When did the use of formal, seminary-type education begin and why? When did it become the norm for church leaders to get a formal Christian education and why did that process begin?

When I say formal education I'm not talking about the mentor/mentee style that Jesus did with his disciples.

I'm talking about the following scenario:

A person independently enrolls in a Bible School/Seminary/Divinity school
They get a degree
They apply for pastor jobs and get hired as a pastor somewhere

The reason I ask is because the aforementioned process isn't implied anywhere in scripture. The idea of it had to have come from somewhere and for some reason.

Similar to this question, but I'm not asking whether or not this practice is supported by Scripture—I'm asking when it started and why it started.

First let me correct the assumption that the model you describe is normal for Christian pastors. It is in fact only a minority that follow this. The vast majority of Christian churches, including Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran and Presbyterians follow an entirely different model. In this model they:

Discern whether or not the person has a calling to Christian leadership
Send them for education as necessary. This will virtually always include some formal education, but not necessarily.
Appoint them to a leadership position

Even among those churches where the model you describe is used, it is not exclusive. I have encountered Baptist, Mennonite and other churches where they will find a person who is gifted in a pastoral or leadership area and appoint them to that role. They may or may not then send them for other training (formal or informal) as part of their duties.

However to start answering your question, which is about when it became normal to give church leaders formal education, it has been normal for Church leaders to receive formal education for as long as there has been formal education. Early universities were started as clergy training institutions, and only later developed into general education institutions.


What is the meaning of this excerpt from Foundation of the Christian Faith, by Karl Rahner? Please help me understand the excerpt. English is not my first language.

From my understanding:

The 20th century Catholic theologian Karl Rahner is here talking about the importance of faith in Jesus as well as the importance of keeping the tradition of the original church.

Any help would be great.

  We regard Holy Scripture as the church's book, the book in which the church of the beginning always remains tangible as a norm for us in the concrete. Indeed it is a norm which is already distinguished from those things which are found in the original church but which cannot have a normative character for our faith and for the life of the later church. If the church in every age remains bound to its origin in its faith and in its life; if the church as the community  of faith in the crucified and risen Jesus is itself to be in its faith and in its life the eschatological and irreversible sign of God's definitive turning to the world in Jesus Christ, a sign without which Jesus Christ himself would not signify God's irreversible coming into the world and would not be the absolute savior; and if this church of the beginning objectifies itself in scriptural documents at least in fact, and also does so necessarily given the historical and cultural presuppositions in which the church came to be, then in all of this together we have a point of departure for understand the essences of scripture.
  It is also a point of departure from whose perspective we can arrive at an adequate and at the same time a critical understanding of what is really meant by the inspiration of scripture and by a binding canon of scripture. Since scripture is something derivative, it must be understood from the essential nature of the church, which is the escatological and irreversible permanence of Jesus Christ in history. It is to be understood from the perspective as something normative in the church.

This passage comes from a book by Karl Rahner called Foundations of Christian Faith. (The original title is Grundkurs des Glaubens). In the translation by William V. Dych (New York: Crossroad, 1978), the passage can be found on page 371.

What Rahner is asserting generally in this passage is that the Bible is essentially the Church’s book: it was produced by the Church for its members.

Let us parse Rahner’s rather dense prose. My interpretations follow each block quote.

  We regard Holy Scripture as the church's book, the book in which the church of the beginning always remains tangible as a norm for us in the concrete.

The Bible belongs to the Church. Through the Bible, the original Church (the one founded by Christ on the Apostles) makes itself present and tangible for us today. As such, the Bible also normative: that is, it instructs us as to what we need to believe and how we need to behave.

  Indeed it is a norm which is already distinguished from those things which are found in the original church but which cannot have a normative character for our faith and for the life of the later church.

The Bible transmits to us the essential norms of the Faith, not those that are specific to the time and place of the early Church. (E.g., in the early Church, some communities judged that it was ethical to eat meat sacrificed to idols, because the idols are just superstition anyway, whereas others judged that such meat should not be eaten so as not to mislead those who are weak in the faith. The concrete practice—eating the meat or not—is not an essential norm, because the situation is particular to time and place.)

  If the church in every age remains bound to its origin in its faith and in its life;

Fairly clear as written. Clearly, despite the conditional formulation, Rahner is asserting that the Church in fact really is bound to its origin in its faith (beliefs) and life (morals).

  if the church as the community of faith in the crucified and risen Jesus is itself to be in its faith and in its life the eschatological and irreversible sign of God's definitive turning to the world in Jesus Christ, a sign without which Jesus Christ himself would not signify God's irreversible coming into the world and would not be the absolute savior;

By establishing the Church, God left an indelible (“irreversible”) sign of his Incarnation (his “turning” to the world, in Rahner’s terminology). The Church is also an indelible sign of the glory to come (an “eschatological” sign).

Jesus himself (through the Incarnation) is a sign of God’s presence in the world.

In fact—asserts Rahner— Jesus would not be such a sign, indeed would not be the “absolute” (i.e., unique, supreme) savior of the world, if it were not for the Church.

(I must say that I find this last affirmation questionable. God is perfectly capable of saving people however He wants. I think that Rahner is trying to affirm that the Church is the unique means of salvation for all men. That is true. But it is so because God wanted it to be that way; God is perfectly capable of saving mankind without the mediation of the Church, and even without the Incarnation.)

  and if this church of the beginning objectifies itself in scriptural documents at least in fact, and also does so necessarily given the historical and cultural presuppositions in which the church came to be, then in all of this together we have a point of departure for understand the essences of scripture.

The Church, which has its origins in Christ and the Apostles, commits to writing what is essential about itself (“objectifies itself”), a task that was rendered necessary by the historical and cultural situation of the early Church. (At least implicit in this assertion is that something of the historical situation of the early Church remains in the text of the Scriptures that we have today.)

By keeping these things in mind, it is much easier to understand what the Bible actually is.

  It is also a point of departure from whose perspective we can arrive at an adequate and at the same time a critical understanding of what is really meant by the inspiration of scripture and by a binding canon of scripture.

From the same starting point, we can also understand what it means for the Bible to be “inspired” and what we mean by a “canon” of Scripture.

  Since scripture is something derivative, it must be understood from the essential nature of the church, which is the escatological and irreversible permanence of Jesus Christ in history. It is to be understood from the perspective as something normative in the church.

The Bible is derived from the Church, not the other way around. The Church is (as we noted above) an indelible sign of both the Incarnation and the glory to come. The Church is, therefore, normative for us today (i.e., both in terms of what we believe and how we are to behave).


What's the first ancient document composed by a non-Christian denying the resurrection? What is the first ancient document composed by a non-Christian denying the resurrection of Jesus that we have access to?

I am specifically looking for a document actually penned by a non-Christian, so references to people denying the resurrection in a Christian document do not count. Further, Christian documents quoting non-Christian documents do not count.

Tacitus a Roman historian and Senator wrote an account to help explain the fire at Rome circa CE 116.  He references Christ, His death, but nothing about a resurrection, unless that is to what the "mischievous superstition" points.

  Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.
  -Annals

In other words the Christian belief was that Messiah would suffer and rise again on the third day.  That is a "package" belief.  Tacitus denies it all as a superstition and merely points to its "fallen leader".


At the time of Peter's confession, who knew that Jesus was Messiah? In the synoptic gospels, Peter acknowledges that Jesus is the Messiah.

Matthew 16:15-17 (NASB) He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.
Mark 8:27–30 (NASB) Jesus went out, along with His disciples, to the villages of Caesarea Philippi; and on the way He questioned His disciples, saying to them, “Who do people say that I am?” They told Him, saying, “John the Baptist; and others say Elijah; but others, one of the prophets.” And He continued by questioning them, “But who do you say that I am?” Peter *answered and *said to Him, “You are the Christ.” And He warned them to tell no one about Him.
Luke 9:18–21 And it happened that while He was praying alone, the disciples were with Him, and He questioned them, saying, “Who do the people say that I am?” They answered and said, “John the Baptist, and others say Elijah; but others, that one of the prophets of old has risen again.” And He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” And Peter answered and said, “The Christ of God.” But He warned them and instructed them not to tell this to anyone,

It was apparently a secret, and Jesus instructed his disciples not to tell anyone. According to the chronology given by the synoptic gospels, other than those present at that moment, who was in on the secret?

Other than the Apostles who were present and depending on one's interpretation of what "who" stands for, it seems that at least the demons knew that Jesus was the Messiah.

  Moreover, demons came out of many people, shouting, "You are the Son of God!" But he rebuked them and would not allow them to speak, because they knew he was the Messiah. - Luke 4:41

It would also be believed by many that Mary would have known that her Son was the Messiah also.

  26And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, 27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary. 28 And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. 29 And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be. 30 And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. 31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. 32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: 33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. 34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? 35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. -  Luke 1: 26-37.


