Who does Paul consider to be "Saints" in Romans 1:7? I am not a Roman Catholic. In my understanding of Roman Catholicism, the term "saints" is not applied to all believers. It's applied to a subset of believers who have performed some miracle or great act.

When I look at Romans 1:7, I see:

  To all those in Rome who are loved by God and called to be saints:

From this, we can logically derive:

"those people who are in Rome" AND "are loved by God" ==> can be called a saint

I suspect the condition of "being in Rome" is not a hard requirement, i.e. it's there became it's the book of Romans and Paul is writing to people in Rome.

Thus, I get the impression that in Paul's eyes, "all those who are loved by God should be called a saint."

Thus, "all believers are to be called saints."

Is this consistent with Paul's other teachings?

Paul refers to “the saints” many times in his writings. The clearest definition of a saint is found in his salutation at the beginning of 1 Corinthians:

1 Paul, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother,
2 Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours:
3 Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ
(1 Corinthians 1:1–3)

According to Paul, a saint is someone who is “sanctified in Christ Jesus.” This describes all who believe in Christ and are made holy by his grace. Also included in the definition are “all that ... call upon the name of Jesus Christ” (who may or may not yet be fully converted).
In Romans 8:27, it says that Christ “makes intercession for the saints.” In the surrounding verses it explains that the saints have the Holy Spirit, love God, and are “called according to his purpose.”
As a side note, the word saint is also used in the Old Testament, though not as often. For example, Psalm 50:5 defines saints as “those that have made a covenant with [the Lord] by sacrifice.” In other words, the saints are any who can be identified as God’s people.


Biblical basis for two aspects of the Gap Theory According to the Gap Theory there was a large gap in time between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. Two aspects of the theory are:

Rather than Genesis 1:1 being a summary for what follows, it is a distinct event in time, followed by another distinct event in time in Genesis 1:2ff.
Satan is thought to have sinned and fallen during the gap, which God judged through a cataclysmic flood (often called Lucifer's flood) that left the world in the empty and void state we read in Genesis 1:2.

What other verses in the Bible support these two propositions?

It is uncertain when Satan and the rebellious Angels rebelled against God or even how far the war had progressed before Satan and his Angels were ejected from Heaven.

According to Scriptures which is the basis for Pink's analogy.

  Genesis 1:1  In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

is simply a statement that God was the creator and:

  Genesis 1:2  And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

is descriptive of his creation at that time.

Pink apparently deduced from:

  Luke 10:18  And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.

and

  Revelation 12:9  And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

That since Revelation says that he was cast into the Earth it had to be without form and void.

This would make more sense if as; some believe, that the Earth was created at the time of their being expelled from Heaven as a place of interment for Satan and his Angels. This also gives more meaning to the bottomless pit also spoken of in the Revelation.

As far as the gap theory goes it's basis in not between Genesis 1:1 and 2, but between verses 1 and 3, and some validity for this theory lies in:

  Genesis 1:5  And God called the light Day, and *the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

The darkness referred to in verse 5 can only be eternity preceding the creation of light, since God starts that first day with darkness, with the light being the second part of day one. This also gives reason to debate the 24 hour day theory for the creation, since the 24 hour day is based on the cycle of sunlight and darkness which does not come into play until:

  Genesis 1:16  And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

This is of course depending upon whether or not Genesis chapter one is chronological, as you have stated in your question. The answer to that can only come from the numerology, that being that God divided his work of the Creation into days and broke it into successive numbers 1,2, and so on. The only logical reason for this is to delineate Chronology.

I can only give you the logic behind my answer to your question, you will have to determine for yourself what you choose to believe, since this is the most concrete evidence I know of and even that is subject to individual interpretation.

Hope this helps.


Have any major Christian intellectuals responded to Stephen Hawking's "The Grand Design"? Stephen Hawking, in The Grand Design, argues that God did not create the universe. One review of the book states its aim as "to banish a divine creator from physics".

The essence of the argument is:

  Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will
  create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there
  is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we
  exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper
  and set the universe going.

The Biblical stance is that all things were created by God (Gen 1:1, Is 42:5, Eph 3:9...).

Are there any books or articles written with a Christian world view as a foundation that address and incorporate what physics has to say about the cosmos, but still make a strong case that all things were created by God? Such a response, written in a way that makes sense to somebody like him, but that remains firmly Biblical, would be a fascinating thing to read.

God and Stephen Hawking, by John C. Lennox, is a popular direct reply to The Grand Design.

Alister McGrath calls it "a brilliant response," and the book won an Award of Merit in Christianity Today's 2012 Book Awards.

Whether it "makes sense," as you say, to Hawking, is perhaps debatable.  But Lennox is no slouch: he's a Professor at Oxford University, prominent Christian apologist, and author of many books.

Lennox, as well as several other apologists, responded to The Grand Design in article form as well:1

Lennox article (WebCite)
William Lane Craig article (WebCite)
Alister McGrath article (WebCite)

Nonetheless, the most prominent direct response to Hawking's book appears to be Lennox's God and Stephen Hawking.

1. Other similar resources are listed on Apologetics 315.


What compelled the fishermen to "immediately" follow Jesus? The Gospel of Matthew describes Jesus' call of Peter, Andrew, James, and John:

As he was walking by the Sea of Galilee, he saw two brothers, Simon who is called Peter, and his brother Andrew, casting a net into the sea; they were fishermen. He said to them, "Come after me, and I will make you fishers of men." At once they left their nets and followed him. He walked along from there and saw two other brothers, James, the son of Zebedee, and his brother John. They were in a boat, with their father Zebedee, mending their nets. He called them, and immediately they left their boat and their father and followed him.
(Matthew 4:18–22, New American Bible; emphasis added)

Luke doesn't use the word "immediately", but he does say:

When they brought their boats to the shore, they left everything and followed him.
(Luke 5:11, New American Bible; emphasis added)

Since the fishermen Jesus called were apparently busily occupied with work and family and presumably did not know Him, why were they compelled to "leave everything" and "immediately" follow Him?

Rabbi and Talmidim

First of all, I encourage you to read this article 1, it was the first thing that came to mind when I read your question as it answers it perfectly. I'll do my best to sum it up:

In short, the reason the Apostles dropped what they were doing and followed Christ at the words, "Follow me," is because Jesus surprised them with an opportinity of a lifetime.

Jesus was in a position where the situation should have been reversed, his disciples should have been the ones to approach Him and say, "Let me follow you", which happened on occasion (see Mark 5:19; Luke 9:57). But, only promising Talmidin were typically chosen by a Rabbi. Talmidim were basically students, apprentices; the law was taught orally in those days, and a talmid would seek out a teacher-a Rabbi he could listen to and learn the scriptures and the law from, and how to put them into practice. When a talimid found a teacher he desired to learn from, he would ask if he could "follow" him. Jesus was a very prominent figure in Galilee, and extrememly well educated, we know this by the fact that he was called, "Rabbi" by his disciples (Luke 7:40), lawyers (Matt. 22:35-36), ordinary people (Luke 12:13), the rich (Matt. 19:16), Pharisees (Luke 19:39), and Sadducees (Luke 20:27-28). Jesus fit the description of a first century rabbi especially one at the most advanced level, the one sought by talmidim.

If a Rabbi approached a talmid, and said to him, "Follow me" it was a big deal, because it meant that the Rabbi believed that the potential talmid had the ability and commitment to become like him.

To draw some analogies, imagine if a wall-street broker were to approach a boy at with a hotdog stand and say to him, "I want to make you my apprentice." Or if a university professor were to approach a random kid who hadn't even finished grade school and said he would sponsor the child to get a PHD.

This is essentially what Christ did to his disciples, the Rabbi went to the fishermen, who earned a meagre living, who were not learned, and who would unlikely ever have an opportunity to obtain such an education or status, men who were the least likely to be taken as a talmid by such a great Rabbi and said to them, "Follow me."

1 In case the link ever breaks:

From https://www.thattheworldmayknow.com/rabbi-and-talmidim

Rabbi and Talmudic

The people of Galilee were the most religious Jews in the world in the time of Jesus. This is quite contrary to the common view that the Galileans were simple, uneducated peasants from an isolated area. This perspective is probably due to the comments made in the Bible, which appear to belittle people from this area. At the Shavuoth feast in the book of Acts for example, the people seem amazed that the Galileans were capable of speaking in other languages. But this is certainly a bias against Galileans by the people of Judea and other countries due to the very strong and passionate religious commitments of the people of Galilee. Besides, the Galileans had more interaction with the world living on the "way of the sea" (the trade route, see Matt. 4:15) than the Jews of Jerusalem who were more isolated in the mountains. The Galilean people were actually more educated in the Bible and its application than most Jews. More famous Jewish teachers come from Galilee than anywhere else in the world. They were known for their great reverence for Scripture and the passionate desire to be faithful to it. This translated into vibrant religious communities, devoted to strong families, their country, whose synagogues echoed the debate and discussions about keeping the Torah. They resisted the pagan influences of Hellenism far more than did their Judean counterparts. When the great revolt against the pagan Romans and their collaborators (66-74 AD) finally occurred, it began among the Galileans.

Jesus was born, grew up, and spent his ministry among people who knew Scripture by memory, who debated its application with enthusiasm, and who loved God with all their hearts, all their souls and all their might (Deut. 6:5). God prepared this environment carefully so that Jesus would have exactly the context he needed to present his message of Malchut Shemayim '�"The kingdom of heaven" and his followers would understand and join his new movement. He fit his world perfectly. Understanding this helps to understand the great faith and courage of his followers who left Galilee and went to the whole world to bring the good news. Their courage, their message, the methods they used, and their complete devotion to God and his Word were born in the religious communities in the Galilee.

Education in Galilee

The Mishnah(1) describes the educational process for a young Jewish boy in Jesus' time.

