How can I defend my position of being against homosexuality in front of unbelievers? I am a high school student who stands fervently against homosexuality. I have remained quiet about my belief so far, but now it has been coming up in class as a topic that should be supported, and those against homosexuality have been discussed as bigoted and wrongly biased.

I want to stand up for my position, and I'm completely willing to risk my reputation in the process, but I just don't know what to say if I'm asked why I stand against homosexuality. The only reason I have at the moment is that the Bible is against homosexuality. That is sufficient for me, but obviously non-Christians, who don't believe in the validity of the Bible, want more reasons or at least more definite reasons.

What should I say if a non-Christian asks me why I'm against homosexuality?

None of us is without sin totally.
With the transgender nonsense, we can refer to Genesis 1:27.

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because of their wickedness in Genesis 18-19.

We can argue that the Greek and Roman Empires fell because of their wickedness.

Sadly, we're seeing the same behavior rampant today.

As Christians, we need to show mercy, but not to condone what God clearly states as harmful behavior. We shouldn't "candy coat" bad behavior. But we need to show tact when pointing out flaws. We need to examine ourselves for hypocrisy and pray for our own repentance before approaching the others.

Luke 15:7 states:
7. I tell you that in the same way there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent.

1 Peter 4:7-9 reinforces this:
7. The end of all things is near. Therefore be clear minded and self-controlled so that you can pray.
8. Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins.
9. Offer hospitality to one another without grumbling.

Contrast the fruit of the Spirit with worldly behavior. Colossians 3 & Galatians 5 are good chapters for this. There are other references, too.

I applaud your stance.
Keep doing what is simply right in the eyes of God & pressing closer to God and He will reward you.

Stay in the Word by reading your Bible often. When you aren't sure about a decision you should take, consult the Bible. There are online studies you can read as long as it is a godly source.


Does the Bible explain why God chose Israel? There are many nations in the world. And surely there were many in the times of Abraham and Moses. Does the Bible tell us why God choose only to lead the Israelites and not the rest?

"Why did God choose Israel?" appears as a common question among some Christians. For example, we had entire sermons for weeks based on this one question. Enough of that now; to the answer!

God chose Israel because of His promise to Abraham.

As a reward for Abraham's faith in the Lord, God said to him in Genesis 12:2-3:

  I will make you a great nation; I will bless you and make your name great; and you shall be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and I will curse him who curses you; and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.

The Lord Himself expands on this in an address to the Israelites delivered by Moses in Deuteronomy 7:6-8:

  For you are a holy people to the LORD your God; the LORD your God has chosen you to be a people for Himself, a special treasure above all the peoples on the face of the earth. The LORD did not set His love on you nor choose you because you were more in number than any other people, for you were the least of all peoples; but because the LORD loves you, and because He would keep the oath which He swore to your fathers, the LORD has brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you from the house of bondage, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt.

God chose Israel because He had promised Abraham that his descendants would become a great nation (see Genesis 12:3, 7; 17:4, 7-8; 22:17). Abraham and his descendants were blessed because of Abraham's faith which resulted in obedience to God’s law (see Genesis 26:3-5). This same promise was repeated to Abraham's descendants (see Genesis 17:21; 26:24; 28:1-4, 13).


In what order were the books in the New Testament written? I'm just curious as to the actual timeline and known dates of the New Testament books.  I know the version fo the Bible I read had the letters from Paul ordered by their size, and not when they were written.

For clarification, I don't want to know in what order the events happened chronologically;  I want to know when each of the Gospels were written and completed, and all the epistles.  So if each book had been published individually, in what order would they have been recieved by readers?

Briefly:

Paul's letters were probably first, beginning with 1 Timothy and Galatians. Romans was a middling book, 2 Timothy was probably his last. They range from 52 ad to 62 or 68, depending on what you think about deutero-Pauline scholarship
Of the Gospels, Mark is usually considered to be first, although some have proposed Matthew. Luke is usually dated after Mark and Q, John is usually considered to be last.
The Revelation of John is usually considered to be the latest of the books, and is typically dated to the 80s or 90s.

All of the books of the NT were at one time considered to have some apostolic authorship, although Hebrews is no longer considered to be Pauline.

According the Holman Handbook of the Bible, probable dates for each of the books of the NT is as follows:

I combed through the Holman Handbook of the Bible to pull out a possible chronology. These are more or less in an order, though dates can differ based on when one assumes certain events to have occurred.  Some of Paul's letters, for example, seem to indicate he left Rome and travelled westward to Spain in a "later" career - other sources say, no, he was beheaded in 62AD. Revelation could have been penned under Nero (68) or Domition (95).  The point is, none of this is an exact science.  Still, here would be my summary for when the books of the New Testament were written.

[Author]Book    - notes on the time frame

[Jame]James     - 'early' James doesn't have much church hierarchy, could be one of the earliest

[Paul]Galatians - probably Paul's 1st epistle, 48-52

[Paul]1 Thessal - 51

[Paul]Romans    - 56 or 57AD

[Paul]1 Corinthi- 55AD

[Paul]2 Corinthi- a short time afterwards - 55 to 57 AD, at least one theory says that the later part is actually "3rd Corinthians"

[Petr]Mark     - late 50s (Note: Marcan v.s Mattean priority is a big question.  I tend to go with Mark being first)

[Paul]Ephesians - could be 57-59 or 60-62, depending on the chronology of Paul's imprisonment

[Paul]Colossians - 60 or 61, about the same time as Philemon

[Paul]Philemon   - 60 or 61

[Luke]Luke-Acts - 62AD  (near the end of Paul's ministry)

[Paul]Phillippi - 62AD (Paul is in prison)

[Paul]2 Timothy - sounds very much like a farewell letter from Paul

--- Sources differ as to whether Paul was executed in 62, 65, or 68AD ---

[Paul]2 Thessal - (disputed authorship), later in "Paul's" career

[Paul]1 Timothy - 64 to 67 AD

[Petr]1 Peter   - early 60s

[Paul]Titus    - (disputed authorship) 65 - 68 AD

[????]Hebrews  - mid to late 60s

[Petr]2 Peter   - mid to late 60s.  Shares much in common with Jude

--- The late 60s included a revolt by the Jews, a diaspora, and finally, the destruction of the Temple ---

[Matt]Matthew   - early 70s, if you assume Marcan priority. An emphasis on Jewish tradition could be a reaction to the Temple

[Jude]Jude     - difficult to date, could be from 65 AD to 80AD

[JOHN]John     - sometime between late 60s and 90 AD. John was the youngest of the disciples, and lived to be the oldest

[John]1 John    - early 90s (?)

[John]2 John    - there is very little to go on, but the early to mid 90s is not out of the question

[John]3 John    - there is very little to go on, but the early to mid 90s is not out of the question. Was being quoted by 95 AD.

[John]Revelation- 68AD(possible), 95AD(more likely)


When did the idea start that divine revelation is "finished"? When did the idea start that divine revelation to the church ceased? Or in other words, the idea that no more scripture is going to be revealed than is already in the Bible (or in tradition passed on from the time of the apostles)?

I would suppose that this has to be after the Bible was compiled, but I can also see it originating before, with it being still unclear what should be canonical scripture.

Can anyone shed light on when and how this idea started and when it became doctrine (I suppose this is before the Reformation, so this would be catholic doctrine I guess). Or did that idea first start with the Reformation?

Here is a good overview on how the canon of the Tanakh and the canon of the New Testament came to be. It is by Dr. K. Wheeler of Carson-Newman University. Dr. Wheeler's web site is found here.

The "Old Testament"

In brief, the three-fold division of the Tanakh (i.e., the Torah, the Prophets, and the Writings) were likely "canonized" at different times in Judaism's history. According to Dr. Wheeler,

  (1) The Torah (Law) appeared as a collection possibly as early as the Babylonian captivity. It was probably accepted as authoritative sometime after the Babylonian exile, perhaps during the time of Ezra (5th century BCE). For the Sadducees and the Samaritans, the canonization process stopped here. They argued that none of the later additions to the Hebrew Bible were legitimate.

  (2) The Prophets, for the Hebrew editors, existed as a collection by at least the second century BCE. The apocryphal book of Ecclesiasticus, the Wisdom of Jesus, the Son of Sirach, had a prologue attached to the work. Sirach's grandson probably did this about 132 BCE. He refers to the "the law and the prophets" and the "others" or the "other books." (See "Prologue," Sirach, RSV Apocrypha, p. 128). This is the earliest evidence we have that the first two parts of the Old Testament Canon had been linked together and anthologized and that the first half of the Canon was on its way to becoming accepted as authoritative.

  (3) The Writings . . . [at] the time of Jesus and the early church . . . [were seen by] the Jews . . . as authoritative. Luke 24:44 and Matthew 23:35 contain statements strongly indicating the authors already had some vague idea of an authoritative collection--one covering the range from Genesis to Chronicles, the entire range of Old Testament Scripture. Hence, the Old Testament or the Hebrew Bible had gained recognition as official by 90 CE, and it would receive official sanction in the Council of Jamnia . . . sometime around 95 CE, perhaps twenty years after the Romans destroyed Jerusalem during the Jewish-Roman War. [This] council of exiled Jewish rabbis met in Western Palestine. The leader of this council was Rabbi Akiba (Jaroslav Pelikan. Whose Bible Is It?: A History of the Scriptures Through the Ages. New York: Penguin Books, 2005, p.46). The council officially "closed" the canon of the Hebrew Bible, intending for no new works to be added.

