What is the biblical basis for the concept of "partial" or "imperfect" communion? According to Wikipedia,

  The Catholic Church makes a distinction between full and partial communion. Where full communion exists, there is but one Church. Partial communion, on the other hand, exists where some elements of Christian faith are held in common, but complete unity on essentials is lacking.

According to my understanding, being in communion means one is incorporated into the body of Christ (i.e., "in Christ"), that is, one is a Christian. Accordingly, Christians are "members of his body" (Eph. 5:30) or body parts of Christ's body.

With that being said, what is the biblical basis for being in "imperfect communion" or "partial communion"?

To say that an ecclesial body is in partial, or imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church is not to say that the members of these bodies are only partially "members of the body of Christ":

  [People] who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect. The differences that exist in varying degrees between them and the Catholic Church—whether in doctrine and sometimes in discipline, or concerning the structure of the Church—do indeed create many obstacles, sometimes serious ones, to full ecclesiastical communion. The ecumenical movement is striving to overcome these obstacles. But even in spite of them it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ's body, and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church.

(Unitatis Redintegratio, Chapter 1, Section 3; emphasis added)

Referral to "partial/imperfect communion" is thus referring not to "communion with Christ" but rather to "communion with the structure of the Catholic Church". What is it then that these people are missing?

  Our separated brethren, whether considered as individuals or as Communities and Churches, are not blessed with that unity which Jesus Christ wished to bestow on all those who through Him were born again into one body, and with Him quickened to newness of life—that unity which the Holy Scriptures and the ancient Tradition of the Church proclaim. For it is only through Christ's Catholic Church, which is "the all-embracing means of salvation," that they can benefit fully from the means of salvation. We believe that Our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, in order to establish the one Body of Christ on earth to which all should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the people of God.

(ibid.)

In other words, those who are baptized (with the same intent in, and understanding of, Baptism that the Church has) but are in another faith community are missing opportunities to believe in and to practice things which could be conducive to their salvation.

There can be no biblical basis for this "belief" (which is really not so much a belief as a standard of speech), since the fracture of the Church into these communities did not take place until well after biblical times.


How do paedobaptists address the argument that infants are incapable of doing what those of Cornelius' household did? Acts 10, the conversion of Cornelius' household, is often used as one of the prooftexts for infant baptism.

However, when reviewing Acts 10:44-46, I have two objections to its use as support for the doctrine:

After receiving the Spirit the gentiles magnified/praised God. Infants can't verbally speak, let alone verbally praise God.
Acts 10:44 implies that those who heard the word could understand it. Infants can't understand the gospel message nor trust Christ as savior.

How do those who use Cornelius' conversion as support for infant baptism respond to these points? I know that other scripture is used to support infant baptism, but this question is specifically about Acts 10.

On a controversial issue like this, we need to be careful about the approach we take and the assumptions we bring to the discussion. As a person who supports infant baptism, I will do my best to lay out my understanding of how Acts 10 is read in this issue.

I'm going to start by looking at two issues:

What does the text itself tell us about who was present?
How does our answer to the first issue relate to the other more theological elements of the question?

The text has various markers indicating who may have been present.
In 10.1-2 we are introduced to Cornelius. We learn that he is head of an oikos, which is usually translated in English as either family or household. We don't know in this particular case the details of the household. But we do know that the piety of Cornelius is extended to the whole household.

In 10.3-8 Cornelius has the dream and in response he sends people to summon Peter. We learn from this section that the household includes at least two servants and a soldier/attendant (verse 7 NIV).

In 10.9-23 the focus is on Peter and his dream about the clean and unclean animals.

In 10.24-45 Peter arrives at Cornelius' home, gives his message and watches in amazement as the Spirit is poured out. Who is present? We know that Cornelius is present. We know that his relatives and close friends are present (verse 24). We don't know if his immediate household is present, but given the opening narrative and the focus on family throughout, it's a reasonable assumption.

We also know that Peter is present, and we find out in verse 45 that he has come as the leader of a group of circumcised believers. This is a detail not made clear till the final sentences of this long story. So it should alert us to the literary pattern of referring to Peter and Cornelius not just as individuals but as representatives of the two groups involved: circumcised believers and Gentiles. So we cannot assume that, at any point in the story where Peter or Cornelius alone are referred to, no one else is present.

So in summary this is a story where Cornelius and his family, household, friends and relatives are present. Peter and his fellow Jewish believers are also present. We do not and cannot know the precise make up of those two groups. All we can say is that children are quite possibly included in a household group such as this, but we don't know definitely one way or the other.

What then do we do with verses 44-46, and the statements about the Holy Spirit coming upon the Gentile group, who responded with praise and speaking in tongues. In my view a reasonable answer would be that to even ask the question is to read back into this text categories that don't apply. We have seen that the two key groups are the Jewish believers (headed by Peter) and the Gentiles (signified by Cornelius); and that we don't know the precise membership of the two groups. So the climax is not that the Spirit is poured out on adults. It's that the Spirit is poured out on Gentiles. To rule out children because children can't respond in intelligent faith is to miss the key theme of this text. It's also to make an assumption about the nature of faith which is irrelevant to the text. Why is adult faith required for those who are other than adults?

If this is a correct reading of the text, then there is another corollary. It is not a text that explicitly supports infant baptism. We can't use this text either way. We don't know conclusively if children were either present or absent. The best infant baptist view on this matter is a combination of two elements:
(1) Theological - such as the idea that baptism embraces the covenantal meaning of circumcision, and is therefore applicable to the same range of people.
(2) Historical - rather than look at one particular proof text such as Acts 10, the baptismal stories in the New Testament show a wide diversity of individuals (Paul and the Ethiopian eunuch), households (Cornelius and the Philippian jailer) and mass groups (Pentecost). This diversity is wide enough to embrace the faith of individual believers and the faith of parents and the church at large.


Why is the The Nativity called "Christmas"? Why was the the Feast of the Nativity of Jesus called "Christmas" and not some other feast day of Jesus?  There are lots of other feast days that have more or less fallen by the wayside etymologically speaking (Michaelmas, Candlemas, etc...), but Christmas has succeeded as the English name of the celebration.

There are several other feast days for Jesus and one, namely the Feast of the Baptism of Jesus, would seem more appropriate as Christmas. Nativimas seems like it would have been a more appropriate name for the holiday.

Why is the Nativity called “Christmas”?

There is no clear cut source as to why the word "Christmas" became such a popular term at this time of the year than that of the "Nativity".

However there are a few hints as to why this came about. Let us take a look at the etymology of the word "Christmas" first.

  “Christmas” is an Old English word, constructed from the combination of two words, namely “Christ” and “Mass”. The first recorded Old English version of the phrase, “Crīstesmæsse,” dates back to 1038, but by the Middle Ages the term had already morphed into “Cristemasse;” a slightly more modern version of the phrase.

  The two separate parts of the word can be traced back to Greek, Hebrew and Latin origins. “Christ” comes from the Greek word “Khrīstos” (Χριστός) or “Crīst,” and there’s a lot of evidence to suggest that the Hebrew word “Māšîaḥ” (מָשִׁיחַ) or “Messiah,” which actually means “anointed,” has also played a considerable role in the construction of the first part of the word “Christmas.” The second part most probably comes from the Latin word, “Missa,” which refers directly to the celebration of the Eucharist. - Where does the word Christmas come from?

So, we can see that the word "Christmas" could actually mean the "Mass of the Anointed One", for that is what the word "Christ" truly implies and means in itself.

We must remember also that during the Middle Ages, Latin was more popular in the liturgical books of the day.

The fact that the English term for the Navivity of Our Lord Jesus Christ is called Christmas and not ""Nativitissimas" or something similar is due to the fact that the Church also celebrates the Nativity of Blessed Virgin Mary (September 8) and the Nativity of St. John the Baptist (June 24). There can not be three feasts called "Nativitatissimas'. That would just be too confusing to say the least.

The whole idea of calling the Nativity or Birth of our Lord Jesus Christ instead of Christmas reminds me of the solemn Proclamation of the Birth of Christ that one time was pronounced (sung/chanted) just before the Midnight Christmas Mass. It is with true love and moving faith to be able to remember this tradition where it still exists.

  The Proclamation of the Birth of Christ, Kalenda Proclamation, or Christmas Proclamation, is a chant sung before the Midnight Mass for Christmas in the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church. The long text is a timeline, in which each verse represents the years from an historical event, either secular or religious, until birth of Jesus Christ, and the number of years – expressed in centuries or years – decreases until the day of the first Christmas.

  Ceremonial

  Originating from the Roman Martyrology, traditionally read during the hour of Prime, the proclamation places the birth of Christ "within the context of salvation history."1 Prime was suppressed as part of the liturgical reforms following Vatican II, but Pope John Paul II restored the usage of the Proclamation during the 1980 Papal Christmas Midnight Mass. Since then, many parishes re-instituted the Proclamation as well.

