According to Catholicism, what is the difference between forgiveness and release from punishment? The first thing to note is that forgiveness of a sin is separate from punishment for the sin. Through sacramental confession we obtain forgiveness, but we aren't let off the hook as far as punishment goes.

That's a quote from Catholic Online's article on indulgences. I've never heard forgiveness spoken about in this way. Even the site's tag wiki for forgiveness specifically includes release from punishment. I know this question is similar, but its answers don't cover a Catholic view. The only well-sourced answer explains a Lutheran stance.

If God's forgiveness does not spare one from punishment, then what is it? Does this mean that the sacrament of confession alone does not spare you from punishment? Where does the Catholic Church get this distinction? Is there a biblical basis? Is it part of sacred tradition? Did a council decide it?

On another note, I learned while researching for this question that anyone who has completed the three prerequisites for an indulgence may gain one by participating on Christianity.SE:

  Christian Doctrine. Partial indulgence to those who take part in teaching or learning Christian doctrine.

According to Catholic theologians I have listened to, there is a difference between sins that are forgiven and the release of punishment due to sin.

1) Admitting a sin and asking for and receiving forgiveness.

2) Then, reparation for the damage caused by the sin.  The term "punishment" for sin is not usually used because it makes God sound kind of vengeful.

The example usually given by these theologians on EWTN radio, etc. is: Johnny breaks a window and is sorry for his mistake and asks for forgiveness from his father who then forgives him. However, he still needs to fix the broken window which is the reparation.

I personally find this type of official explanation of part 2) rather weak because many, many sins cannot be repaired in a normal sense.  For one thing, the person that was hurt may have died. Or, Johnny may not have any glass and glazing skills and dad will have to fix the window. Actually, this is the rationale of the Catholic church for purgatory.  Purgatory allows a period (non-time specific) of reparation for your sins if they were not adequately repaired while alive.  I am of the Catholic Church, but I question several dogmas/doctrines/beliefs.

I hope this information contributes—this is my first answer given.


What is the Biblical basis for Unconditional Election? Calvin, among his other points includes the point that we are Unconditionally Elected and chosen by God alone and nothing we can do can help or hurt this fact. What is the Biblical basis for this?

Unconditional Election refers to God's choosing of people to be the object of his grace or otherwise fulfill his purpose.

There are a couple of versus specifically that are associated with this.

Romans 8:29:

  For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to
  the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among
  many brothers.

and 1 Peter 1:1-2

  1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ,

  To those who are elect exiles of the dispersion in Pontus, Galatia,
  Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, 2 according to the foreknowledge of
  God the Father, in the sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience to
  Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with his blood:

  May grace and peace be multiplied to you.

The idea is that God knew these people beforehand and chose these people to be saved.  It's a similar concept to predestination.

The Calvinist argument can be found here


Are there Christian denominations debating whether Jesus was really the son of God? I don't know what others christian denominations say, but it is sure that Catholic Church doesn't pose any doubt that Jesus was the son of God, nor a discussion about this believing is in its agenda.

Abstractly speaking, there is no argument to exclude that God exists, but nowadays more than one doubt arises about the fact that Jesus was the son of God.

So, are there any Christian denominations discussing or debating whether Jesus was really the son of God?

Would believing that Jesus is not the son of God also be denying the existence of God (the God of Abraham)?

In other words, is there any room in Christianity for believing that Jesus was not the literal son of God?

Your question ends asking this:

"In other terms, is there a way to conceive Christianity refusing the concept that Jesus was the son of God?"

It would be a clear "NO".

To say that Jesus is just like any other great Godly man having special friendship with God, as you have put it in  one of your comment, is to look at those places in Bible where Jesus is equalled with God, as major flaws and contradictions in the Bible. To take Jesus in this manner and to say that He was only human and with no divine nature is to reduce the whole Bible into a bundle of inconsistencies. All those verses in Bible where Jesus is sometime portrayed as human and sometime as Divine, remains in harmony  with each other especially in New Testament, only when we accept Jesus as having both human as well as Divine nature. Without this we would be representing Christianity in complete contradiction to the Old Testament as well as what we have in New Testament.

We cannot overlook all those verses where Jesus is clearly portrayed as having Divine nature. He was crucified for saying that He was Son of God. Further in John 8:58 He declares:

  John 8:58 Jesus said to them, “I tell you the solemn truth, before Abraham came into existence, I am!”

Then we have at other places where Jesus forgave third person’s sins. If you do something against me, I have the right to forgive you. However, if you do something against me and somebody else comes along and says, "I forgive you," what kind of cheek is that? The only person who can say that sort of thing is God himself, because sin, even if it is against other people, is first and foremost a defiance of God and his laws. So along comes Jesus and he says to sinners, "I forgive you." The Jews immediately recognize the blasphemy of this. They react by saying, "Who can forgive sins but God alone?" Not only did Jesus forgive sin, but he asserted that he himself was without sin. And certainly sinless-ness is an attribute of deity. as if it is against Him, equalling Himself as God and many places He equalled Himself with God. All these events and quotations would glaringly be biggest contradiction which would stare at Christianity and for which there would be no plausible explanation to offer.

In the verse below, we find Jesus giving the highest honour to John the Baptist and that John is more than a prophet.

  Matt. 11:9-11 What did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes, I tell you, and more than a prophet. This is the one about whom it is written: ‘Look, I am sending my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way before you.’ “I tell you the truth, among those born of women, no one has arisen greater than John the Baptist. Yet the one who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he is.

This would mean that Jesus makes Himself smaller than John, which cannot be. Since John was someone who was more than a prophet, it only shows that Jesus was not just a prophet or someone more than that but someone much greater than that.

Again we find in Gospel of Mathew;

  Matt. 16:13-17 When Jesus came to the area of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” They answered, “Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus answered him, “You are blessed, Simon son of Jonah, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but my Father in heaven!

And finally: Early in the Old Testament God introduced this idea of one innocent being shedding its blood in place of the sinner’s. However the solution of sacrificing bulls and goats and lambs for the sins of each person’s sin was a temporary fix. The next year, another animal would have to be sacrificed for the same person. A more permanent solution was needed, as noted in Hebrews 10:4:

  For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.

That meant a human was needed to die for humans’ sin. But all humans are sinful, so another sin-filled person dying for us just wouldn’t work. A human without sin was needed.
But ever since Adam, every human born is sin-filled, so how could a sinless man happen? The only way was if God did it Himself.


Do protestants believe that the New Testament is the final covenant? Do Protestants believe that the New Testament is the final covenant/testament? For example, many branches which built off Christianity believe the Bible is not complete and requires another revelation/modification from Jesus Christ (i.e. Mormonism, JW's)

If so, what are the arguments / biblical basis used to support this view?

Article VI of the Articles of Religion of the Church of England, which is accepted by most of the Anglican Communion, provides in part,  that

  HOLY Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. ...

Lutherans hold to the same viewpoint.


According to the Mormon doctrines, who created the universe? This may be related to a previous question about the first god who began eternal progression.  This is something I've really been wondering for a while.

If the Almighty God began life as a man, he must have been part of this universe.  As part of this universe, it would've been impossible to create the universe--since that requires a deity that it outside the universe.

Do Mormons believe that the universe existed before God?  Or that God existed as God before the universe began (and therefore is one who didn't ascend to godhead, but was always a deity)?

In essence, either the universe always was and there was a first god who created everything (related to this question) or there is a god who existed, as god, before the universe.  Yet the Mormons teach that God was once a man.  So, who created the universe?

Mormons do not believe in creation ex nihilo, as traditional Christian doctrine does.  So to ask who created the universe in Mormonism is asking the wrong question.
Rather, Mormons believe that god arranged pre-existing matter in creation. The matter always existed; creation was an act of organizing the matter.
From Ancient Views of Creation and Doctrine of Creation Ex Nihilo by Stephen D Ricks:

To these should be added his[Josephs Smith's] powerful rejection of creation ex nihilo ("from nothing")—according to which doctrine God alone is eternal and uncreated while matter is not—and his affirmation of creation from preexisting matter.
Abraham 3:24 in the Pearl of Great Price confirms the Latter-day Saint belief in creation from preexisting matter: "And there stood one among them that was like unto God, and he said unto those who were with him: We will go down, for there is space there, and we will take of these materials, and we will make an earth whereon these may dwell."

This is a clear distinction between the beliefs of Joseph Smith and conventional Christianity. Mormonism affirms that physical material is eternal and organized by God; conventional Christianity affirms that God is eternal and that He created the physical world out of nothing.


Is the main battle of the enemy for the mind? Pastor stressed in the last sermon, the main battle between us and the enemy (Satan), is for the mind.

If it is, what hope is there for people with severe mental illness like schizophrenia, bi-polar, etc.

It would appear that the battle is completely lost in these cases vs. other cases where we can use our free will to turn against the enemy.

So how does this battle for the mind work and are some born into a losing hand to the enemy, as described above?

EDIT
This is a different question than the posted possible duplicate and here's why:

That question focus on "will they still be saved?"

While that is important, this question focus on hope while alive here on earth, not the entrance into the next life.

If such a person has that type of illness, it is as if they are stuck to live in darkness. It would seem that the enemy wins over that person.

In addition, that person can bring even more darkness to family members - and in extreme cases to many others (i.e. - random school shootings and guns in America).

Where is the hope for these people, while here on earth, to live in the light of the Lord?

