Can Catholics knowingly work for evil entities? Suppose you happen to suspect that the company you work for have evil intentions.

It's a big company and you are a small employee and your work is not evil and you need it, or perhaps you have to feed your family.

Let's say you're a programmer for INC company, you discovered that grosso modo the company you're working for is anti Christ or doing unethical things with data they gathered. Let's say it's all suspicions because you did research or you believe in a conspiracy theory.

As a programmer, you will never be able to verify your suspicions because you're just a worker and you can't come forward. From a Catholic point of view, should you quit the job?

The Catechism of the Catholic Church does not specifically prohibit employment of, say, working for a defense contractor, but it does set some parameters.

First, employment is the primary path to functioning within  the social order. CCC 2428 says: In work, the person exercises and fulfills in part the potential inscribed in his nature. The primordial value of labor stems from man himself, its author and its beneficiary. Work is for man, not man for work. Everyone should be able to draw from work the means of providing for his life and that of his family, and of serving the human community.

However, there is a firm stance of the Church that finances are not the big picture.  CCC 2424 states: A theory that makes profit the exclusive norm and ultimate end of economic activity is morally unacceptable. The disordered desire for money cannot but produce perverse effects. It is one of the causes of the many conflicts which disturb the social order.

The Church may not specifically instruct to quit one's job, but it gives us some avenues for consideration. Although not a definitive answer to your question, CCC 2256 states: Citizens are obliged in conscience not to follow the directives of civil authorities when they are contrary to the demands of the moral order. "We must obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29)

Of note, workers, when faced with issues of injustice, may strike. CCC 2435: Recourse to a strike is morally legitimate when it cannot be avoided, or at least when it is necessary to obtain a proportionate benefit.

What I get from reading these passages is to simply follow one's conscience. Giving up a morally reprehensible, yet lucrative, job will be favored in the eyes of God.

One must also consider how closely linked the profession is to the malignant result. A fry cook at a fast food chain, owned by a consortium, one piece of the consortium sponsors terrorists, can hardly be held accountable for terrorism; but he might still choose to be a fry cook somewhere else.


In Catholicism, what does "mystical" mean? In the Loreto Litanies, Mary is referred to as Mystical Rose and the Church teaches as doctrine that the Church is the the Mystical Body of Christ1.

In Catholicism, what does mystical mean?

1. Cf. Pius XII > Encyclicals > Mystici Corporis Christi.

St. Alphonsus di Liguori's The Glories of Mary explains all the parts of the Litany of Loretto. Regarding the "Rosa Mystica," he writes:

  "Rosa mystica:" Mystical rose. It is said of Mary in the holy Canticles that she was the inclosed garden of God: "Hortus conclusus soror mea sponsa."* And St. Bernard, explaining this passage, says that the Lord planted in this garden all the flowers that adorn the Church, and among others, the violet of humility, the lily of purity, and the rose of charity. The rose is red; and therefore Mary is called the rose, according to the Idiot, on account of the ardent charity with which her heart was always inflamed towards God and towards us.† And where can we find an advocate who is more occupied with our salvation and who loves us more than Mary? We acknowledge that one alone in heaven is solicitous for us, as St Augustine says of her.‡ Oh my dear mother, if I could love thee as thou lovest me! I will not, however, fail of doing what I can to honor and love thee; my sweet Lady, obtain for me the grace to be faithful to thee.

  * iv. 12.
  † Rosa rubicunda per Dei et proximi charitatem; Dei ignens calor charitatem denotat.
  ‡ Unam solam in cœlis fatemur esse solicitam.

The Oxford English Dictionary gives many meanings for "mystical":

  Theol.

  a. Having a spiritual character or significance by virtue of a
  connection or union with God which transcends human understanding.

  2.

  b. Relating to or designating a hidden, symbolic, or spiritual meaning
  (or some aspect of this) underlying the literal meaning of a passage
  of Scripture. Cf. allegorical adj., anagogical adj., tropological adj.

  a. More generally: mysterious, enigmatic, obscure, esoteric; of hidden
  meaning or nature; having an unknown or mysterious origin or
  influence. Cf. mystic n. 2.

  b. Of a person: obscure in speech, mysterious in behaviour; versed or
  apparently initiated in occult or esoteric knowledge. Obs.

  Relating to or dealing with spiritual or transcendental matters, esp. communion of the soul with God or some higher spiritual power;
  concerned with spiritual mystery, religious awe, etc. Also: relating
  to or characteristic of mystics or mysticism. Cf. mystic adj. 5,
  mystical theology n. at Special uses.
  Of or relating to mysterious or occult rites or practices. Cf. mystic n. 3. Also in extended use.
  Secret, concealed; unconfessed. Obs.

  mystical theology   n. the branch of theology that deals with the
  attainment of direct communion of the soul with God.

For a good overview of mystical theology, see this by Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P.From Fr. Hardon, S.J.'s Catholic Dictionary:

  MYSTICAL BODY

  The Catholic Church established by Christ as an extension and
  continuation of the Incarnation.

  In the words of Pius XII, "If we would define and describe the true
  Church of Jesus Christ -- which is the one, holy, Catholic, apostolic
  Roman Church -- we shall find nothing more noble, more sublime, or
  more divine than the expression 'the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ' --
  an expression that flows spontaneously from the repeated teaching of
  the sacred Scriptures and the holy Fathers."

  The term "body," when referring to the Church, derives its meaning
  from the analogy used by St. Paul, where he speaks of Christians: "You
  are the Body of Christ, member for member" (I Corinthians 12:27), and
  of Christ: "the Head of His Body, the Church" (Colossians 1:18).

  Corollary to being a body, the Church must have a multiplicity of
  discernible members because the possession of parts is an essential
  feature of anything bodily. And just as a natural body is formed of
  different organs with different functions arranged in due order, so
  the Church is bound together by the combination of structurally united
  parts, and has a variety of members that are reciprocally dependent.
  Another name for this interdependence is the hierarchy, with its
  graded levels of orders and jurisdiction, of superiors and subjects,
  beginning with the Sovereign Pontiff and terminating in the laity.

  The body (soma) that St. Paul identifies with the Church is a living
  reality, and like every organism requires suitable means to enter into
  life, to grow and mature and prosper according to its nature.
  Similarly in the Catholic Church, the sacraments are available for
  every spiritual need and circumstance of human life.

  Moreover, the Roman Catholic Church regards herself as the Body of
  Christ. He was the originator of the Church by his preaching and
  choice of the Apostles to carry on his work, by his death on the Cross
  when he merited the graces to be channeled through the Mystical Body,
  and by the descent of the Holy Spirit, whom he sent on Pentecost. He
  continues to rule the Church from within by supernatural means that
  are permanent and constantly active within the members.

  The Church is called Mystical because she is a mystery, which God
  revealed to be true but whose inner essence must be accepted on faith
  and without full comprehension by the mind. Otherwise than in other
  societies, the end or purpose of the church is not temporal or earthly
  but heavenly and eternal; its spiritual bond is the will of God;
  incorporation in the Church effects a profound internal change in the
  members; and the whole reality is called supernatural because it leads
  to the destiny of seeing God in the beatific vision after death. But
  the Roman Catholic Church is mainly said to be the Mystical Body of
  Christ because it is sacramental. The Church is the great sacrament of
  the New Law, instituted by Christ for the communication of invisible
  grace to the whole world.

  MYSTICAL INTERPRETATION

  The explanation of some biblical person, object, or occurrence in the
  past as having a divinely intended meaning or function in the future.
  Thus Adam prefigured Christ, the Passover anticipated the Cross and
  the Eucharist, and the destruction of Jerusalem in the first century
  of the Christian era symbolized the end of the world. To be valid, the
  basis for the interpretation must be found in Scripture or sacred
  tradition.

  MYSTICAL ROSE

  A traditional title given to Mary, and an invocation in the Litany of
  Loreto. As the rose is considered the queen of flowers, so Mary in
  invoked as Queen of All Saints. As described by sacred writers, she is
  the "mystical rose without thorn," the "rose of paradise," and the
  "rose bringing salvation to all who call upon her."

  MYSTICAL THEOLOGY

  The science of the spiritual life, with stress on the operation of
  divine grace. It deals with the higher forms of mental prayer and with
  such extraordinary phenomena as are recorded in the lives of the
  saints. It is the science of the study of the mystic states. It is
  commonly distinguished from ascetical theology, which emphasizes free
  co-operation with and predisposition for divine grace.

  MYSTICAL UNION

  The union of a soul with God in deep contemplation. It is
  characterized by a deep awareness of the divine presence, and has a
  variety of grades, not necessarily successive, but distinguished by
  spiritual writers. They are: the two nights of the soul (senses and
  spirit) before mystical union, the prayer of quiet, the full union,
  ecstasy, and spiritual marriage or transforming union.


Is Political Correctness showing shame for our God? Often times I see political correctness as an excuse to remove references to God. The excuse is that it is an effort to not offend those of different faiths. For example instead of Christmas it is the Holiday Season.

I often times find myself torn on this matter. I have friends of many faiths, and I do not want to offend them, but is being politically correct showing shame for my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ?

  Mark 8:38 (KJV) Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.

Is there a middle ground were we can show respect for the faith of others where we are not softening the Good News of the Gospel of Jesus Christ?

Of course I am never offended to hear members of other faiths talk about or celebrate their beliefs. Is maybe the true political correctness to just accept the faith and beliefs of others? I wish my Jewish friends a Happy Hanukkah and they wish me a Merry Christmas.

My experience is that this form of political correctness is an over-reaction against something that isn't really a problem anyway, and is intended to appease people who are offended by Christianity--most likely a small minority of vocal athiests and those with similar political views.

I am never/would never be offended when a Jew wishes me a "Happy Hanukkah," or for that matter if a Catholic wishes me a "Happy X" (where X is a holiday celebrated by Catholics, but not by protestants--and there are many).