The New Testament

Dr. Wheeler cites Metzger and Coogan's four stages in the completion of the New Testament canon (The Oxford Companion to the Bible. Oxford, Oxford U P, 1993. pp. 101-04), which are as follows:

  (1) During the first phase (c. 90 CE-96 CE), the young Christian church discovered that Christ had not yet returned as predicted, but the generation of the apostles and those who had directly encountered Christ was rapidly dying out. Originally, knowledge of Christ had been transmitted orally. At this point, the church fathers wrote down the early Gospels and preserved the Pauline letters as ways to give pastoral guidance to new churches.

  (2) From 96 CE until about 150 CE, the written gospels gradually replace the oral traditions. Initially, early Christians relied on oral tradition alongside (and even in preference to) the written Gospels, but as the reliability of the former declined, the four Gospels replaced them. . . . In Polycarp's letter to the Philippians (c. 135 CE), for the first time we see the argument made that the Gospel texts are more reliable than word of mouth, and more to be trusted. In 2 Clement (c. 140 CE), twice as many quotations come from the written Gospels than from any other source . . ..

  After 150 CE, the written Gospels have clearly become predominant over word-of-mouth transmission. By the time of the Apocryphal Gospel of Truth, the author clearly knows all four of the Orthodox Gospels, but only uncertain, faded remnants persist of alternative oral traditions. About this time, the Pauline correspondence begins to appear in a collected form rather than as scattered, independent letters. The fact that these texts all have Paul's name attached to them by tradition help them survive as a group when anonymous texts tend to fall by the wayside.

  (3) From 150 CE to 190 CE, the canon wars begin in earnest. The earliest attempt at a canonical collection (or at least the first writer to actually visualize the idea of a New Testament collection to match the canonicity of the old Testament) actually comes from a heretical author. The Gnostic Christian, Marcion, creates an "official" canon. This new Bible deliberately excludes the Old Testament, and the New Testament is limited to Luke and ten Pauline letters (from which Marcion removed certain Jewish traits). In reaction, the orthodox church emphasized the normative qualities of all four Gospels and all thirteen letters ascribed to Paul, but their version did not include . . . Revelation . . .. Bishop Irenaeus reflects this stance in his writings by excluding Revelation, but he broadens his idea of the Canon to include all of the other current New Testament books and he also includes the Wisdom of Hermas as an additional text. Irenaeus also reacts positively to 1 Clement and the Wisdom of Solomon, but it is not clear if he regarded them as "holy Scripture." Clearly, the idea of the canon has appeared, but the church cannot yet agree as to what parts should go into this canon. What is holy Scripture? What is not? A broad base of consensus exists for a core collection (Luke, certain Pauline epistles), but the peripheral works remain contested.

  (4) The period from about 190-400 CE is the time Andrie Du Tott calls "The Closing of the Canon." During these centuries, many heretical groups had prophets who declared they had received new revelations from God. The Montanists, in particular, called for a clear limitation of the canon since their sect stressed apocalyptic and prophetic movements. Origin and Eusebius in the Eastern church and an anonymous author of the Canon of Muratori together argued that the scriptures should be classed into the three groups: 1) the texts nearly all Christians accept; 2) the uncertain texts about which Christians are mostly undecided; and 3) works that should definitely be excluded because only small, isolated groups of often heretical Christians hold them to be scripture.

  It is during this time that readers appear to start thinking of the "Bible" as a single work. Note that the title Biblia in Greek is originally neuter plural, meaning "little books." That very title harkens back to the older time period when Christians thought of their text as the Scriptures (plural--multiple independent entities) rather than the Scripture (singular--one unified entity).


By what process did the miraculous conception of Jesus occur? Is there an official position in Roman Catholic doctrine about the following: when Jesus was conceived, was it from an egg cell of Mary fertilised in a supernatural way, or did Jesus's embryo directly appear in Mary's womb?

The official Catholic doctrine on the matter is in accord with a commonly held belief among nearly all Christians that Jesus was conceived within a virgin, and that the process by which this occurred was a mystery and a miracle. The heresies of the Psilanthropists and Adoptionists are notable early exceptions, and modern criticisms of the doctrine come nearly exclusively from non-Christian sources.

ReligiousTolerance.org says it nicely,

  The Anglican Communion, Eastern Orthodoxy, Protestant faith groups and Roman Catholicism have taught the "virgin birth," although the term "virgin conception" would be much more accurate. This has long been one of the Christianity's foundational beliefs, along with the inerrancy of the Bible; the God's inspiration of the authors of the Bible; the atonement, resurrection, and the anticipated second coming of Jesus, etc. All of the commonly used major ancient church creeds have also mentioned the virgin birth.

Specifically, the official doctrine of the Catholic Church is summarized in paragraph 497 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church,

  The Gospel accounts understand the virginal conception of Jesus as a divine work that surpasses all human understanding and possibility: "That which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit", said the angel to Joseph about Mary his fiancee. The Church sees here the fulfillment of the divine promise given through the prophet Isaiah: "Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son."

The Catechism also gives the following in the third statement of the Apostle's Creed, in reference to Christ,

  He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary.

Since the understanding of biological organisms and human reproduction did not include cellular phenomenon until the microscope was invented (the spermatozoid was first discovered in 1677 by Anton van Leeuwenhoek and the ovum in 1827 by embryologist Kart Ernst Von Baer) it is not possible for such a detailed  scientific description of the event to have been posited until long after the canonical doctrines were established.

Even so, possible mechanisms of the virgin birth have been discussed in a paper published in Science & Christian Belief  by R. J. Berry. The abstract from that paper states,

  The Bible describes Jesus as being born to Mary ‘by the power of the Holy
  Spirit’, implying (although not stating) that the Spirit was his father. This has been rejected by some as an unnecessary doctrine, separating Jesus from
  the rest of humankind and dependent on an intrinsically incredible miracle.
  Such an objection is wrong: some form of distinctiveness like a Virgin Birth
  is theologically required if Jesus is to be divine as well as human, and there
  are several mechanisms by which the virgin birth of a male child could
  occur. The reason for recognising these is not to suggest that God
  necessarily used any of them, but simply to point out that apparent
  scientific difficulty should not determine the acceptability of a theological
  concept.

The paper not only discusses hypothetical mechanisms of spontaneous development of male children in human females, but also gives a nice overview of the development of the doctrine in the church and a history of its opposition, mostly from outside of the Christian Church. I expect that reading that article will complement this answer to address your question more completely.


Did Jesus undergo another temptation in the the garden? The only temptation I know of in the bible concerning Jesus was when in the wilderness with the devil. A friend used Mel Gibson's Passion of the Christ as his basis to claim Jesus was tempted by the devil (with the appearance of a snake) while praying.

I kind of thought, personally that it made sense to why he needed the disciples to help him in prayer. He had to go back for the third time to pray with sorrow and heaviness untill an angel came to strengthen him.

  "And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him.
  And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as
  it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground." (Luke
  22:43-44).

Is it a mere spiritual reason to this claim that he was strengthened by an angel from heaven as if in a struggle or there are actual biblical references that support a spiritual encounter with the devil? If there was an encounter, how and why?

The Bible does not definitively state whether or not Jesus was tempted in the garden or not, so for us to be definitive where the Bible is not must be speculative at best.

What we do know is that Jesus was tempted during His life in all ways, just as we are, yet was without sin.

  For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our
  weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are,
  yet without sin.  (Hebrews 4:15 ESV)

This doesn't mean that Jesus experienced every temptation anyone has ever experienced, but that He was tempted in the same ways that we are.

It should also be noted that Satan is not the only source of temptation.  There are, of course, other demons, but temptation also comes from our own sinful flesh, apart from demonic influence.  Now, in this case, if there were any demonic temptation, Satan himself would probably have thought it worth his time.  Yet, we just don't and can't know for sure.

So, Jesus experienced distress, as the Scripture tells us, but we don't know for sure whether or not He experienced temptation at this particular moment, although it's quite possible and perhaps even as much as probable.


What does the Bible tell us about how people knew right from wrong before the Law of Moses? Before "Thou shalt not kill/steal/lie" was given through the Mosaic law, how did people know what was right from wrong? How did they know what sin was?

Clearly there are examples of people having some moral standard pre-law, like when Abimelech knew it would have been wrong to sleep with a man's wife, or Joseph saying that his brother's evil deed of selling him into slavery was turned into good by God.

Firstly, understand that men and women are made in the image of God, who by His nature defines 'goodness'.  There was always a 'law' before it was written on tablets of stone and given to Moses: God sets the standard of righteousness by what remains in accord to His nature and unrighteousness by what constitutes rebellion against His nature. To the extent that our first parents were cognizant of God's nature and their own, they would have had some initial knowledge of good.  From what follows, it appears they would have been entirely ignorant of evil and the only sense of anything that could be wrong was when:

  16 ...the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, 17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.” - Genesis 2:16-17 ESV (emphasis added)

So initially, the only 'knowledge' (non-experential so not full 'knowing') they had of wrong/evil was what God told them. Subsequently, they were able to discern what was right and particularly what was wrong themselves after bitter experience:

  4 ...the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. 5 For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” 6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate. 7 Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked. And they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loincloths. - Genesis 3:4-7 ESV (emphasis added)

The serpent lied completely regarding the first part ("You will not surely die") but the second part was at least a half-truth ("You will be like God, knowing good and evil") - scripture affirms that their eyes were opened as per the name of the forbidden fruit - "the knowledge of good and evil".

