooked meat? I read about the Council at Jerusalem (the first council despite Council of Nicaea):

  "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with
  anything beyond the following requirements: You are to abstain from
  food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled
  animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these
  things." Acts 15:28-29 NIV

In particular on the diet issue, I have 2 questions:

What do you mean blood and strangled meat? Means it undercooked food?
Which doctrinal segments follow this principle today (I say this because I am a Christian / Reformed and we eat undercooked meat).

The command to not eat meat with the blood in it has no relation to the coking of the meat. What that is referring to is the commandments from God to the Israelites after their rescue from Egypt.
All Scriptures are quoted from the King James translation

Genesis 9:4  But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.
Leviticus 7:26  Moreover ye shall eat no manner of blood, whether it be of fowl or of beast, in any of your dwellings.
Leviticus 17:11  For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.
Leviticus 17:14  For it is the life of all flesh; the blood of it is for the life thereof: therefore I said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh: for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof: whosoever eateth it shall be cut off.
Deuteronomy 12:23  Only be sure that thou eat not the blood: for the blood is the life; and thou mayest not eat the life with the flesh.

Even though I have no Scriptures which say so this may have something to do with the sacrificial blood of Christ. But that is just a thought.


In the bible, who saw the light and was blinded? I heard a quote somewhere that described a biblical character who "saw the light" and was "blinded" and "crawled" his way through a certain location.

Who is this referring to?

Most likely, you are thinking of Saul (who later went by the name "Paul"):

As [Saul] neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?”
“Who are you, Lord?” Saul asked.
“I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,” he replied. “Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do.”
The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless; they heard the sound but did not see anyone. Saul got up from the ground, but when he opened his eyes he could see nothing. So they led him by the hand into Damascus. For three days he was blind, and did not eat or drink anything.
—Acts 9:3-9 (NIV)

The only difference is that Saul/Paul did not crawl to his destination, but rather was led there by his companions because he was blinded.


Old testament: where is Eternal Life and Judgement discussed? When Jesus was teaching of eternal life (Rich man and Lazarus, also Martha and Mary's brother Lazarus being raised from death) the people listening didn't think it was a new and novel idea: your soul lasts forever and you shall be judged.

Where is this taught in the Old Testament?  I find Jesus telling the Saducees that "I am the God of Abraham, the God of Issac, and the God of Jacob", which is suggesting that Abraham, Issac and Jacob are not dead and gone (I was the God of Abraham, etc.).

Are there other places where it's made plain?

Salvation is often mentioned, and Psalms 9 carries the idea that the soul lives on after death, but the most direct teaching I could find is in Daniel 12:2

Daniel 12:2
And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, Some to everlasting life, Some to shame and everlasting contempt.

Here are some of the more obvious teachings about the judgement:

Ps. 9:7
But the LORD shall endure forever; He has prepared His throne for judgment.
Ps. 50:4
He shall call to the heavens from above, And to the earth, that He may judge His people:
Eccl. 3:17
I said in my heart, “God shall judge the righteous and the wicked, For there is a time there for every purpose and for every work.”
Eccl. 11:9
... But know that for all these God will bring you into judgment.
Eccl. 12:14
For God will bring every work into judgment, Including every secret thing, Whether good or evil.


How can the "Son of Man" passages of Matthew 24 be interpreted as a fulfilled prophecy? Matthew 24 contains a prophecy spoken by Jesus.  In verse 34, He says, "Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place." (ESV)

This verse is sometimes used by critics of Christianity to say that Jesus and the early Church believed the world would end before all the initial disciples had died. Thus, they say, it is a failed prophecy.

However, for various reasons (the exact reasons are not relevant for the scope of this question), many Christians both do not see this as a problematic statement, and also believe that the prophecies of Matthew 24 have not yet been fulfilled.

There is also a third option held by some Christians: the prophecy was fulfilled in total before the last disciple died.  Parts of chapter 24 can easily be read as referring to the destruction of the Temple.  Other parts are harder to see as having been fulfilled in the first century AD.

To keep this question reasonably answerable, I will focus on just verses 29-31:

  Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. Then will appear in heaven the sign of the Son of Man, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And he will send out his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

and verses 39b-41:

  so will be the coming of the Son of Man. Then two men will be in the field; one will be taken and one left. Two women will be grinding at the mill; one will be taken and one left.

How do people who believe Matthew was fulfilled in its entirety during the first century explain 1) the coming of the Son of Man, and 2) the taking away of some people?

J. Stuart Russell was a prominent 19th century preterist whose thought has been recently popularized in some circles through R. C. Sproul's book, The Last Days According to Jesus.  Russell addresses these two passages as follows.
Verses 29–31
Russell notes that verse 29 begins with the word "immediately" and insists that the text allows no change in "time, place, [or] circumstances" between the earlier verses, describing the desolation and tribulation of Judea, and the events of verses 29–31.  Thus, verse 30's "all the tribes of the earth" actually refers only to the land of Judea, not the entire world.  Similarly, there is no gap in time between the two sections of the passage.
Russell next addresses the challenge of those who find it absurd that anyone can believe that the phenomena of these verses (the darkening of the sun, etc.) could have already occurred.  He responds:

To argue in this strain is to lose sight of the very nature and genius of prophecy.  Symbol and metaphor belong to the grammar of prophecy, as every reader of the Old Testament prophets must know.  Is it not reasonable that the doom of Jerusalem should be depicted in language as glowing and rhetorical as the destruction of Babylon, or Bozrah, or Tyre?

Russell quotes Isaiah 13, describing the downfall of Babylon, and argues that "the imagery employed in this passage is almost identical with that of our Lord":

'Behold the day of the Lord cometh, cruel both with wrath and fierce anger, to lay the land desolate: and he shall destroy the sinners thereof out of it.  For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light: the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine . . . . I will shake the heavens, and the earth shall remove out of her place' [emphasis in original]

He then asks:

If these symbols therefore were proper to represent the fall of Babylon, why should they be improper to set forth a still greater catastrophe—the destruction of Jerusalem?

He provides other examples, like Isaiah 34's reference to the historical destruction of Bozrah, the capital of Edom, and the historical punishment of Samaria and Jerusalem in Micah 1.
Ultimately, this figurative language, he argues, is a "characteristic quality of prophetic diction":

The moral grandeur of the events which such symbols represent may be most fitly set forth by convulsions and cataclysms in the natural world. [...]
It is appropriate, both as it is in keeping with the acknowledged style of the ancient prophets, and also because the moral grandeur of the event is such as to justify the use of such language in this particular case.

Verses 39–41
Russell again insists that these verses also refer to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.  He understands these and the surrounding verses to be primarily warnings and admonitions to vigilance:

This watchfulness was essential to the safety of the followers of Christ, for so sudden would be the catastrophe that it would overtake the unready and unwary, as birds that are caught in a net.

He does not specifically address the "one taken and one left" language, but it's clear from his analysis that he believes this language is used to emphasize that

the final catastrophe would overtake Jerusalem and Judea at an unexpected hour, when the business and the pleasure of life occupied men's hands and hearts.

Those "taken," thus, would include the "prodigious numbers slaughtered in the siege of Jerusalem."  He quotes Josephus's record of the event, and summarizes, "A more exact verification of our Lord's prediction it is impossible to conceive."
Summary
Preterists like Russell view the language of Matthew 24 as prophetic language similar to that of the Old Testament prophets, and that the events described as occurring in the heavens should be seen as symbolic of the events around the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.

All quotes are from Russell's 1878 work, The Parousia, pages 76–93.


What is the basis for First Communion? I understand that Catholics practice First Communion for kids. What is the basis for this practice in the Catholic church? What is the proper age?

The Catholic Encyclopedia article gives a good albeit old insight into canonical age.  In those days 100 years ago and previous, confirmation was before first Communion.  Nowadays in most diocese in the USA that's flipped around.

The terms, age of discretion and age of reason are used to describe what is needed for a youth to fully understand what they're doing and freely choose to do it.  Why this is required for the Eucharist and Confirmation and not for Baptism is not exactly obvious, unless you consider:

A. Sts. Peter and John confirmed those who were already baptized, but didn't know much about the faith (Acts 8:14-17) - after instruction. And

B. St. Paul said it would bring condemnation on yourself if you eat the Eucharistic Sacrifice unworthily

So, a person needs to be in a state of grace to receive communion, and because they need to be in a state of grace, they need confession and because they need confession, they need to be aware of their sins and because they need to be aware of their sins they need to be at the age of reason, which the Church has fixed at around 7 years of age.


Who first divided the Bible's books into chapters? I've heard that the Bible's division into verses was made later than the division into chapters. So, whose translation firstly came up with this system of chapter divisions that we have today?

The Bible used today by Christians was dived into chapter and verse by Catholic Arch Bishop Stephen Langton.

Prior to this, Jewish Rabbi,s had devided the OT, the OT used in their calendar, so that is could be used is worship through the year.  This was their Catechism and their Liturgy.


What influence does pietism have on modern-day Lutheranisms? This topic is an expansion of a question on the English Stack
  Exchange.

What influence does pietism have on modern-day Lutheranisms?

Although I am aware that pietism has contributed positively to Lutheranism and other denominations of Christianity, I am going to focus narrowly on Lutheranism to keep this question in specific scope. The answer may discuss:

the change in attitudes towards religion between Lutheran Orthodoxy and Pietism
the change in attitudes towards religion between Pietism and Enlightenment Rationalism
why Pietism is generally not a derogatory term, but merely describes a different thinking pattern
how to identify a display of Pietistic behavior in a Pietistic Lutheran church, and how to distinguish it from one that focuses on Lutheran Orthodoxy or Enlightenment Rationalism

What influence does pietism have on modern-day Lutheranisms?