Before St. Thomas Aquinas, who laid the foundation for the existence of God? During His preaching ministry, Jesus described the nature of God. But before doing so, did He have to lay a foundation and convince people that God exists? Or had oral tradition and the Old Testament already convinced most people that God exists?

Reason I ask:

Christians typically credit Saint Thomas Aquinas' 'Quinque viae' as the best arguments for the existence of God.
But I assume that most of Jesus' contemporary followers must have already believed in "a god", because if they didn't then Jesus would have needed to spend a good deal of His effort persuading the masses that "a god" (that is any god) exists, as opposed to "the God" that He existed as in the Holy Trinity.

Jesus' contemporary followers not only believed in "a god", they had a common understanding of the existence and nature of God, because his mission was to the people of Israel (cf. Jesus answer to the Canaanite woman in Matthew 15:14: "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the House of Israel"). This is not to assert that all of Jesus' followers came from the House of Israel, but before the writings of Paul, we have little evidence of any who were not. With the common understandings, they did not need an explanation of the existence, or nature of God.

If, on the other hand, Jesus had been sent to the Gentiles--the Romans, Egyptians, Greeks, &c.--he would have had to expend considerably more time teaching about the nature--though not the existence--of God. Note, though, that in the ancient world, atheism was rather unknown. Most everyone seems to have believed in at least one god, though there was not much consensus about much more than the existence of a god.


The Christian Duck Test? If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

There is arguably little difference between the lifestyle of the Stoic and the lifestyle of the Christian. Both eschew effeminacy in pursuit of virtue. Both find it best for man to worry about things he can control and to not worry about the things he cannot (Epictetus wrote of this. Christians call this "trusting the plan"; there is also the Christian serenity prayer which expresses this). Both believe in the cardinal virtues of Prudence, Justice, Fortitude, and Temperance (Christians certainly ought to believe these, and I'd bet most Stoics do believe them as well). I would argue that their way of life is in essence, the same.
The question is this: if a Christian and a Stoic both live the same exact life, and the only difference in their essence is that the Christian believes in the gospel, then why does the Christian go to heaven while the unbelieving Stoic does not? More generally, the question is about the "mechanics" of Christian salvation: when one comes to believe in Christ (esp. when converting from stoicism) what is it that actually changes in the person's essence/soul/existence that makes him fit for the Kingdom of God? In other words, what is it about the intellectual position of being Christian that impacts the state of someone's soul?

If we assume that the Christian worldview is accurate, then a true Christian has something that a Stoic doesn't: the Holy Spirit.
Acts 1:8 (ESV):

8 But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.”

The Holy Spirit empowers the Christian to be able to overcome the desires of the flesh and produce the fruit of the Spirit:

16 But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. 17 For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh, for these are opposed to each other, to keep you from doing the things you want to do. 18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law. 19 Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, 20 idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, 21 envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. 22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. 24 And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. [Galatians 5:16-24, ESV]

The Holy Spirit also distributes supernatural gifts among Christians as He sees fit:

4 Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit; 5 and there are varieties of service, but the same Lord; 6 and there are varieties of activities, but it is the same God who empowers them all in everyone. 7 To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. 8 For to one is given through the Spirit the utterance of wisdom, and to another the utterance of knowledge according to the same Spirit, 9 to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit, 10 to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the ability to distinguish between spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. 11 All these are empowered by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills. [1 Corinthians 12:4-11, ESV]

In light of this, when you say "if a Christian and a Stoic both live the same exact life, and the only difference in their essence is that the Christian believes in the gospel [...]", I say: the condition of your question is ill-defined from the Christian viewpoint, since a Stoic, who lacks the gift of the Holy Spirit, by definition, cannot be living the same exact life as a Spirit-filled Christian. The latter enjoys the supernatural empowerment and assistance of the Spirit of God that the former lacks.
I will close with a pertinent quote from Romans, chapter 8 (ESV):

9 You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. 10 But if Christ is in you, although the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness. 11 If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you.
12 So then, brothers, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh. 13 For if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live. 14 For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. 15 For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, “Abba! Father!” 16 The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, 17 and if children, then heirs—heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him.

Answering concerns raised in the comments:
(1) Is the spirit something you can feel within you, and recognize in others? Also, regarding faith, do you "know" when you have faith in Christ? Is it a change in category or a change in degree?
I think these questions can be answered both scripturally and by appealing to the first-hand experience of many believers.
Scripturally, the Bible has lots of examples where believers were filled with the Spirit and had extraordinary experiences. The book of Acts is a good example. That said, a more common --and perhaps less extraordinary-- experience is the "inner witness of the Holy Spirit", which is described very well by Romans 8:15-17 (already quoted above):

15 For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, “Abba! Father!” 16 The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, 17 and if children, then heirs—heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him.

Experientially, throughout history many believers have reported personal encounters and extraordinary experiences with the Spirit of God. I have asked questions about this in the past, feel free to take a look: 1, 2, 3.
(2) This answer is self contradictory, since at least some of the fruits of the Holy Spirit listed therein coincide with Stoic virtues, yet the answer goes on to subsequently deny that the Stoics are, at least partially, indwelled by God's Spirit.
Without the Holy Spirit, a Stoic would not be able to achieve 100% of what they otherwise would be able to with the power of the Holy Spirit. But that doesn't mean that they will achieve 0%. It's still theoretically possible for a pagan to develop some moral virtues that would place them somewhere in between the two extremes. Claiming that it's either 0% or 100% would be a false dichotomy, and I never intended to claim such a thing in my answer.
Regarding the salvation status of virtuous pagans, this question might be of interest: What is an overview of Christian viewpoints on the eternal destiny of individuals who die never hearing the Gospel?


How are patriotic songs used in US churches? A comical blog mentioned “patriotic worship”. It is also hinted at in this article and in this article where it is made clear that patriotic songs such as the ones listed here are sung and they are considered suitable for worship by some groups. It is apparent that within the USA patriotism and Christianity are sometimes conflated. As you can imagine, it is quite difficult to search for information regarding worship and patriotism, especially in connection with the United States. I would like to know how prevalent the singing of patriotic songs is, which denominations are the most likely to use them and does their use peak around patriotic festivals such as Independence Day and Memorial Day?

In the LDS church in the US it is common to sing patriotic songs around Independence Day and sometimes Memorial Day and Veteran's Day too (though I think that's more rare). It is very unusual to hear them sung at church any other time.

Official guidance on the matter:

  National Anthems

  A few patriotic songs have been included in the hymnbook; with
  priesthood approval, local national anthems may be added. Members may
  stand for national anthems in Church meetings according to local
  custom and priesthood direction.

The patriotic songs in the hymnbook include America the Beautiful, My Country, 'Tis of Thee, The Star-Spangled Banner, and strangely enough God Save the King.

Mormons have a unique feeling of US patriotism because they believe God founded the country to provide a free place for him to restore his church (the LDS church).

  Our Father in Heaven planned the coming forth of the Founding Fathers and their form of government as the necessary great prologue leading to the restoration of the gospel. Recall what our Savior Jesus Christ said nearly two thousand years ago when He visited this promised land: “For it is wisdom in the Father that they should be established in this land, and be set up as a free people by the power of the Father, that these things might come forth” (3 Ne. 21:4). America, the land of liberty, was to be the Lord’s latter-day base of operations for His restored church. - Ezra Taft Benson

You can also read God's Hand in the Founding of America.


Why did Mary ask Jesus to make wine at the Wedding at Cana The Wedding at Cana is the only instance AFAIK where Mary asks Jesus to perform a miracle.

Is there any indication or insight as to why she did so ? Was the family very close to her/them ?

Or was it simply the time for Jesus to perform a public miracle and it came about in this manner?

Catholics love Mary, as you may know. And this particular detail of the Wedding of Cana reaffirms the Catholic devotion to Mary as an intercessor.

  The Gospel reveals to us how Mary prays and intercedes in faith. At
  Cana, the mother of Jesus asks her son for the needs of a wedding
  feast; this is the sign of another feast—that of the wedding of the
  Lamb where he gives his body and blood at the request of the Church,
  his Bride. It is at the hour of the New Covenant, at the foot of the
  cross, that Mary is heard as the Woman, the new Eve, the true “Mother
  of all the living.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church)

As Christ is an embodiment of something, that of God's self-proclamation and self-incarnation of His own saving power, Mary is also an embodiment of something, namely the human "yes" to God's will. As such, she is the primary intercessor of the Church to Christ.

Extrapolating a little: By her acceptance to receive God in her flesh, we acknowledge her mission as an intercessor (Queen among many) from God to man. And by her request at the wedding of Cana (which Jesus was undoubtedly waiting for), we acknowledge the validity of her mission as an intercessor from man to God.


Can a priest validly celebrate a mass without anybody else present? Say that a priest for whatever reason wanted to do a mass by himself. He does all the parts of the liturgy, including the consecration of the Eucharist. The only thing is, he’s completely alone; nobody else is present. Would this mass be valid? Or does there have to be other people (by which I mean “participants”, usually lay people)?

May a priest validly celebrate a mass without anybody else present?