With the multiplication of sin and corruption in the human race, we have become darkened in our understanding, so the faculty gained from Adam's rebellion has been imperfectly transmitted to subsequent generations, but it has still been passed on to some degree as per:

  14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them - Romans 2:14-15 ESV

A Gentile who does not have the (Mosaic) law is perfectly analagous to a patriarch (or matriarch) before the (Mosaic) law was given. The knowledge of right/good has been passed down to a degree (though quite imperfectly) as we are still image-bearers of God (though corrupted), the experential knowledge of wrong/evil has been passed down generationally only too adequately as mankind are inheritors of the original sin in their very nature as children of Adam and expert practitioners in what is wrong, however this latter knowledge is not of itself any use as a moral compass unless we sufficiently retain the knowledge of good that gradually passes from the earth with each generation that abounds in wickedness.

The (Mosaic) law was given to shine the light of God's righteousness in the hearts of those whose understanding had been darkened by generations of sinful rebellion and restore to a degree the knowledge of good - it was a stop-gap measure to restrain wickedness and school a people in their need for a new nature and a Saviour to purchase it for them, before a true (experiential) knowledge of good could be recovered through faith in Christ.

Disclaimer: I believe this perspective represents an orthodox Christian (those who would agree with the content of the early creeds - Apostle's, Nicene etc.) view, if you disagree, I would greatly appreciate your criticism as to where it may differ.


Can a non-christian be trusted to translate the Bible? I've seen a number of comments and answers (here and elsewhere) regarding the [un]reliability of a specific translation. Occasionally, the angle of attack on a given translation is (kind of) ad hominem toward the translator(s).

Is it possible for a non-Christian to produce a "good" translation of the Bible?

The definition of a "good translation" is perhaps up for debate, but the upshot of the question is, should a Christian avoid studying (perhaps only primarily) a translation that is not made by a (group of) believer(s)?

I read Non-Christian/secular translation of the Bible?, but this question was not really addressed. I have my own thoughts on the matter, but I'm sure that I haven't considered all angles of the question.

Yes. Anyone who has the technical skill can translate material.  Translation is a skill that has to do with understanding the technique and fluency in the languages/cultures, and it's certainly possible for non-Christians to have the requisite skills, just as it's possible for a Christian not to have it.  That should be fairly obvious, so I assume by "trust" you are wondering about them getting away with altering the texts or getting them wrong.

If that's the case, let's step back a moment so I can ask how you'd go about verifying if a Christian got it right.  You wouldn't know for sure if anyone, Christian or not, got it right, unless the work had undergone some form of peer review]1, where other translators verify the work.  This is standard and common in translation, history, and any discipline where someone can make a mistake.

The risk of a Christian and non-Christian making errors in understanding the meaning is the same, so in one sense, the answer is "no", but not because they're not Christian, but because they are human, and therefore not perfect.

We can grant a non-Christan the same amount of trust that we'd grant a Christian simply because peer review for catching errors is an implicit part of establishing whether the work was done right, regardless of who did the work.

It's the same principle as the one behind manuscript evidence.  The more examples to compare, and agreement we have, the higher confidence we can have that we have it right.

There would be so many versions to compare it to that obvious changes that affect doctrinal issues would be discovered and lambasted immediately after it was published.  Not to mention the hundreds of experts that could refute and dispute errors, intentional or otherwise.


Unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees My question is based on Matthew 5: 17-20

This question addresses the first part of the passage. The second part is the phrase

  Unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and
  Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven. -- verse 20 - emphasis mine.

What does Jesus mean by "unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees"? Any help to make me understand this important passage will be much appreciated.

The Scribes and the Pharisees were the religious leaders. They were role models for the people to follow. They were blameless in their religious observances. The people looked at them for guidance. The people must have believed that the Scribes and the Pharisees were the first to enter the kingdom of Heaven. However, Jesus was teaching them that God's standard is higher than what man can accomplish. From  Matthew 5:21 onward, we clearly see the standard of God for anyone to be counted as perfect. For instance, while the Pharisees never slept with another woman, Jesus was telling them that even a lustful gaze is already an adultery.

We cannot enter heaven with our works and observance to the law, for we can never meet the standard required by God. We need God to save us. Therefore, God gave us His one and only Son, Jesus Christ, a perfect person to take our place and help us reach the standard demanded by God. For Jesus said "No one comes to the Father except through me" (John 14:6).

This is clearly explained by Paul in his Epistle to the Romans.

  Romans 3 (NIV)

  [10] As it is written: “There is no one righteous, not even one;

  [20-31] Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight
  by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious
  of our sin. But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has
  been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This
  righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, for all
  have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and all are
  justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by
  Christ Jesus. God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement,
  through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this
  to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had
  left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— he did it to
  demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, so as to be just
  and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus. Where, then,
  is boasting? It is excluded. Because of what law? The law that
  requires works? No, because of the law that requires faith. For we
  maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of
  the law. Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of
  Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, since there is only one God, who
  will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through
  that same faith. Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at
  all! Rather, we uphold the law.


Saviour of all people, ESPECIALLY of those who believe 1 Timothy 4:10 reads:

  That is why we labor and strive, because we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all people, and especially of those who believe. [NIV]

Is there any historical use of this text by known early adherents to Universalism?

(See also this parallel question about the origins of this verse.)

At least three early adherents of apocatastasis refer to this passage.  But not all their references to it are necessarily defenses of that particular doctrine.  For example, Origen uses it to argue for the general love of God for his creation:

  We both read and know that God loves all existing things, and loathes nothing which He has made, for He would not have created anything in hatred. [...] For He Himself is said to be the Saviour of all men, especially of them that believe; and His Christ to be the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. (Against Celsus, 4.28)

Clement of Alexandria's Stromata is often cited to demonstrate his belief in universalism, and he quotes this verse in it:

  And to speak comprehensively, all benefit appertaining to life, in its highest reason, proceeding from the Sovereign God, the Father who is over all, is consummated by the Son, who also on this account “is the Saviour of all men,” says the apostle, “but especially of those who believe.” (6.17)

He also quotes it in Exhortation to the Heathen, which may be the earliest reference to the verse by a universalist (c. 195):

  You may, if you choose, purchase salvation, though of inestimable value, with your own resources, love and living faith, which will be reckoned a suitable price. This recompense God cheerfully accepts; “for we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, especially of those who believe.” (Chapter 9)

And finally, Gregory of Nyssa cites the verse in his argument for the trinity, "On 'Not Three Gods'":

  And as the Saviour of all men, specially of them that believe, is spoken of by the Apostle as one, and no one from this phrase argues either that the Son does not save them who believe, or that salvation is given to those who receive it without the intervention of the Spirit; but God who is over all, is the Saviour of all, while the Son works salvation by means of the grace of the Spirit, and yet they are not on this account called in Scripture three Saviours

There's some debate over whether these three all believe in "universalism" as it is defined today.  But these three authors are certainly among the most likely candidates for that label in the early church.


In contrast to Judaism and Islam, what is the importance of Abraham's sacrifice of his son in Christianity? My question is in reference to the verses of Old Testament: Genesis 22:2-8

How Abraham's sacrifice is being interpreted in Christianity in general. And as Muslims and Jews interpret and commemorate in full letter and spirit so what really makes Christian a "Christian" by interpreting it in a different way?
I am asking this question as Christianity in its beginning emerged as a separate sect (disciples and followers of Jesus) of Judaism, so what makes them to interpret that biblical and historical event in a different manner(if he and his followers ever did) than the Jews and Rabbis of his days...after all Jesus said that: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them." (Matthew 5:17)

And the relationship of a common and modern Christian is defined with Abraham's God, the same God that Jesus talked about and whose teachings were preached throughout his life.

There are basically two contrasting faiths in regards to Abraham sacrificing his son.  The two views are between the Christian faith and then the similar Jewish and Muslim faiths.  The second contrast is over which son was being sacrificed.  We will look at the second contrast first.

Some of the Muslim faithful believe Abraham was sacrificing Ishmael, while others believe it was Isaac, as in the Christian and Jewish faiths.  The source of the two different beliefs is that Ishmael was the first born, the righteous son.  But for Christians, the first born of the promise was Isaac.  So, it was Isaac being sacrificed.  In turn, this motif plays out in Christianity in a number of ways.  For example, the role of the promise and faith therein for one’s salvation is indicated.

The primary contrast in all of this, however, is the view of the sacrifice itself.  For Jewish and Muslim faiths, it appears they believe the sacrifice would not happen in the end.  For Christians, the sacrifice would happen.

To rephrase the contrast, was Abraham actually sacrificing his son (leaving alone the question of which one)?  For the Jewish and Muslim faiths, the answer is a qualified yes.  Yes, it was happening, but Abraham would not go through with it.  G-d would intervene.  It was only a very serious test.