  In the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite, the Christmas Proclamation is chanted during Midnight Mass.

  Octavo Kalendas Januarii Luna N.
  Innumeris transactis saeculis a creatione mundi, quando in principio Deus creavit caelum et terram et hominem formavit ad imaginem suam; permultis etiam saeculis, ex quo post diluvium Altissimus in nubibus arcum posuerat, signum fœderis et pacis;
  a migratione Abrahæ, patris nostri in fide, de Ur Chaldæorum saeculo vigesimo primo;
  ab egressu populi Israël de Ægypto, Moyse duce, saeculo decimo tertio;
  ab unctione David in regem, anno circiter millesimo;
  hebdomada sexagesima quinta, juxta Danielis prophetiam;
  Olympiade centesima nonagesima quarta;
  ab Urbe condita anno septingentesimo quinquagesimo secundo;
  anno imperii Cæsaris Octaviani Augusti quadragesimo secundo;
  toto orbe in pace composito, Jesus Christus, æternus Deus æternique Patris Filius, mundum volens adventu suo piissimo consecrare, de Spiritu Sancto conceptus, novemque post conceptionem decursis mensibus, in Bethlehem Judæ nascitur ex Maria Virgine factus homo: Nativitas Domini nostri Jesu Christi secundum carnem. - Proclamation of the Birth of Christ

The Nativity of Our Lord Jesus Christ according to the flesh.

"Christmas" sounds so much better instead of "Nativitatimas" and it also keeps Christ in Christmas, just like Michaelmas keeps St. Michael in St. Michael's Day and Martinmas keeps St. Martin in St. Martin Day.


Why don't most Protestants consider confession to be a sacrament? Most Protestants recognise only two sacraments, saying something like this (from the Anglican 39 Articles):

  There are two sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel,
  that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord

But in the Gospels it is written:

John 20:21-23

  Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am
  sending you.” And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the
  Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if
  you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”

Mt 16,18-20

  And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my
  church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give
  you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will
  be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be
  loosed in heaven.”

Mt 18,18

  "Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound
  in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in
  heaven.

For who tells that was introduced by Pope Innocent III:

Acts 19,18

  Some believers, too, came forward to admit in detail how they had used
  spells

John 1,1:9

  If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us
  our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.

2 Corinthians 5,18

  All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and
  gave us the ministry of reconciliation

Why isn't confession/penance considered a sacrament by most Protestants? Why don't they think these verses institute the sacrament of confession?

Prior to Christ, a priest was needed to help make sacrifice to receive forgiveness:

  Thus shall he do with the bull. As he did with the bull of the sin offering, so shall he do with this. And the priest shall make atonement for them, and they shall be forgiven. - Leviticus 4:20 ESV

The reason that Protestants don't consider confession a sacrament involving the need for a priest, is that Protestants believe that in Christ, we are a royal priesthood ourselves:

  But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. - 1 Peter 2:9 ESV.

And

  9 And they sang a new song, saying, "Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation,
  10 and you have made them a kingdom and priests to our God, and they shall reign on the earth."  - Revelation 5:9-10 ESV

Of which Jesus is the great high priest:

  Therefore, holy brothers, you who share in a heavenly calling, consider Jesus, the apostle and high priest of our confession, - Hebrews 3:1 ESV

Protestants believe that there is only one mediator between man and God:

  For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, - 1 Timothy 2:5 ESV

And

  and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel. - Hebrews 12:24 ESV

And that the apostles are brothers, with no special power or authority:

  12 What I mean is that each one of you says, "I follow Paul," or "I follow Apollos," or "I follow Cephas," or "I follow Christ."
  13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?
  14 I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius,
  15 so that no one may say that you were baptized in my name.
  16 (I did baptize also the household of Stephanas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized anyone else.)
  17 For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power. - 1 Corinthians 1:12-17 ESV

As such, the Old Testament gives a specific process for confession involving priests, sacrifices and a temple/tabernacle/tent of meeting.

But in Christ, Protestants believe that we are the temple in which God's Holy Spirit dwells (1 Cor 3:16), making us able to confess our sins directly to the Father.

  If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. - 1 John 1:9 ESV


Are there any universally accepted or non-Abrahamic based records in history that have mentions of longevity of prophets? Reading from here and Genesis 5 we see that there are mentions of longevity among prophets:

Adam – 930
Seth – 912
Enosh – 905
Jared – 962
Methuselah – 969
Noah – 950
Shem – 600
Eber – 464
Abraham – 175
Moses – 120

My question is are there any other historical books (a book that has nothing to do with Abrahamic religions) that mention any of these ages? Basically what I'm asking was there any non-religious, secular book written that cites these ages? Or a book written by Abrahamic followers that is still somewhat universally accepted?

I personally consider the Old and New Testament as (partially history) books that can be referenced but consider that out of the scope of the question.

You might be interested in the Sumerian King List. These kings lived for centuries before a flood.

  When kingship was lowered from heaven, kingship was [first] in Eridu. [In] Eridu, A-lulim [became] king and ruled 28,800 years. Alagar ruled 36,000 years. Two kings [thus] ruled it for 64,800 years. I drop [the topic] Eridu [because] its kingship was brought to Bad-tibira. [In] Bad-tibira, En-men-lu Ana ruled 43,200 years. (Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, Pritchard, p. 265)


Is there modern evidence that the Sun stood still? Has anyone presented tangible, astronomical evidence of a disruption we can see today that is claimed to be caused by the Sun/Moon "stopping" roughly 3500ish years ago as it says in Joshua 10? Has any prominent figure made any scientific observations that would point to some Sun/Moon stopping event?

  Joshua 10:12-14 ESV At that time Joshua spoke to the Lord in the day when the Lord gave the Amorites over to the sons of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, “Sun, stand still at Gibeon, and moon, in the Valley of Aijalon.” And the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, until the nation took vengeance on their enemies. Is this not written in the Book of Jashar? The sun stopped in the midst of heaven and did not hurry to set for about a whole day. There has been no day like it before or since, when the Lord heeded the voice of a man, for the Lord fought for Israel.

I am assuming a literal interpretation of this passage--that the Sun and Moon somehow "stopped", be it miraculous or God just timing it perfectly or otherwise.

Related: Did the sun and the moon really stop rotating?. I'm looking for an example of a scientist saying "this is my evidence for it" rather than "these are all the ways it could happened."

I had heard about NASA finding a missing day that proved that the earth stood still, however it does not seem to be true. There does not seem to be any evidence other than the Word of God, and I cannot see how there really would be evidence of this.


Do LDS believe other churches to be the church of Satan? I was once informed by some LDS missionaries that other churches to them are the church of Satan? Is this an LDS doctrine or the view of some members?

Yes and no.
Yes
The LDS believe they are

the true Church of Jesus Christ, which was lost through apostasy, was brought back as it originally existed when organized by Jesus Christ 1

1 Nephi 13:1-9 mentions a great and abominable church and LDS manuals explain this with the following commentary:

“In relation to the kingdom of God, the devil always sets up his kingdom at the very same time in opposition to God” (Joseph Smith, in History of the Church, 6:364).
Elder Bruce R. McConkie (1915–85) of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles defined the great and abominable church: “The titles church of the devil and great and abominable church are used to identify all … organizations of whatever name or nature—whether political, philosophical, educational, economic, social, fraternal, civic, or religious—which are designed to take men on a course that leads away from God and his laws and thus from salvation in the kingdom of God” (Mormon Doctrine, 2nd ed. [1966], 137–38).
One commentator explained that the great and abominable church consists of more than one entity:
“Actually, no single known historical church, denomination, or set of believers meets all the requirements for the great and abominable church: it must have formed among the Gentiles; ... No single denomination or system of beliefs fits the entire description. Rather, the role of Babylon has been played by many different agencies, ideologies, and churches in many different times. …
(Stephen E. Robinson, “Warring against the Saints of God,” Ensign, Jan. 1988, 38–39).2

No
While the LDS believe they are the true restored church they believe other religions and religious leaders have bits of the truth and were often important in the work of the restoration.
Some leaders mentioned in Preach My Gospel (the LDS missionary teaching manual) are: John Wycliffe, Martin Luther, William Tyndale, John Calvin, Buddha,
Confucius, and Mohammed.3
A principal teaching is a respect for other religions and beliefs:

I believe that we owe respect to all churches and organizations that lead men to act more righteously than they otherwise might, even if they don’t hold the keys of salvation and even if there is much error in their teachings4

and

The great religious leaders of the world such as Muhammad, Confucius, and the Reformers, as well as philosophers including Socrates, Plato, and others, received a portion of God’s light. Moral truths were given to them by God to enlighten whole nations and to bring a higher level of understanding to individuals . . .
Consistent with these truths, we believe that God has given and will give to all peoples sufficient knowledge to help them on their way to eternal salvation, either in this life or in the life to come . . .
Our message therefore is one of special love and concern for the eternal welfare of all men and women, regardless of religious belief, race, or nationality, knowing that we are truly brothers and sisters because we are sons and daughters of the same Eternal Father.5

and Article of Faith 13

13 We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men; indeed, we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul—We believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.