I think it is reasonable for Christians to wish "Merry Christmas" to non-Christian friends. After all, we do want non-Christians to have a merry Christmas, don't we?

Now if I know that it offends a friend for some reason, I would be happy to abstain from that greeting for that friend.  In much the same way Christians who consume alcohol would (hopefully) abstain from consuming alcohol in the presence of those it would offend, or for whom it would be a "stumbling block."

But I'm not going to refuse to wish Merry Christmas to strangers (store clerks, waitresses, etc), or otherwise profess my faith, for fear of offending.

The Gospel of Christ is offensive, after all.


Dates of Epiphany and Baptism celebrations shifting in Ireland and England In Sunday Missal approved for Ireland, England & Wales, and Scotland I found, that the Epiphany of the Lord is celebrated on 6 January in Ireland, while in England & Wales and Scotland on 8 January.

The same shifting appears for the Baptism of the Lord celebration: 8 January in Ireland, 9 January in England & Wales and Scotland.

What's the reason for these shifting?

Can it be in order not to mix celebrations of same holidays in Church of England and in Roman Catholic Church for families with mixed confessions?

Canon 1246 of the Code of Canon Law of the Catholic Church states:

  Sunday, on which by apostolic tradition the paschal mystery is celebrated, must be observed in the universal Church as the primordial holy day of obligation. The following days must also be observed: the Nativity of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Epiphany, the Ascension, the Body and Blood of Christ, Holy Mary the Mother of God, her Immaculate Conception, her Assumption, Saint Joseph, Saint Peter and Saint Paul the Apostles, and All Saints.

  With the prior approval of the Apostolic See, however, the conference of bishops can suppress some of the holy days of obligation or transfer them to a Sunday.

(emphases added)

The dates on which various feasts of the Church are held are primarily contained in the Calendarium Romanum, the Roman Calendar, which was last updated by Pope Paul VI in 1969. I can only find a copy in the original Latin; it reads in the section about the Epiphany and Baptism of the Lord:

  In Epiphania Domini, die 6 ianuarii, nihil innovatur. Attamen ubi haec sollemnitas non est de praecepto servanda, transfertur ad dominicam post octavam Nativitatis (id est, a die 2 ad diem 8 ianuarii occurrente).

  Dominica post diem 6 ianuarii, festum Baptismatis Domini celebratur. Quando vero hoc festum occurrit una cum sollemnitate Epiphaniae ad hanc dominicam translata, illis in locis omittitur.

That is,

  Nothing is changed regarding the Epiphany of the Lord, on the 6th day of January. However, where this solemnity will not be observed according to tradition [i.e. on the 6th], it is moved to the Sunday after the Octave of the Nativity (that is, to the Sunday occurring from the 2nd to the 8th day of January.

  On the Sunday after the 6th day of January, the feast of the Baptism of the Lord is celebrated. When, however, this feast occurs together with the solemnity of the Epiphany moved to this Sunday, in those places it is left out.

It appears that a later ruling decided to move the Baptism of the Lord to the Monday following the celebration of the Epiphany in such a case, rather than to leave it out; but I can't find documentation of this.

Thus, the current rule is this:

The governing episcopal conference of a territory, with the approval of the Holy See, will decide whether they wish all parishes within that territory to celebrate the Epiphany on the 6th of January (the traditional date), or on the Sunday following the 1st of January. These are the only two possibilities, and all parishes within the conference must adhere to the one chosen by the bishops.
If the conference decides to celebrate the Epiphany on the 6th, then the Baptism of the Lord is celebrated on the following Sunday (the 7th to 13th).
If on the other hand they choose to celebrate it on the Sunday after 1 January, then:

If in a given year this Sunday falls on or before the 6th, the Baptism of the Lord is celebrated on the following Sunday.
But if the Sunday on which the Epiphany is celebrated falls on the 7th or 8th, the Baptism of the Lord is celebrated the next day, Monday the 8th or 9th.

It appears this is what is happening in your example. Ireland and Northern Ireland are the territory of the Irish Catholic Bishops' Conference, They appear to have elected to celebrate the Epiphany on the traditional date, 6 January, and the Baptism of the Lord on the following Sunday, 8 January. England and Wales are territorially part of the Catholic Bishops' Conference of England and Wales, which seems to have chosen to celebrate the Epiphany on the Sunday folowing 1 January. This year, that is 8 January, and thus the Baptism of the Lord will be celebrated there on Monday 9 January.

It appears from a brief search of the Anglican Communion website that the Epiphany may be celebrated in Anglican churches on either of the days allowed by the Catholic Church. But it's not clear who has the authority to decide when individual parishes celebrate it, or what the practice is in the Church of England in particular.


In LDS, how are 'milk' doctrines distinguished from 'meat' doctrines? When discussing doctrine with ex-LDS acquaintances, they've mentioned the concept of "milk before meat," presumably based on these words from Joseph Smith's revelation in Doctrines & Covenants 19:

  "And I command you that you preach naught but repentance, and show not these things unto the world until it is wisdom in me. For they cannot bear meat now, but milk they must receive; wherefore, they must not know these things, lest they perish" (Doctrine & Covenants 19:21-22).

The individuals I discussed this with said that there are teachings of the LDS church that are considered "meat" doctrines, which Mormons are discouraged from sharing with outsiders or prospective converts until they are ready to receive and understand them. Until that time, they teach them "milk" doctrines" to help them grow and establish their budding faith.

I haven't been able to find a precise list or codification of what constitutes "milk doctrines" as opposed to "meat doctrines." Most of what I've found has been from anti-Mormon teachers and sources, which I won't trust as true until hearing the actual Mormons' side of things.

  The Prophet Joseph Smith observed, "If we start right, it is easy to go right all the time; but if we start wrong, we may go wrong, and it [will] be a hard matter to get right." When a proper foundation has been laid, the truth can then flow more freely. The apostle Peter is said to have explained to Clement of Rome: "The teaching of all doctrine has a certain order, and there are some things which must be delivered first, others in the second place, and others in the third, and so all in their order; and if these things be delivered in their order, they become plain; but if they be brought forward out of order, they will seem to be spoken against reason" (ldsliving.com) .

Is there a codified list of what's a "milk doctrine" and what's a "meat doctrine?" Or is it up to the discretion of the individual Mormon to determine what an outsider or prospective convert can or can't "bear?"

Great question. As far as I know there is not a definitive list separating the two types of teachings. But perhaps a good reference point is those who first introduce non-members to the teachings of the Church: the missionaries.

LDS missionaries start by teaching people the plain and basic doctrine of the gospel. Every lesson is custom-tailored to each individual based on their needs. See, if they're teaching a scholar of the Bible in the US south, the discussion of the Restoration or the Plan of Salvation goes very differently than if they are teaching someone in India who may have never heard of Jesus Christ.

The Bible scholar would not be impressed by being taught about why scriptures are valuable and that we should read them every day. But that might be the very thing that a family in India needs to learn in order to grow their faith. So the missionaries might focus more on the need for a Restoration and the blessings of ordinances of exaltation to the scholar, and on the basic commandments and nature of God to the family in India, for example.

So what is milk to one individual is meat to another.

When missionaries introduce the Book of Mormon to someone, that is enough to overwhelm them: a whole other book of scripture comparable and equal to the Bible in its canonical authority; essentially the bible of the New World? Wow. Because of this milk/meat thing, missionaries typically do not also introduce the Doctrine and Covenants or Pearl of Great Price at the same time.

As another example, the Book of Mormon in 1 Nephi 13 discusses the discovery of America by the Gentiles in the centuries following the dark ages. This is a very cool vision that strengthens the testimonies of long-time members of the Church who are accustomed to the basic doctrines, but this is often irrelevant to new investigators of the Church. Teaching this too early can easily come across as too fanatical or dramatic, as it discusses in detail the transfer of the Bible to the New World, the American revolutionary war and how the Spirit was with them, and the coming forth of the Book of Mormon shortly thereafter. Those who still need "milk" teachings should be focusing their study on faith, repentance, baptismal covenants, keeping the commandments, etc. (Not that veteran members shouldn't -- but I mean it's like a ladder, you can still go back down to the basics, but you can't start at the top and expect it to make sense.)

Gotta learn arithmetic before you can understand calculus. This is why the ordinances of the LDS church are progressive: baptism & confirmation, young men receiving the Aaronic Priesthood and adult men the Melchizedek Priesthood, then eventually, when they are ready, Mormons receive further ordinances in temples which teach even more celestial truths. But the temple is like the Lord's university: although the gospel is simple enough for a child to understand, the teaching style in temple ordinances is appreciated by more prepared individuals who have already gone to "grade school" so to speak.


Did the myth of the holy grail originate from Catholicism? Or its practices? Catholic church sanctioned holy wars suggest they didn't think the Holy Grail a myth back then.

The question is about its' origins, source.

Although the Grail folklore seems to stem from the same centuries as the crusades due to Arthurian legends. Here is a little insight to its' origins. The origins are a mix of cultures. The medieval Church took no official stance on Grail folklore.

  The Roots of the Holy Grail

  Academic consensus gives the Grail a Celtic origin. The foremost campaigner for this view is Arthurian scholar Roger Sherman Loomis, whose book, The Grail: From Celtic Symbol to Christian Myth (1963), traces it to Irish tales of cauldrons and drinking horns that never run empty as well as accounts of journeys to the Happy Otherworld. The maiden Grail-bearer is based on the personified Sovereignty of Ireland, a woman who gives her cup only to the worthy. These elements were transmitted to Wales, then to Brittany, with Breton storytellers spreading them around northern France where the medieval romances first appeared. Loomis assumes that the material had been much altered by misunderstandings and oral process: There was no one "original" Grail myth.

  But it was the connection with the Holy Eucharist that fixed the Grail in medieval minds. The old myths might never have gained such popularity without the Christianization that brought them in line with medieval iconography and devotional practice.

