Has 'Affirmation 2010' been adopted, generally, by those called 'Reformed'? A few years ago, I was given a booklet called 'Affirmation 2010' in which several signatories, standing as 'Reformed', added their names to a list of doctrinal elements which sought to 're-affirm' certain stances of doctrine.

The website for Affirmation 2010 can be read here.

I wondered if the document was generally accepted, or not, amongst those to whom it was, generally, addressed.

No, it has not been widely adopted by Reformed churches, mostly because in many ways it requires beliefs that are seen as matters of liberty of conscience in the older confessions.  Ironically, it is also more "ecumenical" than the Reformed confessions in a few areas.

After a cursory review, here are a few significant points of difference with older Reformed standards:

Article 1 speaks to the superiority of the KJV over other English translations of the Bible
Article 4 requires belief in literal six-day creation, whereas views like Old Earth Creationism and Framework Theory are often accepted in conservative Reformed circles
Article 9, on the Sabbath, describes requirements similar to those in the Westminster Standards – more strict than those found in the Three Forms of Unity
Article 11 eliminates the use of contemporary music in worship services, as well as the recitation of creeds, which are both common (though not ubiquitous) in Reformed circles
Article 11 does not require infant baptism, as the Westminster Standards do, and does not forbid it, like the London Baptist Confession does.
Article 12 implies a superiority of pastors over ruling elders, which would break with the "one office" principle.
Article 13 requires separation from those who don't also separate from the world.  So it implies breaking off fellowship with Calvinists who "fraternize" with those who "question" the Bible.
Article 15 can be read as rejecting partial preterism.

There are relatively few people in conservative Reformed circles who could subscribe to all these statements.  And even among those that could, many would see them as matters of liberty of conscience, and thus would not prioritize finding fellowships where these points were affirmed.

Another indicator of the lack of widespread acceptance is the small number of signatories, and perhaps the relatively high percentage of independents and baptists listed also indicates that this document is tailored for a specific subset of Reformed believers.  It is certainly not broadly representative of the views of those holding to Reformed theology.


Can knowledge obtained in a seminarian's confession be used to determine if he should be ordained? When a seminarian confesses to his superior or bishop, it seems that his future position within the church could be jeopardized.

If a seminarian has a serious habit of mortal sin which his superior or bishop discovers during confession, can the superior or bishop use this information to determine whether the seminarian should be ordained or not?

No.
Can. 984 §2 answers your question:

Can.  983 §1. The sacramental seal is inviolable; therefore it is absolutely forbidden for a confessor to betray in any way a penitent in words or in any manner [e.g., by signs] and for any reason.
Can. 984 §1. A confessor is prohibited completely from using knowledge acquired from confession to the detriment of the penitent even when any danger of revelation is excluded.§2. A person who has been placed in authority cannot use in any manner for external governance the knowledge about sins which he has received in confession at any time.
Can.  985 The director of novices and his associate and the rector of a seminary or other institute of education are not to hear the sacramental confessions of their students residing in the same house unless the students freely request it in particular cases.

(Also, Can.  983 §1 and Can. 984 §1 forbids using knowledge to betray or defame the penitent. Confessors actually can reveal good things about the penitent obtained in confession; cf. the example of St. Catherine of Siena's confessor, Bl. Raymond of Capua, O.P..)
Canonist Dom Augustine explains:

It is the use of sacramental knowledge that is forbidden. Thus a superior, whose knowledge is based solely on confession, cannot make use of it for purposes of external government; for instance, he cannot remove a minor official from office; he cannot remove a pastor who accused himself of a sin which would render him unfit for continuing as pastor; he cannot forbid him the sacraments, if publicly approached, even at the risk of sacrilege; he is not allowed to treat him unkindly or to withdraw from him his confidence or a post of trust; he may not change a previous arrangement after hearing confession, even though this arrangement had not yet been made public.
If a superior has reliable knowledge obtained outside the confessional, he may, of course, make use of it, provided that this extra-sacramental knowledge is the motive of his action. If this were not the case, the superior could not, for instance, remove a priest from the office of confessor for occult crimes known to him outside of confession.

Seminaries and religious institutes often have unwritten rules that if a seminarian or novice cannot break the habit of mortal sin (e.g., against the 6th commandment) for a period of more than, say, one year, then the seminarian or novice should not continue and is most likely not called to the priesthood or religious life. Such a rule really cannot be enforced unless the sin is public, so the rule exists more for the sake of the seminarians and novices.
For example, Benedict Ashley, O.P., writes in his autobiography ch. 13:

In my years as a confessor of seminarians our practice was to tell a brother who confessed masturbation that if he had not been free from this sin for a year before taking final vows, he should leave the Order. In general I know that during their eight student years, when hormones must have been at their most raging, almost all seminarians achieved this absolute chastity and indeed the great majority practiced it from the time of their simple vows.

A traditional seminary expelled a seminarian for being "offensively effeminate". Clearly, that knowledge was public and not obtained in confession.


What authority can move the celebration days of Easter in the Catholic Church? I have come to learn that the Roman Catholic Church on the Greek Island of Syros celebrates Easter at the same time as the Eastern Orthodox Churches in general.

Who made the decision?

What authority can move the celebration days of Easter in the Catholic Church?

I can not find a source that says who permitted the Catholic Church on the Island of Syros to celebrate Easter on the same day as the Orthodox Churches. But understanding the integrate nature of the Church, it would be given to Catholic Church in Syros through the form of an indult from Rome, probably through the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments and with the approval of the Sovereign Pontiff, the Pope.

  The Catholic Community of Syros Greece, Cyclades: The island of Syros hosts a vast Catholic community, which reaches almost half of the island's population. There is also an equal quantity of Catholic and Orthodox churches. The most impressive Catholic church is the church of Agios Georgios, on the highest point of Ano Syros village, with the Centre of Historical Studies of Catholic Bishopric on the back side of the church.

  The equality between the Catholic and Orthodox people is an interesting fact, since Orthodoxy is actually the main dogma in Greece. This shows the influence of the Venetians, who conquered the island in the medieval times and occupied it for many centuries. During this period, Syros became a bastion of Catholicism and, in fact, it is known as the Island of the Pope.

  Even when the Ottomans dominated the island, the Catholic influence remained and Syros came under the protection of France and the Vatican. Moreover, the French had ensured from the Turks some privileges for the Catholic community of Syros. Many residents became Catholic that period of time and Catholic monasteries were founded, such as the Capuchin Monastery and the Monastery of Jesuits in Ano Syros, that stand till today.

  Later on, when Greece was deliberated from the Turks and the Greek State was established, the catholic population of Syros was Hellenized and changed their Latin names to Greek, for example Russo to Roussos, Vuccino to Voutsinos and Vacondio to Vakondios.

  The integration to the Greek State did not provoke any problems and there was a good relationship between the old Roman Catholic residents of Syros and the refugees from Asia Minor, who arrived on the island in 1921 and were mostly Greek Orthodox. Therefore, the coexistence between both communities doesn't affect the peace and tranquility of the island. They have learned to go along with each other for centuries. - Syros Catholic Community


According to Catholicism, why does the Creed mention only the role of Holy Spirit in the conception of Jesus? We read an account of the Annunciation at Lk 1:30-35 (NRSVCE):

30 "The angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. 31 And now, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you will name him Jesus. 32 He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his ancestor David. 33 He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end.” 34 Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I am a virgin?” 35 The angel said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be holy; he will be called Son of God

We see the reference to the Most High being made twice - first at Verse 32 and secondly at Verse 35. Throughout  the Gospels, we see Jesus witnessing, communicating with and praying to God the Father whom he fondly calls Abba Father (Mk 14:36). That implies that by the term the Most High, the angel meant God the Father. Verse 35 also points to the role of the Most High in the promised conception of Jesus . Now, the Creed says that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary, apparently ignoring the role of the Most High. One wonders why the Church limits the conception of Jesus to the power of the Holy Spirit in the Creed . My question therefore, is:  Why does the Creed mention only the role of Holy Spirit in the conception of Jesus ? What explanation does the Catholic Church offer for the same?

On your first question: the text (Luke 1:35) says that the pregnancy of Mary is by the power of the Holy Spirit, but that behind his work ("overshadowing") is the work of God the Father. So I would suggest that this means the initiative is from God the Father, but the Holy Spirit is the one who accomplishes the work. (Who can explain the inner workings of the Trinity?)
Compare with what the angel says to Joseph in Matthew 1:20:

"Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit."

No mention in this verse of God the Father - yet of course that does not mean he was absent.
Saying, as the creeds do, that Christ was conceived by the Holy Spirit, does not in any way diminish the role of the Father. I think they are just affirming that Jesus was conceived not by a human Father but by the agency of the Holy Spirit.
On your second question - I do not have expertise in Catholicism, so perhaps someone else could answer from that angle.


Does the priest ask for reasons to prevent a marriage during a Catholic wedding? In some movies the priest says the following phrase during a wedding: "Whoever is against this marriage should speak now or be silent forever".

Does this tradition exist in the Catholic church (especially in German-speaking parts of Europe)?

I can't speak for the Deutscher Sprachraum directly, but in one of the English books I have there is...

  Therefore if anyone can show any just cause why they may not lawfully be joined together, let him now speak, or else forever hereafter hold his peace.

Yes, that's almost exactly the wording in the Church of England's Book of Common Prayer. It's prescribed for use in the Personal Ordinariates, but that order of service can only be used by Ordinariate priests.

However, in the 1969 rite, this wording does not appear, nor does it appear in the 2016 English translation of the 1991 rite which is currently in use. Consequently I reason that it does not appear in the 1991 normative Latin rite — which I haven't been able to find online — and it would not normally be used in other translations (including German). It did not appear in the 1962 rite.


