How does current Church of England polity compare with Richard Hooker's teaching? Richard Hooker's Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity (1593) is a foundational document for the theology and ecclesiology of the Church of England. In it, he defends (among other things) the Anglican understanding of the episcopacy, and the power of the church to set its own form of government, within certain doctrinal limits.

Since Hooker, the polity of the Church of England has changed in some important ways. Following the motto of "episcopally led, synodically governed", there are more synods than there used to be, and they include lay people as well as clergy. For example, the General Synod (since 1969; the Church Assembly from 1919 until then) is a legislative body including  separate houses of bishops, clergy and laity. There is a national executive body called the  Archbishops' Council (since 1999). Comparable structures exist at the diocesan level.

How does the current model of Church of England polity compare with the understanding of Hooker? In particular, what would he think about governance by regular synods with lay participation?

Hooker's Arguments

Hooker wrote in the last years of Queen Elizabeth I. He feared that the Church of England, as he knew it, was under threat. The Puritans were growing in strength and influence. He was amongst the many, referred to in the Epistle Dedicatory to the King James Bible, who feared that when Elizabeth died, thick and palpable clouds of darkness would cover the land. He wrote to defend the Church of England as it then was. As things turned out the Puritans did not achieve power until the middle years of the next (i.e. 17th) century. Following the Restoration of King Charles II in 1660 the Church of England returned, in the main, to the way it was in the reign of Elizabeth and Hooker was a major influence on the Caroline Divines and future generations of Anglicans around the world.

He wrote:

  Though for no other cause, yet for  this, posterity may know we have not loosely through silence permitted things to pass away as in a dream; there shall be for men's information extant thus much concerning the Church of God established among us, and their careful endeavours who would have upheld the same.

As the OP points out Hooker believed every Church, that is to say every Christian community (e.g. England), had the right to make its own rules.  This obviously excludes the idea that rules be imposed from Rome. But that arguent had already been won in England, it was not Hooker's focus. Hooker was principally arguing against the Regulatory Principle, the idea that Scripture contains all that is needed concerning worship and church order.

In Book Three he says:

  We have asserted that there is a difference between a) matters of faith which are necessary to salvation; and b) ceremonies and the form of Church government. The first we say must be collected from Scripture. For the second, it is sufficient that there be nothing in Scripture against them.

Referring to Germany (Luther) and France (Calvin) he says:

  When Germany had stricken off that which appeared corrupt in the doctrine of the Church of Rome, but seemed still to retain a conformity in discipline; France took away the Popish orders which the Germans retained.

Whee Luther trimmed what was wrong, Calvin tried to start again, as if from scratch.

In this England was similar to Germany, and Scotland was similar to France (and Geneva). The Church of England was accused by the Puritans of retaning far too many practices of the Roman Catholic Church. It had not yet been as fully reformed as had the Church of Scotland. Hooker characterises the typical Puritan objection to pretty much anything, from wedding rings to bishops, as "We find no such thing commanded in the Word of God."

Hooker said that what was commanded in the Word of God was that nothing be done scandalous or offensive, that all things be done decently and in order, that all things be done unto edification and all to the Glory of God. Within these broad precepts the Church of England, like the Church of every other country (he had no thought of private denominations), had freedom to set its own rites, ceremonies and system of governance.

In Books Four and Five Hooker argues the case for numerous practices in the Church of England,  and in the liturgy of the Book of Common Prayer. His arguments are that nothing is contrary to Scripture, and that what there is is good.

Book Six is devoted to considering whether there must be, in every congregation, lay-elders as ministers of ecclesiastical jurisdiction. He concludes there is no need for lay-elders as ministers of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and argues very strongly against them.  This might, perhaps, suggest he was opposed to lay involvement in church governance, but as we see in Book Eight, this was not the case.

What Hooker was concerned with in Book Six was  repentance, forgiveness, penance and absolution. The Church of England services began with a general confession, by the congregation, and a general absolution said by the priest. There was no need for a person to confess his/her sins individually to a priest as in the Roman Church (though it was permissible). Hooker was attacking the Scottish system which, in some cases at least, required public confesion and the performance of a penance set by the Kirk Session. Every parish has a Kirk Session, consisting of lay-elders as well as ministers. It is this which Hooker means by "jurisdiction of lay-elders".  He argues that it is not necessary, and that it is disadvantageous generally speaking.

Book Seven refutes the proposition that there ought not to be bishops in the Chuch indued with such authority and honour as ours are. Many Puritans believed that all ministers were equal. Hooker did not.

Book Eight refutes the arguments of those who objected to Royal Supremancy in the Church. He acknowledges that, under infidel rule, Church and State are two separate entities. But, he points out, in England Church and State are one and the same community.

  As every man who is a member of the Church of England is also a member of the State, and vice versa, and the same multitude constitute both, there is no real or personal divison between them.

Hooher argued there are 2 kinds of opponents to the spiritual supremacy of the monarch. The first are Papists, those who believe in the universal jurisdiction of Rome. The second are those who believe that the spiritual power belongs to the clergy of every national Church.

Apart from the fact that Old Testament Kings exercised power over religious and civil affairs alike (Solomon the king, not Zadok the priest, built the Temple); Hooker pointed out the practical difficulties if there was no supreme authority.

  Suppose that tomorrow the judicial power requires you to attend court, the martial  power requires you in the field, and the spiritual power requires you in the Temple, and all have equal authority, what are you to do?

He reveals what he thinks of lay governance in the Church in the following passage:

  The Parliament of England, with the Convocation annexed, is the essence of all the government within the kingdom: it is the body of the whole realm and consists of the king and (represents) all his subjects. The parliament is a court, not so merely temporal as that it should meddle with nothing but leather and wool. The most natural and religious course in makng laws is that the matter of them be taken from the judgement of the wisest in those things which they are to concern. In matters of God, in framing forms of prayer, articles of faith and religious ceremonies, the pastors and bishops of our souls must naturally be thought more fit for this offce than men of secular calling. Still, when all that the wisdom of all can devise is effected it is the general consent of all which must give the laws their form and vigour ..... And the Parliament of England has authority to give or withhold that assent and approbation which give laws their force.