The answer to this relies on the meaning of "influence" as well as the definition of "pietism". If one takes a narrow view of pietism as a movement started by Philipp Jakob Spener, then his attempt to reform Lutheran practice has pretty much died out.

However if one defines pietism as the desire in the heart of a person to greater devotion, practice, and expression of faith, then there are examples of this in many Lutherans today.

The definition of influence also comes into play. The desire for piety can spontaneously emerge from the heart. It can also be triggered by reading or hearing about others. (In this way the influence of Spener may still be said to "influence" others).

Spener wrote a book called "Pia desideria" which listed things he thought would improve Lutheran practice. They read very much similar to what you might find in "house church" literature today.

The problem for pietism of all ages is that, like revival, it cannot be taught. Christians often tend to settle into a comfortable routine that the heart drawn to piety struggles against.

Expressions of individual and even group piety today are less a causative result of historical doctrines, than it is a resonance with those drawn to the deeper Christian life throughout history.


When did lay people first get a vote in the general conferences of the United Methodist Church? In the news reports swirling around the 2019 General Conference of the United Methodist Church, something struck me as odd – there were "lay delegates" among the 800 delegates able to vote on the future direction of the denomination.  For example, NPR reported:

  Also speaking against the plan was Nancy Denardo, a lay delegate of western Pennsylvania (source)

Methodism was born out of the Church of England, which has an "episcopal" system of government – churches are led by priests and overseen by bishops.  It's a more hierarchical structure than Presbyterianism, for example, where churches are led by a group of elders and each church is overseen by all the elders in a particular region.

But at least in my Presbyterian denomination, there is no concept of "lay delegates" at the general assembly – the only people who can vote are those who have been ordained as an elder/pastor.  Thus it seems odd to me that the Methodists – more hierarchical than Presbyterians – would allow the laity to vote in their general assemblies.

From my cursory research on Wikipedia, it sounds like the system today is not the way it was from the beginning – apparently the laity were denied voting rights at the 1792 General Conference, and a faction split from the church when laity were not given voting powers in the 1820s (source).

Thus my question is – when did the UMC, or its predecessor denominations, first allow laity to vote in its general conferences?

By predecessor denominations, I mean the Methodist Church (1939–1968), the Methodist Episcopal Church (1784–1939), and the Methodist Episcopal Church, South (1844–1939).

The first predecessor denomination to The United Methodist Church to allow laity to vote was  The Methodist Protestant Church, which did so when it was organized in 1830. In fact, the reason for the split from The Methodist Episcopal Church was over the issue of voting rights for the laity. Quoting from the Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church 2016,

  In 1830, about 5,000 preachers and laypeople left the denomination because it
  would not grant representation to the laity or permit the election
  of presiding elders (district superintendents). This new body was
  called The Methodist Protestant Church, which in 1939 united
  with The Methodist Episcopal Church and The Methodist Episcopal
  Church, South, to become The Methodist Church. [1]

Laity were granted voting rights by 1939 with the union of The Methodist Episcopal Church, The Methodist Episcopal Church, South, and The Methodist Protestant Church to form The Methodist Church. From the beginning of The United Methodist Church in 1968, when The Methodist Church united with the Evangelical United Brethren, laity have had voting rights in the General Conference and the Annual Conferences.

There is apparently conflicting information in various editions of the Book of Discipline. Until the 2016 revision of the Book of Discipline, it is noted that The Methodist Episcopal Church did not grant voting rights to laity until the unification of 1939. The Methodist Episcopal Church, South, The Evangelical Association, and the Church of the United Brethren in Christ are noted as having granted voting rights to laity not later than 1932.

Referring to the period between the American Civil War and World War I, the 2016 Book of Discipline contains the following passage:

  Two other issues that caused substantial debate in the
  churches during this period were lay representation and the role
  of women. Methodist Protestants had granted the laity representation
  from the time they organized in 1830. The clergy in The
  Methodist Episcopal Church, The Methodist Episcopal Church,
  South, The Evangelical Association, and the Church of the United
  Brethren in Christ were much slower in permitting laity an official
  voice. It was not until 1932 that the last of these churches allowed
  lay representation.[2]

The earlier 2012 Book of Discipline indicates that The Methodist Episcopal Church granted voting rights to laity with the unification in 1939.

  Two critical issues that caused substantial debate in the
  churches during this period were lay representation and the
  role of women. First, should laity be given .a voice in the General
  Conference and the annual conference? The Methodist Protestants
  had granted the laity representation from the time they
  organized in 1830. The clergy in The Methodist Episcopal Church,
  The Methodist Episcopal Church, South, The Evangelical Association,
  and the Church of the United Brethren in Christ were much
  slower in permitting the laity an official voice in their affairs. All
  finally granted lay people voting privileges in their General and
  annual conferences with the exception of The Methodist Episcopal
  Church, which did not grant this right in annual conference
  decisions before the 1939 union.[3]

There remain some restrictions on voting by laypersons. With the exception of lay members of specific committees, "lay members may not vote on matters of ordination, character, and conference relations of clergy." [4] This restriction has been in effect since the unification of 1939.

References:

The Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church 2016, p. 15-16.
Book of Discipline, 2016, p. 19.
The Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church 2012, p. 18.
Book of Discipline, 2016, Paragraph 33, p. 36.


Is Trinity A Roman Empire Construction? Please do not take offence at my question but for the life of me I cannot pin point where I read or heard the statement that the Roman Empire came up with the idea of Trinity to stop fighting between different Christian factions on the nature of God. Is this true? If not, when and how was the idea of Trinity introduced?

I found it
https://www.ucg.org/bible-study-tools/booklets/is-god-a-trinity/the-surprising-origins-of-the-trinity-doctrine

A classic example of this was the dispute over the nature of Christ that led the Roman emperor Constantine the Great to convene the Council of Nicaea (in modern-day western Turkey) in A.D. 325.
Constantine, although held by many to be the first “Christian” Roman Emperor, was actually a sun-worshiper who was only baptized on his deathbed. During his reign he had his eldest son and his wife murdered. He was also vehemently anti-Semitic, referring in one of his edicts to “the detestable Jewish crowd” and “the customs of these most wicked men”—customs that were in fact rooted in the Bible and practiced by Jesus and the apostles.
As emperor in a period of great tumult within the Roman Empire, Constantine was challenged with keeping the empire unified. He recognized the value of religion in uniting his empire. This was, in fact, one of his primary motivations in accepting and sanctioning the “Christian” religion (which, by this time, had drifted far from the teachings of Jesus Christ and the apostles and was Christian in name only).
But now Constantine faced a new challenge. Religion researcher Karen Armstrong explains in A History of God that “one of the first problems that had to be solved was the doctrine of God . . . a new danger arose from within which split Christians into bitterly warring camps” (1993, p. 106).


On Method in Catholic Moral Theology My question is: what is a method (step-by-step recipe) in catholic moral theology? Optatam totius 16 provides the following guidelines for the dogmatic theology:

Biblical topics
Patristic reflections
Further evaluation of the topic
Speculation with Thomas Aquinas
Presence of mysteries in liturgy and life of church
Solution of people's problems
Adequate communication of results

For the moral theology, there is no list like that. We only read:

  Likewise let the other theological disciplines be renewed through a more living contact with the mystery of Christ and the history of salvation. Special care must be given to the perfecting of moral theology. Its scientific exposition, nourished more on the teaching of the Bible, should shed light on the loftiness of the calling of the faithful in Christ and the obligation that is theirs of bearing fruit in charity for the life of the world.

I guess that there might be several alternative methods in moral theology to study a specific phenomenon. Perhaps, they might differ for studying a specific situation (e.g. what is a just reward for a specific work) and for analysis of abstract topics (e.g. to what extend is Reiki acceptable for catholics).

The accepted answer will provide a step-by-step way how to work in catholic moral theology, possibly justified and linked to some relevant documents.

Thank you for your help.

Teaching Catechism to 12-15 year olds for the last ten years has ingrained in me the Moral Decision Making Framework, which might be a little... Non-academic for the tone of this question, but it seems relevant to me.  You can see it applied in the Just War theory.  It boils down to his three things.

Circumstances
Object
Means

In consideration of some potentially sinful action you can judge the gravity of the sin (i.e. guilt) by considering those three things.

If i were to kill someone and the circumstances were that they were trying to kill me, i might be less guilty; if i were to kill someone i ran over accidentally, i might be less guilty because my object wasn't their death; and if i were to kill someone who was trying to kill me by rolling them over with a steam roller then i might be more guilty because those means are a tad excessive.

Most of this is spelled out and rooted in scripture in the Faith and Life series Our Life in the Church" the moral decision making framework is what the Bishops (around here at least) are having us teach as part of the settlement with the abuse victims.