1 https://www.lds.org/manual/preach-my-gospel-a-guide-to-missionary-service/lesson-1-the-message-of-the-restoration-of-the-gospel-of-jesus-christ?lang=eng
2 https://www.lds.org/manual/book-of-mormon-student-manual/chapter-4-1-nephi-12-15?lang=eng
3 https://www.lds.org/manual/preach-my-gospel-a-guide-to-missionary-service/lesson-1-the-message-of-the-restoration-of-the-gospel-of-jesus-christ?lang=eng
4 https://www.lds.org/ensign/1977/10/respect-for-other-peoples-beliefs?lang=eng
5 https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/selected-articles/god-s-love-mankind


What has the Bible said about appropriate Sabbath-day worship? The Sabbath is important to every Christian, but everyone has varying ideas about what is appropriate.  Instead of opening up the question for debate, I was wondering what the Bible has to say about it.
We all know the 10 commandments where it says:

8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Exodus 20: 8-11
Most Christians believe that the 10 Commandments are still valid, so I figure this is a valid statement of the question.
From these verses, we know that on the Sabbath, we should:

Avoid work
Don't require others to work
Worship (hallowed the Sabbath)

What else has the Lord told us to do with respect to Sabbath-day worship?

I think some of the more telling things about our understanding of the Sabbath should be what Jesus said about the subject, and more importantly what Jesus did on the Sabbath.
Jesus healed on the Sabbath several times Matt 12:9-14 (NIV)

9 Going on from that place, he went into their synagogue, 10 and a man with a shriveled hand was there. Looking for a reason to bring charges against Jesus, they asked him, “Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?”
11 He said to them, “If any of you has a sheep and it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will you not take hold of it and lift it out? 12 How much more valuable is a person than a sheep! Therefore it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath.”
13 Then he said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” So he stretched it out and it was completely restored, just as sound as the other. 14 But the Pharisees went out and plotted how they might kill Jesus.

Earlier in this same passage Jesus' disciples had helped themselves to some grain in a field, also unlawful according to Jewish law. These things indicate a new understanding of Sabbath was underway.
Mark 2 (NIV) addresses this same event and has a different quotation here

27 Then he said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. 28 So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.”

In fact all of the gospels depict Jesus doing at least one if not more healing miracles on the Sabbath. All of these gospels record the Pharisees challenging Jesus for doing what they considered work on the Sabbath.
This study would seem to indicate that the rules for the Sabbath have changed. It is a day to minister to those around us, to benefit our communities. It is still for sure a day of rest, however "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath" should resonate with us, it's not a day that we should feel restricted by what we cannot do, it's a day for freedom and rest.
The same freedom from the restriction of the law that is preached in the rest of the New Testament is present here as well. There is no set regulation for what we can do on the Sabbath or how it should be spent. We are free. It should be spent resting or doing things in our community, but what rests me is not what rests you.


What is the difference between an "issue of covenant" and an "abomination to God"? When looking at Old Testament Mosaic law, I'm confused as to what applies to Christians and what does not.  In an answer to a previous question that I asked, it was said that a certain law did "not seem to be an issue of covenant, but an actual abomination to God."  Are an "issue of covenant" and an "abomination to God" different categories of laws in the Old Testament?  What is the Christian view of how different types of Mosaic law apply to us?

They are not different categories of laws, the answerer of your other question is referring to the exact text of the verse

  "is an abomination to the Lord your God"

and then combining it with the fact that God is

  the same yesterday today and forever (Hebrews 13:8)

so it is not a matter of covenant, which we were freed from through Jesus, but rather of Gods "preference" (so to speak) which do not change


What of Augustine's ecclesiology was rejected in the Reformation? BB Warfield is famous for saying that the Reformation was a triumph of Augustine's soteriology over his ecclesiology. For those who believe that Augustine's ecclesiology was rejected in the Magisterial Reformation (i.e. not the Radical Reformation or the Anabaptist tradition or later developments like Pentecostalism), what key characteristics of Augustine's doctrine of the church were rejected by the Reformers? That would be people like Calvin and Luther. Citations of confessional documents are welcome too - Augsburg, Helvetic, Belgic, Westminster, etc.

Reminder: this question is about ecclesiology. If you want to talk about sola fide, go here

The ecclesiology of Augustine and the ecclesiology of the Reformers were both very much products of the times they lived in:

In Augustine's case as well as sourcing a basic understanding on ecclesiology from scripture and tradition, any development of his thinking in this area was greatly influenced by the problems the Church had been facing - especially in its dealings with false teachers. When he considered "heretics" and schismatics, it was evident to him that they had wandered into error - their contradictions of the truth guarded by "the one true church" led him to believe that there could be no salvation outside the (visible) Catholic church - to be safeguarded from error, it would be necessary to remain within the fold and consequently submit to the established governing authorities within the visible institution.

The Reformers were faced with an entirely different scenario: In standing for their conviction of what the truth was, they were actually put out of the church. Despite largely agreeing with Augustine on what this truth constituted - especially in respect to soteriology - they found themselves in variance with the authority of the visible established church. This led them to understand that (the Spirit of) Antichrist had not just been in operation within the visible church - leading some into error and becoming heretics and schismatics as in days gone by - but had seized control of the reins as it were - this was a radically different situation. It necessarily generated an ecclesiology that emphasized the invisible nature of the (true) catholic Church organized under Christ's headship against that of a visible human institution lead by men who, while claiming Apostolic succession for their authority, denied this authority through their life conduct and their false doctrine. Consider:

  I feel much freer now that I am certain the pope is the Antichrist - Martin Luther

I posit that at least one of the reasons he felt more free is that it helped him clarify his own ecclesiology which in its previous form would have been inadequate to explain the necessity of defending what he saw as essential truth against the attacks of the (visible) Church hierarchy.

Some assert that the distinction between the visible and invisible church is present in The City of God, chapter 35 in particular. I would say that the concept of the (true) Catholic Church being invisible is at best only present in seed form in that passage. It's entirely possible that other doctrines like "the nature of Christ's Church as found in the Bible is one, universal, visible, historical, concrete/locatable/identifiable, hierarchical, sacramental, infallible Church; and as the Creeds state that visible Church is 'One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic';" would completely suppress any such seed growing in to the Reformers' "maturer" version of the doctrine. To what extent Augustine adopted these aspects of (what is now current) Catholic ecclesiology is difficult to determine, but I think in his various arguments against heretics, there is evidence that he had at least enough of these concepts resident in his ecclesiology to prevent the seed from growing to maturity. Furthermore, in Schaff's preface to The City of God, he writes:

  [Augustine] confines the Kingdom of God to the narrow limits of the Jewish theocracy and the visible Catholic Church.

The doctrine Augustine is espousing is basically the implications of the parable of the wheat and the tares (Matthew 13) - which the current RC church of course accepts as scripture and is why (though they believe in a salvific nature of baptism) they teach against "assurance of salvation" as evangelicals would understand that phrase. So evidently, accepting the "seed" as true is insufficient for the complete Reformation view to be fully developed - other factors are at play.

It's an interesting hypothetical to ask "what would Augustine do?" given the situation in operation in the 16th century.  We can speculate regarding what he taught regarding his understanding of scripture, tradition and the situation he faced in his day, but the reality is that we just don't know.

Summary: The aspect of Augustine's ecclesiology that promoted an unreflective submission to the authority (teaching and governing) of the visible Church regardless of it's condition (he couldn't conceive that the institution could be corrupted to the extent that ancient Israel had been prior to being carried away into exile) was necessarily rejected by the Reformers as they faced the reality of being put out of the visible church while steadfastly holding to the truth that they saw in scripture. This was the departure point, and the ecclesiology they subsequently developed (although varied in visible forms according to varied interpretions of scripture and reliance on tradition) was based on the understanding of the 'true' catholic Church of Christ being invisible in form.


Can the faithful receive Holy Communion on repenting after committing a grave sin? At Matthew 26: 26-28, we read:

  While they were eating, Jesus took a loaf of bread, and after blessing it he broke it, gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is my body.”   Then he took a cup, and after giving thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you;   for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

That would imply that a member of the Church who is in a state of sin, but repents and receives the Body and Blood of Christ in Holy Communion should receive forgiveness for his/her  sins in the same way he/she gets absolution from sins in Confession. But, the Catholic Church has always been insisting that one should be in a state of Grace in order to receive Holy Communion in a worthy manner.

My question is: What has been the Catholic Church's answer to query on the above lines, raised by the faithful over the past few years?

"my blood of the covenant, which is poured forth for many for the forgiveness of sins" refers to the purpose of the giving of Christ's blood. It does not refer to the effects of recieving it in Communion.

This is the very simple answer.

However, we do believe that the body and blood of Christ give us spiritual life. As Christ lives by the Father, so we will live because of Christ, and will be raised, like Him, on the last day. Theses are the promises of Christ on the Eucharist.