The swoon theory that views Christ's sacrifice on the cross is one result of that belief structure.  This theory is that the sacrifice of Christ, like with Abraham's son, only appeared to happen, but Jesus was revived in the cave, never died on the cross, and never resurrected out from the dead on the third day.  They may believe he was a good man or a prophet of G-d, but not Messiah.

For the Christian faith, the answer is absolutely yes.  The son was as good as dead as they traveled up the mountain to the altar.  The son is on the altar, Abraham’s arm raised, and but for G-d, it was over.

  By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son, Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called: Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure.
  Heb 11:17-19

So for Christians, the sacrifice of the promised seed in Isaac was a real sacrifice.  To be sure, it did not happen with Isaac, but it was a clear foreshadowing of the reality in Messiah to come who would die and be resurrected out from the dead.  Even if G-d had not stayed Abraham’s hand, G-d would have raised Isaac back from the dead.  That sequence of course then took place in Jesus Christ who was sacrificed as the promised righteous seed.  G-d raised Him from the dead to everlasting life, as He will for all those who believe.


Where does the belief that the Earth is relatively young (6000 years) come from? Some christians believe the Earth is only 6000 to 12,000 years old. Where does this age originate from?

No, this is not a universal belief. Some do not take the days in Genesis as literal, and some treat Paradise (as described in Genesis) as being a spiritual world rather than being the same 'world' which we measure with carbon dating and other physical measures.

The 6000 years is roughly discerned using clues from stories in the Bible, but there are other measures placing its age closer to 7500 years.

What is generally used is the following:

Length of 'day' in Genesis 1
Length of time figures in Genesis lived
Ages are added by using 'and in so-and-so's xth year, so-and-so was born' (and variations thereof)
History / chronicle books have king-dynasty lengths.

It's a lot of work to do, really.

Variations in measures can be explained by differing interpretations of 'day' in Genesis, whether 'in the xth year of y' means that x years preceeded it or x-1 years, and estimates of times not explicitly mentioned.


Are Filipino Roman Catholics required to not have meat on all Fridays of Lent? Please provide a link to an official document on the rules of Lent for Filipino Roman Catholics (or non-Filipino Roman Catholics who are in the Philippines for Lent or something) specifically and where the rules aren't mentioned only in passing or in an FAQ.

Last night, my parent told me that my parent heard the only days of abstinence are ash wednesday and good friday, even though I've been practicing every friday of lent (plus ash wed and good fri) for over a decade. I have spent over an hour on this but could not find such reference.

What I've gathered so far:

According to this website, the US Roman Catholic law of not having meat on all Fridays of Lent is not necessarily applicable to Roman Catholics who aren't American (or who aren't in the US). It says

  If you are outside the United States, check with the bishops' conference for your country for specific fasting rules.

And this is really under the Roman Catholic section and not the Eastern Catholic section.
I notice phjesuits.org mentions in number 5 but not in number 2. What's up with that? Additionally

2.1. It's only an FAQ, so, ostensibly, this isn't quite a primary source.
2.2. It doesn't seem to specify Filipino Roman Catholics. Is the article implying this is applicable to all Roman Catholics (eg even in Ireland on St. Patrick's Day and in Hong Kong on Chinese New Year, whenever either of those two holidays fall on a day of abstinence - Ah well, maybe that's what 'solemnity' covers, in which case 'solemnity' is local)?

I was able to find A SINGLE BUT ONLY A SINGLE official reference from the CBCP saying that this applies to Filipino Roman Catholics but mentions only in passing as part of an article about love and stuff.

3.1. Note that there's no mention of 'solemnity' here.

Happy Lent!

According to the website Filipino Catholic, in 1985 Pope St John Paul II approved a set of complementary norms for the Catholic Bishops' Conference of the Philippines. These included a variance to canon 1253 of the new Code of Canon Law relating to the Lenten fast and abstinence. According to the website, the norms were published in the CBCP Monitor, Volume 6, number VI, on pages 32-43. I have not yet been able to verify this.
According to the site, fasting is obligatory in all dioceses of the Philippines on Ash Wednesday and on Good Friday. Abstinence from meat is obligatory on those days as well, but some other form of penitential observance can be substituted for abstinence on the remaining Fridays in Lent:

Can. 1253: Other Forms of Penance as Substitute for Abstinence
Except on Good Friday and Ash Wednesday, abstinence may be substituted with exercise [sic] of piety, such as reading the Bible, going to Mass, visiting the Blessed Sacrament, praying the Holy Rosary, or with acts of charity, such as visiting the sick and prisoners, giving alms to the poor, teaching catechism.


What is the Authoritative Catholic explanation of why the Magi get a pass, yet Catholics are to reject astrology? What is the authoritative Catholic explanation of why the Magi get a pass, yet Catholics are required to reject astrology?

Catechism of the Catholic Church | Divination and magic, 2116 has:

  All forms of divination are to be rejected: recourse to Satan or demons, conjuring up the dead or other practices falsely supposed to "unveil" the future [Cf. Deut 18:10; Jer 29:8]. Consulting horoscopes, astrology, palm reading, interpretation of omens and lots, the phenomena of clairvoyance, and recourse to mediums all conceal a desire for power over time, history, and, in the last analysis, other human beings, as well as a wish to conciliate hidden powers. They contradict the honor, respect, and loving fear that we owe to God alone.

The Magi utilizing their Magian astrology, were led Christ.

It appears that the stars have a knowledge, a science.

What made the Magian astrology acceptable, and would that type of Astrology be permissible to Catholics?

Please see this answer also: What types of signs are given by the “lights in the expanse of the heavens”?

The Magi used their Magian astrology to recognize what was happening now. But astrologers use astrology to find out what is going to happen in the future. Note that Magi's saw Jesus in a house (Mat 2:11) not in the birth place of Christ.

//It appears that the stars have a knowledge.//

Stars do not have knowledge on their own. But God uses nature to instruct gentiles to recognize the birth of the Messiah.

//Why would the Catholic Church require Catholics to reject astrology//

The answer to this is in CCC 2115:

  God can reveal the future to his prophets or to other saints. Still, a sound Christian attitude consists in putting oneself confidently into the hands of Providence for whatever concerns the future, and giving up all unhealthy curiosity about it.

That is, future is in God's Hand and humans have no business in there.


Why was Jesus condemned for blasphemy by the Jews? Jesus confirmed that He was the Messiah. But this can't be a blasphemy as the Jews were waiting for him.
Jesus confirmed that He was the Son of God. But a lot of people in the old Testament were called Son of God.
Jesus confirmed that He was sitting right next to the Power. Was this the main reason that He committed blasphemy?

The charge of blasphemy in the Gospels, both during Jesus' ministry and in his trial, does not refer to the specific and technical definition of blasphemy, which according to the Mishna, tractate Sanhedrin, Chapter VII, Mishna VI, requires the blasphemer to have mentioned the Name, i.e. the Tetragrammaton, which Jesus never did.  Rather, the charge of blasphemy refers to Jesus' claim of divinity.  Below I present the Gospel passages that show this to be the case both during Jesus' ministry and in his trial.

a. Charges of blasphemy during Jesus' ministry

The meaning of the charge of blasphemy is clear in the very first encounter of Jesus and the scribes recorded in all synoptic Gospels, when Jesus forgives the sins of a paralytic in Capernaum and then heals him:

  And when Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, "Son, your
  sins are forgiven." Now some of the scribes were sitting there,
  questioning in their hearts, "Why does this man speak like that? He is
  blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?" (Mk 2:5-7; also Mt
  9:2-3 and Lk 5:20-21).

In John, the substance of the charge against Jesus is clear in all three occasions when "the Jews", not the Sanhedrin, decided, or actually tried, to kill Him during his ministry. Of these three occasions, only in the third is that charge given a name, which is precisely blasphemy:

  This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because
  not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his
  own Father, making himself equal with God. (Jn 5:18)

  Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I
  am." So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself
  and went out of the temple. (Jn 8:58-59)

  (Jesus said) "I and the Father are one." The Jews picked up stones
  again to stone him. Jesus answered them, "I have shown you many good
  works from the Father; for which of them are you going to stone me?"
  The Jews answered him, "It is not for a good work that we are going to
  stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself
  God." (Jn 10:30-33)

b. Charge of blasphemy in Jesus' trial

I will quote the text in Mark as it is more likely to have greater literal fidelity to the words spoken, as Simon Peter was a direct witness of the trial and Mark composed his Gospel from what he heard from Peter, most probably in Jerusalem in the 40's:

  But he remained silent and made no answer. Again the high priest asked
  him, "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?" And Jesus said, "I
  am, and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power,
  and coming with the clouds of heaven."  And the high priest tore his
  garments and said, "What further witnesses do we need? You have heard
  his blasphemy. What is your decision?" And they all condemned him as
  deserving death. (Mk 14:61-64)

I hypothesize that, while Caiaphas asked his question in Aramaic, Jesus answered in Hebrew, both the "I am" and the following scriptural quote, so that his "I am" was clearly understood by those knowledgeable in the Torah as the "Ehyeh" of Ex 3:14, the Name of God in first person, i.e. when used by God Himself. This would have been an explicit claim of divinity in addition to the one implied in the following combined quote of Psalm 110:1 and Dan 7:13.