This answer focuses on the first question, of whether or not the enemy's focus is on the mind.  Perhaps two questions could be made out of this.
It would seem that the main battle of the enemy is on truth in order to deceive the mind.
The Father of Distortion
In the Fall of Mankind, Satan's first statement was to question the truth of the Word of God.  He completely misquotes God, who did not say "You shall not eat of any tree in the garden" as he suggests, but actually said, "You may surely eat of every tree of the garden..." except one.  So, Satan distorts the Word of God in order to attack the character of God, making Him out to be prohibitive in nature when He is actually generous in nature.

Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God actually say, ‘You shall not eat of any tree in the garden’?”  Genesis 3:1 ESV
“You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, 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

The Father of Lies
Next, Satan asserts that there is no consequence to sin, and even asserts that sin will be to their benefit.  This is a complete lie, of course.  The truth is that there most certainly would be a consequence to sin.

But the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”  Genesis 3:4-5 ESV

The Deception of the Mind
After this, the woman's mind was completely deceived, and it was at that point that she sinned against God.

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.

Conclusion
So, Satan's tactic was to deceive the woman.  She believed that God was not as good as she had thought He was.  She believed that there would be no consequence to sin.  She believed that God was withholding something good from her, and that she would actually gain from sin.
Satan is also called "the father of lies" (John 8:44) and "the Deceiver" (Revelation 12:9).  So, distorting the truth in order to deceive the mind is certainly a primary focus of his.
That makes Jesus' prayer in John 17 all the more instructive, that we are sanctified by the truth, and the Word of God is truth.  (John 17:17)


Is the Book of Mormon in English as authentic as in the original, or is Joseph Smith's translation imperfect? It is commonly held in religion that the authenticity and authority of Scripture is highest in its original text, since human translators can introduce errors and misunderstandings not present originally.
However, in the case of the Book of Mormon, the translation is a bit unique given that:

We don't have a copy of the original Reformed Egyptian
Joseph Smith made his translation not by his own linguistic knowledge, but with divine aid and under direct instruction from an angel (who presumably is not subject to the ordinary flaws of human translators)

Given this, does the English text Book of Mormon have just as much authority as, say, the Greek text of Matthew's Gospel or the Hebrew text of Genesis?  Or does Joseph Smith's translation have the same ordinary flaws we would expect from any translation of original Scripture?

Does the English text Book of Mormon have just as much authority as, say, the Greek text of Matthew's Gospel ?

The New Testament part of the Holy Bible, that is to say the collection of volumes contained in, for example, the Authorised Version, from Matthew to Revelation, is compiled from thousands of manuscripts, either partial, fragmented or (rarely) complete ; also from many tens of thousands of Patristic Citations (Dean John Burgon collated over 96,000) ; also  from Lectionary references, similar to the more modern 'Book of Common Prayer' ; and from the 'Versions' that is to say the translations of the apostles' words into Syriac, Coptic, Latin and other languages.
On the other hand, the Book of Mormon is from a single anecdotal source. I say 'anecdotal' as there is only verbal testimony of its existence and that restricted to less than a handful of witnesses.
Also, its method of translation is obscure, to say the least, and cannot be verified by any means.
I cannot see how there could be any comparison of 'authority' (as the OP puts it) between these two sources of information, that is to say the Greek Text of the books of the New Testament as attributed to eight authors (nine if one does not attribute Hebrews) in comparison to the English presentation of the Book of Mormon.
Purely on the consideration of the matter regarded solely on the basis of the science of textual criticism, the comparison of the Book of Mormon to the Holy Bible is, in my view, impossible, as there is insufficient evidence of the existence of the original of the former to form any substantial view of the validity of its English presentation.
The Book of Mormon can only be assessed on another basis than that of Textual Criticism. But that is the fundamental basis of the Greek Text from which we get the English Bible.
If the two documents are produced on totally incompatible methods of compilation I do not understand how their 'authority' can be 'compared'.


Is Jesus seen as both the Passover Lamb and Goat(s) of the Atonement in any Protestant Theology? It is often said that Jesus fulfilled the Jewish spring feasts when he first came and the expectation is that he will fulfill the fall feasts when we returns.

Also, that Jesus died at the time of Passover reinforces that he was at least understood as the perfect Passover Lamb.
See: How does the Passover foreshadow the coming of Jesus as the Messiah?

However, it seems to me Jesus also fulfilled at least part of the Day of Atonement (in the Fall season) where one goat dies and the other receives the sins of all the people(Is. 53:6) and then it is led out of the city, away from the people, removing their sins far away.

Many people will often compare Christ to this scapegoat but I have yet to find any fuller treatment of how Yom Kippur was fulfilled in Christ's first earthly ministry rather than his second coming.

Are there any Protestant/Reformed, or older, writings that deal with Jesus fulfilling the prophetic nature of Passover and Yom Kippur?
Either affirming or denying, but specifically speaking to the concept of "fulfillment" of the two feasts in Jesus' first coming.

This may include catholic works, particularly from the early church, prior to the Reformation as well.

I would expect that every Christian denomination would see Jesus's death as the fulfilment of both the Passover sacrifice and the Day of Atonement sacrifices and rituals, because the identification is made in the scriptures themselves.
1 Corinthians 5:7 says directly that Christ is our Passover lamb:

Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, as you really are unleavened. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed.

Hebrews 9 is a lengthy comparison of the Jewish priests' ministry and Jesus' ministry. Its focus is more on showing that Jesus is the great high priest than explicitly saying he was the fulfilment of the goats, but the comparison is still there when it talks about his blood. The first paragraph shows that the Day of Atonement was the focus. The second shows the glorious truth that Jesus' death has done away with the need for all recurrent sacrifices!

Hebrews 9:6-7: These preparations having thus been made, the priests go regularly into the first section, performing their ritual duties, but into the second only the high priest goes, and he but once a year, and not without taking blood, which he offers for himself and for the unintentional sins of the people.
Hebrews 9:11-14: But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation) he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption. For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the sprinkling of defiled persons with the ashes of a heifer, sanctify for the purification of the flesh, how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God.


No non-Latin prayers in European churches before Reformation? Is this true that before the Reformation, all Christians in Europe would have to study Latin in order to understand the prayers pronounced during Masses in Roman Catholic Churches?

No non-Latin prayers in European Catholic Churches before Reformation?

Is this true that before the Reformation, all Christians in Europe would have to study Latin in order to understand the prayers pronounced during Masses in Roman Catholic Churches?

The short answer is no, for two reasons.
The first reason is quite simple. A large percentage of the faithful could not study Latin because they were illiterate.

The Reformation dawned on European societies where literacy was restricted. At the end of the Middle Ages, the ability to write was restricted to less than 10% of men and hardly any women possessed it. This fundamental division between the sexes persisted for centuries and throughout the early modern period male achievements almost always overshadowed those by women. For example, one bridegroom in three could not sign Amsterdam's marriage register in 1630 compared with two-thirds of brides. Until the eighteenth century the rate of improvement for men generally exceeded that for women, so that the gap between the sexes seldom narrowed. Amsterdam brides and grooms both saw illiteracy fall between 1680 and 1780: males from 30% illiteracy to 15% and females from 56% to 36%.14 The literacy of townspeople also grew more quickly than that of rural dwellers and the wealthier merchants and professionals inhabited city centers where concentrations of reading and writing ability were especially high, distinguishing them even from suburban dwellers. By the mid-eighteenth century London and Paris had literacy levels of over 90%, which would not be achieved nationally until the late nineteenth century. In Eastern and Southern Europe nearly the only literate people were town dwellers and rural landowners. - Introduction: The Literacies of Early Modern Europe

The second reason is completely different. Although the Mass of the Roman Rite was Latin in churches of the Roman Catholic Church, exceptions were permitted by Rome.

The Roman Rite is used in Dalmatia in an Old Slavonic version (written in Glagolitic letters), occasionally in Greek in Italy; but in any language it is always the Roman Rite. - Catholic Encyclopedia

In other words, the exact same Mass could be said in at least three languages: Latin, Greek and Old Slavonic and thus were considered Roman Catholic and not Eastern Rite Catholics. Please note that some authors employ the term Greek Rite or Old Slavonic Rite, but in this case, the term means a variation or usage of the Roman Rite.


Summa question on his quotation of scripture Been reading the Summa and ran across a verse, or maybe translation, that I couldn’t match up.  Aquinas quotes Psalm 11:2 several times and I thought it was a typo but I can’t find the text in any version any where in scripture.  Could someone elucidate why?

SUMMA THEOLOGICA
First Part (Prima Pars)
Question 16. Truth

SIXTH ARTICLE [I, Q. 16, Art. 6] Whether There Is Only One Truth, According to Which All Things Are True?

Psalm 11: 2, "Truths are decayed from among the children of men," says: "As from one man's face many likenesses are reflected in a mirror, so many truths are reflected from the one divine truth."

The older Latin Vulgate Bible, whose 1592 edition became the official Bible of the Church was already by the time of Aquinas the unofficial standard, and it appears this was the translation he used.

As a note on the numbering, Psalm 10 is an acrostic - the verses begin with consecutive letters of the Hebrew alphabet. The Vulgate counted this as one psalm from first to last letter of the alphabet; other translations from the Hebrew, including the New Vulgate, broke it into two before the verse beginning with lamedh and numbered the second half as Psalm 11,making the psalm in question Psalm 12.

The passage in the older Vulgate, which would have been that available to Aquinas, runs

  Salvum me fac, Domine, quoniam defecit sanctus,
  quoniam diminutæ sunt veritates a filiis hominum.