  Grail romances appeared just as Eucharistic devotion was gaining favor, expressed in the elevation of the Host during Mass, Corpus Christi processions, preachers' parables, and miracle stories. Hosts that levitate, bleed, discriminate among recipients, serve as the sole food of saints, and reveal visions of Christ appear often in Eucharistic miracles and in Grail adventures. Devout contemplation of the elevated or exposed Host was believed to convey not only grace but well-being and protection, as does an encounter with the Grail.

  The medieval Church took no official position on Grail romances. But the cathedral of Valencia claims to possess the actual vessel, a red stone cup from the time of Christ mounted as a splendid chalice during the Middle Ages. Its legend — which owes nothing whatever to the romances — claims that it was sent to Spain by the Roman martyr St. Lawrence. Donated to the cathedral in 1437, it's kept in a special chapel and was once used for Mass by Pope John Paul II. - The Real History of the Holy Grail

Valencia Chalice

  Pope John Paul II himself celebrated Mass with the Holy Chalice in Valencia in November 1982. In 2006 at Valencia, Pope Benedict XVI also celebrated with the Holy Chalice, on this occasion saying “this most famous chalice”, words in the Roman Canon said to have been used for the first popes until 4th century in Rome, and supporting in this way the tradition of the Holy Chalice of Valencia. - The Holy Chalice of Valencia: Is it the Holy Grail?


When was the Bible formally declared to be inerrant and/or infallible? Fundamentally*, an inerrant Bible is one without errors and an infallible Bible is one that cannot have errors, as David Stratton pointed out in his answer. As for the Roman Catholic Church, all of its doctrines are infallible, so presumably, they believe the Bible is infallible as well.

My question is: when and why was inerrancy/infallibility formally declared? I'm looking for any combination of these four sources:

an Old Testament text declares itself or another OT text to be inerrant/infallible,
a New Testament text declares itself or another NT text to be inerrant/infallible,
one or more early church authors declare some OT/NT text to be inerrant/infallible, or
the closed canon (with or without the Deuterocanon) is declared inerrant/infallible by the Church, before or after the Great Schism.

I'm most interested in writings from the early church fathers, and 2 Timothy 3:16 is allowed in the answer only if the link between "God-breathed" and "infallible"/"inerrant" is shown in a clear and direct way. Also, declarations of inerrancy/infallibility should apply to the whole text, not just God's directly-spoken words.

*Stealthy or lame, take your pick.

A biblical case for inerrancy can certainly be made on the basis of passages like 2 Timothy 3:16 and 2 Peter 3:16, but these are limited in that they do not obviously refer to the entire Bible, both Old and New Testaments.  So to address this question it's best to turn to the writings of the early fathers.

Clear statements of the truthfulness and perfection of the Bible appear very early.  Here are several examples:

Clement of Rome (?–99)

  Look carefully into the Scriptures, which are the true utterances of the Holy Spirit. Observe that nothing of an unjust or counterfeit character is written in them. (Epistle to the Corinthians, chapter 45.  In chapter 47 he cites Paul as an inspired author)

Justin Martyr (100–165)

  I am entirely convinced that no Scripture contradicts another (Dialogue with Trypho, chapter 65)

Irenaeus (?–202)

  the Scriptures are indeed perfect, since they were spoken by the Word of God and His Spirit (Against Heresies, 2.28.2)

Tertullian (155–240)

  The statements, however, of holy Scripture will never be discordant with truth. (A Treatise on the Soul, chapter 21)

The definition of "Scripture" for these authors varied to some extent, but later fathers, like Augustine, more carefully emphasized the importance of defining a canon and gave even more explicit statements of inerrancy:

  I have learned to yield this respect and honour only to the canonical books of Scripture: of these alone do I most firmly believe that the authors were completely free from error. (Letter 82)


What are the classics/giants in Systematic Theology? Two of the popular ways of analyzing the Bible are: Biblical Theology and Systematic Theology.

Based on Biblical Theology vs Systematic Theology, Biblical Theology focuses more on verses; whereas Systematic Theology focuses more on topics.

Who are the giants in Systematic Theology?

What are the classics / great works in Systematic Theology?

See also: Related question on Biblical Theology.

I think the concept of systematic theology and biblical theology is deceptive.  I have studied both and I think I can strip away the confusion by providing a non academic answer that sort of throws the curtain in front of the wizard of Ozz to one side.

Let me explain and hopefully this makes sense as I am going out on a branch a bit here with potential negative feedback.

Organizing the understanding that one has when reading the Bible has been termed by somebody as systematic theology. It means nothing.  Yes possibly under Newtonian physics where the universe was considered like a clock, some theologians became overly dogmatic. Yes, yes, so what.  Yes, after Einstein and theories of relativity we prefer more organic models of thought and we are post-modern and all that, but who really cares.  Newton still dominates most of physics anyway.

The truth is, an understanding is by nature somewhat systematic, in that it organizes what would otherwise appear as just random things, tries to make sense of it, daws conclusions and then tries to fit new things into the 'understanding' as it progresses. When something new (new Bibles verse for example) does not fit (into our theology) then we try to revise our understanding until it does.  Eventually we developed a system of beliefs like 'Calvinism' or Arminianism and people call it a systematic theology.

To answer the question then.  The greats are whoever you consider as having a great understanding.  The other side of this coin is not Biblical Theology.  There is no other side of the coin.  Biblical Theology is more like a preferred organic technique of adhering to a natural progression of scripture and avoiding the dogmatic assertions that would otherwise  too quickly digest scripture into ones own belief system.  We as 'organic thinkers' tend to prefer to leave things as they are and not always have a direct link into a system.  In the end however, there is nothing in this method that was not already performed by some systematic theologians. Biblical Theology is therefore nothing but a word in some ways. A word created by people who prefer to explain things in a different way and eventually use it to create their own systematic theology.

I have explained the basic core subtle difference between the old systematic thinkers and the systematic thinking of Biblical Theology here. I consider this subtle difference sinister as Biblical Theology in its quest for the 'unfolding flower' does not like the sudden violence on the cross in how it radically changed the covenant.  When I studied Biblical Theology through one of the colleges who have popularized it into today's world, I found that it tried to synthesize the covenant of the Old Testament to the New as though there really was no difference at all.  All in the name of a slow progression.  Ironically I think this makes Biblical theology is not biblical on this most important point.

When we consider our theology to be simply our understanding there is only Systematic Theology and if the term Biblical Theology had never been created it would not have a significant impact on what understanding we have.  The emphasis in Biblical Theology that is good and always was understood by the better systematic theologians, is that the scripture is not like a manicured garden, with every leaf in its place.  It is not Calvinism per se. The scripture is more like nature with a big rock here, where it should not be, and something else there for some strange reason.  Yet the whole of it is much more amazing and beautiful that way.  Ironically the person who said this was Charles Hodge, the last of the systematic theologians at Princeton before his predecessor started the department of Biblical Theology (as though Hodge's Theology needed improvement! ) In my own view this was the beginning of a theological decline at Princeton. Hodge is an excellent Bible commentator that as far as I know has not had an equal from Princeton since.


What is the biblical evidence against a pre-incarnate Jesus? According to groups that reject Jesus having a pre-incarnate existence, what Biblical evidence do they cite for the position that Jesus, the Messiah, did not exist prior to his conception in Mary's womb by the Holy Spirit? In particular what groups hold this position and what common  ground do they share in their evidence for it?

Evidence for denying a pre-incarnate son

There are a number of verses, but for now, I'll focus on one the majority of Christians look to, and that's John 1:1. The way a trinitarian might understand this verse is that the word is God's son. A unitarian understands the word as the word that is personified by John, similarly to the way wisdom is personified in Proverbs 8:22-31. Here are few verses regarding God's word personified.

God spoke to create the Universe. (Genesis 1; Psalm 33:6, 9)
God's word is sent out to accomplish that which God wills. (Isa. 55:10, 11)

Jesus' pre-existence and biblical unitarian positions

Jesus the man and messiah is made a reality when the word became flesh. (John 1:14) When it comes to biblical unitarianism, there are different views. One common belief they all hold is that Jesus isn't the god known as Yahweh. This belief in a single, unipersonal god is exclusive to the Father.


Acts 11:26 regarding the word Christian? Referring to Acts 11:26: Did the people (unbelievers) of Antioch call the "Believers" Christian, or did the Believers start calling themselves Christian first in Antioch?

Here is what I mean: Acts 11:26 The disciples were first called Christians at Antioch.
Acts 26:28 Then Agrippa said to Paul, “You almost persuade me to become a Christian.”
I have this feeling in the tone of these two verses that the word "Christian" was more of a mockery since it came from unbelievers, like we have "goody-two-shoes", especially the way Agrippa said it to Paul, I could almost hear the rest of Agrippa's audience laughing at this!?
And 1 Peter 4:16 "Yet if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in this matter." sort of supports my argument!?

It seems that this mock-name Christian was getting around, and the disciples were resenting it, so 1 Peter 4:16 tells them not to be ashamed (for they mocked our Lord also) but that they should glorify God in this matter!?
Your thoughts fellow Believers?

Strictly speaking, the reference in Acts is to "disciples" (μαθητὰς) and not "believers" (πιστεύοντες), though the latter word seems to be used elsewhere synonymously in Acts (e.g. 5:14).

The Greek literally says (in different word order) "the disciples were called first Christians" (χρηματισαι τε πρωτον ... τους μαθητας χριστιανους).  Perhaps it may be true that the Christians called themselves Christians, but the Greek text does not supply the reflexive (i.e. "the disciples called themselves Christians").

It seems that even after the disciples/believers were called "Christians", it was still more common to refer to them as those who were of "the Way" (e.g. 19:9, 19:23, 24:14, 24:22).  This is also found in The Didache (English translation here), where the essentials of a Christian life are described as "The Way of life".  The word "Christian" (Χριστιανός) only appears three times in the entire New Testament (including the passage cited; the other two are Acts 26:28 and 1 Peter 4:16).  It is even rare in the writings of the Apostolic Fathers, where it only appears 5 times (once in Ignatius' Epistle to the Magnesians, once in the Epistle concerning the martyrdom of Polycarp, and 3 times in the Epistle to Diognetus).