The Convocation to which Hooker refers is actually two Convocations, one for the South (Canterbury povince) and one for the North (York province), each consisting of a House of Bishops and a House of Clergy.

Church Polity in the time of Hooker

Preaching the Word and administering the Sacraments was the responsibilty of priests, ordained and supervised by bishops.

The appointment of a priest to a particular parish was usually the responsibility of a layman, the patron,  typically often the lord or gentleman  on whose land the church stood.

Church administration at parish level, was the responsibility of churchwardens. Usually each parish had two churchwardens elected by the parishioners, and the churchwardens were always laymen.

Major developments such as the Approval of the Thirty-Nine Articles or amendments in the liturgy, or the creation of new dioceses etc was generally originated in the Convocations representing clergy in general, and bishops in particular. On approval by both houses of both convocations it would next require approval by both Houses of Parliament representing Commons and Lords (where bishops also sat); and then Royal Assent.

Churchwardens and Patrons were lay, the House of Commons members were lay and the House of Lords was partly lay. The monarch was lay. So there was quite significant lay involvement which Hooker approved of.

How Church Polity has changed

Convocations endorsed the Prayer Book of 1662 before passing it to Parliament. During the eigteenth centuriy convocations exercised  almost no functions. As OP says, since 1919 there was a Church Assembly reconstitued as the General Synod in 1969.  This differs from Convocation in that it also includes lay representatives These lay people  must be communicant members of the Church and are indirectly elected by baptised members of the Church.

The General Synod can pass Measures, approved by the three houses (laity, clergy and bishops). If passed they are conidered by the Ecclesiastical Committee of Parliament (about 30, 15 lords and 15 members of the Commons). They will then be approved or rejected by the House of Commons and the House of Lords, and finally by the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, Her Majesty the Queen.

The House of Commons, and the House of Lords, can and do include persons of any and no religion, as well as representatives of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. It is no longer the case that members of the Church of England and subjects of the UK state are one and the same group of people. The monarch must be a communicant member of the Church of England.

As OP points out there are now diocesan synods consisting of the bishop,  any suffragan bishops,  representatives of clergy, and representatives of laity.

At the parish level churchwardens still exist and are still elected by the parishioners. Any resident of the parish can vote, provided he or she is a Commonwealth citizen. He does not have to be a Christian of any kind to vote. The churchwardens though must be members of the Church.   Alongside this there are now also parochial church councils, elected by baptised members of the Church of England living in the parish (regardless of whether they attend church) and any person living outside the parish who worships within it.

What might Hooker think?

Hooker wrote at a time when Church and Nation were identical. The Church of England today is both a national Church, and at the same time is one denomination amongst many. Many citizens are of other faiths, or other denominations, or have no interest in Church. It is a situation Hooker did not envisage or address.

Hookers principle point was that each Church has the right to make its own rules. I do not see that he would find anything impermissible in current arrangements. He would say modern England can make its rules too. But what would he think of them?

The creation of Diocesan Synods pretty much mirrored the creation of County Councils, a general acceptance in the country of the need for local repesentaion. Diocesan Synods are to bishops as County Councils were to magistrates.

The chief problem was how, and whether, to adjust for the fact that many members of civil society are not Anglicans, not Christians even.

For a time non-Anglicans were barred from Parliament. Later this became widely unaceptable and Parliament was opened up, progressively, to other Protestants, other Christians, anybody.

One solution would have been to  effectively disestablish the Church, replacing the lay involvement of Parliament with a separate body consisting of lay Church members only.  Another would have been to say lay Church member needd no special representation. By creating the House of Laity in the General Synod, England has recognised that the lay members of the Church are now a distinct subset of the population as a whole; and deserve a particular say. But by retaining the role of Parliament there is also the recognition that the Church belongs to, and is for, all the people of England.

At the parish level too,  Parochial Church Councils, representing Church members, were brought in alongside Chuchwardens, representing everybody.

I think Hooker could have written a very strong defence of the current polity.  I fear he might be less impressed with the state of the Church generally.  He would, I feel sure, be pleasntly surprised that the Church of England has lasted in anything like the form he knew it; perhaps in no small part, thanks to him.


Are there any documented cases of prophecies, dreams or visions (Joel 2) in modern times (1900 - present) that are endorsed by a denomination? In Acts 2, during the Sermon at Pentecost, Peter reminded his astonished Jewish audience about the well-known prophecy uttered by the prophet Joel:

14 But Peter, standing with the eleven, lifted up his voice and addressed them: “Men of Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and give ear to my words. 15 For these people are not drunk, as you suppose, since it is only the third hour of the day. 16 But this is what was uttered through the prophet Joel:
17     “‘And in the last days it shall be, God declares,
          that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh,
          and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy,
            and your young men shall see visions,
            and your old men shall dream dreams;
18     even on my male servants and female servants
            in those days I will pour out my Spirit, and they shall prophesy.

Many believe that we are currently in the end times, and that Joel 2:28-32's prophecy is especially true today. In fact, testimonies of people claiming to have received rapture dreams, visions or end times prophetic revelations from God abound in the internet. Just to give you an idea, there are several YouTube channels whose primary purpose is searching, collecting and reuploading other people's testimonial videos about prophetic dreams and visions: example 1, example 2, example 3, example 4, example 5. You may also try this search to find more testimonies that people keep uploading all the time.
That said, it is difficult to distinguish between genuine and fake cases. It's not always easy to tell whether someone is sharing a genuine experience or if they are simply making stuff up motivated by a craving for attention or revenue.
Question: Are there any documented cases of people receiving prophetic revelations, dreams or visions in modern times (1900 to the present), which are endorsed by a denomination that considers them credible, reliable and divinely inspired? How do such denominations verify the genuineness or falsity of a given prophecy, dream or vision?