At five years old [one is fit] for the Scripture, at ten years the Mishnah (oral Torah, interpretations) at thirteen for the fulfilling of the commandments, at fifteen the Talmud (making Rabbinic interpretations), at eighteen the bride-chamber, at twenty pursuing a vocation, at thirty for authority (able to teach others)This clearly describes the exceptional student, for very few would become teachers but indicates the centrality of Scripture in the education in Galilee. It is interesting to compare Jesus' life to this description. Though little is stated about his childhood we know that he "grew in wisdom" as a boy (Luke 2:52) and that he reached the "fulfilling of the commandments" indicated by ones first Passover at age twelve (Luke 2:41). He then learned a trade (Matt. 13:55, Mark 6:3) and spent time with John the Baptist (Luke 3:21; John 3:22-26) and began his ministry at -about thirty- (Luke 3:23). This parallels the Mishnah description quite closely. It certainly demands a closer look at the education process in Galilee.

Schools were associated with the local synagogue in first century Galilee. Apparently each community would hire a teacher (respectfully called "rabbi") for the school. While this teacher was responsible for the education of the village he had no special authority in the synagogue itself. Children began their study at age 4-5 in Beth Sefer (elementary school). Most scholars believe both boys and girls attended the class in the synagogue. The teaching focused primarily on the Torah, emphasizing both reading and writing Scripture. Large portions were memorized and it is likely that many students knew the entire Torah by memory by the time this level of education was finished. At this point most students (and certainly the girls) stayed at home to help with the family and in the case of boys to learn the family trade. It is at this point that a boy would participate in his first Passover in Jerusalem (a ceremony that probably forms the background of today's bar mitzvah in orthodox Jewish families today.) Jesus' excellent questions for the teachers in the temple at his first Passover indicate the study he had done.

The best students continued their study (while learning a trade) in Beth Midrash (secondary school) also taught by a rabbi of the community. Here they (along with the adults in the town) studied the prophets and the writings (3) in addition to Torah and began to learn the interpretations of the Oral Torah (4) to learn how to make their own applications and interpretations much like a catechism class might in some Churches today. Memorization continued to be important because most people did not have their own copy of the Scripture so they either had to know it by heart or go to the synagogue to consult the village scroll. Memory was enhanced by reciting aloud, a practice still widely used in Middle Eastern education both Jewish and Muslim. Constant repetition was considered to be an essential element of learning (5).

A few (very few) of the most outstanding Beth Midrash students sought permission to study with a famous rabbi often leaving home to travel with him for a lengthy period of time. These students were called talmidim (talmid, s.) in Hebrew, which is translated disciple. There is much more to a talmid than what we call student. A student wants to know what the teacher knows for the grade, to complete the class or the degree or even out of respect for the teacher. A talmid wants to be like the teacher, that is to become what the teacher is. That meant that students were passionately devoted to their rabbi and noted everything he did or said. This meant the rabbi-talmid relationship was a very intense and personal system of education. As the rabbi lived and taught his understanding of the Scripture his students (talmidim) listened and watched and imitated so as to become like him. Eventually they would become teachers passing on a lifestyle to their talmidim.

As a result, Galilee was a place of intense study of Scripture. People were knowledgeable about its content and the various applications made by their tradition. They were determined to live by it and to pass their faith and knowledge and lifestyle on to their children. It was into this world that Jesus came as a child and eventually a rabbi.

Jesus the Rabbi

The term rabbi in the time of Jesus did not necessarily refer to a specific office or occupation. That would be true only after the Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed (70 AD). Rather, it was a word meaning "great one" or "my master" which was applied to many kinds of people in everyday speech. It clearly was used as a term of respect for one's teacher as well even though the formal position of rabbi would come later. In one sense then, calling Jesus "Rabbi" is an anachronism. In another sense the use of this term for him by the people his day is a measure of their great respect for him as a person and as a teacher and not just a reference to the activity of teaching he was engaged in.

Many people referred to Jesus as Rabbi. His disciples (Luke 7:40), lawyers (Matt. 22:35-36), ordinary people (Luke 12:13), the rich (Matt. 19:16), Pharisees (Luke 19:39), and Sadducees (Luke 20:27-28). Jesus fit the description of a first century rabbi especially one at the most advanced level, the one sought by talmidim.

He traveled from place to place with his disciples depending on the hospitality of others (Luke 8:1-3) and often meeting in private homes (Luke 10:38-42)

In travel, rabbis would visit local synagogues because of the discussion of Scripture that occurred regularly in these community centers (Matt. 4:23)

Rabbis used similar methods of interpreting Scripture. For example the great teachers used a technique today called remez or hint, in which they used part of a Scripture passage in discussion assuming their audience's knowledge of the Bible would allow them to deduce for themselves fuller meaning. Apparently Jesus used this method often. When the children sang Hosanna to him in the Temple and the Sadducees demanded Jesus quiet them he responded with a quote from Psalm 8:2 "From the lips of children and infants you have ordained praise." Their anger at Jesus is better understood when you realize that the next phrase in the Psalm adds the reason why children and infants would praise, because of the enemies of God who would be silenced (Ps. 8:2). In other words the chief priests realized Jesus was implying they were God's enemies.

Another example is Jesus' comments to Zacchaeus (Luke 19:1-10). Jesus said "For the Son of Man came to seek and to save what was lost." (Luke 19:10) The background to this statement is probably Ezekiel 34. God, angry with the leaders of Israel for scattering and harming his flock (the people of Israel) states the he himself will become the shepherd and will seek the lost ones and deliver (save) them. Based on this the people of Jesus' day understood that the Messiah to come would "seek and save" the lost. By using this phrase, knowing the people knew the Scripture, Jesus said several things. To the people he said "I am the Messiah and God no less." To the leaders (whose influence kept Zacchaeus out of the crowd) he said "you have scattered and harmed God's flock." To Zacchaeus he said "you are one of God's lost sheep, he still loves you."

This technique indicated a brilliant understanding of Scripture and incredible teaching skills on Jesus part. It also demonstrates the background knowledge of Scripture the common people had.

Rabbis used similar teaching techniques like the use of parables. More than 3,500 parables from first century rabbis still exist and Jesus' are among the very best. He uses similar themes (landowner, king, and farmer) as well. (Matt. 13:3,34)

Jesus seems to be a type of rabbi believed to have s'mikhah or authority to make new interpretations. Most of the teachers were Torah teachers (teachers of the law) who could only teach accepted interpretations. Those with authority (today "ordination") could make new interpretations and pass legal judgments. Crowds were amazed because Jesus taught with authority (Hebrew s'mikhah, Greek exousia) not as their Torah teachers (Matt. 7:28-29). Jesus was questioned about his authority (Matt. 21:23-27). While this makes Jesus one of a small group of teachers he was not the only one with authority.

Rabbis invited people to learn to keep the Torah. This was called taking "the yoke of Torah" or "the yoke of the kingdom of heaven". Rabbi's with s'mikhah would have a new interpretation or yoke. Torah teachers would teach the accepted interpretations or yoke of their community. Jesus invitation to those who listened to many teachers and interpretations helps establish him as a Rabbi would present an interpretation that was easy and light (to understand not necessarily to do) (Matt. 13:11-30). As such, he was probably not speaking to unsaved people burdened with sin but people unsure of the many interpretations they heard in the dynamic religious debate in Galilee.

Fulfilling the Torah was the task of a first century rabbi. The technical term for interpreting the Scripture so it would be obeyed correctly was "fulfill." To interpret Scripture incorrectly so it would not be obeyed as God intended was to "destroy" the Torah. Jesus uses these terms to describe his task as well (Matt. 5:17-19). Contrary to what some think Jesus did not come to do away with God's Torah or Old Testament. He came to complete it and to show how to correctly keep it. One of the ways Jesus interpreted the Torah was to stress the importance of the right attitude of heart as well as the right action (Matt. 5:27-28).

The Disciples as Talmidim

The decision to follow a rabbi as a talmid meant total commitment in the first century as it does today. Since a talmid was totally devoted to becoming like the rabbi he would have spent his entire time listening and observing the teacher to know how to understand the Scripture and how to put it into practice. Jesus describes his relationship to his disciples in exactly this way (Matt. 10:24-25; Luke 6:40) He chose them to be with him (Mark 3:13-19) so they could be like him (John 13:15).

Most students sought out the rabbis they wished to follow. This happened to Jesus on occasion (Mark 5:19; Luke 9:57). There were a few exceptional rabbis who were famous for seeking out their own students. If a student wanted to study with a rabbi he would ask if he might "follow" the rabbi. The rabbi would consider the students potential to become like him and whether he would make the commitment necessary. It is likely most students were turned away. Some of course were invited to "follow me". This indicated the rabbi believed the potential talmid had the ability and commitment to become like him. It would be a remarkable affirmation of the confidence the teacher had in the student. In that light, consider whether the disciples of Jesus were talmidim as understood by the people of his time. They were to be "with" him Mark 3:13-19; to follow him Mark 1:16-20; to live by his teaching John 8:31; were to imitate his actions John 13:13-15; were to make everything else secondary to their learning from the rabbi Luke 14:26.

This may explain Peter's walking on water (Matt. 14:22-33). When Jesus (the rabbi) walked on water, Peter (the talmid) wanted to be like him. Certainly Peter had not walked on water before nor could he have imagined being able to do it. However, if the teacher, who chose me because he believed I could be like him, can do it so must I. And he did! It was a miracle but he was just like the rabbi! And then...he doubted. Doubted what? Traditionally we have seen he doubted Jesus' power. Maybe, but Jesus was still standing on the water. I believe Peter doubted himself, or maybe better his capacity to be empowered by Jesus. Jesus response "why did you doubt?" (14:31) then means "why did you doubt I could empower you to be like me?"

That is a crucial message for the talmid of today. We must believe that Jesus calls us to be disciples because he knows he can so instruct, empower, and fill us with his Spirit that we can be like him (at least in our actions). We must believe in ourselves! Otherwise we will doubt that he can use us and as a result we will not be like him.