What is the Catholic Church's historical position on capital punishment: how did we get here? It's big news in the internet today. Pope Francis declares death penalty unacceptable in all cases. The Pope made specific changes to the catechism reflecting this. From the New York Times:

Francis said executions are unacceptable in all cases because they are “an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person,” the Vatican announced on Thursday.
The church also says it will work “with determination” for the abolition of capital punishment worldwide.

If you're not terribly familiar with the church's position on capital punishment this may seem to be out of left field, especially if you are an American protestant, where the death penalty is probably most common in all the Western world.  What might help in understanding this current declaration is how the church got here. Clearly, many years ago, the church was in favor of the death penalty, presiding over many executions. But today we have the Vatican announcing that their goal is to abolish the death penalty worldwide. It seems to be a total reversal.
What are the historical changes and landmark decisions that took the church from that position to where she is now?

Wikipedia's article on this topic is a pretty good place to start, and for in-depth treatment, you'll want By Man Shall His Blood Be Shed (Feser and Bessette; in favor of the death penalty) and Capital Punishment and Roman Catholic Moral Tradition (Brugger; against).  Also useful is Laurence's "He Beareth Not the Sword in Vain," a 2003 article on the subject.
To distinguish this answer from these works, I'll focus on summarizing key landmarks in the history of the Church's views on this subject.  I'll rely primarily on Feser, Bessette, and Laurence – unfortunately Brugger's work isn't available to me, but thankfully Feser and Bessette interact with and quote him.
Early church
Church fathers widely accepted the legitimacy of capital punishment, though they varied in their views on how extensively it should be used.  Feser and Bessette view it as a major concession that Brugger, an opponent of the death penalty, is forced to admit:

For the Fathers of the early Church, the authority of the state to kill malefactors is taken for granted. Opinions differed on whether Christians should hold offices whose responsibilities include the judging and carrying out of capital punishments—pre-Constantinian authors said they should not, those writing after AD 313 said they should—but the principled legitimacy of the punishment itself is never questioned (74)

Feser and Bessette cite a number of examples, including Ambrose (Letter 90 / 25, to Studius), Chrysostom (Homilies on the Statues, 6), Augustine (City of God 1.21), and Jerome (Commentary on Jeremiah, Book 4, on 22:3). Also significant is the writing of Pope Innocent I, who refused to condemn Christian civil authorities who carried out the penalty:

About these things we read nothing definitive from the forefathers. For they had remembered that these powers had been granted by God and that for the sake of punishing harmdoers the sword had been allowed; in this way a minister of God, an avenger, has been given. How therefore would they criticize something which they see to have been granted through the authority of God? (Epistle 6, to Exsuperium)

Some opposed the death penalty more intensely, like Tertullian, but even he, say Feser and Bessette, did not oppose it in principle, but rather only that Christians should not participate in it (De Idolatria 19).  (Incidentally, in the same work, Tertullian also taught that Christians should not be school teachers).
Medieval period
In the medieval era, a few landmarks are worth noting.
First, Pope Nicholas I (d. 867) urged civil leaders to avoid using the death penalty, but did not call it illegitimate:

Just as Christ led you back from everlasting death . . . to eternal life, so you yourselves should save not only those who are innocent, but truly also the guilty from the destruction of death. (Epistula XCVII, quoted in Laurence)

Second, major theologians and canonists affirmed the legitimacy of the state exercising capital punishment, including Gratian, Aquinas, and Duns Scotus.  Gratian writes:

It appears therefore that by means of men bearing lawful power . . . wicked men are not only scourged for their sins, but they are also properly put to death. (Decretum, Part II, Cause 23, Question 5)

Aquinas deals with this in his Summa, Book II-II, Question 64, Article 2:

Therefore if a man be dangerous and infectious to the community, on account of some sin, it is praiseworthy and advantageous that he be killed in order to safeguard the common good, since "a little leaven corrupteth the whole lump" (1 Corinthians 5:6).

Third, in the context of the readmission of heretics to the Catholic Church, Pope Innocent III, in 1210, required that former Waldenses affirm that "the secular power can, without mortal sin, exercise judgment of blood."  This is significant, Feser and Bessette argue, because it suggests that acceptance of the death penalty was a necessary component of Catholic orthodoxy.
Reformation era to mid-20th century
The "Roman Catechism" of the Council of Trent addresses this issue in the context of Ten Commandments, and says:

Another kind of lawful slaying belongs to civil authorities, to whom is entrusted power of life and death, by the legal and judicious exercise of which they punish the guilty and protect the innocent.

In the 19th and 20th centuries, popes exercising civil authority did not oppose the practice.  Giovanni Battista Bugatti was the official executioner for the Papal States from 1796 to 1865, and put hundreds to death.  Regarding more recent times, Cardinal Avery Dulles writes:

The Vatican City State from 1929 until 1969 had a penal code that included the death penalty for anyone who might attempt to assassinate the pope ("Catholicism and Capital Punishment")

At least two encyclicals of this period support the legitimacy of the practice, Pastoralis Officii (1891) and Casti Connubii (1930), and Pius XII in several addresses in the 1950s supports it, perhaps most famously saying:

Even when it is a question of the execution of a man condemned to death, the State does not dispose of the individual’s right to live. It is reserved rather to the public authority to deprive the criminal of the benefit of life when already, by his crime, he has deprived himself of the right to live. (1952 address to the first International Congress of the Histopathology of the Nervous System)

Late 20th-century to today
In the latter half of the 20th century, movement against capital punishment became more pronounced around the world, and leading Catholics expressed their opposition as well.  The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops called for abolition in 1974, for example, and respected Franciscan Gino Concetti wrote against the penalty in 1977.
More recently, two popes in particular – John Paul II and Francis I – have made statements regarding capital punishment that seem, to some, to indicate a shift in the Church's view on capital punishment.  Feser and Bessette describe three positions in an ongoing debate in Catholicism: is it a reversal of traditional Catholic doctrine, a development of doctrine, or a prudential judgment of doctrine?  The different sides of this debate disagree on the strength of tradition outlined above (can it be contradicted by a pope?), and on the interpretation of the teachings of popes John Paul II and Francis.
Several significant landmarks of this period occur during John Paul II's papacy – the publication of the Catechism of the Catholic Church in 1992, the encyclical Evangelium Vitae in 1995, and the updated Catechism published in 1997.
In 1992, the Catechism upheld the legitimacy of the death penalty but argued for limited use of it:

For this reason the traditional teaching of the Church has acknowledged as well-founded the right and duty of legitimate public authority to punish malefactors by means of penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime, not excluding, in cases of extreme gravity, the death penalty. [...]
If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

In 1995, John Paul II's encyclical emphasizes the content of this second portion, saying that cases requiring capital punishment today are "very rare, if not practically nonexistent," but never explicitly rejects the legitimacy of capital punishment.  This lead to an update to the Catechism, in which the first sentence quoted above is replaced as follows:

Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

During the papacy of Benedict XVI, the Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church was issued (2005).  It follows the 1997 catechism, and cites the "very rare, if not practically nonexistent" language of Evangelium Vitae, but again does not call the practice illegitimate.  Also in 2005, the USCCB published A Culture of Life and the Penalty of Death, reiterating its call for the abolition of capital punishment in the United States, and in 2009, a synod of African bishops supported universal abolition.
With the papacy of Pope Francis, the issue came to the forefront again.  He publicly expressed his support for the abolition of the death penalty in 2013 and 2014, and in 2015 used even stronger language:

Today capital punishment is unacceptable, however serious the condemned’s crime may have been. [...]  The death penalty is contrary to the meaning of humanitas and to divine mercy, which must be models for human
justice. (letter to the International Commission against the Death Penalty)

This has culminated in the 2018 revision to §2267 of the Catechism, which calls the death penalty "inadmissible" but uses language that suggests that support for abolition is at least partially based on the existence of "more effective systems of detention," and does not explicitly state that capital punishment is inherently immoral.  Additional explanation from the Vatican on this change is available in its Letter to the Bishops; it explicitly calls the change a "development of doctrine that is not in contradiction with the prior teachings of the Magisterium."
Summary
Through the years, the Catholic Church has consistently taught that the State legitimately holds the power of capital punishment, though its support for implementation of the practice has varied.  In recent decades, limiting and abolishing the practice has become a point of emphasis.  Some have contended that this represents a reversal of church doctrine, but the Vatican and others contend that it is a merely a development in doctrine.  Regardless, the practice has never been explicitly condemned as inherently immoral by an official publication of the Church, not to mention an ex cathedra statement.


How does the Catholic Church understand the priesthood of all believers? In the process of answering a question on the Sacraments, I discovered that Catholic Church accepts the doctrine of the "priesthood of all believers".  This rather surprised me since the Church has separate, ordained priests who, among other things, perform the Sacraments.  From my point of view (as an Evangelical Protestant), passages such as:

  But you are a chosen race, a kingdom of priests, a holy nation, a people to be a personal possession to sing the praises of God who called you out of the darkness into his wonderful light.—1st Peter 2:9 (NJB)

...suggest that everyone in the church has a duty to stand before God.  Practically the entire book of Hebrews makes the case that the Old Testament model of priests as holy (literally, "set apart") men has been replaced by a new model in which we all function as priests.

At a very simple level, it seems impossible to hold both of the following statements as true:

The entire Church is set apart by God to be priests.
Individuals are set apart from the rest of the Church by God to be priests.

Am I equivocating on the word "priest"?  (Or to put it another way, are there two different classes of priests in the Catholic Church?)

The Catholic Church believes in three different types of priests: (Edited from this Wikipedia article.)

first, the priesthood of all believers (1 Peter 2:5–9);
second, the ordained priesthood (Acts 14:23, Romans 15:16, Titus 1:5); and
third, the high priesthood of Jesus (Hebrews 3:1).