If Christ Has Been Given All Authority Why Does He Need to Make Intercession For Us? The bible tells us both that Jesus has been given all authority but he also is ever making intercession for us with God the Father.
Has there ever been any theological explanation by anyone on why Christ with all authority needs to make intercession if the Father has already entrusted him with all authority?
Hebrews 7:25
Consequently, he is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them.
Romans 8:34
Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died—more than that, who was raised—who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us
Matthew 28:18
And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.
Colossians 2:10
and in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over all rule and authority;
1 Peter 3:22
who is at the right hand of God, having gone into heaven, after angels and authorities and powers had been subjected to Him.
To clarify (from discussion in comments below):
I am interested in this topic specifically, the relationship of Christ's authority with Christ's making intercession. This is a Jesus Christ specific topic and understanding the dynamic of his authority and his role as intercessor including the meanings of those words and roles in relationship to each other.

The authority given to the resurrected and glorified Christ includes his role as mediator for sinful humans, just as he also has the roles of Priest and King.
Since ascending to heaven, sinful humanity still needs intercession, because they cannot approach a holy and righteous God.  The authority granted to the Son of God includes his role as intercessor in order to help us in our weakness to draw close to God.
We know that although Christ’s work to secure the salvation of the elect was completed on the cross, as evidenced by His cry “It is finished!” (John 19:30), his care for his redeemed children will never be finished.  He is, after all, the Good Shepherd, and his Father has entrusted the elect into his care.  This work will continue until the end of the age when all things are handed back to his Father.

For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life. (Romans 5:10)

My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. (1 John2:1)

Here is a short extract from a Protestant article https://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-interceding.html that shows why it is necessary for Jesus to intercede on our behalf:

After Jesus ascended to heaven and was seated at the right hand of God the Father (Acts 1:9; Colossians 3:1), He returned to the glory He had before His incarnation (John 17:5) to carry on His role of King of kings and Lord of lords—His eternal role as the second Person of the triune God. While this old earth continues to be “won” for Christ, Jesus is the Advocate for Christians, meaning He is our great Defender. This is the intercessory role He currently fulfills for those who are His (1 John 2:1). Jesus is always pleading our case before the Father, like a defense lawyer on our behalf.

Only Christ Jesus has the authority to intercede on our behalf so that we may draw close to God:

Therefore He is able also to save forever those who draw near to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them. (Hebrews 7:25)

For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus. (1  Timothy 2:5)

That authority is part of his role as Advocate, Priest and King.


How long was Jesus in the tomb? Christians commonly celebrate Good Friday as the day that Jesus was crucified, and Easter Sunday as the day that Jesus rose from the tomb. Most relevant verses in scripture say that Jesus would be in the tomb for three days. (See Matthew 26:61; Mark 8:31; John 2:19.) However, one verse states that Jesus would also be in the tomb for three nights:

  For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the
  belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three
  nights in the heart of the earth. (Matthew 12:40)

How can this be? Friday to Sunday could be considered three days, but it is only two nights.

I've heard it explained before that the Jewish people would define the end of one day and the start of the next as sundown, or about the 12th hour. This is why the Sabbath would always start on Friday at sundown. Jesus was buried just before sundown, or just before the Sabbath began (Matthew 27:57-61; Mark 15:42-47; Luke 23:50-56, John 19:38-42). This can explain the three days, but as the other commenter pointed out, it still does not explain the three nights.

From this discussion, if "three days and three nights" is taken idiomatically, it means 3 days as the Jewish people of the day would have understood it.

  Now lets take a look at Jesus time in the sepulchre:

  Part of Friday = one dayspan.

  All of Saturday = one dayspan.

  Part of Sunday = one dayspan.

  Literally three days and three nights? No. Idiomatically three days
  and three nights (i.e., three dayspans), as uncleanness-periods were
  measured? Yes.


According to the Reformers, how does the doctrine of Total Depravity result in assurance of faith? The doctrine of Total Depravity is a reformed doctrine that teaches that man is wholly incapable of having acts or will that is holy or pleasing to God.

According to Calvin and modern reformed denominations, how does this doctrine result in assurance of faith in the heart of the Christian?

It would seem that "total depravity" along with predestination is what defines Calvinism but I submit that all five points of Calvinism go hand in hand.  Reformed theology emphasizes the doctrine of grace, best known by the acronym TULIP ,although this really doesn't correspond to the best possible names of the five doctrines.

Since "total depravity" is understood by most I will not take the time to go into great lengths here as you have given the basic meaning which is adequate for the question you have ask.  We will need to jump all the way down to the "P" or the "perserverance of the saints" to get into the meat of your question.  Actually, a better name for this doctrine would be "the perseverance of God with the saints."   God perseveres with and for us, keeping us from falling away, which we would certainly do if  He were not with us.  Perseverance is the ultimate proof of our election.

The doctrine of perseverance does not rest on our ability to persevere, even if we are regenerated.  Rather, it rest on the promises of God to preserve us.  Paul writes to the Philippines,

  "I am sure of this, He who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ" (Philippines 1:6)

It is by grace and grace alone that Christian's persevere.  God always finishes what He has started.  He assures us in His word that His purposes in election are not frustrated.

The golden chain of Romans 8 gives us even further testimony to this hope.

  "And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those he justified he also glorified" (Romans 8:30) Paul goes on to declare that nothing
  "Will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord" (8:39)

We have security and assurance because salvation is of the Lord and in His all knowing and craftsmanship He gives the Holy Spirit to every believer  as a promise that He will fulfill what He has begun.  He has sealed every believer by the Holy Spirit.  Yes, He has marked us with an indelible mark and given us His personal down payment that guarantees he will finish the transaction.

A final basis of confidence is found in the high priestly work of our Lord Jesus, who interceded for us, just as He prayed for the restoration of Peter, He also prays for our restoration  when we stumble and fall.  We may fall for a season but we will never fully or finally fall away.  His mighty hand and His promises we find in His Holy word will hold us up.  Jesus prayed in the upper room,

  while I was with them, I kept them in your name, which you have given me.  I have guarded them, and not one of them has been lost except the son of destruction, that the Scripture might be fullfilled." (John 17:12)

Only Judas, who was the son of perdition from the beginning whose profession of faith was spurious was lost.  Those who are true believers

  cannot be snatched from God's hand (John 10:27-30.

As you can see, although we are a totally depraved people, God gives His chosen a new heart, a regenerated heart, a heart that accepts, cherishes and loves the very things that we were incapable of.  He preserves us, He gives us assurance, He holds us up, He will not let His elect or chosen go even tho we are sinners from the very beginning..

5 point Calvints believe in the doctrine of the T-U-L-I-P not because of the belief in Calvin but the absolute truth of Gods word and His promises.  His promises are for all that have come to saving faith alone given to us by His grace alone.  The assurance that we have is not by OUR perseverance but by His preserving us just as He has promised thru-out the ages. We stand on His promises alone which gives us the confidence, even tho we were depraved from the beginning we are truly His now.

I hope this is a adequate answer to your question.  At the heart of Calvinism, we are no different from any other true believer, we accept and believe all that God has revealed to us. We give all the glory and praise to a Sovereign God that deserves all of our worship.  He alone is worthy.
Thank you for your time.


Why isn't Zebulon near Sidon but Asher? In Genesis 49:13 is written:

  "Zebulon shall dwell by the haven of the sea;
  He shall become a haven for ships,
  And his border shall adjoin Sidon.

But if I take a look on the maps, which are created for the twelve tribes, Zebulon is not near Sidon and neither at the seaside. Instead, Asher has the place I thought Zebulon should get. Was there something I missed, or why was Jacob's words "false"?

The maps of the tribes of Israel contain a lot of guesswork. The tribe of Asher is one of them. No one is even sure whether Asher had a continuous territory.


Was William of Ockham the first sedevacantist? Ockham (cf. this article on him by the Catholic logician Paul V. Spade) invented his dead-end nominalist philosophy in order to justify his being against the papacy (cf. Thomist John Deely's Four Ages of Understanding p. 394 ff., which shows how the Great Western "Schism" lead to the adoption of Ockham's nominalism, despite its weakness).

But was Ockham really a sedevacantist (i.e., one not explicitly against the papacy per se but against a particular pope claimant)?

The following quote from Salza & Siscoe's True or False Pope?: Refuting Sedevacantism and Other Modern Errors p. 210 is quite convincing.

Ockham wrote—"at the end of his letter to the General Chapter in Assisi in the spring of 1334" (cf. Tractatus de Successivis translation p. 12), defending his opposition to Pope John XXII, who opposed the (then-material) dogma that the souls of the deceased destined to heaven behold the Beatific Vision immediately after death, defined by John XXII's successor Benedict XII in Benedictus Deus—that:

  Because of the errors and the heresies mentioned above and countless others, I turned away from the obedience of the false Pope and all who were his friends to the prejudice of the orthodox faith. For men of great learning showed me that because of his errors and heresies the same pseudo-Pope is heretical, deprived of his papacy, and excommunicated by Canon Law itself, without need of further sentence. … In proof thereof several volumes have been published. … For against the errors of this pseudo-Pope I have turned my face like the hardest rock, so that neither lies nor calumnies nor any persecution (which cannot touch my innermost self in any bodily fashion), nor great numbers of men who believe in him or favor him or even defend him, shall be able to prevent me from attacking or reproving his errors, as long as I shall have hand, paper, pen, and ink. …

  If anyone should like to recall me or anyone else who has turned away from the obedience of the false Pope and his friends, let him try to defend his Constitutions and sermons, and show that they agree with Holy Scripture, or that a Pope cannot fall into the wickedness of heresy, or let him show by holy authorities or manifest reasons that one who knows the Pope to be a notorious heretic is obliged to obey him. Let him not, however, adduce the great number of his adherents, nor base his arguments on reproaches, because those who try to arm themselves with great numbers of lies, reproaches, threats, and false calumnies, show that they are void of truth and reason. Therefore let none believe that I mean to turn away from the recognized truth because of the great number of those in favor of the pseudo-Pope, or because of proofs that are common to heretics and to orthodox men, because I prefer Holy Scripture to a man unlearned in holy science, and I have a higher esteem for the doctrine of the Fathers who reign with Christ than for the tradition of men dwelling in this mortal life.