What is the "present crisis" in 1 Corinthians 7? In 1 Corinthians 7, Paul says regarding marriage,

  Because of the present crisis, I think that it is good for a man to remain as he is.

What is the "present crisis"?

There are plenty of predictions by Jesus and more in the the Epistles that prepared believers not only for the widespread persecuatuon that befell as well as the destruction of Jerusalem.  This seems to be a strigjtforward meaning of the crisis that many commnetators note. For example Hodge takes this view:

  The awful desolation which was soon to fall upon Jerusalem and on the whole Jewish race, and which could not but involve more or less the Christians also, and the inevitable struggles and persecutions which, according to our Lord’s predictions, his followers were to encounter, were surely enough to create a deep impression on the apostle’s mind, and to make him solicitous to prepare his brethren for the coming storm. It is not necessary, therefore, to assume, as is so often done, that the apostle anticipated the second advent of Christ during that generation, and that he refers to the calamities which were to precede that event. (Charles Hodge Commentary on First Corinthians, P128)


What views are there about the necessity of Jesus' murder? In a former question, I was told me that different denominations of Christianity hold many views about if/why it was necessary for Jesus to be murdered instead of dying of old age.

I would now like an overview of what different denominations teach about the subject. (That is, what are the main distinctive opinions?)

Although not from specific denominations, here are some different views on the necessity of Jesus' death:

1) The prophecy:

Jesus often foresaw and talked about his impending betrayal and death. For example, at Caesurea Phillipi, the watershed moment of Mark's Gosepl, it is said:

  He then began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and after three days rise again. -Mark 8:31

Some could argue that this was divinely given, and no matter what happened, this had to be fulfilled. This is often the basis of Judas Iscariot's innocence, as there had to be a fulfiller of this definitive deed, it was just unfortunate that Judas was the one who had to do it.

The reasons why this prophecy existed is all down to atonement. Jesus' mission is to take upon himself all of man's sins. He undergoes flogging, mockery, corruption, betrayal, isolation and death. Maybe it is not so much the death that is important, but the overall passion narrative, where he endures out of love for us. You could also argue that without the crucification, the resurrection would not happen (or at least not in the same light if it were to happen at old age). The importance of triumphing over the sins of man would not be possible without the resurrection, and therefore crucifixion.

2) Riot

The Sanhedrin were the puppets of the Roman empire, as well as people of religion and therefore the law. In the gospels, they are the questioners and accusers of Jesus.

Their main role was to prevent civil unrest. Jesus, who could easily be seen as an extremist, with his radical views as well as his associations with groups such as Zealots, would therefore provoced them, as he did with the turning over of the tables at the temple. In Mark 14: 1-2, the Sanhedrin plot against him.

  He then began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and after three days rise again.

This is at the time of Passover, which celebrates the freedom of the Jews from the oppressive Egyptian state. Likewise, Jesus poses the same threat against the Romans. His death is therefore required to suppress revolt before Passover by turning against him and removing him, by killing him.


Were there any Roman Catholic Church martyrs in the 10–15th centuries? Do we know of any martyrs from among the Roman Catholic Church that lived during the five centuries before Martin Luther (i.e., 10–15th centuries)? I am especially interested in those who have been well-spoken of by Martin Luther.

St. Thomas Beckett - 1170 - assassinated at a church for annoying the king who made him Archbishop.

St. Bernard and companions - 1226 - killed by the Moors

Bl. Charles the Good - 1127 - killed at church after stopping black marketers

St. Stanislaus - 1079 - killed after excommunicating a wicked king.

St. Elphege - 1012 - killed by Danish invaders for refusing ransom by selling off his church property.

St Adalbert - 983 - killed evangelizing Prussians.

St. Joan of Arc - 1412 - (not canonized until 1920, but pardoned thirty years after her death) burned at the stake and not really a martyr, but I thought I'd throw her in here.

St Wenceslaus - 929 - killed by his brother while praying in a church.

St. John Nepomucene - 1390 - drowned in the Vltava by a very different King Wenceslaus for refusing to violate the Seal of confession.

I found these folks just by looking through my lives of the saints book there are undoubtably more. I haven't a clue about Luther's knowledge of these particular saints. However, I think it's safe to say that educated people knew about St Thomas Beckett and may have heard about Joan of Arc in Western Europe (From the Canterbury Tales and Joan of Arc is now the patroness of France). As in Eastern Europe they may have known of St. Wenceslaus and St Stanislaus (patrons of Czech Republic and Poland).  Their cults didn't operate in a complete vacuum.


Trinity, is the son of GOD, GOD himself/itself? I understand that Jesus is son of GOD. The scripture is clear on that one. Jesus did lots of things that only GOD can do. We revered Jesus as God (not all caps).
But is he also GOD, the father (all caps)?

The confusion lies in that Jesus is God however God consists of Father, Son, and Spirit.  There is a distinction and a unity.

Here is a small subset of some of the verses that help us understand

  In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word
  was God.John 1:1

  But of the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom. Hebrews 1:8

  Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all
  the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care
  for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood. Acts
  20:28 ESV

  For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the
  government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called
  Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
  ISA 9:6


What is the biblical justification for permitting female pastors? It seems that that 1Timothy 2:12-14 (NASB) says that women shouldn't be pastors.  But there are many denominations that allow this.

  1 Timothy 2:12-14 (NASB)
  12 But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a
  man, but to remain quiet.
  13 For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve.
  14 And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being
  deceived, fell into transgression.

This idea also seems supported by the command that women should remain silent in church (1 Corinthians 14:34-35).

What is the biblical basis for allowing women to preach or be a pastor?  Specifically, what is the biblical basis of the doctrine of ordination of women?  Also, how do the followers of this doctrine reconcile their beliefs with that of 1 Timothy and 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 above?

This is a question on which Christians disagree among themselves. Even those who hold the Bible as a sole source of authority reach contradictory conclusions on the matter.

On the side of not permitting women pastors, the main passage is 1 Timothy 2:12-14:

  But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being quite deceived, fell into transgression.

On the side of those who permit women pastors is Galations 3:28:

  There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

There are others of course. Each side has good arguments why their favorite verses are definitive, and the others are a matter of context.

In short this is a highly complicated issue, which cannot be resolved in a single answer. I strongly recommend further reading on both sides:

NT Wright
Who said Women Can't Teach?
Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity Without Hierarchy


In the Lord's Vineyard what does the grafting teach (Jacob 5)? Jacob 5 in the Book of Mormon is a beautiful parable of Jesus Christ working in his Vineyard to save the children of God. It is prophetic in teaching how he works.

Here are some symbols involved:

Vineyard: The world
Lord: Jesus Christ
Tame olive tree: House of Israel
Wild olive tree: Gentiles
Branches: Groups of people
Servant(s): Prophets and those that serve the Lord
Fruit: Lives of people
More info here ...

Jacob 5:55-56 teaches about some of the grafting the Lord does to save his vineyard after the fruits have become bad. We see later how effective this is. The grafting is part of how he saves the fruit.

  Jacob 5:55-56

  55 And it came to pass that they took from the natural
  tree which had become wild, and grafted in unto the natural trees,
  which also had become wild.

  56 And they also took of the natural trees which had become wild, and
  grafted into their mother tree.

What is happening here with the people symbolized and what does it teach?

It signifies the gathering of Israel. In grafting in both directions, the trees effectively become the same.

In more detail, one could interpret:

Grafting from the mother tree to the natural trees: Spreading the gospel to the dispersed tribes of Israel.

Grafting from the natural trees to the mother tree: Restoring the tribes, strengthening the House fo Israel.


Which traditions practice paedocommunion? What specific traditions (or denominations inside a tradition) currently practice paedocommunion?

Are there any that practice paedocommunion but not paedobaptism?
Are there any that historically practiced it but have given it up?

I am specifically interested in the treatment of infants, not children.

The Orthodox practice paedocommunion and the Roman Catholics used to but don't anymore. I can't speak to your second point though.


What is the earliest historical instance of state-paid Clergy? Years ago I read in a book about the days of Constantine and how the early church fathers, who had been ducking the persecutors' swords for so long, were overwhelmed when the Roman State turned benign under Constantine and they began to shower gifts, including Salaries, on the clergy. Church buildings, basilicas, garments, etc.  Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History said something about the elders being dazzled by the wealth of material things.  I have google-searched this topic but it is hard to narrow the language properly to find the answer: WHEN, specifically, was the first instance or instances of state-funded Christian ministers?  My memory says it was indeed in Constantine's reign but I can find no evidence. Wikipedia on State Religion says "The first state-sponsored Christian church was the Armenian Apostolic Church, established in 301 CE.", but does not define such. I'll try to find its cited source doc. I did find this one source document (image below) that for now would be the earliest instance I van find that refers to “state” monetary support, if the Queen is considered to speak and act for the state. The King here seems to be Khosrov I, and date would be ~252-268ce

Christian laity from earliest days, (Acts 2, and even earlier in Jesus's own ministry) supported their elders/leaders with hard goods or other contributions. What I'm asking is different: state-sponsorship via monetary support of the clergy [bishops, priests, etc].

Anyone have a source for this?

What is the earliest historical instance of state-paid Clergy?

Perhaps not exactly paid clergy, but the State began indirectly to help the clergy in the time of Constantine. It is not quite the same thing.

In Constantine’s day the clergy were aided in a number of ways with substances for living, but did not receive outright wages from the State! They did receive some monetary help, but not wages properly speaking.

In fact, even up to the sixth century, the clergy worked to support themselves.

Direct support of the clergy by the State is of comparatively modern origin, having developed since the Reformation.