The Catholic Church accepts the 'priesthood of all believers' doctrine. This is exemplified in the 'Chaplet of Divine Mercy' prayer (which I personally believe to be a very powerful form of prayer), in which the individual Christian declares: "Eternal Father, I offer you the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity, of your dearly beloved Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, in atonement for our sins..."
As Christians, we are all called to evangelize - to spread the love of God, and we have a responsibility towards the preservation and propagation of the faith.
God also chooses a few among us to be 'fishers of men', and these are called to serve as ordained priests through apostolic succession.

So what sacrifice does the priesthood of the laity offer?  What do we lay “priests” consecrate?
St. Paul answers the first question in Romans 12:2: “offer your bodies as a living sacrifice holy and acceptable to God, your spiritual worship.”  As the Lord Jesus offered himself totally for our sake, we are called to lay down our lives for Him and for one another.  In rare occasions, this may mean the “supreme sacrifice” of martyrdom.  But more commonly, it means the living sacrifice, the “white martyrdom,” of denying our own will to embrace His will, “offering up” in love the work we do and the trials we endure, as a sacrifice of praise of God and intercession for others in need.  Studying for exams, changing a soiled diaper, going to work to provide for our families--these are all activities that become opportunities for Christians to exercise their sacred priesthood.  In fact during the Sunday Eucharist, as the bread and wine are carried up to the altar, we are called to consciously place ourselves and all sacrifices of the past week on the altar with the gifts to be united with Christ’s perfect sacrifice to the Father.
So what do we lay “priests” consecrate?  Vatican II gives us the answer to that question in its Decree on the Apostolate of the Laity.  We are called to consecrate the secular, the earthy, the nitty-gritty realities of life to God.  When we give thanks over a meal, we consecrate it to God’s glory and sanctify it.  When we offer our work in sacrifice, and live out our Christian witness in the workplace, we consecrate our work and sanctify it.  We lay priests are to be God’s secret agents in every arena of life, in places where ministerial priests and religious may never go, elevating, purifying, sanctifying, blessing.
(from Priesthood of Believers By: Dr. Marcellino D'Ambrosio | The Crossroads Initiative.)

PS: This is an interesting read - THE PRIESTHOOD DEBATE, James Akin | EWTN.


What are the biblical arguments against the papacy and papal succession? The Catholic Church teaches that Peter was the first pope and that papal succession continued down through history to the present day.  However, neither the Orthodox nor the Protestant churches recognize this.

So, what are the biblical arguments (Protestant or Orthodox) against the papacy and papal succession?

This is a broad question, but in many ways, it boils down to the antecedent of "this" in Matthew 16:18.  After Peter tells Jesus, "You are the Christ," Jesus answers something like:

"And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." (English Standard Version)

The question is, what is this rock?  Is it Peter or his confession?

Obviously, Protestants tend to favor the "confession" interpretation, and emphasize our equality before God.


In the Catholic or Orthodox tradition, did Jesus appear to his mother after death? None of the Resurrection narratives seem to include Mary as a witness to the  resurrection or among the first few people who see Jesus after his death; not does she seem to be mentioned until Pentecost. Is there any subsequent Catholic or Orthodox  tradition that  Mary saw her Son after his resurrection  - or that she did not, perhaps with an explanation why?

The only reference that I am aware of is from St. Ignatius of Loyola’s Spiritual Exercises, written in 1524. (See also the Spanish original.)

In his meditation on the apparitions of the Lord after the Resurrection, he writes,

  Primero: apareció a la Virgen María, lo qual,
  aunque no se diga en la Escriptura, se tiene por dicho, en decir que aparesció a tantos otros; porque la Escriptura supone que tenemos entendimiento, como está escripto: (¿También vosotros estáis sin entendimiento?).

  First: he [Jesus] appeared to the Virgin Mary. Although the Scriptures do not say so explicitly, it is implied by the saying, “He appeared to many others” [a reference to 1 Corinthians 15:6]. The Scriptures presuppose that we have understanding, as in the saying, “Are you also without understanding?” [Matthew 15:16].

Hence, at least St. Ignatius of Loyola felt that it was obvious that Jesus appeared first to his mother.

There is nothing, however, in the Scriptures, nor in any of the writings of the Fathers, that indicates that for sure.


What is the difference between the Amish and Mennonites? I've heard of different groups, typically technology-rejecting ones, being referred to as "Amish" or "Mennonite". Is there a difference between those two terms? What do these groups believe?

According to Wikipedia, the Amish (aka Amish Mennonites) are a group that broke off from the Mennonites in Switzerland in 1693, led by Jakob Ammann, from which the name comes.1

While Amish reject many modern technological advancements, Mennonites have a broader range of acceptance of such things.  Some Mennonites are quite similar to the Amish, while others accept all modern technology.  I had a friend in college who was Mennonite, and he drove a car, used computers and did everything else.

Amish reference


Quote of Pope Clement I On Catholic Answers' website on sola scriptura, they include a quote from Pope Clement I saying

"Then the reverence of the law is chanted, and the grace of the prophets is known, and the faith of the Gospels is established, and the Tradition of the apostles is preserved, and the grace of the Church exults"

from his Letter to the Corinthians. I am unable to find that quote in his letter. Is it in a different work of his or not a quote of him?

It seems that the Catholic Answers website misattributed the quote to Pope Clement I.
The quote appears in Chapter 11 of the Epistle to Diognetus (AD 80-130), which can be read at the New Advent website: The Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus.
The entirety of Chapter 11 with your quote highlighted:

I do not speak of things strange to me, nor do I aim at anything inconsistent with right reason; but having been a disciple of the Apostles, I have become a teacher of the Gentiles. I minister the things delivered to me to those that are disciples worthy of the truth. For who that is rightly taught and begotten by the loving Word, would not seek to learn accurately the things which have been clearly shown by the Word to His disciples, to whom the Word being manifested has revealed them, speaking plainly [to them], not understood indeed by the unbelieving, but conversing with the disciples, who, being esteemed faithful by Him, acquired a knowledge of the mysteries of the Father? For which reason He sent the Word, that He might be manifested to the world; and He, being despised by the people [of the Jews], was, when preached by the Apostles, believed on by the Gentiles. This is He who was from the beginning, who appeared as if new, and was found old, and yet who is ever born afresh in the hearts of the saints. This is He who, being from everlasting, is today called the Son; through whom the Church is enriched, and grace, widely spread, increases in the saints, furnishing understanding, revealing mysteries, announcing times, rejoicing over the faithful, giving to those that seek, by whom the limits of faith are not broken through, nor the boundaries set by the fathers passed over. Then the fear of the law is chanted, and the grace of the prophets is known, and the faith of the gospels is established, and the tradition of the Apostles is preserved, and the grace of the Church exults; which grace if you grieve not, you shall know those things which the Word teaches, by whom He wills, and when He pleases. For whatever things we are moved to utter by the will of the Word commanding us, we communicate to you with pains, and from a love of the things that have been revealed to us.

Other quotes concerning the Word of God in the Early Church Fathers period can be found at the Christian History for Everyman website.


What are typical Christian responses to The Grand Inquisitor? Upon reading this chapter in the Brothers Karamazov I find myself confused as to why The Grand Inquisitor is considered to be such a powerful argument for atheism and against theodicy. What are typical Christian responses (apologetic) to this argument?

Please also address the following areas which confuse me:

The chapter itself seems to state that Jesus set the bar much too high for man with respect to salvation, but isn't it true that humans were never intended to reach the level of holiness that Jesus attained and that salvation is a gift to those who repent?
Why is Ivan's description of the suffering of children such powerful ammunition for rejecting God?

I will accept answers sourced from any reputable apologetic organizations, or well-known apologists/theologians.

Opening

The Church does not base her theology on rebutting, as in this case, the arguments advanced by the Grand Inquisitor parable.

The Church's theology delves into Divine Revelation = Sacred Scripture + [Holy] Tradition.

Nevertheless, the Church's theology can rebut those kinds of arguments. In line with the criteria for answers on this site, this post starts from the theology of the Church and not from the Grand Inquisitor parable's position.

The following is a Catholic understanding of the Temptation of Jesus in Mt 4:1-11. It is a commentary  by members of the Faculty of Theology of the University of Navarre on the passage in The Navarre Bible New Testament Compact Edition.

  Matthew uses this episode of the temptations in the wilderness to
  depict Jesus as the new Israel, in contrast to the old. Jesus is
  tempted, as Moses and the chosen people were in their forty-year
  pilgrimage in the wilderness. The Israelites yielded to temptation:
  they complained against God on account of their hunger (Ex
  16:1ff),
  demanded a miracle when they had no water (Ex
  17:1-7),
  and adored the golden calf (Ex
  32).
  But Jesus does not yield and , by overcoming the temptation, "reveals
  the way in which the Son of Man is Messiah, contrary to the way Satan
  proposes to him and the way men wish to attribute to him (cf. Mt
  16:21-23)"
  [CCC, 540].

With such an understanding, I hope the confusion you have as to why the Grand Inquisitor is considered to be such a powerful argument for atheism and against theodicy will begin clearing up.

Please see also: Home > Summa Theologica > Third Part > Question 41. Christ's temptation | New Advent.

The chapter itself seems to state that Jesus set the bar much too high for man with respect to salvation, but isn't it true that humans were never intended to reach the level of holiness that Jesus attained and that salvation is a gift to those who repent?

If we may have been unable to succeed before, with the coming of the LORD and his help, we can now overcome temptation and sin.

From CCC, 540 referenced above:

  This is why Christ vanquished the Tempter for us: "For we have not a
  high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one
  who in every respect has been tested as we are, yet without
  sinning."[Heb 4:15].

And

  1 Jn
  5:3-5(RSVCE)
  3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. And his
  commandments are not burdensome. 4 For whatever is born of God
  overcomes the world; and this is the victory that overcomes the world,
  our faith. 5 Who is it that overcomes the world but he who believes
  that Jesus is the Son of God?