Being like the rabbi is the major focus of the life of talmidim. They listen and question, they respond when questioned, they follow without knowing where the rabbi is taking them knowing that the rabbi has good reason for bringing them to the right place for his teaching to make the most sense. In the story recorded in Matthew 16, Jesus walked nearly thirty miles one way to be in Caesarea Philippi for a lesson that fit the location perfectly. Surely he talked with them along the way but the whole trip seems to have been geared for one lesson that takes less than ten minutes to give (Matt. 16:13-28).

This means that the present day talmid (disciple) must be no less focused on the rabbi. We must be with him in his Word, we must follow him even if we are not sure of the final destination, we must live by his teaching (which means we must know those teachings well), and we must imitate him whenever we can. In other words everything becomes secondary in life to being like him. When they had observed and learned for a time they were sent out to begin to practice being like the teacher (Luke 9:1-6; 10:1-24). The amazement of the talmidim in discovering they could be like their teacher is delightful (10:17). It is very understandable to anyone who has seen the deep attachment of talmidim to his or her rabbi even today. It is most affirming when a student discovers that being like the teacher is possible. The teachers joy is no less as he discovers his students have learned well and are gifted and empowered by God to act as the rabbi does (Luke 10:21; see also John 17:16, 18).

When the teacher believed that his talmidim were prepared to be like him he would commission them to become disciple makers. He was saying "As far as is possible you are like me. Now go and seek others who will imitate you. Because you are like me, when they imitate you they will be like me." This practice certainly lies behind Jesus great commission (Matt. 28:18-20). While in one sense no one can be like Jesus in his divine nature, or in his perfect human nature, when taught by the Rabbi, empowered and blessed by the Spirit of God, imitating Jesus becomes a possibility. The mission of the disciples was to seek others who would imitate them and therefore become like Jesus. That strategy, blessed by God's Spirit would bear amazing fruit especially in the Gentile world.

It also helps to understand the teaching of Paul who sought to make disciples. He invited Herod Agrippa and the Roman governor to become like him (Acts 26:28-29). He taught the young churches to imitate him and others who were like Jesus (1 Cor. 4:15-16, 11:1; 1 Thess. 1:6-7, 2:14; 2 Thess. 3:7-9; 1 Tim. 4:12. The writer to the Hebrews had the same mission (Heb. 6:12, 13:7).

This is one of the most significant concepts of the New Testament. Jesus, the divine Messiah, chose the rabbi-talmid system. He taught like a rabbi in real life situations, using the most brilliant methods ever devised. He interpreted God's word and completed it. He demonstrated obedience to it. He chose disciples whom he would empower to become like him and led them around until they began to imitate him. Then (after the gift of the Holy Spirit) he sent them our to make disciples...to lead people to imitate them by obeying Jesus. And that strategy, by God's blessing would change the most pagan of cultures.

That is our call too! Jesus calls us to be his talmidim. We must know God's Word and Jesus' interpretation of it. We must be passionate in our devotion to that word and Jesus example. As we are filled with his Spirit, we must be obsessed with being like him as far as is humanly possible. We must strive for relationships with others so they will observe us and seek to imitate our love and devotion to God and our Jesus-like lifestyle (1 Cor. 2:16, 11:1; Gal. 3:27). By God's grace, that strategy CAN change the most pagan of cultures.... our own!

1. The Mishnah contains rabbinic interpretations of Scripture written down during the second century AD. Jewish scholars believe it contains the oral traditions present during the 1st century BC to 1st century AD and therefore would reflect what was true during Jesus' lifetime.

2. Aboth 5:21, The Mishnah, Herbert Danby, ed., Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1985.

3. The Jewish people call the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) Tanakh an acronym taken from Torah (Pentateuch), Navi'im (Prophets including the history books since history is prophetic), Ketubim (writings). Boys began the study of Torah since it was the foundation of the Jewish faith and the others (writings and prophets) were believed to comment on and apply the Torah.

4. The Oral Torah was interpretation and application of the Torah believed to originate with Moses and to have been handed down orally for centuries. Many of Jesus' debates with the scribes were over issues of the Oral Torah (Matt. 23:5. God had commanded the wearing of Tassels [Lev. 19:18] but the Oral Torah specified the length).

5. An excellent treatment of this education can be found in The Jewish People in the First Century. ll, by Shmuel Safrai, Amsterdam: Van Gorcum, 1974.


How is 1 Timothy 2:5 interpreted relative to the Mediatrix concept? The concept of Mediatrix has Virgin Mary in a role of a mediator in the salvation process—at least that's what Wikipedia says:

  Mediatrix in Roman Catholic Mariology refers to the role of the Blessed Virgin Mary as a mediator in the salvation process.

From my admittedly biased point of view, this seems to clash with Paul's writing about Jesus being the only mediator between man and God.

  1 Timothy 2:5-6 (ESV)
   5 For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6  who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time.

What is the Catholic teaching about the Mediatrix concept? How is this passage interpreted? Do all Mariologists take this passage into account?

Indeed, Catholic theologians are well aware of the Bible verses concerning this teaching.

The EWTN Faith Library article on Mary, Mediatrix of All Graces has a fine explanation, under the heading "Objections", that compares the mediation of Christ with the mediation provided by Mary, in light of 1 Tim 3:5.

The Catholic Encyclopedia article on Mediator points out that Jesus' unique mediatorship is concerned with the salvation of mankind, something only He could do. Note that Mary receives no mention here, as the article focuses on salvation and the origin of all graces.

This article on the very topic of your question makes the point that Mary is called a Mediatrix because she is the conduit of the graces that originate through Jesus, first, because her "yes" to God gave us our Savior; second, because she, like all saints, and indeed all Christians, petitions her Son through prayer intentions.


If Christ had a complete human nature, how come his human nature wasn't totally depraved as ours is? I understand the reformed doctrine of total depravity to be that the human nature is such that it is utterly unable to choose to follow God. Another way I've heard it put is that men are by nature inclined to reject God.

Now, I also understand that Christ took on a human nature at the Incarnation. He assumed the same human nature we have, thus He is rightfully called the one mediator between God and man.

How do Calvinists reconcile the fact that Christ has a complete human nature while they teach that this human nature is at odds with God?

Perhaps another way to look at this issue is to focus on what human nature is, and see what sin changed.  Man was created in the "image of God," which certainly included original righteousness (or, as Reformed theologian Louis Berkhof puts it, "true knowledge, righteousness, and holiness"), which was lost in the Fall.  Berkhof goes on to contrast this element with others:

  But the image of God is not to be restricted to the original knowledge, righteousness, and holiness which was lost by sin, but also includes elements which belong to the natural constitution of man. They are elements which belong to man as man, such as intellectual power, natural affections, and moral freedom. As created in the image of God man has a rational and moral nature, which he did not lose by sin and which he could not lose without ceasing to be man. This part of the image of God has indeed been vitiated by sin, but still remains in man even after his fall in sin.

To put it another way, Adam was a man both before and after his sin.  So while the Fall stripped him and his progeny of original righteousness, this is not so essential to his nature that as a result of his sin he was no longer man:

  Notice that man even after the fall, irrespective of his spiritual condition, is still represented as the image of God, Gen. 9;6; I Cor. 11:7; Jas. 3:9. The crime of murder owes its enormity to the fact that it is an attack on the image of God. In view of these passages of Scripture it is unwarranted to say that man has completely lost the image of God.

But while one can be said to be in the image of God with or without original righteousness, its lack is a serious impairment:

  The loss of that righteousness meant the loss of something that belonged to the very nature of man in its ideal state. Man could lose it and still remain man, but he could not lose it and remain man in the ideal sense of the word. In other words, its loss would really mean a deterioration and impairment of human nature.

On the flip side, this lack of original righteousness, or "original sin," is definitively not an essential aspect of human nature.  This is obvious because Adam was a man before he sinned, but it's also clear when we consider the definition of total depravity.  It does not imply, as Berkhof and others say, "that every man is as thoroughly depraved as he can possibly become," but rather it is "inherent corruption" that "extends to every part of man's nature."

This distinction makes it clear that total depravity does not mean that man's defining characteristic is his sin – rather, his human nature, as image bearer of God, is corrupted in all its parts.  This corruption taints his human nature, but does not eliminate it or replace it.

Obviously Jesus had to have the same human nature as us, but could not have this corruption.  So how was he protected from it?  By the Holy Spirit:

  [The Holy Spirit] sanctified the human nature of Christ in its very inception, and thus kept it free from the pollution of sin.

So Jesus thus has a true human nature, an ideal human nature, different from our own only in that he was protected from the corruption of original sin.

All quotes from Berkhof's Systematic Theology:

Man as the Image of God
Sin in the Life of the Human Race
[Christ's] State of Humiliation


As a young Jew what would Jesus have been taught about heaven and hell? I understand the Jewish concept of heaven and hell is different from what I was taught as a conservative protestant.  I am curious as to the teaching Jesus would have received from rabbis of his time.  I am having a hard time reconciling a loving God with a place of eternal damnation.

