What exactly does one do in the Sabbath? "Observe the Sabbath day by keeping it holy, as the Lord your God has commanded you. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your male or female servant, nor your ox, your donkey or any of your animals, nor any foreigner residing in your towns, so that your male and female servants may rest, as you do."- Deuteronomy 5:12-14.

  "Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your male or female servant, nor your animals, nor any foreigner residing in your towns. For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy."- Exodus 20:8-11.

So what exactly does "not doing work" mean? Does this mean worshipping God or alternatively, sleeping in, engaging in entertainment, hanging out with friends etc.?

Isalah 58:13

If thou turn away thy foot from the sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day; and call the sabbath a delight, the holy of the LORD, honourable; and shalt honour him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words:

this verse sheds a little light on how to obey the commandment. according to him, hanging out with friends is clearly not recommended. then what remains? even “sleeping” is a verb, that is, an action that formally may be prohibited, which is absurd! There is a text, also, which says that priests in the temple violate the Sabbath by working, but it is possible for them. it seems to me that the only right option is to turn to the sources in the book of Genesis, it was there that the Sabbath was first mentioned. God rejoiced at everything that, according to the book, he did in 6 days, enjoyed it. According to this, it seems logical to me to assume that the actions of "rejoicing", "praying", "serving others" are the right way to fulfill the commandment.


Where does Augustine say that the rapture of the saved soul will "flow over" into the glorified body? In The Weight of Glory, C. S. Lewis writes:

  What would it be to taste at the fountainhead that stream of which even these lower reaches prove so intoxicating?  Yet that, I believe, is what lies before us.  The whole man is to drink joy from the fountain of joy.  As St. Augustine said, the rapture of the saved soul will "flow over" into the glorified body.  In light of our present specialised and depraved appetites, we cannot imagine this torrens voluptatis, and I warn everyone most seriously not to try.

I haven't been able to find where Augustine actually said this.  Where in Augustine's writings is the original quote and its context?

Arend Smilde finds the answer to this question in Augustine's letter to Dioscorus (CXVIII), 3.14:

  Now, perfect health of body shall be the consummation of the immortality of the whole man. For God has endowed the soul with a nature so powerful, that from that consummate fulness of joy which is promised to the saints in the end of time, some portion overflows also upon the lower part of our nature, the body,—not the blessedness which is proper to the part which enjoys and understands, but the plenitude of health, that is, the vigour of incorruption.

The reference to torrens voluptatis is apparently distinct, using phrasing from the Vulgate and Augustine's exposition of Psalm 35:9 (or, 36:8):

  “And of the torrent of Thy Pleasure shalt Thou give them to drink.” [et torrente voluptatis tuae potabis eos] A torrent we call water coming with a flood. There will be a flood of God’s Mercy to overflow and inebriate those who now put their trust under the shadow of His wings. What is that Pleasure? As it were a torrent inebriating the thirsty. Let him then who thirsts now, lay up hope: whoso thirsts now, let him have hope; when inebriated, he shall have possession: before he have possession, let him thirst in hope. “Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness, for they shall be filled.”


Was Martin Luther a Protestant or a Traditionalist Catholic? Martin Luther, a Catholic monk who rebelled against the malpractices of the Pope and hegemony of the Vatican said ''I have not left the Catholic Church, the Catholic Church has left me'', believed in almost all practices and rituals of Catholicism, such as infant baptism, veneration of Virgin Mary, use of idols and crosses in prayer, transubstantiation during the Eucharist, etc. He even considered the prominent figures of the Protestant Reformation, such as Ulrich Zwingli, John Calvin, etc as deviants. He just challenged the infallibility of the Papacy and absolute authority of the Vatican in socio-religious affairs. Was Luther a 'Protestant' or a Traditionalist Catholic?

Luther started out as a traditional Catholic and became a very zealous one, but as the name ‘Protestant’ was not coined until 1529 (due to the protest at the Diet of Speyer) your question can only be answered in light of that progression of event.

Luther was born in 1483, brought up as a Catholic, then made a voluntary vow to God when aged 21, while a student at the University of Erfurt. This was occasioned by being struck to the ground due to a bolt of lightning. He cried out to the patron saint of miners, “Saint Anne! Help me! I will become a monk!” Two weeks later, he had entered a strict Augustinian monastery as a novice. Later, he was selected for the priesthood by his superior. Luther set himself to the pursuit of holiness. Sometimes he would fast three days on end, and he laid upon himself vigils and prayers in excess of those stipulated by the rule, writing:

  “I was a good monk, and I kept the rule of my order so strictly that I
  may say that if ever a monk got to heaven by his monkery it was I. All
  my brothers in the monastery who knew me will bear me out. If I had
  kept on any longer, I should have killed myself with vigils, prayers,
  reading, and other work.” Here I Stand, Roland Bainton, p45 (Lion
  1988)

After returning from a visit to Rome in 1510, he was transferred from Erfurt to Wittenberg. He was appointed a professor at the university in 1511. Under the guidance of his spiritual mentor, Dr. Staupitz, he advanced into the mystic system of Catholicism and became a Doctor of Theology. This is all part of the case for saying that Luther was a staunch Catholic of the most traditional type.

However, we all know that that changed after he posted 95 points for discussion on the eve of All Saints in 1517. The posting of his affirmations was traditional, however. That was the way scholars would be invited to debate issues. Luther made no attempt to disseminate his complaints among the people. Others surreptitiously translated the theses into German and gave them to the press. Luther sent a copy to Albert of Mainz, who then forwarded them to Pope Leo.

There is no need to detail the events that led to Luther being excommunicated by the Pope. On 10 October, 1520 the papal Bull reached Luther and 60 days later, he was officially put out of the Catholic Church with much burning of his books, and a curse. However, the title “Protestant” could not be applied either to him or those who agreed with his theological stance until the Diet of Speyer in 1529, after which they were first called “Protestants”.  After all those events, to ask if Martin Luther was a Protestant is a bit like asking, “Is the Pope a Catholic?”


Praying for someone's salvation. Is there a point? According to I Timothy 2:4 (NIV), God "...wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth".

But since we have free will, God cannot make us choose to accept the salvation that is available through his Son.

Since I believe that God loves others more than I can, and he desires them to be saved. I think it's logical to conclude that he's going to do everything He can to draw them to Him.

So then what is the point of praying for someone's salvation?

Even if we can't pray away someone else's free will or convince God to bend the rules regarding the requirements of salvation, there can still be merit in praying on behalf of others with a slightly different attitude.  Perhaps "let them have experiences that will lead them to the truth," or "let their hearts be softened, that they may give heed to the Holy Spirit and accept the truth when it is presented to them" would be more appropriate.

And, as JustinY pointed out in his comment, praying for the welfare of others can be beneficial to us.  Simply because we pray to God for something to happen doesn't mean we can't directly take part in bringing such a prayer to fruition.  If we seek to truly pray in Jesus's name and harmonize our will with his, it will lead us to be more conscious of the spiritual needs of others in our day-to-day lives, and to find effective ways to bring others to Christ.


According to the Catholic Church, do animals have free will? Do animals have free will or are they already pre-defined in what they do?  Also, how does the answer to this question affect humans when we use our free will to interact with animals? I'm looking for the Catholic view point.

I'm not sure if the Church has an explicit doctrinal position on this question, but I can give you the view of classical philosophy,  as originally expounded by Aristotle and then developed chiefly by St. Thomas Aquinas. This view undergirds the thinking of most orthodox Catholic theologians, historically speaking.

In this way of thinking -- assuming you mean non-human animals, the short answer is 'no'.

Classical philosophy identifies three kinds of soul, each with its own distinctive powers:

The vegetative soul has the powers of nutrition, growth, and reproduction
The sensitive soul has the powers of the vegetative soul but also the powers of sense, imagination, and memory.
The rational soul has the powers of the sensitive and vegetative souls, but also the powers of reason and will.

Plants have vegetative souls1. Most animals have sensitive souls, but human animals have rational souls.

The implication of saying that men have wills and animals don't is that men can, at least in principle, choose what they understand to be good even when it's not what their senses immediately perceive as good. E.g. I can choose to eat my supper before my dessert even when both are sitting in front of me.

Whereas non-human animals are pretty much compelled to pursue the goods that their senses perceive, unless they are directed otherwise by a rational will (e.g.,. a well-trained work animal is largely subject to the will of its owner).

1 Yep, I did indeed say plants have souls. In classical philosophy the "soul" is in general just that which living things have, but non-living things don't have (that's a very informal account).


The New Testament teaches that Christ was baptized to “fulfill all righteousness” (Matthew 3:14–15)--what does this mean? In Matthew 3:14-15 it says,

  And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it
  becometh us to fulfill all righteousness. Then he suffered him.

Can someone please expound what Christ was referring to when He said that He should be baptized to "fulfill all righteousness" (I am specifically looking for what it means to fulfill all righteousness)?

After thinking about this for some time, and pondering on people's answers/comments, I think the answer is more simple--in my opinion.

If Jesus Christ, being holy, has need of baptism, then we definitely need it.