It is all in the following article from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

  A stipend is a fixed pay, salary; retribution for work done; the income of an ecclesiastical living. In canon law stipend is a general designation of means of support (sustentatio congrua or congrua) provided for the clergy. In the early ages of the Church no special provision was made for the maintenance of the clergy. St. Paul, the tent-maker, set the example (1 Corinthians 4:12) of earning his own livelihood. In imitation of him many clerics worked at some craft or followed some profession, living by the labour of their own hands. Even in the fifth and sixth centuries there were bishops, priests, and deacons, who in keeping with the advice of the Fourth Council of Carthage (a. 398, cann. 52, 53) supported themselves by their own labour. Early legislation (Canon. Apost., can. 6), which forbade the clergy to take up certain occupations and professions, is an indication that clerics sought to maintain themselves. Many of the laity, however, even from the beginning, were quick to follow the instructions of Christ and his Apostles (Matthew 10:10; Luke 10:7; 1 Corinthians 9:13; 1 Timothy 5:17-18), founded on the practice in vogue among the Jews (Leviticus 27:30 sq.; Numbers 18:23 sq.; etc.), who gave tithes of all their goods and produce for the sustenance of priests and levites. Thus did the laity provide for the bodily welfare of the clergy in return for the spiritual gifts received through their ministry. Later the payment of tithes was frequently insisted on by St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, and others (Thomassin, "Vet. et nov. eccl. disc., " III, II, xii, xiv). The Synods of Tours (560) and Mâcon (586) strenuously exhorted the faithful to pay the tithes ordained by God. Charlemagne made their payment obligatory on his subjects by a royal ordinance of 779, the requirements of which he himself faithfully observed. The obligation of giving tithes has long since ceased almost universally, but the faithful, of course, must contribute to the proper support of sacred ministers.

  In regard to so-called state aid of the clergy, the State began indirectly to help the clergy in the time of Constantine, who gave a legal existence to churches as corporate bodies, permitting them to receive donations and legacies and to hold the same in perpetuity (Cod. Theod., XVI, 2, 4). He ordered contributions of grain to be given annually to the clergy out of the public granaries. He contributed large sums from his own resources for the support of the clergy in Africa, and exempted the Church from imposts in an edict imposing a general tax (Cod. Theod., XI, i, 1). Direct support of the clergy by the State is of comparatively modern origin, having developed since the Reformation. It obtains particularly in Catholic countries that have entered into a concordat, or treaty, with the Holy See for the support of the clergy. This support is in recompense, far inadequate indeed, for the sequestration of ecclesiastical funds and property. Austria, Spain, Italy, and certain countries of Central and South America thus directly support the clergy, paying salaries to bishops, vicars-general, pastors, and assistants. France and Portugal, as well as Cuba, Porto Rico, and the Philippines, when under Spanish rule, did the same.

  Since the time of Constantine the right of the Church to possess temporal goods has been universally acknowledged and protected by civil governments with some exceptions. These exceptions refer chiefly to bequests and legacies. The possession by the Church of temporal goods and the surrendering of the same to the clergy for their sustenance gave rise to benefices, the fruits or income of which constitute the chief provision for the maintenance of the clergy possessing them. The fruits of a benefice will maintain the incumbent, even though he have private means of support. He should have not only what is necessary for sustenance, but sufficient for fitting recreation and hospitality, and a modest portion for future contingencies: he may also assist near relatives to some extent. If anything remain, it is to be used in charitable works. Ecclesiastical goods are not to be bequeathed in any considerable quantity to profane purposes. There are other methods in vogue for the support of the clergy akin to, or divisions of, those mentioned: voluntary offerings, tithes, quasi-contracts, state aid, and benefices. Stipends for the application of Masses were originally intended for the daily maintenance of the celebrant. - Stipend (Catholic Encyclopaedia)

Wikipedia states that as far as Constantine was concerned the Jewish clergy were given the same exemptions as Christian clergy.

We also see that in the late fifth and early sixth centuries that Queen Shirin supported the Church in Iran, but the political situation demanded that she do so discreetly. Once again, source do not indicate a state wide wage for the clergy. Queen Shirin seems to support in the second paragraph Clergy that were to some degree attached to the royal court.

  Shirin (? – 628 AD) (Persian: شیرین) was a wife of Khosrow Parviz. In the revolution after the death of Khosrow's father Hormizd IV, the General Bahram Chobin took power over the Persian empire. Shirin fled with Khosrow to Syria, where they lived under the protection of Byzantine emperor Maurice. In 591, Khosrow returned to Persia to take control of the empire and Shirin was made queen. She used her new influence to support the Christian minority in Iran, but the political situation demanded that she do so discreetly. Initially she belonged to the Church of the East, the so-called Nestorians, but later she joined the miaphysite church of Antioch, now known as the Syriac Orthodox Church. After conquering Jerusalem in 614, amidst the Byzantine–Sasanian War of 602–628, the Persians captured the True Cross of Jesus and brought it to their capital Ctesiphon, where Shirin took the cross in her palace.

  The Roman (Byzantine) ancestry of Shirin is contradicted by Sebeos: "[Xosrov], in accordance with their Magian religion, had numerous wives. He also took Christian wives, and had an extremely beautiful Christian wife from the land of Xuzhastan named Shirin, the Bambish, queen of queens. She constructed a monastery and a church close to the royal abode, and settled priests and deacons there allotting from the court stipends and money for clothing. She lavished gold and silver [on the monastery].

The very first concordat with the Holy See was with Ecuador in 1862. As seen here, it made provisions to support it’s Catholic clergy.

  Article 11

  As the proceeds of the tithes are destined for the upkeep of Divine worship and of its ministers, the Government of Ecuador binds itself to preserve this Catholic institution in the Republic and His Holiness consents that the Government should continue to receive a third part of the proceeds of tithes.  The two authorities (civil and ecclesiastical) shall come to an agreement about the collection and administration of tithes.

  Article 16

  The Holy See, in exercise of its particular prerogative, shall create new dioceses and shall make new delimitations in those at present existing; and taking into account the present extent of the dioceses among which the Republic is at present divided, the Holy See will, immediately on ratification of the present Concordat, confer on its own special delegate the necessary powers to proceed in consultation with the Government and the respective bishops to the territorial demarcation of the dioceses which can be conveniently created and to fix the endowments and salaries of churches, bishops, chapters and seminaries.


How do proponents of the Prosperity Gospel interpret Matthew 6:19-21 and Luke 6:20-26? There is already this decent post: What is the argument *for* prosperity gospel? But more specifically how do prosperity theologians square what must be regular 'clobber' passages for their interpretation?

For example:

  Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moths and vermin destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moths and vermin do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.
  Matthew 6:19-21 (NIV)

And:

  Looking at his disciples, he said:

  “Blessed are you who are poor,
      for yours is the kingdom of God.
  Blessed are you who hunger now,
      for you will be satisfied.
  Blessed are you who weep now,
      for you will laugh.
  Blessed are you when people hate you,
      when they exclude you and insult you
      and reject your name as evil,
          because of the Son of Man.

  “Rejoice in that day and leap for joy, because great is your reward in heaven. For that is how their ancestors treated the prophets.

  “But woe to you who are rich,
      for you have already received your comfort.
  Woe to you who are well fed now,
      for you will go hungry.
  Woe to you who laugh now,
      for you will mourn and weep.
  Woe to you when everyone speaks well of you,
      for that is how their ancestors treated the false prophets.
  Luke 6:20-26 (NIV)

And why do you worry about clothes? See how the
  flowers of the field grow. They do not labor or spin.
  29Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all his
  splendor was dressed like one of these. 30If that is
  how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here > today and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, will he
  not much more clothe you—you of little faith?

  Matthew 6:28-30

Addressing the Matthew 6 verse, if you take an anti stuff position in v19-20,  how do you handle v28-30, above?

God clothes the grass better than even Solomon dressed Himself.  And, at a face value reading of v30, it says He will "much more" clothe us, apparently compared to the grass itself.

v18-19 is talking about storing up and treasure.  These are both qualities of the heart, and so the emphasis is on a covetous attitude, not having things.

The Luke passage is likewise more concerned with a willful blindness of heart.  It is not primarily concerned with "stuff".  This is shown by verses such as John 6:63 and Mark 10:30.  Of course, that is also its own balance--while prosperity can be seen in the NT, people should not be "money minded".  Even the late Kenneth E. Hagin, "father of the Prosperity Movement", said as such, and wrote "The Midas Touch" as a warning / exhortation against taking such preaching where it should not go.


What did the fathers of the early church think of Tertullian? Today, Tertullian (c. AD 155–240) has something of a mixed reputation in many Christian circles.  He's recognized as a significant thinker and a major contributor to the doctrine of the Trinity.  But in his later years he became associated with a movement known as Montanism, and he seems to have separated himself from the church.

As a result of this and some of his teachings, he is not recognized as a saint in Catholicism, for example, and scholars have varied opinions of him.

In light of this modern disagreement, I'd like to know how those in the early church saw Tertullian.  According to their writings, what did the church fathers of the fifth century or prior think of Tertullian?