St. Paul teaches that we must have a clean conscience before Holy Communion:

  1 Corinthians 10:16-22. . . 11:25-29

  The cup of blessing, which we bless, is it not the communion of the
  blood of Christ? The bread, which we break, is it not the communion of
  the body of Christ? . . . Are not those who eat the sacrifices
  partakers of the altar?* . . . But you cannot drink the cup of the
  Lord and the cup of demons; you cannot partake of the table of the Lord** and the table of demons. Or do we provoke the Lord? Are we
  stronger than He? . . . [about misconduct at the Lord's Supper] . . .

  For I recieved from the Lord what I also passed on to you: that the
  Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and having given
  thanks [eucharistēsas] He broke it and said, This is My body, which
  is [given] for you; do this in commemoration of Me. In the same way,
  having supped, [took] the cup, saying, This cup is the new covenant in
  My blood; [and] as often you might drink it, do it in commemoration of
  Me. For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you
  proclaim the death of the Lord until He comes. Therefore WHOEVER EATS
  THE BREAD OR DRINKS OF THE CUP OF THE LORD UNWORTHILY WILL BE GUILTY
  OF THE BODY AND BLOOD OF THE LORD. Therefore let a man examine
  himself, and then let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For
  he who eats and drinks not recognizing [for what it is] the body/flesh
  [of the Lord] eats and drinks DAMNATION unto himself: for which reason
  many of you are weak and sick, and many of you fallen asleep.

* Hebrews 13:10.

** table of the Lord refers to the altar of sacrifice referred to in the Old Testament:

  Malachi 1:7

  You offer polluted bread upon My altar. And you say, Wherein have we
  polluted Thee: in that you say the table of the Lord is contemptable.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches the following:§

  To respond to this invitation we must prepare ourselves for so great
  and so holy a moment. St. Paul urges us to examine our conscience:
  "Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in
  an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of
  the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink
  of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the
  body eats and drinks judgment upon himself."216 Anyone conscious of a
  grave sin must receive the sacrament of Reconciliation before coming
  to Communion.

216 1 Cor 11:27-29.

§ CCC 1385 | See also Council of Trent, Session 13, Concerning the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, cap. VII.


Does sin hinder one's ability to speak God's word? A friend told me that "bad people" are limited when it comes to spreading the Word of God.

According to scripture, how, and in what way, does sin hinder one's ability to spread the Word of God?

Your question is a little more complicated than one might think at first blush!

"Bad people" are the operative words, in my opinion. Bad people may attempt to preach and teach God's Word, but they do so for base motives, which could include (but are not limited to) the following:

money
fame
power
lust for any of the above, and/or lust for sexual immorality, such as the "man of God" who takes advantage of his female followers

The Bible calls bad men (and bad women) who attempt to preach and teach God's Word with their own particular and sinful slant "false teachers." The task of mature Christian believers, such as elders, deacons, pastors, ministers, priests, and so on, is to be on guard for false teachers and to protect the flock from these predators, whom Jesus called "ravenous wolves" in Matthew 7:15; 10:16; and Luke 10:3.

The important word in the last sentence is, I suggest, mature. Spiritual maturity in a church leader means in part that he or she is able to confront and refute false teachers with sound doctrine and teaching.

  "[Elders] must pay attention to the reliable message as it has been taught to them so that they can encourage people with healthy instruction and refute those who speak against it" (Titus 1:9 CEB).

Is it possible for an ungodly man or woman to benefit spiritually a hearer or two now and then? Yes, I believe so. The writer to the Hebrews tells us that God's word is

  "living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword . . . [and] able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart" (Hebrews 4:12, excerpts, NASB Updated).

False teachers may even lead with truth (in the sense of starting with the truth), and then follow up with a partial truth or a distortion of the truth. The truth with which  they "lead" might be straight Scripture. The simple quoting of a Scripture could make all the positive difference in the life of a person, particularly if he or she extracts themselves from the false teacher soon enough!

Interestingly, the apostle Paul had an interesting perspective on preachers and teachers who preach and teach with the wrong motives. Paul said,

  "Some indeed preach Christ even of envy and strife; and some also of good will: the one [do it] of love, knowing that I am set for the defence of the gospel; but the other proclaim Christ of faction, not sincerely, thinking to raise up affliction for me in my bonds. What then? only that in every way, whether in pretence or in truth, Christ is proclaimed; and therein I rejoice, yea, and will rejoice" (Philippians 1:15-18 ASV).

Is there a difference between "bad people" (i.e., false teachers) and preachers who are perhaps correct doctrinally but are in need of an attitude adjustment? Yes, I think so. Nevertheless, we need to adopt Paul's perspective in this matter and rejoice because Christ is being preached. Competition, even among preachers, can be a good thing!

Addendum:

Quite simply (but not to derogate your question), communicating the Word of God requires a clean vessel. Yes, even a person who is harboring and hiding a besetting sin can still preach and teach, but the hypocrisy of attempting to preach the truth while living a lie will eventually catch up with him or her, and the result could be his or her exposure, and with exposure comes (for example) losing one's ministry. Even with repentance, the person may not be able to return to a fruitful ministry, partly because of personal factors, and/or partly from people's lack of trust in the messenger.

Marshall McLuhan was definitely onto something when he said, "The medium IS the message." You cannot separate one from the other. In Christian terms, a sinful messenger is lacking in spiritual power, spiritual insight, and spiritual sensitivity. Perhaps most serious of all is the sinner's failure to glorify God as much as he could have had he not lingered in unconfessed sin.

While we all sin, and we "all stumble in many ways" (James 3:2), to glorify God we need to keep short accounts with God by confessing our sin, particularly before attempting to spread the word. Jesus condemned hypocrisy. A hypocritical spreader of the Word can do more harm than good, both to himself and to others, especially when his sin is "found out" (see Numbers 32:23).


Are there any known non-trinitarian apologists in the Anglican communion? I understand that the Anglican Church is trinitarian in belief. However, are there any known non-trinitarian apologists in the communion?

Any information both historical and present-day would be helpful for my studies.

The Anglican church in many places is extremely lax in disciplining or evicting those with heretical beliefs. Historical Anglicanism had no capacity for non-Trinitarianism, and even though the foundational documents of the Prayer Book and the 39 Articles are accepted to varying extents in various provinces, one of the foundations of the Anglican Communion called the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral still affirms the ecumenical Trinitarian creeds. The sad reality is that many ministers and bishops have been allowed to keep their positions despite publicly teaching things which directly contract the creeds, the 39 Articles, and the Bible.

The most famous Anglican heretic is retired bishop John Shelby Spong, who rejects theism, the trinity, the virgin birth, miracles, prayer, and resurrection.

A 2014 YouGov survey of more than 1500 Anglican clergy in the UK found that 2% think God "is no more than a human construct." An earlier survey from 2002 of almost 2000 clergy found that more than 75% of Church of England clergy overall accept the Trinity, with the implication that more than 20% do not accept it in some way.


What are the requirements for establishing an Eastern Orthodox church or mission? As a former parish council member of a recently founded Catholic mission, I'm somewhat familiar with the  process of establishing a Catholic mission/church within the parameters of canon law.

What is the process for establishing an Antiochian Orthodox mission?

(A) What are the requirements?

(B) How many members are needed?

(C) How is a priest assigned to the mission?

Firstly, you will need your Bishop's approval. However, before that (sorry if that is ironic), you will need to make sure that you have enough people in the area who would like to be in a mission. Enough people? Hmm...
Here is a link that has some info. Quoting from it (member David):

  Here is how most OCA missions have been established in our diocese for the last twenty years or so.

  Secure a core group to explore starting a mission (usually 2-5 families/individuals) that are Orthodox
  Contact your bishop, letting him know of your desire to start a mission in your area.
  If the bishop approves, he will give you permission to start holding reader's services.  Perhaps one or more of the starting members will be tonsured a reader if a member in good standing at their last parish.
  Once you have secured a place to meet and have had reader's services for a month or two, the local dean and/or bishop will arrange to have supply priests hold a liturgy at the mission at least once a month.  At this point the mission usually receives it's name.
  After showing enough growth that demonstrates that the community has the potential to evangelise their local area and support a priest and his family either a priest will be assigned to the mission or one of the mission families will go to seminary.

Really, though, this type of question should be asked of a Priest (or Bishop :)), not of online strangers... :)


Are some people pursued by the "enemy" relatively more than others? My pastor made a general statement (or whole sermon;) and said something to the effect that the more the enemy knows you are in alignment with God the more he tries to knock us off course.

So, more specifically: does Christianity make any distinction, observation, mention, intention or concept that some people (anyone - believer, non-believer) may be pursued by the enemy more than others - and if so what are the conditions, in what way and how?

Thank You .