He set the ultimate example, and if we are to follow Him we should also be baptized. Jesus Christ's example was one of never varying from the strait and narrow path--being obedient to His Father's commands in ALL things. Thus, He showed his humility and obedience to the Father by being baptized to "fulfil all righteousness"

In Matthew 4:19, it says,

  And he saith unto them, Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men.

The Apostle Peter taught that baptism was a commandment in Acts 2:28.

  Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in
  the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall
  receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

How can we follow the example of Jesus, save we are willing to keep the commandments of the Father?


What are the origins of the theory, present in the "Didascalia Apostolorum", about the existence of a "First Law" and a "Second Law"? I recently read a study on the "Didascalia Apostulorum",probably composed in Syria in the first half of the third century AD.

I was very impressed by the theory contained therein, according to which it is necessary to discern, within the commandments of the Pentateuch, between a "First Law", also simply called "Law", and a "Second Law". The precepts of the "First Law" are represented by the Decalogue and more generally by the rules of the Torah that the Creator issued before the Israelites committed idolatry by worshiping the golden calf.
The commandments of the "First Law" are eternal and constitute a "sweet yoke" for the human being; after the adoration of the golden calf, the Creator instead issued a "Second Law", made up of a "heavy burden" of rules which take on a substantially punitive and afflictive guise. In this context, Jesus Christ would come to repeal the "Second Law" and thus free the faithful from this burden.

Do you know the historical-theological origin of this theory?

I think the theory is based on a faulty understanding of the Scriptures.

Jesus, when asked about the greatest commandment in the law, answered:

"...'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.'  This is the first and great commandment."  [Matthew 22:37, 38, MEV].
And Jesus went further:

"And the second is like it: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.'  On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets." [Matthew 22:39, 40]

It should be noted that neither of these commandments is included in the Ten Commandments, and that both were given after the golden calf idolatry of the Israelites:  therefore, both of these would fall under the theory's classification of "Second Law."

Two commandments of the "'heavy burden' of rules" were judged by Jesus to be the two greatest commandments of the entire Law.


Can you explain the conflict between 2 Corinthians 5:10 and Isaiah 43:25? 2 Corinthians 5:10(KJV)

  10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.

Isaiah 43:25(KJV)

  25 I, even I, am he that blotteth out thy transgressions for mine own sake, and will not remember thy sins.

These scriptures appear to contradict each other. Can you explain, please?

There is no contradiction when we understand the nature of the "judgment seat" of Christ.  That seat is in contrast to the "great white throne".

  For we [believers] must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.

At 2 Cor. 5:10, the word for judgment seat is bema.  This is believers only.  We know this because the context for this is in verse 5.

  Now he that hath wrought us for the selfsame thing is God, who also hath given unto us the earnest of the Spirit.
  2 Cor. 5:5

Only believers have the deposit of the Spirit unto eternal life.  We will appear before Christ at the bema.  It is not for judgment as sins are forgiven, but for rewards.

"At this bema believers are to be made manifest, that each may "receive the things done in (or through) the body," according to what he has done, "whether it be good or bad." There they will receive rewards for their faithfulness to the Lord."
Vines

That seat is identical to the one Isaiah 43:25 refers.  It is not for condemnation as transgressions are blotted out and sins are forgiven, but for reward.  Of course there may not be reward, but one still is saved as though through fire (1 Cor. 3:15).

At the great white throne in contrast, there is judgment of the dead, not the living in Christ.  Again the living in Christ appear at the bema.  All others, the dead, appear at the thronos (the throne of God) for judgment.

  And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.  And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
  Rev. 20:11-12

So, there is no conflict between 2 Corinthians 5:10 and Isaiah 43:25.


Did Thomas Aquinas rate masturbation as a greater sin than rape? It is sometimes said that St. Thomas Aquinas taught that rape is a lesser sin than masturbation. Is this actually the case?
Here are two examples:

[In Aquinas's view], Because sins against nature were sins against God, they were considered more serious than sins against other people, such as adultery, seduction, and rape (John F. Schumaker, Religion and Mental Health [Oxford University Press US], 1992), 76). To make his point perfectly clear, Aquinas poses a question: are not rape and adultery worse than unnatural acts, since they harm other persons, while consensual sins against nature do not? The answer is unequivocal: the four non-procreative forms of sex are worse, since–though not harmful to others–they are sins directly against God himself as the creator of nature. According to this logic, rape, which may at least lead to pregnancy, becomes a less serious sin than masturbation (Louis Crompton, Homosexuality and Civilisation, [Harvard University Press, 2006], 188).
"A practice opposed to the pattern set for us by nature" exceeds in wickedness the seduction of an innocent of the opposite sex, adultery, and rape (II-II 154:12) (Sex from Plato to Paglia, by Alan Soble [Greenwood Publishing Group, 2006], 1053).

What is the source of this notion, and is the statement true in context?  If it is, what led Aquinas to this conclusion?

Here is what Aquinas actually wrote:

  In each kind of thing the worst corruption is the corruption of the principle on which other things depend. Now the principles of reason are the things in accord in nature… and therefore, to act against what is determined by nature, is most serious and base. Therefore since in the sins against nature man transgress what is determined by nature in regard to sex, the sin in this matter is the gravest kind of sin. After this is incest… while by the other species of lust one transgresses only that which is determined according to right reason, but presupposing the natural principles. But it is more contrary to reason to have sex not only contrary to the good of the offspring to be born, but also with injury to another. And therefore simple fornication, which is committed without injury to another person, is the least kind of lust.

Summa Theologiae II-II, q. 154, a. 12

It's from a passage where Aquinas is talking about different kinds of sin. There are, for example, sexual sins; sins against justice; sins against charity; sins directly against God. Any sinful act can fall under one or more categories.

Aquinas' point is that, considering only the sexual element, an unnatural act is worse than a natural one, and that's why he says masturbation is a worse sexual sin than rape. However masturbation is essentially only a sexual act, and rape has other sinful elements - it is also a sin against justice and a sin against charity.

It's like we are grading sins on many scales. Masturbation scores worse than rape on the sex scale, but it doesn't score at all on the charity or justice scales. Rape on the other hand scores moderately on the sex scale, but very badly on the justice and charity scales. Overall, rape is worse than masturbation. The church has never taught anything different.

Most of this answer is taken from: Aquinas on Sexual Sins


Which Person(s) of the Trinity were in Jesus? The doctrine of the Trinity teaches that God is one, and God is three (Father, Son, Holy Spirit.) From what I understand the Eternal Son came in human flesh, and we know that resultant man as Jesus of Nazareth. So would it be accurate to say God the Son was operating in a human body as "Jesus"? Were the Father and/or Spirit also in Him?

(I am, of course, looking for answers from a Trinitarian perspective.)

All three persons of the Trinity are in a perichoretic union.1 Hence, the Holy Spirit is called the Spirit of the Father2 and the Spirit of the Son,3 yet there still exist three persons of the Trinity.4
The Son said, “I and my Father are one,”5 to which the Jews picked up stones in order to stone him. He also told Phillip, “I am in the Father and the Father is in me.”6 By means of the Holy Spirit, the other Comforter,7 the Father and the Son would dwell in individual Christians.8
The Father is essentially and spiritually (obviously, not physically, as in the sense of a corporality) in the Son, as the Son is spiritually in the Father, and both are spiritually in the Holy Spirit, as there is a unity of essence. In such a manner, the Father is indeed in the Son, not only by a unity of will, as some assert. Thus, the apostle Paul wrote that “God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself.”9

Footnotes
1 From the Greek word περιχώρησις
2 Matt. 10:20 cp. Mark 13:11
3 Gal. 4:6
4 Matt. 28:19
5 John 10:30
6 John 14:10–11
7 John 14:16
8 John 14:23
9 2 Cor. 5:19


In which denomination(s) are Christians allowed to bury and hold a Christian funeral for their deceased nonreligious or just non-Christian relative? In which denomination(s) are Christians allowed to bury or hold a Christian funeral for their deceased nonreligious or just non-Christian relative in a Christian cemetery near the church?

I am thinking about an instance where a non-Christian or nonreligious family member dies, and relatives just happen to be Christians. Do Christians ask their minister to perform a funeral for the deceased individual, or do they ask a humanist funeral officiant to do the job? Also, is there a general rule for allowing or disallowing non-Christians to be buried in a Christian cemetery, or is that more of a denominational sort of thing or is that up to the pastor to decide?

I haven't had to organize any funerals in this fashion, so this is going to be more of an opinion than anything.

I think that you should be able to perform a Christian Funeral for anyone, whether they be Christian or otherwise.

@Mawia, I don't think that a Christian Minister would have a hard time preparing a message.

I grew up LDS (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints {Mormon}) and when my Brother Passed away, my father asked me to speak.  So I picked something that I thought was relevant, I talked about when Jesus was on the Cross, his conversation with the two thieves, and the one acknowledged who Jesus was pretty much with his last breath, and Jesus said that he would be standing next to him in Heaven.  by doing this Jesus Said I don't care when you decide to believe in Me, I just want you to Believe in me.  pretty much saying you don't necessarily have to be baptized, that he knew this man's life was lived in Sin, but that the man saw the error of his ways and accepted that Jesus would save him, and that was enough for God's Grace.

