Do Roman Catholics regard Orthodox sacraments as valid and/or licit? In the comments below an earlier question of mine the following question arose:

The Roman Catholic Church describes the administration of sacraments as valid or invalid respectively licit or illicit. Those concepts are not identical, for some reading start e.g. here.

The Eastern Orthodox Churches administer the same seven sacraments as the Roman Catholic Church does. Which poses the question, whether these sacraments can be equally described in terms of validity and licitly and whether the Roman Catholic Church does so.

  So my question is: Has the Roman Catholic Church declared the status of the sacraments administered in the Eastern Orthodox Churches
  in terms of validity and licitly and if so is it correct that those
  are regarded as valid but illicit?

Note that "no" might be a correct answer; but I do expect there to be some magisterial writing which a good answer should cite. It might also be that the answer is different for different sacraments.

Orthodox Sacraments are Valid

It is well-known that Catholics hold Orthodox sacraments to be valid:

  These [Eastern] Churches, although separated from us, possess true sacraments, above all by apostolic succession, the priesthood and the Eucharist, whereby they are linked with us in closest intimacy. (Unitatis Redintegratio, 15)

(See also, Faith, Sacraments, and the Unity of the Church, from the Joint Commission for the Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church)

Are Orthodox Sacraments "licit"?

This is the harder question.  In my opinion it is a question founded on a misunderstanding.  Liceity is a term that means 'legal' or 'lawful', and in general an inquiry of this sort would be referred to the Catholic Church's Code of Canon Law.  The Code governs most happenings in the Catholic Church, but of course the supreme lawgiver is the Pope, and he is free to change Church Law as he sees fit.

Liceity is a measure that governs the internal operations of the Catholic Church according to her own laws.  It isn't meant to govern other church bodies, though other Churches or ecclesial communions may well consult Catholic Law in codifying their own systems or adjudicating disciplinary questions in their own sphere.  In essence this means that asking whether an Orthodox sacrament is licit is like asking whether Chinese internet censorship violates the First Amendment.  A non-Catholic Church is subject to Catholic Law no more than the Chinese government is subject to the U.S. Constitution.

Therefore I'm not sure this question makes sense.  You could ask a canon lawyer or the Pope himself, but I don't think they would quite know what to say.  There is no reason for this question to arise in the Catholic legal system, as Orthodox Christians are not subject to Catholic Law.  Only Catholics are concerned about liceity.


What is the biblical basis for women, particularly mothers, working outside of the home? I'm wondering about the sinfulness of women, particularly mothers, working outside the home.  Perhaps 1 Timothy 5:8 could be understood to mean that only the husband is to provide for the family:

Anyone who does not provide for their relatives, and especially for their own household, has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.
1 Timothy 5:8 NIV

What is the biblical basis for a woman, particularly a mother, working outside the home?

Proverbs 31 is considered (by many) to be the model of what a godly woman should be.  In this chapter, we see that this woman is actually quite industrious:

10An excellent wife who can find?  She is far more precious than
jewels. 11The heart of her husband trusts in her, and he will have no
lack of gain. 12She does him good, and not harm, all the days of her
life.
13She seeks wool and flax, and works with willing hands.
14She is like the ships of the merchant; she brings her food from afar.
15She rises while it is yet night and provides food for her household
and portions for her maidens. 16She considers a field and buys it;
with the fruit of her hands she plants a vineyard. 17She dresses
herself with strength and makes her arms strong. 18She perceives
that her merchandise is profitable.  Her lamp does not go out at
night. 19She puts her hands to the distaff, and her hands hold the
spindle.
20She opens her hand to the poor and reaches out her hands
to the needy. 21She is not afraid of snow for her household, for all
her household are clothed in scarlet. 22She makes bed coverings for
herself; her clothing is fine linen and purple. 23Her husband is
known in the gates when he sits among the elders of the land. 24She
makes linen garments and sells them; she delivers sashes to the
merchant.
25Strength and dignity are her clothing, and she laughs at
the time to come. 26She opens her mouth with wisdom, and the teaching
of kindness is on her tongue. 27She looks well to the ways of her
household and does not eat the bread of idleness.
28Her children rise up and call her blessed; her husband also, and he praises her:
29"Many women have done excellently, but you surpass them all."
30Charm is deceitful, and beauty is vain, but a woman who fears
the LORD is to be praised. 31Give her of the fruit of her hands,
and let her works praise her in the gates.
Proverbs 31:10-31 ESV

So, no, in no way does the Bible say it is sinful for a woman to work outside the home.
That being said, men and women are still different, and masculinity is different from femininity.
Most Christian families that I know of where the woman does not work outside the home have made that choice because of their own priorities.  They have decided that freeing up the wife or mother to focus more effort on caring for the family and being active in the lives of their children is more important than the extra money and career success that the woman could otherwise achieve in the workplace.
It goes both ways, though.  I believe that both the man who has a career and the woman should value the family more than career advancement and prestige.  For the man, that may mean not getting that next promotion that requires more hours, so that he can spend more time caring for his wife and children.


Do the angels in Ezekiel 1:10 represent the 4 aspects of creation according to evangelicals? Ezekiel 1:10 tells of the heavenly creatures with the faces of humans, eagles, lions, and oxen:

  As for the likeness of their faces, they four had the face of a man,
  and the face of a lion, on the right side: and they four had the face
  of an ox on the left side; they four also had the face of an eagle.  -
  Ezekiel 1:10

In John MacArthur's introduction summary of the book of Ezekiel he explains them as angels "representing aspects of creation over which God rules"
as quoted here:  http://www.gty.org/resources/bible-introductions/MSB26/ezekiel

My question is, if they do, what 4 aspects of creation do the faces represent?

Ezekiel’s Vision is essentially divided into three main parts, according to this Bible study from a Baptist source:

  Ezekiel’s Vision of the Lords Glory (1:10-28)
  The Prophet’s Commission and the Hardships He Would Encounter (2:1-10).
  The Prophet’s Message (3:1-27).

And the intention of the vision can be viewed as the following, according to Matthew Henry:

  To possess the prophet's mind with very great, and high, and honourable thoughts of that God by whom he was commissioned and for
  whom he was employed
  To strike a terror upon the sinners who remained in Zion, and those who had already come to Babylon, who were secure, and bade defiance to
  the threatenings of Jerusalem's ruin, as we have found in Jeremiah's
  prophecy, and shall find in this, many did.
  To speak comfort to those that feared God, and trembled at his word, and humbled themselves under his mighty hand.

So the question remains, "what 4 aspects of creation do these faces represent?" Matthew Henry says:

Lion: Strength and Boldness
Ox: Diligence and Patience
Man: understanding of a man and much more
Eagle: Quickness as well as an uplifting of angels over men


What is the difference between "Catechism" and "Canon Law" in Catholicism? What is the difference between "Catechism" and "Canon Law" in Catholicism?

I have the Catholic Catechism (CCC).  Yet I also see the Canon law code quoted from...what's the difference?  are they two separate books?

Yes, the Catechism and Canon Law are two separate things

The Catechism is a teaching tool for the bishops and various catechists to instruct the faithful.  (Why do we receive the Eucharist?  What makes Easter so special?)  The first Catechism worthy of the name came out of the Council of Trent (1545 - 1563).  The more recent one, linked to on-line with some frequency here, came out in the early 1980's though it was revised in the 1990's.  You could look up The Baltimore Catechism for an example of a common teaching tool in the US that is pre-Vatican II.

  CCC 5 "Catechesis is an education in the faith of children, young people and adults which includes especially the teaching of Christian doctrine imparted, generally speaking, in an organic and systematic way, with a view to initiating the hearers into the fullness of Christian life."

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P3.HTM

The Canon Law is a rule book, a code of laws that are within the jurisdiction of the Church, that covers (for example) who may or may not marry a couple; what constitutes a valid marriage; what to do if there is a jurisdictional dispute between two different diocese; basic rules for building a church.

  During the course of the centuries the Catholic Church has been
  accustomed to reform and renew the laws of canonical discipline so
  that in constant fidelity to its divine founder, they may be better
  adapted to the saving mission entrusted to it. Prompted by this same
  purpose and fulfilling at last the expectations of the whole Catholic
  world, I order today, January 25, 1983, the promulgation of the
  revised Code of Canon Law. In so doing, my thoughts go back to the
  same day of the year 1959 when my predecessor of happy memory, John
  XXIII, announced for the first time his decision to reform the
  existing corpus of canonical legislation which had been promulgated on
  the feast of Pentecost in the year 1917. (From APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTION SACRAE DISCIPLINAE LEGES)


What does it mean to judge the fatherless? I came across this verse:

  Learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow. (Isaiah 1:17, KJV)

What does it mean to judge the fatherless?

The KJV uses judge, whereas the others use 'Defend', 'relieve', 'take up the cause of'.

The use of the word judge in the KJV relates ushering them judgments,  similar to a court of law.  Not all judgments are punishment, however.  If you were taking someone to court and won, the judge would rule in your favor. Similarly, when judgments in every day life are done, we judge in thus sense, positive or negative.

Judge, in this case,  indicates helping them.  Do them good, help them get what they can't get on their own, or is harder.  Hence, defend, relieve, and plead the cause of.


Is/Was Loki a figure in catholic dogma? While poking around the internets for this question in SciFi&Fantasy, I was reminded of one of my curiosities that had come about from watching the same film.  After watching Kevin Smith's Dogma, my cousin mentioned something along the lines of Loki being actual Catholic dogma according to a friend of his.