To understand their view, you would need to understand what Sheol is to them.
In The Hebrew Old Testament, or the Judaism view, Sheol (שְׁאוֹל) is described as the permanent place of the dead, known as the common grave for man (mankind), in addition, it is associated with an individual’s burial place or grave (Judges 16:31; Genesis 35:20) or a burial tomb (Job 21:32). So, regarding death, physically, an end of life, which seems to be the case regarding figures such as Abraham, Moses, and Miriam. Sheol is also called a dark and or deep pit, an abyss, or a land of forgetfulness when a human die and is buried. Moreover, Ecclesiastes and Job, insist that all the dead go down to Sheol, whether good or evil, rich or poor, slave or free man (Job 3:11-19). Later on in Ecclesiastes, death is spoken of as a cease of consciousness.
Now in the Bible, it says in Ecclesiastes 9:5 and Psalm 146:4 that those who are alive are conscious that a time will come that they will die, however, those in death, they’re the opposite, conscious of nothing at all, and their thoughts have perished with them, so in short, when we die, we cease to exist, we cannot think, we cannot act and or take action, we cannot feel, we cannot act upon goals and or anything else, essentially, when a light blub stops working, in this sense. The Bible even goes on to say that from dust we came and to dust we return in Genesis 3:19, hence Adam’s case, Genesis 2:7, in addition, Ecclesiastes 3:19, 20, not only refers to humans, but animals as well.
Despite this, death is not necessarily the end of everything. We already know that in the Bible, death is compared to sleep (Psalm 13:3; John 11:11-14; Acts 7:60). A person who is fast asleep is unaware of what is happening in their surroundings. Likewise, the dead are not conscious of anything as mentioned. But we do have the hope of the Resurrection that Jesus talks about. In the Bible, it teaches that God can awaken the dead as if from sleep and give them life again (Job 14:13-15). For those whom God resurrects, death is not the end of everything.


How is the "baptism in the Holy Spirit" (promoted through CHARIS) connected with the Sacrament of Baptism? Catholic charismatic renewal has received continuing papal support since Pope Paul VI in the 1970s.  On June 6, 2019, The CHARIS ("Catholic Charismatic Renewal International Service") was officially inaugurated with Pope Francis's support.
"Baptism in the Holy Spirit" seems central to CHARIS as we see from several quotes from the CHARIS Statutes (OCR'ed version here) (emphasis mine):

From the Preamble:

One of the characteristics of CCR is the wide variety of expressions and ministries that form a unity in diversity. The various expressions and realities in CCR may be at different stages of
development with differing emphases, nevertheless they share in the same fundamental
experience of 'baptism in the Holy Spirit'; and espouse the same general goals. In some places
CCR organises itself like an ecclesial movement but the very nature of CCR means it is
different from other ecclesial movements. ...

From Article 1 (Name and Purpose)

§ 1. Catholic Charismatic Renewal International Service, also known as CHARIS, is
the international service organism for all expressions of Catholic Charismatic Renewal
(or CCR), a current of grace whose appearance in the Catholic Church in 1967 came as a
fruit of the Second Vatican Council. Common to all expressions of Catholic Charismatic
Renewal is the experience of the fruits of Pentecost through an outpouring of spiritual
gifts called baptism in the Holy Spirit, involving a personal encounter with Jesus Christ
as Saviour, an openness to the Word of God, to exercising the charisms and to
evangelisation in faithful service of the Church. CHARIS promotes and strengthens
communion among all Charismatic realities, fostering a sense of the worldwide family of
Catholic Charismatic Renewal

From Article 3 (General Objectives)

a) To help deepen and promote the grace of baptism in the Holy Spirit throughout the Church;
c) To encourage the spiritual deepening and holiness of people who live the experience of baptism in the Holy Spirit;

Two days later, in an address to a conference related to CHARIS, Pope Francis said:

...
What does the Pope expect from you? I expect this movement:

to share baptism in the Holy Spirit with everyone in the Church. It is the grace you have received. Share it! Don’t keep it to yourselves!

...

My question: What is the relationship between "baptism in the Holy Spirit" (promoted through CHARIS) and the traditional Catholic sacrament of baptism?
Several points that I hope the answer will address (not all of them required):

What is the scriptural / doctrinal basis of this baptism?  Any links with Summa Theologica?
Has the church issued an official theological interpretation of "baptism in the Holy Spirit" to guide CHARIS implementation?  Any relevant paragraphs in the Catechism?
What is the essence of this "baptism in the Holy Spirit": is it a sacrament?  a sacramental?  an anointing?  a blessing?
Are all baptized Catholic encouraged to receive it?
How is this baptism in the Holy Spirit administered?
How is it related to Pentecostal understanding of baptism in the Holy Spirit?
Once baptized in the Holy Spirit do Catholics expect receiving "speaking in tongue" gift as is usual in the Pentecostal denomination?
etc.

I am asking for clarification primarily from the Catholic Church Magisterium, or secondarily from a bishop or from a theologian belonging to an institution associated with the Catholic church.

The 3 resources below explain the Catholic understanding and the connection between "baptism in the Holy Spirit" and the Sacrament of Baptism:

Baptism In The Holy Spirit: Why Every Catholic Should Consider Receiving It: a CatholicLink website article by Deacon Brenton Cordeiro, training to be a priest for the Companions of the Cross.
Baptism in the Holy Spirit: a 2017 Crossroads Initiative website article by Raniero Cantalamessa, O.F.M. Cap., a cardinal and preacher to the Papal Household.
A New Pentecost? Catholic Theology and "Baptism in the Spirit": a 2011 Logos journal article by Dr. Ralph Martin, "expert" for the World Synod of Bishops on the New Evangelization, discussing 3 interpretations of "Baptism in the Spirit".

I structure the answer in the form of Q & A by quoting from the above resources:

Q: Is Baptism in the Holy Spirit a sacrament?
A: No, it is not a sacrament but is believed to be related to the sacraments of Christian initiation, primarily of baptism and confirmation [Martin 21].  It makes real and in a way renews Christian initiation  [Cantalamessa].

Q: Haven't baptized Catholics already received the Holy Spirit?
A: Yes.  Baptism in the Holy Spirit doesn't oppose or dilute any Catholic teaching on the sacraments. There is no dispute about the effects of receiving the sacrament of Baptism, in particular the forgiveness of sins, the conferring of divine sonship, and becoming a member of the Body of Christ and a temple of the Holy Spirit. [Cordeiro]

Q: What does it do in addition to the Sacrament of Baptism?
A: The spiritual realities mentioned above in Baptism become "unbound" through a baptism in the Holy Spirit, allowing the Holy Spirit to burst forth and flow throughout our day-to-day lives bring us to a new awareness of the reality and presence of Jesus Christ in our lives  [Cordeiro].

Q: What effects can we expect following Baptism in the Holy Spirit?
A: A new hunger & desire for the Word of God, the Sacraments, and holiness.  It fosters the desire to witness to our faith and to testify about the way the Lord is changing our lives (New Evangelization)  [Cordeiro].

Q: Once baptized in the Holy Spirit do Catholics expect receiving "speaking in tongue" gift as a sign, usual in the Pentecostal denomination?
A: No one gift is usually singled out being the necessary sign of baptism in the Spirit [Martin 22].

Q: What is the Scriptural basis for this baptism?
A: [Martin 22]:

Acts 4 : The prospect of a "renewal" of the receiving of the Spirit or a "stirring up" of a gift once given but since "gone quiet" in which the persecuted companions of Peter and John pray for and receive new power for evangelization.
2 Tim 1:6 : Paul urges Timothy to "stir into flame the gift of God that you have"

Q: Any evidence from church history?
A: [Martin 22]:

Montague and McDonnell support their thesis by a review of the available evidence from the first eight centuries of the Church, which evidence they argue shows that the sacraments of Christian initiation were often characterized by an experiential dimension and manifestations of the charismatic gifts of the Spirit.¹²

Q: Any relevant paragraphs in the Catechism?
A: CCC 1128: "From the moment that a sacrament is celebrated in accordance with the intention of the Church, the power of Christ and his Spirit acts in and through it, independently of the personal holiness of the minister. Nevertheless, the fruits of the sacraments also depend on the disposition of the one who receives them" [Martin 28]

Q: Any relevant paragraphs in the Summa?
A: Quote from [Martin 28]:

One of the most remarkable treatments of the relevance of the disposition of the recipients in terms of what is actually experienced, effective, or fruitful in the life of the person receiving the sacrament is actually that of Aquinas in the Summa theologiae, especially in the Tertia pars, (III, qq. 66–71). In these questions, Aquinas details very clearly the obstacles that block the fruitfulness of the sacraments, even when they are validly conferred: lack of faith, understanding, desire to live a new life, or repentance, or the omitting of the exorcisms and allowing demonic influence to block response to baptismal grace. He clearly states that on a given day a number of people may validly receive baptism or confirmation but the fruitfulness of the sacrament may vary considerably; those who want more of the Lord, he teaches, will receive more of the Lord.

Q: How is this baptism in the Holy Spirit administered?
A: It is God who chooses to act.  We can prepare through several ways, such as through a mini catechesis that includes teaching, prayer and the invitation to faith, repentance and a deeper commitment to the Lord Jesus, and a greater desire for the activation of his gift of the Spirit [Martin 28-29].

Q: Are all baptized Catholic encouraged to receive it?
A: Deacon Cordeiro encourage anyone to seek it wholeheartedly to accept the grace that baptism in the Spirit offers us.  It can recharge our spiritual batteries.


Why is baptism by the Holy Spirit called a "baptism"? Somewhat relating to this question.

Many times I have been asked by members of some protestant denominations (especially by Baptists and Pentecostals) whether I've been baptized, followed by the question of whether I've been baptized by the Holy Spirit? After they ask me or others this question, they stress the utter neccessity of this kind of baptism.

This question is very confusing for many christians, leading them to doubts about their baptism.

Upon asking the enquirer about what they mean by "baptism by the Holy Spirit" they describe experiences of being filled with the Holy Spirit (yes, I've had such experiences). Some say that baptism by the Holy Spirit may happen before being formally baptized, some say it may happen after, but all stress the importance of it, as if without such an experience one had no hope of salvation. When I ask them whether each such experience constitutes a baptism, they usually get confused and answer that only the first of such experiences constitutes a baptism.

Why do they make such confusing distinctions and call these experiences baptism? Do they consider the traditional baptisms administered by priests (in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit; with water and together with the laying on of hands and prayers for the Holy Spirit, etc) invalid or incomplete? Do they consider the traditional forms of christian baptism to be baptism by water only? What are the roots of this semantical error or false teaching? Where does it come from?