I think this message given at a Funeral might seem like a low blow, but when someone is at a funeral they need that hope that there is life after death, and need to know that God Cares, and that He is patiently waiting for you to Accept His Son, and give you Salvation.

I no longer claim to be LDS and at the time I didn't claim to be LDS either.  I claim to have a relationship with Jesus, and any church that helps that relationship grow is a good one.

I think that most churches that claim to be Christian would have no problem performing a funeral service for someone that was not Christian.  The real question comes down to what the family wants.


What makes the spirit and body inseparable after the resurrection? According to Mormon doctrine, body and spirit combined constitute a soul. Every man and woman that has ever lived on earth, previously lived as a spirit in the preexistence, and was born to earth into a mortal body prepared by mortal parents. Our mortal bodies are frail, and eventually die, at which point our spirits are separated from them until the resurrection.

I remember learning about body and spirit as a child, when our Sunday school teachers would explain that our bodies were like a glove, and our hands like our spirit. When the hand is in the glove it gives the glove life, but when we take it out, then the glove dies. After the resurrection, our spirits are reunited with our bodies, but cannot die again meaning that they are forever thereafter inseparable (see Romans 6:9).

According to Mormon Doctrine, What happens to our spirit and body during the resurrection that makes them inseparable?

I suppose this is not what you want to hear, but:

The separation of spirit and body is death. That means immortality implies that spirit and body will not be separated again. Resurrection makes us immortal.

This is the logic I would follow: Resurrection -> body immortal -> spirit & body inseparable
Instead of what seems to be your logic: Resurrection -> spirit & body inseparable -> body immortal

As to what makes us immortal: no clue


Why did God relent on killing Moses when Zipporah circumcised their son? In Exodus 4 we are told that God sought to kill Moses for not circumcising his son in accordance with the law given to Abraham in:
Genesis 17:11 KJV

And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.

but he relented on killing Moses when Moses' wife Zipporah took a sharp stone and circumcised the child, even though Moses himself did not circumcise the boy.
Exodus  4:24  through 26 KJV

24And it came to pass by the way in the inn, that the LORD met him, and sought to kill him.
25Then Zipporah took a sharp stone, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast it at his feet, and said, Surely a bloody husband art thou to me.
26So he let him go: then she said, A bloody husband thou art, because of the circumcision.

It seems strange that God relented with Moses and yet killed the men of Bethshemesh:
1 Samuel 6:19  KJV

And he smote the men of Bethshemesh, because they had looked into the ark of the LORD, even he smote of
the people fifty thousand and threescore and ten men: and the people lamented, because the LORD had
smitten many of the people with a great slaughter.

and Uzza for using his hand to keep the Ark from falling off thee cart:
1Ch 13:9 & 10  KJV

9And when they came unto the threshingfloor of Chidon, Uzza put forth his hand to hold the ark; for the oxen stumbled.
10And the anger of the LORD was kindled against Uzza, and he smote him, because he put his hand to the
ark: and there he died before God.

While I full well understand that God does not need to explain his reasons, it would seem that a just God would treat both Moses and Uzza the same.
God must have had his reasons for doing it this way; are there Biblical reasons for believing his behavior in this case was consistent with the other behavior I've mentioned?

The Bible "stories" teach us about the nature of God.  They sometimes serve as a warning and other times they encourage a closer relationship with God.

These stories are not casual happenings; they are recorded in the Bible as an everlasting message to God’s children.  So in the case of Uzza, the Ark is the presence of God on Earth.  When Uzza reached out to save the Ark this is in complete contrast to the “truth”, God saves man, man does not save God.  So while this seems harsh and Uzza may have reacted out of instinct the eternal-stakes were much greater than Uzza’s life.  We also must realize that just because God took Uzza’s life it does not follow that Uzza went to Hell, but may have gone to be with the Lord.

Once Moses’ son was circumcised God no longer sought to kill Moses.  God instructs Moses to tell Pharaoh that Israel is God’s first-born son.  Israel ultimately bore the “only begotten Son” Jesus Christ.  Obviously Moses’ neglect regarding his own son was inexcusable and compromised the validity of God’s full message to humanity.  God will not compromise; He is not tolerant but patient (long-suffering), which is an attribute of God’s love.

The same is true with the people of Beth Shemesh that compromised these sacred articles of God, by looking into the Ark of the Covenant.  All of these stories send a message even to this day.


Does a Christian have enemies outside of the world, the flesh, and the devil? An often repeated phrase I hear is that "The enemies of the Christian are world, the flesh, and the devil." But I wonder, does God's word reveal to us that there are more enemies than those 3 that we should be wary of?
The phrase above is not a phrase in the bible but it's no doubt passed around because it's easy to remember and poignantly true. I just wonder if there's explicitly more than that.
Below are some verses identifying the hurdles of the world, the flesh, and the devil--but I wonder if there is anything else that we must fight against.
World:

James 4:4 NIV You adulterous people, don’t you know that friendship with the world means enmity against God? Therefore, anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God.

Romans 12:2 NIV Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.

Flesh:

Galatians 5:13 NIV You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh; rather, serve one another humbly in love.

Galatians 6:7-8 NIV Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. Whoever sows to please their flesh, from the flesh will reap destruction; whoever sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life.

Romans 7:25 ESV Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.

Devil:

1 Peter 5:8 NIV Be alert and of sober mind. Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour.
Ephesians 6:11 ESV Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the schemes of the devil.

The phrase in question comes from the Book of Common Prayer, from the Litany.

FROM all evil and mischief; from sin; from the crafts and assaults of the devil; from thy wrath, and from everlasting damnation,    Good Lord, deliver us.
From all blindness of heart; from pride, vainglory, and hypocrisy; from envy, hatred, and malice, and all uncharitableness,    Good Lord, deliver us.
From all inordinate and sinful affections; and from all the deceits of the world, the flesh, and the devil, Good Lord, deliver us.
From lightning and tempest; from earthquake, fire, and flood; from plague, pestilence, and famine; from battle and murder, and from sudden death, Good Lord, deliver us.

The first edition of the Book of Common Prayer was published in 1549, and being the first church service in English, it had a profound impact on English religious phraseology.  Its also where "till death do us part" comes from.
It might be an interesting exercise, I suppose, to go through the list of things there and cross-reference with a Bible concordance.


What is the Catholic Church's explanation of its listing of the Ten Commandments? From Decalogue in Exodus 20:2-17 (RSVCE) and Deuteronomy 5:6-21 (RSVCE) has the the Catholic Church explained in her history and Tradition how she settled on this list of the Ten Commandments?

One accusation against the Church is that they can then get away with making graven images.

There is no official Catholic division of Ten commandments. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

  The division and numbering of the Commandments have varied in the course of history. The present catechism follows the division of the Commandments established by St. Augustine, which has become traditional in the Catholic Church. It is also that of the Lutheran confessions. The Greek Fathers worked out a slightly different division, which is found in the Orthodox Churches and Reformed communities. (CCC 2066)

The Catechism states that it uses the Augustinian grouping because it is traditional and it rhymes easily which makes it easy to memorize. (CCC 2065) Catholics thus have liberty of conscience in determining which division of the Decalogue they believe best. That is there is no correct way to group the ten commandments.

Catechism also argues that The Decalogue (Ten Commandments) forms a coherent whole. Each "commandments" refers to each of the others and to all of them; they reciprocally condition one another. To transgress one commandment is to infringe all the others. (CCC 2069) So, grouping of the commandments does not matter as long as all 10 are held together.

The main two differences in the division of the Ten commandments are:

Grouping of commandment against other gods and idols:

Idols are only of interest to God insofar as they are false gods. God has no problem with statues in general, or even religious statues. It is only because they are considered to be gods that the Lord is interested in them as this violates his territory. God himself has commanded Israelite to build statues (Exo 25:18). If God had problem with Idols Per se, then how can God ask them to violate his own commandment?

By dividing the no false gods and no idols as two commandments like:

Commandment 1: You shall have no other gods before me.

Commandment 2: You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them; for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments. [emphasis added]

The latter would be almost eight times as long as the former; Commandment 1 is 5 words long in Hebrew, while the next is 39 words long. Please note that the italicized part of Commandment 2 makes no sense if it is for making idols alone. As God has no reason to be jealous of an idol if it is NOT worshiped as a god equal to Him (which is the Commandment 1).
Coveting a neighbor's wife and desiring his property be grouped together or not?

The Deuteronomy 5 version of the  Ten commandments uses different verbs for these commandments. It says one must not "covet" your neighbor's spouse, but that one must not "desire" a neighbor's property. Two separate verbs, thus reasonably considered as two separate commandments.

See: The Division of the Ten Commandments by James Akin


Is there tradition in Judaism about seeing God through nine mirrors? I have a vague recollection of hearing that in Jewish tradition, it was not possible to view God directly because of his holiness/ majesty/ awe.  The only way to survive seeing his face was if it were reflected nine times through mirrors. I'm sure I heard of this tradition in some commentary on the NT passage, "now we see dimly through a mirror..." Q: Is there such a tradition?