Like today, those in the early church had differing opinions regarding Tertullian.  Some were largely critical, some largely complimentary, and some more balanced.
The first writings we have discussing Tertullian are decidedly in the first category – their author, Lactantius (c. 250–325), was dismissive of him:

Septimius Tertullianus also was skilled in literature of every kind; but in eloquence he had little readiness, and was not sufficiently polished, and very obscure. (Divine Institutes, 5.1)
Although Tertullian fully pleaded the same cause in that treatise which is entitled the Apology, yet, inasmuch as it is one thing to answer accusers, which consists in defence or denial only, and another thing to instruct, which we do. (5.4)

Following Lactantius we might turn next to Eusebius (c. 260–340) and Jerome (c. 347–420).  Eusebius emphasizes Tertullian's credibility, calling him "especially distinguished in Rome" (Church History, 2.2; cf. 2.25, 3.20, 3.33, 5.5), while Jerome focuses on his influence on Cyprian (c. 200–258) and his "lapse" into Montanism:

I myself have seen a certain Paul an old man of Concordia, a town of Italy, who, while he himself was a very young man had been secretary to the blessed Cyprian who was already advanced in age. He said that he himself had seen how Cyprian was accustomed never to pass a day without reading Tertullian, and that he frequently said to him, "Give me the master," meaning by this, Tertullian. He was presbyter of the church until middle life, afterwards driven by the envy and abuse of the clergy of the Roman church, he lapsed to the doctrine of Montanus, and mentions the new prophecy in many of his books. (Lives of Illustrious Men, 53)

Historians agree that Cyprian was greatly influenced by Tertullian; see, for example, Everett Ferguson, Church History, 7.I.B.
Our last two authors take more balanced approaches, both praising and critiquing Tertullian.  Augustine (354–430) briefly writes of him in On Heresies, acknowledging his "many eloquent works" and defending his doctrine of the soul, before explaining his heresy:

Therefore, the reason Tertullian became a heretic was [...] because in joining the Cataphrygians, whom he had earlier demolished, he also began to condemn, contrary to Apostolic teaching, second marriage as debauchery. Later, having separated from them too, he established congregations of his own. (On Heresies, 86)

Finally we come to Vincent of Lerins (d. 445).  In his treatment of Tertullian one can sense both his admiration and frustration:

For who more learned than he, who more versed in knowledge whether divine or human? [...] Was not his genius of such unrivalled strength and vehemence that there was scarcely any obstacle which he proposed to himself to overcome, that he did not penetrate by acuteness, or crush by weight? As to his style, who can sufficiently set forth its praise? It was knit together with so much cogency of argument that it compelled assent, even where it failed to persuade.
Yet this man also, notwithstanding all that I have mentioned, this Tertullian, I say, too little tenacious of Catholic doctrine, that is, of the universal and ancient faith, more eloquent by far than faithful, changed his belief, and justified what the blessed Confessor, Hilary, writes of him, namely, that "by his subsequent error he detracted from the authority of his approved writings." He also was a great trial in the Church. (Commonitory, 18)

Hilary of Poitiers (c. 310–367), mentioned here, was another church father who was influenced by Tertullian yet eschewed his divergence from the developing orthodoxy.
Summary
So we find then that, not unlike today, some in the first five centuries of the church had little regard for Tertullian (Lactantius), some were largely positive (Eusebius and Jerome), and others recognizing his merits while unable to defend his faults (Augustine and Vincent).  His influence on Latin Christianity was not always admitted (e.g., in Cyprian and Hilary), but his errors were significant enough that they were rarely ignored.


If God doesn't tempt us, why does the Lord's Prayer petition Him to "lead us not into temptation"? Matthew 6:9-13 Jesus instructs us:

“This, then, is how you should pray:
“‘Our Father in heaven,
hallowed be your name,
your kingdom come,
your will be done,
on earth as it is in heaven.
Give us today our daily bread.
And forgive us our debts,
as we also have forgiven our debtors.
And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from the evil one.’"

But James 1:13-14 says:

When tempted, no one should say, “God is tempting me.” For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; but each person is tempted when they are dragged away by their own evil desire and enticed.

If God doesn't tempt us, why does the Lord's Prayer petition Him not to lead us into temptation?

The phrase is part of a couplet, so it needs to be read in that context.

  Lead us not into temptation,
  but deliver us from evil.

The phrase does not assume that God might lead us into temptation. Instead, it assumes that God does deliver us from evil. The couplet gives the impression that temptations will come, but prays that God delivers us from them. The New Living Translation attempts to make this more clear:

  And don’t let us yield to temptation,
  but rescue us from the evil one.

Through other Scriptures, we know that God does not tempt anyone (James 1:13), and we also know that God will always have a way out when temptation comes (1 Corinthians 10:13). A proper systematic theology will look at all the Scriptures that mention a subject to help interpret the more difficult or confusing passages. In this case, other Scriptures make this clear, that God does not tempt and does deliver us from temptation. This is exactly what the prayer asks: when temptation does come (because it will), God save us from it.


Was Psalms 45:6 Mistranslated? I'm having difficulty with this passage.

On Psalms 45:6:

  Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; A scepter of uprightness is the scepter of Your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; Therefore God, Your God, has anointed

I don't know how the author of Psalms could have referred to a King as God in this verse. Wouldn't a better translation for "elohim" here simply be "judge"?

Next the author of Hebrews quotes this verse and applies it to the Son. Hebrews 1:8-9

  But about the Son He says: “Your throne, O God, will last forever and ever, and righteousness will be the scepter of Your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, Your God, has placed You above Your companions by anointing You with the oil of joy..

So why did the author of Hebrews take this arguably mistranslated passage and apply it to the Son?

According to Bible scholar B. F. Westcott, this is likely a Greek to English mistranslation, not a Hebrew to Greek mistranslation. Based on the context of the verse, he believes a better rendering would be: "God is Thy throne" or "Thy throne is God".
He says (bold mine, italics original):

The LXX. admits of two renderings: [ho the·osʹ] can be taken as a vocative in both cases (Thy throne, O God, . . . therefore, O God, Thy God . . . ) or it can be taken as the subject (or the predicate) in the first case (God is Thy throne, or Thy throne is God . . . ), and in apposition to [ho the·osʹ sou] in the second case (Therefore God, even Thy God . . . ). . . . It is scarcely possible that [’Elo·himʹ] in the original can be addressed to the king. The presumption therefore is against the belief that [ho the·osʹ] is a vocative in the LXX. Thus on the whole it seems best to adopt in the first clause the rendering: God is Thy throne (or, Thy throne is God), that is ‘Thy kingdom is founded upon God, the immovable Rock.’
—The Epistle to the Hebrews (London, 1889), pp. 25, 26.

There is at least one Bible translation which uses this rendering: the New World Translation.

God is your throne forever and ever;
The scepter of your kingdom is a scepter of uprightness.
You loved righteousness, and you hated wickedness.
That is why God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of exultation more than your companions.
—Psalm 45:6, 7
But about the Son, he says: “God is your throne forever and ever, and the scepter of your Kingdom is the scepter of uprightness. You loved righteousness, and you hated lawlessness. That is why God, your God, anointed you with the oil of exultation more than your companions.”
—Hebrews 1:8, 9

Jehovah's Witnesses have also published an article discussing this translation of Hebrews 1:8.

RS reads: “Of the Son he says, ‘Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever.’” (KJ, NE, TEV, Dy, JB, NAB have similar renderings.) However, NW reads: “But with reference to the Son: ‘God is your throne forever and ever.’” (AT, Mo, TC, By convey the same idea.)
Which rendering is harmonious with the context? The preceding verses say that God is speaking, not that he is being addressed; and the following verse uses the expression “God, thy God,” showing that the one addressed is not the Most High God but is a worshiper of that God. Hebrews 1:8 quotes from Psalm 45:6, which originally was addressed to a human king of Israel. Obviously, the Bible writer of this psalm did not think that this human king was Almighty God. Rather, Psalm 45:6, in RS, reads “Your divine throne.” (NE says, “Your throne is like God’s throne.” JP [verse 7]: “Thy throne given of God.”) Solomon, who was possibly the king originally addressed in Psalm 45, was said to sit “upon Jehovah’s throne.” (1 Chron. 29:23, NW) In harmony with the fact that God is the “throne,” or Source and Upholder of Christ’s kingship, Daniel 7:13, 14 and Luke 1:32 show that God confers such authority on him.


How many covenants has God established with humanity and are any of them everlasting? I found this interesting partial quote from today’s Morning & Evening devotional by Charles Spurgeon.  It’s about the “Covenant of Grace”:

  Jesus is the representative head of His people. In Adam every heir of flesh and blood has a personal interest, because he is the covenant head and representative of the race when considered under the law of works; so under the law of grace, every redeemed soul is one with the Lord from heaven, since He is the Second Adam, the Sponsor and Substitute of the elect in the new covenant of love.

Then I found this interesting snippet which, speaking of the pre-incarnate Jesus Christ, the Mediator, suggests that from eternity the covenant settlements of grace were decreed, ratified, and made sure forever.

My curiosity has been piqued.  Is the expression “covenant of grace” about the Abrahamic covenant established by God?  Or is it about the “New Covenant” introduced by Jesus?   Is this “an everlasting covenant”?

I invite answers from Protestants on this topic, mainly because Spurgeon was a Baptist minister.  I would appreciate a short overview (links to articles would suffice) of all the covenants established by God and whether any of them are everlasting.

Edit: As suggested, this question is about Covenant Theology

Are any of them everlasting ?
There are thirteen references to the 'everlasting covenant' (KJV Old Testament) and one reference to 'the everlasting testament' (KJV New Testament) that I can find:
Either these are fourteen different covenants referring to a variety of everlasting matters ... or they are fourteen different aspects of the one New Testament, resulting in New Heavens and a New Earth and a New Inheritance in the World to Come ... a New Creation and the Resurrection from the Dead.
But none of these covenants (or, none of these aspects of the New Testament) is a matter of an agreement between God and the first humanity, that of Adam in the flesh.
The everlasting promises here made are established by Divine Promise without dependence on the response of humanity come out of Adam.