Answering my own question. I missed this link given in this answer while reading the answers to the related question. This mostly answers my questions. I'll try to summarize:

What are the roots of this semantical error or false teaching? Where does it come from?

Answer: Quote from the article (emphasis added):

  Generally speaking, it is the charismatic movement that supports the Baptism of the Holy Spirit.

Do they consider the traditional forms of christian baptism to be baptism by water only?

Answer: Probably yes. I think this might be because many protestant and charismatic movements seem to identify themselves negatively with traditional teachings, other denominations and other forms of worship.

Why do they make such confusing distinctions and call these experiences baptism? Do they consider the traditional baptisms administered by priests (in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit; with water and together with the laying on of hands and prayers for the Holy Spirit, etc) invalid or incomplete?

Answer: I think it is unreasonable to debate on this because I find it unlikely that the charismatic movement has formulated teaching on this which is backed by reasonably consistent theology.

See also:

Charismatic movement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Baptism with the Holy Spirit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


What is the origin of the tradition that Mary lived in Turkey after John took her there? This website says that the last home of Mary, the mother of Jesus, was in Ephesus, Turkey.

Where did this idea originate?

There seems to be only two historical possibilities as to where Mary ended the pilgrim journey on earth: Jerusalem or Ephesus?

Historically, there are proponents to both sides of this question as can be seen in this article on the Tomb of the Blessed Virgin Mary. These two theories do not seem to take into account the solicitude that St. John would have had in keeping Mary safe! We know that Christians were being persecuted at Jerusalem from the very foundation of the Church, so Ephesus is a real possibility.

From New World Encyclopedia:

  "Catholic and Orthodox tradition say that John, together with the the Virgin Mary, moved to Ephesus, where both eventually died. According to Tertullian, John was banished (presumably to Patmos) after being plunged into boiling oil in Rome and miraculously suffering nothing from it. Some believe his tomb is located at Selçuk, a small town in the vicinity of Ephesus.

  In his Dialogue with Trypho (Chapter 81) Justin Martyr refers to "John, one of the Apostles of Christ" as an eye-witness of Jesus' ministry who had lived "with us" at Ephesus. Irenæus declares that he wrote his Gospel at Ephesus (Adv. haer., III, i, 1), and that he had lived there until the reign of Trajan. Eusebius and Jerome related that John was the teacher of the Papias, the bishop of Hierapolis in Syria. When John was old he is believed to have trained the future Saint Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, in today's Turkey. Polycarp is thought to have carried John's message and apostolic authority to a new generation, until he himself became a martyr for the faith."

The visions of Catherine Emmerich seem to be a confirmation of the Ephesian tradition, rather than its' source.


Diocletian's four decrees & Persecution of christians I am looking for a link or reference to the four decrees from Diocletian in 303 re the Roman Persecution?

As far as I am aware, we do not have the original texts of any of the Diocletian edicts. The course of events is recorded, however, by Eusebius in his Church History (c.323-324) and Martyrs of Palestine (after 311), and by Lactantius in his Deaths of the Persecutors (c. 316-321). Our knowledge of the "four edicts" is compiled out of these sources.
First edict

It was in the nineteenth year of the reign of Diocletian, in the month Dystrus, called March by the Romans, when the feast of the Saviour's passion was near at hand, that royal edicts were published everywhere, commanding that the churches be leveled to the ground and the Scriptures be destroyed by fire, and ordering that those who held places of honor be degraded, and that the household servants, if they persisted in the profession of Christianity, be deprived of freedom. (Church History 8.2.4)
Next day an edict was published, depriving the Christians of all honours and dignities; ordaining also that, without any distinction of rank or degree, they should be subjected to tortures, and that every suit at law should be received against them; while, on the other hand, they were debarred from being plaintiffs in questions of wrong, adultery, or theft; and, finally, that they should neither be capable of freedom, nor have right of suffrage. (Deaths of the Persecutors 13)

Second edict

Not long after... a royal edict directed that the rulers of the churches everywhere should be thrown into prison and bonds. (Church History 8.6.8)

Third edict

Other decrees followed the first, directing that those in prison if they would sacrifice should be permitted to depart in freedom, but that those who refused should be harassed with many tortures. (Church History 8.6.10)

Fourth edict

In the course of the second year [=304], the persecution against us increased greatly. And at that time Urbanus being governor of the province, imperial edicts were first issued to him, commanding by a general decree that all the people should sacrifice at once in the different cities, and offer libations to the idols. (Martyrs of Palestine 3)

For further context, the story of the Diocletian persecution is told in Church History chapter 8, and in Lactantius chapters 7-19. See also Wikipedia on Diocletianic Persecution for many other accounts and references.


Was C. S. Lewis a "muscular" Christian? Muscular Christianity is a movement, originating in nineteenth-century Britain, associated with promoting physical health, athleticism, and active evangelism.  Many critics say that C. S. Lewis, particularly in his fiction, drew from this tradition:

... Lewis's creed of clean-living, muscular Christianity, pipe-smoking, misogyny, racism, and the most vulgar snobbery. (Philip Hensher, The Independent column of 4 December 1998)
Not surprisingly, some readers embrace Narnia's pagan flavor in preference to its muscular Christianity. (Naomi Wood, God in the Details, in Revisiting Narnia, ed. Shanna Caughey, 2005)
... his polemical, somewhat muscular, orthodox Anglican Christianity ... (Terence Brown, C. S. Lewis: Irishman?, chapter in Ireland's literature, 1988)

Did Lewis have anything to say about "muscular Christianity" as an idea, and did he associate himself with the concept? I would certainly count him as a forceful defender of Christian ideas, but not as someone particularly interested in physical fitness.

No.
C.S. Lewis converted to Christianity in 1931.  While there is no doubt that Muscular Christianity, as a movement, was still around at that time, the largest proponents for muscular Christianity, Charles Kingsley and Thomas Hughes, died before 1900.
This, of course, does not preclude C.S. Lewis from adhering to these views.  However, his corpus does not include any significant writings regarding Muscular Christianity.
We can presume that even if he held these beliefs (as your quotes suggest), he was not a vehement supporter of this movement, due to his lack of writing on the subject.


How do we understand that the law was given by angels This scriptures shows us that the Law was given by ministrations of angels and by Moses.

Who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it. Acts 5:53
For if the word spoken by angels was stedfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompence of reward; Heb 2:2
And they said unto Moses, Speak thou with us, and we will hear: but let not God speak with us, lest we die. Exo 20:19

But the book of Exodus seems to be silent on this matter.
How was the law given by angels?
Are there other passages that sheds light on this?

Exodus seems to be silent about the angel.  It's a later Jewish tradition, which believes that the angel of presence was God's intermediary to dictate the law to Moses.  Please note: that even in the tradition, the law was transmitted, not given, by the angel.
See the non-canonical pseudepigrapha work Book of Jubilees 1:27-29 and 2:1 :

27And He said to the angel of the presence: Write for Moses from 28 the beginning of creation till My sanctuary has been built among them for all eternity. And the Lord will appear to the eyes of all, and all shall know that I am the God of Israel and the Father of all the children of Jacob, and King on Mount Zion for all eternity. And Zion and Jerusalem shall 29 be holy.' And the angel of the presence who went before the camp of Israel took the tables of the divisions of the years -from the time of the creation- of the law and of the testimony of the weeks of the jubilees, according to the individual years, according to all the number of the jubilees [according, to the individual years], from the day of the [new] creation when the heavens and the earth shall be renewed and all their creation according to the powers of the heaven, and according to all the creation of the earth, until the sanctuary of the Lord shall be made in Jerusalem on Mount Zion, and all the luminaries be renewed for healing and for peace and for blessing for all the elect of Israel, and that thus it may be from that day and unto all the days of the earth.
1 And the angel of the presence spake to Moses according to the word of the Lord, saying: Write the complete history of the creation, how in six days the Lord God finished all His works and all that He created, and kept Sabbath on the seventh day and hallowed it for all ages and ...

More on this can be learned from a journal article Angels at Sinai: Exegesis, Theology and Interpretive Authority by Hindy Najman, 2000.
Example Christian assessment of the use of the Book of Jubilees can be read from the Catholic Encyclopedia entry on the book.


Can baptized non-Catholics be virtuous? Question: Can baptized non-Catholics be virtuous?

Does the answer differ for cardinal and theological virtues? Can they be only if they have an at least implicit wish to become catholic, if so, what does this implicit wish consists in?

Moral virtues can exist in the unbaptized.
The supernatural, theological virtue of faith is not necessary to have moral virtues. Moral virtues* can be acquired by purely natural means. Theological virtues must be infused by God; moral virtues are either acquired or infused.*The principal moral virtues are the cardinal virtues: prudence, justice, temperance, and fortitude
Moral virtues dispose oneself to receive the theological virtues.
Discussing the relation of faith with the other virtues, St. Thomas Aquinas writes (Summa Theologica II-II q. 4 a. 1 co.):

Faith, by its very nature (per se), precedes all other virtues.* […] On the other hand, some virtues can precede faith accidentally (per accidens). […] certain virtues may […] remove obstacles to belief. Thus fortitude removes the inordinate fear that hinders faith; humility removes pride, whereby a man refuses to submit himself to the truth of faith. The same may be said of some other virtues, although there are no real virtues, unless faith be presupposed, as Augustine† states (Contra Julian. iv, 3).