The short answer is: Yes.

  The General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM) says, “Mass should not be celebrated without a minister or at least one of the faithful, except for a just and reasonable cause. In this case, the greetings, the introductory or explanatory remarks, and the blessing at the end of the Mass are omitted” (254).

  There is a constant metaphysical sense of our Catholic worship. Thinking with the Church there are times when a priest, without a congregation and without a server (to represent the faithful) may offer Mass by himself. The Church teaches that every effort ought to be made to have a server make the responses and to keep the priest honest in following the rubrics, but there may be times when the priests needs to offer Mass only in the presence of the Angels and Saints. Remember, we do not hold that a priest owns the Mass for himself. Yet, we are also taught that a priest does not need a lay person for the proper celebration of the Mass. Traveling causes these tensions, or there is a need to offer Mass for a particular intention that needs immediate Divine assistance, e.g., the sick and dying, a special circumstance in society or church. A priest in a nursing home may offer Mass without a congregation. Bishops with a rare day free of public ceremonials may offer Mass privately from time to time. Jesuits, many monks and hermits frequently offer Mass in alone. All this seems to be contextualized by the Code of Canon Law that says, “This is true with respect to the liturgies celebrated by religious communities” (678,1). Ultimately, it is held by the Catholic Church that it is both licit and valid for a priest to offer Mass alone. - Private and Public Catholic Mass?

The Extraordinary Form of the Mass (EF) is less flexible in this matter, but it is not absolutely forbidden either:

  Canon law stipulates that a priest should not celebrate Mass alone, but have at least a server or a lay person making the responses, but a solitary celebration is not to be forbidden absolutely if there is a good reason. A motive of piety and love of the daily Mass is generally thought to be adequate as a good reason. It frequently happens that a priest is in good standing with his Church and Bishop (not sanctioned or suspended, etc.) but has no pastoral ministry, for example for reason of having a teaching post or doing further theological studies at a university.

  In times gone by, the Church was much stricter about this rule, and Blessed Charles de Foucault in his hermitage in Algeria was deprived of the Sacraments for several years. He applied for and obtained a special indult from the Holy See to say Mass entirely alone – since there were no other Christians anywhere at all nearby, and the local Muslims were hardly to be expected to come and assist at Mass (seeing as he never converted any of them). - Mass without a congregation

Other sources:

  Celebrating Mass Alone

  When Celebrating Mass Alone

  III. Mass at Which only One Minister Participates (GIRM #254)

  Canon of Canon Law 906


What is the reason for differences for Genesis 3:9 among Bible translations? Why Genesis 3:9 have different wordings in different Bible versions? For example:

" And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?"
" But the LORD God called to the man and said to him, “Where are you?”

The Hebrew text of Gen. 3:9 according to the Masoretic text states,

  וַיִּקְרָא יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים אֶל הָאָדָם וַיֹּאמֶר לוֹ אַיֶּכָּה

The Hebrew word הָאָדָם (ha-adam) is composed of the definite article הָ (ha) prefixed to the noun אָדָם (adam). While the word אָדָם by itself may be translated as either "(a) man" or "Adam" (Gesenius, p. 13), whenever the word is prefixed with the definite article, it probably means "the man" and not "Adam." It would be highly unorthodox for a proper name to be prefixed with the definite article in Hebrew. For example, we see דויד (David), never הדויד (ha-David). Thus, it would be translated into English as,

  And Yahveh God called to the man and said to him, "Where are you?"


Did Jonah fail the test of a prophet? I came across an article on the FAIR Mormon wiki that discusses the prophetic test (Deut. 18). It applies the test on some Biblical prophets, and shows how someone could claim these prophets fail the test.

The one I find interesting is Jonah's prophecy against Nineveh:

  Jonah 3 (ESV)
   1 Then the word of the LORD came to Jonah the second time, saying, 2 "Arise, go to Nineveh, that great city, and call out against it the message that I tell you." 3 So Jonah arose and went to Nineveh, according to the word of the LORD. Now Nineveh was an exceedingly great city, three days’ journey in breadth. 4 Jonah began to go into the city, going a day’s journey. And he called out, "Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown!"

What did happen was that the people of Nineveh repented and God did not destroy the city:

  10 When God saw what they did, how they turned from their evil way, God relented of the disaster that he had said he would do to them, and he did not do it.

I'm interested in the Protestant answers to the following questions:

How does this fit with Deut. 18, where God says that if the word of a prophet doesn't come to pass, it's not from the Lord?
Should the inhabitants of Nineveh have considered Jonah as a false prophet?
Should we consider Jonah as a false prophet?

For reference, the passage from Deuteronomy:

  Deuteronomy 18:20-22 (ESV)
   20  But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in my name that I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that same prophet shall die.' 21 And if you say in your heart, 'How may we know the word that the LORD has not spoken?'— 22  when a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word that the LORD has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously. You need not be afraid of him.

What's clear from the account of Jonah is that God would have destroyed the city if it were not for the people's repentance. Jonah's prophecy was accurate in that it articulated what God was going to do, but God relented. There was no failing in Jonah's ability to discern and communicate the will of God prior to the people's repentance, but that remarkable repentance was a hugely significant event that altered the subsequent history of that city.

There is a bit of chicken-and-egg here. God could of course have prevented Jonah from making this prophecy since he knew the people would repent, in which case the people of Nineveh wouldn't have heard about what God had in store for them. They therefore might not have repented, and the city would have been destroyed... it's similar to the liar paradox. In other words, the people needed to hear Jonah tell them what was in store if they didn't repent in order to repent: the prophecy was conditional.

You could also argue that Jonah's prophecy holds true: the city was overthrown within 40 days, but in a spiritual sense rather than a physical one.

In the case of Joseph Smith, those who maintain he was a false prophet argue there were no such events that altered history in the same way yet still his prophecies did not come to pass; this isn't a case of God relenting, it's simply a case of getting it wrong in the first place. (Mormons of course disagree and maintain that some of his prophecies were later cancelled and others came to pass to a certain degree).

There are several supporting online resources... these are from a Google search, so  may not all be representative of mainstream Christianity: Let Us Reason Ministries | Christian Research Institute | Third Millennium Ministries | Mormonism Research Ministry


Why do Protestants allow contraception? The Catholic Church is strongly against contraception. Most Protestants nowadays accept it; I gather it was less common in the past.  Of course it's possible that Protestants have just given in to worldly things here, but I don't buy that. However, I'm not quite sure that contraception can be seen as allowed by default, either.

There should be either biblical or rational reasons for allowing contraception; I expect there to be both. What are they?

This is all about sex, of course -- in particular, the question of purpose: what it's for.

I will preface my answer by saying that contraception is not directly addressed in the Bible, so my answer is going to be primarily theological rather than biblical.

Catholicism says that sexual acts, to be moral, must have two purposes: that of expressing and confirming the love between the couple and that of procreation -- conceiving children.  Contraception prevents the procreative purpose, so the sexual act exists solely for the former purpose.  According to the Catholic understanding of the purpose of sex, therefore, it is immoral.  Similar arguments can be made about homosexuality, masturbation, oral sex, etc etc.  Note that before the publication of Humanae Vitae (the encyclical that effectively bans artificial contraception) the Pontifical Commission on Birth Control actually had a majority report in favour of revoking the ban.

As for Protestants, the case is (inevitably) rather complicated.  Some Protestants do indeed see contraception as inherently sinful.  They say that planning families is for God to do, so contraception is obstructing God's purpose, and often also echo the Catholic position about the purpose of sex.

Many Protestants, however, believe it possible to separate the two purposes of sex (love and reproduction) -- so it is possible to have a non-sinful sexual relationship without the prospect of children.  For instance, the 1662 Anglican Book of Common Prayer has specific provision for couples who are beyond child-bearing age.  If a sexual relationship can exist without the possibility of reproduction, and if you believe that God's will can be exercised through the working of human free will, it's not hard to believe that contraception can be non-sinful.


Why are a Catholic bishop's Coat of Arms green and not purple? Why are a Catholic bishop's Coat of Arms green and not purple?

The Canadian Conference of Bishops tell us that the galero and tassels on the Coat of Arms for a bishop are green. Cardinals' galero and tassels are red.

  What does a Bishop’s coat of arms look like?

  The coat of arms is the emblem of the Bishop, which is used on letterheads, documents and other official publications. It consists of a shield bearing symbols representing the person for whom it was conceived. Around it, elements indicate his dignity, rank, title, jurisdiction and more. A scroll or banner on which is inscribed a motto or guiding principle usually sits beneath the shield.

  The shield of every Bishop is unique. The symbols featured relate to many influences in his life: these may include references to people, communities, places and events that have had an impact on his spiritual leadership.

  The crest and supporters of the coat of arms are common to all Bishops. A green galero (ecclesiastical hat) sitting upon a gold processional cross form the crest. A number of tassels on either side, determined by rank, make up the supporters (Bishops have six, Archbishops 10 and Cardinals 15). On a Cardinal’s coat of arms, the galero and tassels are red. - Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops

Coat of Arms of Bishop Zarama the sixth bishop of the Diocese of Raleigh, North Carolina.