My translation might be

  Make me safe [i.e. "Save me"], Lord, for there is no holy one; for truths have been worn down from [perhaps "from among"] the children of men

which is very nearly the quote referenced from the Douay-Rheims Bible and excerpted in your question. The Nova Vulgata, which is the current official Latin version retranslated from Hebrew and Greek, words the passage almost identically, substituting fideles  "faithful/the faithful ones" for veritates "truths".

Looking at the Hebrew original, it appears that Jerome translated the Hebrew word אֱ֝מוּנִ֗ים, an adjective, as a noun. Thus instead of "the faithful/loyal/true ones", he gets "the truths".

It appears then that Aquinas' quote doesn't mean exactly what he thinks it does - though his conclusion is still reasonable.


Is Galatians 4:6 speaking of the Holy Spirit? Galatians 4:6 says:

  And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, "Abba! Father!"

Is Paul referring to the Holy Spirit here? Given that the ESV capitalises the word 'Spirit', it seems likely to me, but I'm interested in knowing what evidence there is either way.

Yes, Paul is referring to the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Jesus. In John 14, when Jesus said to his disciples during passion week

  "'I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you'" (v.18),

he was promising that although he would not in the very near future be with them physically, he would be with them by his Spirit. He called his post-ascension presence with them the helper and the comforter (in Greek, the paraklete), one who not only comes alongside us and puts his arm around our shoulders, but one who abides and dwells in us (v.17).

The disciples would discover not many days after Jesus made this promise to them that the Spirit of Jesus in them would also be their empowerer:

  "'. . . you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be my witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth'" (Acts 1:8).

The important point to realize is this:  out of obedience to his Father and his love for us, Jesus not only became one of us in his humanity through the virgin birth, but he chose to retain his humanity forever.

  " Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith , 'Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure. Then said I, 'Lo , I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me), to do thy will, O God'" (Hebrews 10:5-6 KJV, cf. Psalm 40:6).

Not only did Jesus atone for our sins "in his own body on the tree" at Calvary (1 Peter 2:24), but he rose from the dead in bodily form and 40 days later ascended into heaven in bodily form. We Christians anticipate with great joy seeing our Lord and Savior face to face! Were it not for Jesus,

  "who, although he existed in the form of God, [and] did not regard equality with God something to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a bond-servant and [being] made in the likeness of men" (Philippians 2:6),

we would still be lost in sin and condemned to hell for all eternity. We thank God, therefore, that Jesus became the God-Man for us, that he might redeem us from the curse of the Law, according to which we deserved only condemnation, since we all have sinned.

In conclusion, your question cannot be answered fully without the all-important assumption that

  the Father is fully God
  the Son is fully God
  the Holy Spirit is fully God

Jesus did not cease being God when he became a human being, nor will he ever cease being fully God. To indwell every believer, however, only his Spirit--the Holy Spirit--became the person through whom--and the induement by which--we are assured of Christ's presence with us until we see him face to face in glory.


What do Reformed Baptists think about a Christian refusing to be baptised? I would like to hear what the doctrinal position of Reformed Baptist churches is regarding a Christian who rejects or refuses baptism?

While Grace alone and Faith alone are the undisputed source of salvation, what does someone refusing baptism reveal? Is it considered a salvation issue, in regards to it showing bad fruit?

If there is disagreement amongst Reformed Baptists, an overview of the major Reformed Baptist churches and denominations' position on this question would be ideal.

Before considering whether Reformed Baptists view baptism as a salvation issue, it might be worth clarifying that “Reformed” refers to those Baptist who adhere to John Calvin’s doctrine of salvation.  Particular Baptists differ from General Baptists on this fundamental doctrine.  Particular Baptists hold to the Calvinistic understanding that Jesus died only for the elect, and He died to actually secure their salvation, i.e., particular atonement.  It is my understanding that Reformed Baptists flow out of this Particular Baptist stream.

Most Reformed Baptist churches subscribe to the London Baptist Confession of Faith (1689) as their doctrinal standards; the 1689 LBCF is essentially the Westminster Confession of Faith reworded as it pertains to baptism.  Here is a partial quote from the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith:

  Chapter 28: Of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper.
  1. Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are ordinances of positive and sovereign institution, appointed by the Lord Jesus, the only lawgiver, to be continued in his church to the end of the world. (Matt. 28:19, 20; 1 Cor. 11:26)

  Chapter 29: Of Baptism
  1. Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, to be unto the party baptized, a sign of his fellowship with him, in his death and resurrection; of his being engrafted into him; of remission of sins; and of giving up into God, through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life. (Rom. 6:3-5; Col. 2:12; Gal. 3:27; Mark 1:4; Acts 22:16; Rom. 6:4)
  2. Those who do actually profess repentance towards God, faith in, and obedience to, our Lord Jesus Christ, are the only proper subjects of this ordinance. (Mark 16:16; Acts 8:36, 37, 2:41, 8:12, 18:8)
  Source: http://www.whbc.co.uk/content/pages/documents/1280075798.pdf

The question, “Is the sacrament of baptism a means of grace according to Reformed Baptist theology?” is answered below with this declaration:

  Therefore, baptism is a means of grace in Reformed Baptist theology.  Source: http://www.eng.auburn.edu/~sjreeves/personal/baptism_faq.html#6

Another question discussed in the same document is “How can baptism be a means of grace in Baptist theology when Baptists assert that a person must already be saved to be eligible for baptism?”  Source: http://www.eng.auburn.edu/~sjreeves/personal/baptism_faq.html#7

Basically, I understand the article to mean that baptism is not a salvation issue but results from grace experienced after the person comes to saving faith in Christ Jesus.  Salvation is by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, not by works of any kind, including baptism (Ephesians 2:8-9).

I found the following quote by Dr. Kenneth Wuest, author of Word Studies in the Greek New Testament, with regard to 1 Peter 3:21 which seems to link baptism with salvation:

  “The Old Testament Jew was saved before he brought the offering. That offering was only his outward testimony that he was placing faith in the Lamb of God of whom these sacrifices were a type. Water baptism is the outward testimony of the believer's inward faith. The person is saved the moment he places his faith in the Lord Jesus. Water baptism is the visible testimony to his faith and the salvation he was given in answer to that faith.  Peter is careful to inform his readers that he is not teaching baptismal regeneration, namely, that a person who submits to baptism is thereby regenerated, for he says, 'not the putting away of the filth of the flesh.' Baptism, Peter explains, does not wash away the filth of the flesh, either in a literal sense as a bath for the body, nor in a metaphorical sense as a cleansing for the soul. No ceremonies really affect the conscience. But he defines what he means by salvation, in the words 'the answer of a good conscience toward God," and he explains how this is accomplished, namely, 'by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,' in that the believing sinner is identified with Him in that resurrection.”  Source: https://www.gotquestions.org/baptism-1Peter-3-21.html

After I came to saving faith in Christ Jesus, I was baptised by full water immersion in a U.K. Baptist Church.  Nobody said my salvation depended on being baptised.  However, it was made clear by the ministers that baptism is in obedience to Jesus’ command:

  Matthew 28:19: “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,”

Submitting to water baptism as a public declaration of my faith was the obvious thing to do after my sins were forgiven and I finally understood what God, in Jesus Christ, had done to save me.

  Acts 22:16: “And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptised and wash your sins away, calling on his name.”

There was an elderly lady in my U.K. Baptist church who had resisted baptism for many years but eventually felt the need to submit to a form of public baptism – she was too frail to be fully immersed in the baptismal pool so the minister sprinkled her with water at a Sunday morning church service.  It was obvious that she had come to saving faith in Christ Jesus a long time ago.  Her reasons for not being baptised were known to the minister.  Happily, our minister was very patient and never pressed the lady.  He simply waited on the Spirit to do whatever was needed.

I have no idea what any Baptist minister would think about a Christian who refused to be baptised by full water immersion.  Neither do I know if any Baptist church has issued any doctrinal statement with regard to an outright refusal to be baptised.  All I know is that you can’t become a member of a Baptist church unless you have been baptised.

One thing is clear – baptism is not viewed as essential to salvation.  Was the repentant thief on the cross next to Jesus baptised?  No.  Was he saved?  Yes.  (Luke 23:39-43)  When asked, “What must we do to do the works God requires?” Jesus did not say you must be baptized and take communion.  Rather, Jesus pointed to faith as the only “means of grace”: “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent” (John 6:28-29).  The rest follows.

Edit: Just found this article by the Baptist Union of Great Britain which explains (in some detail) what they believe about baptism.  Bottom line is they would take a very dim view indeed of any professing Christian who refused to be baptised (for any reason)! I have to close down for this evening but will revisit your question tomorrow to insert a summary.  The relevant section is from pages 23 to 27.

https://www.baptist.org.uk/Publisher/File.aspx?ID=111290

The document in the link is a reproduction of the 1996 booklet which is now out of print.  Part of the section about baptism says the following:

  The ordering of the Declaration places believers’ baptism as a secondary issue dependent on the primary convictions about the sole and absolute authority of Christ, the revelation of Scripture, and the liberty of each local church under the Holy Spirit...  When someone responds to Christ both these things should follow - baptism and instruction.

  Jesus commanded that disciples be baptised and his command does not expire until ‘the very end of the age’ so we must practice it.  Jesus made ‘Repent and believe’ his kingdom clarion call (Mark 1:15), so linking inextricably together these two sides of commitment... Believers’ baptism testifies to this supreme experience of salvation.

  The London Particular Baptist Confession of 1644 states that faith is ordinarily begotten by the preaching of the gospel and that baptism is “... an ordinance for persons professing faith or that are Disciples or taught.”