The Church never condemned Ockham's theories, although Ockham was excommunicated for leaving Avignon without permission.

W. Turner writes in the old Catholic Encyclopedia "Ockham" entry:

  Ockham's attitude towards the established order in the Church and towards the recognized system of philosophy in the academic world of his day was one of protest. He has, indeed, been called "the first Protestant". Nevertheless, he recognized in his polemical writings the authority of the Church in spiritual matters, and did not diminish that authority in any respect.

This is sedevacantism because sedevacantism doesn't deny the papacy (as Protestants do).

It's frustrating when an asker of a question then goes on to provide what he or she considers to be the correct answer. Perhaps that is why nobody has bothered to give an answer until now (2 years and 4 months later). After all, what is there left to say when you provide fulsome quotes that appear to confirm your conclusion, namely, "This is sedevacantism because sedevacantism doesn't deny the papacy (as Protestants do)."

Based on the information you impart, I would agree with you. However, I would just point out that in the past, many a Catholic has claimed acceptance of the papacy when suspected of some error in that regard, to save themselves from severe punishment, in this world, not the next. I would also add a few interesting points about William of Ockham, some which partially challenge your account of this man.

He was a medieval English philosopher and Franciscan monk (1285-1349). Basically, one of his philosophical claims was that you shouldn’t make more assumptions than the minimum needed. It can be called the principle or law of parsimony, but this has a long history, predating William  - e.g. Aristotle (384-322 BC) with a claim of the superiority, other things being equal, of the demonstration which derives from fewer postulates of hypotheses. Later, Robert Grosseteste (1168-1253), who greatly advanced the use of experimental methods in science, explained the principle of parsimony as “that is better and more valuable which requires fewer, other circumstances being equal.”

William of Ockham’s near contemporary Thomas Aquinas (1224-74) wrote that, “If a thing can be done adequately by means of one, it is superfluous to do it by means of several; for we observe that nature does not employ two instruments where one suffices.” Ockham advanced the discussion with, “Plurality should not be posited without necessity” and also, “What can be explained by the assumption of fewer things is vainly explained by the assumption of more things.” But the phrase ‘Ockham’s razor’ did not arise till 1852. Although the term is used to advance atheism, Ockham (being a Christian) believed in God as Creator, despite his criticisms of philosophical proofs for the existence of God.

However, when you say that Paul V. Spade claims that William "invented his dead-end nominalist philosophy," that is not the case as he elaborated a new form of existing  Nominalist theory. He rejected the prevailing view the 'universals' really exist. He argued that they are simply artificial products of the human mind, necessary for communicating by means of language. Only individual or 'particular' things have real existence. Since knowledge was based on experience of individual things, natural science took on new significance.

Apparently denounced as a heretic to Pope John XXII, William was summoned to Avignon in 1324. There, a controversy arose about apostolic poverty, which made him more critical of the papacy. He called for a college of popes to rule the church, and claimed that Christ was the church's only head. He entirely rejected papal authority in secular matters.

Being "excommunicated for leaving Avignon without permission," as you pointed out, could be a vital clue as to the extent of bad feeling between him and papal authorities of his day. By then he had stressed that God was known by faith alone, not by reason or illumination, and that God's will was absolutely supreme. That would not have endeared him to the papacy, nor helped remove the charge of heresy. Perhaps, after such controlling tactics against him had failed and he was excommunicated, William of Ockham might have switched from being a sedevacantist to then being explicitly against the papacy per se. We do know that he fled, with the charge of heresy still threatening his very life, to the service of Emperor Louis of Bavaria, who supported him in his struggles with the papacy. William died in Munich.

As for him being "the first sedevacantist", the answer to that question would require deep knowledge of all Christians recorded in history from the time the papacy started until the time William of Ockham became a monk. My answer to that question is simply that he may well have been a sedevacantist (though eventually turned against the papacy per se before he died) but that many Catholics were sedevacantist either privately or simply unknown to Catholic authorities who never wrote anything about them. Given the immense hostility many individual popes aroused even in loyal Catholics, it is impossible for the long era of the papacy, until William's time, to have been devoid of sedevacantists. (Main source, article by Dr. H. D. McDonald, formerly Vice-Principal and Senior Lecturer, History of Doctrine and Philosophy of Religion, London Bible College.)


Our prayers should be aimed at who? I know that Jesus died for my sins, and I know that we pray in Jesus' name, but should we ask Jesus or God the Father?

The most definitive answer comes from Matthew 6:9

This, then, is how you should pray:
“‘Our Father in heaven,
hallowed be your name,

But in prayer words are for you, not for him. Matthew 6:8 says:

Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.

Jesus and God the Father are aspects of the same - at the end of the day it matters little which you pray to. If Jesus' name comes more easily to you then don't feel you must 'correct' yourself.


Does transcendental meditation conflict with any Christian beliefs? I've seen many testimonies and case studies lauding the benefits of transcendental meditation. It is said that it isn't a religion and people of all religions participate in this practice. As a dedicated Christian my only concern is that partaking in this practice would violate teachings of my faith. Does transcendental meditation conflict with any Christian beliefs?

While it's not always the most reliable source for knowledge, a quick trip to Wikipedia's article on Transcendental Meditation gets us a bit of well-referenced history on the whole Transcendental Meditation movement.  Included in the article is this:

  In the 1950s, the Transcendental Meditation movement was presented as
  a religious organization. The Transcendental Meditation technique was
  held to be a religion in a New Jersey court case. By the
  1970s, the organization had shifted to a more scientific presentation
  while maintaining many religious elements. The movement now
  describes itself on a spiritual, scientific, and non-religious basis.
  This shift has been described by both those within and outside the
  movement as an attempt to appeal to the more secular West.

I included the above because of your statement: "It is said that it isn't a religion and people of all religions participate in this practice.", and the fact that at least part your question seems to be centering around the question of "Would participating in this be participating in another religion".

The movement absolutely had it's roots in Hinduism, so on the one hand, there is cause for scrutiny.

However, simply meditating... Is that the same as worshiping Hindu gods? I don't know that I'd be dogmatic on that.  This appears to be one of those gray areas, and ultimately, this is something that you will have to decide, and it will be between you and God.

I come from a denomination that has members that believe that everything even remotely related to evil has no place in a Christian's life.  Harry Potter?  Satan's attempt to introduce our kids to witchcraft as harmless...  Rock music? Satan's tool for stirring up anger.  Dance? Satan's tool for stirring up lust.

To them, the idea of participating in Transcendental Meditation is no different than worshiping idols.  Me, I'm not so sure.  I personally don't see that practicing a meditation technique is the same as converting to Hinduism or worshiping their gods.  The technique ma be based on Hindu teachings, but that does not mean that the technique itself is Hinduism.

This may be far-fetched, but as a comparison - suppose someone were to come up with a cure for cancer and the person who came up with the treatment did so based on teachings of a Wiccan herbalist.  Would taking that cure be the same as participating in Wicca?  I don't think so.

Your question also includes the following: "Does transcendental meditation conflict with any Christian beliefs?"

That is going to be next to impossible to answer, because there are a wide variety of Christian beliefs.  Again, there are plenty in my denomination that would say "yes".  And there would be plenty that would say "no."

The real questions here are:

Does anything in TM conflict with your Christian beliefs.

and

Should I participate in it?

We can't answer the first one for you at all.  You should know what you believe.  If you're unsure of what you believe or should believe, then I'd focus on that first.  Once you know what you believe, you could study about TM yourself and keep your eye out for patently non-Christian elements.  Knowing what non-Christian or even anti-Christians teach can be beneficial.  At any rate, you'll need to make your own mind up on that.

As for the second question, there is precedent in Scripture, which may completely nullify my answer to the first question.

  Romans 14:14-23 (KJV) 14 I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that
  esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.

  15 But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not
  charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died.

  16 Let not then your good be evil spoken of:

  17 For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness,
  and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.

  18 For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God,
  and approved of men.

  19 Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and
  things wherewith one may edify another.

  20 For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure;
  but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence.

  21 It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing
  whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.

  22 Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that
  condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth.

  23 And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of
  faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.

and

  1 Corinthians 8:4-13 (KJV)
  4 As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an
  idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but
  one.

  5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in
  earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)

  6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things,
  and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and
  we by him.

  7 Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge: for some with
  conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto
  an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled.

  8 But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we
  the better; neither, if we eat not, are w
  e the worse.

  9 But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a
  stumblingblock to them that are weak.

  10 For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the
  idol's temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be
  emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols;

  11 And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom
  Christ died?

  12 But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak
  conscience, ye sin against Christ.

  13 Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh
  while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.

Participating in TM is very comparable to eating food sacrificed to idols in this regard.
Paul is teaching that eating food sacrificed to idols in and of itself has no effect on the saved Christian.  The Christian isn't worshiping the idol, and meat is meat. (1 Cor 8:4-8)  Similarly simply meditating using TM isn't the same as practicing Hinduism.  Meditation and relaxation techniques are just meditation/relaxation techniques.