Much, nearly all, of the inner workings of the angelic and demonic beings are not disclosed in scripture. However, on this subject there are some things that indicate each individual is not always 'pursued' to the same degree, which by inference must make us conclude each person compared is not 'pursued' equally. The attacks seem proportionate to our faith but weak faith incurs the greater failure under our attacks, so the result of the battle is no indication of its intensity.
I prefer to use the word 'tempted' over 'pursued' as the second could imply running away (but I know that's not what you meant). There are many examples in scripture to prove we are not 'tempted' by the Devil equally every day, but their is an 'evil day' which we must be on guard for in order to 'resist' the Devil, so he will 'flee'.

Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand. (Ephesians 6:13, NIV)
Submit yourselves, then, to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. (James 4:7, NIV)

On these evil days it is not unreasonable to assume more powerful temptations, more powerful demons, will be used in the attack. Naturally the stronger faith of the believer the greater the temptation that is required to establish an assault not so easily shrugged off.  We can see this in the life of Christ. The Devil did not send just some weaker demon to tempt him, the Devil personally tempted Christ and took great interest in his every move. He was also interested in the twelve, wanting personally to 'sift' Peter (Luke 22:21) and 'posses' Judas. (John 13:27)
However in this conclusion we must not think, 'those poor strong Christians have a bigger fight' and therefore can engage in excuses for their failures and have a self-pity party as though others are not equally struggling. For since each God is infinite in power the Devil can't lift a finger against anyone without a kind of permission so that God ensures:

No temptation has overtaken you except what is common to mankind. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can endure it. (1 Corinthians 10:13, NIV)

Also since we are only drawn into sin because of our own lusts under any given temptation, if we fall the failures is ours and ours alone.
Since God determines what measure of temptation is best for the refining of our faith and increasing of our strength (Col 1:11, Rom 5:4), in some ways the Devil's depth of 'temptation' becomes irrelevant and we may not notice his attacks have gained in strength because God is making us stronger from our previous vexing and struggles.


Nuns wearing wedding bands? On a recent trip a nice nun took a picture of my family.  I noticed that the nun was wearing a wedding band on her left hand.  I have a vague recollection of reading somewhere that nuns are considered to be “brides of Christ”, which leads to my two-part  question.

Do all nuns wear these symbolic wedding bands?  If not, is this practice limited to certain religious orders, or is it an individual choice?

Roman Catholic nuns consider themselves a "Bride of Christ," and as such some wear a wedding ring.  This of course assumes that the nun you saw was a Roman Catholic nun.  Some nuns (or similar laity, such as Lutheran deaconesses) in other faiths are not bound by the same celibacy vows or simply do not wear wedding rings.

More information:  Wikipedia - Black Veil


What is the biblical basis for the freedom of religion? Christianity generally believes in the exclusivity of believers in Jesus the Christ.

John 14:6 NIV

  Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes
  to the Father except through me.

What is the biblical basis for a majority Christian society allowing religious freedom, as opposed to establishing a Christian theocracy?

In Revelation 22 it says:

  Let the one who does wrong continue to do wrong; let the vile person
  continue to be vile; let the one who does right continue to do right;
  and let the holy person continue to be holy.”

Christianity is not by nature a conquering faith.

In 1 Corinthians 5:

  I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral
  people— not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral,
  or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have
  to leave this world. But now I am writing to you that you must not
  associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is
  sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or
  swindler. Do not even eat with such people.

  What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you
  not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. “Expel the
  wicked person from among you.”

The church is to regulate its members' conduct, not the conduct of outsiders.

Romans 12 says:

  If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with
  everyone. Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for
  God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,”d
  says the Lord.

Persecuting others is discouraged, because we are to love our enemies.

Above all, to not respect the religions of others would be contrary to the ways of servant hood. As Matthew 23 says:

  The greatest among you will be your servant. For those who exalt
  themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be
  exalted.

I believe the example of ancient Israel in Joshua 7, when they lost a battle because Achan took plunder, is a good illustration. The Old Testament is used by some to justify Holy wars, and by others to attack Christianity. God is perfectly free to employ people to fight Holy wars, but he holds those soldiers to a high standard: you must serve God and not greed. Centuries later, the expulsion of the Jews from Spain - even those that had converted to Christianity - was not an act of piety, but one of greed. They wanted to confiscate the wealth of those they despised.


Is belief in the suspension or replacement of any of the previous covenants necessary for salvation today? Is belief in the suspension or replacement of any of the previous covenants necessary for salvation today?

To those who wants a longer wording: Is belief in the suspension or replacement of any of the previous Biblical Covenants necessary for Salvation after the New Covenant or New Testament was given? Why? Why not?

I have no interest whatsoever in promoting one Christian view over the other, and therefore, I am always interested in an overview ... of the major views in Christianity in regards to this question.

No, what people believe about the Old Testament Covenants is not essential to salvation, although a proper understanding of why God introduced those Covenants is critical to appreciating the significance of the New Covenant.  All of the Old Testament Covenants point forward to the coming of Christ Jesus who introduced the New Covenant the night he was betrayed.  That Covenant is not limited to Jews, but is open to any and all who acknowledge they are sinners in need of a saviour, and who repent and turn to God.
Before Jesus came to earth the basis for salvation was faith in God and in God’s promises.  Hebrews chapter 11 lists many Old Testament characters who, because of their faith in God, were assured of being the recipients of God’s promises:

”All these people were still living by faith when they died.  They did not receive the things promised; they only saw them and welcomed them from a distance.  And they admitted that they were aliens and strangers on earth... Instead, they were longing for a better country – a heavenly one.  Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared a city for them” (Hebrews 11:13-16).

Today, faith is still essential to salvation.  Here are a few relevant Bible verses:

”But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved— and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them” (Ephesians 2:4–10).

The means God has chosen to bestow His grace upon us is through faith. “Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see” (Hebrews 11:1). Salvation is obtained by faith in God’s Son, Jesus Christ, in what He has done—specifically, His death on the cross and His resurrection. But even faith is not something we generate on our own. Faith, as well as grace, is the gift of God (Ephesians 2:8). He bestows saving faith and saving grace upon us in order to redeem us from sin and deliver us from its consequences. So God saves us by His grace through the faith He gives us. Both grace and faith are gifts.
The book of Romans describes God’s plan of salvation.  It shows how we must first acknowledge that we are sinners and place our trust in what Jesus Christ has done to atone for our sin.  Salvation, the forgiveness of sins, is available to anyone who will trust in Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour.

“...if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved" (Romans 10:9).
"...for everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved" (Romans 10:13).

Salvation depends on coming to saving faith in Jesus Christ and accepting that only through his death and resurrection can we receive forgiveness for our sins and be adopted into God’s family.  As far as I know, all Christians understand this basic principle of salvation – faith in God and in what God has done, in Jesus Christ, to atone for our sins so that we may receive eternal life.
I found an article that explains how people were saved prior to the coming of Jesus and the introduction of the New Covenant.  It shows how the Old Testament saints were aware of the promised Redeemer, and they were saved by faith in that Saviour, the same way people are saved today. There is no other way. Jesus is “‘the stone you builders rejected, which has become the capstone.’ Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:11-12, quoting Psalm 118:22).
https://www.gotquestions.org/Old-Testament-salvation.html


What are some biblical basis for judging between a true and false prophet? How do you discern between a false prophet and a true prophet? In the Bible it says to beware of false prophets but does not say on how and what to look for either way? Is there any kind of test for this?

Deut 18:20-22 is the classic example from the old testament

  20 But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in My name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die.’ 21 And if you say in your heart, ‘How shall we know the word which the Lord has not spoken?’— 22 when a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the thing does not happen or come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him. (NKJV)

There are also some examples from the new testament. One such from the Lord Jesus Christ

  Then many false prophets will rise up and deceive many. (Matt 24:11)

Jesus says the false prophets will be deceivers. Well, the opposite of deception is truth, Jesus also said some things about the truth.

  Sanctify[i] them by Your truth. Your word is truth. (John 17:17).

speaking contrary too the Word of God is a great indicator that they are not in line with the truth, but rather are decievers or "False Prophets".

In addition, Jude speaks of these false teachers.

  Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints. 4 For certain men have crept in unnoticed, who long ago were marked out for this condemnation, ungodly men, who turn the grace of our God into lewdness and deny the only Lord [b]God and our Lord Jesus Christ.

Notice Jude says the faith has been "Once for all delivered". We are not awaiting any major new revelations from a prophet. Also he talks about "who turn the grace of God into lewdness". If there message promotes lawlessness or sin in any way, contrary to what has been clearly taught in the Bible, that is a bad sign also.

In addition, the 2nd chapter of 2 Peter is all about false teachers, and would be a good resource for study also.

In conclusion, Paul warns against any "new gospels"

  But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be [b]accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.(galatians 1:6-8).

So the marks of a true prophet would be, speaking things that line up with God's word and promoting godliness.

Marks of a false prophet would be, new and strange teachings that don't line up with the bible, promoting ungodliness, or any type of prophecy that does not come true.