[B]ut isn't it true that humans were never intended to reach the level of holiness that Jesus attained[?]

That is precisely our calling:

  Mt 5:48
  (RSVCE)
  48 You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is
  perfect.

Why is Ivan's description of the suffering of children such powerful ammunition for rejecting God?

Why is there evil? Why does God permit suffering? Why do the innocent, like children, suffer?

We know that these are very deep questions whichever way they are approached, theologically, philosophically, etc.

We only begin to understand them, and only just, after the coming of the LORD Jesus Christ, the all-benevolent, all-good, all-holy, all-powerful God. He himself suffered.

  cf. Gaudium et Spes, 22 | Pastoral Constitution on the Church in
  the Modern World | Second Vatican Council | Promulgated by His
  Holiness Pope Paul VI, December 7,
  1965.
  Such is the mystery of man, and it is a great one, as seen by
  believers in the light of Christian revelation. Through Christ and
  in Christ, the riddles of sorrow and death grow meaningful. Apart from
  His Gospel, they overwhelm us. Christ has risen, destroying death by
  His death; He has lavished life upon us[cf. The Byzantine Easter
  Liturgy.] so that, as sons in the Son, we can cry out in the
  Spirit; Abba, Father.[cf. Rom. 8:15 and Gal. 4:6; cf. also John
  1:22 and John 3:1-2.]

Please see Evil | New Advent the section The solution of the problem has been attempted by three different methods.


Are there any Bible that comes with explanations of each verses? I'm looking for a NLT Bible which would have explanations of each verse? I would like to do a deeper study and don't want to end up misinterpreting some of those verses. Thanks.

Explanations of the Bible are called commentaries, and there are lots of them available. Some commentaries are focused on a specific book or section of the Bible, and some comprehensive commentaries attempt to cover the whole Bible.

Of course, these commentaries are written by people, and as such the explanations are from the theological viewpoint of whoever wrote it. You can select commentaries based on your preferred denomination, or you can read multiple commentaries and learn multiple views on the scripture.

Study Bibles are Bibles with commentary built-in. Usually these include notes at the bottom of each page with commentary on whatever verses are on that page. A study Bible can be very useful for getting a quick explanation of a verse that is giving you trouble. But again, this commentary is written by a person, so it is not infallible and contains a denominational bias, so keep that in mind as you read, and consult other commentaries as part of your study.


Who wrote the book of Genesis? (Overview) I've heard reference in other questions on this site that seem to indicate a belief that Genesis was written by "the same man."  What do we actually know about wrote Genesis (whether a single, or multiple authors)?

There are two theories:

Traditionalists

Tradition says that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, including the book of Genesis.

Here is a lengthy argument for this.
JEDP Theory

Some modern scholars believe that Genesis (along with the rest of the Pentateuch) was written by a series of authors.  The idea comes from the fact that God is referred to using multiple names (such as Yahweh, Elohim, Yahweh Eloheinu, etc.).

The idea is controversial based on (1) the fact that it goes against tradition and (2) the fact that even today we use multiple names for God ("our Heavenly Father", "God the Father", "God", "Jehovah", etc.).

Those are the two main theories.  Unfortunately, we don't have any way of truly knowing who wrote Genesis.  That's the reason for the varying theories.


Why did St. Monica defer St. Augustine's baptism? St. Augustine's mother, St. Monica, was very devout, praying for St. Augustine's conversion, even following him to Milan and successfully getting Bishop St. Ambrose to baptize him, Easter 387. But why didn't St. Monica baptize St. Augustine when he was an infant? Was her husband Patricius, a pagan idolator, opposed to this? (How was St. Monica even validly married to a pagan? Mixed marriages, barring a special dispensation, are invalid.)
Fr. Alban Butler's biography of St. Monica says:

In his infancy she had ranked him among the catechumens; and once in an illness, all things were prepared for his baptism, but it was deferred.

Why did she defer his baptism? It seems an illness would be all the more reason to have him baptized sooner.

Theology of Baptism in the North African Early Church
Although infant baptism was practiced in the early church prior to Augustine (b. AD 354), there seemed to be a movement against infant baptism at least in North Africa which may have started as early as from the period of Tertullian (Carthage, d. AD 220).
The following quote is from a 2000 MA Theological Studies Thesis "Tertullian and the Catechumenate: An Inquiry into Tertullian's Justification for the North African Catechumenate in the Early Third Century" for George Fox Evangelical Seminary by Loren Kerns (I added formatting):

In conclusion, the answer to the thesis question, why did the Christians in third century North Africa believe that it was important for converts to wait, comes in several parts. This paper will seek to demonstrate that from Tertullian's viewpoint, the existence of the catechumenate was justified on the basis of a matrix of theological and pastoral concerns.

First, his theological understanding of baptism as a bilateral covenant between God and humanity, and his view of repentance as necessary in order for baptism to be efficacious, required pre-baptismal preparation.
Second, the implicit pastoral concerns arising out of a desire to ensure genuine repentance prompted Tertullian to counsel deferring baptism.
Third, the post-baptismal commitments implied by his theology of baptism resulted in a desire to postpone baptism for the catechumens until they were ready to live it out.

Finally, the urgent and zealous flavor of his pastoral concerns for the catechumens were deeply shaped by the hostile environment facing North African Christians, bolstering a call to greater commitment.

From the Thesis's conclusion (emphasis mine):

Tertullian's vision for the catechumenate hinged on his emphasis of human responsibility.  Sin was the sole result of human rebellion, and the will was the culprit. Although the Fall had obscured the image of God in humanity, Tertullian contended that it had not destroyed the will's freedom. Adam had chosen to rebel against God in Paradise, and now it was his responsibility to return to God. Thus, repentance, sorrow for sin, fasting, separation from all idolatry, and embracing the Church with its creeds and discipline were necessary to merit the grace of baptism. He knew nothing of the Augustinian ideas of predestination, total depravity and irresistible grace. Grace really depended on human response, and the catechumenate sought to ensure that it happened.

For more on the early church belief of baptism as regenerative sacrament, the logic of postponing baptism (for infant, as well as for adult), and possible connection of the postponement to 1) the Novatian Controversy (who denied penance to mortal sinners) and/or 2) the severity of penance for post-baptismal mortal sinners, see the blog article Does Tertullian Reject Infant Baptism? by
Joe Heschmeyer.
Monica, Augustine's infant catechumen & boyhood illness, Baptism
The following quote is from Augnet's page on Augustine's childhood:

Infant Baptism
Monica instructed Augustine in the Christian religion and taught him how to pray. As a child, blessed salt was placed on his tongue. He thus formally became a catechumen, i.e., he was enrolled in the process of baptismal preparation. Once while still of school age, he became dangerously ill. He desired baptism and his mother prepared everything for the ceremony. Then suddenly he grew better, and his baptism was put off.
His baptism was deferred lest he should stain his baptismal innocence by falling into sin before reaching maturity (which is exactly what happened). This was an example of the practice of that era to defer baptism for fear that the recipient would fall into sin before coming fully to realise the great importance of the Sacrament. As a bishop in his later years, Augustine denounced this custom of deferring Baptism as being very ill advised. He preached strongly against it.

A Wycliffe College course notes page "Augustine's Life: An Outline" has this about when Monica almost had Augustine baptized when he became gravely ill as a boy (emphasis mine):

Although Monica, his mother, had tried to raise Augustine to be a Christian, enrolling him as a catechumen as a child, Augustine himself did not seem to have any natural interest or inclination in that direction. As a boy, he became gravely ill, whereupon his mother arranged for him to be baptized. When he recovered, though, his baptism was put off. Baptism was a rite popularly believed best administered at the point of death so that one might not thereafter fall from the state of grace into which he/she was baptized. For this reason, namely Monica's concern that Augustine's sins would be more grievous after his baptism than without it, the act went undone. ...

Conclusion
If Tertullian's theology of baptism and/or the severity of penance for post-baptismal mortal sin continued to Monica's day in the North African Early Church, it's not surprising that:

Monica didn't baptize Augustine when he was a baby (AD 354) but she was determined to raise Augustine in the faith as though he was already a catechumen (from your quote: "In his infancy she had ranked him among the catechumens").
When the 7 year old Augustine became gravely ill it made sense to prepare baptism as part of the last rite, but because the North African church apparently believed baptism should better follow a rigorous and mature faith, this preparation was undone after Augustine recovered from the illness.

Another possible explanation that is sometimes mentioned was that Patricius, Augustine's pagan father, forbid it.  As for why St. Monica married a pagan, it was an arranged marriage and if she was married around AD 350 we should remember that it was mere decades from the Edict of Milan (AD 313) before which Christianity was still illegal and had just endured one of the worst persecutions that ran for about 10 years thus limiting the supply of eligible bachelors, which possibly made the church more relaxed in allowing mixed marriages.  Regardless, St. Monica's piety was demonstrated by her endurance to practice her faith and her solicitude (and later success) for the conversion of both her son and her husband.


What name was used by Peter for Baptism? We know that Jesus gave this command.

  Matthew 28:19 (NIV)

  Therefore go and make
  disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and
  of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

But later, we find a statement made by Peter.

  Acts 2:38 (NIV)

  Peter replied, “Repent
  and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the
  forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy
  Spirit.

Are these two words contradicting each other?

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

  There has been a theological controversy over the question as to
  whether baptism in the name of Christ only was ever held valid.
  Certain texts in the New Testament have given rise to this difficulty.
  Thus St. Paul (Acts 19) commands some disciples at Ephesus to be
  baptized in Christ's name: "They were baptized in the name of the Lord
  Jesus." In Acts 10, we read that St. Peter ordered others to be
  baptized "in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ". Those who were
  converted by Philip. (Acts 8) "were baptized in the name of Jesus
  Christ", and above all we have the explicit command of the Prince of
  the Apostles: "Be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus
  Christ, for the remission of your sins (Acts 2).