  What is common to the development of all Christians are the three tenses of salvation: Christians have been saved, we are being saved (through continual growth in our relationship with God) and we shall be saved at the final appearing of Christ. Baptism is then regarded as a decisive moment in the process of being saved, whenever the process of salvation actually began (See 1 Peter 3:21).

Based on this document, it seems clear that the British reformed Baptists expect believers' baptism to follow conversion just as day follows night.


Can a divorced aunt be a Catholic Godparent? I was married in the Catholic Church but I am divorced now. I did not get a annulment. The priest said I could not be a godmother, but I have my doubts.

Am I able to be a godmother at the baptism of my niece that I have custody of?

Being divorced may or may not be an impediment to being a godparent. It will in fact depend on several issues. Some divorcee are not at all guilty of any wrong doing within the marriage as may happen in the case of spousal abuse. Each case must be look at in its own merits.

If one is divorced and remarried without getting an annulment than one can not become a godparent.

  So, what are the requirements of a Godparent/sponsor in the Catholic Church?

  For Baptism, every child must have at least one Godparent and no more than two Godparents. If there are two Godparents, one must be a male and one must be a female.
  A Godparent/sponsor must be a Sacramentally Confirmed Catholic who has already received Holy Communion.
  A Godparent/sponsor should be at least 16 years old.
  A Godparent/sponsor may not be the mother or father of the child to be baptized.
  A Godparent/sponsor must lead a life of faith in keeping with the role and responsibilities to be undertaken.
  A statement attesting to the good standing of the person proposed to be the
  Godparent/sponsor must be obtained from their proper parish. Or, if they are already members of a Parish, the pastor must confirm their good standing and ability to fulfill the above requirements. This statement should be presented to the Parish at least two weeks before the scheduled baptism. A person without this statement often called a Sponsor Certificate) cannot serve as a Godparent. Try to prevent embarrassing a person by asking them to serve as a Godparent/sponsor, knowing that they are not practicing the Catholic faith, are in an invalid marriage, etc., and will be unlikely to obtain this statement from their proper pastor. - Godparent/Sponsor

In short your situation must be made known to the pastor performing the baptism(s).


Did Christ know who He was as a youth? Did Jesus Christ know as a baby that He was the Son of God?

When He worked carpentry with Joseph, His earthly father, did He know then Who or What He was? Did He sense in anyway prior to being a young prodigy (learning and eventually teaching in the temple) that He was the Anointed One?

Do the Scriptures say anything about this issue? Do any church traditions or the writings of the Early Church Fathers offer any perspective?

Luke 2 tells the story of Jesus as a boy in the Temple.  His parents had taken Him to a feast there and had left Him behind on their return trip. When they returned to Jerusalem to find Him, Jesus asks His mother a question--"Did you not know that I must be in my Father's house?"

Now, the Temple was not where Joseph lived, but was the House of God.  So, from that very early age, Jesus understood who He was and that His Father was not Joseph, but God the Father.

  Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the Feast of the
  Passover. And when he was twelve years old, they went up according to
  custom. And when the feast was ended, as they were returning, the boy
  Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem. His parents did not know it, but
  supposing him to be in the group they went a day's journey, but then
  they began to search for him among their relatives and acquaintances,
  and when they did not find him, they returned to Jerusalem, searching
  for him. After three days they found him in the temple, sitting among
  the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions. And all who
  heard him were amazed at his understanding and his answers. And when
  his parents saw him, they were astonished. And his mother said to him,
  “Son, why have you treated us so? Behold, your father and I have been
  searching for you in great distress.” And he said to them, “Why were
  you looking for me? Did you not know that I must be in my Father's
  house?” And they did not understand the saying that he spoke to them.
  And he went down with them and came to Nazareth and was submissive to
  them. And his mother treasured up all these things in her heart.  Luke 2:41-51 ESV


According to Wesleyan-Arminianism, does God fail? According to Wesleyan-Arminianism, does God try His absolute hardest to save all of mankind- but ultimately fails and has no other choice but to send a majority of mankind to have their flesh burned in eternal hellfire?

This question is similar to How does the Arminian view of salvation account for God's sovereignty?, but I'm not looking for a reconciliation of free-will and God's sovereignty. Thank you.

One of the best illustrations I have seen in support of the Arminian concept is a "Dennis the Menace" cartoon in which Dennis has a boy on the ground and is sitting on him with his fist poised to punch him in the face.  The caption is, "Alright Dennis, I'll be you're best friend."  Anybody who knows anything about love knows it cannot be taken, it can only be given.  God whose nature is love knows this most of all.  He created man with free will and the ability to love whom we choose.  If we look at His creation, including ourselves, we see the evidence of this everywhere.

That is from me.  Officially, Wesleyan Arminians believe that for God to overcome man's choice to resist His grace would be an infringement on man's libertarian free will and that free will is tantamount to God truly being loved.  To consider this a failure on God's part would indicate a lack of understanding of God and His nature.  The only limitations on God are the ones He places on Himself.


Why do Christians appeal to personal gain and inducing fear when attempting to "convert" people? I have many times witnessed christians trying to convince or convert atheists or people of other religions to christianity as well as all sorts of arguments and quarrels regarding christianity. I'm sure you've witnessed some too...

Among other things, I've noticed christians persistently using two arguments that I find hard to reconcile with the rest of Christianity / Jesus' teachings:

Appeal to personal Gain

I'm sure you've heard someone say "Start believing in God and Jesus Christ, that way you will be saved and after death you'll go to heaven and be happy for eternity".

Sounds great, the trouble is, if this becomes the sole or main reason for faith, is that faith really worthwile? It seems to me that this argument reduces christianity to a simple trade: Do something that is asked of you and in reward you will be happy forever. I'd think that a real faith would be based on something more... sincere.

I don't understand how can someone venerate Jesus for his act of ultimate selflessnes and love (the crucifixion) but at the same time try to lead people to Jesus by appealing to their desire for personal gain.

Inducing fear

A.k.a. the age-old "If you don't listen, you will go to hell". This is similar, usually used along with the former argument, but it's a bit more drastic. My concern about this argument is essentially the same: If someone believes simply because they want to avoid hell, is that a sincere faith?

It troubles me even more considering that Jesus himself used this argument, although perhaps in somewhat less threatning way (The weeping and gnashing of teeth, "Fear that who kills the soul in hell").

I've heard people say that fear of God is a "good kind of fear", referring to a couple of verses in the Old Testament, but that doesn't really help since fear of God isn't necessarily the same as fear of hell (or is it?) and also (in my experience, anyway) fear is an obstacle to faith or love, that works against them. How could I possibly truly love God while having fear he might as well let me burn in hell? I don't think I could.

Why are these arguments used?

Are they valid or do people use them just to draw attention to themselves?

These two lines of reasoning are, as you've presented them, problematic as you suggest. Ideally, they'd be used together and be founded in the true message of the gospel.

First, the few details to be cleared up:

  I don't understand how can someone venerate Jesus for his act of ultimate selflessnes and love (the crucifixion) but at the same time try to lead people to Jesus by appealling to their desire for personal gain.

Good point. Firstly, though, personal gain isn't bad. It's great. We're wired to want the best for ourselves - and God's given us plenty of things to enjoy. Personal gain and selflessness are not necessarily mutually exclusive - however, in this fallen world, we often must sacrifice personal gain in order to show selflessness. Secondly, there is no comparison between the earthly gain we sacrifice and the heavenly joy we inherit. The latter is so great, so wonderful, that we should want to do anything to attain it. Additionally, keep in mind that the default state of mankind before sin was to be in the presence of God. Made in the image of God, we want to get back to that state, but we can't. Faith in Christ offers us a chance to do that.

Of course, you're right - both of these reasons are alone insufficient, and lack the true message. That message is this: that despite our sinful state before God that should place us in hell according to his justice (appeal to fear), God has sent his Son to die for us and give us the inheritance of Christ and eternity with him. (appeal to joy)

So the real reason anyone should want this faith is out of gratitude - sheer gratitude. Even if God had simply saved us from Hell, but not given us anything else, we'd be so eternally grateful because Hell is so eternally terrible that we'd want to give him everything. But he's not only given us mercy, but grace, so our gratitude abounds, and our faith is sincere.


What support is there in the Patristic writings for Marian Devotion? Specifically, I want to know if there is evidence in the early Church of Christians venerating Mary.  Evidence from the time following Mary's earthly life is preferred, though not required.

As has been mentioned in answers to other questions, the prayer Sub tuum praesidium appeared around 250. It was originally written in Greek.

  Ὑπὸ τὴν σὴν εὐσπλαγχνίαν,
  καταφεύγομεν, Θεοτόκε.
  Τὰς ἡμῶν ἱκεσίας, μὴ παρίδῃς ἐν περιστάσει,
  ἀλλ᾽ ἐκ κινδύνων λύτρωσαι ἡμᾶς,
  μόνη Ἁγνή, μόνη εὐλογημένη.

  Beneath your compassion,
  We take refuge, O Mother of God:
  do not despise our petitions in time of trouble:
  but rescue us from dangers,
  only pure, only blessed one.

Dr Mark Miravalle of the Franciscan University of Steubenville has written an entire book on the subject, Introduction to Mary: The Heart of Marian Doctrine and Devotion [Queenship 2006], a summary of which — with references — is available from piercedhearts.org. He mentions St Ambrose (d. 397) calling Mary "Mother of Salvation".

He goes on

  The Christian witness of the first centuries of the Church also provides us with examples of direct prayer to Mary as a means of intercession to the graces and the protection of her Son.