But I cannot remember the source. I recently repeated this to some knowledgable friends at a bible study and they were flabbergasted. I cannot seem to find it at Google, but their results seem to pick 2-3 words at random from your query.

I don't know about Judaism, but I did run across something that sounds like what you're looking for.  It's not nine mirrors, but two mirrors, the first with nine facets, and that we can't see God directly or clearly through either of the individual facets, or even in the first mirror.

  A TALE OF TWO MIRRORS An Exposition of I Corinthians 13:8-13

  An Examination of the Biblical Basis of the Charismatic Movement

  by B. L. Turner

It can be found at http://ncbible.org/resources/Tale2Mirrors.html

Note that it is from a Cessationist point of view, a view rejected by those in the Charismatic Churches.

It's an interesting read.  It speaks of two mirrors.  The first has nine facets.  Each of these facets represents a gift, through which we see God, but not fully or partly.

  The complete mirror consisted of a mosaic of nine pieces, that is, the
  nine gifts. Paul asked a series of rhetorical questions which make it
  quite certain that no one person had all the segments of that first
  mirror. He asked, “Are all workers of miracles? Have all gifts of
  healings? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret?” (I Corinthians
  12:29-30). If the advocates of today’s Tongues Movement could impose
  their will, all Christians would indeed speak with tongues even though
  that was never the divine intention. Because no one person had all the
  segments of that mosaic mirror, sometimes Christians in New Testament
  times could not use that part of the mirror which they did possess.
  Paul’s command about that issue makes the point clear. He charged, “If
  any man speaketh in a tongue...let one interpret: but if there be no
  interpreter, let him keep silence in the church.” (I Corinthians
  14:27-28) Obviously, had every recipient of those special gifts
  received all the parts of the mirror, that is, all the gifts, an
  interpreter would always have been present.

  To have used one isolated part of that mirror would simply not have
  given a complete enough reflected image to have been spiritually
  beneficial or useful. Therefore, it would only have been a novelty or
  a curiosity. It would have qualified, perhaps, at least, for a short
  while, as an amusement to the idly curious, such as the Athenians who
  sought only to hear or tell some novel thing. (Acts 17:20-21) The use
  of one isolated part of the mirror would not have contributed to the
  edifying of the church. Since that was the purpose for which the gifts
  had been given (I Corinthians 14:5), such a perverted use of those
  gifts was understandably prohibited.

The second mirror is Scripture, which is, per the teaching, teh perfect mirror, which allows us to make sense of what we see in the first.

  From James’ statement it is clear that it is the word of God, not the
  temporary spiritual gifts which shows the entire image as it truly is
  and gives complete insight into spiritual reality. If there is any
  lack of perception where the Scripture is available, it is not because
  the reflected image is defective. It is because people make a habit of
  going away (The verb form “goeth” in the older English translations of
  James 1:24 expresses the habitual or continuous present tense of the
  verb) and do not habitually continue to look into the word. Similarly,
  the eth ending of the verbs “looketh” and “continueth” in James 1:25
  express the continuous present tense of each verb.

The teaching ends with this:

  A Tale of Two Mirrors, then, becomes a story of one beautiful,
  complete and perfect mirror which exists and is available to anyone
  who wishes to know the truth. It is the written form of the perfect
  law of liberty, that is, the New Testament. The other mirror used to
  exist, but even then it was partial and inadequate. Therefore we
  should not regret its removal nor seek to have it restored, especially
  since no one can restore it anyway. The alleged restorations are
  totally anti-scriptural and are, therefore, fraudulent with no more
  reality than a mirage.

  Every sincere seeker who uses the Perfect Mirror will be able to see
  the whole picture, the true picture, the past picture and the future
  picture. Let us, therefore, press on unto perfection! Let us not try
  to become heirs of those gifts which have passed away, but heirs of
  “the gift” (Acts 2:38-39) which will abide as long as God is calling
  sinners to himself, the gift without which, according to Rornans 8:9,
  no one is a true Christian.


What is the Biblical basis for the idea of accepting one's "station" in life? Often people say that they have a job, friend, or other "station" in life for a "reason" (including health, wealth, etc.). They feel that it is their obligation to stick it out in a job or personal situation that may be detrimental in some way especially when it is emotionally or mentally draining, but also even when it is a flat-out health risk.

The exact phrase, in regard to people, I have heard from two people that have never met each other but are both Christians is "when I meet someone I feel like they are supposed to be in my life [forever]".

Other mantras exist for work situations also, but none come to mind at this moment.

I recently asked a Christian leader about what his take was on the subject and I got back that we should stick with these things unless they cause us to stumble in our Christian way of life.

What is the Biblical basis for this thinking?

I would like to know if there is a difference in how we are supposed to handle different situations; job, people, other....

Side note

It seems to follow a general thought of sticking it out in tough situations God will eventually reward you for your hard work and diligence in putting up with (mostly) other peoples [caused] problems. This seems wrong because the entire Bible is about God's grace we don't earn or deserve what we get from God, so how would sticking it out in any situation that is the least bit bad be a good thing? Why not move on and take steps to better ourselves by getting away from situations that are the least bit detrimental, an extreme example in my mind would be that of not seeking treatment for a health problem.

I take "station" to mean more of one's social status. As far as that goes, I give you:

  1 Corinthians 7:21 Art thou called being a servant? care not for it:
  but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather.

So, there's no obligation to stay in your station if you can be made free from it.

Similarly, I would say there's no obligation to stay with any person--aside from a spouse and even that is given some room in the Bible (Proverbs 21:9). But as regards friends and acquaintances, we have no obligation. In fact, I can only think of verses that say otherwise:

  Proverbs 14:7 Go from the presence of a foolish man, when thou
  perceivest not in him the lips of knowledge.

  1 Corinthians 5:11 But now I have written unto you not to keep
  company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or
  covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an
  extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

  2 Thessalonians 3:6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our
  Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that
  walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of
  us.

I think so many people's lives are ruled by what your friend said. Their mantra is "I feel like..." instead of an actual Bible principle.


To "once saved always saved" advocates, what does it mean that church leaders "keep watch over our souls"? Many evangelicals believe that people cannot lose their salvation due to disobedience. If that is so, why do we need people to "keep watch over our souls"?

  Hebrews 13:17 (ESV) Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you.

Because although Christians cannot lose their salvation, they can still appear before the Lord in shame rather than in confidence (1 John 2:28). The good shepherds who watch over the flock want them to enter into the best the Lord has for them, and not be "scarcely saved" (1 Peter 4:17-18). Not all Christians will inherit a crown and rule with Christ; that belongs to the worthy.

So the verse is about obeying the leaders so that they'll be able to give a good testimony of your conduct at the judgment seat of Christ. It appears that the Lord will weigh their words, so let them say you obeyed and not resisted, or it will go bad for you.

For instance, if you look at 2 Peter 1:5-11, we see that continuing in sanctification leads to an abundant entrance into the kingdom. Verse 8 begins with "For if," making it conditional. Otherwise we are shortsighted and are not dealing with sin. God makes a difference, but saves both Christians.


How does reformed theology reconcile the universal resurrection with limited atonement When reading about the Reformed doctrine of limited atonement I can follow the logical flow as follows:

Hell is punishment for sin, the outpouring of the wrath of God
Heaven is being with God in the afterlife, which is only possible if our sins are paid for due to divine justice.
Christ came to offer forgiveness of sins
All those who have their sins forgiven therefore will be in Heaven
Not all end up in heaven
Therefore the atonment is limited to those God has selected to forgive

One of my arguments against this logical construct is to point out that the actual punishment for sin outlined in Genesis is death; and Christ's work obviously does universally redeem all men from death by the resurrection in an unlimited/universal way. How do reformed theologians answer the fact that Christ's atoning work does actually remove the fundamental consequence of sin for everyone? Is it simply to punish those who end up in Hell?

All of the discussions of limited atonement to this point have completely left out the universal resurrection. Is it irrelevant to the point? If so why?

The Reformed understanding of the wages of sin being death is that the preeminent death we suffer is not physical, but rather spiritual. In Genesis 2:17, Adam was told "you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die." Yet when he ate of it, he did not immediately physically die. In the New Testament, several passages explain this more clearly.

  For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom he will. For the Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son, that all may honor the Son, just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him. Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.

John 5:21-24

Here we see that those who hear and believe have passed from death to life (even while their bodies are still alive).

  Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his.

Romans 6:3-5

We are united with Christ through baptism into his burial, and just as he was physically resurrected, so too are we able to walk in newness of life (presently, not just after the physical resurrection).

  Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins.

1 Corinthians 15:12-17

Christ's physical resurrection is not just a promise for us of our future physical resurrection, but an acknowledgement of the power of Christ to take us out of the death of sin into the newness of life in Christ. If Christ was not resurrected, we are still in our sins because that would mean Christ cannot defeat spiritual death. Spiritual life means we are no longer in our sins.