* ∵ "the end is the principle in matters of action" and "the last end [God] must of necessity be present to the intellect before it is present to the will" (faith resides in the intellect)† cf. II-II q. 23 a. 7 ("Whether any true virtue is possible without [the supernatural, theological virtue of] charity?"), which quotes from St. Augustine's Against Julian, a Pelagian. E.g., St. Augustine says: "virtues must be distinguished from vices, not by their functions, but by their ends". He argues that since God is our last end, only the virtues which help us attain God are truly virtues; "Christ died in vain if men without the faith of Christ through other means or power of reasoning may arrive at true faith, at true virtue, at true justice, at true wisdom."
Acquired vs. Infused Virtues
St. Thomas's question "Of the Connection of Virtues" (I-II q. 65), esp. a. 2 ("Whether moral virtues can be without charity?"), explains the acquired/infused virtue distinction and shows how the theological virtues (esp. the greatest, charity) elevate the other virtues:it is possible by means of human works to acquire moral virtues, in so far as they produce good works that are directed to an end not surpassing the natural power of man: and when they are acquired thus, they can be without charity [or the other theological virtues], even as they were in many of the Gentiles. But in so far as they produce good works in proportion to a supernatural last end, thus they have the character of virtue, truly and perfectly; and cannot be acquired by human acts, but are infused by God.
St. Thomas (Summa Theologica I-II q. 63 a. 4) gives the example of acquired temperance vs. infused temperance:

For instance, in the consumption of food, the mean fixed by human reason, is that food should not harm the health of the body, nor hinder the use of reason: whereas, according to the Divine rule, it behooves man to "chastise his body, and bring it into subjection" (1 Cor. 9:27), by abstinence in food, drink and the like. It is therefore evident that infused and acquired temperance differ in species (specie*); and the same applies to the other virtues.

*Virtues are habits, and habits are distinguished by their objects. In this example, the object of acquired temperance is bodily health; that of infused temperance is subjugating the body to the soul for God's sake.quoted on pp. 33-34 of Fr. Royo Marín, O.P.'s Theology of Christian Perfection
Interrelation among all the virtues
Explaining the interrelation and growth of the virtues in a single man, St. Thomas gives the analogy in Summa Theologica I-II q. 66 a. 2 ("Whether all the virtues that are together in one man, are equal?") co. that one's virtues grow together like the fingers in a hand:

all the virtues in one man are equal with an equality of proportion, in so far as their growth in man is equal: thus the fingers are unequal in size, but equal in proportion, since they grow in proportion to one another.

cf. also Theology of Christian Perfection by Fr. Royo Marín, O.P., which discusses the classification and interrelation of the virtues, and this classification of the virtues.
Baptism gives grace and virtues.
Summa Theologica III q. 69 a. 4 ("Whether grace and virtues are bestowed on man by Baptism?") co.:

As Augustine says in the book on Infant Baptism (De Pecc. Merit. et Remiss. i) "the effect of Baptism is that the baptized are incorporated in Christ as His members." Now the fulness of grace and virtues flows from Christ the Head to all His members, according to Jn. 1:16: "Of His fulness we all have received." Hence it is clear that man receives grace and virtues in Baptism.


Was Jesus' human nature included in the Trinity? Since Jesus had two natures, one divine and one human, is human nature included in the Trinity, or just the divine nature? What did the early Christians and the traditions have to say about this?

"Is human nature included in the Trinity?" Included it what sense? Everything that is part of God is God, since God is supremely simple. But God is certainly not human nature, although He contains all the perfections of human nature (and more). The Second Person of the Holy Trinity assumed (took up) a human nature.
As St. Thomas says in "Whether the union of the Incarnate Word took place in the Person?":

The Word of God "did not assume human nature in general, but 'in
atomo'"—that is, in an individual—as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 11); otherwise, every man would be the Word of God even as Christ was.

In the question "Whether the human nature was united to the Word of God accidentally?" of St. Thomas Aquinas's Summa Theologica, he states:

the Catholic faith, holding the mean between the aforesaid positions,* does not affirm that the union of God and man took place in the essence or nature, nor yet in something accidental [like clothing is to a man], but midway, in a subsistence or hypostasis.
*[heresies on the Incarnation like Nestorianism]

Also, one could argue this way:

God is not a body.
A human is a body and soul.
Therefore, God is not a human.


Why is the Trinity a Trinity? It's well established and accepted by most Christians that God is triune, consisting of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

However, while talking with a friend earlier about Wisdom (from Proverbs), I mentioned that Wisdom could almost be considered a fourth Person. This suddenly made me wonder why there are exactly three Persons.

Is there any Biblical evidence as to why God "decided" to be a Trinity, as opposed to a Duinity or a Quardrinity? Barring that, what about a doctrine that even touches on this? Though I now call myself non-denominational, I grew up Wesleyan, so I'd prefer Protestant viewpoints, but a Catholic or Orthodox perspective is acceptable.

Jonathan Edwards' Ontological Argument

In his "Essay on the Trinity" (and private notebooks and public sermons), Jonathan Edwards suggested a form of ontological argument for each of the three persons of the Trinity.  Anselm's argument starts from a definition of a hypothetical God who perfects all excellences and proceeds to show God must actually exist since existence is an excellence that God must have perfected.  Edwards argues along the same lines for each Person of the Trinity:

  And this I suppose to be that blessed Trinity that we read of in the Holy Scriptures. The Father is the Deity subsisting in the prime, un-originated and most absolute manner, or the Deity in its direct existence. The Son is the Deity generated by God's understanding, or having an idea of Himself and subsisting in that idea. The Holy Ghost is the Deity subsisting in act, or the Divine essence flowing out and breathed forth in God's Infinite love to and delight in Himself. And I believe the whole Divine essence does truly and distinctly subsist both in the Divine idea and Divine love, and that each of them are properly distinct Persons.

The Father perfects existence

Edwards did not seem to make the ontological argument with respect to the Father (though it is that Person normally called simply "God").  Instead, he follows Aristotle in considering the Father to be the prime mover or cause (in all senses) of all that exists.  If you've ever played the "why" game with a toddler (Q: "Why does the sun shine in the morning?" A: "Because the Earth rotates." Q: "Why does the Earth rotate?", etc.), you know that the ultimate answer is always God.  (If you don't happen to believe in some prime being such as God, the ultimate answer must be "Because that's the way things are.")  Even the Son, who is conceived by the Father, and the Spirit, who proceeds from the Father, depend on the Father for existence.

The Son perfects understanding

Edwards assumes that the Father's end is to enjoy Himself and that in order to accomplish that, He must have an "image" or idea of Himself.  The image must be distinct from the Father; it must be the object of God's affection.  If the image is worthy of God's infinite enjoyment, it must also be perfect in representing God.  Fundamentally, the Father's imagination is so powerful that He creates the Son.  In fact, Proverbs 8 describes how God fathered Wisdom, which is just another way to represent the understanding of God, before the Creation.

The idea is not that different from what we mean by "a gleam in your father's eye".  God contemplates Himself and the Son is that image.  Unlike our imaginations, which remain safely in our minds without some sort of effort, God's understanding of Himself is made manifest.  The Son existed before He was incarnated as Jesus because God has always been delighting in Himself.  Edwards argues that a duplicity is necessary for God to be the object of His own delight.

The Spirit perfects action

Finally, the Spirit is the manifestation of God's own affection for Himself. Now it must be admitted that this is certainly a strange Person.  But Edwards argues that this is exactly the sort of Person we see in the Bible.  He concludes from 1 John 4:8, which states that God is love, that the embodiment of the love between the Father and the Son is the Spirit.  We note, in passing, that Edwards affirms the filioque because the love, delight, honor, glory, and so on between the First and Second Persons is mutual.

According to Edwards, these are not feelings, but actions.  The interaction between Father and Son is also perfect, so like God's understanding of Himself, it too is manifest as the Third Person.  The essay notes that Paul passes on grace, peace, and mercy from the Father and Son, but never the Spirit.  In addition, the Father and Son express their affection for each other, but never for the Spirit.  One solution to these puzzles is to conclude that the Spirit is God's love.

Perichoresis

In order to explain why at least two Persons must exist, Edwards notes the (then) common notion that "God is infinitely happy in the enjoyment of Himself".  From that idea, he deduces:

  However, if God beholds Himself so as thence to have delight and joy in Himself He must become his own object. There must be a duplicity. There is God and the idea of God.

The argument is philosophical, by the way, not grammatical, as it marries the ontological argument with the conception of God's self-enjoyment.  Edwards was not the first to extrapolate that the Spirit is the action of love between the Father and the Son:

  If, as is properly understood, the Father is he who kisses, the Son he who is kissed, then it cannot be wrong to see in the kiss the Holy Spirit, for he is the imperturbable peace of the Father and the Son, their unshakable bond, their undivided love, their indivisible unity.—St. Bernard of Clairvaux, in Sermon 8, Sermons on the Song of Songs

Of course, these are mere illustrations of the intimacy (perichoresis) that the members of the Trinity enjoy.  Going back to Paul himself, Christians have wrestled with this great mystery.

Conclusion

Jonathan Edwards was the first to point out that he did not propose to make the mystery of the Trinity unmysterious.  The degree you accept that ideas perfected become "real" is the degree you are likely to accept this formulation.  However, it does insist on exactly three Persons since it requires God to be object, subject, and verb of the sentence:

  God delights in Himself.


How does the Catholic church view Freemasons? What are the historic and current views of the Catholic Church concerning Masons?

The Roman Catholic Church has offered the most persistent opposition to Freemasonry. The Church has prohibited its members from being Freemasons since 1738. Since then the Church made it clear that membership in Masonic associations will lead to excommunication.
The Catholic Church accuses that the Free Masons incorporate Deism and Naturalism as part of their masonic beliefs. Both of these philosophies have been condemned by the Church as atheistic.
After the Second Vatican Council many thought that the Church was going soft on Free Masonry. Questions arose in particular because the 1983 revision of the Code of Canon Law removed specific mention of Freemasonry from Canon 1374, which penalized "person[s] who join an association which plots against the Church".
In response to these questions, the Church position was reiterated by the then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger in 1983. Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger being the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, with the apostolic approval of Pope John Paul II, issued a Declaration on Masonic Associations, which reiterated the Church's objections to Freemasonry. The Declaration states:

The faithful who enroll in Masonic associations are in a state of grave sin and may not receive Holy Communion....
...the Church’s negative judgment in regard to Masonic association(s) remains unchanged since their principles have always been considered irreconcilable with the doctrine of the Church and therefore membership in them remains forbidden.