The Bible speaks plainly about how to “validate” a genuine prophecy, dream or vision.   First, it must come to pass, but also, it must not promote false worship or detract from the word of God:

If a prophet or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a miraculous sign or wonder, and if the sign or wonder of which he has has spoken takes place, and he says, “Let us follow other gods”... that prophet or dreamer must be put to death because he preached rebellion against the Lord your God... (Deuteronomy 13:1-5).

Here is an example of a modern-day vision or prophecy that does not break that rule.
In 1968 an old woman age 90, from Valdres in Norway, had a vision from God.  A respected evangelist called Emanuel Minos spoke with this woman and wrote down what she described.  He thought it was so preposterous that he put the document in a drawer and left it there for 30 years.  Then he realised he had to share her vision with others.  The woman from Valdres was a very alert, reliable, awake and credible Christian, with a good reputation among all who knew her.  Remember, it was sometime around 1998 when this document came to light. This is part of what she saw:

I saw the time just before the coming of Jesus and the outbreak of the Third World War. I saw the events with my natural eyes. I saw the world like a kind of a globe and saw Europe, land by land. I saw Scandinavia. I saw Norway. I saw certain things that would take place just before the return of Jesus, and just before the last calamity happens, a calamity the likes of which we have never before experienced.

There will be peace between the super powers in the east and the west, and there will be a long peace. (Remember, this was in 1968 when the cold war was at its peak with the Cuban Crisis in 1962)

A lukewarmness without parallel will take hold of the Christians, a falling away from true, living Christianity. Christians will not be open for penetrating preaching. They will not, like in earlier times, want to hear of sin and grace, law and gospel, repentance and restoration. There will come a substitute instead: prosperity (happiness) Christianity...  Churches and prayer houses will be emptier and emptier.

There will be a moral disintegration that old Norway has never experienced the likes of. People will live together like married without being married...  TV will be filled with such horrible violence.   People will use it for entertainment.  We will see terrible scenes of murder and destruction one of the other, and this will spread in society.  Sex scenes will also be shown on the screen, the most intimate things that take place in a marriage.  (TV had just arrived in Norway in 1968)

People from poor countries will stream to Europe.  (In 1968 there was no such thing as immigration)  There will be so many of them that people will begin to dislike them and become hard with them. They will be treated like the Jews before the Second World War. Then the full measure of our sins will have been reached.  I will not see it, but you will. Then suddenly, Jesus will come and the Third World War breaks out. It will be a short war.

She concluded:

I am so glad that I will not see it, but when the time draws near, you must take courage and tell this. I have received it from God, and nothing of it goes against what the Bible tells.  The one who has his sins forgiven and has Jesus as Saviour and Lord is safe.
(Translated from German into English in an article in the magazine “Christian Information Service”)  http://www.inthebeginning.com/articles/norway1968.htm

Were these prophetic visions fulfilled?  Remember, this old lady from Norway had this vision in 1968.
Peace between the superpowers in the East and in the West: The “cold war” period is generally considered to span the 1947 Truman Doctrine (12 March 1947) to the 1991 Dissolution of the Soviet Union (26 December 1991). The Cuban Missile Crisis in October 1962 sparked genuine fear that it would result in a nuclear war between America and Russia.  Then, in November 1989, the unimaginable happened – the Berlin Wall came down, resulting in a distinct thaw between the east and west.  On 3 December 1989, Gorbachev and George H.W. Bush declared the Cold War over at the Malta Summit.  Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_War  and  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_War#Thaw_in_relations
Churches closing and the rise of the “Prosperity Gospel” – health and wealth style Christianity:   A 2015 analysis of the European Values Study in the Handbook of Children and Youth Studies identified a "dramatic decline" in religious affiliation across Europe from 1981 to 2008 – however, this Wikipedia article does not focus on specifics such as number of churches that have closed in Scandinavia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_of_Christianity_in_various_countries
The view that many churches have closed in Europe since 1968 is probably supported by documented evidence, but I can’t find anything specific.  That church attendance has dropped due to apathy is also fairly obvious but difficult to quantify.  Pew Forum organisation is probably the best source: https://www.pewforum.org/2018/05/29/being-christian-in-western-europe/
Many healing evangelists of the 1940s and 1950s taught that faith could bring financial reward. Then a new prosperity-oriented teaching developed in the 1970s that differed from the one taught by Pentecostal evangelists of the 1950s.  During the 1960s, prosperity gospel teachers embraced televangelism and came to dominate religious programming in the United States. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosperity_theology#Televangelism
Moral disintegration and an increase in violence – proliferation of sexually explicit and violent television programmes:  In 1968 the number of television channels was quite low compared to the hundreds of channels now available.  Scenes of violent or sexual conduct were heavily censored.  Today, not only do television, video and films exploit both violence and sex, the world wide web has a deeply dark and sinister side.  Why, even “social media” is being used to pervert children.  Media is saturated with scenes of immorality and violence – and it’s all taken for granted, as being an acceptable form of entertainment.  Evidence can be found by turning on your television.
Mass immigration from people in poor countries into Europe: Causes for the displacement of people include natural disasters, conflict and economic poverty due to climate change.  The number of unofficial border crossings by sea and land detected by Frontex at the external borders of the EU peaked at a total of 141,051 in 2011.  The migrant crisis was part of a pattern of increased forced migration to Europe from other continents which is said to have begun in 2014.  At the peak of the crisis in 2015, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) observed that the top three nationalities among over one million refugees arriving from the Mediterranean Sea were Syrian (46.7%), Afghan (20.9%) and Iraqi (9.4%).  According to the UNHCR, the EU countries with the biggest numbers of recognised refugees at the end of 2014 were France (252,264), Germany (216,973), Sweden (142,207) and the United Kingdom (117,161).  Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_migrant_crisis
I do not know which particular denomination this lady may have belonged to, only that she was a Christian.  In order to validate what she described, one only has to consult recent history.