Genesis 9:16 Noah/Rainbow
... that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature
Genesis 17:7 Abraham
... between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant
Genesis 17:13 Abraham/Circumcision
.....and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.
Leviticus 24:8 Bread/Frankincense
....continually, being taken from the children of Israel by an everlasting covenant.
2 Samuel 23:5 David
... with God, yet he hath made with me an everlasting covenant, ordered in all things, and sure
1 Chronicles 16:17 Covenant and Oath
... And hath confirmed the same to Jacob for a law, and to Israel for an everlasting covenant,
Psalm 105:10 Covenant and Oath
And confirmed the same unto Jacob for a law, and to Israel for an everlasting covenant:
Isaiah 24:5 Noah
... transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant.
Isaiah 55:3 David the King
I will make an everlasting covenant with you, even the sure mercies of David.
Isaiah 61:8 A Future Priesthood
I will direct their work in truth, and I will make an everlasting covenant with them.
Jeremiah 32:40 A Future People
And I will make an everlasting covenant with them, that I will not turn away from them,
Ezekiel 16:60 A Future Israel
and I will establish unto thee an everlasting covenant.
Ezekiel 37:26 A Future Inheritance
I will make a covenant of peace with them; it shall be an everlasting covenant with them
Hebrews 13:20 The Blood of Christ
Now may the God of peace who brought up our Lord Jesus from the dead, that great Shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant, make you complete in every good work to do His will

The above is extracted from previous work I wrote in 2012. A comment below from @curiousdanni enquires about the 'conclusions to be drawn' from the above. I cannot compress my previous work, so this is the link to the 100 or so pages titled 'The Everlasting Testament' (in PDF form).
The Everlasting Testament


Needing help locating a specific verse in the Bible about casting out bad influences? This might be a fool's errand, but it's my hope that someone out there more able than me will have an idea of what I'm talking about (I'm not sure my explanation is going to be very good and it will just cause headaches).

The other day, I found a verse about essentially standing up to people and/or bad influences and forcing them out of your life.  I feel like it had a lot to do with being complicit in your own misery, that evil or pain only has as much power over you as you allow it to have in your life...and I can't for the life of me find it anywhere.  I wish I had written it down.

Does anyone have any idea what I'm talking about?  Or any good leads?  I remember it being fairly short, fairly simple.  I have a suspicion it might be a Psalm or a Proverb, but I don't want to assume that and end up being way off.  Please, any help would be appreciated.  Thank you.

The advice in James 4:7 to resist the devil is sound.  But first we have to “Submit yourselves, then, to God."  We can't do it in our own strength.

Ephesians 6:12 describes the forces that believers face:

  “For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places”.

Ephesians 6:13-18 goes on to describe the spiritual armour that is necessary to overcome the forces of evil and cast out the negative influences that seek to destroy.


How can a non-Catholic get into state of grace as understood by the Catholic Church? State of grace:

  Condition of a person who is free from mortal sin and pleasing to God.
  It is the state of being in God's friendship and the necessary
  condition of the soul at death in order to attain heaven.
  source

Now,

  We cannot merit anything supernatural if we are not in a state of
  grace. To argue the contrary is to argue for Pelagianism.
  Nonetheless, God does hear the prayer of the repentant sinner.

  ... but the prayer of the unrepentant sinner, who prays for something
  other than for the graces of conversion, is a prayer lacking in merit
  or efficacy it would appear. source

I know some Protestants who are sincere in their faith and I saw them deeply praying. But from the quote above I also know that even if they pray deeply they can't merit anything as they aren't in a state of grace because they are not taking part in God's divine nature according to some theologians and the Catholic teaching.

My question is, how can a non-Catholic obtain the state of grace as understood by the Catholic Church? Is it even possible without becoming a Catholic? Does it even make sense for a non-Catholic to pray for anything other than for a conversion to become a Catholic?

Generally, the Church declines to comment whether any given person is in Heaven or not — at least not without a laborious inquiry and at least two confirmed miracles — but there are paragraphs in the Catechism we can use to try and understand how someone outside the Church might attain state of grace and retain it.

977 Our Lord tied the forgiveness of sins to faith and Baptism: "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation. He who believes and is baptized will be saved."Mk 16:15–16 Baptism is the first and chief sacrament of forgiveness of sins because it unites us with Christ, who died for our sins and rose for our justification, so that "we too might walk in newness of life."Rom 6:4; Cf. 4:25
978 "When we made our first profession of faith while receiving the holy Baptism that cleansed us, the forgiveness we received then was so full and complete that there remained in us absolutely nothing left to efface, neither original sin nor offenses committed by our own will, nor was there left any penalty to suffer in order to expiate them.... Yet the grace of Baptism delivers no one from all the weakness of nature. On the contrary, we must still combat the movements of concupiscence that never cease leading us into evil "Roman Catechism I, 11,3
979 In this battle against our inclination towards evil, who could be brave and watchful enough to escape every wound of sin? "If the Church has the power to forgive sins, then Baptism cannot be her only means of using the keys of the Kingdom of heaven received from Jesus Christ. the Church must be able to forgive all penitents their offenses, even if they should sin until the last moment of their lives."Roman Catechism I, 11,4
980 It is through the sacrament of Penance that the baptized can be reconciled with God and with the Church:

Penance has rightly been called by the holy Fathers "a laborious kind of baptism." This sacrament of Penance is necessary for salvation for those who have fallen after Baptism, just as Baptism is necessary for salvation for those who have not yet been reborn.Council of Trent (1551): DS 1672; Cf. St. Gregory of Nazianzus, Oratio 39,17: PG 36,356

So when a person is first  baptised, their sins — both original and voluntary — are removed from them. And, as the Church teaches, any one — Catholic or not — can effect a valid Baptism if they recite the correct formula with the correct intention:

1256 The ordinary ministers of Baptism are the bishop and priest and, in the Latin Church, also the deacon.Cf. CIC, can. 861 # 1; CCEO, can. 677 # 1 In case of necessity, any person, even someone not baptized, can baptize, if he has the required intention. the intention required is to will to do what the Church does when she baptizes, and to apply the Trinitarian baptismal formula. the Church finds the reason for this possibility in the universal saving will of God and the necessity of Baptism for salvation.Cf. 1 Tim 2:4

However, and this is important, Baptism does not remove one's inclination to sin; and after one sins again, they lose their state of grace and thereafter it cannot be restored to them without the Sacrament of Penance.
The Sacrament of Penance, on the other hand, cannot be validly conferred but by a Catholic priest (cf. Canon 965) and only to baptised Catholics or Orthodox, and ordinarily by individual confession. So, barring specific Divine intervention, a person who is baptised and subsequently sins cannot regain their state of grace unless they are received into the Catholic Church — or another Church with valid Sacraments — and subsequently receives the Sacrament of Penance.
Therefore, a Protestant who dies immediately or nearly immediately after being baptised can generally be considered as having died in a state of grace, even though they might have died outside the fold of the Church. Otherwise, a person will generally sin again and lose their state of grace, and be unable to regain it because the Sacrament of Penance cannot validly be conferred upon them — not least because they generally do not believe in the efficacy of that Sacrament.
That being said, the Church will hesitate to declare that these people are definitely damned because "with God, all things are possible" (Mt. 19:26) and it may be that God will, in His mercy, effect extraordinarily that absolution which He has given ordinarily to His Church through the Sacrament of Penance. Though because such a grace is extraordinary, it must not be counted upon, and the Church calls upon her separated brethren to come into communion and gain ordinary access to the wellspring of graces that is the Sacrament of Penance.


Is there any Christian theological model for a non-literal ark? The most common debate about Noah's flood is whether the flood was global or local. I want to put this particular debate aside for a moment, and ask a different question:  Did the flood happen at all?

Reading the views of many (often atheists, sometimes local-flood proponents), there seems to be a pretty strong scientific case against a global flood.  However, as I read about this view, I have to wonder: Wouldn't (at least according to the skeptics) a flood of sufficient scope to threaten the existence of any given animal species also suffer from most of the scientific problems associated with a global flood?

And if there were a flood of limited enough scope that some species' existence were not threatened, why not just send Noah and his family across some mountain to escape the local flood?

So this makes me wonder if there is a Christian theological model in which the flood, or at least the ark, is non-literal.

I realize there might me more than one competing model, so I'm just asking for one.  Does such a model exist?  If so, please point me to whomever has proposed it.

I imagine that such a model would include either or both of the following tenets, but please don't limit answers to these if there is some other approach to the theory that I have not considered:

Noah and his family escaped the flood by some means less drastic or miraculous than a boat, and the boat and animal rescue was added by later generations or authors as an embellishment to the story.
Noah and his family never existed, the world was never flooded as God's judgement, and the story is a non-real myth, meant to make a point about something other than history.

I don't know of a detailed exposition that focuses specifically on the story of the ark, but in the Medieval ages it was common to say that each piece of scripture possessed the following levels of meaning:

Literal sense
Spiritual sense
Fuller sense

From the link above regarding the "literal sense":

  The literal sense is not to be confused with the "literalist" sense to which fundamentalists are attached. It is not sufficient to translate a text word for word in order to obtain its literal sense. One must understand the text according to the literary conventions of the time. When a text is metaphorical, its literal sense is not that which flows immediately from a word-to-word translation (e.g. "Let your loins be girt": Lk. 12:35), but that which corresponds to the metaphorical use of these terms ("Be ready for action"). When it is a question of a story, the literal sense does not necessarily imply belief that the facts recounted actually took place, for a story need not belong to the genre of history but be instead a work of imaginative fiction.

When one looks at the genre of the flood story, it (arguably, anyway) does not follow many patterns for a historical story - for example, it does not make clear when the event happened in relation to other well-known events as many history-genre stories do, ("In the Year X of the reign of Y", often referring to multiple rulers to make it clear), and it does not cite witnesses that can be cross-referenced (as, eg, the Gospels do).