  And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.

Ephesians 2:1-3

Here it is very clear; we were once dead. In what sense? It cannot be physical death, so it must be spiritual death.

  For this is why the gospel was preached even to those who are dead, that though judged in the flesh the way people are, they might live in the spirit the way God does.

1 Peter 4:6

The gospel is preached to those who are dead, not physically (or how could they hear it?) but to those who are spiritually dead, and might live in the spirit (that is, become spiritually alive).

So when people are physically resurrected, this doesn't mean they have been spiritually made alive. They are still spiritually dead, which is far more important than physical death. In addition, there is a sense in which the lake of fire is a perpetual state of physical death in some way, but I don't think that's particularly pertinent. The punishment of sin is primarily spiritual death, not physical death.


What does Eastern-Orthodoxy teach about the Law and Gospel division? In Lutheranism, there is the concept that the whole of Scripture is divided into Law and Gospel. The Law shows us our sins and how we ought to live. In essence, all that is required or that condemns us is law (including verses like "love your God with all your [...]" Luke 10:27).

The Gospel is God's grace and mercy bestowed on us (including verses like "Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!" John 1:29).

What does the Orthodox Church teach about this concept?

The Eastern Orthodox being Christians also believes in the teaching of saint Paul on the subject, but they have a different theology than Lutheranism.    Probably the Best way to answer your question (without spending tons of time researching it) is to point you to an article that covers the correspondence made between Lutheran theologians and an Eastern Orthodox Patriarch that took place a few decades after the death of Martin Luther.

Justification by Faith Alone?
The Reply of Patriarch Jeremiah II to the Lutheran Tübingen Theologians, Concerning the Augsburg Confession (16th cent.)

"... The same also do the ancient writers of the Church teach; for Ambrose saith: 'This is ordained of God, that he that believeth in Christ shall be saved, without works, by faith alone, freely receiving remission of sins." —Article VI of the Augsburg Confession

http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/faithalone.aspx

Here is another article that covers the basic areas of Agreement and disagreement between Lutherans and the Eastern Orthodox in regards to that early contact by the Tubingen theologians.

http://web.archive.org/web/20130128052302/http://www.stpaulsirvine.org/html/sixteenthcentury.htm


What is the biblical basis for switching between the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit as recipients during prayer? I've noticed that some Christians seem to switch the recipient of their prayer as they pray. For example, they may begin their prayer by addressing the Father, but at some point they suddenly switch focus to the "Lord" and start praying to Jesus, then as the prayer continues they directly address the Holy Spirt, then they switch back to either the Father or the Son but you can't really tell which one, and sometimes they switch recipients so quickly that to me the whole prayer looks like a "multiplexing" kind of prayer where the 3 persons of the trinity are addressed in a confusing manner and you can't really tell which sentence is aimed at which person.
Have you ever come across someone who prays like this? What in the Bible supports this pattern of prayer?

No, but perhaps we need to define prayer in this context. In the OT all prayer was to God - they knew of one God, Yahweh, who is also referred to as Father. In the NT, Jesus came to reveal the Father, his Father, God.
We pray to the Father as Jesus modelled in his prayers. There is every great reason to give praise to Jesus and thanks for his wonderful life and sacrifice. Is this not prayer?
Prayer is no more than appealing to a heavenly power in praise and recognition. In that recognition, we ask for our needs and for God's provision - as Jesus said to do, in Jesus' name.
Praying to the Holy Spirit is really praying to the Father. Clearly shown to be the Spirit of the Father in the gospels.

for the Holy Spirit will teach you in that very hour what you ought to say." Luke 12:12

For it will not be you speaking, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you. Matthew 10:20

Is there a basis for praying to 3 separate identities? No, not according to Jesus, the son of God - through whom are all things. 1 Cor 11:12, Rom 11:36. We also read that Jesus' very life comes from the Father (John 6:57) and the Father is above all - Jesus included, as the 'way' to the Father. So when we pray to God, it is through Jesus we may come before the Father and not by any other way.


Should Christians uphold unjust laws that are not overtly immoral? Inspired by this question, I'm left wondering how Christians ought to respond to laws that are unjust, but not overtly immoral.

I think most of us will agree that Christians ought to disregard laws that mandate immorality, or that prohibit morality.  The cliche examples of the first would be laws requiring turning over Jews to the Nazis to be murdered, or turning over protestants to Catholics to be burned as heretics, etc.  And examples of the latter would be laws prohibiting Christian worship.

But what about laws that are viewed as clearly unjust, but don't overtly require immorality or prohibit morality?

Laws such as the one mentioned here that forbade blacks in Pennsylvania from marrying from 1870 until 1973 when the law was changed.  Or racial segregation laws like those challenged by Rosa Parks.  For a Christian, is civil disobedience an appropriate response to these types of laws?

EDIT

To be clear, I am asking about laws that neither mandate immoral behavior, nor prohibit behavior required by the Bible.  In my two examples:  A black person remaining single (and celibate) is not immoral, nor does the Bible require anyone (black or otherwise) to marry.  Also, it is not immoral for a black person to sit in the back of a bus, nor does the Bible require anyone (black or otherwise) to sit in the front of a bus.  So it is quite possible to adhere by both of these laws without violating any Christian principle--and indeed many Christians to this day do live in (unwitting) compliance with both of these laws.  Many black Christians in Pennsylvania never marry, and many black Christians ride in the backs of buses.

My phrasing in the title is not intended to imply that I think "unjust" laws are "moral."

A law that prohibits Christianity does not fall into the scope of this question, since the Bible requires that of us.  Nor would a law that requires someone to kill or torture another person, since that is prohibited by the Bible.

The idea that a law can be 'unjust but not immoral' is entirely foreign to Christianity. Anyone who has read significantly in the Old Testament prophets (see here) realizes that injustice is something that God condemns very strongly, and the people of Israel are frequently admonished for failing to deliver justice (Isaiah 10:2, Ezekiel 22:29, Amos 2:7 and literally hundreds more). Jesus picks up on this theme (Matthew 23:23, Luke 11:42). Something that God condemns in such strong terms is 'immoral' by definition, and a sin.

The difference between "immoral" and "overtly immoral" doesn't help. One of the things Jesus most strongly condemned was hypocrisy - being "overtly moral" while "covertly immoral". Following Jesus' example, exposing the "covertly immoral" is something his followers should do. Opposing injustice is something any follower of God should have high on their agenda.


According to Calvinists, how do Job's works correspond to his salvation? Job 31:1–4 (DRB) I made a covenant with my eyes, that I would not so much as think upon a virgin.1 2 For what part should God from above have in me, and what inheritance the Almighty from on high? 3 Is not destruction to the wicked, and aversion to them that work iniquity? 4 Doth not he consider my ways, and number all my steps?

The very similar New Testament equivalent might be:

  Ephesians 5:1–7 (DRB) Be ye therefore followers of God, as most dear children; 2 And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath delivered himself for us, an oblation and a sacrifice to God for an odour of sweetness. 3 But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not so much as be named among you, as becometh saints: 4 Or obscenity, or foolish talking, or scurrility, which is to no purpose; but rather giving of thanks. 5 For know you this and understand, that no fornicator, or unclean, or covetous person (which is a serving of idols), hath inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. 6 Let no man deceive you with vain words. For because of these things cometh the anger of God upon the children of unbelief. 7 Be ye not therefore partakers with them.

As a Catholic, it seems obvious to me from reading this that Job avoids sin in general (something for which Scripture praises him: cf. 1:1), but here fornication or thoughts thereof, because if he did not he would have no part in God, because he would be wicked by definition.  This directly links works with justification, and Job lucidly and freely chose to take this course of life ('made a convenant with [myself]') because of the risk of not having done so. But in Calvinism there is no even theoretical risk of losing salvation, and therefore no need to avoid sins so as to avoid such a fate (i.e., whereas there is motive for avoiding sins which is not a salvific reason, so Calvinists believe).

Question

According to Calvinists, how does Job view his works in relation to his justification/salvation?

Thanks in advance.

1 Cf. Mt. 5:28.

Before you ask what Calvin thought, it might be a good idea to ask, "What did Job think?"

  Job 9:2 Yes, I know what you’ve said is true, but how can a person be
  justified before God?

Job had no illusion that his life, his righteous words and deeds, were capable of rendering him justified before God. If he had confidence that his actions could effect part of his justification, he would have spoken differently.