What is the Calvinist perspective on regeneration? When do Calvinists consider an elect person to be regenerate?

If it is at birth, then is it odd that someone who is "regenerate" is living in sin, up until the point of faith in Christ?

And if it is at a later time, such as at faith in Christ, then how is that faith in Christ prompted in an unregenerate person?

I may not fully understand the definition of "regenerate" (and particularly its distinction from "salvation"), so answerers would be kind to also explain that definition from a Calvinist perspective.

Note: This question arose out of comments made in this answer.

It largely depends on which Calvinist you ask :)

The author of one of the more famous Systematic Theology works (can't remember if it was Shedd, Berkhof, or Hodge... I remember reading it in a defense of Classical Arminianism by Picirilli) said that predestination is not unto faith. This indicates that predestination is unto regeneration.

So what is required is a definition of Calvinistic regeneration. Here is Berkhof's take on regeneration (too long to post, please read. Also read the discussion. It's highly interesting.). Essentially, regeneration is a change in a man's condition, from being spiritually dead to being spiritually alive. Once a man is spiritually alive, he has the ability to see his rebellious condition. Because of this, he has an irresistible urge to be saved and have faith in Christ, and he does. Regeneration and salvation are not something that are considered to happen in a chronological order whereby one happens then the other. That regeneration precedes faith and therefore salvation is only a logical ordering. In actuality, the chronological ordering is simultaneous. An important note, though. In Romans, we see that faith comes by hearing, and hearing by preaching. We also see in Ephesians that faith is a gift of God. So, simply put, the faith is given to the believer by God, and the believer comes upon this faith by hearing the Gospel.

There is a second question, how sin affects a regenerate's life. The first point is that regeneration occurs at a point in time. An elect man is born into original sin and rebellion toward God, and regenerated at a later point. He does not necessarily emerge from the womb in a regenerate state.

However, even if this was the case, a regenerated man will still sin! This does not mean that this is accepted by God, but rather that through the man's faith in Christ, he has access to the forgiveness brought through Christ.

Edit:
It has been asked, "Is faith a gift of God? Does the verse from Ephesians necessitate this interpretation?"

First, whether or not an individual believes faith to be a gift from God is not the question at hand. We're talking about a Reformed interpretation of the doctrine, so for point of this answer, faith is a gift from God.

More importantly though, is it good to consider faith as a gift from God?

A cursory glance at the verse in Ephesians says no.

  For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.
  (Ephesians 2:8-9 ESV)

I'm not a Bible languages scholar, but the commentaries I've read all say that "It's" antecedent is "grace," not "faith" because the gender of the words in question. So, we can make the argument from language that "it" refers to "grace," not "faith." However, we have not established that faith is not a gift in this verse, only that the antecedent of the gift is "grace." If we're going to use this information to determine that faith is not a gift, we're going to need to say that grace is a gift from God, but the channel through which grace is applied is not a gift from God and is instead resident within the believer. This is shaky ground for Arminians and Calvinists alike (and Lutherans, etc.).

The Calvinist position is that the mechanism whereby God applies His grace is also a gift, or at least the ability to act on that mechanism. If the believer had present within himself the channel through which Grace is applied, in addition to the ability to employ the channel, and chose to employ this channel when another did not, this would give the believer a right to boast over the non-believer that "I was wise enough to act upon something within me, whereas you were not." The Reformed interpretation of this verse completely blows this argument out of the water: none of salvation is by works, it is all of grace. A common answer to this is that "faith is not a work," but if it is something that the believer does and something an unbeliever does not, then why should we not consider one's faith a work? Without considering faith as a gift of God, we are relegated to consider faith a work and are no better off than demons

In other places too, we see faith as being something God can administer. In Romans, we see that God assigns a measure of faith.

  For by the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment, each according to the measure of faith that God has assigned.
  (Romans 12:3 ESV)

In Mark, we see that Christ does not rebuke the man who begs his Lord to "help with his unbelief," and rather the Lord blesses the man through the healing in the passage.

  And Jesus said to him, “‘If you can’! All things are possible for one who believes.” Immediately the father of the child cried out and said, “I believe; help my unbelief!” And when Jesus saw that a crowd came running together, he rebuked the unclean spirit, saying to it, “You mute and deaf spirit, I command you, come out of him and never enter him again.” And after crying out and convulsing him terribly, it came out, and the boy was like a corpse, so that most of them said, “He is dead.” But Jesus took him by the hand and lifted him up, and he arose. And when he had entered the house, his disciples asked him privately, “Why could we not cast it out?” And he said to them, “This kind cannot be driven out by anything but prayer.”

(Mark 9:23-29 ESV)


What is the "paradise" that Jesus references in Luke 23:43? Luke 23:43 - Jesus answered him, "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise."

At first glance, I casually assumed "paradise" was referring to heaven, but if Jesus was dead for 3 days after His crucifixion and didn't ascend to heaven until much later, what is He referring to here?

A prerequisite question may be: where was Jesus during the 3 days after crucifixion?

While this isn't a universal view, many traditions believe that Paradise is distinct from Heaven. Our Church (a Baptist Church) teaches that "Paradise" is a temporary holding place for those who have died and are awaiting Christ's return.

Some other references that point to Paradise being a temporary place, distinct from the final Heaven promised to those who have been saved:

http://www.bible-uk.com/paradise.htm

  So what IS Paradise?

  The concept of a place of limbo, somewhere between heaven and earth,
  some kind of celestial waiting room is not one that will be found in
  the pages of scripture. What about a park or garden? Now we are on a
  firm biblical path! We know of a garden from the early pages of
  Genesis, called the Garden of Eden. We know, because Adam and Eve were
  thrust out of it (Genesis 3:24) and were unable to get back in again,
  which fits well with original Persian concept of Paradise being an
  enclosed garden. Equating Paradise with Eden is not something new or
  unusual. It is the rationale behind Milton's book, "Paradise Lost",
  for instance.

Also:

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2003/november/24.79.html

http://www.wor.org/Books/p/Paraking.htm

There are many more, so I'll stop here. I'd also like to post a disclaimer that I don't agree with all of the things said in the last article linked to. It was included just to show that diverse traditions hold the view, and that it's not a "fringe" view.


What is the historical reason the King James Version was created? Many years ago, I heard someone say that the KJV came about because King James I wanted a version of the Bible that supported him getting a divorce. Nowadays, I can't help but wonder how true this is. Thus, I'm asking for the historical reasons the KJV came about.

Since one of the reasons for the English Reformation by King Henry VIII which lead to the creation of the Church of England was divorce, I doubt King James I would have needed a new translation.

From Wikipedia, it sounds like the main reasons for the commissioning of the KJV 70 years after the reformation were around translation errors believed to be in the existing English translations.

  The newly crowned King James convened the Hampton Court Conference in
  1604. That gathering proposed a new English version in response to the
  perceived problems of earlier translations as detected by the Puritan
  faction of the Church of England.

It sounds to me like what you had heard may have just been history getting crossed.


Has the Roman Catholic Church ever officially condemned the Croatian Ustashi? I understand the Ustashi (or Ustaše) to have been a fascist organization that dominated Croatia during World War II.  This Wikipedia article reputes that Ustashi persecution of non-Croatians was so severe that the Nazi occupiers actually had to intervene to protect some persons.

One Eastern Orthodox Synaxarion commemorates several Serbian Eastern Orthodox clergy whom it claims were tortured and killed by the Ustasi:

Bishop Platon of Banjaluka was shod with horse shoes and forced to walk several miles before having a fire lit on his chest by Ustashi members
Bishop Sava of Krushedol was tortured and killed in an Ustashi concentration camp
Abbot Raphael Momchilovich was tortured and killed in an Ustashi concentration camp
Priest Branko Dobrosavljevich was killed with a hammer blow to the head, after witnessing the killing of his son at an Ustashi concentration camp
Priest George Bogich was strangled with his own intestines by Ustashi torturers
Priest Dane Babich was flayed and left to die by Ustashi torturers

This article from Veterans Today provides some of the gruesome details of the above and other atrocities committed by the Ustashi.  The article claims – with quotes from multiple sources – that many of the atrocities instigated by the Ustashi were prompted by Roman Catholic clergy members:

  Fra Marko Zovko consistently instigates the peasants to murder and rob
  the property of Serbs, patronizing them:“If only one Serb stays alive
  after the war, you will be paying the high price. That is why all
  Serbs must be exterminated“. Ante Pavelic, the Croatian fuhrer,
  decorated fra Zovko with the Order of Merit of the second degree.

  Catholic atrocities began with the destruction of Orthodox Churches as
  well as executions of Orthodox priests. Priest Samardzich  was killed
  in Kulen Vakuf. Ustashe kiled his wife and children before his own
  eyes, before killing him. Martyr’s death was destined for priest
  Milosh Vuich with many other Serbs from Slunj area. His wife was
  ripped apart, her unborn baby was taken out of her womb, another
  two-year old child was muredred as well.

Atrocities by rogue members of clergy from both east and west is nothing new, of course, but the aforementioned Wikipedia claims that the Ustashi was actually supported by the Vatican during and after World War II. In 1998, Pope John Paul II beatified Cardinal Alojzije Stepinac, Archbishop of Zagreb, who, according to some sources complied in the forcible conversion of Orthodox Serbs to Roman Catholicism.