How comparable are the concepts of the Teaching Magisterium in the Catholic Church and the Jehovah's Witnesses view of their Watch Tower society? Just how comparable is this particular aspect of each group's ecclesiology? If from an academic viewpoint there are marked similarities, is there an identifiable Jehovah's witness perspective on the significance of such similarities? Would they seek to embrace, downplay or refute a comparison in this area?

Disclaimer: This question was inspired by the following comment: "Put simply, they (Jehovah's witnesses) teach that God always directs teaching through an organization, so those outside that organization have rejected it. They simply do not recognise any other groups as valid." from an answer to this question: Why do JW think other faiths are unbelievers?

Comparing the Teaching Authorities

Searching JW.org, since JW and WTS say nothing (let alone authoritative) about their Teaching Authority, there is nothing to compare.

The comparison dies right here: The Catholic states 1) that they have Teaching Authority, and 2) what that means; From JW and WTS, to an outsider, there is no Teaching Authority, as they have said nothing about it.

Herein lies the danger: The new member never learning of WTS until after joining, and only now being told the importance of WTS and the dire consequences of disobeying WTS.

What follows is sharing knowledge:

Comparing the Actual claims

Examining some of the pertinent claims of the Catholic Church:

  12. Who gave the Catholic Church divine authority to teach?
  Jesus Christ gave the Catholic Church divine  authority to teach, when
  he said, 'Go ye and teach all nations.' [Matt.28:19]

  88. How do you know that Christ appointed St. Peter to be the Head of the
  Church?       I
  know that Christ appointed St. Peter to be the Head of the Church
  because Christ said to him; 'Thou art Peter,and upon this rock I will
  build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
  And to thee I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven'. [Matt.
  16:18-19]

  99. How is the Church Apostolic?
  The Church is Apostolic because it was founded by Christ on the
  apostles and, according to His Divine Will, has always been governed
  by their lawful  successors [in an unbroken succession]. (my
  addition and emphasis)

Jehovah's Witnesses started c. 1870 with Charles Taze Russell, therefore 1) they cannot refute the Catholic Church's claims, and 2) they cannot claim as the Catholic Church claims.

This apologetic tract History of the Jehovah's Witnesses from a Catholic Perspective may be of use. There are additional tracts on Jehovah's Witnesses on the site.

If I were a JW apologist, to defend the Teaching Authority of my organization, I would first define what is was, and how it came to be invested with authority. I would investigate what we say of our own Teaching Authority.

I searched JW.org for The Watch Tower Society and pulled naught. Wikipedia provides this:

  Criticism | Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania |
  Wikipedia

  Critics including Raymond Franz, Edmond C. Gruss and James Penton have
  accused the society of being authoritarian, controlling and coercive
  in its dealings with Witnesses. Franz, a former Governing Body member,
  has claimed the Watch Tower Society's emphasis of the term
  "theocratic organization" to describe the authority structure of Jehovah's Witnesses, which places God at the apex of its organization,
  is designed to exercise control over every aspect of the lives of
  Jehovah's Witnesses and condition them to think it is wrong for them
  to question anything the society publishes as truth. The Watch Tower
  Society has been accused of employing techniques of mind control on
  Witnesses including the direction to avoid reading criticism of the
  organization, frequent and tightly controlled "indoctrination"
  meetings, regimentation, social alienation and elaborate promises of
  future rewards. Apart from life stories, the authors of all Watch
  Tower Society magazine articles and other publications are anonymous
  and correspondence from the society does not typically indicate a
  specific author or personal signature.

This is left to JW to defend.

On JW.org, I searched for other pertinent information, and in FAQ and retrieved this:

  Do Jehovah’s Witnesses Believe That They Have the One True Religion?
  | JW.org

  Those who are serious about religion should think that the one they’ve
  chosen is acceptable to God and Jesus. Otherwise, why would they be
  involved in it?

  Jesus Christ didn't agree with the view that there are many religions,
  many roads, all leading to salvation. Rather, he said: “Narrow is the
  gate and cramped the road leading off into life, and few are the ones
  finding it.” (Matthew 7:14) Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that they’ve
  found that road. Otherwise, they’d look for another religion.

This reason is subjective. A problem quickly emerges: a broken link. The Watch Tower Society, theocratic, God then them, Jesus missing; reason for true religion references Jesus and the narrow road, no reference to the Watch Tower Society.

JW are welcome to comment.

Closing, as far as I am aware, there isn't an official Church perspective on JW Watch Tower Society. It appears that the Church would have trouble saying anything on something that JW and WTS themselves don't say a thing about.


According to Protestantism is the Holy Spirit a Spirit of a Spirit? God is a Spirit as stated in the Bible. The Holy Spirit is described as the Spirit of God. Does this mean that the Holy Spirit is a Spirit of a Spirit? How does this relationship work?

I know the Holy Spirit is one with the Trinity - God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. I know the Son came in flesh and the Spirit in Spirit. So God and the Holy Spirit are both Spirits with the latter being a Spirit of a Spirit?
Bible references:

  1 Cor 12:3 - Wherefore I give you to understand,
  that no man speaking by The Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed...

and also

  John 4:24 - God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship
  him in spirit and in truth.

Both of these verses use the same Greek word: pnuema, but in slightly different contexts. The first uses it as a name, the second as a description of essence. The Spirit of God (1 Cor. 12:3) is the man name used of the third person in the trinity whereas saying that God is a Spirit (Jn. 4:24) places the one God in the essential category of Spirit as opposed to within the category of material creatures or gods which must be worshiped within physical temples. Therefore, blueletterbible.org would categorize the first use under the "I." and the second use would fit definition "III."

An analogy would be the use of the word Son. It is one word but with several meanings and potential definitions. I may say: "I have a son" or "You are my son" or I might call you it as a name "Come over here Son!"


In protestantism are all mankind equal under God? Are there people of higher worth and lower worth? Is everyone deserving of equal respect?