  Owing to these texts some theologians have held that the Apostles
  baptized in the name of Christ only. St. Thomas, St. Bonaventure, and
  Albertus Magnus are invoked as authorities for this opinion, they
  declaring that the Apostles so acted by special dispensation. Other
  writers, as Peter Lombard and Hugh of St. Victor, hold also that such
  baptism would be valid, but say nothing of a dispensation for the
  Apostles. The most probable opinion, however, seems to be that the
  terms "in the name of Jesus", "in the name of Christ", either refer to
  baptism in the faith taught by Christ, or are employed to distinguish
  Christian baptism from that of John the Precursor. It seems altogether
  unlikely that immediately after Christ had solemnly promulgated the
  trinitarian formula of baptism, the Apostles themselves would have
  substituted another. In fact, the words of St. Paul (Acts 19) imply
  quite plainly that they did not. For, when some Christians at Ephesus
  declared that they had never heard of the Holy Ghost, the Apostle
  asks: "In whom then were you baptized?" This text certainly seems to
  declare that St. Paul took it for granted that the Ephesians must have
  heard the name of the Holy Ghost when the sacramental formula of
  baptism was pronounced over them. (Baptism: Form)

In other words, the predominating opinion states baptism in the name of Christ alone is against Christ's command and is therefor unlikely. Rather, "in the name of Jesus Christ" refers to performing the baptism at Christ's command or for Christ's purpose, much like you might claim a piece of land in the name of the Queen. Acts 19 clarifies the ambiguous language, supporting this opinion, by suggesting that baptized people know of the Holy Ghost from having been baptized in Him.


As Christians we are already saved, so why must we keep repenting of sin? We believe that Jesus died for all our sins, past and future, so why do we need to keep asking to be forgiven if Jesus already died to forgive that sin?

The general belief, that I think applies to most Christians, is that Jesus' death and resurrection opens the gates of heaven, saving us from sin in general, but that we must still choose to actually enter through the gate -- to repent of our individual sins and desire to sin no more.

To put it another way, Jesus' death makes repentance and forgiveness effective. Without His death and resurrection, repentance and forgiveness accomplish nothing.

Though each major tradition may have a slightly different basis for coming to this conclusion, it's easily validated by the oft-quoted John 3:16, particularly if taken with a little more of its context.

  16 For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so
  that everyone who believes in him might not perish but might have
  eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the
  world to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through
  him. 18 Whoever believes in him will not be condemned, but
  whoever does not believe has already been condemned, because he has
  not believed in the name of the only Son of God. (John 3:16-18)

Emphasis is mine. And really, the whole thing could be emphasized, because the general point is that Christ's salvation, though universal, is only effective for those seeking and trusting in it.


What reasons does the Bible give for why the tribe of Levi was chosen to have the priesthood and temple duties? What reasons does the Bible give for why the tribe of Levi was chosen to have the priesthood and temple duties?

In Genesis 49:5-7 when Jacob was telling his children what will happen to them, he told Simeon and Levi that they were violent and that they would be scattered among the descendants of Jacob and they would be dispersed among Israel. Could this have been something like a prophecy and could this be the reason?

Audrey's answer is correct, and here is the quote. The Levites remained loyal and restored order when the people were worshiping the Golden Calf. They killed 3,000 of their fellow Israelites, which set them apart.

19 When Moses approached the camp and saw the calf and the dancing,
his anger burned and he threw the tablets out of his hands, breaking
them to pieces at the foot of the mountain. 20 And he took the calf
the people had made and burned it in the fire; then he ground it to
powder, scattered it on the water and made the Israelites drink it.
21 He said to Aaron, “What did these people do to you, that you led
them into such great sin?”
22 “Do not be angry, my lord,” Aaron answered. “You know how prone
these people are to evil. 23 They said to me, ‘Make us gods who will
go before us. As for this fellow Moses who brought us up out of Egypt,
we don’t know what has happened to him.’ 24 So I told them, ‘Whoever
has any gold jewelry, take it off.’ Then they gave me the gold, and I
threw it into the fire, and out came this calf!”
25 Moses saw that the people were running wild and that Aaron had let
them get out of control and so become a laughingstock to their
enemies. 26 So he stood at the entrance to the camp and said, “Whoever
is for the Lord, come to me.” And all the Levites rallied to him.
27 Then he said to them, “This is what the Lord, the God of Israel,
says: ‘Each man strap a sword to his side. Go back and forth through
the camp from one end to the other, each killing his brother and
friend and neighbor.’” 28 The Levites did as Moses commanded, and that
day about three thousand of the people died. 29 Then Moses said, “You
have been set apart to the Lord today, for you were against your own
sons and brothers, and he has blessed you this day.” (Exodus 32:19-29)

You are also correct about Genesis 49:5-7 being relevant. This was the time when their violence served the Lord, and the curse upon them was turned into blessing. They received no inheritance of land, but instead inherited the priesthood.


Did the young rich man sin by not following Jesus? We read in the Gospel of Matthew 19:16-30 the story of the rich young man.

  The Rich and the Kingdom of God

  Just then a man came up to Jesus and
  asked, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?”

  “Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only
  One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.”

  “Which ones?” he inquired.

  Jesus replied, “‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery,
  you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, honor your
  father and mother,’ and ‘love your neighbor as yourself.’”

  “All these I have kept,” the young man said. “What do I still lack?”

  Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions
  and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come,
  follow me.”

  When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great
  wealth.

Question: Did the young rich man sin by not following Jesus? If he did, was it mortal or venial sin?

The rich young man did not sin by not following Jesus's counsel to a more perfect life, but he did commit the sin of covetousness: "because he was covetous, he went away sad" (Super Evangelium S. Matthæi ch. 19).

Discussing "Whether covetousness is always a mortal sin?" (Summa Theologica II-II q. 118 a. 5 co.), St. Thomas Aquinas says covetousness is a

mortal sin whenthe love of riches becomes so great as to be preferred to charity, in such wise that a man, through love of riches, fear not to act counter to the love of God and his neighbor
venial sin whenthe inordinate nature of his love stops short of this, so that although he love riches too much, yet he does not prefer the love of them to the love of God, and is unwilling for the sake of riches to do anything in opposition to God or his neighbor

If the rich man embraced poverty, this would have helped him increase in charity and perfection.


Is there a moral goodness in In vitro fertilization? I may have a couple of questions here but it's basically the same subject.

My first question: does the Catholic Church see any moral goodness in having a baby through In vitro fertilization (IVF)? Even though there is let's say 17 embryos frozen still but the couple bring one new life and cares for that life(nothing we can do about it).
Can we say that God brings something good out of something bad like this(talking about new life as good) or this is just not the case since the whole case is just wrong?

Romans 8:28(New International Version)

  And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who
  love him, who have been called according to his purpose.

The other question is why the Catholic Chuch doesn't talk about iVF in higher urgency. Let's say Pope should mention something about it in every conversation with media because from the perspective of the Church this is just such an evil. Does the silence have anything to do with

"John 8:11" (New International Version).

  "No one, sir," she said. "Then neither do I condemn you,"Jesus
  declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin."

It is a good when a new person comes into existence; God still creates a rational soul out of nothing even for those conceived as a result of sin.

But it is never moral to use evil means

in the case of IVF:

depriving a child of his or her right to be conceived in an act of marital love
masturbation to obtain semen
killing many people by subjecting them to harsh living conditions (Petri dish) when their proper place for their age is in a woman's wombA high fraction of those conceived with IVF do not survive because of the harsh living conditions, so many ova have to be fertilized for there to be a chance of one surviving long enough to be implanted in the woman's womb.

to achieve a good end:

bringing a new life into existence.

The authoritative Magisterial source on IVF is Donum Vitae, a 1987 document from the CDF. It says that even if masturbation and grave danger to the life of the embryo could be avoided, IVF is still intrinsically immoral because it deprives the child of his God-given right to be procreated in an act of marital love. Look at section A.1, “Why must human procreation take place in a marriage?”

For more information on this, see the discussion on IVF in Health Care Ethics: A Theological Analysis by Benedict Ashley, O.P.("Artificial Human Reproduction" on p. 86 of the PDF or §9.2 "Reproductive Technologies" of the EPUB)

There are moral, more successful alternatives to IVF, such as Dr. Hilger's NaProTECHNOLOGY. You can find a NaPro doctor here. See also The NaProTechnology Revolution: Unleashing the Power in a Woman's Cycle and associated website.


If Adam and Eve were perfect, why did they choose to sin? Adam and Eve, when they were created in the Garden of Eden, were without sin.  Because of that, they were perfect and flawless.
However, with that theology in mind, I'm running up against a wall: Why, if Adam and Eve were perfect, did they choose to sin?
Were they not perfect?
If we presume that they weren't perfect, then we have to see that God created them with the imperfection.  If God created them as imperfect, would that mean that by creating us this way he caused us to sin?
(Being omniscient, he knew full well that if he created us to sin then we would sin.  Therefore wouldn't his act of creation be the cause of the sin?)  Finally, if he created us to sin, can God be held accountable for this sin?
Were they perfect?
Or, rather, did God create them as perfect and they chose imperfection?  If Adam and Eve chose imperfection, how could they be considered perfect?
My question, in summary
Are there any doctrines that speak to the perfection or imperfection of Adam and Eve (particularly in regards to why they chose to sin)?
If the doctrine claims Adam and Eve were perfect, how do they reconcile this with them choosing imperfection (since that would indicate they were imperfect from creation)?
If the doctrine claims that Adam and Eve were imperfect, how do they reconcile this with the idea that God created imperfect beings?  Furthermore, does that doctrine hold that God is partially responsible for the sins that Adam and Eve committed since he knew that they would commit the sin and chose to create them anyways?