  For St Irenaeus, Mary is an "Advocate," or interceding helper, for Eve and for her salvation. St. Gregory Thaumaturgis (d.350) depicts Mary interceding for those on earth from her position in Heaven.

  St Ephraem (d.373), the great Eastern doctor and deacon, directly addresses the Blessed Virgin in several Marian sermons. Direct prayer to Mary is also found in a sermon of the great Eastern Father, St Gregory Nazianzen (330-389). By the last part of the fourth century and the beginning of the fifth, we have numerous explicit examples of direct prayer to the Mother of God, for example in the writings of St Ambrose, as well as by St Epiphanius.


What is the earliest mention of the Three Pillars of Catholicism? I was fascinated to read in Peter Turner's answer to the question Why does the Roman Catholic Church not hold to the perspicuity of Scripture? the following claim:

Catholics have always held there to be three pillars, Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and Magisterial Teaching. These three in concert comprise the deposit of Faith.

What is the earliest record that we have of the pillars being referred to together in this way?
edit: let me clear, I'm not hung up on the specific word "pillars", but that the deposit of Faith is clearly defined as consisting of the three aforementioned elements.

November 18, 1965 by Pope Paul VI in Dei Verbum section 10

Sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the word of God, committed to the Church. Holding fast to this deposit the entire holy people united with their shepherds remain always steadfast in the teaching of the Apostles, in the common life, in the breaking of the bread and in prayers (see Acts 2, 42, Greek text), so that holding to, practicing and professing the heritage of the faith, it becomes on the part of the bishops and faithful a single common effort. (7)

But the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, (8) has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, (9) whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed.
It is clear, therefore, that sacred tradition, Sacred Scripture and the teaching authority of the Church, in accord with God's most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others, and that all together and each in its own way under the action of the one Holy Spirit contribute effectively to the salvation of souls.

This is later referenced with more exact wording in 1992 when Pope John Paul II released the Catholic catechism

95 "It is clear therefore that, in the supremely wise arrangement of God, sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium of the Church are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the others. Working together, each in its own way, under the action of the one Holy Spirit, they all contribute effectively to the salvation of souls.

Partial/Incomplete references
I have found a reference to sacred scripture and divine tradition in A synopsis of the moral theology of Peter Dens: as prepared for the use of Romish Seminaries and Students of Theology published 1855

it may rightly be said that our faith rests alone on Sacred Scripture and divine tradition

In Against Heresies by Irenaeus, he says:

that these men do now consent neither to Scripture nor to tradition

Irenaeus was born 130 and died 202.

All emphasis was added by me, and is not in bold on the original source


Is God always near in times of need? How are certain verses that describe God as always being there in times of need such as Psalm 46:1 or Psalm 145:14 compatible with verses such as Psalm 10:1 and Psalm 22:1-2 that describe God hiding himself and forsaking David.

God is constant; man is not. The Psalms are reflections of the hearts of the persons who composed them. David in faith defeated Goliath and in folly slept with a friend's wife and had him killed. He worshiped God wholeheartedly and spared the life of his enemy King Saul, and he also was chased for years and despaired of life. One son became a wise leader, while another started a civil war. The circumstances of his life constantly changed. Each Psalm was written from a different emotional place. His worship was colored by his emotions. He felt elated over victory. He felt angry over injustice. He felt guilty over sin (like Psalm 51). The Psalms are outpourings of the heart which reveal the inner turmoils and beliefs of David and the other writers.

When the Psalmist expresses unmet expectations of God, disappointment, anger, despair, or confusion, they are being honest about what they believe, but their picture of God may be distorted or incomplete. However, notice that many Psalms show a progression. Psalm 22 begins in a dark place, but ends with an affirmation of faith that the God who is not at present showing up and remedying the situation will come in time. This shows the emotional and spiritual growth of the one who is praying and worshiping God. Their trials are increasing their faith.

This same sort of contradiction is found in Proverbs and Ecclesiastes, each of which are traditionally believed to have been written, curated, or at least contributed to by Solomon. The first confidently expresses the blessings that accrue to the person that fears God, while the second expresses confusion over how often injustice and futility prevail in life, and how people who do not fear God often flourish, while the wise are forgotten.

Returning to Psalm 22:

  19 But you, Lord, do not be far from me.

  You are my strength; come quickly to help me.

  20 Deliver me from the sword, my precious life from the power of the dogs.

  21 Rescue me from the mouth of the lions; save me from the horns of the wild oxen.

  22 I will declare your name to my people; in the assembly I will praise you.

  23 You who fear the Lord, praise him!

  All you descendants of Jacob, honor him!

  Revere him, all you descendants of Israel!

  24 For he has not despised or scorned
  the suffering of the afflicted one;

  he has not hidden his face from him
  but has listened to his cry for help.

Between verse 21 and verse 22, we have a transition from supplication to praise. Have the Psalmist's fortunes suddenly reversed? No, what has changed is their attitude. It is one thing to praise God for what he has done, and quite another to praise Him for what you are confident he will do. The first shows simple gratitude, while the second shows faith.

Having seen my fair share of distress in this life, I know that there are times in the midst of trouble when God feels far off, and times when he feels near. The only difference is our perception: the eyes of faith can see that God is near. The nearness of God is not in question, it is how near we will allow ourselves to be to him.


Where did all the water come from and go during the flood? The Bible states that the waters went 15 cubits or 22.5 feet above the highest mountain during the flood.

Genesis 7:20 KJV

  Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains
  were covered.

Mount Everest is 29,029 feet high so the waters would have been 29,051.5 feet high.

Where did all the water come from and where did it go?

This subject is dealt with, in impressive detail and in a scientific manner, by Morris and Whitcombe in their famous book 'The Genesis Flood'.

They draw attention to the mention of waters 'above the firmament' Genesis 1:7 and I agree that it is very likely that it was a protective canopy of water vapour around the earth - at a distance.

Other protective measures can be seen in the asteroid belt (between Mars and Jupiter) which may well be a capturing point for harmful missiles, in the existence of the gas giant planets (Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune) which may well have a protective gravitational effect - maybe the reason for the cluster of asteroids - and in what is termed the 'Oort' cloud, which is believed to be a very large cloud of icy particles circling the solar system beyond Pluto.

The magnetic field around earth is well documented in its protective effect from solar wind which conveys radiation and high velocity particles from the Sun's combustion.

The water canopy would have protected from cosmic radiation and if it is the case that the judgement of God removed this protection then the rapid shortening of human lifespan on earth may well be due to the removal of this protection. Genesis 5 and Genesis 11 contrast the longevities of humans on earth before and after the Flood and it is clear that there was a rapid and permanent reduction in lifespan due to the Flood.

Not only would there be a lack of protection from radiation, there would have been a disastrous change in climactic conditions. What may well have been a humid, temperate and moderate climate, globally - one highly conducive to longevity - might well have become what we experience today, almost immediately after the Flood's recession.

Thus it would be the case that God's judgement was twofold - the removal of the protective layer and the flooding of the earth to remove all flesh. (Except that flesh which was under subjection to faith and, thus, had a provision provided during the judgement of Flood.)

It is worth remarking that anyone could have followed Noah's example and could have built a suitable vessel. They did not need to worry about animals - Noah looked after that - they just had to save themselves in a very much smaller vessel than the ark. But none did. Jesus said they 'were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day Noah entered the ark' Matthew 24:38.

After the Flood it is clear that the water took time to soak into the earth and Noah had to remain in the ark until it did so, Genesis 8:13,14. There was, presumably, much greater oceanic volume afterwards, than prior to the Flood.

The earth's crust contains truly enormous amounts of water, dispersed widely throughout the planet. It is secreted in sedimentary rock, in aquifers below ground and it floods every mine ever dug below ground. See more information on Wikipedia - Aquifers

The topography of the seabed indicates vast fractures across both the Atlantic floor and the Pacific floor. It would be reasonable to suppose that the weight of water had this effect. 'The fountains of the deep were broken up' may refer to this. Genesis 7:11. This disruption would enable vast quantities of water to gravitate to subterranean levels.

So Morris and Whitcombe suggest - and I agree - that, as to the question posed, the water came from a canopy of water vapour above the earth and it is now visible in the oceans and also to be found below ground, wherever and whenever the earth is penetrated to any depth.


Who were the non-gentiles implied in Matthew 6: 32? In Matthew 6: 32 ("For all these things the Gentiles seek.") it seems as if Jesus divided the world into gentiles and non-gentiles.
Who were the non-gentiles implied in the verse?

A gentile is anyone who is a non-Jew.  That's the standard definition.  So the "non-gentiles" are the Jews.  There's really not much more to it than that.

As for the relevance:  The Jews (Israelites) worshiped the true God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in contrast with the Gentiles, who sought after other gods.

  Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

  For after all these things do the Gentiles seek,.... Or "the nations
  of the world", as in Luke 12:30. The Syriac reads it so here: the
  phrase, "the nations of the world", is used of the Gentiles, in
  distinction from the Israelites, thousands of times in the Jewish
  writings; it would be endless to give instances. These knew not God,
  nor acknowledged his providence; the greater part of them thought,
  that the soul perished with the body; few of them thought, that
  anything remained after death; and they that did, spoke very
  doubtfully of it: wherefore it is no wonder, that such persons should
  greedily seek after, and be anxiously concerned for all these things,
  food, raiment, and riches, and a great plenty of them; since this is
  all the happiness they expect; and imagine, that this is to be
  acquired by their care, thought, diligence, and industry; having no
  regard to a superior being, and his all wise providence: but for the
  Jews, and so Christians, who have a divine revelation, the knowledge
  of God, and his providence, and of a future state after this life, to
  act the same part the Heathens do, is exceedingly unbecoming, absurd,
  and wicked: and besides, such greedy desires, immoderate care, and
  anxious solicitude, are altogether unnecessary;


Is receiving the Holy Spirit the completion of Salvation? In Luke Chapter 11:1 through 13, Jesus exhorts us seek righteousness through persistence.