The above link goes on to say

  One of the possible aspects of the spiritual sense is the typological. This is usually said to belong not to Scripture itself but to the realities expressed by Scripture: Adam as the figure of Christ (cf Rom. 5: 14), the flood as the figure of baptism (1 Pt. 3:20-21), etc.

So, in this way of interpreting the Bible, the flood story is one example of something that prefigures baptism, and one example of something from the Hebrew Scripture pre-figuring something in the new.

It is an interesting example in terms of apologetics because this way of interpreting the Bible was formalized in the Medieval period (and can be seen as early as Origin of Alexandria), and shows then that non-literal ways of reading the Bible predate the emergence of modern science and the scientific method at least by centuries, and therefore refutes many naive ideas non-Christians have about Christianity.


According to Trinitarians, if Jesus was saying things that clearly made Him out to be God, why didn't Caiaphas mention it at Jesus' trial? Jesus claiming to be God would have been a clear case of blasphemy (unless, of course, he actually was God).
Yet before his trial, according to Matthew 26

"Now the chief priests and the whole Sanhedrini were seeking false
testimony against Jesus in order to put Him to death. 60 But they did
not find any, though many false witnesses came forward."

Given Trinitarians claim there is clear evidence of Jesus claiming to be God (such as 'Before Abraham was, I am' and 'I and the Father are one') and that the statements were made publicly in front of a hostile group of scribes and Pharisees, why couldn't Caiaphas find any witnesses to attest to these statements, and instead had to seek false testimony in order to put Him to death?

A simple statement, like “I am God” is unambiguous.  Had Jesus ever uttered those three words in front of witnesses while on earth, he would have been instantly stoned to death by outraged Jews who would not have held to the protocol of only the Roman government having the authority to put people to death – they would have done it behind the Roman’s backs. To the Jewish people, it is blasphemy for any human to claim to be God. So, because Jesus had to die as the Son of God the way the scriptures foretold (which ruled out being stoned to death), his actions spoke for him, until the time eventually came to speak clearly. His actions were such that he did things only God could do, (especially forgiving sins which no prophet prior to him had ever done) and it was those actions that rattled the religious leaders so much. They knew that the people could see how extraordinary Jesus was; that the people were listening to Jesus’ teaching; that many were following him.
There were witnesses to Jesus saying things like, “If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death”, and “If ye believe not that I am [he], ye shall die in your sins”, and “the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment to the Son, that all [men] should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father”, and much more like that. Yet at the time of trial before the Sanhedrin, those statements in and of themselves could not be made to equate with “I am God”. Of course, in light of Jesus’ resurrection they most certainly can! But you ask about his trial and Caiaphas not “mentioning” any clear statement of Jesus that made him out to be God. That is because Jesus never clearly said, “I am God.” Even when Jesus said that he existed before Abraham lived; “Before Abraham was, I Am” – and they tried to stone him to death for that – those five words fall short of a legal charge of the blasphemy of a man claiming to be God.
That is why false witnesses had to be listened to, because even though many of those religious leaders had heard astounding claims from Jesus’ own lips, they could not (legally speaking) amount to evidence that Jesus had publicly claimed to be God. He never did. And for good reason.
For a start, that could be misleading (according to Trinitarian understanding of the complexity of the one Being of God). There is more to the one Being of God than the Word incarnate, made flesh, walking amongst other men who beheld his glory, that of the only-begotten of the Father (John 1:1-14). Jesus knew that if they didn’t understand that complex truth, they would instantly claim grounds for stoning him to death, but he had to complete his mission on earth. “My time has not yet come” he said several times during that mission. But when his time DID come, he went for it, telling those who hatefully asked him if he was “the Christ, the Son of the Blessed”, he said, “I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.” (Mark 14:61-64)
This led to instant cries of “Blasphemy!” and they all condemned him as guilty of death, according to Jewish law (not Roman law).
That is why Jesus held back openly stating his deity until that moment, when his time had come. Then the embarrassment of false witnesses and clashing testimonies could be swept aside by them. Jesus stating that he was also the Son of God, “the Son of the Blessed”, was too much for those who only thought him to be a man. Those who were prepared to accept that Jesus was a good man still knew the significance of him claiming to be the Son of God – which went way beyond mere humanity! Were it not true, it would have been blasphemy. They thought it was not true. But if it is true that Jesus is God incarnate, then it is blasphemy for people to deny that truth.


What is the role and significance of Zion in Christianity? The meaning of Zion is uncertain. There is a  hymn related to Zion. The refrain part says,

  We’re marching to Zion,
      Beautiful, beautiful Zion;
      We’re marching upward to Zion,
      The beautiful city of God.

What is the role and importance of Zion in Christianity?

As the Wikipedia article on Zion says, Zion is a synonym for Jerusalem.

Revelation 21 depicts the New Jerusalem, the dwelling-place of God with men:

  21:2And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband; 3 and I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Behold, the dwelling of God is with men. He will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself will be with them. ...” [RSV(CE)]

It is this Promised Land [a similar metaphor] to which Isaac Watts’ hymn refers:

  The hill of Zion yields
  A thousand sacred sweets
  Before we reach the heav’nly fields,
  Before we reach the heav’nly fields,
  Or walk the golden streets,
  Or walk the golden streets.

  Refrain

  Then let our songs abound,
  And every tear be dry;
  We’re marching through Immanuel’s ground,
  We’re marching through Immanuel’s ground,
  To fairer worlds on high,
  To fairer worlds on high.

  Refrain

There’s a Wikipedia article on the New Jerusalem as well.

  Based on the Book of Revelation, premillennialism holds that, following the end times and the second creation of heaven and earth (see The New Earth), the New Jerusalem will be the earthly location where all true believers will spend eternity with God. The New Jerusalem is not limited to eschatology, however. Many Christians view the New Jerusalem as a current reality, that the New Jerusalem is the consummation of the Body of Christ, the Church and that Christians already take part in membership of both the heavenly Jerusalem and the earthly Church in a kind of dual citizenship. In this way, the New Jerusalem represents to Christians the final and everlasting reconciliation of God and His chosen people, "the end of the Christian pilgrimage." As such, the New Jerusalem is a conception of Heaven.


What doctrines teach that people are inherently good or bad? Are we "basically sinful" or "basically good" (are we born fundamentally sinful, or are we born holy but then "fall to temptation?).

What I really want are the names of the doctrines associated with that age-old question - not the answers themselves.

I seem to think that it's a "Lutheran vs Methodist" argument, am I right? (But...  They seem to focus more on day-to-day living, not the "born sinful" part).

The doctrine that says that we are all born fundamentally sinful is called total depravity.  It is held by the vast majority of protestants - Lutheran and Methodist alike.  This is one area of agreement between Calvinists and Arminians.

Although not quite teaching that we are "basically good", one step closer to that is limited depravity.  It is the belief that we are born sinful, yet with enough good in us to accept Christ.  This may be similar to the Catholic view, although I am sure there are some finer points in which it differs (perhaps a Catholic can comment on this).  I am not aware of any other mainstream branches of Christianity that hold this view.

Mormonism does teach that human beings are not "basically sinful" (though they do not claim that human beings are "basically good"), as a part of their restored doctrine of atonement:

  According to Christ’s original doctrine as restored through Joseph Smith, the Fall made both possible and necessary the Savior’s atoning for our sins. Human nature is neither inherently evil nor inherently good. We become evil or good based on interaction between the Lord’s influence and the choices we make—choices unavailable in the garden before Adam and Eve fell and only made possible because of the Savior’s atonement.


According to amillennial Christians, has Christ fulfilled the fall festivals? We all agree that Christ has fulfilled the Jewish spring festivals. (Passover, Unleavened bread, First fruits, and Pentecost) However differences of opinion arise when it comes to the fall/autumn festivals of Trumpets, Day of Atonement and Tabernacles.
Some say the fall festivals prefigure the resurrection at the last trump and are yet to be fulfilled.  Others, in particular those of Preterist persuasion, say they were fulfilled in AD 70.
My question asks, according to amillennial Christians did Christ fulfil the Jewish fall festivals, how were they fulfilled, and if they haven’t yet, when?

Amillenial Christians do not believe in a literal 1,000-year reign of Christ.  They believe Christ is now sitting on the throne of David and that this present church age is the kingdom over which he reigns.  Although I could not find any specific reference to how they view the Festival of Trumpets, the Day of Atonement and the Feast of Tabernacles (or Booths), I did find an article that explains how they interpret unfulfilled prophecy as being “spiritual” or non-literal:

The amillennial view comes from using one method of interpretation for unfulfilled prophecy and another method for non-prophetic Scripture and fulfilled prophecy. Non-prophetic Scripture and fulfilled prophecy are interpreted literally or normally. But, according to the amillennialist, unfulfilled prophecy is to be interpreted spiritually, or non-literally. Those who hold to amillennialism believe that a “spiritual” reading of unfulfilled prophecy is the normal reading of the texts. This is called using a dual hermeneutic. (Hermeneutics is the study of the principles of interpretation.) The amillennialist assumes that most, or all, unfulfilled prophecy is written in symbolic, figurative, spiritual language. Therefore, the amillennialist will assign different meanings to those parts of Scripture instead of the normal, contextual meanings of those words.  Source: https://www.gotquestions.org/amillennialism.html

It would seem that amillennial Christians do not anticipate any literal fulfilment by Christ of the three autumn/fall festivals.
Preterism falls into two camps: full (or consistent) and partial.  Full preterism takes an extreme view that all prophecy in the Bible has been fulfilled in one way or another. Partial preterists take a more moderate approach, and many partial preterists consider full preterists to be guilty of heresy.  The following extracts sum up partial and full preterism:

According to partial preterism, there is no rapture, and passages describing the tribulation and the Antichrist are actually referring to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 and the Roman emperor Titus. Partial preterists do believe in the return of Christ to earth and a future resurrection and judgment, but they do not teach a millennial kingdom or that Israel as a nation has a place in God’s future plan. According to partial preterists, the Bible’s references to “the last days” are speaking of the last days of the Old Jewish Covenant, not the last days of the earth itself.