The silk cord for the pectoral cross of an archbishop or bishop is green and gold and a cardinal is red and gold. The pope wears a gold silk cord for his pectoral cross.

  In choir dress—that is, when he wears a cassock, rochet and mozzetta—the pectoral cross is usually suspended by a cord of silk. This cord is green and gold for an archbishop or a bishop, and red and gold for a cardinal and gold for the pope. An abbot makes use of a black and gold silk cord while an abbess and canon would use a black silk cord. Formerly, protonotaries apostolic wore a pectoral cross on a purple silk cord when celebrating in pontificals. -
  Pectoral cross (Wikipedia)

Why are these insignias in green and not purple? After all bishops and archbishops don purple cassocks.

The reason why a Catholic bishop's Coat of Arms are green dwells in the fact that green was the original color worn by bishops and archbishops was green, not purple.

  The shield is the green ecclesiastical hat called a “gallero” with twenty tassels pendant on both sides. This broad brimmed hat, once worn in cavalcades, is no longer used but remains as a heraldic emblem. The original color worn by bishops and archbishops was green, not purple. This “episcopal color” is retained in heraldry. These external ornaments are those used for a prelate with the rank of Archbishop according to the Instruction of the Holy See, Ut Sive, of March, 1969. - Armorial Bearings of the Most Reverend Thomas Rodi, DD
  Ninth Bishop and Second Metropolitan Archbishop of Mobile, Alabama

The original color for the cassocks of bishop and archbishops was green. In the 16th century it was changed to purple.

  For most of Church history green was the color for bishops. This color is still seen on the traditional coat of arms that each bishop chooses when elected. However, in the 16th century the color was switched to “amaranth red,” which is named so in reference to the color of the amaranth flower. In practicality it more resembles the color fuschia.

  Since it is a color similar to purple, it holds a symbolic value that points to the task of the bishop to govern his local diocese. - How to tell the difference between a monsignor, a bishop and a cardinal


What is the origin of the Catholic Pope in the Bible? It is well known that the most important position in the Catholic church is the pope, but how did this position arise? I know that Peter was told by Jesus that he was "The rock upon which He will build His church", but the Scriptures seem to lack the specific commandment for the duties of the pope, or even the existence of the papacy or the Vatican. I am unable to find scripture referring to a pope-like figure or the papacy.

The section "Of the Institution of the Apostolic Primacy in blessed Peter" of the First Vatican Council's Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ (Pastor Æternus) quotes these Scripture verses:

  We therefore teach and declare that, according to the testimony of the Gospel, the primacy of jurisdiction over the universal Church of God was immediately and directly promised and given to blessed Peter the Apostle by Christ the Lord. For it was to Simon alone, to whom he had already said: 'Thou shalt be called Cephas,' [St. John 1:42] that the Lord after the confession made by him, saying: 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,' [St. Matthew 16:16] addressed these solemn words: 'Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona, because flesh and blood have not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say to thee that thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, it shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.'[St. Matthew 16:17-19] And it was upon Simon alone that Jesus after his resurrection bestowed the jurisdiction of chief pastor and ruler over all his fold in the words: 'Feed my lambs; feed my sheep.' [St. John 21:15-17] At open variance with this clear doctrine of Holy Scripture as it has been ever understood by the Catholic Church are the perverse opinions of those who, while they distort the form of government established by Christ the Lord in his Church, deny that Peter in his single person, preferably to all the other Apostles, whether taken separately or together, was endowed by Christ with a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction; or of those who assert that the same primacy was not bestowed immediately and directly upon blessed Peter himself, but upon the Church, and through the Church on Peter as her minister.

St. Robert Cardinal Bellarmine, the greatest Doctor of ecclesiology, wrote a De Romano Pontifice or On the Roman Pontiff (part of his De Controversiis or On the Controversies series) in which he shows—in more detail, against the errors and heresies of Calvin, Luther, et al.—how the above scriptural verses support the papacy.


Any mentions of Environmental protection in Bible? Is there any practical references about environmental protection as well as protection of earth? Whether Jesus mentioned about any of these topics somewhere?

If you search on Google with keywords like "bible environmental", you will get many sites which claim that the Bible supports the idea of Environmental Protection.  EarthCare has a good summary of relevant verses on environmental care, some of them are...

  Command to Care for Creation

  "The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work
  it and take care of it." (Genesis 2:15)

  "The land itself must observe a sabbath to the Lord. For six years sow
  your fields, and for six years prune your vineyards and garner their
  crops. But in the seventh year the land is to have a sabbath of rest,
  a sabbath to the Lord.... The land is to have a year of rest."
  (Leviticus 25:2-5; cf. Exodus 23:10-11)

  "You shall not pollute the land in which you live.... You shall not
  defile the land in which you live, in which I also dwell; for I the
  LORD dwell among the Israelites." (Numbers 35:33-34)

  "If you besiege a town for a long time, making war against it in order
  to take it, you must not destroy its trees by wielding an ax against
  them. Although you may take food from them, you must not cut them
  down. Are trees in the field human beings that they should come under
  siege from you?" (Deuteronomy 20:19)

However, these verses are not directly referring to environmental protection, though they can be put forth for the argument.

Keep your Temporary Home clean:
The earth belongs to us and we must take care of it, not because God commanded us to do it so. This is a secular matter. Though we will stay here only for a while, lets take care of this Temporary Home. It would be a foolish thing to pollute our home.

Can we really take care of the Earth? NO! It is in God's care. God created this world according to His will and will destroy it again by the same will. No matter how hard we try to preserve the environment and wild life, God is going to destroy this earth by fire anyway on the Day of Judgement. In that sense, it might be pointless to strive hard in protecting the environment.

  2 Peter 3:3-7 (NIV)

  Above all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will
  come, scoffing and following their own evil desires.They will say,
  “Where is this ‘coming’ he promised? Ever since our ancestors died,
  everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.” But
  they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens came
  into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water. By
  these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed.
  By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire,
  being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly.

God will destroy this present world by fire and will create a new Heaven and Earth, a new Earth far far better than the present.

  Revelation 21:1 (NIV)
  Then I saw “a new heaven and a new earth,” for the first heaven and
  the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea.

We are not permanent on this earth, we have a destination ahead. We must not set our hearts on this world because we are only travelers here.

  1 John 2:15 (NKJV)
  Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the
  world, the love of the Father is not in him.

Conclusion: If you want to protect the environment, go do it. There is nothing wrong in it. It's a good thing. It proves that you are a good human. Only good people think about those things and only fools neglect them. But please, do not include Christianity to the context. Don't try to relate them. Does that mean we should start polluting the environment? Not at all! Only foolish people would do that.


Who changed the Sabbath to Sunday according to the Seventh Day Adventists? The Great Controversy describes Constantine as making Sunday a public festival.

  In the early part of the fourth century the emperor Constantine issued a decree making Sunday a public festival throughout the Roman Empire.

In her early writings we twice see that it was the Pope that changed the day.

  But the Pope had changed it from the seventh to the first day of the week; for he was to change times and laws.
  The pope has changed the day of rest from the seventh to the first day.

Since Constantine was never pope these 3 passages can not be speaking of the same person.

Who do the Seventh Day Adventists say changed the Sabbath day?

Seventh day adventist would argue that the sabbath has not been changed to Sunday.

However what you are referring to is when in history did the change creep into doctrine. The information you have is correct, first Constantine made the decree for the festivals on Sunday. This made it easier for christians to simply follow along without fear of persecution.

The pope did eventually make Sunday a day of rest at some point in the future. (I don't have the date) but many christians already were gathering on that day.


What word did Jesus use for God in Aramaic? What is the word and pronunciation for God in Aramaic? I saw 'AaLaH'  is the pronunciation for God from this link: Aramaic Lexicon and Concordance  . Did Jesus uses the word 'AaLaH'  for God during his speeches? And also in Aramaic Bible, is this word is used for God?

If this is true then the Arabic word 'Allahu' and this word 'AaLaH' are same or different?

Also I want to know on which language did Jesus cry this expression - "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani"

The normal generic word for God is "alaha"/"aloho" (ܐܠܗܐ), which is linguistically related to the Hebrew word for God "elohim".

The translation of the tetragrammaton, YHWH, on the other hand, is "maria"/"morio" (ܡܪܝܐ), usually decomposed as mar-yah, Lord-Yah ("mar", lord, also being used by syriac speaking churches as a title for saints/doctors of the Church: "mor Ephrem" = Saint Ephrem). (Note: this word has nothing to do with the proper name Maria, coming from the Hebrew Mariam)

To answer your question, Jesus would almost certainly have used one of the two, or both at the same time as it is commonly done in Syriac: Maria Alaha.