Responding specifically to the question of why mention of Freemasonry had been removed from the Code of Canon Law, Cardinal Ratzinger stated:

...  this circumstance is due to an editorial criterion which was followed also in the case of other associations likewise unmentioned inasmuch as they are contained in wider categories.

That is, the editors chose not to list specific organizations by name, but rather to prohibit the entire category regardless of the names of individual organizations.
Many Catholics believe that the prophecy in revelation about the second beast (Revelation 13:11) is made about the Free Masons. But the Church has never openly made any such claims.


How did Catholic Church adapt after the Black Plague in Europe if at all any adaptation occurred? Correct me if I am wrong here. There were various reformations in the Catholic Church for example the reformation led by St. Catherine of Cienna, the reformation led by St. Theresa of Avila, Second Vatican Council led by Pope John the XXIII, etc. So just wondering after the Black Plague was there any adaptation that had to be undertaken in the Catholic Church?

The Church played a significant role during the Middle Ages because religion was an important aspect of daily life for European Christians. When the Black Death struck Europe in 1347, the Church struggled to cope with the plague’s damaging consequences and its reputation suffered as a result. The Black Death contributed to the decline in the confidence and faith of the Christian laity towards the institution of the Church and its leadership.

Bishop Ralph Shrewsbury of Bath and Wells delivered a renowned decree in 1349 on the matter of Christians dying without the sacrament of penance. He explained the cause of this when he stated that “priests cannot be found to take on the cares of these places, neither out of devotional zeal nor for payment, or to visit the sick and administer the Church sacraments to them, perhaps because they are infected or have a fear of being infected. The Bishop ordered the clergy of his diocese to publicize the fact that a sick
or dying individual should make a confession to a layperson if a priest was not available.

From the 1350s, on papal orders, new stress was put on indulgences, or grants of time off from purgatory bestowed by the church, which drew on what it termed a ‘treasury of merits’ or good deeds accumulated from Christ, the patristic fathers, and saints. Indulgences were not given freely, but usually in anticipation of a gift of money; always mindful of turning a profit, church leaders began to sell them in increasing numbers to a richer public.  These instances were significant in that they pointed to the practices that incited the radical change that transformed the Church in the sixteenth century, and the Reformation.

Another change initiated by the Black Plague was the rise of charities and private chapels, because of the Church's dimished reputation. This charity system of private worship played a large role in late medieval religion and represented a considerable blow to monopoly over church services held by the traditional Christian hierarchy. Records from testators show that before 1348, only 5% of them gave money to hospitals, but this number increased to 40% between 1350 and 1360.

Another movement that gained popularity after the Black Death was the increase in pilgrimages undertaken by Christians. Between 1349 and 1360, the number of pilgrimages taken to Rome and other shrines increased dramatically. The increase in pilgrimages was a significant movement that further detracted from the reputation of the clergy because it was another way for the laity to find their path to salvation without their assistance.

In 1351, a group of parish clergymen presented a signed petition to Pope Clement VI in anger due to the emergence of mendicant orders. They were upset because the mendicants were providing the laity with religious services, and they believed that the right to give those services belonged only to them. The Pope defended these friars and “accused the clergy of wasting their wealth ‘on pimps and swindlers and neglecting the ways of God.’ The fact that the Pope himself was voicing the same complaints held by the laity speaks to the damaged reputation of the Church at this time.

Another consequence that resulted from the Church’s failure to fulfill all the
spiritual needs of the laity was the emergence of mysticism and lay piety. Mystics held
the belief that God lived through every person and that individuals could strengthen their
relationship with God through austerity and commitment.

The Black Death also saw the rise of the flagellant movement, groups of men and women who publicly flogged their bodies while they traveled to and from European cities, preaching their version of Christianity without the permission of the Church. These bands posed a great threat to the authority of the Church and exposed its weakened hold over the Christian laity.

Another disturbing movement that emerged in the wake of the plague was the widespread violence directed against the Jewish population. The Church officially opposed this slaughter, but did nothing to not stop the maddened public from taking action. Jews had long held a tense relationship with their Christian neighbors, and when the plague arrived, European Christians violently attacked the Jews in the belief that Jews had spread the plague.


Issue comprehending Genesis and the Great Flood Ok so just from an empirically measurable perspective, we know that inbreeding leads to deformed offspring, why didn't this happen with Adam and Eve, and Noah and whoever he choose to go on board the ship with him?

To clarify, how could their siblings then go one to produce offspring without having sex witn their brothers , sisters , father or mother?

I'm also confused as to how humans split into differing distinct racial profiles, how does and where does the Bible explain this part?

Many thanks in advance

reference literature on inbreeding

Young earth creationists do indeed believe that Adam and Eve's children would have paired up to reproduce. They do not believe that this would have caused deformed offspring because  at that time their DNA was in a relatively good state. YECs believe that genetic decay is a consequence of the fall. Even if each of Adam and Eve's children had a hundred new mutations, they would have each had different ones. Many of the genetic deformities we know today require both parents to have the mutation, so the first generation would have been mostly safe. As long as that generation's children didn't breed exclusively with their own siblings, their mutations would also not match their partners'.

YECs generally assume that Adam and Eve remained fertile for quite some time, with sons like Seth being born after 100 years, and presumably more even later than that. This means that the children of Adam and Eve who married each other may not have been raised together; many could have even been virtual strangers before pairing up. The Westermarck effect thus could have remained in place, and technical incest could have occurred without the social problems that we associate with it now.

As to the nations and 'racial' appearances after the flood, well YECs believe that the Tower of Babel story provides the answer. After the languages were confused the peoples of the world would have spread out, with smaller ones fleeing faster and further in order to escape the chaos and conflict. The larger groups probably remained closer, and would have had more people knowledgable with each technological advance, so that the "cradles" of civilisation we see are centred around Mesopotamia, while nations further away seemed more primitive. As groups spread out, their gene pools shrink, and certain characteristics get emphasised in each. One of the most obvious traits, skin colour, would be caused by the sun: near the equator those with light skin would have died more from skin cancer, while those near the poles with dark skin would have suffered from rickets and other vitamin D deficiencies. Natural selection would thus select the most advantageous skin colour for the climate.


What type of angel was the Morning Star? I've read in various places that Lucifer was 'Chief of the Seraphim,' 'Cherubim that covers,' and 'Archangel of the Crown'.  All accounts say he was God's greatest angelic creation, but what kind: Seraph, Cherub, or Archangel?

I'm a novelist and I am currently doing research. If you don't mind, I would like to know what the general consensus or most common views are across Christianity.

You have hit upon a very popular misconception which many have turned into a fable. The only place in the Bible which names "Lucifer" is in Isaiah 14:12.

  " How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!"  (KJV)

This verse is contained within a section that is discussing the king of Babylon.  We can know this by looking at the entire chapter, and we find in vs. 4 that the text actually says "king of Babylon" and also calls him "the oppressor".

Then, in vs. 16 it identifies him as "the man"...

  "They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms;"

The entire section is one of prophetic judgment which was pronounced against the king of Babylon for his pride and conceit and claim to be like the most High.

Adam Clarke's commentary is most helpful here, and regarding "the parable" of vs. 4 includes:

  "The Septuagint in this place render the word by θρηνος, a lamentation. They plainly consider the speech here introduced as a piece of poetry, and of that species of poetry which we call the elegiac; either from the subject, it being a poem on the fall and death of the king of Babylon, or from the form of the composition, which is of the longer sort of Hebrew verse, in which the Lamentations of Jeremiah, called by the Septuagint Θρηνοι, are written."

And regarding vs. 12 he has:

  "O Lucifer, son of the morning - The Versions in general agree in this translation, and render הילל heilel as signifying Lucifer, Φωσφωρος, the morning star, whether Jupiter or Venus; as these are both bringers of the morning light, or morning stars, annually in their turn. And although the context speaks explicitly concerning Nebuchadnezzar, yet this has been, I know not why, applied to the chief of the fallen angels, who is most incongruously denominated Lucifer, (the bringer of light!) an epithet as common to him as those of Satan and Devil. That the Holy Spirit by his prophets should call this arch-enemy of God and man the light-bringer, would be strange indeed. But the truth is, the text speaks nothing at all concerning Satan nor his fall, nor the occasion of that fall, which many divines have with great confidence deduced from this text. O how necessary it is to understand the literal meaning of Scripture, that preposterous comments may be prevented! Besides, I doubt much whether our translation be correct. הילל heilel, which we translate Lucifer, comes from ילל yalal, yell, howl, or shriek, and should be translated, "Howl, son of the morning;" and so the Syriac has understood it; and for this meaning Michaelis contends: see his reasons in Parkhurst, under הלל halal ."

And on vs. 13:

  "I will ascend into heaven - I will get the empire of the whole world. I will exalt my throne above the stars of God - above the Israelites, who are here termed the stars of God. So the Targum of Jonathan, and R. D. Kimchi. This chapter speaks not of the ambition and fall of Satan, but of the pride, arrogance, and fall of Nebuchadnezzar."  Source: here

Clarke's entire discussion of this chapter would be helpful to you.

Young's Literal Translation of Isa. 14:12 does not use "Lucifer" at all.

  " How hast thou fallen from the heavens, O shining one, son of the dawn! Thou hast been cut down to earth, O weakener of nations." (YLT)

Prophetic language of the Bible has some common metaphors which can be identified through scripture.  "Heaven" or "Heavens" is used for the kingdoms and realms of authority of kings as they have a higher authority over the people of the land.  As God has authority over all men, and as He raises up and brings down the rulers / kings over men, then the king's rule is a "heaven" / authority appointed by God.

"Casting down to earth" was being removed from power.  The earth was a metaphor for the realm of the common people who had no authority above one another.