The partial preterist viewpoint leads to a belief in amillenialism (or post-millenialism) and is associated with covenant theology. Of course, it rejects dispensationalism. But its main problem is its inconsistent hermeneutic and its allegorizing of many biblical prophecies that are better understood literally. While partial preterism is within the scope of orthodoxy, it is not the majority view among Christians today.  Source: https://www.gotquestions.org/partial-preterism.html

According to preterism, all prophecy in the Bible is really history. The preterist interpretation of Scripture regards the book of Revelation as a symbolic picture of first-century conflicts, not a description of what will occur in the end times. Preterism is the view that the biblical prophecies concerning the “end times” have already been fulfilled—in the past.

Preterism is the view that all the end-times prophecies of the New Testament were fulfilled in AD 70 when the Romans attacked and destroyed Jerusalem. Preterism teaches that every event normally associated with the end times—Christ’s second coming, the tribulation, the resurrection of the dead, the final judgment—has already happened.  With regard to the final judgment, it is still in the process of being fulfilled.  Jesus’ return to earth was a “spiritual” return, not a physical one.  Source: https://www.gotquestions.org/preterist.html

I can only conclude that since amillennial Christians have no expectation of the Rapture of the Church or that Christ will return to earth and dwell with His people, any reference to Jesus fulfilling the last three fall feasts are to be taken spiritually and not literally. Preterists believe end-time prophecies have already been fulfilled, and the final judgment is in the process of being fulfilled.


What place do ontological arguments for God have in Christianity? As I understand it, the ontological argument that is sometimes applied to the existence of God goes something like this:

  God by definition is perfect. Non-existence would be an imperfection, therefore God exists.

However it seems to me there is something a bit off with the argument. For example, one could say,

  I define a monster to be the scariest possible being. A monster would be scarier if it exists and is about to attack me. Therefore, I am about to be attacked by a terrifying monster.

Yet this version seems clearly false.

First of all, are these arguments actually equivalent or is there something fundamentally different between them that I missed?
Secondly, is this the same argument used by Christians or is there another variant? If it is/was used, who was it used by and how widely accepted is it? Do any major theological traditions raise any significant objections to this argument?

Regarding your first question, there is a key difference between your two examples. They would be more parallel if you framed the first one like this:

  God is the most perfect possible being that can be thought of. Non-existence or a lack of regular competition in barbecuing championships would be an imperfection. Therefore, God exists and regularly competes in barbecuing championships.

Neither competing in barbecuing championships nor attacks on you are essential to being a perfect being or the most scary being, respectively. However, the most scary being could be argued to be one that exists, rather than one that doesn't, so:

  A monster is the most scary possible being. A being that exists is scarier than one that doesn't exist. Therefore monsters exist.

If we hold existing as absolutely essential to monsterhood over other possibly scary attributes, then this holds true. But, we may be able to think of things that seem scarier that don't exist (say a plague of Tribbles on Kronos) than those that do exist, so one might argue that existence isn't essential to monsterhood.

I think Anselm makes a stronger argument towards God, however. In his rejection of Gaunilo's critique, he notes that talking about God is different than talking about the most perfect island. At the very least, we know that the definition of perfection is tied intricately to God in the Christian understanding of God, so whatever God is must be more perfect than what God isn't.

As @justbelieve notes the real rub with the argument is that it cannot prove a particular deity, even if the argument works. We might find that the most perfect possible being -- with existence being the key attribute to that being's essence -- might be very much unlike what we want to label God in a hypothetical reality where God didn't exist.

Speaking of hypothetical realities, Alvin Plantinga has a revised Ontological Argument utilizing modal logic that deals with the idea of multiple realities. Perhaps someone who is a braver soul than I would like to explain it.

Regarding your second question, the Ontological Argument's major proponents have included St. Anselm, René Descartes, Karl Barth and Alvin Platinga, just to name a few. Contra the argument within Christian tradition would be a great many others, including St. Thomas Aquinas (cf. Summa Theological 1.2, especially questions 1 for the rebuttal and 3 for his alternative).


By what did Jesus call Joseph? Jesus called the God the Father during his ministry. My question is what Jesus called Joseph (the guardian) before his ministry?

  "Why were you searching for me?" he asked. "Didn't you know I had to be in my Father's house?"

I know that there is one mentioning (Luke) of "the Father" before the ministry but I still imagine him calling Joseph "father" as well. Does this imagination sound fine or any other suggestion that makes more sense?

Let me change the question to make it more answerable. Is Jesus's calling Joseph "father" raising any problem?

As far I know, there is no Jesus's direct mentioning or his hinting Virgin Conception of him by himself and people regarded him as a normal  "son of a carpenter". My thought is that Jesus at least called Joseph as normal as other sons did before his ministry or until Joseph died. Is my thought reasonable?

There's no scripture where Jesus refers to Joseph as father--but that doesn't mean that he didn't, it just means it's not recorded.
Other people certainly referred to Joseph as Jesus' father:

John 6:42 ESV They said, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does he now say, ‘I have come down from heaven’?”
John 1:45 ESV Philip found Nathanael and said to him, “We have found him of whom Moses in the Law and also the prophets wrote, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.”

Luke interestingly calls Joseph Jesus' father, "as was supposed." It was apparently a popular point of contention as to whether Joseph was Jesus' actual father.

Luke 3:23 ESV Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli,

But this question can't be definitively answered by scripture alone.


Sources for baptismal exorcism of infants? Are there any Christian texts before 600 CE which discuss the exorcism of infants or suggest that due to ancestral sin or for similar reasons infants are under the power of evil spirits?

In ancient church orders and other works on baptism in early centuries, exorcism of evil spirits seems like a key part of the baptismal ritual. I'm curious how this might have been understood in the case of infants.

I'm most interested in the earliest or the most thorough such explanations.

Additional info on baptism and exorcism:

Per DJClayworth's request, the following are some examples of the centrality of exorcism to baptism in the patristic era, all from a quick Google book search of Kelly, H. A. (2004). The Devil at Baptism: Ritual, Theology, and Drama. Wipf and Stock Publishers. That said, my knowledge of this topic isn't specifically from Kelly.

In the Canons of Hippolytus, those being baptized are instructed to remove their jewelry and loose their hair in order to prevent alien spirits from descending with them into the water of the second birth. (p. 136)
At the turn of the third century, there was a whole program of exorcisms preceding baptism (p. 106)
On p. 141, Kelly does a good job of describing the thoroughness of the repeated exorcisms in the baptismal procedure.
Chrysostom's description of the unbaptized as lacking the seal of Christ's protection from demons on pages 142f may be the beginning of an answer to my question.

For a work available online discussing exorcisms and baptism in this era, see eg. Adam Szabados (2010). Post-New Testament Early Christian Views of Baptismal Anointing.

Post from Aquinas' Summa Theologica, where he quotes Pope Celestine circa 422 AD:

Article 2. Whether exorcism should precede Baptism?
Objection 1. It seems that exorcism should not precede Baptism. For exorcism is ordained against energumens or those who are possessed. But not all are such like. Therefore exorcism should not precede Baptism.

Objection 2. Further, so long as man is a subject of sin, the devil has power over him, according to John 8:34: "Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin." But sin is taken away by Baptism. Therefore men should not be exorcized before Baptism.

Objection 3. Further, Holy water was introduced in order to ward off the power of the demons. Therefore exorcism was not needed as a further remedy.

On the contrary, Pope Celestine says (Epist. ad Episcop. Galliae): "Whether children or young people approach the sacrament of regeneration, they should not come to the fount of life before the unclean spirit has been expelled from them by the exorcisms and breathings of the clerics."

I answer that, Whoever purposes to do a work wisely, first removes the obstacles to his work; hence it is written (Jeremiah 4:3): "Break up anew your fallow ground and sow not upon thorns." Now the devil is the enemy of man's salvation, which man acquires by Baptism; and he has a certain power over man from the very fact that the latter is subject to original, or even actual, sin. Consequently it is fitting that before Baptism the demons should be cast out by exorcisms, lest they impede man's salvation. Which expulsion is signified by the (priest) breathing (upon the person to be baptized); while the blessing, with the imposition of hands, bars the way against the return of him who was cast out. Then the salt which is put in the mouth, and the anointing of the nose and ears with spittle, signify the receiving of doctrine, as to the ears; consent thereto as to the nose; and confession thereof, as to the mouth. And the anointing with oil signifies man's ability to fight against the demons.

Reply to Objection 1. The energumens are so-called from "laboring inwardly" under the outward operation of the devil. And though not all that approach Baptism are troubled by him in their bodies, yet all who are not baptized are subject to the power of the demons, at least on account of the guilt of original sin.

Reply to Objection 2. The power of the devil in so far as he hinders man from obtaining glory, is expelled from man by the baptismal ablution; but in so far as he hinders man from receiving the sacrament, his power is cast out by the exorcisms.

Reply to Objection 3. Holy water is used against the assaults of demons from without. But exorcisms are directed against those assaults of the demons which are from within. hence those who are exorcized are called energumens, as it were "laboring inwardly."

Or we may say that just as Penance is given as a further remedy against sin, because Baptism is not repeated; so Holy Water is given as a further remedy against the assaults of demons, because the baptismal exorcisms are not given a second time.