Last remark: The arabic word Allah, used also by Arabic Christians, is no more no less related to the Aramaic Alaha than to the Hebrew Elohim. The three share a common linguistic root, which is nothing exceptional, so no point being dragged on sterile arguments concerning this point.

Concerning the cry on the cross (quote from Psalm 22:1), the Peshitta (the earliest christian Aramaic translation) translate it using the word alaha, with the first person possessive suffix -i : alahi (ܐܲܠܵܗܝ ܐܲܠܵܗܝ ܠܡܵܢܵܐ ܫܒܲܩ̣ܬܵܢܝ̱ ). The original Hebrew Psalm used "Eli". Since the scriptor of the Greek gospel may not have been fluent in Aramaic, or used to transliterate Aramaic with Greek characters, it may be expected that the transliterations are approximates, hence a possible : eloi/alohi confusion.


Why was Tamar more righteous than Judah? Genesis 38 tells the story of Judah and Tamar. At first Tamar was married to Er (Judah's firstborn son) but he was wicked and killed by the Lord v6-7. So Judah tells Tamar to wait until his youngest son, Shelah, grows up v11 (to marry her?). Years go by and Tamar is never given to Shelah as a wife so Tamar disguises herself as a prostitute and Judah sleeps with her since he doesn't recognize her. When he finds out she's pregnant, he wants her burned to death but she proves he is the one who impregnated her to which Judah replies, "She is more righteous than I, since I wouldn’t give her to my son Shelah" v26.

Why does Judah say that Tamar is more righteous than himself? I feel like I'm missing something.

From the Haydock commentary:

  Juster. For Juda had been guilty of injustice; and had thus exposed her to the danger of following a life of lewdness. (Haydock) --- She
  remained a widow afterwards, as she was now rendered unfit to be
  married either to Juda or Sela. The latter married another woman,
  Numbers xxvi. 19. (Calmet) --- While Juda was engaged in this unlawful
  commerce, and yielded to the temptation, Joseph was triumphing over a
  much greater temptation, in rejecting the solicitations of his
  master's wife. (Haydock)

Basically, by not following through on his promise to have his son Sela marry her, Judah exposed Tamar to the danger of making a living as a prostitute as she did not have any other way to support herself in her widowhood.  As such, Judah was more at fault; or stated the other way around: Tamar was more just than Judah (calling Tamar more just could be a vestigial idiomatic construct of the Hebrew language).


Is there a customary way to go around rosary beads? The picture below depicts one way to go around the rosary beads when praying the Holy Rosary.

If a child were to ask, as they typical do, as to why Catholics when praying the Holy Rosary customarily go around the rosary beads one way rather than the other - if that's what they do, how would one answer? Is there a customary way to go around rosary beads? If yes, what is the reason for that order?

A question in the "same series" as: Is there a particular order in lighting candles on an advent wreath?

Either direction is acceptable

This might be semi-authoritative since it comes straight from the only approved Marian apparition site in the United States. Up near Green Bay, Wisconsin there is an outdoor rosary walk with the mysteries visible for people who traverse in a right-hand or left-hand direction.

For instance, when you walk around clockwise, you see 1st glorious mystery, 1st luminous. Etc... On a big banner, but if you look at the backside of the banner, its got 5th glorious, 5th luminous, etc... So no matter whether you walk around clockwise or counter-clockwise, you will see the mysteries in their proper order. Which I remarked to my wife, "that's mighty clever, those Catholics are always thinking..."


Who compiled the Canons of Dort? I have found many articles and discussions online regarding the Canons of Dort but have yet to find who was actually instrumental in formulating this document. Can anyone tell me or link to some information about that?

Summary
Johannes Bogerman, president of the Synod of Dort, wrote the first draft, which was then amended by the Drafting Committee consisting of 9 members:

Johannes Bogerman: President
Hermannus Faukelius and Jacobus Rolandus: Assessors
Dutch theologians Johannes Polyander, Antonius Walaeus, and Jacobus Trigland
Bishop George Carleton: British representative
Genevan theologian Jean Diodati: French representative
Heidelberg theologian Abraham Scultetus: German representative

The committee held meetings over 3 weeks and produced 3 committee drafts which were reviewed and debated by several delegates from different countries.  The final conclusion draft was read publicly on April 20 and then debated and negotiated until the final form was reached on 23 April 1619 at 10 PM.  The whole process took about 4 weeks.
Source
This answer is based on a paper The Drafting Of The Canons Of Dordt: A Preliminary Survey Of Early Drafts And Related Documents published 2011 in the Brill's Series in Church History Volume 49 Revisiting the Synod of Dordt (1618-1619), written by Trinity Christian College theology professor (emeritus) Donald Sinnema.
Prof. Sinnema reconstructed the drafting timeline based on his preliminary examination of 5 main repositories of more than one hundred archival documents, some multiple copies.  The first 8 pages of the paper are available here.
Another paper by Prof. Sinnema published in the same book: The Canons of Dordt: From Judgment on Arminianism to Confessional Standard has the following quotes (emphasis mine):

From 6 to 21 March the Synod was occupied with reading the judicia
of the nineteen delegations on the Five Articles. Following the earlier
instructions of Bogerman, these judicia all consisted of positive statements expressing the orthodox Reformed view as well as a rejection of Remonstrant errors. ...
When all the judicia had been read, president Bogerman noted that
the States General "did expect that the Canons should be made" by Easter, ten days away.²⁸ He then proposed that "the synodical judgment
(judicium Synodicum) should now be formed from all of them [the
judicia] compared with each other:' For that purpose, he informed the Synod, he had drafted "some Canons" from these judicia, to which the delegations might suggest amendments.²⁹
The next day, 22 March, Bogerman presented his views on the form of
the proposed Canons. "The order and style of these canons ought to be
directed to the instruction of these churches:' They should be proposed
simply, but not meagerly, "so that the Canons may not be scholastic or
academic, but ecclesiastical:' On the question whether the heterodox or
orthodox section should be first, Bogerman thought that "the doctrine
of the truth is to be placed first because it is by nature prior:'³⁰ The English Bishop Carleton also gave advice on how the Canons should
be formed. He too recommended that the affirmative view be placed
first, then the negative, and that "the style of the Canons be popular,
not scholastic:'³¹ The same day Bogerman dictated to the Synod the
"Canons" he had drafted on Articles One and Two. ³² Since these consisted of positive "articles" and a rejection of errors, it is apparent that here the term "Canons" referred to the whole document. ³³
This procedure immediately aroused the complaint of some foreign
theologians that Bogerman intended to draw up the Canons by himself
and merely dictate them to the Synod for its consent.³⁴ To resolve the discontent the civil delegates on 25 March advised that some foreign and Dutch theologians work with the president and the assessors to draft the Canons. The Synod approved this advice and appointed a drafting committee of nine.³⁵
For about three weeks the Synod did not officially meet while the
drafting committee was at work. Working from Bogerman's draft the
committee prepared its own draft of the Canons, which it revised twice,
before coming up with the final version of the Canons. After receiving the Bogerman draft and each of the three committee drafts, the various delegations had an opportunity to suggest amendments.³⁶
...
On 16, 18, and 23 April the full Synod after some final changes
approved the final version of the Canons.⁴² Then on the 23rd three
copies were signed by all delegates. ...

Other resources

A paper by Prof. Sinnema describing a new project to produce ten-volume critical edition of all the documents of the Synod of Dort to celebrate the 400th anniversary: The Documents of the Synod of Dort (1618-1619) - A New Edition


Was Charles Russel, Founder of the Jehovah's Witnesses, a Freemason? I've heard it stated that the founder of Jehovah's Witnesses, Charles Taze Russel, was a Freemason (33rd Degree) which may have been partially responsible for his interest in collaborating bible prophecy with the pyramids, as well as the symbolism he used in some of his books.

There seems to be arguments both for and against this, both convincing. Is there any solid historical proof of as to whether or not this claim is true?

Charles Taze Russel (or Russell) is reported to have said, in a Convention discourse "The Temple of God"

  Although I have never been a Mason, I have heard that in Masonry they have something which very closely illustrates this ...  Many Masons shake hands with me and give me what I know is their grip; they don't know me from a Mason.  Something I do seems to be the same as Masons do, I don't know what it is; but they often give me all kinds of grips and I give them back, then I tell them I don't know anything about it except just a few grips that have come to me naturally.

Russel appears not to have been an entirely honest man, but nevertheless is unlikely to have been hiding a secret allegiance to the Freemasons, as he talks of such societies consuming valuable time in foolish, senseless rites and ceremonies.


Book recommendation that goes over how the bible is compiled based on manuscripts I have read about how the King's James bible and (I think) the NIV bible differ.  Some verses from the Kings james bible were removed as they were not present in earlier manuscripts.

Anyhow, are there any research papers or books that go over each verse and notes exactly which manuscript contains the verse?

I know that this is actually an on-going process, where some verses are removed, and then the verse above is split into 2 to keep the verse count the same etc.  I would like to know exactly what was done, and by whom, and which manuscript was used as the source.