The "stars of God" were those stars of heaven that are identified through metaphorical statements as the children of Israel / Jacob and his father Abraham.

Gen. 26:4, remembering the oath to Abraham,

  "And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven,..."

Joseph's dream in Gen. 37:9,

  "... and, behold, the sun and the moon and the eleven stars made obeisance to me."

is defined in verse 10:

  "...What is this dream that thou hast dreamed? Shall I and thy mother and thy brethren indeed come to bow down ourselves to thee to the earth?"

The eleven stars were Joseph's brothers.  So all of the children of Jacob / Israel were referred to in prophesy / poetical language as "the stars of heaven."

We need a Prophetic Language Class 101 so that these metaphors can be more readily recognized.

I do not know that the particular king spoken of in Isa. c. 14 was Nebuchadnezzar as verses 19 & 20 says he slaughtered his people, and destroyed his land.  As Nebuchadnezzar returned to his sanity (Dan. 4:22-37), and seemed to have repented of his pride, this king in Isa. c. 14 might very well have been Nebuchadnezzar's grandson Belshazzar.  Belshazzar was the last king of ancient Babylon mentioned in Dan. c. 5.

This may not be of help to you in your novel.  Contrary to what most people believe, "Lucifer" is actually a mistranslation, and is not a reference to any fallen angel, nor to Satan.

Unless otherwise noted, all scriptural references are from the KJV.  All bold emphasis is mine.


How does one reconcile the principle of justice with the doctrine of original sin? How does one reconcile the idea in modern democracy that every person will be judged purely based on their own actions, with the doctrine of the belief in the state of sin in which humanity exists since the fall of Man?
This is especially relevant with respect to people who lived before the advent of Christianity, where there are no external factors such as the belief in a sacrifical crucifixion to "restore the balance", so to speak (unless a kind of retroactive effect of this on these people is believed in, violating causality).
It is clear that the two principles are logically incompatible with each other, as evidenced by the dogma of total depravity telling us, even in its highly softened Roman Catholic form, that man cannot "be justified before God by his own works, …without the grace of God through Jesus Christ".
On the other hand, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, arguably the foundational document of modern democracy, in Article 11, states that

Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.

No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

If it is in fact the case that they cannot be reconciled within the same logically consistent system, in what ways and domains is the subsequent doublethink applied?

Original sin is not so much an action of a person, but rather a position into which one is born.  As such, the idea of justice (merit of reward or punishment) does not even enter the equation in understanding original sin.

  But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
  Gen 2:7

The sin of Adam was doing what was forbidden.

  And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?
  Gen 3:11

Here's the question.  Did Adam die that same day?  Not physically, right?  Adam was cast from the garden and lived with Eve and children for years thereafter.

  Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. ... And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.
  Gen 3:23, 5:5

So, did God lie because Adam did not die the day he ate?  Or is there more to the story?  There is; in what sense did Adam die?

Adam died spiritually.  It is into that state, that position, that all are born.  It is not because of your action good or bad, but simply is a state of fact.

  For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
  1 Cor 15:22

The word "die" is present tense.  We are born physically alive and spiritually dead.  (to be clear, some religions will teach all people are born with a "light", alive spiritually, that may or may not go "out" later in life, but this is the Christianity explanation)

Flesh gives birth to flesh.  Spirit gives birth to spirit.  We must be born again.

  That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.  Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
  John 3:6-7

Now, as mentioned, justice is defined as merited rewards or punishment.  It should be clear by now that the concept of justice does not even apply to the idea of original sin.  We are born dead.  We didn't do anything upon exiting the womb either good or bad.  Justice does not even apply.  We are simply born dead.

To apply justice to original sin would be akin to believing that good works will merit your salvation.

God, however, has provided a way out of death.  It is called Christ Jesus the Son of the Living God.  It is salvation by grace through faith.

  For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God.
  Eph 2:8


Who rejects prosperity theology? Which denominations more or less explicitly reject prosperity theology?

As far as I understand, most Charismatics, and probably Pentecostals believe in prosperity theology. Right?

But it is rejected by Baptists, right? Or are there Baptists which believe in this doctrine?

I am writing a manuscript where I touch the question about reception of prosperity theology by various denominations and want to be sure I don't mis-attribute who agrees with this and who disagrees.

Prosperity Theology (aka "Health and Wealth Gospel") is primarily a perjorative term. Even many who in actuality are subscribing to a "Gospel" characterized by God finanicially and healthfully "blessing" people witha  strict moral code, they would be loathe to use the term.

Indeed, other than some Pentecostals and Charismatics, the general tenets of a Prosperity Theology would definitely have ben rejected by almost all of the Patristic Church Fathers, and the promulgation would have been considered a pre-Chalcedonian heresy which would be rejected by pretty much everybody.

This charge is specifically is why Evangelicals like John Piper would call out popular preachers like Joel Osteen or why Pope Francis would distance himself from the same. Evangelicals like Brian Zhand and liverals like Brian McLaren are in agreement that it is inconsistent with the call of Jesus.


What is the Biblical basis that God "cannot" act against his nature? I understand the traditional theology of omnipotence to be that God can do anything He wills, and that his omnipotence is thereby limited to His nature.  In other words, saying that God can do anything does not imply that He can lie or sin.   For example:

  God is all-powerful and able to do whatever he wills. Since his will is limited by his nature, God can do everything that is in harmony with his perfections. – Thiessen

The best proof texts for this seem to be Hebrews 6:18 and 2 Timothy 2:13.
However, based on a debate with a friend, I asked this question on Biblical Hermeneutics SE, and got an answer that surprised me:

According to the answer, Hebrews 6:18 does not necessarily mean that God cannot lie - only that He won't.

So this leads me to a question: What is the Biblical basis for the doctrine that God's omnipotence means that he cannot act against his nature?  Would it perhaps be more correct to say that he will not act against his nature?

The Concise Oxford English Dictionary (11th ed.) defines "nature" as "the basic or inherent features, qualities, or character of a person or thing."

For God to act against His nature would mean, employing the COED definition of "nature", that He would be exhibiting features, quality, or character that were not basic or inherent to Him.  In essence, He would change.

Scripture teaches that God does not change.  According to James, there is no variableness nor shadow of turning in God (James 1:17).  The Lord said to Malachi (3:6), For I am the Lord, I change not.


What Scriptures are used to justify the belief that Christians of Denominations other than a specific one will be rejected by God? In my studies of the Bible I have never found times when God has rejected the worship of anyone who worshipped him in sincerity.
The only restrictions to worship other than worshipping in holiness as far as I have been able to find is in:

Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven. For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them. (Matthew 18:19-20, KJV)

And David in Psalms decreed:

Who shall ascend into the hill of the Lord? or who shall stand in his holy place? He that hath clean hands, and a pure heart; who hath not lifted up his soul unto vanity, nor sworn deceitfully.  He shall receive the blessing from the Lord, and righteousness from the God of his salvation. This [is] the generation of them that seek him, that seek thy face, O Jacob. Selah. (Psalms 24:3-6, KJV)
Give unto the Lord the glory due unto his name; worship the Lord in the beauty of holiness. (Psalms 29:2, KJV)

And in Hosea it says:

For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings. (Hosea 6:6, KJV)

As far as I am able to determine God  does not seem to be concerned except that we humbly worship him in righteousness.
So for those who do believe that God only accepts a single denomination, what scriptural passages do they use to back it up?

The first scripture that occurs to me in this connection is Galatians 1:8, where St. Paul writes: "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema."


Why did God create the great flood? Why did God create the great flood to wipe the entire human race including unborn children and babies that are probably innocent, and also other species that are innocent?

He can re-create the whole universe and fix his errors of the first creation in just 6 days instead of drowning all creations in 40 days of rain. Why not just make a fresh start.

The flood happened precisely on account of the issues you raise. More specifically, it debunks the premises on which those issues are founded.

As Christians living thousands of years later with only a short Scriptural account to go on, we can really only speculate about how the people of Noah's day must have reasoned with themselves. However it seems likely based on their recorded reactions and God's action that their presuppositions were similar to the ones you have made. They were wrong and the flood was God's way of setting the record straight.

There is no such thing as "probably innocent". The fallen nature of all humans since Adam means that we are guilty and deserving of condemnation from the womb on. That God could wipe out all humanity in the way he did helps us understands God's disposition towards sin and gives us a reference point for man's sinful nature. The NT echoes this as it affirms that there are NONE righteous on their own apart from God's intervention. The pre-flood people of earth are used as a reminder of this and the flood stands of a warning of the future judgement we will all face.
It wasn't God's mistake in the first place that he would need to "fix his error". The error lies with man - who chose to rebel rather than obey - but the solution cannot come from man, it must be directed by God. It was God that preserved Noah. It is God that will preserve some men (those who by faith in Him come under his saving grace).
God didn't mess up that would need to start over, it was always his plan to redeem creation. He knew what would happen to it, but entered into a covenant with himself - God the Son agreeing to be the ransom, the redeemer to purchase a people out from God the Father's righteously judgement. The concept of redemption was always part of the plan. Likewise we look forward to a new heavens and a new earth -- not a different creation entirely but a re-creation -- a redemption of creation itself on the day where he will make all things new (after he finally judges those who do not have faith in him).
Other species are not innocent. All of creation was subjected to the fall. The caretaker of creation - the priest who's job it was to mediate between God and creation - the one who was charged with naming and caring for all the species - fell down on the job. He left his job unfinished. As a result of his failure, not only was he himself cursed but everything in his domain was cursed as well. The ground brought forth weeds and thorns. The animal kingdom was subjected to the same futility that mankind was now under.

The exact "why" if many of God's choices is not fully revealed to us, but Christians use God's actions in the past to help shape their understanding of the present. The flood helps reset our understanding of what guilt and innocence mean in relation to a holy God. It teaches us significant lessons about the nature of man, creation and God himself. It warns us against evil and points us toward salvation.