  Luke 11:9 and 10  And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you. For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.

and in verse 13 he seems to indicate that when God gives us the Holy Spirit that is the fulfillment of that quest:

  Luke 11:13  If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?

We have the further example of Pentecost which appears to bolster this concept.

  Acts 1:4 through 8 And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me. For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence. When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?  And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power. But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

In the above verses Jesus charges the disciples not to go into the world to preach the Gospel until they have received holy Spirit. And in the following verses we have the fulfillment of Jesus promice

  Acts 2:1 through 4  And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

The question that arises in my mind is whether this receiving of the Holy Spirit was only applicable, those early converts or is that applicable to all converts?

Disclaimer: This answer is from a Charismatic Evangelical perspective with Wesleyan soteriology.

  Is receiving the Holy Spirit the completion of Salvation?

The short answer is no.

While it is true that Ephesians 4:30 ESV says

  And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.

Given this, it would be easy to think that if we've received the Holy Spirit, we will definitely be kept from falling away and will surely be saved from the wrath to come (i.e. 'once saved always saved'); However, just a little further along in the same discourse, the believer (who has 'shared in the Holy Spirit, and ha[s] tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come' - Heb 6:4-6) is solemnly warned:

  5 For you may be sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure, or who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. 6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. 7 Therefore do not become partners with them; - Ephesians 5:5-7 ESV

This is not an idle warning, there are many places in scripture that believers are warned of the dangers of falling away (cf. Heb 3:12-14, Rom 8:12-13, Rom 11:17-22, Matt 7:13-27, John 15:1-6) - even given the unfailing faithfulness of the Heavenly Father, even after evidence of His mighty anointing upon us with signs and wonders.  The simple fact is the Holy Spirit's influence in our lives is resistable (cf. Acts 7:51, Eph 4:30, 1 Thes 5:19) and the consequence of this, is that like Esau it is possible to despise our (new) birthright. As we receive Him, so we must walk in Him (Col 2:6).

So when we initially receive the Holy Spirit it is not the 'completion' of our salvation. Paul's instruction to "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling" (Phil 2:12) was given to believers who had received the Spirit. The Holy Spirit will lead us into the fulness of salvation, but we must follow and not shrink back through unbelief.  The journey of sanctification is along the straight and narrow road that is difficult, but at the end of the road, our journey will be completed in full satisfaction of that which the Spirit's presence gives us a foretaste.

The 'completion' of our salvation is described here:

  28 And now, little children, abide in him, so that when he appears we may have confidence and not shrink from him in shame at his coming. 29 If you know that he is righteous, you may be sure that everyone who practices righteousness has been born of him.
  3:1 See what kind of love the Father has given to us, that we should be called children of God; and so we are. The reason why the world does not know us is that it did not know him. 2 Beloved, we are God's children now, and what we will be has not yet appeared; but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is. 3 And everyone who thus hopes in him purifies himself as he is pure. - 1 John 2:28-3:3 ESV (emphasis added)

The completion of our salvation, is to be conformed to the image of the Son (cf. Rom 8:29, 2 Cor 3:18, Eph 4:13-15) and to be perfect as our Father in Heaven is perfect (Mat 5:48).  "Character trumps Charisma" (cf. Mat 7:15-23).

Nevertheless, receiving the full measure of the Spirit promised to the Children of God is extremely precious and should not be despised - He will convict of sin, of righteousness and judgement (John 16:8), He will lead us to confess that Jesus is Lord (cf. 1 Cor 12:3), He will guide us into all truth (John 16:13), He will equip us to be powerful witnesses to the Truth* (Acts 1:8), He will bring prophecy, dreams and visions that we may know the day of the Lord's favor and see His deliverance* (Joel 2:28-32).

The question correctly cites verses from Luke 11 and Acts 1 & 2 as giving keys as to how to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit - Ask, Seek, Knock, Expect the good gift from your Heavenly Father, Wait on God according to his timing, unite with other believers in prayer with one purpose.  We see from the many other examples in the book of Acts that those who have received can help others to receive, particularly through the laying on of hands (cf. Acts 8:14-17, Acts 9:17-18). We can see further, that *'the baptism of the Holy Spirit' is a subsequent experience to believing the gospel and it was always evidenced by outward signs (gifts of prophecy, tongues or healing etc. - cf. Acts 8:14-17, Acts 9:17-18, Acts 19:1-7)

In closing, to answer your final question:

  The question that arises in my mind is whether this receiving of the Holy Spirit was only applicable, those early converts or is that applicable to all converts?

This is directly answered in the clearest terms possible by what the Apostle Peter says in Acts 2:38-39 -

  38 And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” (emphasis added)

The promise of the Holy Spirit is to everyone whom the Lord God calls to himself - even those who are 'far off'.


Is rape condoned in the Bible? If so, why? Rape is not a judgment that's commanded upon those that violate the law, whether in the new testament or the old. So why does God choose to use rape as a means of judgement?

In america we have a bill of rights that prevents cruelty to criminals. We feel that this is a moral thing to do, why does God not have moral standards that would prevent him from using rape as a means of judgement?

Why is rape condoned in the Bible?

  Isaiah 13:15-18 (NIV)

  15 Whoever is captured will be thrust through;     all who are caught
  will fall by the sword.  16 Their infants will be dashed to pieces
  before their eyes;     their houses will be looted and their wives
  violated.

  17 See, I will stir up against them the Medes,     who do not care
  for silver     and have no delight in gold.  18 Their bows will strike
  down the young men;     they will have no mercy on infants,     nor
  will they look with compassion on children.

  Zechariah 14:1-2

  1 A day of the LORD is coming, Jerusalem, when your possessions will
  be plundered and divided up within your very walls.  2 I will gather
  all the nations to Jerusalem to fight against it; the city will be
  captured, the houses ransacked, and the women raped. Half of the city
  will go into exile, but the rest of the people will not be taken from
  the city.

  2 Samuel 12:11 (NIV)

  11 “This is what the LORD says: ‘Out of your own household I am going
  to bring calamity on you. Before your very eyes I will take your wives
  and give them to one who is close to you, and he will sleep with your
  wives in broad daylight.

Please feel free to target any of the suggested rape events that are listed here. http://www.evilbible.com/Rape.htm

God does not condone rape in the Bible.  This is a commonly raised objection to Christianity that's been answered ad-nauseum on apologetics websites, such as this one:

http://www.rationalchristianity.net/numbers31.html

Quote from the linked post:
Weren't the virgin women raped?

  There are two parts to this objection: did God instruct or permit the
  soldiers to rape the women, and did the soldiers actually rape them?

  It's clear that God didn't intend for the soldiers to rape the women,
  but rather to take them captive. The law God had given to the
  Israelites condemned rape, in some cases punishing it with death (Dt
  22:25-27). Also, immediately following the command to spare the virgin
  women, the soldiers were instructed to purify themselves and their
  captives (31:19), and rape (or consensual intercourse) would have
  violated this command (Lev 15:16-18). In the rest of the chapter, the
  women are usually referred to as people (using the masculine adam),
  not women or virgins, underscoring the notion that they were seen as
  captives rather than sexual objects.1

  It's theoretically possible that some of the soldiers raped the women,
  but given the circumstances it seems very unlikely. The soldiers would
  have known that rape was a violation of both the law and the
  instruction to purify themselves, as shown above; they had also seen
  God punish such violations with death during their travels in the
  desert. In fact, they had recently experienced a plague and executions
  resulting from their relations with Midianite women (25:1-9), as Moses
  reminded them. At that time, all those who had sexual relations with
  the Midianites were killed. It's highly implausible that the soldiers
  would have wanted to have anything to do with the Midianite women
  given this context.

  So what did happen to the women (and children)? God gave the
  Israelites permission to marry women they took captive, but they were
  to treat their wives with respect: the women were to have time to
  mourn their families first, and were not to be mistreated (Dt
  21:10-14). Those who didn't marry would have become servants, but
  there were rules against mistreating them as well (Ex 21:26-27, Dt
  23:15-16). See the article on slavery laws for more on the treatment
  of female slaves.

As with most commonly cited objections to Christianity, the idea that God condones rape is based on a mis-reading of scripture (intentional or unintentional), and taking verses out of context.

Edited to address the changes to the question since I originally answered.

The verses that are there now are not condoning rape, they are warning that this is what is to come.

If I were to say "If you spend more than you earn you're going to go into debt and will suffer financially" I'm not condoning going into debt, I'm warning you.

You'd have to be intentionally mis-reading the verses posted to interpret them as "condoning" rape.


Why is the interlocking-squares (gammadia) a symbol of the Melchizedek Priesthood? I was reading about the relatively new discovery of the Apostle Phillip's gravesite in Turkey, and it briefly mentioned that the square was represented in his grave and it was significant because the square is a symbol of the Melchizedek Priesthood.

Mosaics and Images from Byzantine Ravenna, Italy:

I was also reading about it here: Christian iconography

Why is the square a symbol of the Melchizedek Priesthood? What ancient documents detail this?

If no ancient documents, then are there Jewish or early Christian graves that somehow convey that the square represents the Melchizedek Priesthood?