Why doesn't the Pope wear a biretta? In several places around the Internet I have seen it stated that the Pope does not wear a biretta.

Why not? Is it merely that there are no occasions when he would, because he is always presiding over a celebration?

Or is there another significance?

Why does the pope not wear a biretta?
It not only is not part of the Roman Catholic tradition, it would be at odds with the traditions of the  Norbertines or White Canons who actually wear a white biretta.

The biretta may be used by all ranks of the Latin clergy cardinals and other bishops to priests, deacons, and even seminarians (who are not clergy, since they are not ordained). Those worn by cardinals are scarlet red and made of silk. After the Second Vatican Council the ceremony of giving the galero to cardinals was replaced with giving the biretta. The biretta of a bishop is amaranth in color, while those worn by priests, deacons, and seminarians are black. The pope does not make use of the biretta.
The Tridentine Roman Missal rubrics on low Mass required the priest to wear the biretta while proceeding to the altar, to hand it to the server on arrival and to resume it when leaving. At solemn Mass the sacred ministers wore it also when seated.
Cardinals bear no tuft or "pom" (they are given their birettas and zuchettos by the Pope who elevated them in a ceremony named a consistory – they will form a line, and kneel before him when receiving them), bishops bear a purple pom, priests who have been appointed as prelates to certain positions within the Vatican wear a black biretta with red pom, diocesan priests and deacons wear a black biretta with or without a black pom. It is often asserted that seminarians are only entitled to wear a biretta without a pom-pom, but there would seem to be no formal ruling on this point. Priests in monastic and mendicant religious orders that have their own habits (Benedictines, Franciscans, Dominicans, etc.) do not generally wear birettas: in most circumstances, even liturgical, the monastic hood took the place of the biretta. Canons Regular generally do—for instance the canons of the Order of Prémontré wear a white biretta. Clerks Regular (that is, post-Renaissance religious orders primarily dedicated to priestly ministry, for instance the Jesuits and Redemptorists) generally wear a black biretta with no tuft. Other priests who belong to various forms of community life, as the Congregation of the Oratory of St. Philip Neri for instance, generally also wear birettas, but without a pom. - Biretta (Wikipedia)

No pope has ever tried wearing a white biretta as a papal tradition. It belongs to the Order of Canons Regular of Prémontré.

Hallowed White Biretta of the Norbertines
The 'traditional' biretta at the Pontifical University of Saint Thomas Aquinas, Angelicum, is also white, to correspond to the white Dominican habit.
Besides the pope as the head of the Universal Catholic Church places the scarlet red biretta on the head of newly created cardinals at Rome.
The biretta
 is a liturgical vestment reserved to clerics below the level of Sovereign Pontiff. Thus a pope has no biretta.


Significance of Methuselah's death year This is something I noted once when reading Genesis, and am still wondering if there's any meaning to it.

Genesis tells us that Noah was 599-600 years old1 when the flood came.

  Genesis 7:11 (ESV)
  In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of the heavens were opened.

We can also find the age difference of Methuselah and Noah in Genesis 5, and it's 187 + 182 = 369 years2:

  Genesis 5:25-29 (ESV)
   25 When Methuselah had lived 187 years, he fathered Lamech. 26 Methuselah lived after he fathered Lamech 782 years and had other sons and daughters. 27 Thus all the days of Methuselah were 969 years, and he died.
   28 When Lamech had lived 182 years, he fathered a son 29 and called his name Noah, saying, "Out of the ground that the LORD has cursed this one shall bring us relief from our work and from the painful toil of our hands."

So, if Noah was 600 when the flood happened, Methuselah was 600 + 369 = 969. That is, he died around the time of flood.

Did Methuselah die in the flood? Does the Bible refer to this anywhere else? Is this in any way significant?

1 I don't know Hebrew, so I'm not gonna guess. The tenth year of my life was technically when I was 9 years old. But even in English the phrase might also mean being 10 years old.

2 More precisely, the age difference is in the range of [369 years; 370 years + 364 days]

It is relevant that Methuselah died just before the flood. Just have a look at the names of the first 10 generations leading up to Noah:

Adam - Man (CJBPG)
Seth - Appointed
Enosh - Mortal, weak (Smith's, Hitchcock's, Nave's)
Kenan - Sorrow
Mahalelel - The Praise of Lord (Smith's, Fausset's, Easton's, Nave's)
Jared - Descend  (Smith's, Fausset's, Easton's, Nave's, Hitchcock's, ISBE)
Enoch - Dedicated
Methuselah - His death shall bring (Fausset's)
Lamech - Lamentator, the poor, brought low (Hitchcock)
Noah - Comfort

Putting this together:

Man is appointed to be mortal and sorrowful. But the Praise of the Lord will descend, dedicated that His death shall bring the desparing, low, and poor comfort.

I imaging that every time Methuselah had a cold, everybody worried.

But what a prophecy into God's plan for humanity!

Now, based on this it is my believe that Methuselah died before the flood. There is no prove for that, though.

Jewish counting works different from ours: When Jesus was dead for 3 days, that means that he died on one, was dead the next, and rose the third. (which would make it possible for him to be dead for only 27 hours: He died at 3pm, and the third day started at around 6pm the next evening.)

Therefore Methuselah could have died on his 968th birthday and still have lived 969 years.


Is the choice, or decision, to accept Salvation through Jesus Christ a Work? While reviewing the superb answers to this question about free will, I was inspired to leave a comment for Ian that I realized ought to be its own question.

As I understand (and possibly misunderstand) Reformed theology, "works" are things that we do, and as such are not included in that which provides justification nor salvation.  I then consider the act of will that is making a choice to open one's heart to Jesus Christ, a decision that I finally made in my late 40's to accept salvation through Him alone.  Thus began my walk in Faith (though I keep stubbing my toes on those rocks in the road ...).  It appears to me that my choice, my decision to accept Salvation through Jesus Christ is a Work since it is something that involved my agency.

From a more Determinist and Calvinist perspective, how does my acceptance of Jesus Christ not classify as a Work, since it was something that I did but that I could have chosen not to do?  (If other Reformed denominations view this differently, that perspective would also be appreciated in contrast).

From my perspective, I feel like I've tripped over a contradiction in the general case of not being saved nor justified by Works, yet it took my agency to accept Christ as my Savior. (It is quite possible that I simply don't understand the theology well enough, hence the question).

How does the Reformed/Calvinist theology resolve this (seeming) contradiction?

I am under the impression that there are other Reformed denominations than Calvinist, but that may be wrong so the bottom line question needs to be answered from the PoV of Calvinist/Reformed theology.  (I am seeking more help in chat to get my terminology right on this).  I note that this question is related to my question in addressing the free will issue.

You've fallen into a common trap of examining a single piece of a theological system by importing that piece into your own construct rather than seeing how it fits into its own context. A Reformed understanding of soteriology is dependent on several interwoven ideas about God and his role in creation.

Note this assumption in your question is not representative of Reformed thought:

  […] how does my acceptance of Jesus Christ not classify as a Work, since it was something that I did that I could have chosen not to do?

One of the points in the classic TULIP acronym that calls out some key points of Reformed soteriology is "Irresistible Grace". The Reformed faith puts God fully in control of all aspects of salvation. He is sovereign and we are not: not even over our own lives. We are his creatures created for his purposes — and for his elect that means that we were created to be called his people and God will have his way. His calling us to repentance and belief is not something we could ignore. It is a gracious gift given to us that once given will achieve its purpose.

As such if you are indeed one of God's elect choosing not to accept him is not actually something you can do. The catch is that we don't know who the elect are. As a wise preacher once said¹:

  If the Lord had put a yellow stripe down the backs of the elect, I’d go up and down the street lifting up shirt tails, finding out who had the yellow stripe, and then I’d give them the gospel. But God didn’t do it that way. He told me to preach the gospel to every creature that “whosoever will may come.” Jesus says, “and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.”

Going back to your question, you describe your own journey as your own act of will:

  I then consider the act of will that is making a choice to open one's heart to Jesus Christ, an act of will, a choice, a decision that I finally made in my late 40's to accept salvation through Him alone.

A Calvinist would dispute your assertion that this was your own uninfluenced will. We do in fact believe in free will—but only free in so far as it will inevitably act according to its nature. Humans act according to human nature and are limited by it.

A bird has wings and can fly. A bird may jump off a branch at will and fly where it will. Meanwhile if I jump out the 8th floor window of my office I will inevitably be scraped up off the sidewalk. I do not have wings and no amount of willing myself to fly will make it happen. I am limited by my nature as a biped mammal. I can use my creativity to construct an parachute or an airplane and to seemingly defy the law of gravity, but this is really not doing anything against nature, only using the laws of physics to my advantage. In spite of the novelty of flight pulled off by the Wright brothers they didn't actually transcend human nature.
A fish may swim and breath freely in water, but I cannot. I can hold my breath, or invent a breathing apparatus, or travel in a submarine, I am limited by my physical nature and and endeavors to supplement that are really just extensions of the physical reality we were created inside of.