Bruce Metzger's A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament is a well-known book that accomplishes what you asked about.

I'd also recommend procuring some critical apparati. These list the variants and allow the reader to form their own conclusions, for the most part. Two well-known apparati are Nestle-Aland's NA26/ 27/ 28 Greek New Testament, as well as Constantin Tischendorf's critical apparatus.


What was the role of Apollos in the early church? In 1 Corinthians 3:6, Paul wrote:

  I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God has been making it grow.

Why did Paul specifically mention Apollos as that is the name of a god in Greek mythology?

Apollos was an Alexandrian Jew, as stated in Acts 18:24 (with following verses indicating that he knew the [Jewish] Scriptures and preached the gospel--"the way of the Lord"--but only knew "the baptism of John" before being further instructed by Priscilla and Aquila).

It is possible that, like Timothy, he had a Jewish mother but a Gentile father; this might explain his being named Apollos. Since Alexandria was a center for both Greek and Jewish cultures, mixed parentage seems plausible.


Counterarguments to "KJV-only"? Some people believe the King James Version of the Bible is the only version English-speakers should be using, as it is the only inspired translation.  (This is referred to as "KJV-onlyism.")
Basically, the KJV-only position is that:

The Bible is God's word

God promises to preserve His word

E.G., Psalm 12:7 (read this article)

This preservation is accomplished via a perfect translation (one per language)

The KJV is His perfect, preserved translation in the English language

The reason other English Bibles differ from the KJV is because those other Bibles have been tainted by sin and error

What are the main counterarguments to this view?
I am specifically looking for answers which would be convincing to an English-speaking Protestant with a high view of Scripture.

Some major problems with "KJV-onlyism" lies in the assumptions it makes and some of which you enumerated.

From an evangelical perspective, we accept the idea that the Bible is, indeed, the word of God.  Specifically, "men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit."

  20 knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from
  someone's own interpretation. 21 For no prophecy was ever produced by
  the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by
  the Holy Spirit.  2 Peter 1:20-21 ESV

  20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the Scripture is of any
  priuate Interpretation: 21 For the prophecie came not in olde time by
  the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moued by the
  holy Ghost.  2 Peter 1:20-21 KJV 1611

Preservation via a perfect translation

The problem starts with the third point you enumerated, specifically that the preservation is via a perfect translation, that is one for every language.

Why does the preservation have to be in a translation?  Why can't the preservation be in the original languages and those manuscripts?  How could we know that the KJV is the perfect translation into English?  The KJV was certainly not even the first translation into English, as it was preceded by the Wycliffe, Tyndale, Bishop and Douay-Rheims translations, among others.

Does it follow that the first translation into any language is a perfect translation and should never be updated, no matter how much the language changes?

In fact, the KJV has been changed quite a few times since it's original release.  No one reads out of the 1611 edition anymore, as our language has changed significantly since that time.

Also, the whole idea that there must be a preservation in each language at all times misses the point that most languages didn't have any translation until recently, and there are many that still don't.

So, this assumption has a hard time fitting reality and even logic.

Sin and error in other English translations

The assumption that only one translation can be accurate in any language for all times leads the KJV-only people to assert that any other translation into English must be somehow imperfect, and many even assert that sin is the reason.  The translators of the KJV must have been the holiest of men, and all other people who ever attempt to translate Greek and Hebrew into English today must somehow be sinful.

That doesn't even make sense.  The English language is different today than it was 400 years ago.  Even if there were a perfect translation at that time, we don't speak that language anymore.

Also, why must experts in Hebrew and Greek today who translate the Scriptures into English be somehow tainted by sin?  Is it not possible that they could also be men and women who fear God as much or more as the translators of the KJV?  There are certainly men and women today who are translating the Scriptures into new languages.  Is it holy and righteous to translate into new languages, but the same people who translate into English somehow introduce sin and error?

Conclusion

The KJV-only teaching is rife with assumptions that are just illogical.  There certainly are poor translations into English.  Translation is not an exact science all the time.  Conveying meaning of one language into another is sometimes quite difficult.  The KJV is an excellent translation, among several others.  If you lived in the 1600's, there was nothing as good as that, even if you wanted to read the Apocrypha (which was in the initial printing).  Today, the language of the KJV is no longer spoken.  The NASB and ESV are probably two of the very best of the bunch, in my opinion.  I also use the NIV.

There are quite a few other allegations from the KJV only crowd.  It could be interesting to address each of these in separate question.  I know James Melton has a booklet entitled "How I know the KJV is the Word of God", which has some statements that are absolutely ridiculous in it.


What exactly is Peter's connection to Rome according to Catholic dogma? This answer confused me. I tried wading through the sources, but then I decided I'd just ask here. According to Catholic dogma:

Was Peter ever in Rome? I'm sure the answer is yes, but I'd like to see sources.
Was Peter a "bishop"? If so, what does that mean in Peter's case?
Was there a shift during the first two centuries in the structure of the church government at Rome, from a "college of presbyters" to a monarchical bishop? If so, how did that shift come about?
Did Peter die in Rome?

To be clear on what kinds of sources I'm looking for, here's what I expect to see for each bullet point:

An appeal to the infallible sacred magisterium, or an indication that the answer hasn't been infallibly/dogmatically given to the church.
If it hasn't been dogmatically defined, then an appeal to the ordinary magisterium.
If the ordinary magisterium is unclear or inconclusive on a certain point, I'd like that fact to be spelled out in the answer. If that's the case, I'd like an overview of Catholic approaches to the issue.

Was Peter ever in Rome and did he die there?

There is no doubt that Matthew's Gospel tells us that Jesus nominated Peter as the rock on which he would build his church. So, whatever city could claim Peter as its patron would have a huge advantage over other cities in the Christian world. Tradition has credited various of the apostles with remaining a a number of important Christian cities, sometimes two or three at the same time, and leading the church there. One tradition is that Peter became the bishop of Antioch, but in the end Rome, the eternal city, became established as the apostolic city of both Peter and Paul.

Yet another tradition is found in The Apostolic Constitutions (VII.xlvi), which purports to provide evidence that Peter was in Rome and appointed Clemens as successor to Linus, who was actually appointed by Paul:

  Of the church of Rome, Linus the son of Claudia was the first [bishop], ordained by Paul; and Clemens, after Linus' death, the second, ordained by me Peter.

The Liber Pontificalis contains purported biographies of all the early popes, listing Peter in first place, but in no sense was this ever held to be an official document of the Church. It says that Peter went to Rome when Nero was emperor (54-68) and occupied the chair for 25 years, 2 months and 3 days. On this evidence, Peter was indeed bishop of Rome, although he was not executed by Nero.

Decrees of the First Vatican Council (1868), clearly defensive in nature, talks at length about the primacy of St Peter, bestowed on him by Jesus, of the pope as successor to Peter and of the "see of Saint Peter," an implied reference to Peter as the first bishop of Rome. Session 4, chapter 2 says of the Holy See, "which he founded and consecrated with his blood," so the bishops meeting in synod did not need to state that Peter had been in Rome, although they believed this to have been the case.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church gives a good overview of the Catholic position, at clause 936:

  936 The Lord made St. Peter the visible foundation of his Church. He entrusted the keys of the Church to him. The bishop of the Church of Rome, successor to St. Peter, is "head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the universal Church on earth"

From 877 to 892, the Catechism frequently refers to the bishop of Rome as Peter's successor, but once again does not directly claim that Peter was ever in Rome.

The Catholic Encyclopedia states:

  It is an indisputably established historical fact that St. Peter laboured in Rome during the last portion of his life, and there ended his earthly course by martyrdom. As to the duration of his Apostolic activity in the Roman capital, the continuity or otherwise of his residence there, the details and success of his labours, and the chronology of his arrival and death, all these questions are uncertain, and can be solved only on hypotheses more or less well-founded. The essential fact is that Peter died at Rome: this constitutes the historical foundation of the claim of the Bishops of Rome to the Apostolic Primacy of Peter.

The Encyclopedia goes on to briefly explain the existence of second-century traditions that Peter had gone to Rome. There is undoubtedly a second-century tradition that Peter went to Rome and died there, but at such a great distance from the apostolic era, this is not indisputable evidence. Moreover, there are minor contradictions between these traditions. The Encyclopedia refers to the fourth-century "Chronicle" of Eusebius as stating that Peter and Paul died in 67 CE, but also notes the "Chronograph of 354" to say that they died much earlier, in 55 CE. The general tradition is that peter, as bishop of Rome, appointed Linus as his successor, but Irenaeus, bishop of Lyon towards the end of the second century, saw things a little differently in Against Heresies, III.3.2-3, where he wrote that Peter and Paul jointly appointed Linus. Irenaeus was trying to convince his gnostic opponents in Lyon that he represented the true legacy of Jesus, so it may be unsurprising that he claimed that Peter and Paul founded the church in Rome and that the bishop of Rome was appointed by both "glorious apostles."