I can't find any sources on the internet to confirm this.  In fact CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA lists him in a paragraph describing the beliefs of 'Teutons and Celts' confusing me more, since I'm quite sure Celts had nothing to do with Loki.  Wikipedia describes the blending of Christian and Norse belief systems in a short paragraph without giving any easy references to go off of.

I find it difficult to drop the idea because I find it a lovely example of Christian syncretism.  I ask in the hopes that some of you may have had interesting discussions in catechism that would have covered this, or perhaps you know where to look better than I do, and can confirm or reject this.

Was the Norse mythological being Loki incorporated into the Catholic belief system, and if so, in what way?

The article you linked to is about magic and the occult, and speaks of magical concepts from many cultures, including Norse mythology. It mentions Loki only once, at the end of that section.  In the very next paragraph, it says that "magic as a practice finds no place in Christianity."

From this, it seems pretty clear that Loki (and all the rest of the mythological figures mentioned in the article) are being used here as illustrative examples only, and don't hold any doctrinal significance in Catholicism.


Why was Esther not sinning when she broke the law and approached the king? Here's the text in question:

  Esther 4:15–16 (ESV)15 Then Esther told them to reply to Mordecai, 16 “Go, gather all the Jews to be found in Susa, and hold a fast on my behalf, and do not eat or drink for three days, night or day. I and my young women will also fast as you do. Then I will go to the king, though it is against the law, and if I perish, I perish.”

The commentators I have read on this passage are unanimous in praising Esther for being willing to sacrifice herself for the sake of her people.  However, they do not attempt to reconcile this praise with their statements on obedience to earthly authority.  For example, the New Bible Commentary (1970) says regarding Romans 13:

  [E]very Christian has the duty [...] to obey lawful authority so far as such obedience does not conflict with God's law or Christ's authority.

Classic examples of permissible disobedience include Acts 5:29 and Daniel 3, where followers of God are ordered to do something in direct opposition to God's law, so they disobey.  That's not Esther's situation, apparently putting her action at odds with the common interpretation of Romans 13 and similar passages.

I am looking for any Christian commentator (regardless of background) who, while affirming the infallibility of the Bible, directly addresses this apparent conflict without resorting to a "the ends justifies the means" argument.  That is, I want a commentator who either

argues that Esther sinned on the basis of Romans 13, and should not have done what she did
argues that Esther did not sin, because the king and/or the law in question are not the sort of things referred to in Romans 13

A few verses earlier, Esther states the law as such,”…any man or woman who approaches the king in the inner court without being summoned the king has but one law: that they be put to death unless the king extends the gold scepter to them and spares their lives.”  Under these circumstances, it is no stretch to say that the king, who had ultimate authority, is the judge who determines whether or not the law has been broken and punishment is meted out.  If the king had decided that she was guilty, she would have paid the penalty instantly.  On the other hand, if he extends the scepter (as he did) he is saying, “I accept her presence, the law is not compromised.”
There have been many instances where man has taken measures into his own hands to accomplish God’s work.  This was not at God’s prompting.  Mordecai’s admonition to Esther can be construed as God’s prompting and God, in keeping with his character (which He always does), would never instruct someone to sin.
I don’t know if this satisfies your question, but the way I see it we have a reasonable explanation backed up by an immutable fact.
One might also posit that we are instructed to do right or, perhaps more appropriately, Right, as in right according to God, not the local Constabulary, “Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason.”) Rom 13:3, 4.  A secular comparison might be federal law can trump local law.


How could Jesus' audience hear Jesus without audio installation? I am wondering, today we use microphones and large sound systems to amplify someone's speaking. How did they do that 2000 years ago? Jesus spoke outside regularly before large crowds of people. I expect there were enough children, and disagreeing people, so it wasn't always quiet. Your voice won't reach very far when there are a lot of people, especially when there is a kid crying or someone having a discussion.

My question is:

How did the people back then hear Jesus' (or anyone else) preaching when there was a large crowd?

You are right, communication before modern electronics relied more on the speaker yelling and a crowd who surrounding attentively.  Consider the ancient Roman coliseum for example. This place could house an audience of 50,000+ and people would need to shout loud to the crowd and be heard.

When we imagine the crowds that Jesus spoke to a typical Jesus movie seems to portray it right. Sometimes crowds followed him to a place where he could be heard well, like for the sermon on the mount.  Other times they pressed in on him and he even had to sort of hurry away so that it did not become too chaotic. Also many would be responding and discussing among themselves what the meaning was for something he had said. In these conditions many would not hear exactly what was said and only get bits and pieces.  There is also the repetitive second hand reiteration of what he had said. For those who could not hear they would listen to the stories told by others, even late into the night throughout the towns where Jesus preached.

Then there is the example of the Baptist preaching by the river. Have you ever yelled in a valley and heard the echo carry your voice seemingly for ever?

In summary, one could definitely communicate to large crowds in ancient Rome, such as for entertainment in the amphitheaters or when generals gave pre-battle speeches for example. When large crowds were addressed, sometimes good places were chosen for the acoustics, and the crowd would be more aware of when to hush for the communication to be effective. Even making a makeshift blow horn with your hands could have been used as ancient Greek actors already had horn shaped mouths in their masks for this purpose. However, there would certainly be some, especially among noisy crowds, who could not hear and would rely on what others said.


What is a "human act" in Catholic moral theology? What is a "human act" in Catholic moral theology, and how does it relate to "full consent of the will" which is one of the conditions for a mortal sin?

Human acts
Prümmer, O.P., Handbook of Moral Theology pp. 7-8:

9. Three definitions which do not differ essentially from each other are usually given: a human act is one which proceeds from the deliberate will of man; or, an act which proceeds from the knowledge of the intellect and the impulse of the will; or, an act of which man himself is the master.
Therefore the following acts are not human:

Acts which proceed from the vegetative faculty in man, such as nutrition, the pulse of the heart, etc. For man is not the master of such acts, since they do not proceed from his intellect and will.

Acts elicited by those who are completely mad, by drunkards, by children without the use of their reason, by those under hypnotic influence. Such acts are not directed by a deliberate will.

The so-called "actus primo-primi" which occur so quickly that they precede the use of the reason and will, such as those sudden feelings of anger which arise from an unexpected insult. On the other hand those acts which are called "secundo-primi" and "secundo-secundi" are human acts, although the former are not so perfect as the latter through lack of complete attention.

Forced acts which are performed under the influence of external violence. Man is not the master of such acts.

Full consent & mortal sin
ibid. p. 69:

Three conditions must be verified for mortal sin:

There must be grave matter which is determined by the object and circumstances of the act (or omission) and which is made known to us as such in the first place through the teaching authority of the Church and her theologians. There are some sins which do not admit of slight matter and these are mortal sins "ex toto genere suo" (v.g., lust, blasphemy, etc.); in other sins the matter is not always grave (v.g., in theft, or fasting), and thus the sin may be venial. These are mortal sins "ex genere suo".
Full advertence to the moral nature of the act is required. Therefore where such advertence is defective, sins are always venial (or there may be no sin at all) because of the act's imperfection.
Full consent is also necessary, and this is always presumed to be present where there is full advertence and no external violence. Therefore fear and passion certainly diminish consent but do not destroy it, and they do not prevent mortal sin unless full advertence is lacking.

In practice there is often reasonable doubt whether all these three conditions were verified or not in a particular case. In such instances, if the confessor fails to reach a conclusion after prudent enquiry he must leave the matter to God's judgement but warn the penitent against future dangers of sinning. If the penitent is in doubt about one or other of the requisite conditions he should candidly reveal his doubts to the confessor and submit to his judgement.
In the following instances advertence and consent are imperfect:1. when an act is committed while half asleep or half drunk;
2. when the penitent is not in complete possession of himself, v.g., because of a sudden and most vehement surge of passion;
3. when a person is suffering from pathological states or feelings, e.g., hysteria, mania, phobia;
4. when the penitent can truthfully and certainly assert that he would never have acted in that way if he had thought about it seriously beforehand;
5. when the penitent in the face of temptation is immediately agitated and sorry because of the devout state of his conscience.


What are the core beliefs of Presbyterianism? How does it differ and compare to other denominations of reformed Protestantism? I have never thought of myself as being overtly religious ever in my life (in high school). I have never gone to church, but what I am now realizing is that I have been raised (more or less) as a Presbyterian. I come from a long line of Scottish heritage. All of my family has been religious and my great grandfather was a Pastor. Would it be stupid to say that I am a Presbyterian who has been raised away from the larger bodies of organized religion since Presbyterianism is mainly an organizational doctrine?

I have recently met some (I believe) Reformed Baptists that call themselves Reformed Charismatic. They are very entranced with John Piper, who I have read is not reformed, so how does that work? I really want to use this as an opportunity to actually embrace religion. My understanding of Christianity is very barebones but I know more than the average person in our hyper-secular world today. What I need is a longer explanation so if you know anything that would help, please link it, but a reader's digest version is greatly appreciated.

The main things I think I need to know are (1) what are the main beliefs of Presbyterianism, and what do I need to know to pass myself as one until I get further into it, (2) what is a good way to comprehend Biblical fundamentalism from a Presbyterian view, (3) what is the difference between other forms of Protestantism and Calvinism (especially the Reformed Charismatic denomination)?