Why is the square a symbol of the Melchizedek Priesthood?

Short answer is because it's on the altar cloth with Melchizedek on the mosaic. I've been unable to find any ancient reference to the eight pointed star referred to or necessarily associated with Melchizedek.

Henry Pelham Holmes Bromwell, a mason, in his book Restorations of Masonic Geometry and Symbolry Being a Dissertation on the Lost Knowlege of the Lodges apparently identifies the eight pointed star the "Signet of Melchizedek" in 1905. 1

The LDS also commonly refer to it as the seal of Melchizedek because of Michael Lyon's caption, The white altar cloth is decorated with ... the so-called ‘seal of Melchizedek,’ two interlocked squares, to a picture in Hugh Nibley's book Temple and Cosmos (the picture and caption are not included in the online version, but is similar to the first in the OP question) in 1992.

  What ancient documents detail this?

None that I can find, though there are several architectural/artworks that have this symbol as part of it, though not necessarily connected to Melchizedek.

Christian Tile Mosaic in Khirbet, Israel
Jewish Bible Leningrad Codex (dated 1008 CE)
Coptic Altar Cloth (2nd to 4th century AD)
Theodora’s Procession with Retinue, San Vitale basilica, Ravenna, Italy (see the garment sleeve, built 547)

In Islam, the symbol is called a Rub el Hizb, or quarter group. 2 The usage of this symbol by Muslims, however, is a moot point since their faith sprung up in the early 7th century AD, and they appear to have adapted this symbol from Byzantine art. CR Clifford mentions:

  The combination of two squares gives us the Mohammedan eight-pointed star, and the five-pointed star is supposed to be a Christian symbol. Yet if we go back to the period of Christian enthusiasm in the Byzantine Empire we will find the Brahman and Mohammedan eight-pointed star in universal use. 3

In Hinduism, the eight-pointed star is called Star of Lakshmi.

  If no ancient documents, then are there Jewish or early Christian graves that somehow convey that the square represents the Melchizedek Priesthood?

I have been unable to find graves that convey the squares or any connection the squares have to Melchizedek.

A few other articles on the seal of Melchizedek (most are from the LDS perspective):

The Seal of Melchizedek? (lots of info)
Seal of Melchizedek - Eight-Pointed Star (also lots of info)
Ornament Symbols (refers to it as the eight pointed Armenian Star or Bethlehem Star)
Symbols in Christian Art & Architecture
Seal of Melchizedek
The Seal of Melchizedek as a Christological Symbol
The Seal of Melchizedek (not part 1)
The Seal of Melchizedek – Part 2
Gammadia on Early Jewish and Christian Garments

1 http://lds-studies.blogspot.com/2010/08/seal-of-melchizedek.html

2 http://symboldictionary.net/?p=3106 and http://ldsmag.com/the-seal-of-melchizedek-history-meanings-and-mysteries

3 http://lds-studies.blogspot.com/2011/05/seal-of-melchizedek-eight-pointed-star.html and https://books.google.com/books?id=4BroAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA12&lpg=PA12&dq=Mohammedan+eight-pointed+star+-lds&source=bl&ots=-iQByaLw0z&sig=ogg2EZjLnTOxg2UzWhdbqcF9-5I&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi4rdq0p8fSAhWISCYKHcmNBcsQ6AEIGjAA#v=onepage&q=Mohammedan%20eight-pointed%20star%20-lds&f=false


What have prominent theologians said about Halloween? I am not interested in the Truth Question of whether it is a sin to celebrate.

I'm particularly interested in citations of what has been said about having too much fear of evil spirits, and a fear that makes folks seek out some rite of avoiding the spirits to put their faith in, as opposed to faith in Christ's sufficient and fully available work, a fear that looks to great evils outside themselves.  Or does the weight of writing point to the danger of failure to take seriously the idea of devils roaming about?

I submit this for your review as I studied this about 30 yrs ago. I have searched  for links so you can  research the answer in depth at your leisure as there is many many studies and opinions out there. The following are just a few I am sighting for you from my studies. I hope it helps....and if you desire more information let me know.

Bob Larson, argumentatively, one of the churches leading authority on the occult says...

  “Fear hath torment,” says 1 John 4:18 (KJV). Whatever the psychological reasons for paying to be scared out of one’s wits, the real force behind such Halloween attractions is Satan. In fact, 2 timothy 1:7 clearly says that fear is a “spirit,” a demon. If patrons of fear franchises really want to be tormented by terror, all they have to do is reject God’s offer of salvation through Christ, and the devil will give them a free ticket to eternal terror. https://boblarson.org/blog/2012/10/halloween-franchising-fear/

  Today, Halloween, people are looking for imaginative ways to stoke the fear factor. TV networks are featuring non-stop fright flicks. Theatrical haunted houses are trying to scare the living daylights out of paying customers with ever more gruesome and realistic horror. But trying to up the hormone rush of fear for any reason isn’t smart. God gave us our fright-and-flight response for self-preservation, not manipulation. Demons do that, and one of the most powerful evil spirits is that of Fear. I’ve often said, “If you have the spirit of fear [exposed in 2 Timothy 1:7] you don’t need any other demons.” Fear is a gatekeeper letting other demons in. this Halloween, focus on “power, love, and a sound mind,” not terror. And stay away from haunted houses, real or fake, and snake therapy. You don’t need a dose of fear to feel good. You need faith in Christ to be free from slithering spirits.  https://boblarson.org/blog/

Steve Harmon, Th.G., B.S., Th.M., Th.D.  says...

  Samhain (holloween)is considered the most important because the veil between the world's of the living and the dead is at its thinnest point in the year, making communication easier. The souls of the dead are reported to come to the land of the living. Much more detail here http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/holloween.html

Anton LeVey head of the Church of Satan,

  said "he was glad the Christian parents let their children worship the devil at least one night out of the year. "

Don and Phyl Tobias

  It is interesting that the ceremonies for honoring the dead in the Fall of the year, Oct. or Nov., were known to all ancient cultures. The Assyrians, Hindus, Persians, Chinese, American Indians, natives of the islands of the South Seas, as well as the British, Irish, Scots, etc., all believed that this was "the time of ghosts" as the dwellers in what is now Britain called it. In Genesis, chapters 6 through 8, we read the story of Noah's ark and how God saved just 8 people, Noah, his wife, his three sons and their wives, out of the entire world because Noah was righteous before Him and how the rest of the population was wicked and was destroyed. This occurrence was undoubtedly perverted and survived throughout the rest of the peoples of the world as stories of ghosts, the dead returning, etc. Traditions of such similarity all over the world could not be merely coincidental. Genesis 7:11 tells us that the storm started on the "17th day of the second month." The Jewish new year begins some place near the middle of September. Thus the deluge would have occurred at the end of October or the beginning of November. More information  http://www.blessedquietness.com/journal/housechu/hallween.htm

D. James Kennedy. A.B., M.Div.

  www.truthinaction.org/.../HALLOWEEN%20AND%20CHRIST_100294.p

Dr. Adrian Rogers  three time president of the Southern Baptist Convention

  As a matter of fact, I believe that Halloween is one of the masterstrokes of Satan, to make us believe that all of this is just so much of a fairy tale. http://www.sermonsearch.com/sermon-outlines/14393/devices-of-the-devil/

Just for the record I want to point out I did not comment on my thoughts as the question did not want to know my opinion but the opinion of noted experts. So I remained without comment in respect to the question.


Did Melchizedek worship the same God as Abram? In Genesis 14:18, there is a man, Melchizedek, who was a priest of the Most High God:

  Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine. (Now he was the priest of the Most High God.) (NET)

A few verses later, in Genesis 14:22:

  But Abram replied to the king of Sodom, "I raise my hand to the LORD, the Most High God, Creator of heaven and earth, ... (NET)

So did Melchizedek worship the same God as Abram?

Good question! Firstly, the name they used is the same. In Hebrew Most High God is "elyon" and it's used in both verses you refer to.

Melchizedek is a really interesting character. In Psalms 110: 4 there is a bit where it says "you are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek". But who is this "priest forever"? The writer of Hebrews gives the answer, at 5:5,6 and I encourage you to read that book (it's in the New Testament) to clarify this answer. In short, the forever priest is Jesus of Nazareth. His God is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Matthew 22:32 and elsewhere). And he is the "priest in the order of Melchizedek". So the God of Abraham and the God of Melchizedek is surely the same.


What was at issue in the Clark-Van Til controversy? In the 1940s, Cornelius Van Til and other professors at Westminster Theological Seminary first tried to block Gordon Clark's entry into the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, then later put him on trial for removal from the denomination. What theological issues were at stake in the controversy, why was it such a serious issue that Clark was removed from the OPC, and who are today's Clarkians and Van Tillians? For the last question, I'm not looking for a list but lines of demarcation.