There was some confusion in the comments since my question is short, I think the answers given are of good quality.

To address the comments, I want to know if people are considered equal to Christians. In contemporary society maybe the answer is an obvious yes and thats where the confusion is coming from? But it was not long ago that people had slaves and many of those slaveowners called themselves Christian, no? So I am asking in a very real and basic sense is it a Christian belief that all mankind are equal?
Or maybe some people should be slaves? I don’t know what Christians believe is why I am asking.

There are over 900 million Protestants worldwide.  The largest Protestant denomination seems to be Anglicanism with 85 million members, followed by Baptist, Lutheranism, Methodism and Calvinism.  Another consideration is the denominations that make up “Modern Protestantism” – 400 to 500 million. Then we have non-denominational / evangelical Protestants – 80 to 100 million.  And then there are the 35 million members of non-Trinitarian denominations.  Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations_by_number_of_members#Protestantism_%E2%80%93_920_million

Asking what are the views “in Protestantism” about equality, worth and respect, is therefore problematic because some denominations may subscribe to more liberal views than others.  To find out what one specific denomination believes, you would need to examine their official Statement of Faith and drill down to find what each has to say on the topics you mention.  However, it is possible to take a biblical overview – a generalisation – in order to establish what Bible-believing Protestant denominations should adhere to.  As a Christian of the Reformed Protestant persuasion here is my response to your questions:

Yes, Protestants understand that we are all equal under God.  It doesn’t matter if you are a King or a Queen, a President or a pauper.   The basis of equality has to do with how God views us.  God is holy, righteous and just and the sad truth is that every person is born with a sin nature.  The hard truth is that we have all sinned (Romans 5:12) and if we claim to be without sin we have deceived ourselves (1 John 1:8).  In that sense, we are all equal under God.

However, I suspect what you are really asking is how Protestants view other people.  Do they see everyone else as being equal?  Do they think some people are of higher worth than other people?  Do they believe that everyone deserves equal respect?

Do Protestants see everyone else as being equal?  Yes, whilst understanding that no created being can ever be equal to God (Isaiah 40:25).

Do Protestants think some people are of higher worth than other people?  No.  On the contrary, according to Philippians 2:3, we should “do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than ourselves”.

Do Protestants believe that everyone deserves equal respect?  Christians are told to show proper respect to everyone (1 Peter 2:17).  That includes showing respect within the family, to employers, to government officials, to rulers.  Those are people who deserve respect.

Ultimately, the bottom line is that it is God alone who is worthy of our respect (Malachi 1:6) and Protestants seek to follow the example of Christ Jesus in their dealings with other people.

Edit in response to clarification from OP: Jesus said the most important command is to love the Lord our God with all our heart, soul and mind.  The next, like it, is to love our neighbour as we love ourselves (Matthew 22:37-39).  That means our actions are to be motivated by our love of God and our love of others.  If we say we love God then we are bound to show Christ-like love for other people, regardless of their age, race, gender, origin of birth, skin colour, or state of health.

We should respect all people, remembering that we are all created in God’s image, regardless of our religious beliefs (or non-belief).  Take the example of the “Good Samaritan” in Luke 10:33-34, who went to extraordinary lengths to help the Jewish victim of robbers, even though the Samaritan himself was despised by the Jews.

Christians are advised to follow the example of the Apostle Paul who said:

  I try to please everybody in every way for I am not seeking my own good but the good of many, so that they may be saved.  Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ. (1 Corinthians 10:33)

If we claim to be followers of Christ Jesus then we are bound to walk in his footsteps, to show compassion to the lost, the dispossessed, widows and orphans, to visit the sick and to care for those in need.  There is no room for discrimination.


Why was it necessary for Mary to be a virgin? A lot of emphasis seems to be placed on the virginity of Mary.  (For discussion on that, see this question)

Is there a theological reason why Jesus's birth had to be a virgin birth?  Obviously God could have chosen a non-virgin to be the mother of Christ, so why did God choose a virgin?

It fulfilled prophecy

From the prophecy of
Isaiah 7:14 (NIV)

  Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.

It provided us a sign so that we will know the Messiah

The Isaiah verse above illustrates that God gave us this gift of a virgin birth as a sign that Jesus was the Messiah.
It illuminates his sinless nature

Jesus is pure without sin.  The virgin birth illuminates this sinless nature.  Had he been born of a man, he would have been born fallen, like the rest of humanity, therefore carrying sin.
It allows for the Trinity

If Jesus had been born of a man, how could he be the "Son of God"?  He could be in the same sense that we all are "sons of God".  However, the virgin birth allows for the understanding that God himself came down to Earth to be the perfect sacrifice.

This opens up a whole realm of doctrine.  If he was just a man, how could his sacrifice been an atonement for everyone's sin?


Does participating in an RCIA class require an initial commitment to convert to Catholicism? Say that I am not a Catholic, but am interested in learning more about the faith. However, I am not yet sure if I actually want to become Catholic. Would it be possible to participate in a Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults (RCIA) class in order to learn about the faith, even though I am unsure of if I will join it at the end of the class? Or does participating in RCIA require an initial commitment to formally become Catholic at the end of it?

You are not signing a contract as an Inquirer

  Does participating in an RCIA class require an initial commitment to convert to Catholicism?

Absolutely not.  If you find that it isn't working, you may leave

The beginning of the RCIA process is the inquiry phase. (Officially referred to as "The period of Evangelization and Precatechumenate" in the cited reference below).

  Page 15: It belongs to the conference of bishops to provide for the
  evanelization proper to this period.  The conference may also provide,
  if circumstances suggest and in keeping with the local custom, a
  preliminary manner of receiving those interested in the
  precatechumenate, that is, those inquirers who, even though they do not
  fully believe, show some leaning toward the Christian faith ...

During this time, as an inquirer, our deacon likes to put it this way: "you check out the Church and the Church checks out you." This assessment continues even in the following phases of the preparation for entry into the Church, as either catechumen or candidate (candidates are those already baptized but not yet Catholic) right up until the Rite of Initiation takes place.