There seems to be a lot of material on the web and in print that connects the Roman Catholic Church with the Ustashi, but frankly some of this seems quite incredible.

Has there ever been any official communication from the Vatican condemning or denying the atrocities carried out by the Ustashi that some have connected to Roman Catholic clergy?

All official statements of the Vatican from 1909 to the present are recorded in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis (AAS). Performing the following Google search on the PDFs of the AAS volumes:

Ustaše OR Ustashe OR Ustashas OR Ustashi OR Ustaša inurl:http://www.vatican.va/archive/aas/documents/

reveals that the AAS volumes have not mentioned the Ustaše.

See also my previous answer.


Do proponents of Federal Vision believe that there is no hope of salvation without baptism? According to my reading of this article written by an opponent of Federal Vision, physical water baptism is required for salvation according to those who advocate the framework:

  Some would insist in all this that they do not deny the doctrine of justification by faith alone, but say that faith and salvation are both conferred through the sacrament of baptism. What this does, of course, is to make everyone in the church a believer, whether or not he really is a believer, and it also gets rid of the need for conversion since everybody is a Christian from the moment the water of baptism is sprinkled upon him.

(my emphasis)

Is this an accurate characterization of this theology or is it a caricature?

"That depends." Most FVers define salvation as "the state of being joined to Christ through membership in the Church." If baptism is the event that initiates this, then baptism is the means of salvation defined in this way.
From the Federal Vision Joint Statement:

We affirm that membership in the one true Christian Church is visible and objective, and is the possession of everyone who has been baptized in the Triune name and who has not been excommunicated by a lawful disciplinary action of the Church.
We deny that baptism automatically guarantees that the baptized will share in the eschatological Church.

So no, I don't think this is an accurate characterization, at least based on official FV statements that I've heard. Lots of disagreement seems to come up because both sides work from different sets of terms.
Also, there can be many abnormal circumstances, such as the thief on the cross, where baptism is not possible.


Has there been any major discussion in Catholicism about whether Christ smiled or laughed? I recall having heard that there was a major discussion inside the Catholic Church centuries ago about whether Christ laughed or simply smiled in the gospels. This question is not about whether he smiled or laughed, but about: has there been such discussion through "official" channels (e.g. inside an Ecumenical Council) within the Catholic Church? When did such discussion happen and were there any consequences?

Risibility (the ability to laugh) is a common example given by Scholastic theologians when discussing what is unique to humans (rational animals). St. Thomas Aquinas uses the term "risible" or "risibility" 172 times in his works.
Discussing whether it is sinful to lack mirth or playfulness (ludus), St. Thomas Aquinas answers that it is sinful (Summa Theologica II-II q. 168 a. 4 c.):

In human affairs whatever is against reason is a sin. Now it is against reason for a man to be burdensome to others, by offering no pleasure to others, and by hindering their enjoyment. Wherefore Seneca [*Martin of Braga, Formula Vitae Honestae: cap. De Continentia] says (De Quat. Virt., cap. De Continentia): "Let your conduct be guided by wisdom so that no one will think you rude, or despise you as a cad." Now a man who is without mirth, not only is lacking in playful speech, but is also burdensome to others, since he is deaf to the moderate mirth of others. Consequently they are vicious, and are said to be boorish or rude, as the Philosopher states (Ethic. iv, 8).
Since, however, mirth is useful for the sake of the rest and pleasures it affords; and since, in human life, pleasure and rest are not in quest for their own sake, but for the sake of operation, as stated in Ethic. x, 6, it follows that "lack of mirth is less sinful than excess thereof." Hence the Philosopher says (Ethic. ix, 10): "We should make few friends for the sake of pleasure, since but little sweetness suffices to season life, just as little salt suffices for our meat."

Since Christ is without sin, He does not lack mirth/playfulness/risibility.
Cf., e.g., John 17:13:

And now I come to thee; and these things I speak in the world, that they may have my joy [χαράν] filled in themselves.

A related question that St. Thomas addresses is whether Christ enjoyed His passion: "Whether Christ's entire soul enjoyed blessed fruition during the Passion?"


When was it first said in Christianity by a Church Father that heretics must be tortured physically? This question is very similar to the one I had asked before: "When was it first said in Christianity by a Church Father that heretics must be put to death?", however, there is still a difference. In this question I am not looking at the approval of taking someone's life, but rather at the first known case of an approval (by any Church father) of inflicting physical tortures on heretics, perhaps, accompanied by cutting off some parts of their bodies (tongues, noses, hands, etc)

The Definition of Torture

The first thing to identify in such a question is the definition of torture. Torture is a fluid term and similar or even exact same actions may seem like torture against one person but not against another, so there is a subjective nature to the question.

There is also the consideration of certain execution methods actually being torture. As Christians, we are familiar with crucifixion, which involves a prolonged death and great suffering. During medieval times, drawing and quartering, flaying, and burning at the stake all are meant to kill, but are equally meant to torture. Other methods of execution that are today considered inhumane in many cultures would be stoning, hanging, and beating to death, however, these methods do not necessitate the prolonging of death, and if done in a particular way, can actually be quite swift. Also, until the banning of "cruel and unusual punishment" torture as we know it was typically just part of the penal system. It was viewed as necessary for either deterring crime or exacting God's punishments until roughly 1690, when England's bill of rights officially made torture illegal.

We are also going to neglect any torture that was not sanctioned by legal officials. The nature of this question necessitates that only examples of torture that public, Christian religious officials allowed or ordered. To further complicate things, we are looking for the earliest example of hypothetical approval of such actions. This proves more difficult to demonstrate unless specific torture events are mentioned.

So the definition we will work with is the WHO 1986 definition of Organized violence:

  The inter-human infliction of significant, avoidable pain and suffering by an organized group according to a declared or implied strategy and/or system of ideas and attitudes. It comprises any violent action that is unacceptable by general human standards, and relates to the victims’ feelings.

So whether an event is considered torturous or not has nothing to do with it ending in death. Instead, it must include:

Physical pain that is avoidable, which includes unnecessarily prolonging death.
Publicly sanctioned by Christian religious officials.

Definition of Heresy

We must also define heresy. Heresy, like torture, has also proved to be a fluid term over the centuries. Originally, heresy first came into use when Christians found that some small groups, such as the Gnostics, held slightly different beliefs on key dogmas which made them incompatible with "the orthodoxy of Christianity."

Irenaeus is credited with thrusting the idea of Christian orthodoxy and safeguarding the religion from heretics in his work Adversus Haereses, which he wrote to discredit Gnosticism and encourage the traditional elements of the Church.

Generally, heresy has been defined as anything that is not in full agreement with "Christian Orthodoxy." What has changed often over the centuries is opinions on what Christian Orthodoxy is. So we are left not defining heresy ourselves, but leaving it up to the accusers. Whether we would call any person or groups heretics is irrelevant.

Where did it start

Torture has a long history thousands of years older than any Christian example. When looking closely at the New Testament it is difficult to make a case for torture, killing, war, or any violence. So how did the Christian church go from a persecuted and tortured group in the first and second centuries to an advocate and performer of some of the most heinous tortures?

It started with the Romans. Roman officials commonly tortured enemies and criminals, often with the intent to execute them afterward. And the old Roman Empire slowly became the Roman Catholic Church starting with the conversion of Constantine I. Irenaeus set the stage to confront heresy head first. Later, Augustine came to the conclusion that "compulsion" and violence were acceptable to turn the heretic from his ways, arguing that Paul was struck by Christ Himself before his conversion and became the most successful apostle. Augustine was accepting of fines, imprisonment, banishment, and moderate floggings, but likely would have been disgusted at the treatment of people in the Middle Ages.

But by 1252, Pope Innocent IV, himself, issued a papal bull that authorized the use torture against heretics, giving us the single most obvious approval and mandating of torture for heretics. This bull read:

  [Heretics are] murderers of souls as well as robbers of God’s sacraments and of the Christian faith ... [and are] to be coerced—as are thieves and bandits—into confessing their errors and accusing others, although one must stop short of danger to life or limb.

Pinning it down to the first Christian approval of torture is difficult because it was a long road from Augustine to Innocent IV. There are quite a few examples of people being executed in horrific ways, such as burning, but whether religious officials approved is difficult to determine. Again, because our modern definitions of torture are different, some punishments given at the time were not considered torture, but just part of the punishment. Paschal I, who was Pope in the ninth century, is said to have blinded his enemies before they were executed. The same is said of Hadrian III. Whippings, beatings, branding, and removal of hands or legs were common punishments for many crimes, including heresy since Constantine I. Whether they were considered torture is almost entirely subjective, but most of them were approved and even ordered by religious officials.

Misc sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture
http://www.heretication.info/_heretics.html
http://www.heretication.info/_torture.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Christian_thought_on_persecution_and_tolerance
http://egregores.blogspot.ie/2010/10/augustine-in-defense-of-torturing.html


Does Jesus’ purification after death apply to all or just to him? In the 20th chapter of John verse 17 Jesus forbad Mary Magdalene touching him, stating that he had not yet ascended to the Father:

  John 20:17  Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

Then in verse 27 he challenges Thomas to touch his wounds, indicating that he had at that time ascended to the Father.

  John 20:27  Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.