Theological issues
To get it straight from the horses' mouths, you can read Van Til's complaint [PDF] and Clark's answer [PDF] online. Both are very long and in-depth and also spend a good deal of time on procedural matters before getting to the theological. But if you really want to know and understand the ins and outs of what was at stake, primary sources are usually the best way to go.
With that being said, the paper The Gordon Clark and Cornelius Van Til Controversy by Jared Moore [PDF/MP3] gives a good distillation of the controversy:

Clark believed that man's knowledge and God's knowledge are quantitatively different but not qualitatively different. Instead of a two-fold theory of truth, he believed that truth is one. If man knows an item of truth, and both God and man know the identical item, then on this item God's knowledge and man's knowledge coincide. Yet, man can never know exhaustively and completely God's knowledge of any truth in all its relationships and implications because man is not omniscient. Every truth has an infinite number of relationships and implications and these implications in turn have other infinite implications. Thus, man's knowledge will forever remain quantitatively less than God's knowledge, even in Heaven.
Furthermore, Clark believed that God is logic. His paraphrase of John : was, "In the beginning was Logic, and Logic was with God, and Logic was God. . . In Logic was life and the life was the light of men." To Clark, "God and logic are one and the same first principle, for John wrote that Logic was God." Thus, he held that Scripture is a part of God's mind. And if God has spoken in Scripture, He has spoken logically in logical organization. Since man was made in God's image, he can receive this logical knowledge of God because "human reason is not so much human as divine." Clark believed that truth is the same for God and man. He wrote, "Naturally, we may not know the truth about some matters. But if we know anything at all, what we must know must be identical with what God knows. God knows all truth, and unless we know something God knows, our ideas are untrue. It is absolutely essential therefore to insist that there is an area of coincidence between God's mind and our mind." Thus, Clark believed that Van Til could never say he knows truth since he never knows anything as God knows it.
Van Til, on the other hand, believed that there is a Creator/creature distinction between God and man that makes God quantitatively and qualitatively incomprehensible to man. He argued that God's knowledge of Himself is archetype knowledge. God also has an analogical knowledge of His archetype knowledge, which is God's ectype knowledge. God has given man in His revelation, His Scripture, analogical knowledge of His ectype knowledge. Scripture is the ectype of the ectype knowledge of the archetype knowledge of God. Thus, man knows nothing of God's archetype knowledge since he is not God. Man can never know anything as Creator; man can only know as creature. Nevertheless, because man's knowledge of God as revealed in Scripture is analogous to or an interpretation of God's ectype knowledge—which is analogous to or an interpretation of God's archetype knowledge—Scripture is God's truth revealed to man. Scripture is an accurate interpretation of God's knowledge because God is the Interpreter. However, man's knowledge of Scripture is always a creaturely knowledge. God's knowledge and man's knowledge are always qualitatively and quantitatively different. All revelation is anthropomorphic. If man knows as God knows, then man is God. Thus, Van Til saw a fatal flaw in Clark's doctrine of the incomprehensibility of God.

The issues therefore had to do with epistemology, God's incomprehensibility, and the creator-creature distinction. In addition to the documents I already linked, Moore's paper cites Clark's essay "The Axiom of Revelation," which is included in the anthology The Philosophy of Gordon H. Clark, and Van Til's books Defense of the Faith and Introduction to Systematic Theology as case studies of their overarching philosophies.
Moore's paper has a long section on historical narrative of the controversy, which should prove useful if you want to delve deeper. I'm told Herman Hoeksema's book The Clark-Van Til Controversy is also a good read on the topic, but Hoeksema is said to have a detectable pro-Clark bias throughout (but probably not as pronounced as Moore's pro-Van Til bias). Interestingly, Hoeksema's opponent in the common grace controversy, Abraham Kuyper, was one of the formative influences on Van Til.
Why did it matter so much?
As for why these issues were a big enough deal to justify driving Clark out of the OPC, Moore's paper has an answer for that too:

The implications of Clark's theology undermined the Reformed Faith when taken to their consistent end. When the Creator/creature distinction is compromised, and man believes he can eliminate Scriptural paradoxes and comprehend all Scripture logically, the consistent end is a denial of the Christology expressed in the Chalcedonian Creed and the Westminster Confession. ... Clark's eventual rejection of God the Son's single personhood justified Van Til's original concerns, for if Clark's conclusions were taken to their consistent end in the OPC, the result would be a denial of orthodox Christology.

Specifically, Clark apparently ended up confessing that Christ subsisted in two persons, though there are many who defend Clark's orthodoxy even on this point, claiming that he was defining "person" differently from the historic confessions, and that his work can be read as consistent with them.
The Clark-Van Til divide today
These days, Clark and Van Til are both widely respected in Presbyterian and reformed circles, both as theologians and as presuppositional apologists. But one of the lasting legacies of the controversy is that their brands of presuppositionalism are recognized as different: see Van Tillian presuppositionalism versus Clarkian presuppositionalism.
After Clark's exit from the OPC, he joined a denomination that, many mergers later, became the Reformed Presbyterian Church Evangelical Synod. In 1982, the RPCES merged with the Presbyterian Church in America. Partly because a merger between the PCA and OPC appeared to be on the horizon (though it never came to fruition), Clark refused to join the PCA and joined the breakaway Covenant Presbytery (which later called itself the Reformed Presbyterian Church in the United States) in 1983.
Those in the OPC tend to be Van Tillians, unsurprisingly, but from what I understand, denomination isn't otherwise a reliable indicator of support for Clark or Van Til. John Frame and Francis Schaeffer are two of the well-known theologians who have been heavily influenced by Van Til. For his part, Frame said that "the controversy was really unnecessary and largely based on misunderstanding. Van Til in my view was at his worst when he was debating with other Christian apologists." On the other side, John Robbins' Trinity Foundation consciously and proudly stands in the Clarkian tradition.


Do some Christian churches worship the saints and/or angels? When the disciple John falls down on his knees to worship an angel, the angel immediately urges him to stop because he is just like John, a servant of God, who worships God alone.

8 It is I, John, who heard and saw these things, and when I heard and saw them I fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who showed them to me. 9 But he said to me, “Don’t! I am a fellow servant of yours and of your brothers the prophets and of those who keep the message of this book. Worship God.” (NABRE)
8 καὶ ἐγὼ Ἰωάννης ὁ βλέπων ταῦτα καὶ ἀκούων καὶ ὅτε ἤκουσα καὶ ἔβλεψα ἔπεσα προσκυνῆσαι ἔμπροσθεν τῶν ποδῶν τοῦ ἀγγέλου τοῦ δεικνύοντός μοι ταῦτα 9 καὶ λέγει μοι, Ὅρα μή σύνδουλός σου γάρ εἰμι καὶ τῶν ἀδελφῶν σου τῶν προφητῶν καὶ τῶν τηρούντων τοὺς λόγους τοῦ βιβλίου τούτου τῷ θεῷ προσκύνησον (TR, 1550)

It seems like the doctrines of many Christian churches (Orthodox, Catholic, etc.) are replete with saint/angel worship.  Is that accurate? Do some Christians worship angels and/or saints?

Key to answering this question is that no mainstream Christian denomination thinks they are actually worshipping any person other than the Triune Godhead - God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.

From the outside, however, accusations are often made in this regard.

To the uninitiated, veneration of the Saints can look like worship.
To the uninitiated, the use of icons can look like idolatry.
To the uninitiated, requesting the assistance of angels, Mary, or whatever blessed Saint can look like praying to someone other than God.
To the uninitiated, repeating the Lord's Prayer or the 23rd Psalm can look like the invocation of a talisman against evil.

And, in practice, the distinction may not actually be there for the person doing it. Some Catholics actually believe they are praying to Mary. Some Orthodox think they are worshipping their icons. And some evangelicals may believe that the Lord's Prayer is somehow "holier" than every other.

The point, however, is not to judge a theology by its worst adherents, but by its best.  Any doctrine can be perverted, any good thing used for evil.

In 2 Kings 18:4, we read of what happened to the bronze serpent that God had instructed Moses to build after God had sent a plague of vipers to attack the Children of Israel in the desert.  Speaking hundreds of years after the fact, the Bible records that Hezekiah:

  .. removed the high places, smashed the sacred stones and cut down the Asherah poles. He broke into pieces the bronze snake Moses had made, for up to that time the Israelites had been burning incense to it.

That people had turned an artifact of God into a device of worship does not speak to the evil of a thing - only to the evil of those who practice idolatry at all.  Idolatry - the worship of something or someone other than the true God - is a sin.  And when "veneration" slips into worship, it is wrong.

But simple respect is not always worship.  The question is, at their best, what are these things supposed to do.

In all cases, these objects, people, or beings are supposed to be intermediators to point the worshipper to Christ - a laudable goal.  People need concrete things.  But people are also prone, as Romans 1 says to worship the creation rather than the creator.

  25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. 26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. ... 28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done

Thus, in short, the ultimate answer to "Why do people worship these things" is because man is evil. Man twists and perverts. He loves darkness rather than light.

Sure is a good thing we know a God who can fix that, if we're willing to learn differently.


What is the basis for the Catholic teaching that Mary is holy? What is the basis for the Catholic teaching that Mary is holy?  Most other denominations don't hold to doctrines like perpetual virginity. They see Mary as special because she was chosen by God but are unlike Catholicism which seems to teach that she is holy in a way that other denominations don't. I don't understand the basis for this. Can you please explain?

From the Gospel of St. Luke:

41 And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:
42 And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed [art] thou among women, and blessed [is] the fruit of thy womb.
43 And whence [is] this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?
44 For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy.
45 And blessed [is] she that believed: for there shall be a performance of those things which were told her from the Lord.

Note that St. Elisabeth is first filled with the Holy Spirit, then speaks the following lines with authority derived from that Inspiration. And she calls Our Lady “blessed,” which in this context means “Saint.”
In the next versicle, the Magnificat starts (46–55), but one part in verse 48 stands out for our purposes:

48 For he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden: for, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.

Catholics and Orthodox (and Miaphysites and the Church of the East, as well) all hold that this Evangelic command to “call [Our Lady] blessed” is fulfilled by our counting her as the first among the blessed, and the holiest of all creatures after the Triune God. After all, she was granted that unique privilege to bear the Word of God himself.