Similarly in a Calvinistic worldview (the T in TULIP) man is inherently sinful. Part of our fundamental nature is depraved: all mankind in Adam transgressed God's commandments and has been from that moment separated from him (we died). Just as we cannot retroactively choose our biological parents or even citizenship at birth (much less choose to be something else entirely) so we do not have a choice at birth about whether we are friends or enemies of God. Or view of original sin is that man is irreparably damaged and by virtue of our birth in Adam have a core nature that both is sinful and will choose to sin. If you want to read up on this point of Reformed soteriology "Federal Headship" is what you're looking for.

Only by supernatural (contrary to nature, something only the divine creator himself can do) intervention can we be saved and reconciled to God. Left to our own ends we will inevitably and always make the same choices as Adam. In Adam, there is NONE righteous, not even one (cf. Romans 3).

When any human makes a decision to accept salvation through Jesus Christ we believe that Christ through the Holy Spirit began the work regenerating their hearts—removing the heart of stone and replacing it with one of flesh that desires the things of God. Our very first inkling of a desire for God is an undeserved gift of Grace that only the elect will truly experience, and were it not for God first bestowing that grace we would never make that choice.

On the flip side having been given that grace, we will inevitably act according to the new natures given to us in Christ: repenting and going on to good works that glorify the Son.

¹ This quote is commonly attributed to Charles Spurgeon, but Spurgeon was in fact acknowledged (Sermon #2843) he got the idea from Rowland Hill, someone who predated him. Whether the quote originated with Hill or whether he in turn got in from some other source doesn't seem to be known.


Since Mormons believe in multiple earth-like planets, do they believe that the "fall" was likewise needed on each of them? As is brought out in the top-rated answer to this other question, according to Mormon belief there are other inhabited worlds (presumably in our own universe) created by God.

The answer refers to the Book of Moses, chapter 1, where verses 29-34 state:

  29 And he beheld many lands; and each land was called earth, and there were inhabitants on the face thereof.30 And it came to pass
  that Moses called upon God, saying: Tell me, I pray thee, why these
  things are so, and by what thou madest them? 31 And behold, the
  glory of the Lord was upon Moses, so that Moses stood in the presence
  of God, and talked with him face to face. And the Lord God said unto
  Moses: For mine own purpose have I made these things. Here is wisdom
  and it remaineth in me. 32 And by the word of my power, have I
  created them, which is mine Only Begotten Son, who is full of grace
  and truth. 33 And worlds without number have I created; and I also
  created them for mine own purpose; and by the Son I created them,
  which is mine Only Begotten. 34 And the first man of all men have
  I called Adam, which is many.

And according to the answer to this other question, Mormons believe that Adam and Eve were unable to have children until they ate from the tree that they were told not to eat from. The section under "Additional Notes" states:

  It is worth noting that rather than viewing the Fall of Adam and Eve
  as an unfortunate and evil accident, one which if it had not happened,
  everything would be perfect, Mormons see the Fall as necessary to the
  purpose of life on earth.

  Life is an opportunity to learn to choose good over evil. This could
  not happen if there was not good or evil. (See 2 Nephi 2.)

  The sacrifice of the Son of God was planned from "the foundation of
  the world" (Revelation 13:8). So also was the Fall -- which
  necessitated the sacrifice -- known from the beginning. Mormons often
  describe the Fall as a fall downward, but also forward.

What I would like to ask is, do Mormons believe that the fall was likewise needed on each inhabited planet? And if so, do they believe that Jesus also eventually died on behalf of the inhabitants of each planet?

Do Mormons believe that the fall was likewise needed on each inhabited planet?

No authoritative LDS doctrine on this subject, except that the first man and woman on other worlds had the name Adam and Eve.
Moses 1:33-34,4:26

33 And worlds without number have I created; and I also created them for mine own purpose; and by the Son I created them, which is mine Only Begotten.
34 And the first man of all men have I called Adam, which is many.
26 And Adam called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all living; for thus have I, the Lord God, called the first of all women, which are many.
Do they believe that Jesus also eventually died on behalf of the inhabitants of each planet?

Mormons believe that Jesus only needed to perform the Atonement once because it was an infinite and eternal sacrifice.
Doctrine and Covenants 76:22-24,40-43

22 And now, after the many testimonies which have been given of him, this is the testimony, last of all, which we give of him: That he lives!
23 For we saw him, even on the right hand of God; and we heard the voice bearing record that he is the Only Begotten of the Father—
24 That by him, and through him, and of him, the worlds are and were created, and the inhabitants thereof are begotten sons and daughters unto God.
40 And this is the gospel, the glad tidings, which the voice out of the heavens bore record unto us—
41 That he came into the world, even Jesus, to be crucified for the world, and to bear the sins of the world, and to sanctify the world, and to cleanse it from all unrighteousness;
42 That through him all might be saved whom the Father had put into his power and made by him;
43 Who glorifies the Father, and saves all the works of his hands, except those sons of perdition who deny the Son after the Father has revealed him.

In Times and Seasons 4 no. 6 WW Phelps in a poem verse based on section 76 wrote:

By him, of him, and through him, the worlds were all made,
Even all that career in the heavens so broad.

Whose inhabitants, too, from the first to the last,

Are sav'd by the very same Saviour (Savior) of ours;
And, of course, are begotten God's daughters and sons,
By the very same truths, and the very same pow'rs.

On why the Atonement happened here and not another world Joseph Fielding Smith speculated: (Signs of the Times(this is just a link to amazon) p 5 or 12)

Perhaps this is the reason Jesus Christ was sent here instead of some other world, for in some other world they would not have crucified Him, and His presence was needed here because of the extreme wickedness of the inhabitants of this earth

Brigham Young in Journal of Discourses seems to agree that this world is one of the more wicked worlds.

I suppose that God never organized an earth and peopled it that was ever reduced to a lower state of darkness, sin and ignorance than this. I suppose this is one of the lowest kingdoms that ever the Lord Almighty created, and on that account is capable of becoming exalted to be one of the highest kingdoms that has ever had an exaltation in all the eternities

See also Alma 34:9-10,12-13

However Brigham Young taught that each world had its own Adam and Eve, and its own savior, however, please note that this is not considered final or authoritative.

Let me open the eyes of your understanding. There has never been a time when the creations of worlds commenced. They are from eternity to eternity in their creations and redemption. After they are organized they experience the good and the evil, the light and the dark, the bitter and the sweet as you and I do. There never was a time when there were not worlds in existence as this world is, and they pass through similar changes in abiding their creation preparatory to exaltation. Worlds have always been in progress, and eternally will be.
Every world has had an Adam and an Eve, named so simply because the first man is always called Adam and the first woman, Eve. And the oldest son has always had the privilege of being ordained, appointed and called to be the heir of the family if he does not rebel against the Father, and he is the Savior of the family. Every world that has been created has been created upon the same principle. They may vary in their varieties, yet the eternity is one: it is one eternal round.

emphasis added by me


Does God Abet Sinful Behaviour if it Brings About His Justice? I'm having difficulty dealing with prophetic parts of the Old Testament that discuss God's wrath.  I understand that the wages of sin is death and before the new covenant in Jesus, God punished people for their sins by wiping them out (e.g., Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 19).

However, there are certain parts of the bible that talk about God subjecting people to His wrath by utilising the sins of mankind like sexual immorality and stealing, not just punishment by death.  It's as though sin here is actually used as a tool to bring about God's justice, which seems unbelievable considering that sin was never God's will in the first place.  Consider the following:

Isaiah 13:13-16

  13 Therefore I will make the heavens tremble;
      and the earth will shake from its place at the wrath of the Lord Almighty,
      in the day of his burning anger.

  14 Like a hunted gazelle,
      like sheep without a shepherd, they will all return to their own people,
      they will flee to their native land. 15 Whoever is captured will be thrust through;
      all who are caught will fall by the sword. 16 Their infants will be dashed to pieces before their eyes;
      their houses will be looted and their wives violated.

Zechariah 14:1-3

  1 A day of the Lord is coming, Jerusalem, when your possessions will be
  plundered and divided up within your very walls.

  2 I will gather all the nations to Jerusalem to fight against it; the
  city will be captured, the houses ransacked, and the women raped. Half
  of the city will go into exile, but the rest of the people will not be
  taken from the city. 3 Then the Lord will go out and fight against
  those nations, as he fights on a day of battle.

I'm comfortable with God destroying people for their sins by His own divine actions, but to take advantage of sinful man to bring about His holy justice it a little bit like abetting these sinful acts.  In effect, it's like saying stealing, rape and even murder can actually be Godly acts if used to fulfil His prophecies, and this makes me very uncomfortable.

Can anybody offer an explanation as to how God can bring about justice by these means yet still hate sin and remain holy and righteous?  This seems like a conflict of character to me.

Your question seems to be different than what your references convey.