The stark difference in touching Jesus would indicate that Jesus had undergone some type of purification after verse 17 but prior to verse 27.

Is there any Protestant Denomination; which purposes that that purification process is necessary for all believers, or is it generally accepted that only Jesus required this purification?

Christ was always perfect and pure.

Joh 8:46  Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me?

Heb 4:15  For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

Heb 7:26  For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens;

To suggest He needed purification is therefore a contradiction of the Scriptures and blasphemy.

None are purified after death because :

Heb 10:9  Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.
Heb 10:10  By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

Heb 10:14  For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.

To suggest otherwise is therefore also a contradiction of Scripture, and a blasphemy against Christ's perfect sacrifice.


How would Jesus write his full name as, in civil records? Jesus, Joseph, Mary, James, John  - these were popular first names used by the Jews in the days of the Lord. Naturally, each would have some additional names like that of his/her father or of the clan/house, in order to have an identifiable full name, in civil records . I am therfore , curious to know as to what the full name of Jesus was in civil records say, `Jesus son of Joseph '. Do the Catholic traditions give  any clue to such a name ?

First, I'd point out that even in modern times full names are far from unambiguous. My own fairly uncommon first, middle, and last name together are not enough to uniquely single me out. All legal records use some other way of identifying me: a birth certificate number, a social security number, a passport number, a residence permit number. Civil governments in our modern world ALWAYS use something beyond assigned names to keep track of people because names simply don't cut it.

In the ancient world there were not good ways of keeping track of id numbers. Databases were not centralized and UUIDs were not a thing. Instead they would group records. In the near east of Jesus' era the Romans handled this by region. This is why when the census was done just before Jesus birth everybody had to register in "Their own city". That also explains why Jesus was commonly known as "Jesus of Nazareth". Nazareth being a small town and there not being too many popular figures coming out of there, that was enough to place him in most people's minds.

We don't have any civil records from the era that record anything more than what we have in Scripture, but Scripture gives us a pretty good idea how he was known both colloquially and legally. In particular Matthew was a former tax collector and Luke was a historian. Besides identifying his place (Nazareth) the most accurate way to identify people was to list off some of their genealogy.

  Matthew 1:1 The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.


External reference of Jesus's resurrection? After that he appeared to more than 500 brothers at one time, most of
  whom are still with us, though some have fallen asleep in death. - 1
  Cor 15:6

I'm trying to find some external/non-biblical references about Jesus' resurrection. The quoted verse says there were a lot of witnesses to tell Jesus has been resurrected, so I'm wondering if any of them wrote something that referenced this event ?

According to The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell, p125, Josephus, who died after 100AD, wrote of Jesus in his Jewish Antiquities, "...for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and then thousand other wonderful things concerning him." (Antiquities, XVIII, 33).

However, those words are probably a later addition.

The same book notes several creedal formations mentioning Christ's resurrection that made their way into the epistles after first being passed around orally (same book, p127).

Ignatius, whom Christian tradition identifies as a disciple of Peter, Paul, and John, wrote about the resurrection of Jesus (same book, p131). The book goes on to cite several more early writers who wrote of Jesus' resurrection, like Quadratus, Aristides, Justin Martyr, Hegesipus.


Does an understanding of how the Bible was written, play a strong role in any Christian sect? There is sometimes a misunderstanding or differing opinion of who wrote what in the Bible.  Is this issue relevant to any particular Christian sect?  Does the topic play an important role?

As a Catholic, you study the books of the bible taking into account to whom the books were written.

The Catholic faith is based on Scripture and Tradition (with a capital 'T'). We realize that in the early church, many things were passed down by word of mouth. In other words from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

  82      As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, “does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence.”44

As far as I can tell, there is not great importance placed on who specifically wrote a book, but the author is taken into account while reading the scripture.


Does Jesus' public reading of the Scriptures imply that he had any authority within the religious community? In Luke 4:17, Jesus reads from the Scriptures during a religious meeting. The passage reads,

  Luke 4:16-21 (NIV) He went to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and on the Sabbath day he went into the synagogue, as was his custom. He stood up to read, and the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written:

  “The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
      because he has anointed me
      to proclaim good news to the poor.
      He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
      and recovery of sight for the blind,
      to set the oppressed free,
      to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor."

  Then he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant and sat down. The eyes of everyone in the synagogue were fastened on him. He began by saying to them, “Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.”

From a historical perspective, was it ordinary at that time for all men to read from the scrolls in public religious meetings, or does Jesus' reading imply that he had a special status within the religious community?

It would have been common for some members to recite the scriptures in same way it happens in some Churches or assemblies. Though the reciter might not be a random person but of some credibility. Jesus had a good credibility and reputation as a teacher.

  (Luke 4:14-15) 14 And Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit to
  Galilee, and a report about him went out through all the surrounding
  country. 15 And he taught in their synagogues, being glorified by all.

  (Matthew 13:53-54) 53 And when Jesus had finished these parables, he
  went away from there, 54 and coming to his hometown he taught them in
  their synagogue, so that they were astonished, and said, “Where did
  this man get this wisdom and these mighty works?

The reading of scripture was indeed a custom in Synagogues. A quote from The IVP New Testament Commentary Series – Jesus Preaches in Nazareth: The Time of Fulfillment Has Come (4:16-30)

  To appreciate the account, it helps to understand the order of an
  ancient synagogue service (m. Megilla 3—4; m. Berakot 2). To have a
  synagogue service required the presence of ten adult males. At the
  service, the Shema was recited (Deut 6:4-9), followed by prayers,
  including some set prayers like the Tephillah and the Eighteen
  Benedictions (m. Berakot 2:2). After this the Scripture was read,
  beginning with a portion from the Torah (Gen—Deut) and moving next to
  a section from the Prophets. Instruction then followed. Often the
  speaker linked the texts together through appeal to other passages.
  The service then closed with a benediction.


Do Jehovah's Witnesses have one Saviour or Two? Jehovah's witnesses firmly believe that Jehovah and Jesus are separate beings and that Jesus is NOT God because Jesus is an angel.  What do JW's say about their Saviour?  Specifically,

Isa 43:3, 11, 45:17, 21 emphatically declare that Jehovah is the one and only Saviour and "besides me there is no Saviour"

Yet we also read numerous references in the New Testament that Jesus is the only name by which we can be saved and that Jesus is the Saviour of the world.  Matt 1:21; Acts 4:12; 2 Tim 1:10; Tit 1:4, 2:13, 3:6; 2 Pet 1:1, 11.

Therefore, do Jehovah's Witnesses have one saviour or two?

Jehovah’s Witnesses have only one principal Savior, Jehovah God.  Jesus Christ is exalted as the “Chief Agent and Savior (Acts 5:31) because it is THROUGH Jesus that salvation is accomplished:

  Savior - Insight on the Scriptures, Volume 2: Jehovah is identified as the principal Savior, the only Source of deliverance. (Isa 43:11; 45:21) He was the Savior and Deliverer of Israel, time and again. (Ps 106:8, 10, 21; Isa 43:3; 45:15; Jer 14:8)...  When Jesus was on earth, Jehovah was his Savior, supporting and strengthening him to maintain integrity through his strenuous trials.—Heb 5:7; Ps 28:8.

  Along with his role as Savior, Jehovah is also the “Repurchaser.” (Isa 49:26; 60:16) In the past he redeemed his people Israel from captivity. In delivering Christians from sin’s bondage, he does the repurchasing through his Son Jesus Christ (1Jo 4:14), Jehovah’s provision for salvation, who is therefore exalted as “Chief Agent and Savior.” (Ac 5:31) Accordingly, Jesus Christ can rightly be called “our Savior,” even though he performs the salvation as the agent of Jehovah. (Tit 1:4; 2Pe 1:11) The name Jesus, given to God’s Son by angelic direction, means “Jehovah Is Salvation,” for, said the angel, “he will save his people from their sins.” (Mt 1:21; Lu 1:31) This name points out that Jehovah is the Source of salvation, accomplished through Jesus. For this reason we find the Father and the Son spoken of together in connection with salvation.—Tit 2:11-13; 3:4-6.  Source: https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200003848

  What Is God’s Way to Salvation? Watchtower 1960:  As mankind’s source of salvation Jehovah God provided the perfect man, whose life could ransom the human race, by transferring the life force of his chief angelic Son in the heavens to the womb of a virgin. Because the child that was born did not receive its life through Adam’s line of descent but from God, it was perfect. Thus Jesus Christ became equal to Adam and able to ransom mankind by laying down his perfect human life. “Just as the Son of man came, not to be ministered to, but to minister and to give his soul [or life] a ransom in exchange for many.”—Matt. 20:28.  Source: https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1960161#h=14

(Emphasis mine)

EDIT: I have deleted the part of my answer that caused offense and would refer instead to the 22 October 1976 Awake article, ‘How Many Saviors Do You Have?’ and invite people to read the article in its entirety to get the Jehovah’s Witness perspective, part of which says this:

  Salvation belongs to Jehovah,” declared the inspired psalmist. (Ps. 3:8) Through his prophet Isaiah, the Almighty stated: “I—I am Jehovah, and besides me there is no savior.”—Isa. 43:11.  But it may be asked: ‘Is not Jesus Christ the Savior? So, then, are not Jehovah and Jesus the same, making our Savior but one, God?’  But what about Jesus Christ? He, too, cannot be spoken of as being a Savior besides Jehovah, that is, as a rival of his Father.   The Scriptures clearly establish that Jesus’ role as Savior was assigned to him by his Father...  Because salvation comes from Jehovah God through Jesus Christ, a “great crowd” (standing before the throne and in front of the Lamb) is depicted in the book of Revelation as making the following declaration: “Salvation we owe to our God, who is seated on the throne, and to the Lamb.” (Rev. 7:9, 10) Source: https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/101976768
  Here are the relevant Bible verses from the New World Translation:

  Psalm 130:8 NWT: “And he himself [Jehovah] will redeem Israel...”