It appears that the best evidence that has been put forward to prove that Peter really did go to Rome is from 1 Peter 5:13, which says that Peter was writing from "Babylon."  John W. O’Malley, S.J. says, in A History of the Popes, page 8, that no one piece of evidence states in straightforward and unambiguous language either that Peter either went to Rome or that he died there and, even when relying on 1 Peter, he acknowledges this might not have been written by Peter himself, but claims it was at least written under his inspiration.

The acknowledgement that 1 Peter might not have been written by Peter himself opens a can of worms, as it introduces the scholarly view that the epistle was actually written in Peter's name long after his death. Bart D. Ehrman says, in Forged, page 68, scholars have long realised what this reference to ‘Babylon’ means.  Babylon was the city that was seen as the ultimate enemy of God among Jews, as it was Babylon that had defeated Judah and destroyed Jerusalem and its Temple in the sixth century BCE.  By the end of the first century Christians and Jews had started using the word Babylon as a code word for Rome, the city that was the enemy of God in their own day, which also destroyed Jerusalem and its Temple in the year 70.  Peter, or even a secretary, would not have called Rome "Babylon" before the Romans had destroyed Jerusalem in the year 70, so on this ground alone 1 Peter is pseudepigraphical and can not be relied on as evidence for Peter in Rome.

A site under St. Peter's Basilica  includes several graves and a structure said by Vatican authorities to have been built to memorialise the location of St. Peter's grave. If authentic, this would prove beyond doubt that Peter had gone to Rome and been buried there. Between 320 to 327, Constantine built a  basilica over the early Christian necropolis that was purported to be Peter's resting place. In 1942, the Administrator of St. Peter's, Monsignor Ludwig Kaas, found previously overlooked remains in the monument and, having little understanding of correct archeological procedures, secretly ordered the remains stored elsewhere for safe-keeping. In doing so, he destroyed any certainty that the bones actually originated in the tomb as claimed. Based on bone tests that showed the remains belonged to a man in his sixties, Pope Paul VI announced on June 26, 1968 that the relics of St. Peter had been discovered. As Pope Paul was not speaking ex cathedra, his statement is not regarded as infallible.

Was Peter ever a bishop?

As mentioned previously, we have a tradition that Peter was bishop of Antioch, a role that would haver required him to remain in the city for some years, and we also have tradition that Peter was bishop of Rome. The first tradition is antithetic to the Roman Catholic position and receives little support, at least in the West.

Francis A. Sullivan S.J. says, in From Apostles to Bishops, page 15, that  most Catholic scholars say that the church of Rome was most probably led by a college of presbyters until well into the second century, with no evidence of a ruling bishop in the first century. He does not speak for the Church as a whole, but in that statement does identify the position of prominent Catholic scholars. I have carefully read the arguments in his book and find them convincing. Father Sullivan does not contradict Church doctrine that Peter was the first bishop of Rome, but it seems inconceivable that Peter would lead the church in Rome, as its first bishop, and appoint a successor as bishop, only for the Christian community of Rome to ignore this precedent for up to a century after the death of Linus.


Why did Zechariah's neighbours make signs to him? In Luke chapter 1 verses 20-22 we read that Zechariah was stricken with muteness, and he makes signs to his fellow priests cuz he can't talk.

But then in verse 62 his neighbours make signs to him, as if he is deaf as well, but we're never told that he's deaf.

Why did the neighbours make signs to Zechariah?

Why did Zechariah's neighbours make signs to him?

It was an unusual practice at the time to name a son after his father, because a man tended to be identified as, for example, (John) son of (Zechariah), i.e., (John), Bar-(Zechariah); and Zechariah Bar-Zechariah would have been strange.

Matthew Henry claims that Zechariah was both deaf and mute (cf. 1:22, 64), so they appealed to him by means of signs. He responded by means of writing (1:63). These two infirmities are often associated with each other (cf. Mark 7:32, 37; 9:25). But here I find the point strained.

Since the naming of the child typically fell to the father, the "crowd" would naturally be gesturing to Zechariah for his validation of Elizabeth's "announcement." Thus, in Luke 1:63 he asked for a writing tablet, which consisted of a wood tablet (a pinakidion) covered with wax.

To everyone’s amazement he wrote, “His name is John.” So why the amazement? Most likely because “John” was not a name used in their family. The proponents of Zechariah's deafness obviously believe that Zechariah was not able to hear Elizabeth’s choice of this name, but, again, this is strained exegesis. Since Zechariah was mute, he could not “say” anything. His only means of confirming the name of the boy was John was to write it down for the onlookers.


What are the theological implications of "pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death"? Hail Mary, full of grace. Our Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou
  among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus. Holy Mary,
  Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death.
  Amen.

From a Catholic and/or Anglican perspective, how does this affect death and its related rites?

The point of this passage is that the petitioner is asking for Mary, Theotokos, to pray to her Son, Jesus Christ, to assist them at that time, and at their death. It is hoped that her prayer and support will assist with the life of the petitioner, and assist them with grace to meet the Lord with final perseverance and strength.

While the process of death itself can be easy, sometimes what leads up to it can be horrifying, violent, brutal, painful, or otherwise tortuous. It is the hope of believers that at this time of trial, we will not fall away from Our Lord, but remain faithful to him. It is as if we are asking Mary to help us so that if we are faced with trials or pain or even torture, we will not forsake or speak against God.

Even Pope Francis has said something to this effect: "If anything should happen to me, I have told the Lord, I ask you only to give me the grace that it doesn't hurt because I am not courageous when confronted with pain. I'm very timid."

Given the history of Christianity, and when considering the number of individuals who have been persecuted, tortured, and murdered for their faith in Christ, it makes sense that one of our key shared prayers would ask this for ourselves and all our brothers and sisters in Christ through Mary.


Has "angels walking among men" been invoked to solve theological problems? Hebrews 13:2

  Do not forget to show hospitality to strangers, for by so doing some people have shown hospitality to angels without knowing it.

This passage states that one reason to be nice to "humanoids" (my term) that you meet is that some of them may be angels in disguise, instead of ensouled human beings.

Q: Has this concept ever been invoked by prominent theologians as an answer to solve any theological problems?

Here is an example of the type of problem that could be solved by "angels among men". I just saw a pastor tweet that we have such a shallow view of God's love. I immediately thought of all the suffering from hunger and torture. Sometimes I hope that the bad guys have full culpability for their sins, but the humanoids they are abusing were instead angels walking among men, somehow able to take it or not lose their soul with a hateful response.

You may not agree with me, but your question conflates a number of issues we need to unpack and reframe.  If you bear with me I will try to explain why and perhaps in the process provide an answer to your question.

If I infer correctly from the paragraph that follows your question (in bold print), you are wondering if any Christian thinkers have ever used Hebrews 13:2 to provide at least a partial answer to the theological problem called theodicy.  My answer, simply, is no.  Let me explain.

If a theodicy is an explanation for how a holy, just, and loving God could allow sin and suffering to exist in the world He created, then we somehow, it is thought, need to come up with a way to reconcile these two seemingly and intuitively irreconcilable notions in an intellectually satisfying way.  On the one hand, God is holy, just, and loving.  This is a given in traditional Christian theology.

On the other hand, there is a great deal of sin and suffering in the world, and the scriptures do not seem to sugarcoat this fact (e.g., not just Romans 3:23, but the entire book of Job!).  How, then, can we square the one with the other, if at all?

The specific "theological problem" you cite is "suffering from hunger and torture," both of which (i.e., hunger and torture) are evident in the world today.   You need not have seen those commercials for Christian charities on television that feature African babies with bloated stomachs to know that suffering caused by hunger is very real indeed.  Furthermore, a quick perusal of a newspaper makes it eminently clear that torture is part and parcel of repressive regimes and conflicting ideologies throughout the world.  Or read Richard Wurmbrand's Tortured for Christ.  [By the way, when is the last time you prayed for the persecuted church in China, North Korea, Egypt, or Sudan?]

How, then, do we reconcile--if indeed it is possible--the one with the other?

First, no Christian thinker or theologian of whom I am aware ever used Hebrews 13:2 as a basis for an intellectually satisfying theodicy.  The writer of Hebrews 13:2 was likely thinking of Abraham and his encounter with the three men, one of whom was YHWH.  During this encounter, YHWH told Abraham that his wife Sarah, who was well beyond the age of childbearing, would give birth to a son, the son of promise (see Genesis 18).

While we cannot say for certain the two men who accompanied YHWH were angels, Abraham nevertheless entertained two strangers (and YHWH) and showed them hospitality by having their feet washed and by providing them a meal, complete with veal parmesan!

The primary interpretation of Hebrews 13:2, then, is that as Christians, we should be hospitable (literally, "lovers of strangers"), because strangers could in fact be angels sent by God.  One application of the verse is to the situation James described in James 2:1-9, in which believers show partiality in their assembly to a stranger who is evidently rich but give short shrift to a stranger who is evidently poor.  To show partiality based on appearances alone is a failure of the royal law, as James puts it, which is to love one's neighbor as oneself (vv.8,9).