There are checkpoints along the way; self-evaluation is included

Two intermediate rites act as milestones toward your answer of "yes, I'll keep going through with this" or "no, I am not ready yet" (or similar decision to demure).

The Rite of Acceptance -- where one accepts certain tenets and agrees to proceed
The Rite of Election -- where the local ordinary will (during the early part of Lent) identify those who are eligible and willing to receive the sacraments at the Easter Vigil.

In our experience, the Rite of Acceptance took place about 3 months after
we started the class, but timelines will vary a bit by parish and based on the needs of the person(s) involved.  For those who are already well versed
in Scripture and Christianity, for example a Lutheran or a Methodist, the
inquiry phase may well be a lot shorter.

There are also three scrutinies.

All of the above represent potential decision points for you, and in some cases for the Church, on whether proceeding is in everyone's best interests.

The two rites and the three scrutinies all precede the capstone event of baptism / confirmation / receiving communion at the Easter Vigil. (Or such other time as is chosen by the local ordinary / bishop).  If at any point along the way the prospective Catholic finds, inside their heart, that this just isn't their path to Christ (yet?) then it is best and honest to step aside. (Usually that decision will include a one-to-one discussion with the pastor and / or deacons where they are undergoing RCIA).

I found that even after the Rite of Acceptance, it was not uncommon for people who were on this journey to find that it isn't for them, and so they moved on to other things or other churches.  (In our parish, when this happened they went with our prayers and our blessings, and an invitation to return any time in the future if the time became right, or if they'd heard a new call).

  Would it be possible to participate in a Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults (RCIA) class in order to learn about the faith, even though I am unsure of if I will join it at the end of the class?

Yes.  I've seen that quite often, with varying results in terms of who chose to take the whole journey and those who didn't complete it.  I offer you a caveat, however.  There is more to RCIA that "a class."  It's supposed to combine instruction with spiritual formation in a harmonious fashion.

If during your journey toward being received into the Church you find that you are not moved to join, or that you cannot commit yourself honestly and without reservation, it would be wrong (and it would feel wrong in your gut) to accept the invitation to be received into the Church at the Easter Vigil.

As a point of reference, the restoration of the Catechumenate after Vatican II was inspired by the original conversion/initiation process from the early church, which sometimes took years before a person was ready to enter into the Faith. (Or before the Faith was ready to let them in).

Basis for this answer:

Catechist serving in the RCIA ministry for 6 years, mostly informed by RCIA in America; I cannot speak for the flow in other countries, but I suspect it is similar.  What we did was governed by this USCCB endorsed publication: Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults (Study Edition).   The long form ritual edition of The Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults is here.


What's the origin of the Catholic object that is a staff with a crucifix on top? Like I asked in the title, what's the name and origin of a staff with a crucifix on top? Like the one depicted in the picture.

That, in fact is the Papal Cross or Ferula.

It has been used since Pope Paul VI, designed by the Italian artist Lello Scorzelli. It is used in the same manner as a crozier. However, the cross bar is bent much like the paterissa.


What's the biggest time gap between authorship of two books of the Bible? What's the biggest time gap between authorship of two books of the Bible?

Honestly, I don't even know the order in which the books of the Bible were written, but I am quite interested in what the longest period of time that elapsed between two authorship of two books of the Scriptures.

The last book of the Old Testament, Malachi, was written about 443 B.C.  The first book of the New Testament, Matthew, was written about 40 A.D. leaving a 500 year gap between the Old and New Testament books.

Second would be Joshua (~1450 BC) and Judges (written by Samuel ~1100 BC)


How do Bible Literalists deal with trees older than the flood? According to Answers in Genesis, the flood happened in approximately 2348 BC, which means it would've happened about 4360 years ago. Wikipedia has a list of the oldest individual trees known, of which three are older than 4360 years (one that was cut down was [at least] 4,844 years old).

The Flood clearly should've killed all of the trees that were around at the time. Yet, these trees were definitely around before the Flood happened. So, how do Bible Literalists deal with this issue? How do they explain the fact that we have trees older than the Flood?

Note: this is indirectly related to Young Earth Creationism as the calculated age of the Earth (about 6,016 years) depends on the date of creation.

If it is a scientific certainty that a tree create one and only one ring per year, then this would be problematic.  However, as you can read on Wikipedia, this is not always the case:

  Alternating poor and favorable conditions, such as mid summer
  droughts, can result in several rings forming in a given year.  Wikipedia

So, it would only take conditions to produce two rings in less than 1 out of 9 years to make up for the "missing" 500 years.  So, the 4,844 rings (not years) appears to be within a reasonable variation to place the actual germination of the tree to be just after the flood.


Are there physical or psychological conditions that are a barrier to ordination to the Priesthood in the Catholic Church? It is my understanding that priests in the Old Testament, sons of Aaron, were to be without blemish. [cf. Lev 21:16-24 (RSVCE)].

In the history of Church to the present day, have there been and are there now, any comparable physical or psychological conditions that are considered a barrier to ordination to the Priesthood in the Catholic Church?

Can.  1041 The following are irregular for receiving orders:

  1/ a person who labors under some form of amentia or other psychic
  illness due to which, after experts have been consulted, he is judged
  unqualified to fulfill the ministry properly;

  2/ a person who has committed the delict of apostasy, heresy, or
  schism;

  3/ a person who has attempted marriage, even only civilly, while
  either impeded personally from entering marriage by a matrimonial
  bond, sacred orders, or a public perpetual vow of chastity, or with a
  woman bound by a valid marriage or restricted by the same type of vow;

  4/ a person who has committed voluntary homicide or procured a
  completed abortion and all those who positively cooperated in either;

  5/ a person who has mutilated himself [this includes vasectomy, castration, sterilization, etc.] or another gravely and
  maliciously or who has attempted suicide;

  6/ a person who has placed an act of orders reserved to those in the
  order of episcopate or presbyterate while either lacking that order or
  prohibited from its exercise by some declared or imposed canonical
  penalty.