The name “Presbyterian” applies to a diverse group of churches that adhere in some degree to the teachings of John Calvin and John Knox and are led by representative elders (presbyters) of their congregations.  Here is a brief overview of the history of the Scottish Presbyterian Church:

The Presbyterian Church was first organized in Scotland under the leadership of the Reformer John Knox. The Church of Scotland was affiliated with the Roman Catholic Church, even though it maintained an attitude of independence. John Knox was a priest in the Church of Scotland and was fed up with the abuses he saw in the Catholic leadership. Knox was exiled to England after his involvement in the murder of Cardinal Beaton in 1546. While in England, he was licensed to preach in the Church of England and was instrumental in reforming the Book of Common Prayer.
When Mary Tudor ascended the English throne and started her bloody persecutions of Protestants, Knox fled to the Continent, where he met John Calvin and began to study Reformed theology. In 1559, Knox returned to Scotland and became a vocal proponent of Reformed theology and the concept of Presbyterian leadership in the church. A number of Scottish lords had already been promoting religious reform, and they gladly supported John Knox’s teaching. Under Knox’s leadership, these “Lords of the Congregation” wrote the Scottish Confession of Faith in 1560. This confession ended papal rule in Scotland and outlawed the Mass. The Scottish Confession remained the primary doctrinal guide for the Church of Scotland until the Westminster Confession of Faith in 1647.

The article goes on to explore the development of the Presbyterian Church and contains links to other useful, related articles.  The article concludes:

Within the broad category, there are some which can be considered conservative or fundamental, and some which would be called liberal or progressive...  While most Presbyterian churches will agree on general themes such as the depravity of man, the holiness of God, and salvation by faith, there is wide divergence in how they define and apply those themes.   Source: https://www.gotquestions.org/Presbyterians.html

With regard to the three specific questions you have asked, I can only help on the first question: What are the main beliefs of Presbyterianism?  Below is a brief summary of what the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland believes, “expressing our adherence to all the fundamental doctrines of Reformed, Calvinistic (not merely “Evangelical”) Christianity.”

Scripture. The Bible is the fully inspired, infallible and inerrant Word of God, and therefore the only supreme rule for faith and life.
God. There is one God, who decreed all things from eternity, created the entire universe in six days, and governs the whole creation continually.
Trinity. This one God exists eternally in three Persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Man. Man was originally created in the image of God, and his main duty in life is to know, love, glorify and enjoy God.
Sin. All fell with Adam in his first transgression. Everyone is guilty of sin (which is disobeying God’s law), and deserves to be punished in hell for ever.
Jesus Christ. God in His mercy sent His only begotten Son to be the Saviour of sinners. By taking human nature into union with His divine Person, Jesus Christ is both God and man. He was born of the virgin Mary, lived a perfectly sinless life, died on the cross, rose bodily from the dead, and ascended into heaven.
Atonement. When Jesus Christ died on the cross, He was punished in the place of His people for their sins, as the only way to satisfy divine justice.
Faith. Those who trust in Christ alone for the forgiveness of their sins, and repent, are accepted by God and will go to heaven. No one can be saved in any other way.
The Holy Spirit. Only the Holy Spirit can bring people to faith and repentance, which He does when He regenerates them into spiritual life.
The Second Coming. Jesus will return bodily at the Day of Judgment, when everyone who died will rise again. Those who trusted Him for salvation will go to heaven with Him for ever, but the rest will be cast into hell to endure conscious torment for ever.  Source: https://www.fpchurch.org.uk/about-us/what-we-believe/

That article also provides a link to a comprehensive statement of their beliefs based on the Westminster Confession of Faith: https://www.fpchurch.org.uk/about-us/important-documents/the-westminster-confession-of-faith/
To know what makes them different from other churches , see What We Contend For: https://www.fpchurch.org.uk/about-us/what-we-contend-for/
Finally, my only other comment with regard to your first question is that there should be no need for any person to pass themselves off as a member of a particular denomination.  Personally, I self-identify as a Christian, first, foremost and last.  I don’t belong to any denomination.  I belong to Christ Jesus and am a member of His Church.  I sincerely hope this helps as you set out on this interesting and important voyage of discovery.


Complete online editions of the Church Fathers Where can one find a complete version of all the Church fathers online or digital?
This is probably not a regular Christianity.SE question, since it is more of an external reference query.

I am more specific looking for Eusebius, and if it can have the verse quotations indexed, even better. (So you could search for Rom 10:17 etc.)

http://www.ccel.org/fathers.html will give you the complete text of the series of English translations of the church fathers that was put together in the 1800s. They also provide there a link to public domain translations of some more father which were commissioned by Roger Pearse.   Thus, its one stop "shopping" for every translation of the church fathers that is in the Public Domain, and thus free.  Although their list of the additional fathers may lag behind the one found on Roger Pearse's own site: http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/ And on his site, you can order the full collection plus the additional fathers on CD-ROM if you want. I think you can also order a CD-ROM on ccel of every text they have on their site.


Which 20th-century Orthodox Christians said that the crusades were more oppressive than the Marxist anti-religious campaigns? Everett Ferguson, in Church History, I, 23.I.D, discusses the brutality of the crusades in the early 13th century, when Constantinople was sacked.  One point I found particularly interesting was a comparison between the persecution then and the harsh anti-religious campaigns of the early 20th century in the USSR:

  Memories are long in the East, and Orthodox Christians in the twentieth century affirmed that they had more religious liberty under the Marxists than they did under the crusaders.

Wikipedia's article on the persecution in the Soviet Union indicates that that was no walk in the park either – tens of thousands of clergy were murdered and many members were sent to labor camps, transforming an openly Christian nation into one with no public expressions of religion.

Yet some Eastern Orthodox Christians apparently judged that persecution as preferable to that of the crusades.  I'd love to understand why, but to do so I need to know who Ferguson is referring to – which Orthodox Christians positively compared Marxist persecutions to the crusades?  Was this a statement by an Orthodox church, or a group of clergy, or just a few individuals speaking for themselves?

The anti-Catholic Eurasians in the 1920s.
Archpriest Georges Florovsky (1893-1979) was an Orthodox priest from (Imperial) Russia, who was associated with what theologian Paul Gavrilyuk calls the Eurasian movement.
See Gavrilyuk's essay "Florovsky's Neopatristic Synthesis and the Future Ways of Orthodox Theology", collected in Orthodox Constructions of the West:

Upon his arrival to Europe, Florovsky joined the Eurasians, who to some extent followed the Slavophile trajectory [...] Florovsky contributed to...the next two volumes published by the Eurasians, On the Ways and Russia and Latinity [1923].
[...]
The introductory article of [Russia and Latinity] advanced a claim that for the Orthodox believer in France to be converted to Roman Catholicism was worse than to be killed by the Bolsheviks in Communist Russia, on the grounds that the former led to the eternal perdition of the soul, whereas the latter caused merely a temporal destruction of the body. When this astonishing idea was criticized by Prince G. N. Trubetskoy on the pages of Put', the Eurasians promptly responded with an open letter in defense of their moral comparison of the repressive character of Bolshevism and Catholicism. Florovsky, who was one of the contributors to the Eurasian volume Russia and Latinity, had signed the open letter in question.

(link to quoted page)
When Russia and Latinity was published in 1923, the worst of the anti-religious fervor in the Soviet Union was not yet in effect. The anti-religious campaign of 1928-1941 was particularly anti-Orthodox, and killed as many as 200,000 Orthodox monastics and clergy alone, not to mention the numerous horrors inflicted upon and murders of the laypeople.
Another View
The Eurasians' view was apparently considered astonishing even at the time, and was clearly written before the full force of Soviet crimes against Orthodox people had been realized. The Fourth Crusade was certainly disastrous for the Orthodox Church, but I am skeptical of Ferguson's claim that most 20th century Christians would prefer Marxism (as the Soviet Union saw it) to crusaders.
For comparison from a less fringe perspective, Metropolitan Kallistos Ware (1934-) is a very popular Eastern Orthodox theologian, and for decades lectured about Orthodoxy at Oxford. In his The Orthodox Church (1993 ed.), he wrote:

In this way, from 1917 onwards, Orthodox and other Christians found themselves in a situation for which there was no exact precedent in earlier Christian history. The Roman Empire, although persecuting Christians from time to time, was in no sense an atheist state, committed to the suppression of religion as such. The Ottoman Turks, while non-Christians, were still worshippers of the one God and, as we have seen, allowed the Church a large measure of toleration. But Soviet Communism was committed by its fundamental principles to an aggressive and militant atheism. It could not rest satisfied merely with a neutral separation between Church and State, but sought by every means, direct and indirect, to overthrow all organized Church life and to eliminate all religious belief.

(link to quoted page)


What do Christians mean by "holy"? What is the meaning of the word holy from a Christian viewpoint?
I observed that the term is used for

the gods, especially the Holy God (Father) and Holy Ghost;
persons, such as the holy apostles, Holy St. Florian, etc.;
buildings like churches;
organisations (the holy church);
relics and fetishes, such as the Holy Coat of Trier;
cities, such as the holy city (this title is used for both Rome and Jerusalem).