Existing in a perfect state did not deprive Adam and Eve of Free Will. Genesis 3:4-5 tells us that the serpent firstly modified God's Word by promising Eve that by taking of the forbidden fruit she would not surely die. Second, he enticed her with the promise of knowledge (knowing good and evil).

  Genesis 3:4-5 (KJV)
  And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God
  doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be
  opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

You might say that Eve was led into believing that the serpent was showing her a "fast-track" way to become closer to God.


In Catholicism, is an object a third-class relic if touched by a saint when they were alive? So, I know that a piece of a saint's body counts as first-class relic. And I know that third-class relics can be created by touching them to a first-class relic. But usually people only talk about first-class relics as a saint's remains - the body once they've passed on.

If a saint touched an object while they were alive, does it still gain the status of third-class relic? I'm not talking about objects the saint owned and regularly used (which would be second-class relics IIUC) - more like, something they touched incidentally while doing their saintly work.

In Catholicism, is an object a third-class relic if touched by a saint when they were alive?
The short answer is: No.
First of all let us see what relics are in the Catholic Church.

Classification and prohibitions in the Catholic Church
In Catholic theology, sacred relics must not be worshipped, because only God is worshipped and adored. Instead, the veneration given to them was "dulia". Saint Jerome declared, "We do not worship, we do not adore, for fear that we should bow down to the creature rather than to the Creator, but we venerate the relics of the martyrs in order the better to adore Him whose martyrs they are."
The Catholic church divides relics into three classes:

First-Class Relics: items directly associated with the events of Christ's life (manger, cross, etc.) or the physical remains of a saint (a bone, a hair, skull, a limb, etc.). Traditionally, a martyr's relics are often more prized than the relics of other saints. Parts of the saint that were significant to that saint's life are more prized relics. For instance, King St. Stephen of Hungary's right forearm is especially important because of his status as a ruler. A famous theologian's head may be his most important relic. (The head of St. Thomas Aquinas was removed by the monks at the Cistercian abbey at Fossanova where he died.) If a saint did a lot of traveling, then the bones of his feet may be prized. Catholic teaching prohibits relics to be divided up into small, unrecognizable parts if they are to be used in liturgy (i.e., as in an altar; see the rubrics listed in Rite of Dedication of a Church and an Altar).

Second-Class Relics: items that the saint owned or frequently used, for example, a crucifix, rosary, book, etc. Again, an item more important in the saint's life is thus a more important relic. Sometimes a second-class relic is a part of an item that the saint wore (a shirt, a glove, etc.) and is known as ex indumentis ("from the clothing").

Third-Class Relics: any object that is touched to a first- or second-class relic.[38] Most third-class relics are small pieces of cloth, though in the first millennium oil was popular; the Monza ampullae contained oil collected from lamps burning before the major sites of Christ's life, and some reliquaries had holes for oil to be poured in and out again. Many people call the cloth touched to the bones of saints "ex brandea". But ex brandea strictly refers to pieces of clothing that were touched to the body or tombs of the apostles. It is a term that is used only for such; it is not a synonym for a third-class relic. - Relic (Wikipedia)

A third-class relic must be touched to either a first or second-class relics.
Just as some holy individuals may, with divine assistance, operate may miracles during their earthly lifes; these miracles are not to be counted as miracle used in the process of beatification or canonization. So too an object touched by someone to be canonized in the future is not a relic. A miracle for beatification or canonization must have occurred after the death of a particular Venerable or Servant of God.

The canonization of confessors or martyrs may be taken up as soon as two miracles are reported to have been worked at their intercession, after the pontifical permission of public veneration as described above. At this stage it is only required that the two miracles worked after the permission awarding a public cultus be discussed in three meetings of the congregation. The discussion proceeds in the ordinary way; if the miracles be confirmed another meeting (super tuto) is held. The pope then issues a Bull of Canonization in which he not only permits, but commands, the public cultus, or veneration, of the saint. - Beatification and Canonization

Although something touched by a future saint is not a relic, it still may carry with it a sense of notoriety. The objects were not truly touched by a canonized saint and as such are not relics. One is not canonized while still living! It is not uncommon to see plaques (especially in Europe) stating things like the following (some are now museums or placed in museums): St. "X" stayed here or laid here. There is some genuine notoriety with objects of this type, but they are not third-class relics.

While in France, I can recall reading a plaque on a house in a small country village that simply stated "Here St. Jeanne d'Arc stayed". Nothing in the house was a relic, but it was so cool to visit a house that St. Jeanne d'Arc had stayed the night on her way to Orleans. I am sure some of the things in the house must have been touched by the Maid of Lorraine.

Third Class relics must be touched to either a first-class relic or second-class relics. It is that simple.


In what order were the 12 Apostles called? A few other people and I at my church have decided to do a detailed study on the 12 Apostles. This got me thinking about the order the apostles were called to follow Christ. We know Simon Peter and Andrew were called first, but the rest are harder to discern.

So, in what order were the 12 Apostles called?

The word “disciple” refers to a learner or follower. The word “apostle” means “one who is sent out.” While Jesus was on earth, his twelve followers were called disciples.  After his resurrection and ascension, Jesus sent the disciples out to be His witnesses (Matthew 28:18-20; Acts 1:8). They were then referred to as the twelve apostles. However, even when Jesus was still on earth, the terms “disciples” and “apostles” were used somewhat interchangeably.

The original twelve disciples/apostles are listed in Matthew 10:2–4: “These are the names of the twelve apostles: first, Simon (who is called Peter) and his brother Andrew; James son of Zebedee, and his brother John; Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus; Simon the Zealot and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed Him.”

The Bible also lists the twelve disciples/apostles in Mark 3:16–19: “He appointed the twelve: Simon (to whom he gave the name Peter); James the son of Zebedee and John the brother of James (to whom he gave the name Boanerges, that is, Sons of Thunder); Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus, and Simon the Zealot, and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him.”

Here is the list of the original twelve in Luke 6:13–16: “And when day came, he called his disciples and chose from them twelve, whom he named apostles: Simon, whom he named Peter, and Andrew his brother, and James and John, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon who was called the Zealot, and Judas the son of James, and Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor.”

A comparison of the three passages shows a couple of minor differences in the names. It seems that Thaddaeus was also known as “Judas, son of James” (Luke 6:16). Simon the Zealot was also known as Simon the Canaanite (Mark 3:18). The Gospel of John uses the name “Nathanael” instead of “Bartholomew,” but Nathanael and Bartholomew were undoubtedly the same person. Judas Iscariot, who betrayed Jesus, was replaced in the twelve apostles by Matthias (see Acts 1:20–26).

Luke 6:12-13 shows the 12 were all called by Jesus on the same day.  Jesus spent the night in prayer prior to selecting his 12 apostles from his disciples.

Edit: John 1:35-50 sheds some light on the order in which Jesus first met his disciples. Andrew (son of John) first met Jesus then called his brother Simon (Peter) and said "we have found the Messiah." Then Philip (also a fisherman from Bethsaida) meets Jesus and tells Nathaniel (or Bartholomew).

Matthew, Mark and Luke mention James and John (sons of Zebedee) and Mark and Luke mention Levi, son of Alphaeus, the tax collector (Matthew)

That leaves Thomas, James (son of Alphaeus), Thaddaeus (or Judas the son of James) and Simon the Zealot (Simon the Canaanite) unaccounted for.  Judas, son of Simon Iscariot, is mentioned in John 6:71.


In which one of the four Gospels is the Old Testament quoted the most? In which one of the four Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) is the Old Testament quoted the most?

The answer to this question depends somewhat on the definition of "quoted," but we can draw some high-level conclusions.  BlueLetterBible.org provides a list of New Testament citations and allusions to the Old Testament, and an examination of that dataset reveals the following:

Book       Direct/indirect citations    Total citations & allusions
Matthew            44 (49)                       77 (102)
Mark               18 (23)                       30 (39)
Luke               20 (24)                       52 (68)
John               14 (17)                       31 (49)

The first number is the number of unique NT references to OT passage(s).  The number in parentheses is the total number of cited OT passages (since a single NT verse can cite more than one OT verse).  No matter how you count it, however, Matthew is the clear winner, given BLB's definition of citations and allusions.

Matthew's dominance is also confirmed by commentators.  Craig L. Blomberg, writing in the Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, writes:

  The Hebrew Scriptures [...] permeate Matthew's Gospel.  Approximately fifty-five references prove close enough in wording for commentators typically to label them "quotations," compared to about sixty-five for the other three canonical Gospels put together. [...] In addition to explicit quotations, numerous allusions and echoes of Scripture may be discerned in every part of this Gospel, roughly twice as often as in Mark, Luke or John.

Blomberg's numbers vary somewhat from BLB's, but demonstrate that even with varying definitions of what a "quote" or "allusion" is, Matthew refers to the Old Testament significantly more than the other Gospel writers.


What is the difference between "infallible" and "inerrant"? As with many others I know, I believe in both the infallibility and inerrancy of the Bible.

But what is the difference between these two important terms?

If something has no errors (inerrant), then must it not also be free from fabrications (infallible)? And isn't the inverse statement also true?

I asked about the Biblical basis for inerrancy previously.

This is a really good site that discusses the two topics. Follow the links at the bottom to find the corresponding article on Infallibility.

In short summary inerrant means "without error" and infallible means "incapable of error. The reason why those seem very similar is that, with respect to the Bible, they are. The word infallible is normally applied to the church, and is a key part of Roman Catholic theology. It means that the church has not only promulgated no errors in the past, but will not do so in the future.

Protestants (who mostly do not recognize the infallibility of the church) have tended to apply the word to the Bible, which they take as their source of ultimate authority. However the word is not nearly as applicable to the Bible, as the Bible is a closed canon, and cannot make any statements "in the future".

The Wikipedia article on Biblical infallibility quotes a theological as saying that 'infallibility' is used by some theologians to refer to the doctrine that the Bible is correct in matters of faith and practice only.

So in short, when applied to the Bible, the two words are virtually synonymous. When applied to other authorities, like the church, they can mean very different things.