Here is an excerpt from Calvins Institutes of the Christian Religion:

  . . . In the shady cloisters of the schools anyone can easily and
  readily prattle about the value of works in justifying men. But when
  we come before the presence of God we must put away such amusements.
  For there we deal with a serious matter, and do not engage in
  frivolous word battles. To this question, I insist, we must apply our
  mind if we would profitably inquire concerning true righteousness: How
  shall we reply to the Heavenly Judge when he calls us to account? Let
  us envisage for ourselves that Judge, not as our minds naturally
  imagine him, but as he is depicted for us in Scripture: by whose
  brightness the stars are darkened [Job 3:9]; by whose strength the
  mountains are melted; by whose wrath the earth is shaken [cf. Job
  9:5-6]; whose wisdom catches the wise in their craftiness [Job 5:13];
  beside whose purity all things are defiled [cf. Job 25:5]; whose
  righteousness not even the angels can bear [cf. Job 4:18]; who makes
  not the guilty man innocent [ct. Job 9:20]; whose vengeance when once
  kindled penetrates to the depths of hell [Deut. 32:22; cf. Job 26:6].
  Let us behold him, I say, sitting in judgment to examine the deeds of
  men: Who will stand confident before his throne? "Who . . . can dwell
  with the devouring fire?" asks the prophet. "Who... can dwell with
  everlasting burnings? He who walks righteously and speaks the truth"
  [Isa. 33:14-15 p.], etc. But let such a one, whoever he is, come
  forward. Nay, that response causes no one to come forward. For, on the
  contrary, a terrible voice resounds: "If thou, 0 Lord, shouldst mark
  iniquities, Lord, who shall stand?" [Ps. 130:3; 129:3, Vg.]. Indeed,
  all must soon perish, as it is written in another place: "Shall a man
  be justified in comparison with God, or shall he be purer than his
  maker? Behold, they that serve him are not faithful, and in his angels
  he found wickedness. How much more shall those who dwell in houses of
  clay, who have an earthly foundation, be consumed before the moth.
  From morn to eve they shall be cut down" [Job 4:17-20]. Likewise:
  "Behold, among his saints none is faithful, and the heavens are not
  pure in his sight. How much more abominable and unprofitable is man,
  who drinks iniquity like water?" [Job 15:1 ~16, cf. Vg.]

  Indeed, I admit that in The Book of Job mention is made of a
  righteousness higher than the observance of the law, and it is
  worth-while to maintain this distinction. For even if someone
  satisfied the law, not even then could he stand the test of that
  righteousness which surpasses all understanding. Therefore, even
  though Job has a good conscience, he is stricken dumb with
  astonishment, for he sees that not even the holiness of angels can
  please God if he should weigh their works in his heavenly scales.
  Therefore, I now pass over that righteousness which I have mentioned,
  for it is incomprehensible. I only say that if our life is examined
  according to the standard of the written law, we are sluggish indeed
  if we are not tormented with the horrid fear at those many
  maledictions with which God willed to cleanse us — among others this
  general curse: "Cursed be everyone who does not abide by everything
  written in this book" [Gal. 3:10, Vg.; cf. Deut. 27:26]. In short,
  this whole discussion will be foolish and weak unless every man admit
  his guilt before the Heavenly Judge, and concerned about his own
  acquittal, willingly cast himself down and confess his nothingness.

I found this excerpt here: http://www.presenttruthmag.com/archive/XIX/19-6.htm

Calvin wrote a lot about "double justice". It is beyond me.


Does Acts 20:33-34 suggest that a church should not have a paid ministry? 33 I have coveted no man’s silver, or gold, or apparel.

34 Yea, ye yourselves know, that these hands have ministered unto my necessities, and to them that were with me.

No, it does not.  A common mistake is to take a particular situation or statement by one person and attempt to apply it as a rule to all situations.  All this passage means is that Paul worked to provide for his own living while he lived among the Ephesians.  Paul did accept provision from others in other cities and at other times.  The book of Philippians is in many ways a thank you letter for gifts given.

  Yet it was kind of you to share my trouble. 15 And you Philippians yourselves know that in the beginning of the gospel, when I left Macedonia, no church entered into partnership with me in giving and receiving, except you only. 16 Even in Thessalonica you sent me help for my needs once and again. 17 Not that I seek the gift, but I seek the fruit that increases to your credit.  Philippians 4:14-17 ESV

He speaks to this again in his first letter to the church in Corinth:

  Or is it only Barnabas and I who have no right to refrain from working for a living? 7 Who serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard without eating any of its fruit? Or who tends a flock without getting some of the milk?  Do I say these things on human authority? Does not the Law say the same? 9 For it is written in the Law of Moses, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain.”  1 Corinthians 9:6-9 ESV

So, no, this is not a universal principle that no one should ever receive his living from those to whom he ministers.  It merely records that a minister does not have to do this, and Paul, in particular, did not do this during one specific place in his ministry, though he did receive compensation elsewhere.


What is an overview of how Christians interpret 2 Timothy 1:6-7 and apply it to their own lives? 2 Timothy 1:6-7 (ESV):

6 For this reason I remind you to fan into flame the gift of God, which is in you through the laying on of my hands, 7 for God gave us a spirit not of fear but of power and love and self-control.

What did Paul mean when he advised Timothy to "fan into flame the gift of God, which is in you through the laying on of my hands"? How was Timothy supposed to apply Paul's advice to his life?
I would like to see an overview of how Christians usually answer these questions and how they go about applying whatever the passage is teaching to their own lives. Do most Christians tend to understand 2 Timothy 1:6-7 in the same way or is this one of those passages that cause a lot of controversy?

Personal thoughts: my educated guess is that Paul is probably using figurative language, similar to the "go buy more oil to keep your lamp burning" of the parable of the ten virgins (that's my own way of paraphrasing it by the way), to mean the gift of the Holy Spirit that Timothy probably received by Paul's literal laying of hands on him (like the many examples in the book of Acts) and as an invitation/command for Timothy to give himself more fully to the control of the Holy Spirit, although the exact concrete way in which he was supposed to do that is not totally clear to me.

Q: What is an overview of how Christians interpret 2 Timothy 1:6-7 and apply it to their own lives?
2 Timothy 1:6-7 NIV

For this reason I remind you to fan into flame the gift of God, which
is in you through the laying on of my hands. 7 For the Spirit God gave
us does not make us timid, but gives us power, love and
self-discipline.

As a Christian, I believe 2 Timothy 1:6-7 is a straightforward exhortation from Paul to Timothy. Paul had selected Timothy to travel with him years before the Books of 1 Timothy and 2 Timothy were written as we see in this passage from Acts:
Acts 16:1-3 NIV

Paul arrived in the city of Derbe and then went to Lystra, where a
disciple named Timothy lived. Timothy’s mother was a Jewish believer,
but his father was Greek. 2 The believers in Lystra and Iconium spoke
well of Timothy. 3 Paul wanted Timothy to go with him. So he
circumcised him because of the Jews who lived in those places and
because he knew that Timothy’s father was Greek.

Paul mentored Timothy in many ways and this passage (2 Timothy 1:6-7) is simply a continuation of Paul’s long-term encouragement. The passage has strong similarities to a portion of Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount:
Matthew 5:15-16 NIV

Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they
put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. 16
In the same way, let your light shine before others, that they may see
your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven.

I believe Paul was encouraging Timothy to be bold in his preaching and teaching. Paul believed Timothy had been called to preach the Gospel so Paul wanted to make sure Timothy’s shyness and relative youthfulness did not cause him to stop. That is, to cover his light. Paul made this same message clear in:
1 Timothy 4:12-16 NIV

Don’t let anyone look down on you because you are young, but set an
example for the believers in speech, in conduct, in love, in faith and
in purity. 13 Until I come, devote yourself to the public reading of
Scripture, to preaching and to teaching. 14 Do not neglect your gift,
which was given you through prophecy when the body of elders laid
their hands on you. 15 Be diligent in these matters; give yourself
wholly to them, so that everyone may see your progress. 16 Watch your
life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you
will save both yourself and your hearers.

The gift Paul referenced was the Spirit of God calling Timothy to preach and to share the Gospel. Timothy received this gift in Paul's presence and Paul and other elders laid their hands on Timothy to demonstrate their acceptance of him and his gift. Paul wanted Timothy to keep preaching and teaching. Publicly acknowledging Jesus as His Lord would certainly 'fan the flames' of the Spirit of God Timothy had received.
I take the words of encouragment Paul wrote to Timothy as being written to me too. I don't want to be timid in my faith, but rather to have power, love, and self discipline also. My calling may be different from Timothy's, but I believe Paul's words apply to me too as I 'fan the flames' of the Spirit of God within me.


What is the Catholic interpretation of Soteriology in the Bread of Life Discourse in John chapter 6? Catholics interpret the Bread of Life Discourse in John chapter 6 in light of transubstantiation (= the miracle of bread changing into Jesus' literal flesh and wine changing into Jesus' literal blood performed by a Catholic priest in the person of Jesus Christ.Only the substances changed into Jesus's substance and not the appearances of the bread and wine). (source)

In the Bread of Life Discourse in John chapter 6, Jesus said [in light of Catholic Dogma of Transubstantiation]:

John 6:35 Belief in Jesus = eternal life

John 6:36 Belief in Jesus = eternal life

John 6:40 Belief in Jesus = eternal life

John 6:47 Belief in Jesus = eternal life

John 6:64 Belief in Jesus = eternal life

John 6:54 [literally] eat the flesh and drink the blood of Jesus = eternal life

John 6:55 [literally] eat the flesh and drink the blood of Jesus = eternal life

John 6:59 [literally]eat the flesh and drink the blood of Jesus = eternal life

Was Jesus teaching about TWO WAYS to have eternal life in the Bread of life Discourse in John chapter 6?