Hebrews 13:2, then, is not relevant to the existence of suffering caused by hunger and torture.  While I do not even remotely suggest I have an intellectually satisfying answer to the problem of suffering, I do suggest that we can find at least a hint of a theodicy in Romans 8:28, where we read

  "And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose."

Clearly, this verse does not say all things are good.  By implication, however, it does say that all things, both good and bad, work together for good.  Paul also said in Ephesians 1:11 that God

  "works all things after the counsel of His will . . . to the praise of His glory."

While verses such as these are tremendously comforting to believers, since their application is to "those who love God," they are also, I suggest, of significance to lost and suffering humanity to whom believers are commissioned to reach out in the "sacrificial service of worship."  It is natural and even understandable to curse the darkness; it is super-natural, however, to light a candle in the darkness, if in doing so we bring relief in the name of Christ to those who are suffering.

God does not need for us His children to come to His defense.  He has broad shoulders and thick skin.  We do need, however, to do two things:  1.) we need to own up to our own contribution to the suffering in the world through our own sinful actions or inactions (see James 2:10); and 2.) we need to light a candle by going into all the world, preaching the gospel, making disciples, baptizing, and teaching all peoples even to the remotest part of the earth that God loves them and that we love them too (Ma 28:18-20; Mk 15:15,16; Acts 1:8).

There is no complete, intellectually satisfying theodicy.  Frankly, I am not completely satisfied with my "defense" of God as laid out above.  Job tried unsuccessfully to get a satisfying answer from God as to why God allowed him (whom God described as blameless and upright) to suffer (Job 1:8).  God told him simply, in the form of two rhetorical questions,

  "'Will you really [attempt to] annul My judgment?  Will you [dare to] condemn Me that you may be justified?'" (40:8).

Over and over again, I come back to Isaiah 55:8,9, which says

  "'For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways,' declares the LORD.  'For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways And My thoughts than your thoughts.'"

In conclusion, when Christians are faced with seemingly unanswerable questions, God is not annoyed with us when we attempt to wrestle with the issues and use the Scripture, discussion, and prayer to guide us in answering those questions.  At some point, however, when faced with an unsatisfying answer, we must simply bow to God in humble recognition of His flawless character, on the one hand, and our imperfect, incomplete, and often self-serving, self-justifying criticisms of Him, on the other.

Did He allow sin and suffering to enter the universe?  Yes.  Is He therefore to blame for sin and suffering?  No.  He may have allowed evil to come into existence, but each of us has perpetuated that evil by being sinners. Furthermore, each of us needs to bear his or her share of blame for the suffering in the world, especially if and when we fail to light our candles in the presence of the darkness.


At what level does the orthodox church recognize the individual rather than the collective? I understand that Christianity is a religion founded in a collective ideal, but at what level is the individual considered, specifically within the Orthodox church as compared to Protestantism, in the context of salvation and the individual responsibility to the body of Christ?

The text that follows will give some context to my question but is not strictly necessary to answer it satisfactorily.

Based on my knowledge of scripture, the individual responds to the call of God and accepts the gift of salvation along with the responsibilities to the body of believers.

I recently got into a very frustrating conversation with an orthodox Christian who kept repeating phrases to the effect, "You're poisoned by American individualism", etc. and did not illuminate so much as simply naysay the ideas I was putting forth.

In the tradition I was raised in, it is commonly understood that the scriptures are to be the sole authoritative source for knowledge about God and the practice of the faith (sola scriptura).  That is to say that tradition and wisdom from other sources can be very valuable, but must be tested against the solid foundation of the scriptures before being accepted as true or wise.

In Orthodox practice, it seems that "to accept the books of the canon is also to accept the ongoing Spirit-led authority of the church's tradition, which recognizes, interprets, worships, and corrects itself by the witness of Holy Scripture".

To me, this seems that both philosophies are fundamentally getting at the same idea. If not for the idea that the church can correct itself and its traditions 'by the witness of the Holy Scripture', I could see a wide rift, but it seems from my perspective that the American Protestant tradition I'm most familiar with doesn't reject the leading of the Holy Spirit or church tradition, but is mindful to constantly test practices against the scriptures themselves.

Of course, in practice, many professing Christians don't have much of a grasp on these foundational principles and begin accepting many odd ideas that are far outside the example that the Holy Scriptures give us.  And some faiths, like a traditional American Church of Christ, follow the examples of the scriptures so strictly that they do not allow for musical instruments to be used in the organized worship of God. (That seems patently ridiculous to me, but that's another topic)

I feel as though I'm misunderstanding or completely missing some aspect of Orthodox Christianity, and given that I've been more and more dissatisfied with the culture of many congregations in the more familiar tradition, am trying to explore different understandings of my own faith.  To be more clear about my background, my early influences were primarily from a Church of Christ background and I have been a 'member' of a few different Southern Baptist congregations over the years.  From a doctrinal standpoint, I find very little to object to, but from a practical standpoint, I have been very frustrated with the isolation of generations from one another, the gossip and politics, and what I perceive as people putting on a front and being unwilling to be trusting or vulnerable about what is actually going on in their lives, even in small group settings.

A major difference between the Eastern Orthodox churches and the Baptists (since you mention them in particular) is the view of the church. Dr B. H. Carroll, the first president of Southwest Baptist Theological Seminary, wrote a paper on "Distinctive Baptist Principles", which describes the (Christian) church as

a particular congregation and not an organized denomination. ... the Baptists hold that the New Testament church is a particular congregation and not an organized denomination. According to the New Testament: “In Christ, each several building, fitly framed together, groweth into a holy temple in the Lord.” Each congregation is a complete temple in itself, and has final jurisdiction over all its affairs.
(emphasis in original)

Baptist churches have a very individualist view of humanity as related to God as well, according to Dr Carroll:

This New Testament law of Christianity segregates the individual from his own family, from society with all its customs and requirements,... then isolates him from every external influence, strips him of every artificial distinction arising from wealth or poverty or social status, and then shuts him up in an exclusive circle alone with God.  ... May I not seek the guidance of my priest and put on him the
responsibility of interpreting this book? Nay, verily. Do thou interpret. It is God’s letter to thy soul. Thy right of private judgment is the crown jewel of thy humanity.

Finally, as far as the importance of Scripture to the church:

All the New Testament is the Law of Christianity. The New Testament is all the Law of Christianity. The New Testament will always be all the Law of Christianity.... Baptists [are] distinguished from many Protestants in rejecting the equal authority of tradition as held by the Romanists. But when Baptists say that the New Testament is the only law for Christian institutions they part company, if not theoretically at least practically, with most of the Protestant world, as well as from the Greeks [i.e. the Orthodox Church] and Romanists.

For the Orthodox Church, on the other hand, the Church is

a unique entity comprising the Revealed Truths of the Christian religion....  the whole strength of faithful and pious Christians. These people constitute the "royal priesthood" by their sanctification and dedication.
("The Fundamental Teachings of the Greek Orthodox Church", website of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America)

The Church, then, is a single body, whose members are the entire population of the faithful. Orthodoxy, like Catholicism, speaks of "the People of God" in a way that Baptists would not. And this "People" have a continuous way of life, a continuous following-out of Christ's teaching, which the Church calls "Holy Tradition". This Tradition includes the Scriptures, but it goes beyond them.

Among the elements which make up the Holy Tradition of the Church, the Bible holds the first place. Next comes the Church’s liturgical life and its prayer, then its dogmatic decisions and the acts of its approved churchly councils, the writings of the church fathers, the lives of the saints, the canon laws, and finally the iconographic tradition together with the other inspired forms of creative artistic expression such as music and architecture. All of the elements of Holy Tradition are organically linked together in real life. None of them stands alone. None may be separated or isolated from the other or from the wholeness of the life of the Church.
(The Orthodox Faith, Volume I: Doctrine and Scripture, reprinted on the website of The Orthodox Church in America; emphasis added)

This last is very important. It is not simply that a statement is "checked against the Scriptures" but that it is tested by its coherence with the whole body of Holy Tradition, including the Scriptures. Because this Tradition is properly the Church's, it doesn't belong to any individual to interpret it themselves:

Jesus Christ remains forever in His Church by the Holy Spirit to open men’s minds to understand the Bible (Jn 14.26, 16.13). Only within Christ’s Church, in the community of faith, of grace, and of truth, can men filled with the Holy Spirit understand the meaning and purpose of the Bible’s holy words.
("Fundamental Teachings")

For the Orthodox Church, then, the Scriptures are not (in your words) "the sole authoritative source for knowledge about God and the practice of the faith". Rather, they are part of (the central part, but only part of) what the Church knows. And the emphasis in the Orthodox Church is not on "the individual [who] responds to the call of God and accepts the gift of salvation along with the responsibilities to the body of believers". Instead it focuses on the individual as a member of this community of faith, grace, and truth.