However, reading on in 1 Cor 4: 9-13, you need to be aware that people are watching you.  There may be non-Christians who are watching your actions.  Maybe people you've witnessed to, and if they see you participating in TM, they may think that there's nothing at all wrong with it, either.  They, unlike you , may not know what is Christian and what is not.

Another good comparison would be martial arts.  I was in martial arts of varying types when I was younger.  Almost all of the martial artists I hung out with fancied themselves to be Zen Buddhists to one degree or another.  If they weren't quoting Bruce Lee, they were quoting Zen Buddhist sayings.  Some of them went further and got sucked in completely, some were just posers.  As a Christian, I feel confident that I could practice martial arts again, without getting sucked into the eastern mysticism that tends to go hand-in-hand with the martial arts culture.

TM is pretty similar.  I feel pretty confident that I could sort out the mysticism, determine what is patently un-Christian (if anything), and participate with a clean conscience.

However, I know plenty of people that wouldn't be able to sort it out.  non-Christians, or those that are Christians in name only (raised in a Christian home, and somehow they think this is enough).  They might say "Hey, if he can do it, so can I.  They could go in and get sucked in, because they don't have the background and knowledge that I have.  (That isn't meant to sound as arrogant as it does.  I just mean I know what I believe, and some haven't given it much thought.)

So, personally, for their sake I wouldn't participate.  This is exactly what Paul was talking about in 1 Corinthians.


Is the Roman Catholic understanding of forgiveness different from the Protestant understanding? Recently I read Simon Wiesenthal's book, The Sunflower: On the Possibilities and Limits of Forgiveness, and I was challenged to flesh out my understanding of forgiveness. There were aspects which I liked of the understandings of forgiveness by Wiesenthal, other characters in the book, and respondents to the question of whether he could or should have forgiven the Nazi who appeared to be repentant of his crimes against the Jews, but I wasn't entirely satisfied with the approaches offered.

Though there were basically three sides offered to the answer (the Jewish, Roman Catholic, and Protestant traditions), the responses were all quite short and I didn't think that there was much in the way of textual support--either from the Bible or the written traditions of the Jews or the Roman Catholic church. What I'm looking for is an explanation of the Roman Catholic or Protestant (and/or Jewish too) understanding of forgiveness, with references. I'm not interested in the subjective, feelings-based approach which many of the essay responses gave (in the second half of the text).

Edit: The Jewish response is usually something like: "You have no right to forgive someone for sins they have done against someone other than yourself, even if you are part of a group whom the apparently repentant sinner has sinned against (i.e. one Jew has no right to forgive someone for sins against other Jews but only for sins against himself). I think I agree with this. The Roman Catholic response (in the book) seems to be fairly similar to the Jewish one, but the generic Protestant response in this book seems to be that people should forgive anyone and everyone regardless of repentance(seemingly more for the sake of the person doing the forgiving than for the sake of the person being forgiven). I'm not trying to pin a position on Roman Catholics or Protestants--that's just the way it seemed to me from reading the book. So I'm trying to understand whether the book gave a representative view of these positions and I'm also trying to understand for myself who can be forgiven, by whom, and under what circumstances? To add more to the question (than the book did), in Roman Catholic or Protestant teaching, is it impossible to forgive someone whom God has not forgiven? Please do indicate what tradition you are responding from.

A Catholic Understanding
There are two parts to your question:

Can one forgive another for a wrong they have not suffered personally?
Can one forgive another if God has not forgiven them?

One at a time.
Can one forgive another for a wrong they have not suffered personally?
If one hasn't suffered a wrong personally, it's not clear that there's anything to forgive, or be forgiven, in a technical sense. I might feel outraged as a Catholic by the way Catholics have historically been treated, or as an Irish citizen (at least technically) by the way the Irish have often been treated; but that doesn't mean there's anything for me to forgive. I am required to live in charity with my neighbor, however; and to that extent I may be said to "forgive" someone if I put aside my anger at them (an anger I have developed on behalf of another) and dwell with them in peace. Indeed I must do so:

When you stand to pray, forgive anyone against whom you have a grievance, so that your heavenly Father may in turn forgive you your transgressions.

(Mark 11:24)
Can one forgive another if God has not forgiven them?
From a Catholic perspective, there are a few things to be addressed here. First of all: Should one forgive a person who does not appear to have sincerely expressed repentance? Second: Assuming that someone has expressed what appears to be sincere repentance, is it possible that God does not forgive them? Finally: is it possible, or morally right, to forgive someone whom God does not forgive? Let's take those individually.

Should one forgive another who has not sincerely repented?

In his discussions of forgiveness, Jesus nowhere appears to put conditions.

Then Peter approaching asked him, "Lord, if my brother sins against me, how often must I forgive him? As many as seven times?" Jesus answered, "I say to you, not seven times but seventy-seven times."

(Matthew 18:21–22; New American Bible, Revised Edition)
The NABRE note to this text points out the similarity to Genesis 4:24, and notes:

In any case, what is demanded of the disciples is limitless forgiveness.

Further, the Catechism of the Catholic Church (in the context of its discussion of family life) states:

Each and everyone should be generous and tireless in forgiving one another for offenses, quarrels, injustices, and neglect. Mutual affection suggests this. The charity of Christ demands it.

(paragraph 2227)
Thus, it appears that from a Catholic perspective, yes; one should and indeed must forgive another regardless of whether they have repented or not.

Assuming that someone has sincerely repented, is it possible that God does not forgive them?

No.

"There is no one, however wicked and guilty, who may not confidently hope for forgiveness, provided his repentance is honest."

(Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 982, quoting the Roman Catechism, Part I, chapter 11, paragraph 5)

Is it possible, or morally right, to forgive someone whom God does not forgive?

We can never know for certain whom God has forgiven, and whom he has not. God is not bound by his Sacraments, and has many ways of forgiving, even up to the point of death. Further, we have the two prior statements: that we must forgive others regardless of circumstances, and that God will forgive one who sincerely repents.


What is Heaven like according to Catholics? What does a person experience who is saved, after their death?

Are they going to have a bodily resurrection in the New Jerusalem, in the real world, or is it a spiritual existence? If in the real world, will their body have any relation to the body they had, including things like age, conditions like dwarfism or siamese twins etc? Will every day have a good temperature, the sun won't eventually engulf the earth, etc?

What sources do we have on what actually happens for all eternity?

Most saints, before entering heaven, will first go to purgatory according to the Catholic church. While in purgatory they are purified ("purged") until they may enter heaven. The Catechism of the Catholic Church says regarding purgatory:

  All who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly
  purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after
  death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness
  necessary to enter the joy of heaven. The Church gives the name
  Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely
  different from the punishment of the damned.
  ...
  Those who die in God's grace and friendship imperfectly purified,
  although they are assured of their eternal salvation, undergo a
  purification after death, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to
  enter the joy of God. By virtue of the "communion of saints," the
  Church commends the dead to God's mercy and offers her prayers,
  especially the holy sacrifice of the Eucharist, on their behalf.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church says regarding heaven:

  Those who die in God’s grace and friendship and are perfectly purified
  live for ever with Christ. They are like God for ever, for they “see
  him as he is,” face to face ... The life of the blessed consists in
  the full and perfect possession of the fruits of the redemption
  accomplished by Christ. He makes partners in his heavenly
  glorification those who have believed in him and remained faithful to
  his will. Heaven is the blessed community of all who are perfectly
  incorporated into Christ. ... Scripture speaks of it in images: life,
  light, peace, wedding feast, wine of the kingdom, the Father’s house,
  the heavenly Jerusalem, paradise: “no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor
  the heart of man conceived, what God has prepared for those who love
  him.” ... In the glory of heaven the blessed continue joyfully to
  fulfill God’s will in relation to other men and to all creation.
  Already they reign with Christ; with him “they shall reign for ever
  and ever.”

Pope John Paul II said:

  In the context of Revelation, we know that the “heaven” or “happiness”
  in which we will find ourselves is neither an abstraction nor a
  physical place in the clouds, but a living, personal relationship with
  the Holy Trinity. It is our meeting with the Father which takes place
  in the risen Christ through the communion of the Holy Spirit.

  It is always necessary to maintain a certain restraint in describing
  these “ultimate realities” since their depiction is always
  unsatisfactory. Today, personalist language is better suited to
  describing the state of happiness and peace we will enjoy in our
  definitive communion with God.

Catholic Answers practices this "restraint" when it says:

  We leave up to God "where" and "how" he fulfills his promise.

But the Catholic Encyclopedia describes the opinions of theologians regarding the "location" of heaven (which are just that, opinions):

  Some are of opinion that heaven is everywhere, as God is everywhere.
  According to this view the blessed can move about freely in every part
  of the universe, and still remain with God and see everywhere.
  Everywhere, too, they remain with Christ (in His sacred Humanity) and
  with the saints and the angels. For, according to the advocates of
  this opinion, the spatial distances of this world must no longer
  impede the mutual intercourse of blessed.