1) Belief in Him

2) Eat his flesh and drink his blood

What is the Catholic interpretation of Soteriology in the Bread of Life Discourse in John chapter 6?

Jesus didn't teach just one or two things necessary for salvation. Cf.

  And he said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to
  the whole creation. He who believes and is baptized will be saved;
  but he who does not believe will be condemned. - Mk 16:15-16.

And

  Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the
  name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching
  them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you
  always, to the close of the age.” - Mt 28:19-20

From these two passages one can readily see that baptism and observing ALL the LORD commanded the disciples are necessary for salvation.

And the Church teaches that we are to receive the LORD in the Eucharist or else we will have no life in us:

  CCC 1384 The Lord addresses an invitation to us, urging us to
  receive him in the sacrament of the Eucharist: "Truly, I say to you,
  unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you
  have no life in you." (Jn 6:53).

Based on the Bread of Life Discourse in John chapter 6 this is the Church's teaching on the necessity of receiving the Eucharist for our salavation.


Is God accountable for all things - good AND bad? Can I build the house without the lord's grace? can I ask him simply not to intervene with my house? I can do a fine work on my own
a lousy labourer building an amazing house - yes, that's the lord grace.
but a skilled labourer with years of practice - god has nothing to do with it, unless he maliciously decides to destroy the labourer's work

If a skilled labourer is being thankful to god for the opportunities he gave him to acquire his skill - should the unemployed labourer complain to god for treating him unfairly and not giving him opportunity?

If god is responsible for all the good things that happen in our life - is he also accountable for all the bad things?

I'll answer what seems to be the core of your question.

  If a skilled labourer is being thankful to god for the opportunities he gave > him to acquire his skill - should the unemployed labourer complain to god for
  treating him unfairly and not giving him opportunity?

A consistent theme in Christian thought is to always be thankful to God, in good times and in bad.

From the point of view of one Christian denomination, Catholic, misfortune and suffering are opportunities to get closer to God, and to let God lead us to a productive path in accord with His will.  In the case you cite, the response recommended is to be thankful to God for providing another opportunity.  The labourer is unemployed, so he embarks on a journey to find employment.  The journey itself will reveal a variety of opportunities and graces if the Labourer trusts God and goes forth.   (If all he does is sit around and complain that God didn't find him a job, how thankful is that?)

There's a longer discussion here based upon St Paul's letters and their treatment of suffering as a gift from God.  A few points.

  Pope John Paul II explains why St. Paul writes so much on suffering:
  “The Apostle shares his own discovery and rejoices in it because of all those whom it can help – just as it helped him – to understand the salvific meaning of suffering” (Salvifici Doloris, 1).

From Scripture:

  Philippians 3:8-11 - Indeed I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as refuse, in order that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own, based on law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God depends that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his suffering, becoming like him in his death, that if possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead on faith;
  2 Corinthians 12:7-10 - And to keep me from being too elated by the abundance of revelations, a thorn was given me in the flesh, a messenger of Satan, to harass me, to keep me from being too elated. Three times I besought the Lord about this, that it should leave me; but he said to me, ‘My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.’ For the sake of Christ, then, I am content with weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and calamities; for when I am weak then I am strong”


Has Christianity ever come down in opposition of arranged marriages? Many cultures in many ages have practiced arranged marriages. I understand that in Jewish culture --at about the time of Christ-- arranged marriages were considered a normal way of life. Obviously if this was a religious value at the time Christianity probably had an opinion about it. Somehow today, many 'Christian' cultures do NOT practice arranged marriages (none in the west, only a few scattered ones elsewhere).

How did this happen? Is it a cultural issue that Christianity never held a position on or did the early Christian church take a stand against the Jewish custom? Was it Christianity and some doctrine that instigated this change, or just coincidence?

Yes, in general Christianity has worked against arranged marriages historically.

The Wikipedia article on marriage notes:

  With few local exceptions, until 1545, Christian marriages in Europe were by mutual consent, declaration of intention to marry and upon the subsequent physical union of the parties... As Christianity spread during the Roman period and the Middle Ages,
  the idea of free choice in selecting marriage partners increased and
  spread with it.

A History of Marriage in Western Civilization contends that the previous Greek, Roman, and Jewish traditions of arranged marriage were eroded by the Church's role - first, the focus on asceticism and not always being married, and then by the Church's view of marriage as a sacrament and wanting more say in the process (for example by saying they had the power to annul marriages illicit in some way).

This is of course not universal; despite Ethiopia adopting Christianity in 333 AD they are still moving out of the practice.

This makes sense; arranged marriage tends to depend on two things:

Women being seen as undesirable/commodities by the society
Marriage being seen as an economic transaction between two groups

Christianity has eroded the "women are lesser" argument historically (though imperfect in practice, Christianity's view of women is WAY higher than many other culture/religions) because of the insertion of both the concept of the individual's relationship with God resulting in marriage necessarily being a matter of individual choice - "if they want to stay chaste, they don't have to marry" - and the Church as a cultural force wanting part of the say in marriage for both religious and, frankly, political reasons.

Note that there is also a major difference between arranged marriages that still (technically) require the assent of those being married, and forced marriages:

  The Roman Catholic Church deems forced marriage grounds for granting
  an annulment — for a marriage to be valid both parties must give their
  consent freely.

This was reiterated at the Council of Trent but dates from much earlier:

  The statement of Pope Nicholas I in which he declared in 866, "If the
  consent be lacking in a marriage, all other celebrations, even should
  the union be consummated, are rendered void", shows the importance of
  a couple's consent to marriage. It has remained an important part of
  church teaching through the years.

You can read an extended dance remix of all this in the Summa Theologica.

For this reason forced marriage is largely constrained to parts of Asia, Africa, and the Middle East that have not had enough Christian influence to affect their laws. So yes, it is a cultural issue, but one that the Christian Church usually strives to influence, and has done so successfully in many cases.


Are foster children considered covenant children in Presbyterianism? Foster children are on the one hand a part of the household but on the other hand not legally adopted and may be ultimately reunited with their birth parents. So do Presbyterians of a confessional variety, like PCA or OPC, baptize foster children?

I  don't think any denominational body has ruled on this; until one does so, it remains a matter of conscience for individual believers. Part of the difficulty is that foster care as a named/organized phenomenon only goes back to the 19th century.

That said, there seem to be two main schools of thought: yes and no. End of answer. I'm kidding... but those are the main schools of thought.

As this answer explains well, two of the key concepts regarding paedobaptism are 1) that baptism replaces circumcision in the new covenant, and 2) that the command to baptize is issued to "you and your household/children." So arguments about whether or not to baptize foster children rely on applying these two concepts.

The real rub is, can they be rightly called the children of their foster parents?

Those who argue against baptizing foster children point out that baptizing one's children involves a commitment to rearing them in the ways of the faith; in most reformed congregations, both the parents and the rest of the congregants take vows to the effect that they will instruct the children in the faith. The key question posed by those opposed to baptizing foster children is: can you truly make such vows?

But this can be countered by pointing to the old covenant example. All male members of the household were circumcised: children on the eighth day, and slaves (and whoever else) as soon as possible. But slaves were not necessarily a permanent part of the household; if they were circumcised and left the household, they would still be covenant members. In the same way, foster children could be temporary members of the household while being permanent members of the covenant. While a part of the household, the parents bear responsibility to instruct them in the faith, just as they vowed to do.

I'm not advocating either position. I suspect that if you were to ask a representative of any of the large Presbyterian denominations what to do, they would say, "Discuss it with your pastor." It probably demands close attention to the specific situation, as well as prayer.


Sin and Animal Suffering before the fall? This question, most likely, has the presumption of theistic evolution or at least 'old-earth' creationism, however answers without that presumption are welcome.

Suffering and pain exist in our world is because of sin (Isaiah 24:2-6 among others); presumably animals and the the entire created universe suffer the "groaning of creation" (Romans 8:19-22) because of sin. And we wait on the redemption of the world through Christ.

However, before the fall, or before humans even existed, there must have been countless animals and creatures who suffered horrifically (as many do today). Why were these animals allowed to suffer, as it seems they did, before sin had even entered the world?

According to the first three chapters of Genesis, it appears that there was no killing in the Garden. Later, when Isaiah prophesied about "the Lion lying down with the lamb," it is an echo of that state of nature which is so unlike the one today. From a Biblical point of view then, I would have to disagree with your premise.


What is the "Holy place" Jesus spoke of in Matthew 24:15? In Matthew Chapter 24 Jesus warned of the end time scenario, and said that when we saw the Abomination of Desolation standing in the Holy Place, that was when things were really going to get bad:

Matthew 24:15  KJV

  When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)

I have searched the Scriptures in an effort to determine what he meant by the Holy place, but all I find is that the area in the Tabernacle just outside the curtain designating the holy of holies is called the holy place.

Exodus 26:33  KJV

  And thou shalt hang up the vail under the taches, that thou mayest bring in thither within the vail the ark of the testimony: and the vail shall divide unto you between the holy place and the most holy.