Since holiness is nothing which can be identified with a scientific instrument, what is it? Is it just an attribute, awarded by a higher priest, which you then believe in? But what is it? Do you have to believe, that it can, for example, have healing effects? Does it just mean that you have to treat something with extra respect?
This is what I found in an encyclopedia:

Heilig, von Heil, also soviel wie in seiner Vollkommenheit nicht nur noch unverletzt, sondern auch unverletzlich, unantastbar, dann soviel wie schlechthin gut, sittlich vollkommen, makellos. Seine Wurzeln hat dieser Begriff teils im römischen Kultus, wo er das dem gemeinen Gebrauch Entzogene, höhern Zwecken Gewidmete (sacer, sanctus), teils im Alttestamentlichen, wo der Ausdruck (kadosch), von Gott ausgesagt, dessen Unterschiedenheit von allem Irdischen, seine Unvergleichlichkeit und Erhabenheit, von Irdischem ausgesagt, dessen Zugehörigkeit zu Gott, Gottgeweihtheit bedeutet. Vgl. Baudissin, Studien zur Religionsgeschichte, Bd. 2 (Leipz. 1878); Issel, Der Begriff der Heiligkeit im Neuen Testament (Leiden 1887).
Meyers Großes Konversationslexikon.

For those of you who don’t speak German, I’ll try a translation:

Holy, from ‘intact, complete’, not only undamaged, but invulnerable, untouchable, but also completely good, ethical and morally perfect. The roots of the term reach to the Roman cult, where it means “taken away from common usage”, used for higher purpose (sacer, sanctus), partly in the Old Testament, where the term (kadosch), spoken of God, means his difference from anything terrestrial, his uncomparabliness and loftiness, and means “belonging to God” or antlared (? maybe not. -else: holiness, which is tautological. - remark by me, u.u.). Vgl. Baudissin, Studien zur Religionsgeschichte, Bd. 2 (Leipz. 1878); Issel, Der Begriff der Heiligkeit im Neuen Testament (Leiden 1887).

Maybe we can agree that a building can’t be morally good. Nor can bones, or cities, or weekdays.
Isn’t it fetishism to pray to dead objects made by men, to bones without spirit and clothes?
Or is holiness something like bacteria, which spread from God to a Saint, from the Saint to his clothes, from the clothes to a prayer? Is there evidence in the new Testament that touching such things is helpful, is something you should do?

The progression in your list is actually somewhat (although not exactly) representative of the decreasing level of weight carried by the word.

Let's start with this: Only God is holy.

Holy means to be set apart, entirely-other. Untouched by any imperfection. Unmarred by any fault. God is the only one that matches these criteria. And boy is he Holy. The angels in heaven cry out in eternal accord that he is thrice holy. Holy. Holy. Holy.

After that things go down hill fast. Absolutely nothing else exists or ever will exist apart from God that is holy in the way that he is.

And yet there is one crazy exception: Those who through faith in Christ are adopted to be joint heirs with Christ and inherit his very holiness. Over and over through the Old and New testaments we see God calling his chosen people to "be holy, as I am holy." This is an absurd thing to ask of a degenerate created being -- except that he also makes us this way by covering us with his own holiness. At the cost of the life of His own holy son God provided a way to make un-holy people holy.

Some more interesting powerful uses of the word holy involve things like the temple (both the tent tabernacle and the permanent temple) where the sanctuary was holy because it was dedicated to a certain use, but the inner chamber was the _holy of holies because that is where Gods very presence would dwell.

Moving on down the line, the word has some common usages that only involve being set apart or dedicated for a certain use. Church buildings are only holy not in that they are physically sacred but that they are reserved for certain uses ... they are dedicated to the work of God through his body the church.

Cities such as Jerusalem can be considered holy in the sense that they play a special role or enjoy a unique identity or history.


What is the interpretation of the bow in the cloud after the Flood? After the Flood abates, God reassures Noah that it was a one time event:

Genesis 9:13 (ESV)

  I have set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and the earth.

The most obvious interpretation is that this is a rainbow, and that it was something new.  But rainbows are a physical consequence of having rain and sun.

God spells out the significance of the sight: the earth will not be flooded again.  But should we interpret this as an already-familiar sight being used as a reminder, or did He somehow change things then, and rainbows had not appeared before the Flood?  Or was it not actually a rainbow at all, but some other phenomenon with which we are no longer familiar?

Jesus spoke in parables that were full of very familiar imagery to his hearers, turning them into spiritual lessons.

The Lord commanded Abraham to circumcise all his male descendants, a custom which was already being practiced before the time of Abraham, but God made it a token of his covenant with Abraham.

Likewise, there's no reason to believe that rainbows, being a natural phenomenon, did not exist before the Flood.  But as a part of God's covenant with Noah, he gave them a new, special significance.


What is the Biblical basis for the concept that Jesus spent time in Hell? The Apostles Creed makes reference to Jesus descending into Hell.  I have heard it claimed that His time spent in Hell was part of His redemptive work--in other words, that was necessary for Him to completely "pay the price" for our sins.  However, John 19:30 says:

  When he had received the drink, Jesus said, “It is finished.” With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.

Which I have generally heard interpreted to mean that the work of redemption was finished at that moment--the moment of His death.

I have also heard that the original language of the Apostles Creed did not mean Hell in the sense of "place of eternal punishment" but more in the sense of a metaphorical, ambiguous "place of the dead."

Is there Biblical evidence that Jesus spent time in Hell (as we know it today--the place of eternal punishment)?  If so, was His time there necessary for our redemption, or was there some other purpose to His visit?

Yes!  Errr... NO!

There are three competing theories on this.

Jesus went to Hell with the damned.
Jesus went to paradise in Hades
Jesus went to heaven.

All of these beliefs are based on a few critical verses.

Verse 1: 1 Peter 3:18-20

In 1 Peter 3:18-20 (NIV), we see:

  18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive in the Spirit.
  19 After being made alive, he went and made proclamation to the
  imprisoned spirits— 20 to those who were disobedient long ago when God
  waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In
  it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water,

This supports (pretty conclusively) beliefs 1 and 2 by stating that Jesus, in the spirit, went to speak to the "imprisoned souls".

Verse 2 Luke 23:43

We see in Luke 23:43 (KJV)

  43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou
  be with me in paradise.

This pretty conclusively states that he went to paradise.  This supports beliefs number 2 and 3.

Verse 3 Luke 23:46

Luke 23:46 (NIV) states:

  46 Jesus called out with a loud voice, “Father, into your hands I
  commit my spirit.” When he had said this, he breathed his last.

The idea is that Jesus definitely didn't go to hell, since he committed his spirit into the Father's hands.  Therefore, this is used to support beliefs 2 and 3.

Vers 4 Ephesians 4:9

This verse is often used to say that Jesus "descended into hell" or "the depths" or something (NIV)

  9 (What does “he ascended” mean except that he also descended to the
  lower, earthly regions?

However this doesn't really hold water since the reference point of the ascension means that he really descended to earth.  Also, the translation "lower, earthly regions" supports the idea that he descended to Earth rather than other translations which state "lower earthly regions" (notice the lack of the comma, which is an invalid translation).

This verse is often used to support belief #1.

So, which belief is correct?  This is something that is difficult to see.

1 Cor. 13:12 (KJV)

  12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I
  know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

I should note another idea that supports belief #2 is the fact that there are two different words for "Hell".  One is the fiery pit referred to in Revelations and one is the place called "Hades".  Unfortunately, we don't have any good, solid definition for "Hades", so some have interpreted that as the "paradise" that Jesus was referring to on the cross.  This interpretation is used to support that second belief.

Read this article for much more information.


What denomination uses church pews that face each other? There are some denominations who arrange their pews so they are on opposite sides of the pulpit (or equivalent for their denomination), or otherwise have pews facing each other. Is there somebody familiar with different church layouts who can perhaps point out a couple major denominations?

What came to mind for me was the church designed by Frank Lloyd Wright, but I heard that some denominations do this as regular practice. "Friendship House" came to mind, but we didn't come up with much of an overview when searching the internet.

Arrangement of church pews is really not a function of denomination. The denomination I am most familiar with uses both forward-facing pews and inward facing pews .


Giving a name while doing circumcision? It was claimed that the recent tradition in Judaism to give a name to babies while doing circumcision, is documented already in the New Testament. Is it true?

I'm looking for the source / reference.

Giving a name while doing circumcision?

Catholics celebrated the Feast of the Circumcision on January 1st up until Vatican II.

  The Feast of the Circumcision of Christ is a Christian celebration of the circumcision of Jesus in accordance with Jewish tradition, eight days (according to the Semitic and southern European calculation of intervals of days) after his birth, the occasion on which the child was formally given his name.

  The circumcision of Jesus has traditionally been seen, as explained in the popular 14th-century work the Golden Legend, as the first time the blood of Christ was shed, and thus the beginning of the process of the redemption of man, and a demonstration that Christ was fully human, and of his obedience to Biblical law.

  The feast day appears on 1 January in the liturgical calendar of the Byzantine Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches.[4] In the General Roman Calendar, the 1 January feast, which from 1568 to 1960 was called "The Circumcision of the Lord and the Octave of the Nativity", is now named the Solemnity of Mary, Mother of God, and the Octave Day of the Nativity of the Lord. It is celebrated by some churches of the Anglican Communion and virtually all Lutheran churches. In these latter Western Christian denominations, the Feast of the Naming and Circumcision of Jesus Christ marks the eighth day (octave day) of Christmastide. - Feast of the Circumcision of Christ

The biblical basis for such a feast comes from the Gospel of Luke:

  21 And at the end of eight days, when he was circumcised, he was called Jesus, the name given by the angel before he was conceived in the womb. Luke 2:21

We can see that Scriptures indeed noted down that this was in fact an historical Jewish custom.