  In general, however, theologians deem more appropriate that there
  should be a special and glorious abode, in which the blessed have
  their peculiar home and where they usually abide, even though they be
  free to go about in this world. For the surroundings in the midst of
  which the blessed have their dwelling must be in accordance with their
  happy state; and the internal union of charity which joins them in
  affection must find its outward expression in community of habitation.
  At the end of the world, the earth together with the celestial bodies
  will be gloriously transformed into a part of the dwelling-place of
  the blessed (Revelation 21). Hence there seems to be no sufficient
  reason for attributing a metaphorical sense to those numerous
  utterances of the Bible which suggest a definite dwelling-place of the
  blessed. Theologians, therefore, generally hold that the heaven of the
  blessed is a special place with definite limits. Naturally, this place
  is held to exist, not within the earth, but, in accordance with the
  expressions of Scripture, without and beyond its limits. All further
  details regarding its locality are quite uncertain. The Church has
  decided nothing on this subject.

Catholic apologist Peter Kreeft has a Q&A on heaven. Here are some portions relevant to your question:

  What happens in hell?

  Nothing.

  What happens in Heaven?

  Everything.

  What kind of bodies will we have in Heaven?

  Christians say we will have transformed bodies, but real, physical
  bodies, as Christ had after his resurrection. His body could be
  touched and could eat. Yet it could come and go as he pleased, with
  neither walls nor distance as an obstacle. It was the same body he had
  before he died, and it was recognized as such by his friends. Yet it
  was so different that at first they did not recognize him. I think
  our new resurrection body will be related to the body we have now in
  the same way that our current body is related to the body we had in
  our mothers' wombs. If a fetus saw a picture of itself at the age of
  twenty, it would at first not recognize itself, so unforeseen and
  surprisingly new would it be. Yet it is the same self, even the same
  body, now grown radically more mature.

  What of injuries and deformities? Will they all be removed in the resurrection body?

  I think not. Christ still had his wounds. But they were badges of
  glory, not suffering and sadness. I think everything—in the body, in
  the soul, and in the person's world—that was offered to God and taken
  up into the eternal kingdom will be preserved and transformed and
  glorified in Heaven: but everything that was not—everything that was
  not the work of God or of the sanctified soul but was of the world,
  the flesh, or the devil—will be left outside Heaven's gate. The
  martyrs' wounds will glow like gold, but the amputee's limb will be
  restored, and so will the brain-damaged person's intelligence. God's
  justice and mercy are perfect, and so is his style.

Bottom line: Heaven is gonna be pretty great, but no one knows exactly how except that we shall see God.


Is Cyrus the Messiah? What are the actual words used for Isaiah 44:28 to describe his anointed? Why do most Bible translation translate that as shepherd? I've heard the Masoretic Text uses "messiah" and the Septuagint uses "Christ".  The English translation uses the word "shepherd," which seems like lying or filtering.  Why the discrepancy?

I stumbled upon some atheist sites and found this. Translating a word like Christ into shepherd seems very misleading.

I also came across this discussion about this on the web.

The original Hebrew word being used here is רֹעִי (ro·'i),[1][2], which does indeed translate as "shepherd" according to Strong's Concordance.[3][4]


Do Lutherans believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis? Do Lutherans believe that the story of Adam and Eve and all the book of Genesis is to be taken as literal truth?

For individual Lutherans, it varies.  For what the Lutheran Church teaches - the majority teach a literal interpretation.  There are likely a few more "liberal" Lutheran Churches and possibly synods that reject a literal account, but I have yet to find any.

When you ask "Do Lutherans believe", you're asking something that can't truly be answered any other way.  Some Lutherans believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis, some do not.

When it comes to official doctrinal teachings, you would still need to narrow this down further.  But you can typically determine a particular Synod's interpretation by finding their website and statements of faith. Most typically reject evolution and pronounce a belief in God's word as the ultimate source of Truth, and therefore stand by a literal interpretation of Genesis.

For example, the Missouri Synod says this:

  Of Creation

  We teach that God has created heaven and earth, and that in the manner and
  in the space of time recorded in the Holy Scriptures,
  especially Gen. 1 and 2, namely, by His almighty creative word, and in
  six days. We reject every doctrine which denies or limits the work of
  creation as taught in Scripture. In our days it is denied or limited
  by those who assert, ostensibly in deference to science, that the
  world came into existence through a process of evolution; that is,
  that it has, in immense periods of time, developed more or less of
  itself. Since no man was present when it pleased God to create the
  world, we must look for a reliable account of creation to God's own
  record, found in God's own book, the Bible. We accept God's own record
  with full confidence and confess with Luther's Catechism: "I believe
  that God has made me and all creatures."

Also,
The WELS website has a section dedicated to Creation questions.  (All pro-literal interpretation) as are the articles at the Lutheran Science Institute


How are verses referenced? How are Bible verses referenced? For example what is the meaning of: Revelation 21:5 (NIV)?

Are there any other methods to reference a verse?

(I am not a Christian and this should be treated like a novice question.)

The Bible is made up of many different "books", or documents, compiled into a single volume. The traditional Protestant Bible has 66 books.  The Catholic Bible uses 73.  Some other Christian groups also use a few other religious texts, that are usually referenced in the same way.

Each book is divided into chapters (apart from the very short ones, where there is only one chapter) and each chapter is divided into verses.

So Revelation 21:5 (NIV) refers to the book of Revelation, the 21st chapter, the 5th verse, in the NIV (New International Version) translation.

You will most commonly (at least in the U.S.) see verses referenced as:

[Book] [chapter]:[verse] for a single verse
[Book] [chapter]:[verse]-[verse] for multiple verses
[Book] [chapter] for an entire chapter
[Book] [chapter]:[verse]-[chapter]:[verse] for a selection spanning multiple chapters

A small number of books in the Bible have only a single chapter, so then the convention is:

[Book] [verse] for a single verse
[Book] [verse]-[verse] for multiple verses

Often, the name or abbreviation of the translation used will follow, often in parenthesis. This is most customary when quoting the verse that is referenced.

A few other less commonly used notations are:

[Book] [chapter]:[verse],[verse] to reference multiple, non-consecutive verses
[Book] [chapter]:[verse][a,b,c..] to reference the first (a), second (b), etc, sentence of the verse. This addition can be imprecise, as the original greek and hebrew lack punction, so sentence breaks must be inferred by translators, with varying results.
[Book] [chapter]:[verse]ff to indicate "this verse, and following"

Also note that you will occasionally see, in place of a colon (:), a period (.) or the lowercase letter v.  As in:

Revelation 21.5
Revelation 21v5


Was there any christian church that kept the Passover before the 1900? I was taught that after the Council of Nicea no christian church kept the Passover on the 14th of Nisan. Is there any truth to that? Is there a church in the middle ages that kept the Christian Passover on the 14th of Nisan? I've tried researching online but no luck. Thanks!

As far as I know no Christian Churches except Jewish ones kept the Passover, as it is a Jewish holiday. You probably refer to the timing of Easter.

The Council of Nicaea ruled that Easter should be celebrated on the first Sunday on/after the first full moon on/after the vernal equinox. Sometimes it matched the Jewish Passover sunday and sometimes it did not, because the Christian system mixed both solar and lunar calendars to determine the date. For more info, see

http://www.timeanddate.com/calendar/determining-easter-date.html


Are Origen's and Calvin's views on God compatible? The Father, or first person, is ... the only one who is autotheos, God in the fullest sense, whereas the Son is his dunamis or power and the Spirit a dependent being (SEP > Origen)

The Scriptures teach that there is essentially but one God, and, therefore, that the essence both of the Son and Spirit is unbegotten ... (Calvin's Institutes 1.13.25 @ ccel.org)

Are the two views compatible or incompatible?

Origen's View on God
Origen of Alexandria (185-232) was a great Bible scholar and an influential early Christian theologian whose contributions has been underappreciated, mostly because he was posthumously declared heretic by Emperor Justinian in AD 543 and because works derived from some of his teachings were anathematized by the Second Council of Constantinople in AD 553.  However, none of the ten propositions condemned in 543 were about the nature of the Trinity.
In the development of the Trinitarian doctrine which culminated in the Nicene creed promulgated at the AD 325 First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea, Origen's view represented an early 3rd century A.D. major development of the Trinity but still not the fully developed early 4th century A.D. shape.  He, along with his contemporary Clement of Alexandria (150-215), were battling Gnosticism in Alexandria and attempted to use middle Platonism fashionable in Alexandria at the time to defend the Orthodox understanding of God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit.  Although the resulting trinitarianism was flawed, it was still a step in the right direction [see [1] pages 10-11].
From a paper on the Historical Development Of the Doctrine of Trinity (emphasis mine):

In Clement’s trinitarian construct, God the Father is absolutely transcendent, ineffable and incomprehensible; He is unity, but beyond unity, and transcending the monad, and yet embraces all reality.  The Father can be known only through His Word (Logos), or Son, who is His image and inseparable from Him, His mind or rationality. Like the Nous of mid-Platonism and of Neo-Platonism, the Word is at once unity and plurality, comprising in Himself the Father’s ideas, and also the active forces by which He animates the world of creatures.  His generation from the Father is without beginning (the Father is not without His Son; for along with being Father, He is Father of the Son); and He is essentially one with Him, since the Father is in Him and He in the Father.  The Spirit, thirdly, is the Light issuing from the Word, which, divided without any real division, illuminates the faithful; He is also the power of the Word which pervades the world and attracts men to God.
Thus, pursuant to his Platonic Christian theism, Clement presents a graded hierarchy of a triune but one God in which the Son is subordinated to the Father, and the Spirit subordinated to the Son.  Notwithstanding, no inequality seems to be implied, since Clement and Origen set out to develop an orthodox Gnosticism in place of its heretical forms pervading Alexandria through the Gnostic teachers – Basilides, Carpocrates, and Valentinus.  Similarly, J.N.D. Kelly asserts that Clement and Origen were profoundly enamored to understand the triune Godhead in the light of middle Platonism fashionable in Alexandria in the time.  But it is Origen’s radical popularization of the same kind of Clementine trinitarianism that would lay the foundation for the most notable Christian trinitarian controversies.