(cf. the commentary on this canon)

This Instruction Concerning the Criteria for the Discernment of Vocations with regard to Persons with Homosexual Tendencies in view of their Admission to the Seminary and to Holy Orders by CONGREGATION FOR CATHOLIC EDUCATION, is an example of how Bishops, major superiors and all relevant authorities are to carry out an attentive discernment concerning the suitability of candidates for holy orders, from the time of admission to the seminary until ordination. In one section it states

  The spiritual director has the obligation to evaluate all the
  qualities of the candidate's personality and to make sure that he does
  not present disturbances of a sexual nature, which are incompatible
  with the priesthood. If a candidate practises homosexuality or
  presents deep-seated homosexual tendencies, his spiritual director as
  well as his confessor have the duty to dissuade him in conscience from
  proceeding towards ordination.


Why is death a vital piece of God's plan in LDS theology? 2 Nephi 9:6:

  For as death hath passed upon all men, to fulfil the merciful plan of the great Creator, there must needs be a power of resurrection, and the resurrection must needs come unto man by reason of the fall; and the fall came by reason of transgression; and because man became fallen they were cut off from the presence of the Lord.

I've stewed over this passage for many years. It has the basic premise that death is an integral part of the plan of salvation, but it doesn't say why.

Death is the separation of our spirit from our body; death initiates the end of this life and the beginning of the next life. But why can't there be some other mechanism of passage from mortal life to the spirit world?

We actually know that there is another way: translation, like the city of Enoch. Why aren't we all just automatically moved from earth to the spirit world?

Why is death a vital piece of God's plan? Why isn't there some other mechanism that fulfills the same role?

Wow, this is a good question. I dove into the search tools on LDS.org and came up with a few things that you've probably seen already, but they were instructive for me.

It looks like the reason for death has directly to do with circumstances of the Fall.

In Alma 12:23-24, it says:

  23 And now behold, I say unto you that if it had been possible for
  Adam to have partaken of the fruit of the tree of life at that time,
  there would have been no death, and the word would have been void,
  making God a liar, for he said: If thou eat thou shalt surely die.

  24 And we see that death comes upon mankind, yea, the death which has
  been spoken of by Amulek, which is the temporal death; nevertheless
  there was a space granted unto man in which he might repent; therefore
  this life became a probationary state; a time to prepare to meet God;
  a time to prepare for that endless state which has been spoken of by
  us, which is after the resurrection of the dead.

So death must come, among other reasons, because God said so. Is there yet a reason behind that? I don't know. There's certainly lots to learn from death that may only be accomplished by having death. For instance, how does knowing that we will die affect how we live?

Or, would it fair to say, that since Adam and Eve became even as gods through the Fall, knowing good from evil, and comprehending opposites, that life/birth must have its opposite, being death?

We've also got Alma 22:14:

  14 And since man had fallen he could not merit anything of himself;
  but the sufferings and death of Christ atone for their sins, through
  faith and repentance, and so forth; and that he breaketh the bands of
  death, that the grave shall have no victory, and that the sting of
  death should be swallowed up in the hopes of glory; and Aaron did
  expound all these things unto the king.

Although we aren't all translated, if we're righteous, the sting of death is swallowed up in Christ (1 Cor. describes the sting as sin).

Besides, if all people were just translated/taken up instead, I think that kind of death wouldn't cause us to search for something more to life. Dying has a purpose in urging us to consider our state of being and our standing with God, or even to search for God, while we yet live. This thought is mostly philosophical, but even prophets use this reasoning to convince us to "consider our ways," (Haggai 1:5) and "turn again to the Lord" (Lamentations 3:40).


Should  we be able fast like the fasts described in Bible? If you look carefully at the scripture, there are instances were some people fast to pray and/or to express their sorrow. However, the length of the fast seems to be  astronomical; some people like Moses has fasted for about 40 days:

  Exodus 34:28: 28 Moses stayed there with the Lord forty days and forty nights, and during that time he did not eat food or drink water. And Moses wrote the words of the Agreement—the Ten Commandments—on the stone tablets.

And Jesus also fasted for about same length of time:

  Matthew 4:1-2:  1 Then the Spirit led Jesus into the desert to be tempted by the devil. 2 Jesus fasted for forty days and nights. After this, he was very hungry.

Is it physically possible for us to do the same? I sincerely doubt that most people would die before 25 days.

Strictly medically speaking... Depending on your health, and the amount of stored body fat/muscle mass that you have when beginning to fast, it is physically possible to fast for more than 40 days.

Per this article: http://health.howstuffworks.com/diseases-conditions/death-dying/live-without-food-and-water1.htm

  Medically speaking, most doctors agree that healthy humans can go up
  to eight weeks without food as long as they have water. People have
  gone longer and been fine, and people have starved to death in less
  time. Being strong and in good physical shape can help you survive
  longer, but so does having extra body fat. The body stores energy
  needed to live in the form of fat, carbohydrates and proteins. The
  carbs are the first thing to be used up without more food coming in.
  The fat goes next, which explains why people with more of it can
  survive longer. Then the proteins go. If you get to the point that
  your body is using up proteins, basically the body itself, then you're
  in bad shape.

Eight weeks comes out to 56 days, of course, which is above and beyone even the 40 days you mentioned.

As for going without water for this time period, medical science says no, we can't live nearly that long.

The same article says this on the next page:

  Assuming you're in reasonable shape and in ideal conditions -- that
  is, not in the heat or cold and not exerting, a human can probably
  live for about 3 to 5 days without any water. Healthier humans can
  live another day or so longer.

However, Moses likely had divine intervention.  Of course, that can't be proved outside of the Biblical account, so that would make the question unanswerable using objective criteria.


Is confirmation part of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) doctrine? In my research I have concluded that infant-baptisms and confirmations are practiced in the PCA, however it's not clear whether the latter is a necessary part of PCA doctrine.