Other biblical references include the following:

  59 And on the eighth day they came to circumcise the child. And they would have called him Zechariah after his father. -Luke 1:59

  12 He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised. Every male throughout your generations, whether born in your house or bought with your money from any foreigner who is not of your offspring. - Genesis 17:12

  22 Moses gave you circumcision (not that it is from Moses, but from the fathers), and you circumcise a man on the Sabbath. 23 If on the Sabbath a man receives circumcision, so that the law of Moses may not be broken, are you angry with me because on the Sabbath I made a man's whole body well? - John 7:22-23


Is there any Scriptural support for claims about Jesus appearing to Muslims in dreams and visions? I've heard many testimonies and claims about Muslims converting to Christianity because Jesus allegedly appeared to them in dreams and visions. For the interested reader, these are some example sources making such claims: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.
Is there any biblical support for this phenomenon? Can we find any parallels or prophecies about this phenomenon in Scripture?

Nowhere in the Bible will you read of any prophecy about Jesus appearing to Muslims in dreams and visions.  Perhaps that’s because Islam (and Muslims) did not exist till the 7th century.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam#History
The first-hand evidence you provided of Jesus appearing to Muslims in dreams and visions is overwhelming and undeniable.  There can be no dispute that such miraculous events happen today.  It is also worth mentioning that such dreams and visions are not exclusive to Muslims.  But if you want parallels or prophecies of this from the Bible, then you must realise that the words Muslim, Mohammed or Islam are not to be found in either the Old or the New Testaments.
Acts 2:17 quotes a prophesy from Joel 2:28, which says this:

In the last days, God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people.  Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your young men will see visions, your old men will dream dreams.

The prophecy in Joel does not say that people would have visions of Jesus, because Jesus had not yet appeared in the flesh.   In the past people had visions of God and since the incarnation people are now having visions of Jesus.  The key point of this particular prophecy which pertains to the last days is “ALL people”, which embraces Muslims.
The Old Testament records visions and dreams given to a variety of people.   The Lord spoke directly to Job out of a storm in order to chasten him (Job 40:6).  Eliphaz the Temanite (one of Job’s comforters) had a most fearful dream in the night, and a word was brought to him:

A spirit glided past my face, and the hair on my body stood on end.  It stopped, but I could not tell what it was. A form stood before my eyes, and I heard a hushed voice: Can a mortal be more righteous than God? Can a man be more pure than his Maker?  (Job 4:12-17)

Dreams and visions were given to Joseph and Pharaoh (Genesis 37 and 41) and to Nebuchadnezzar (Daniel chapters 2 and 4).  They all came from God, usually as warnings.  These days, God communicates to us through his Son (Hebrews 1:1-2), sometimes through dreams and visions.


Is there any Denomination which think that the "serpent" at the beginning of his existence in Eden is not a bad being? This question raised after my other question here

Genesis 3:15

  I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your
  offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall
  bruise his heel.

To me (as a non-Christian) the bold sentence in the verse above leads to a conclusion that there is no enmity (yet) between this being and Adam&Eve before the event in Genesis 3.

In other words, at the first existence of this being in Eden, he is not a bad being (yet) where Adam&Eve need not to be cautious of this being.

Since that is just a non-Christian personal opinion, that's why I would like to know if there is any Christian Church Denomination which think the same.

After I do some "deeper digging" in the internet, I found the below quotation from this site

Quote-1

  Archbishop Ussher, the great 17th-century Bible scholar, placed
  Satan’s fall on the tenth day of the first year, which is the Day of
  Atonement

Reading it directly (without reading the original Ussher's book), it seems Ussher has the same thinking with me which is before Genesis 3 event, the first existence of this being in Eden (together with Adam and Eve) is not in a fallen state.

So I search more, and found James Ussher "The Annals of the World" and below is his text

Quote-2

  The Devil envied God's honour and man's obedience. He tempted the
  woman to sin by the serpent. By this he got the name and title of the
  old serpent

To me, the bold sentence is not easy because Ussher use a word "devil" where this word already implied in a negative sense, an evil being. This leads me to two option :

A. because he is A Devil, an evil being, a fallen state being (in the beginning of his first existence in Eden) that's why he envied God's honour and man's obedience

B. because (later on after his first existence in Eden) he envied God's honour and man's obedience , that's why he is called a devil, an evil being.

To me, it seems Quote-1 choose the point-B.
In B, the "fit" paraphrased of Quote-2 is become like this

Quote-3

  The being envied God's honour and man's obedience. He tempted the woman to sin by the serpent. By this he got the name and title of the
  old serpent and called a devil.

I still can not decide what Usher's meant in his sentences in Quote-2.
Anyway, my original question is still apply :).

The consensus of the first millennium Church Fathers was that the serpent of Genesis 3:1 (Masoretic נָחָשׁ - nā·ḥāš; Greek ὄφις - ophis) was a simple creature that was used as a tool by the devil.

John Chrysostom (c 349-407) wrote:

  Do not  regard the present serpent; do not regard how we flee it and feel repulsion towards it.  It was not such in the beginning.  The serpent was the friend of man and the closest of those who served him ... As a creature who enjoyed great closeness to man, the serpent seemed to the devil to be a convenient tool.1

Similar views are held by by Ephrem the Syrian2 (306-373) and John of Damascus3 (c 675-749).

All of the above are considered authoritative even today within the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Church.  Their teachings carry various weight among many Protestants as well.

Note that Scripture itself attests that  the serpent was simply a beast of the field (or wild animal).

The above seems to have been the consensus (at least at one time) of Jewish interpreters as well.4

1. On the Creation of the World VI.2
2. Commentary on Genesis II.XV.1
3. Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith II.10
4. Oxford Jewish Study Bible (2nd ed.)


According to Reformed Theology, what is the doctrinal basis for belief in New Testament tithing? Most Reformed churches refer to "tithes and offerings" as an understanding of the giving structure in church. Reformed Theology as a theological framework is careful about ensuring there is a biblical foundation for worship (regulative principle) and has a strong emphasis on the biblical covenants and their historical administrations. Therefore, I assume there is a basis for the belief that tithing is an enduring New Testament establishment for the church.

Ideally, this would be a representative theologian (a reformer, puritan, modern reformed theologian, etc.) explaining the basis for believing that the Bible teaches the tithe as an enduring function of the church that extends beyond the Mosaic administration.

I am specifically talking about tithing 10% of the household income as a commandment of God, not the general principle of generous giving which is immediately obvious in the New Testament.

Based on the frequency with which the word "tithe" is mentioned in Reformed churches, one might expect that Reformed theologians overwhelmingly believe in an obligation for giving 10%.  But in fact, many prominent Calvinists do not believe it to continue as a command, such as John Owen, Francis Turretin, and John Gill.1
Many accept the tithe as a general rule, such as John Frame, but hesitate to make it truly obligatory:

Again and again in the Old Testament the figure of 10 percent recurs.  That is the Lord's portion.  It may be that in the New Testament that amount is not strictly required.  But surely the "cheerful" giving of 2 Corinthians 9:7 cannot be much less than that.2

Still, there are some in the Reformed tradition who make the case for the continuation of the obligatory tithe.  Among them, unsurprisingly, are theonomists like Gary North.  He combines what theonomists are known for – seeking to re-establish OT law in modern societies – with a concept of a "sovereign institutional church," and calls for churches to enforce the tithe by comparing member incomes to their donations and subjecting violators to discipline.3
But not all defenders of the modern tithe go so far.  I'll also refer to 19th-century Presbyterian minister Alexander L. Hogshead, who focuses more on New Testament passages related to tithing to make his case for the continuance of the practice.
Here are the main biblical arguments these two authors make:

The tithe precedes the mosaic law
The tithe is not abrogated in the NT, but rather assumed and implied

Tithe precedes Moses
Numerous commentators note that the first recorded instance of a tithe in the Bible precedes the giving of the Mosaic law.  Gary North argues for the modern relevance of Abraham's giving of a tithe to Melchizedek in Genesis 14:

The New Testament does not ground the tithe on the Mosaic law. On the contrary, Hebrews 7 establishes the authority of Jesus Christ's high priestly office in terms of Melchizedek's collection of the tithe from Abraham. The superiority of the New Covenant to the Old Covenant is seen in Abraham's payment of his tithe to Melchizedek – a representative judicial act of submission in the name of Israel and his son Levi. Any attempt to escape the obligation of the tithe is an assault on the New Covenant's High Priest, Jesus Christ.4

Tithe continued in the NT
Hogshead argues that God's provision for the leadership of his people has not changed – that it is found in the obligatory tithe.  He focuses first on Paul's admonishment in 1 Corinthians 9:7–14, in which Paul cites the Mosaic law in reference to the support of his ministry, and concludes:

13 Do you not know that those who are employed in the temple service get their food from the temple, and those who serve at the altar share in the sacrificial offerings? 14 In the same way, the Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel. (ESV; emphasis added)

Hogshead particularly emphasizes the phrase translated "in the same way," arguing that these words "express Christ's positive appointment, in reference to the christian ministry, of the substantial features and principles of the old divine law."5
Against those who argue that the New Testament does not explicitly require a tithe, Hogshead argues:

A large portion of the disciples of Christ were converted Jews, who carried with them their hereditary attachment to all the essential parts of divine worship [...] These christians did not need specific instructions in relation to those duties that they had been accustomed to regard as divinely enjoined.
In relation to this branch of divine service, they knew that from the beginning, it was in part regulated by fixed laws, and in part varied by circumstances.  The tithes and first-fruits were fixed, the free-will offerings were varied according to the exegencies of the church.  The only points upon which they needed instruction were the changed circumstances in which the new dispensation placed them.6

Thus Hogshead sees a continuation of the obligatory tithe, and contends that New Testament appeals to generosity are intended "to secure from christians enlarged offerings beyond the former standard" but do not eliminate the obligation of that former standard – the tithe.
Similarly, he appeals to Hebrews 13:16, Galatians 6:6–7, Luke 10:7, and 2 Corinthians 11:8, arguing that with their language of "wages" and "robbery," they would have been understood as continuing the obligatory tithe, not abrogating it.
Summary
Reformed advocates of the continuation of the tithe argue that the obligation of tithing pre-existed the Mosaic law, and that the New Testament assumes and implies its continuation today.  Thus they see it as a part of the broader Mosaic law that ought to be reestablished (i.e., theonomy), or as a part of the law that was never abrogated and thus continues.