Origen's trinitarianism is described at SEP History of Trinitarian Doctrines as follows:

... These late second and third century authors use such terms not to refer to the one God, but rather to refer to the plurality of the one God, together with his Son (on Word) and his Spirit. They profess a “trinity”, triad or threesome, but not a triune or tripersonal God. Nor did they consider these to be equally divine. A common strategy for defending monotheism in this period is to emphasize the unique divinity of the Father. Thus Origen (ca. 186–255),

The God and Father, who holds the universe together, is superior to every being that exists, for he imparts to each one from his own existence that which each one is; the Son, being less than the Father, is superior to rational creatures alone (for he is second to the Father); the Holy Spirit is still less, and dwells within the saints alone. So that in this way the power of the Father is greater than that of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and that of the Son is more than that of the Holy Spirit… (On First Principles 1.3)

Many scholars call this strain of Christian theology “subordinationist”, as the Son and Spirit are always in some sense derivative of, less than, and subordinate to their source, the one God, that is, the Father. One may also call this theology unitarian, in the sense that the one God just is the Father, and not equally the Son and Spirit, so that the one God is “unipersonal”.

Calvin's View on God
Your quote comes from Calvin's magnum opus Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book I, Chapter 13 titled "The Unity of the Divine Essence in Three Persons Taught, In Scripture, From the Foundation of the World", section 25, which is in the middle of sections 21-29 where he refuted a variety of objections to the true doctrine of Trinity.
Rather than analyzing the specific view rejected in section 25, let's simply consider Calvin's view of God, which of course is the fully developed Trinitarian understanding of the Nicene creed, which defines the Trinity as follows:
We believe in one God,
  the Father almighty,
  maker of heaven and earth,
  of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ,
  the only Son of God,
  begotten from the Father before all ages,
       God from God,
       Light from Light,
       true God from true God,
  begotten, not made;
  of the same essence as the Father.
  Through him all things were made.
  For us and for our salvation
       he came down from heaven;
       he became incarnate by the Holy Spirit and the virgin Mary,
       and was made human.
       ...

And we believe in the Holy Spirit,
  the Lord, the giver of life.
  He proceeds from the Father and the Son,
  and with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified.
  ...

For proof that Calvin subscribed to the Nicene creed, see article 5 of the A.D. 1559 French Confession of Faith composed by him:

We believe that the Word contained in these books has proceeded
from God, and receives its authority from him alone, and not from men.
And inasmuch as it is the rule of all truth, containing all that is necessary
for the service of God and for our salvation, it is not lawful for men, nor
even for angels, to add to it, to take away from it, or to change it. Whence
it follows that no authority, whether of antiquity, or custom, or numbers,
or human wisdom, or judgments, or proclamations, or edicts, or decrees,
or councils, or visions, or miracles, should be opposed to these Holy
Scriptures, but, on the contrary, all things should be examined, regulated,
and reformed according to them. And therefore we confess the three
creeds, to wit : the Apostles’, the Nicene, and the Athanasian, because
they are in accordance with the Word of God.

Conclusion
Origen's and Calvin's views on God are compatible in that both affirm monotheism and the pre-existence of Jesus (as the Logos) and the Holy Spirit, but Calvin's view is of course the more fully developed doctrine of the Trinity, defined since AD 325, in that the subordinationist defect has been eliminated.
References

The Historical Development of the Doctrine of Trinity, a paper by Samuel Japhets for History of Christianity I, Liberty University, 2017
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article History of Trinitarian Doctrines
Nicene Creed


Are parents responsible/accountable for the sins of their children? Reading 1 Samuel 2:12 et seq, one could say that Eli is treated the same way as his wicked sons, although he tried to dissuade them from doing their sins.

Generally speaking, are parents today responsible/accountable for the sins of their (adult, if it makes a difference) children? More than they are in common for their surrounding to tell the gospel?

Disclaimer

I have been studying the book of Revelation, and haven't looked at OT for a long time. Thus, if I mis-remembered the story of Eli, please correct me. Thanks!

Answer

Jeremiah 31:30

  But everyone shall die for his own iniquity: every man that eats the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge.

This does not say "die for parents of children's iniquity"

Revelation 20:12

  And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

This does not say "judged for parents or children's works"

How then does one explain Deuteronomy 5:9?

  Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me,

My personal understanding is that parents who reject God teach their children to reject God, and thus, the children, in following the parents advice, reject God and thus the sin "punishes for multiple generations."

Furthermore, in:

  Deuteronomy 6:6-9
  6 These commandments that I give you today are to be on your hearts. 7 Impress them on your children. Talk about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up. 8 Tie them as symbols on your hands and bind them on your foreheads. 9 Write them on the doorframes of your houses and on your gates.

Parentes are commanded to raise their children to follow God. From thus, I would personally extrapolate that not raising up one's children to follow God is a sin; to not discipline them when they break the commands of God is sin.

In my personal interpretation, the failure of Eli were:

not raising his children to follow God (though I'm not sure how to handle this since I believe in predestination)
tolerating their evil behaviors (i.e. not removing them from power)


How could a seventh-century heretic have possessed papal infallibility? More specifically: How does the Roman Catholic Church reconcile the doctrine of Papal Infallibility with the Sixth Ecumenical Council's pronouncement regarding Pope Honorius?

The Sixth Ecumenical Council (680–681 CE) posthumously declared Pope Honorius to be a heretic because he had embraced the doctrine of monothelitism.

The doctrine of Papal Infallibility, formalized in 1870 but said to have been an accepted teaching for many centuries, says that when the Bishop of Rome speaks "ex cathedra" he is necessarily infallible.

Even if Pope Honorius did not speak ex cathedra when discussing monothelitism, it seems problematic that the same church which declared an individual capable of infallible speech could later find that the same individual was also a heretic.

Has the Roman Catholic Church ever formally addressed this seeming tension, and if so, where and how?

One could perhaps say that the dogmatic definition of papal infallibility as expressed at Vatican I is the Church's formal way of dealing with this tension. The case of Pope Honorius has of course been debated for centuries and was brought up prior to Vatican I as an argument against papal infallibility. The old Catholic Encyclopedia has a helpful summary of the various positions in the debate.

So let's look at the definition again:

  we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that ... when the Roman pontiff speaks ex cathedra, that is when ... he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church,  he possesses ... that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. (Decrees of the First Vatican Council)

The meaning is as plain as can be -- the Pope possesses infallibility when he speaks ex cathedra. The Council notably did not teach that the Pope possesses infallibility at any other time.

Here's just a tidbit from Blessed John Henry Newman, writing in 1875:

  from this Pontifical and dogmatic explanation of the phrase [ex cathedrâ] it follows, that, whatever Honorius said in answer to Sergius, and whatever he held, his words were not ex cathedrâ, and therefore did not proceed from his infallibility. (Letter to the Duke of Norfolk, section 8)

He says quite a bit more on the specific controversy of Honorius and then devotes the entirety of the next section to a discussion of papal infallibility and its narrow limits.


According to trinitarians, especially Protestants, who is Wisdom in Proverbs? In general, Wisdom can be (and is, and was) identified as Jesus. However, there is this verse:

  Proverbs 8:22 (NLT)
  22 "The Lord formed me from the beginning,
             before he created anything else."

Hold on a moment...I thought God the Son wasn't created, having coexisted with God the Father since before time? How is the identity of Wisdom established as being that of the Son and how is Proverbs 8:22 handled? If it makes a difference, I grew up Wesleyan, so I'd prefer Protestant doctrines although Catholic or Orthodox doctrines would be interesting too.

There are two common interpretations among Protestants:

"Wisdom" refers to the Word of God; that is, Jesus
"Wisdom" is the personification of a divine attribute, and perhaps a type of Christ, but should not be understood to be Jesus himself

The first view was widely held by the church fathers and several centuries of Protestants.  However, in the 20th century the second view became more popular and now dominates Evangelical scholarship.
The Word of God: Jesus
The typical patristic understanding of this passage was that Wisdom refers to the Word of God: that is, the Son of God, Jesus.  As you note, this raises some questions about the meaning of one key word in verse 22, translated "created," "formed," or "possessed," and this verse was a major battleground in the Arian controversy.
Early Protestants generally followed the patristic understanding, and argue that Jesus's divinity should not be doubted on the basis of this passage.  I'll provide a sampling of arguments, but to be clear, the vast majority of early Protestant commentators (particularly prior to the 20th century) take this approach.1
Matthew Henry summarizes this position, noting the very personal characteristics of Wisdom:

That it is an intelligent and divine person that here speaks seems very plain, and that it is not meant of a mere essential property of the divine nature, for Wisdom here has personal properties and actions and that intelligent divine person can be no other than the Son of God himself.2

Defenders of this view point to New Testament passages referring to Jesus in similar ways, such as John 1:1, Hebrews 1:3, 1 Peter 1:20 and Colossians 1:15–18.
But if that's the case, how do Protestants defend against the Arians and others who say that this passage teaches that Jesus was created?  The question revolves around the meaning of the Hebrew word qanah, which elsewhere in the Old Testament can be translated "get," "acquire," "create," and "possess."  Protestants argue for the "possess" translation, and note that the "create" reading would imply that at one point God was without wisdom:

Not "created me," as the Targum and the Septuagint. [...] [T]his possession [...] denotes the Lord's having, possessing, and enjoying his word and wisdom as his own proper Son.3

Albert Barnes similarly says that there is no "ground for the thought of creation either in the meaning of the root, or in the general usage of the word."  His Notes go on to point out the logical difficulty of "create":

What is meant in this passage is that we cannot think of God as ever having been without Wisdom.4

The Personification of a Divine Attribute
The Moody Bible Commentary, citing several recent commentators,5 provides a helpful summary of the alternate position:

Lady Wisdom here is no more than a personification of the wisdom that the sage has received, a wisdom revealed by God and rooted in His very own character.  The context simply does not justify interpretations that go beyond the personification of wisdom here. [...] It is therefore best to say that Lady Wisdom shares similarities with Christ, but Christ is even greater than she.  In short, the sage's wisdom is a type of Christ.