In Isaiah chapter 13  and most of chapter 14 Isaiah is warning Babylon not of God striking the Nation, but of the coming overthrow by the Medes and the Persians. He is telling them that unless they change their ways God will not interfere on their behalf.

Isaiah 13:17  KJV

  Behold, I will stir up the Medes against them, which shall not regard silver; and as for gold, they shall not delight in it.

And in chapter 14 he is telling them that they are as detestable to him as is Satan, and describes how Satan also became so despicable.

Isaiah chapter  14    KJV

  10  All they shall speak and say unto thee, Art thou also become weak as we? art thou become like unto us?

  12  How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

  13  For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:

  14  I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.

  15  Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.

And in Zechariah chapter 14 It appears to be a prediction of that war in which Jerusalem was finally destroyed, and the Jews scattered all over the face of the earth.

Zechariah chapter 14  KJV

  8  And it shall be in that day, that living waters shall go out from Jerusalem; half of them toward the former sea, and half of them toward the hinder sea: in summer and in winter shall it be.

  10  All the land shall be turned as a plain from Geba to Rimmon south of Jerusalem: and it shall be lifted up, and inhabited in her place, from Benjamin's gate unto the place of the first gate, unto the corner gate, and from the tower of Hananeel unto the king's winepresses.

  11  And men shall dwell in it, and there shall be no more utter destruction; but Jerusalem shall be safely inhabited.

The Nation of Israel was scattered around the World as predicted in Zechariah chapter 14 and their land was inhabited by others, up until 1949 when Israel was once again brought together as a nation.


Why did Elisha curse children? 2 Kings 2:23-24 (KJV)
  23 And he [Elisha] went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going
  up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and
  mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald
  head.  24 And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in
  the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the
  wood, and tare forty and two children of them.

What do these verses mean? What was the purpose of this?  The only reason I can think of is to teach the severity of mocking God's anointed.

First, the term "children" is a poor translation in the KJV.  It's better rendered "youths" (as in the NKJV), which really changes the meaning of the story.

Imagine being accosted by more than 40 teens at once, intent on making trouble for you, outside of town.  This was no simple mocking; Elisha's life could very well have been in danger, and there's no indication that he was a warrior.  So instead, he followed his Master's example.  If they were taunting him and telling him to "go up" (ascend to heaven as Elijah had,) then he would have the Lord fight for him, as Elijah had in his confrontation with the priests of Baal.


What are the Catholic arguments for God having a free will? I have noticed a version of this question (Does God have free will? ) however I would like to ask it in a slightly different way:

What are the most significant biblical and other (patristic, scholastic) arguments for God's free will from the Catholic perspective?

St. Thomas Aquinas addresses this in his Summa Theologica I q. 19 a. 1 article, "Whether God has free-will?" He answers (c.):

  We have free-will with respect to what we will not of necessity or of natural instinct. For our will to be happy does not appertain to free-will, but to natural instinct. Hence other animals, that are moved to act by natural instinct, are not said to be moved by free-will. Since then God necessarily wills His own goodness, but other things not necessarily, as shown above (a. 3), He has free will with respect to what He does not necessarily will.


How do we know we aren't worshipping the same God? How does a Catholic know that they are not worshiping the same God as someone who practices Islam or Judaism?  Is there anything that concretely points to them being different past personal revelation?  Has the Church expressed in a doctrine the differences between their God and the others?

The Catholic ought to start with

NOSTRA AETATE DECLARATION ON THE RELATION OF THE CHURCH TO NON-CHRISTIAN RELIGIONS PROCLAIMED BY HIS HOLINESS POPE PAUL VI ON OCTOBER 28, 1965. In it Pope Paul VI states

  3. The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all-
  powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth,5 who has
  spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His
  inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam
  takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God. Though they do not
  acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet. They also
  honor Mary, His virgin Mother; at times they even call on her with
  devotion. In addition, they await the day of judgment when God will
  render their deserts to all those who have been raised up from the
  dead. Finally, they value the moral life and worship God especially
  through prayer, almsgiving and fasting.

  5. Cf St. Gregory VII, letter XXI to Anzir (Nacir), King
  of Mauritania (Pl. 148, col. 450f.)

  4. As the sacred synod searches into the mystery of the Church, it remembers the bond that spiritually ties the people of the New
  Covenant to Abraham's stock.

  Thus the Church of Christ acknowledges that, according to God's saving
  design, the beginnings of her faith and her election are found already
  among the Patriarchs, Moses and the prophets. She professes that all
  who believe in Christ-Abraham's sons according to faith 6
  -are included in the same Patriarch's call, and likewise that the salvation of the Church is mysteriously foreshadowed by the chosen
  people's exodus from the land of bondage. The Church, therefore,
  cannot forget that she received the revelation of the Old Testament
  through the people with whom God in His inexpressible mercy concluded
  the Ancient Covenant. Nor can she forget that she draws sustenance
  from the root of that well-cultivated olive tree onto which have been
  grafted the wild shoots, the Gentiles.7 Indeed, the Church
  believes that by His cross Christ, Our Peace, reconciled Jews and
  Gentiles. making both one in Himself.8

  The Church keeps ever in mind the words of the Apostle about his
  kinsmen: "theirs is the sonship and the glory and the covenants and
  the law and the worship and the promises; theirs are the fathers and
  from them is the Christ according to the flesh" (Rom. 9:4-5), the Son
  of the Virgin Mary. She also recalls that the Apostles, the Church's
  main-stay and pillars, as well as most of the early disciples who
  proclaimed Christ's Gospel to the world, sprang from the Jewish
  people.

  6. Cf. Gal. 3:7
  7. Cf. Rom. 11:17-24
  8. Cf. Eph. 2:14-16

The God whom the Church, the new People of God, believes in, they owe it to the revelation of the Old Testament which the Church received from the Jews, God's own chosen people.

The Catholic may then wish to move on to "Muhammad?" and "Judaism?" sections in Crossing the Threshold of Hope by Pope St. John Paul II [the Great].

The Catholic should then conclude that from these papal teachings, the Catholic Church acknowledges that Jews and Muslims worship the same God. (OP: Even though Jews have a incomplete knowledge of him and Muslims have an incomplete and distorted knowledge of him).

The context in which these declarations should be viewed

Worshiping the same God does not imply that the various worshipers are worshiping God as he ought to be worshiped. cf. Jesus and the Woman of Samaria.
Among those who worship God, some worship is acceptable to him and some is not. cf. Cain & Abel and Peter and Cornelius. In the case of Cornelius, even though God accepted him, God via Peter brought him to the fullness of the Faith.
(OP: This declaration is not an endorsement of the Jews' and Muslims' worship, much less of their religion).


What's the point of the tenth commandment? In the spirit of my previous question,
what's the point of the tenth commandment?

In Matthew 5:21-22 Christ reveals the true application of the sixth commandment:

  You have heard that it was said to those of old, 'You shall not
  murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.'
  22But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his
  brother will be liable to judgment (ESV)

And in vs. 27-28 he reveals the true application of the seventh:

  You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery.'
  28But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with
  lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Essentially what Jesus was doing was elaborating on these commandments - and teachings on the Ten Commandments (especially the second table) traditionally do so as well (see the Westminster Confession, for example): the fifth commandment tells us to honor and respect superiors and leaders, the sixth not to hate, the seventh not to lust, ect.

But when we come to the eighth commandment: "Thou shalt not steal" - it would seem the logical elaboration on it would be "lusting" after possessions in the same way that the seventh commandment ("wife stealing", in a sense) covers lusting after a woman. In other words, it seems like coveting - the tenth commandment - is already "covered" by the eighth commandment. I'm not saying the tenth commandment is unimportant, but it seems to me that if you're going to include coveting, why not include a prohibition against pornography or lust?

TL;DR: Why the tenth commandment when it's covered by the eighth?

As with my 2nd commandment question, i've got a general idea of what I think about it. However, i'm going to let this one sit and see if I can get better answers than what I've thought of. If nothing comes, i'll answer it myself. Cheers! :)

In the story of the Rich Young Ruler, Jesus asks the man what commandments he has kept from his youth. He responds with the complete "second table" - i.e. those command which represent man's duty to man, rather than his duty to God - minus one.  The young man admits that he hadn't lied, killed, stolen, committed adultery, and honored his parents - but doesn't mention that he avoid covetousness. And, Jesus knew this about him.

That is why Jesus told the young man, "Go, sell all that you have, and follow me."

In telling the young man to divest himself of all he owned, he was telling the young man that he must learn to lean on God, and not his own power.

Stealing says, "Things should be mine." It is a kind of pride that says "I deserve this." God says, "I have given you what you need."

Covetousness says, "If only I had the resources, I could meet my own needs."  God says, "I am your only need." It is not a sense of entitlement - It is a sense of self-sufficiency, the opposite of the interdependent relationship that God would have.

The "point" of the prohibition on covetousness was simply this - God is all we need. Absent God, we can never have what we need to live a full life. With God, we need nothing else.