References

David Croteau, You Mean I Don't Have to Tithe, 279
The Doctrine of the Christian Life, 801
Tithing and the Church
Ibid., 2
The Gospel Self-Supporting, 19
Ibid., 27


What do Chinese Christians wear to a Western or Chinese Christian funeral? What do Chinese Christians wear to a Western or Chinese Christian funeral?

In the West, it seems that black is the popular color for death and funerals. You see this in movies, where women would wear black veils and black formal dresses.

In Chinese culture, it is known that white is the color reserved for death and funerals.

So, do Chinese Christians wear white or black at a funeral? Is there a preference for a single color in Christianity for certain occasions, or is this more of a Western cultural thing?

It might depend on the church and the individuals.  I attended a Chinese church one time and people wore all sorts of colours to them.  Sometimes black, sometimes white, and anything in between.  I don't think the church I went to was very superstitious in that regard.


In Catholic understanding when there is more than one Pope, who decides which Pope is real and by what criteria? I know at various periods of history cardinals were split submitting to multiple competing popes. However as they die, eventually only one Pope is considered the 'real' infallible Pope, and the others labelled as 'anti Popes'.  My question is aside from the view of each Popes view, that the others are not 'real', who finally determines the 'real' one and by what authority?

I mean does a certain group decide? Do you just wait until there is only one Pope and then he determines how to label the other Popes because now only his word stands?

Who decides which Pope is real and by what criteria? Does the moral behavior of the candidates have any relevance in the criteria?

In the case of a disputed election, the decision is largely based on which pope is elected first, although this is not always the case. Eulalius was elected pope in 418, one day before Boniface I. However, through overconfidence, Eulalius flouted an imperial order and the emperor then recognised Boniface as the rightful pope, leaving Eulalius as antipope. So, in this case it was the emperor who made the decision.

Ursicinus (or Ursinus) and Pope Damasus I were elected simultaneously in 366. Ursicinus ruled in Rome for several months in 366–367 but was afterwards declared an antipope. As described by Adrian Hastings, in A World History of Christianity, page 42, Damasus succeeded by hiring a gang of thugs that stormed the Julian Basilica, carrying out a three day massacre of supporters of Ursinus in order to have himself elected pope. Damasus was since regarded as the true pope, reigning from 366 to 384.

Boniface Franco had murdered the reigning pope, Benedict VI, and was elected as Boniface VII in 974, so at this stage he was presumably a legitimate pope. However, when Emperor Otto II invaded Rome, Boniface fled to Constantinople, and Otto arranged the election of Benedict VII. When Otto died in 984, Boniface returned to Rome and imprisoned Pope John XIV, who had succeeded Benedict VII. Boniface was re-established as pope, but died in suspicious circumstances. Boniface VII was not yet considered an antipope when Benedict Gaetani took the style of Pope Boniface VIII in 1294, thus tacitly recognising the legality of Boniface VII. However, Boniface VII is now regarded by the Church as an antipope, and there is no Pope Boniface VII in the list of popes.

Change can also result in former antipopes becoming recognised as popes. Leo VIII, was for many years considered an antipope but is now listed on the Catholic Encyclopedia as a true pope.

The Western Schism began following the election of Urban VI in 1378. As a candidate who was not yet a cardinal, it was thought that he would be a compliant pope who would allow the cardinals the freedom to which they had become accustomed, but sudden power turned him into a violent egomaniac.  The cardinals soon called on him to abdicate and elected Clement as his replacement.  The following year, Clement fled to Avignon with a group of loyal cardinals, and the two popes excommunicated each other. Finally, there were three claimants to the papacy, John XXIII, Gregory XII and Benedict XIII. A council set up to resolve the issue secured the resignations of John and Gregory, and excommunicated Benedict when he refused to step down. John W. O’Malley, S.J. says, in A History of the Popes, page 150, that the Catholic church has never made a formal pronouncement on the claimants, but especially in the past hundred years the Holy See has in the lists of popes it regularly publishes always sided with the Roman over the Avignonese line.


Why and when did allegorical interpretations of Scripture lose their appeal? Gregory of Nyssa's book The Life of Moses is, if nothing else, a very interesting read. He goes through Moses' account in Exodus and ascribes spiritual meanings to every little detail, although it is doubtful that any of them would pass muster in a pulpit today.
Augustine would also do allegorical interpretations, such as the following:

“Thus as great and brilliant a scholar as Augustine offers the following interpretation of the parable of the Good Samaritan:
A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho = Adam
Jerusalem = the heavenly city of peace from which Adam fell
Jericho = the moon, and thereby signifies Adam’s mortality
Thieves = the devil and his angels
Stripped him = namely of his immortality
Beat him = by persuading him to sin
And left him half-dead = as a man he lives, but he died spiritually, therefore he is half-dead
The priest and the Levite = the priesthood and ministry of the Old Testament
The Samaritan = is said to mean ‘Guardian,’ and therefore means Christ himself
Bound his wounds = means binding therestraint of sin
Oil = comfort of Good hope
Wine = exhortation to work with a fervent spirit
Beast = the flesh of Christ’s incarnation
Inn = the church
The morrow = after the Resurrection
Two-pence = promise of this life and the life to come
Innkeeper = Paul

The above interpretation, however, is a requote from Gordon Fee and Douglas Stuart's classic and authoritative book How to Read the Bible for all its Worth, as an example of how modern interpretation is NOT to be done.  They are right, of course, because allegory really isn't testable in the end.
My question is this - how did the vast majority of modern Christians come to realize that allegory was not the best hermeneutical principle for reading Scripture?  Historically, when did the shift occur, what triggered it, and how did Chalcedonian Christianity come to realize this was not the way to read the Bible?
Along these lines, are there any major strains of Christianity that would accept this? (My guess would be that if anyone still does this, it would be the Eastern Orthodox, but I'd need confirmation)

I'm not sure it completely has abandoned allegorical interpretation.  The PCA church still takes much of Revelation to be allegorical, although the rest of the United States doesn't so much anymore... a result of John Nelson Darby and Cyrus Scofield in the 19th century, who came out with the Scofield Study Bible, with Darby's dispensational, and somewhat more literal interpretation of Revelation.

Many of Jesus parables are still taken allegorically, though they're often coupled with a philosophical Occam's Razor in order to come up with the simplest explanation.

I don't think it's that we don't take parts of the Bible allegorically, I think it's just that we no longer go out of our way to do so, unless the text seems to call for it.

That being said, much of the shift that you're referring to, at least according to Wikipedia, comes from Luther and Calvin, the former of whom came up with the principle of scriptura sui ipsius interpres (Scripture is it's own interpreter), and the latter of whom came with the principle: brevitas et facilitas, brief and relevant.  That, combined with the rationalist and humanist movements of the 15th and 16th centuries combined to make the shift.


How do non-Reformed Theologians interpret Romans 9:11-23? Romans 9:11-23 is often used by Reformed Theologians to support the idea that God created part of the human race for salvation and the other part for damnation.

How do those who are not Reformed (i.e. Arminians but also non-Protestants) interpret these verses?

Many interpret it in light of the rest of the larger section, Romans 9-11, which indicates that Paul's language of election is about Jews and Gentiles. In fact, cutting off that section at verse 23 is quite artificial, and even the Reformed-leaning ESV translation groups 9:1-29 into a single pericope. On this interpretation, election is not a choice by God of an individual for salvation but of a group. Arminians believe that God elected the Church, but that he did not preordain exactly which individuals would compose the Church.

Others (myself included) interpret election as a primarily missional term, not a primarily salvific one. This, too, takes into account Paul's assertion of Israel as the original elect and interprets that as a restatement of the covenant in Genesis 12, in which Israel was appointed as the nation through whom "all the families of the earth will be blessed." The elect, then, are not the only people who will be saved, but rather are the people through whom God will work to bring about the salvation of many (or, to some interpreters, of all).

Sources for further reading:

N.T. Wright - Justificiation, Paul and the Faithfulness of God, and other writings. (This blog post has some relevant excerpts from PFG). Justification is part of a larger dialogue with John Piper, so I recommend that book if you're looking for something that specifically addresses the claims of neo-Calvinism.

Douglas J. Moo - The Epistle to the Romans (New International Commentary on the New Testament series). Moo provides one of the most comprehensive catalogues of the various views held on this passage.

Corporate Election on Wikipedia.


Is the Tamil name Savari derived from the name Xavier? I want to know whether Savari is the Tamil Christian male name for Xavier?