Others understand the text similarly.6  The Reformation Study Bible, though emphasizing Christ as the wisdom of God, still considers the personification of wisdom here to be a "poetic device":

Although it is premature to see personified wisdom (especially in vv. 22–31) as a direct portrayal of a divine being, there is no doubt that the revelation of Jesus Christ as the wisdom of God shows us the significance of a wisdom that is its own absolute authority.

This view was not entirely foreign to writers of the 19th century.  Methodist Adam Clarke (1760–1832) critiques the church fathers as finding "allegorical meanings every where," though he too applies Wisdom in verse 3, "She crieth at the gates," to Christ, his apostles, and their successors.7
Summary
Each person's understanding of this passage will be influenced by the relative weights placed on the testimony of the church fathers and modern hermeneutics.  Early Protestants leaned toward the former, but the latter has gained primacy among Protestants over the last two centuries.  Either way, however, Protestants have carefully argued that the text does not challenge the divinity of Christ.

References:

Geneva Study Bible, Wesley, Coke, Poole, Scofield.  Also Catholic Haydock.
Henry, Commentary on the Whole Bible, III
Gill, Exposition of the Whole Bible.  Cf. James Coffman; though not a defender of this view, he writes at length on how to properly translate this word.
Barnes, Notes
Kidner (Proverbs), Longman (Proverbs), and Waltke (Book of Proverbs 1-15), among others.
ESV Study Bible, NIV Study Bible, and Keil & Delitzsch, for example.
Clarke, Commentary


Does St. Gertrude's prayer have any (semi-)official standing in the Catholic Church? I'd like to know if there was any official or unofficial statement given by the Roman Catholic Church on the St. Gertrude's prayer that saves 1000 souls from purgatory?

Is there even any record from her biography that she received this prayer and information that the prayer has this power?

Source

Prayers that are supposed to automatically release souls from purgatory are "declared to be apocryphal" (i.e. false) and are prohibited, according to the Acts of the Holy See 32 p.243, as promulgated by Pope Leo XIII.

  Reiicienda sunt folia, et libelli, in quibus promittitur fidelibus unam alteramve precem recitantibus liberatio unius vel plurium animarum a Purgatorio : et Indulgentiae quae dictae promissioni adiici solent ut apocryphae habendae sunt.

Translation

  The leaflets and booklets which promise the faithful that they will free one or more souls from Purgatory by the recitation of some prayer or another are to be rejected : and the Indulgences which are wont to be attached to the said promise are to be held as apocryphal.


Why doesn't the Bible also say a woman should leave her parents to be united to the husband? Why does the Bible in Gen 1:24

  Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh

only point to the man leaving his parents and uniting to the wife but doesn't say so to the woman?

I know that if a woman continues to be "too attached" to her parents after marriage it may result in problems.

Considering Gen 2:24 from a cultural perspective - meaning the suspected culture in the place and time of Genesis being written - the family unit is patriarchal in nature. The man leaves the protection of his family home and, in turn, becomes the protector of the woman. Although the two never leave from being under God's protection the woman's protection shifts from her birth father to her husband. I'm not sure I like using the word protection here but I'm not sure how to broaden/narrow it. I think it is interesting to notice that there is an equality tacitly entwined, not a master/slave, and this two being one flesh is established prior to any mention of the woman being the child-bearer.

For an easy to read introduction to the patriarchal nature in Genesis, refer to: Arnold and Beyer, Encountering the Old Testament, Baker Academic, 2015, Chapter 5, pages 64-65.


How could God be around Satan? One of the explanations when I was first coming to understand why Jesus' sacrifice was necessary was something along the lines of: Sin separates us from God. God can not be around sinners, so with Jesus' sacrifice wiping away our sin, we can be with God once more.

But if God cannot be around sin, how is it that Satan was able to go before him in the book of Job ?

  6 One day the angels came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came with them.

Given that God is able to do as he wishes, the question is more whether sinners can be around God. The text is pretty clear that God permits Satan into his presence so he can show the faithfulness of his servant, Job.

Throughout the scriptures and in other places we find that God can 'reveal' himself or be 'in the presence of' sinners in some fashion; and that he is able to mediate that experience to allow communication. If this was not so, there would be no faith at all!

In Orthodox theology, what is at stake is not God being able to be around sinners, but the experience of sinners in the presence of God. Hence, we see it does not tell us in the text what Satan's experience of being around God was, but we can only assume it was not pleasant.


Why do some Christians think it's not a sin to charge interest? This article presents the view that Christians should not charge interest on loans. As evidence, it cites Nehemiah 5:9-10:

9 Also I said, It is not good that ye do: ought ye not to walk in the fear of our God because of the reproach of the heathen our enemies?
10 I likewise, and my brethren, and my servants, might exact of them money and corn: I pray you, let us leave off this usury.

In light of this, why do many Christians think it is not a sin to charge interest?

The verse your article talks about is Nehemiah 5:10 which says:

  I likewise, and my brethren, and my servants, might exact of them money and corn: I pray you, let us leave off this usury.

Some translations also say "interest" in place of "usury."  This is an important distinction... A prohibition against usury is only a prohibition against "exorbitant interest" in modern English.  This would be one reason the verse is not interpreted as forbidding the charging of interest.

However, I think the more important thing is to take the verse in it's larger context.  The verse comes in the middle of a story about a famine, where people were literally in danger of starvation.  They were mortgaging their "fields, vineyards, and homes" to be able to afford to buy grain. These people were hanging on by a thread, and in desperate need of help.

The response of many of the Jews was to lend money, at an interest rate (of 1% according to verse 11, although 1% per what time period?).

Nehemiah's anger appears not to be at the specific fact that they were charging interest, but at the fact that these Jews were not being charitable.

Not only did Nehemiah demand that they stop charging interest, but also that he give back their collateral--and with no mention of being repaid. The people's response is (verse 12) "And we will not demand anything more from them." This also seems to indicate that they did not demand repayment of their loans.

If we are to apply the principles of this story to every situation, then not only should Christians not charge interest, but they also should not even ask to be repaid when they make a loan.

I hope it is apparent that this is not the intention of the story, but rather the intention is not to take advantage of people in need.


Where can I find the text of the documents produced at the Council of Quiercy (853)? The Catholic Encyclopedia has an article about the "Councils of Quierzy", and indicates that at the 853 council, Hincmar wrote decrees about predestination, universal redemption, free will, and grace. In paragraph 605, the Catechism of the Catholic Church cites the "Council of Quiercy (853)" (presumably the same council) for the quote,

  There is not, never has been, and never will be a single human being for whom Christ did not suffer.

Where can I find the original text of the documents produced at this council? Or, even better, where can I find an English translation?

I've found two sources online for the Latin text, but unfortunately nothing in English.  The Latin is available in Gousset's Les actes de la province ecclésiastique de Reims, page 233, as well as Hefele's Conciliengeschichte, volume IV, page 187.  The first of these includes a very brief introduction in French, while the second has more extensive commentary in German.  The Catechism's quote comes from this phrase:

  Christus Jesus Dominus noster, sicut nullus homo est, fuit, vel erit, cujus natura in illo assumpta non fuerit, ita nullus est, fuit, vel erit homo, pro quo passus no fuerit

As far as English goes, the best online version I have found is Schaff's paraphrase and commentary in his History of the Christian Church:

  Hincmar secured the confirmation of his views by the Synod of Chiersy, held in presence of the Emperor, Charles the Bald, 853, It adopted four propositions:

  God Almighty made man free from sin, endowed him with reason and the liberty of choice, and placed him in Paradise. Man, by the abuse of this liberty, sinned, and the whole race became a mass of perdition. Out of this massa perditionis God elected those whom he by grace predestinated unto life eternal; others he left by a just judgment in the mass of perdition, foreknowing that they would perish, but not foreordaining them to perdition, though he foreordained eternal punishment for them. This is Augustinian, but weakened in the last clause.
  We lost the freedom of will through the fall of the first man, and regained it again through Christ. This chapter, however, is so vaguely worded that it may be understood in a Semi-Pelagian as well as in an Augustinian sense.
  God Almighty would have all men without exception to be saved, although not all are actually saved. Salvation is a free gift of grace; perdition is the desert of those who persist in sin.
  Jesus Christ died for all men past, present and future, though not all are redeemed by the mystery of his passion, owing to their unbelief.

A more direct translation may be available in Gottschalk and a Medieval Predestination Controversy, based on the book's description, but I haven't been able to confirm that these four propositions are included.