If the Devil is the Great Deceiver, how would I know that he's not deceiving me through Christianity? I've always been a devout Christian, but I once had a terrifying thought while reading the Bible, and I'm scared I'm going to go to Hell.

At one point I began to question why God killed so many people throughout the course of the old testament, how he killed peoples' first born children, made people give their kids as sacrifices, flooded the entire Earth and killed almost everybody and everything, sent plagues upon people, burned down their cities and often commanded genocidal wars.

God also commands that everybody fear him and worship him, lest they should burn in Hell for all eternity.

Then, it occurred to me that the Devil is almost never mentioned in the Bible. He certainly isn't credited with killing very many people. He might actually have only killed about ten people in the entire Bible, if I remember correctly. Certainly nothing compared to the millions of people that God kills.

The things the Devil really did wrong were deny God as his king and try to give Adam and Eve the Knowledge of Good and Evil. I get that, but why is God the one discouraging knowledge? How could Adam and Eve have known it was inherently wrong to disobey God without having first HAD the Knowledge of Good and Evil? Why is it that God didn't want them to have that knowledge?

I remember in Sunday school they referred to the Devil as the Great Deceiver. If he truly IS THE Deceiver, then wouldn't it stand to reason that his deceptive powers would be vast? His capacity for deception would be unparalleled? Could he go so far as to pretend to be God and convince the majority of the world's Christians, and maybe even Muslims, that he IS GOD? Could he convince people to lead crusades and inquisitions? Could he have guided the hand of man to have writ the Bible (and possibly the Qur'an??) for the purpose of striking the fear of Hell into the heart of man and ensuring a future of war and death? To convince everybody that they were wretches without HIM? To make everybody feel ashamed of their thoughts and emotions? Could he have convinced people that knowledge was evil?

I guess what I'm asking, from a vulnerable position is, could God as he is described in the Bible, actually be the Devil in disguise? Why would a loving and all-knowing God be trying to convince people that they should shun and hate gay people or people of other religions? God actually commands people to kill people because they are of different religions or races at different points in the Bible.

I didn't want to end up hating God as I read the Bible, but by the end of it, I'm afraid I kind of developed a disdain for Him. Even the New Testament, with its morbid demise of Jesus Christ and its prophecies of Revelation, all just seems to be designed to terrify people and make them feel bad about themselves and make them look forward to nothing but a future of fiery apocalypse and uncertainty. It all seems to be designed to make people think they are bad people if they don't follow God's code of law. And then I look around me and I see how hateful most Christians are toward people that are different than them and I assume that the Devil's deception must be working. One day, when the Revelation comes to fruition, and some evil politician wins the Christian vote because he claims to be Christian, I'm afraid it will be the Christians that first follow him right into Hell. I'm afraid I'm already seeing this happening in society today. I'm a Christian that is afraid he has discovered a terrifying underlying message inherent in the Bible, and I hope I'm wrong. Can someone weigh in on this?

By their fruits ye shall know them

Your question is very valid. Satan is the great deceiver, he's been leading people down the wrong path for thousands of years, and he knows that the most elaborate deceptions are 90% truth. Satan discovered long ago that the most effective way to cause people to commit sin, was to make them believe that their actions are done in righteousness, so he sent false prophets to establish false churches that teach the doctrines of men mingled with scripture. He leads them astray with by luring them in with the truth, and then feeding them the doctrines of men.

Christ warned us about deception:

  15 ¶Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing,
  but inwardly they are ravening wolves.  (Matt 7:15;)

Satan has certainly used the name of God to lead many people to do the devils work. Of this there is no doubt, those that blindly followed him were typically deceived by the flattering words of charismatic leaders, many who professed authority from God, who they themselves were most likely also deceived.

Christ told his disciples how they can know a true prophet:

  16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns,
  or figs of thistles?

  17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt
  tree bringeth forth evil fruit.

  18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt
  tree bring forth good fruit.

  19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and
  cast into the fire.

  20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. (Matt 7:16-20;)

How shall we know them by their fruits? In Galatians chapter 5, Paul explains that a true disciple of Christ is led by the Spirit, and lists the fruits of the spirit.

  22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering,
  gentleness, goodness, faith,

  23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. (Gal 5:22;)

Satan CANNOT bring forth good fruit, for "a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit." Therefor you can know with a surety whether a church is led by a true prophet of God through prayer. Only the Spirit can testify of the truthfulness of all things.

  26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will
  send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things
  to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. (John
  14:26;)

Trust Only God

You must not trust any man that claims to know the truth without first receiving confirmation from the Spirit that their words are true, you must come to a knowledge of the truth by yourself, through prayer, the Lord will not deceive you. Men will use clever arguments and reason to try to persuade your mind, but you must listen only to your heart for those comforting feelings of love, joy, peace and gentleness. Be careful not to confuse the feelings of the Spirit with pleasure, excitement, pride, or satisfaction, or the like, these are not fruits of the Spirit. Learn to recognize the promptings of the Spirit, and ye shall know the truth of all things.


Why don't Presbyterians have altars? Why don't Presbyterians have altars in their churches or in their homes? Who administers the sacraments, especially communion, then without an altar? Do children help out at all? In other churches, children can be selected as 'altar-servers'.

(Although I can't speak for all Presbyterians, as we are diverse bunch, I think that what I say here is representative of the mainstream. I welcome correction if I am wrong about this.)

When Communion is served, we do use a table of some kind. The table recalls the Last Supper, at which the practice of Communion was instituted; Matthew 26:20, Mark 14:18, Luke 22:14 and John 13:23 all say that Jesus and the disciples were gathered at table. In any case, it is practical to have a flat surface for everything else to rest on.

It is typical for the table to be an actual table (wooden, four legs at the corners, etc.) rather than an altar (big block of stone). This is because the Reformed tradition does not view Communion as a sacrificial event, and does not have the Catholic concept of a sacrificing priesthood. An altar is a place for offering sacrifices but a table is a place for having dinner. Also, there is a general aesthetic sense that churches ought not to be too ornamented, so some may prefer a simpler piece of wooden furniture to an elaborately carved stone altar. I have personally seen quite a bit of variation in the level of decoration for the table.

Moreover, the Presbyterian tradition has tended to offer Communion less frequently than some other denominations. So the table may not even be a permanent fixture, but is brought out whenever it is needed. In contrast, the preaching of the Word is ubiquitous, so in some church buildings you will see a central pulpit where you might expect a table or altar. In my present church, we do have a permanent table, where the Communion vessels are always shown - this is meant to be a reminder that we should be ready for Jesus to arrive at any moment. In other churches you might see candlesticks, a cross, a Bible, and so on.

You also ask who administers the sacrament, and whether children may be involved as helpers. We do have a person who does this, a "minister", who has been ordained and who (as a result of training followed by church approval) is considered capable of the job. Church law may allow other people to act in place of the regular minister, under certain circumstances. The minister may be helped by other people during the course of the service - holding plates of bread and so forth. Compared to high-liturgical denominations, the Presbyterians have rather less apparatus to deal with (incense, bells, different kinds of cloth, etc.) and so there is correspondingly less of a role for the helpers. They also don't have special clothes to wear.

Regarding children, I would think that anyone assisting ought at least to be baptized - even if they do not receive the sacrament themselves, helpers are still participating in the event. They should also be physically able to do what is asked. So I think anyone who could receive communion could also assist, including children in principle, whereas unbaptized people of any age would not do so. Actually choosing the helpers would be the responsibility of the session (the governing committee of the local church) together with the minister, ultimately subject to the judgement of the presbytery and higher bodies. Again, given the nature of the role, there's not much need for more than about half a minute of training, so we wouldn't tend to have a fixed body of designated helpers - at my present church, the session chooses people from the congregation in general.


Joseph Smith purpose of polygamy Why did Joseph Smith condone, or perhaps even encourage polygamy?  What scriptures, if any, support this practice?

There was polygamy, or plural wives, in the Old Testament.
Starting with the (NRSV) Bible.

Sarai gave Hagar to Abram as his wife, Genesis 16:1–11

Jacob received Leah and Rachel and their handmaidens as wives, Genesis 29:21–28, Genesis 30:4, 9, 26.

If a man take another wife, he shall not diminish the first wife’s possessions, Exodus 21:10

David and his two wives went up to Hebron, 2 Samuel 2:1–2

In the Book of Mormon, the book of Jacob, Jacob explains to the Nephites how God sees plural wives. (Jacob 2:27-30)

27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;
28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.
29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes.
30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.

So God has to command plural marriage by revelation.
Unfortunately for Joseph Smith, God revealed that he wanted all things restored, including polygamy.  This revelation was recorded 12 July 1843, and is known in the Doctrine and Covenants as revelation 132.

37 Abraham received concubines, and they bore him children; and it was accounted unto him for righteousness, because they were given unto him, and he abode in my law; as Isaac also and Jacob did none other things than that which they were commanded; and because they did none other things than that which they were commanded, they have entered into their exaltation, according to the promises, and sit upon thrones, and are not angels but are gods.
38 David also received many wives and concubines, and also Solomon and Moses my servants, as also many others of my servants, from the beginning of creation until this time; and in nothing did they sin save in those things which they received not of me.
39 David’s wives and concubines were given unto him of me, by the hand of Nathan, my servant, and others of the prophets who had the keys of this power; and in none of these things did he sin against me save in the case of Uriah and his wife; and, therefore he hath fallen from his exaltation, and received his portion; and he shall not inherit them out of the world, for I gave them unto another, saith the Lord.
40 I am the Lord thy God, and I gave unto thee, my servant Joseph, an appointment, and restore all things. Ask what ye will, and it shall be given unto you according to my word.

Poor Joseph.  God commanded him to restore all things.  He felt obliged to marry 34 other women.