Is the Tamil name Savari derived from the name Xavier?

It appears that the Tamil name Savari is not a Christian name and is unrelated to Xavier, after St. Francis Xavier.

The given name Xavier is a masculine name derived from the 16th-century Spanish Navarrese Roman Catholic Saint Francis Xavier.

St. Francis Xavier’s last name indicates where he is from: Javier, Spain.

Although not a very common name in Tamil, Hindi or Sanskrit, it could be used as a baptismal name in the Catholic Church for it is not offensive to the dignity of Christianity.

In Hindi it means a passenger.
In Sanskrit it means gift of God.
In Tamil it means mounted state or riding.

No exact English transliteration of the Tamil name can be found at the moment, but the above should suffice for now.

The Wikipedia page on the given name of Xavier states that it is as follows in the Tamil language: Savari (சவாரி). However, seeing that it gives no sources for this connection, it must be treated as dubious for the moment. In the Basque language it is a place-name (and surname) etxe berri, meaning 'castle', 'new house' or 'new home'. This does not agree with the above information as regards to the Tamil definitions of this name and is thus doubtful until proven that the contrary is true.

For more information on non-Catholic Christian names and baptism, please read my response to this question: Is Nessa or Vanessa a Catholic name?


What is the Biblical basis that it was was the second person of the Trinity that walked in the garden of Eden? Genesis 3:8 tells us:

  Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the Lord God as he was
  walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the
  Lord God among the trees of the garden

And Exodus 33:20 reads

  But,” he said, “you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and
  live.”

What is the Biblical evidence that this theophany was the second person of the trinity?

The Bible explicitly teaches that no on has seen the Father :
Verses from the bible teach clearly that no one has seen the father -

No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him (John 1:18).
Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be
honor and glory forever and ever. Amen (1 Timothy 1:17).*

Other verses are : John 6:46, John 5:37
In addition to this, the bible teaches clearly that Jesus is the one who reveals the father -
For example John 1:18, already quoted. Colossians 1:15 says "The son is the image of the invisible God". This indicates that wherever God is seen with the naked eye in bodily form such as in the garden of Eden, the one mentioned is the second Person of the trinity, i.e Jesus.


What is the difference between a covenant and a contract? Specifically as used by the Reformed theological tradition, what is meant by the term "covenant"? How is this different than other forms of agreements under assorted names in English like contract, agreement, pact, pledge, etc. How should the term be understood when used as an adjective,  such as in "covenant theology"?

Many reformed theologians would begin a discussion on the topic of covenants with the way they understand the biblical covenants to be formulated.  God uses language and objects we understand to relate His truth to us.  Many Reformed theologians also believe that he used a covenantal structure called a suzreinty vassal treaty which was common among the Hittites at the time of Moses, to structure His covenant with His people so that they would better understand what he meant by it.

A SV treaty has a specific form and purpose which is well explained in the link above and this has a very high level of similarity to the Book of Deuteronomy and other parts of OT scripture.

The important issue here is that there is a distinct difference between this treaty or covenant and a contract.  A contract is entered into by two (or more) parties who both come of their own free volition and they are generally at an equal level as they sign the contract.  In sharp contrast with this is a SV treaty where the suzerain has either conquered or come to the defense of the vassal and imposes the structure of the covenant on the vassal.

On the other side, the suzerain not only imposes his will but also binds himself with duties toward the vassal.  So basically it was something like this:  I (suzerain) delivered you from your enemies, therefore you (vassal state) will pay me tribute and you will send men to serve in my army every year.  In exchange for this I vow to defend you from your enemies.

Many Reformed theologians believe that the covenant God has made with His people is of a similar structure: I created you and even though you rebelled against me I sent my Son to die for you.  I have conquered your enemy the Devil and will continue to defend you from him.  Therefore you will serve me and offer me praise.

Reformed theologians believe that God has created this sort of a covenant with His elect people unilaterally, and that we only love God, because He first loved us and imposed His gracious covenant on our rebellious hearts.


Does the Bible list any "miracles" specifically accomplished by the Devil? Also, could you consider the Devil moving Jesus to the top of the Temple as such?

Satan sent a storm to destroy the home of one of Job’s children while they were all feasting. (Job 1) One of the devil’s titles is the “Lord of the power of the air”.
Satan inflicted a skin disease upon Job. (Job 2)


Is the sequencing of three tests of Jesus at Matthew 22 in chronological order? We read of three different tests of Jesus `taken'by the Pharisees and the Sadducees at Matthew 22:
""Then the Pharisees went out and laid plans to trap him in his words.  They sent their disciples to him along with the Herodians. “Teacher,” they said, ...... Tell us then, ...Is it right to pay the imperial tax to Caesar or not?”......Then he said to them, “So give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.”  When they heard this, they were amazed. So they left him and went away.
That same day the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him with a question.  ........ Jesus replied, “You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God. ....He is not the God of the dead but of the living.”  ......Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
Sequencing of the three tests: first  one on paying of taxes taken by the Pharisees, second one on resurrection taken by the Sadducees and the third one on the most important Commandments taken by the Pharisees suggests that they happened in chronological order, with the fist two happening on the same day. But then, the Pharisees having once failed in trapping Jesus, would not have dared to come back with a fresh trap, at least immediately,  just because Jesus had silenced the Sadducees.  That implies either that the third test  took place much later, or that the first and the third test took place together after the second test. My question therefore is: Did the three tests of Jesus taken by the Pharisees and Sadducees, as mentioned at Mtt: 22 take place in chronological order ? What does the Catholic Church teach about the sequencing of the said tests ?

The detail of the order in which the 'tests' (as you refer to them) are arranged is just one part of the evidence regarding the purpose of each book.
Each of the four gospel accounts is quite clearly covering the period of Jesus' presence on earth according to a certain aspect of Jesus Christ's Person.
That aspect is the purpose of the book - to convey a view of Him.
The four together form a complete revelation. Which is then supplemented by the apostolic doctrine of the epistles and the further Revelation in conclusion.
Each account of the 'tests' conveys a different aspect. And chronology is subservient to the expression of that aspect.
It may be that one of those accounts is in chronological order but which one it is, is not actually relevant. What is relevant is Whom He is and What He is.
For that is the purpose of the four books.
John tells us that such was the activity during that period of time, such the complication of interlocking events, such the extent and profundity of what was happening, that if all were documented in fine detail, then he supposes that the world (of men) itself could not properly contain (in sensible documented form) all the content.
But these are written, says John - that we may believe.
And Luke says that many took in hand to write accounts but they had  not the full knowledge to do so. Wherefore, he took the task upon himself.
What we have, is what we are supposed to have.
No more and no less.
It may be that what you have seen (a series of 'tests') was not actually a feature in the mind of the writers as they wrote. That there appears to be a certain 'pattern' may - or may not - be relevant.
What is important is the overall purpose of the four authors - and of the One Author of them all.


Was It Possible or Not To Keep the Law of Moses? Doing a study on grace and the fulfilment of the Law at present, and wonder if someone can assist: some texts definitely state that it is not humanly possible to perfectly keep the Law. Thus Paul in Romans 7:14-23, 9:31-32, Peter’s words in Acts 15:10, that the Law was a burden that the Israelites could not bear, etc.

However, other texts seem to indicate that keeping the Law was possible.
For instance, concerning the Law and the choice between obedience and disobedience proffered to the Israelites, Moses says (Deuteronomy 30:11),

  ‘Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or
  beyond your reach.’

In other words, they have no excuse for disobedience.

Also, in Philippians 3:6 Paul, in giving his credentials as an impeccable Pharisee, avers that he was, ‘as for righteousness based on the law, faultless.’
There is also the argument and thrust from Romans 7 to 8 that, as heeding of the Law is not possible, the solution is through the power of the Holy Spirit (thus 8:1-4).

A related query might be, then: did the OT Israelites for over 1,000 years go through the same sense of guilt, frustration, and inability to keep the Law as did Paul (cf. Romans 7), because of absence of the indwelling Spirit?

This would seem unfair, but would be in line with the Romans 7 theology of difficulty in keeping the Law. However, how would this square with Moses’ parting exhortation that the Law was ‘not difficult’ (Deut 30.11)?

A thought: might Paul's (and Peter's) comments perhaps have something to do with an attempt at perfectionism, which is attested in the Talmud among first century rabbis?

Is it possible to keep the law of Moses?
Yes, if you are Jesus.
No, if you are not.

The law had specific purposes.  A few include:
1.  Shows the Holy character of God.
2.  Identifies what is and what is not sin.
3.  Reveals to us our need for a Savior.

While the law identified sin, it was inadequate to make a man obey or be righteous.

When Paul said he was blameless, the question that must be asked is "blameless in whose eyes?"  He is either referring to being blameless in his own eyes or the eyes of others.  He was not referring to being blameless in Gods eyes.

  Romans 3:20 because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified
  in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin.


How many prophecies from Hebrew Scriptures are fulfilled in Jesus Christ’s earthly life? The number of prophecies from the OT  that are fulfilled in the birth and life of Jesus ranges as high as 456  depending on which group you ask.

Do Jehovah’s Witnesses state the exact number of prophecies they believe are thus fulfilled?

It is not a settled matter because different Christian scholars have different ideas  on OT verses that may or may not be foreshadowings or prophecies about Jesus.
All agree that there are more than enough to establish that Jesus is the foretold Messiah.