Is there any other guidance that I have overlooked, which someone can point out.

2

*When the power of the holy people is broken *

  7 Then I heard the man clothed in linen, who was above the waters of
  the river, when he held up his right hand and his left hand to heaven,
  and swore by Him who lives forever, that it shall be for a time,
  times, and half a time; and when the power of the holy people has been
  completely shattered, all these things shall be finished.

Daniel 12:7

  For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this
  mystery—so that you will not be wise in your own estimation—that a
  partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the
  Gentiles has come in; and then all Israel will be saved; just as it
  is written,

  “The Deliverer will come from Zion, He will remove ungodliness from
  Jacob.” 27 “This is [i]My covenant with them, When I take away their
  sins.”

It is believed and has been believed by many Christians, that at a point before the return of Christ, the Nation of Israel, as a nation, will turn en-mass to Christ. This belief is taken mainly from Romans chapter 11. Paul goes to great lengths in this chapter to explain what he calls a 'mystery'.

A book By Ian Murray called 'The Puritan hope'(Banner of truth trust), is a good twentieth century exposition of this chapter in Romans. The author puts together the history of this teaching particularly from the the 16 century to this day.

Some of the people who hold this view, namely that immediately before the return of Christ there will be a an outpouring of the Holy Spirit on a scale not seen before in history! It will be sparked by the conversion of Israel as a nation (The redeemer will come from Zion). Their conversion as a nation will result in a world wide revival. This belief is taken from Romans 11:11

  11 I say then, they did not stumble so as to fall, did they? May it
  never be! But by their transgression salvation has come to the
  Gentiles, to make them jealous. 12 Now if their transgression is
  riches for the world and their failure is riches for the Gentiles, how
  much more will their fulfillment be!

In other words if the effect of the rejection of Jesus by the Jews results in riches of knowledge and grace for the Gentiles, what will be the outcome of the Jews accepting the Gospel as a nation? Paul says it will be "Life from the dead". Many Christians deduct from this that not only will Israel turning to Christ bring incredible blessing to the nations, it will also signify the time of the end and of Christs return, ("LIFE FROM THE DEAD")

To put it simply. There will be a turning of the whole World to Christ. Then the abomination or the beast will arise again to destroy this body of believers.

  5 And she gave birth to a son, a male child, who is to [a]rule all the
  [b]nations with a rod of iron; and her child was caught up to God and
  to His throne. 6 Then the woman fled into the wilderness where she
  *had a place prepared by God, so that there [c]she would be nourished for one thousand two hundred and sixty days.

The final outcome after the beast has ravaged the follows of Christ and a third of the stars are cast to the Earth(Rev 12:1-6), the nations will finally gather together at Jerusalem, what is considered 'The Holy city',

  Then I was given a reed like a measuring rod. And the angel
  stood, saying, “Rise and measure the temple of God, the altar, and
  those who worship there. But leave out the court which is outside
  the temple, and do not measure it, for it has been given to the
  Gentiles. And they will tread the holy city underfoot for forty-two
  months.  And I will give power to my two witnesses, and they will
  prophesy one thousand two hundred and sixty days, clothed in
  sackcloth.”

  When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of
  by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let
  him understand:)

It is possible that the "Temple of God, and the alter do signify the Spiritual worship of God in prayer and therefore, the holy people, not an actual temple or alter! The beast will trample the people of God! The last stronghold in the World will be Jerusalem where the Two Witnesses will smite the beast and his followers with famine  and plauge,

  Rev 10:4-6

  These are the two olive trees and the two lampstands standing before
  the God of the earth.  And if anyone wants to harm them, fire proceeds
  from their mouth and devours their enemies. And if anyone wants to
  harm them, he must be killed in this manner.  These have power to shut
  heaven, so that no rain falls in the days of their prophecy; and they
  have power over waters to turn them to blood, and to strike the earth
  with all plagues, as often as they desire.

Daniel 12:5 NASV

Then I, Daniel, looked and behold, two others were standing, one on this bank of the river and the other on that bank of the river.  And one said to the man dressed in linen, who was above the waters of the river, “How long will it be until the end of these wonders?”  I heard the man dressed in linen, who was above the waters of the river, as he raised his right hand and his left toward heaven, and swore by Him who lives forever that it would be for a time, times, and half a time; and as soon as they finish shattering the power of the holy people, all these events will be completed.

It would be difficult, not to see, the two witnesses, in Revelation as here in Daniel. Parallel prophecies from the Old and the New testaments regarding one event..the Revelations of John.

The end. Their will be a slaughter of horrible proportions, a slaughter of Christians. But in order for their to be a mass slaughter their must be a mass conversion.

  Matthew 24:22 New American Standard Bible (NASB)  Unless those days
  had been cut short, no life would have been saved; but for the sake
  of the elect those days will be cut short.

Romans 11:11 NASV

I say then, they did not stumble so as to fall, did they? May it never be! But by their transgression salvation has come to the Gentiles, to make them jealous. 12 Now if their transgression is riches for the world and their failure is riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their fulfillment be! But I am speaking to you who are Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle of Gentiles, I magnify my ministry,  if somehow I might move to jealousy my fellow countrymen and save some of them.  For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?  If the first piece of dough is holy, the lump is also; and if the root is holy, the branches are too."

Mathew 24:

  “Then they will deliver you to tribulation, and will kill you, and
  you will be hated by all nations because of My name.  At that time
  many will fall away and will betray one another and hate one another.
  Many false prophets will arise and will mislead many.  Because
  lawlessness is increased, most people’s love will grow cold.  But the
  one who endures to the end, he will be saved.  This gospel of the
  kingdom shall be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all
  the nations, and then the end will come.

Again the bible teaches a great apostacy,

2 Thessalonians 2
New King James Version (NKJV)

The Great Apostasy

  "Now, brethren, concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our
  gathering together to Him, we ask you,  not to be soon shaken in mind
  or troubled, either by spirit or by word or by letter, as if from us,
  as though the day of Christ had come.  Let no one deceive you by any
  means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first,
  and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition,  who opposes and
  exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so
  that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is
  God."

Let me suggest, that there could only be a great apostasy, if there had first been a great revival of Christianity. What caused this great apostasy? A great persecution, for father will betray son and son father. True Christianity is not in any way compatible with the present world system. When hundreds of millions, perhaps billions of people turn to Christ, such people who are presently employed in many services, companies etc who's moral standard will not be compatible with their new minds, will no be able to continue in any employment which is corrupt, or of the nature of the beast's system. "Come out from her my people," will be Gods call to them, and do not participate in her sins for she has corrupted the Earth with her luxuries and vanity. The merchants will cry when they see Babylon destroyed and the Merchants **of the earth will wail because the great city that made them rich **is no more. This will mean massive economic and socialogical upheaval. Jobs where persons are employed in making weapons of war, or of gambling (financial services) or of any other employment that destroys and pollutes the Earth and Gods people, will be abandoned by Christ call to the elect, causing massive disruption to this present corrupt system Babylon(Confusion is the nature of this World system. There is no justice here or truth or righteousness and our thoughts are only sin continually(Gen 6:5). The number of the beast, 666 , is the number of a man, the man that serves numbers or mammon!

It is said of the Beast that..

  Revelation 17 English Standard Version (ESV) The Great Prostitute and
  the Beast

  "Then one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls came and said
  to me, “Come, I will show you the judgment of the great prostitute who
  is seated on many waters,  with whom the kings of the earth have
  committed sexual immorality, and with the wine of whose sexual
  immorality the dwellers on earth have become drunk.” 3 And he carried
  me away in the Spirit into a wilderness, and I saw a woman sitting on
  a scarlet beast that was full of blasphemous names, and it had seven
  heads and ten horns.  The woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet,
  and adorned with gold and jewels and pearls, holding in her hand a
  golden cup full of abominations and the impurities of her sexual
  immorality.  And on her forehead was written a name of mystery:
  “Babylon the great, mother of prostitutes and of earth's
  abominations.” 6 And I saw the woman, drunk with the blood of the
  saints, the blood of the martyrs of Jesus."

  When I saw her, I marveled greatly.  But the angel said to me, “Why
  do you marvel? I will tell you the mystery of the woman, and of the
  beast with seven heads and ten horns that carries her.  The beast
  that you saw was, and is not, and is about to rise from the bottomless
  pit and go to destruction.

I would like to draw your attention to the words "was, and is not, and is about to rise"
The present world system and its ruling families will be almost shattered by the revival that is coming. Initially the world rulers will stumble and fall (was), they will see their power dramatically reduced and dying.(is not)(for Christ will rule the world through his people and the gospel will be preached in all nations.) it will be like a millennium of peace(Rev 20: 1-3). Their only recourse will be force. To crush the opposition*(is about to rise)*.

This they will do, in a terrible display of the wickedness of man and sin. Unless those days had been cut short..

  Matthew 24:22 New American Standard Bible (NASB)

  Unless those days had been cut short, no life would have been saved;
  but for the sake of the elect those days will be cut short.