  Luke 2:11 NWT: “because there was born to you today a Savior, who is Christ the Lord”

  2 Timothy 1:9-10 NWT: “This was given us in [connection with] Christ Jesus before times longlasting, but it has now been clearly evident through the manifestation of our Savior, Christ Jesus...”

  Titus 1:3 NWT: “under command of our Savior, God.”

  Jude 25 NWT: “To the only God our Savior through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, might and authority for all past eternity and now and into all eternity. Amen.”

Jehovah is identified as the principal Savior, but Jesus Christ is called “our Savior,” even though he performs the salvation as the agent of Jehovah.  Jehovah is the Source of salvation, accomplished through Jesus.  That is the official view of Jehovah’s Witnesses.  I think that means they have only one Saviour.


Red Sea or Sea of Reeds? I've heard a lot of religious chatter concerning what exact "sea" was parted by God to allow Moses and the Israelites to cross out of Egypt. Seems productions by the History Channel and other such sources have made statements about it but they also talked about the Mayan end of the world ideas. I know my bible says "Red Sea" but I've heard that could be a mistranslation.

I was just wondering if there was any solid evidence to support either location? Such as archaeological findings or other sources.

  "18 So God led the people around by way of the wilderness of the Red
  Sea." -Exodus 13:18

The original Hebrew term is yam suph, and the correct English translation is Sea of Reeds, as explained by this article:

The translation "Red Sea" is simply a traditional translation introduced into English by the King James Version through the second century BC Greek Septuagint and the later Latin Vulgate.

It is possible that this "Sea of Reeds" was actually the Red Sea, although this is very unlikely, considering the extraordinary logistics that would have been necessary, as the same article explains (with my own emphasis):

Some like to point out the great width of the sea as a further proof of the miraculous nature of the escape, since the Red Sea averages about 150 miles wide.
However, even among those who believe in a more literal perspective of the account of the crossing recognize that this is much too far for a large company to traverse in a single night. The miracle emphasized in the biblical account is the parting of the waters, not the speed at which they crossed or the amount of land covered. It is also a problem that the main body of the Red Sea lies much too far to the south to be reached by a large company of people in such a short span of time. So most would want to contend for the northwestern arm of the Red Sea, the Gulf of Suez, which is only about 17 miles wide at its narrowest point. This would mean a more northerly route for the exodus with a later turn to the south into the Sinai. But this still raises questions of logistics for the large company of people portrayed in the biblical account.

In short:

[T]he simple fact is, we do not know exactly what body of water is referenced by yam suph in Scripture.

I encourage you to read the linked article for a more thorough explanation of the text and geography, and some prominent theories on which bodies of water are considered candidates, as well as the rest of the route the Exodus may have taken.


Do the church fathers ever include quotes of Jesus that aren't from the Bible? Jesus Seminar believes that Parable of the Empty Jar in Gospel of Thomas is authentic saying of Jesus:

  The kingdom of the father is like a certain woman who was carrying a jar full of meal. While she was walking on the road, still some distance from home, the handle of the jar broke and the meal emptied out behind her on the road. She did not realize it; she had noticed no accident. When she reached her house, she set the jar down and found it empty. - Gospel of Thomas 97

Now, I am not an expert (and I am aware of many flaws of Jesus Seminar), but I think arguments for authenticity of this parable are good.

However, what I want to ask is:
Is there any other saying or parable of Jesus that is not recorded in the New Testament, but is remembered in the tradition? Do some Church Fathers quote some words not found in the New Testament, but attribute them to Jesus?

There is a well-researched 2016 article from National Catholic Register Blog addressing precisely your question, which also includes "extra credit" by describing a Catholic framework for evaluating the credibility of "lost sayings" of Jesus: Are There "Lost Sayings" Of Jesus?
The technical term is Agrapha, and the wikipedia entry has candidates for consideration (under the section "Patristic Citations"):

Clement of Rome, First Epistle of Clement, 13: "For thus He spoke: 'Be ye merciful, that ye may obtain mercy; forgive, that it may be forgiven to you; as ye do, so shall it be done unto you; as ye judge, so shall ye be judged; as ye are kind, so shall kindness be shown to you; with what measure ye mete, with the same it shall be measured to you.'"
Polycarp of Smyrna, Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians, 2, "but being mindful of what the Lord said in His teaching: 'Judge not, that ye be not judged; forgive, and it shall be forgiven unto you; be merciful, that ye may obtain mercy; with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again;' and once more, 'Blessed are the poor, and those that are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of God.'"
Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 47: "Wherefore also our Lord Jesus Christ said, In whatsoever things I apprehend you, in those I shall judge you."
Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, I, 24, 158: "For ask, he says for the great things, and the small shall be added to you."
Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, I, 28, 177: "Rightly therefore the Scripture also in its desire to make us such dialecticians, exhorts us: Be approved moneychangers, disapproving some things, but holding fast that which is good."
Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, V, 10, 64: "For not grudgingly, he saith, did the Lord declare in a certain gospel: My mystery is for me and for the sons of my house."
Origen, Homily on Jeremiah, XX, 3: "But the Saviour himself saith: He who is near me is near the fire; he who is far from me, is far from the kingdom."


What is the Biblical basis of the idea that men can be given authority to forgive sins? This question is inspired by the question What is the Old Testament basis to the idea that only God can forgive sins? What is the Biblical basis (Old or New Testament) for the idea that men can be given the authority to forgive sins?

What is the Biblical basis of the idea that men can be given authority to forgive sins?
St. John speaks of it in his Gospel (John 20:19-23):

Jesus Appears to His Disciples
19 On the evening of that first day of the week, when the disciples were together, with the doors locked for fear of the Jewish leaders, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” 20 After he said this, he showed them his hands and side. The disciples were overjoyed when they saw the Lord.
21 Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” 22 And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”

St. Matthew also speaks of this in his Gospel (Matthew 18:15–18):

Dealing With Sin in the Church
15 “If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. 16 But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ 17 If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.
18 “Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be[d] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

St. James speaks of this in his Epistle (James 5:13-15):

13 Is any of you sad? Let him pray. Is he cheerful in mind? Let him sing.
14 Is any man sick among you? Let him bring in the priests of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord.
15 And the prayer of faith shall save the sick man: and the Lord shall raise him up: and if he be in sins, they shall be forgiven him.

St. Paul speaks  as follows in 2 Corinthians 2:10:

10 And to whom you have pardoned any thing, I also. For, what I have pardoned, if I have pardoned any thing, for your sakes have I done it in the person of Christ.


What is the basis for Calvinist double predestination, as opposed to single predestination? I was reading this question, What were the main doctrinal disagreements between Luther and Calvin?, and one of the differences between the two was Calvin believed in double predestination, while Luther believed in single predestination.

So according to my understanding:

Double Predestination – God mandates who goes to Heaven AND Hell
Single Predestination – God mandates ONLY who goes to Heaven

Could somebody give a Calvinist support for double predestination?

Related Question: What is the basis for Lutheran single predestination, as opposed to double predestination?

To begin, let's be sure that we understand what double predestination means in Calvinism.  You have it right, that God chooses both who is elect and who is non-elect, but it's important to note that in Calvinist double predestination, God actively saves the elect, but passively passes over the reprobate:

God positively or actively intervenes in the lives of the elect to insure their salvation.  The rest of mankind God leaves to themselves. He does not create unbelief in their hearts.

This quote comes from Chosen by God, chapter 7, by R. C. Sproul, a leading Calvinist theologian.  This book is a well-known introduction to Calvinism, particularly the difficult issues of God's sovereignty, original sin, predestination, and assurance, and I'll continue to refer to it below.
So what is the basis for this view?  First R. C. Sproul argues that double predestination is logically necessary:

If there is such a thing as predestination at all, and if that predestination does not include all people, then we must not shrink from the necessary inference that there are two sides to predestination.  It is not enough to talk about Jacob; we must also consider Esau.

Here Sproul is referring to the story of Jacob and Esau, beginning in Genesis 25.  This opens up the second line of reasoning – that double predestination is taught in Scripture, particularly in Romans 9:10–18:

when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, 11 though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— 12 she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” 13 As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”
14 What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! 15 For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” 16 So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18 So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills. (ESV)

Sproul summarizes, pointing to verse 18:

Some people get mercy, others get justice.  The decision for this is in the hand of God.

A few more verses in Romans 9, verses 21–24, "clearly" teach double predestination, in Sproul's eyes:

Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? 22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— 24 even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles? (ESV)

Summary
To summarize, Sproul argues that double predestination is 1) logically necessary, if we accept that only some are elect, and 2) biblical, particularly in light of Romans 9.