A similar question  was asked in a Watchtower magazine. Part of the answer given explains why nailing down an exact number is difficult

  Not everyone agrees on what is or is not a Messianic prophecy. In his book The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, Alfred Edersheim stated that the ancient rabbinic writings classified 456 passages from the Hebrew Scriptures as Messianic, although many of them do not specifically mention the Messiah.

  A close look at these 456 passages raises questions as to whether some of them are prophetic of Jesus Christ. For example, Edersheim said that the Jews regarded Genesis 8:11 as Messianic. They held that “the olive-leaf, brought by the dove, was taken from the Mount of the Messiah.” The author also mentioned Exodus 12:42. Explaining how the Jews incorrectly understood this text, he wrote: “As Moses came out of the desert, so would the Messiah come out of Rome.”
  Many scholars and others would undoubtedly find it hard to relate these two texts and erroneous explanations to Jesus Christ.

  Even if we restrict our attention to those prophecies that were actually fulfilled in Jesus Christ, we encounter difficulties agreeing on an exact number. Take, for example, Isaiah chapter 53, which contains several prophetic features regarding the Messiah. Isaiah 53:2-7 prophesies: “No stately form does he have . . . He was despised and was avoided by men . . . Our sicknesses were what he himself carried . . . He was being pierced for our transgression . . . He was being brought just like a sheep to the slaughtering.” Should this whole passage in Isaiah chapter 53 be counted as one Messianic prophecy, or should each of these characteristics of the Messiah be viewed as a separate prophecy in its own right?

  Consider, too, Isaiah 11:1, which reads: “There must go forth a twig out of the stump of Jesse; and out of his roots a sprout will be fruitful.” In verse 10, this prophecy appears again, with similar wording. Should we count these two verses as two separate prophecies or as one prophecy that is repeated? The conclusions reached on Isaiah chapter 53 and Isaiah chapter 11 would clearly affect the total number of Messianic prophecies.
  Hence, we do well to avoid being specific about the total number of Messianic prophecies in the Hebrew Scriptures.

There are lists of prophecy’s that Christian scholars agree on that are helpful for us to build our confidence that Jesus is the promised one from the OT. One such list is found here


What happens to non-believers or believers of other religions after death? What happens (according to Christians) to people who specificially rejected the idea of God, the Bible and the christian teachings after they die?

Is there a difference to people who believed in another deity, maybe even several deities?

We have seen questions what happens to people who have never heard about Jesus, unborn babies and children. I did not see that question before, so I asked right away. Additionally I don't ask if we can go to heaven, but simply what happens after our life has ended.

The Bible is very clear that all atheists and non-believers will be sent to the Lake of Fire after they die.  It even goes further than that by specifying a list of people that are not accepted (which covers more than your question!):

  Revelations 21:8 (NIV)
  But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.

To answer the question, it's pretty clear that the Bible does not distinguish between "non-believers" (atheist, agnostic, or what have you) and "believers of other religions".  When it says "the unbelieving" it refers to all non-Christians.

Furthermore, it's the belief in God that brings salvation, not the works.  We can see from this verse that it's what's in a man's heart that determines his salvation.  Every one of these evils can be directly related to a problem in the person's heart.

  Acts 16:31 (NIV)
  They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.”

However, works are an outpouring from faith:

  John 14:15 (NIV)
  If you love me, keep my commands.

And without the faith that produces works, there is no actual faith behind it:

  James 2:14-18 (NIV)
  14 What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? 15 Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. 16 If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? 17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.

  18 But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.”

  Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by my deeds.

Ultimately, to answer the question, all non-believers (people who do not believe in any god, the Christian God, or who believe in another God) along with all people who claim to believe in God but do not have a solid faith will end up in the lake of fire.


Harshness and nihilism I hope you will allow me to ask another question. We all know that there are many harsh statements in the Bible (Matthew 12:31-32, Hebrews 10).

Sometimes, these harsh statements are along the lines of "If such and such a condition is fulfilled, then there is no hope left for such and such a person to whom the condition applies" - i.e. the implication is that such and such a person is doomed to hell.

My question is: Sometimes, a given person does not even know if he or she has fulfilled one of those conditions. To my knowledge, people have tried to give explanations of these scenarios, but I do not know if there is a total, definitive, absolute, verdict, on what these conditions actually are that doom someone to hell without hope.

In life, we usually do not know things with absolute certainty, and a certain amount of belief in positive outcomes of uncertain events is usually needed to preclude a descent into total nihilism. Colloquially, one might say that as long as a person believes there is light at the end of the tunnel, he or she would be able to pick himself or herself up the next day and make an attempt to continue walking with God.

But if this person is faced with uncertainty over eternal salvation, can it trigger nihilism and despair?

Is there ever a situation (or can there be such a situation) where fear over damnation to hell due to the scenarios described led a person who need not have borne such fear, to descend to unnecessary nihilism and hence give up on Christianity with the attitude "well, since I am already condemned unconditionally, what is the point of seeking God any longer?"

(It is true that no one can really be sure of having been condemned unconditionally by the scenarios in Matthew 12 and Hebrews 10, but what if pessimism led the person to progress from the idea that he or she might have committed an unforgivable sin to a belief that he or she had committed it, with the resulting nihilism described above?)

To the bold part of your question, I would answer: I am reasonably sure it has happened, but I cannot name a specific case. Dispair of salvation, and belief that one is "beyond hope" or belief that God "cannot forgive me" are not unheard of.

To your second question:

To the first part:

The Catholic teaching is that no one is beyond redemption prior to the moment of death.
Hebrews is taken to mean, "If you decide to live a sinful life after having believed, you will be condemned." (and, based on other passages in the Bible, it will be worse than had you never believed)
Dying in sin is what "blaspheme of the Holy Spirit" means.

To the second part:

Dispair of salvation, no matter the circumstances, is still dispair of salvation.
If someone will not accept forgiveness, for whatever reason, that person will be condemned.


What does the Bible say about God being a different type of being than man? Most Christians believe God and man are different types of being (Mormons are a notable exception). What passages in the Bible support this? Or is it inferred by the doctrine of the Trinity and the doctrine of only one God?

God is certainly higher than man. This passage from Isaiah spells it out quite clearly.

  Isaiah 55:8-9 (ESV)
   8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
     neither are your ways my ways, declares the LORD.
   9  For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
     so are my ways higher than your ways
     and my thoughts than your thoughts.

Of course, being higher doesn't necessarily imply being different. But we have further proof in that God is omnipotent and omniscient.

  Genesis 17:1 (ESV)
  When Abram was ninety-nine years old the LORD appeared to Abram and said to him, "I am God Almighty; walk before me, and be blameless,

  Matthew 6:4 (ESV)
   4 so that your giving may be in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you.

  Acts 2:23 (ESV)
   23 this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men.

One might still nitpick that omnipotence and omniscience are attributes and don't require being a different type of being. The final point is that God was the first one (as He was before the world and there is only one God). But, one could argue, does the order of existence imply being a different type of being?

I think it's quite obvious that God is a different type of being than man.

But that's arguable—it depends on how the types of beings are defined, i.e. the chosen taxonomy. Similarly, men and natural satellites are quite different, but you could come up with a  classification that puts them into the same class.


Does the Catholic Church have any guidelines as to what is the ideal age to start dating? What is the ideal age for a Christian to start dating? I'm not sure when to start, but I know a very devoted Christian family who thinks the age should be 16.

Does the Catholic Church have any guidelines as to what is the ideal age to start dating?

No. There are only official guidelines for marriage: by the Code of Canon Law (book VI, can 1083)

  A man before he has completed his sixteenth year of age and a woman before she has completed her fourteenth year of age cannot enter into a valid marriage.
  The conference of bishops is free to establish a higher age for the licit celebration of marriage.

Anyway, local churches often follow civil laws for the age of marriage (18 y.o. in most of Europe)


Are sins forgiven without a payment in Matthew 9:1-7? Matthew 9:1-7 involves Jesus forgiving someone's sins. Is this forgiveness granted in light of Jesus' future sacrifice of himself on the cross? If not, how is this person forgiven of their sins since, "under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins?"(Hebrews 9:22, ESV)

  And getting into a boat he crossed over and came to his own city. 2 And behold, some people brought to him a paralytic, lying on a bed. And when Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “Take heart, my son; your sins are forgiven.” 3 And behold, some of the scribes said to themselves, “This man is blaspheming.” 4 But Jesus, knowing[a] their thoughts, said, “Why do you think evil in your hearts? 5 For which is easier, to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Rise and walk’? 6 But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins”—he then said to the paralytic—“Rise, pick up your bed and go home.” 7 And he rose and went home.  Matthew 9:1-7 ESV

This question could also entail those who lived prior to the giving of the law, such as Abraham.

Paul gives us the answer in his letter to the Romans.

  But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— 22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. 26 It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.  Romans 3:21-26 ESV

It must also be noted that the blood of bulls and goats never took away sin:

  For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities, it can never, by the same sacrifices that are continually offered every year, make perfect those who draw near. 2 Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, since the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have any consciousness of sins? 3 But in these sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year. 4 For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.  Hebrews 10:1-4

So, God "forbear" the sins committed beforehand, waiting until the time that the penalty would actually be paid.  It is as if Jesus had taken on the sentencing already, but the sentence had yet to be enacted upon Him.  Thus, the sinner was still free to go, as he was no longer liable for his sin.

In the case of Abraham, the case of the person in this passage, and in the case of us today, it is faith that results in the transfer of our penalty to Christ.