The clarify, I regard confirmation as the one-off reaffirmation of the public profession that was made on behalf of the individual's parents and godparents during infant-baptism.

In the comments of this answer there is a dispute over confirmation versus a "public profession of faith". If this distinction does exist, what is the difference?

If confirmation or a similar practice is consistent throughout the PCA, what are the characteristics of it? What sets it apart from other denominations?

Chapter 57 from The Book of Church Order--part of the PCA's doctrinal standards, along with the Westminster Confession of Faith--(a link to such in pdf format can be found here) is titled "The Admission of Persons to Sealing Ordinances".

Children who have been infant-baptised are not to take part in communion:

  57-1.  Believers’ children within the Visible Church, and especially
  those  dedicated to God in Baptism, are non-communing members under
  the care of  the Church. They are to be taught to love God, and to
  obey and serve the  Lord Jesus Christ. When they are able to understand
  the Gospel, they should  be earnestly reminded that they are members
  of the Church by birthright, and  that it is their duty and privilege
  personally to accept Christ, to confess Him  before men, and to seek
  admission to the Lord’s Supper.

Each congregation (represented by a council of elected elders) decides when such a person is ready to received communion:

  57-2.  The time when young persons come to understand the Gospel
  cannot  be precisely fixed. This must be left to the prudence of the
  Session, whose  office it is to judge, after careful examination, the
  qualifications of those who  apply for admission to sealing
  ordinances.

At this time a public profession is recommended but not necessary:

  57-4.  It is recommended, as edifying and proper, that baptized
  persons,  when admitted by the Session to the Lord’s Supper, make a
  public profession  of their faith in the presence of the
  congregation. But in all cases, there should be a clear recognition
  of their previous relation to the church as  baptized members.

So the PCA does have a process of confirmation however it is not necessary public and it is at the discretion of the congregation (via the elders) as to the nature of confirmation - whether classes are required, who will be admitted, whether there will be a ceremony. In practice many churches do require and offer classes for confirmees.


What is the difference between the two creations of humans, according to those who believe they are in chronological order? In Genesis 1:27, it says:

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

In Genesis 2:7, it says:

  And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

It is common among Christian denominations to believe that these two verses are describing the same event.

However, some denominations apparently believe that these events are in chronological order: that Genesis 1:27 happened on the sixth day, and Genesis 2:7 happened after the first seven days.

Since both events are about the creation of the human being, but happened on two different days, how do Christian denominations that read these events as happening in chronological order, rather than as two different accounts of the same event, understand this?

The various New Church (Swedenborgian) denominations that follow the Christian theology and Bible interpretations of Emanuel Swedenborg (1688–1772) see the two Creation stories of Genesis 1:1–2:3 and Genesis 2:4–25, not as describing the same events twice, but as being two distinct stories placed in chronological order.

Swedenborg saw these two Creation stories as being, not about the physical creation of the earth, and humans on it, but rather as the spiritual creation of human beings: meaning our "regeneration" or spiritual rebirth from being physical-minded and worldly people to being spiritual and heavenly people.

In Swedenborg's spiritual interpretation of the Creation stories, the first story represents the initial stage of our rebirth from being spiritually dead to being spiritually alive, and the second story represents a second stage of that process. Here is how he expresses it in Secrets of Heaven #81, in his summary on the meaning of Genesis 2:

  This chapter [Genesis 2] deals with the heavenly person; the last dealt with the spiritual person, who previously had been lifeless. In modern times, though, people know nothing about the character of a heavenly person and very little about that of a spiritual person or of a lifeless one. Let me clarify the differences through a brief discussion of each type.

  (1) The only truth and goodness that lifeless people acknowledge are bodily and worldly kinds, and these they revere.

  Spiritual people acknowledge spiritual and heavenly types of truth and goodness, but their acknowledgment stems from faith—as do their actions—and not as much from love.

  Heavenly people believe and perceive truth and goodness of spiritual and heavenly kinds, but they acknowledge no other faith than one that springs from love; and love is also what moves them to action.

  (2) Those who are lifeless fixate purely on bodily and worldly life as their goals. They do not know what eternal life is or what the Lord is. If they have heard about these, they have no belief in them.
  Those who are spiritual focus first on eternal life as their goal, and then on the Lord.

  Those who are heavenly concentrate first on the Lord as their goal, and then on his kingdom and eternal life.

  (3) When the lifeless undergo conflict, they almost always give in. When they are free of conflict, evil and falsity master them, and they are slaves to it. Their restraints are external and include fear of the law and fear of losing their life, wealth, profits, and consequent reputation.

  The spiritual are subject to conflict, but they always win. The restraints that curb them are internal ones termed the bonds of conscience.

  Heavenly people experience no conflict. If evil and falsity attack them, they spurn them, which is why they are called victors. They have no apparent restraints to curb them, being free, but they do have invisible restraints, which are the goodness and truth they perceive.

In other words, Swedenborg sees the stories as dealing with three stages in the spiritual development of an individual person, and also of humankind as a whole.

Stage 1: The worldly person, who is spiritually lifeless

The first stage, he says, is represented by the state of creation just after the initial creation of the heavens and the earth in Genesis 1:

  The earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep. (Genesis 1:2)

The formlessness, void, and darkness, he says, is the spiritual formlessness, void, and darkness of people who have not yet been regenerated, or spiritually born again. This is where all of us start, and it is also where the earliest human beings on earth also started as a group.

Stage 2: The spiritual person, prompted by faith

He then interprets the first Creation story of Genesis 1 as referring to our reformation into spiritually aware and enlightened beings, who live a good life based on faith, belief, and understanding. This first Creation story is complete in us when we believe in God and live a good life because we know it is the right thing to do, and we know and understand that this is what God has commanded us to do for our own good.

The first Creation story, then, focuses on the rebirth and reformation of our mind and our understanding.

Stage 3: The heavenly person, prompted by love

The second Creation story, by contrast, Swedenborg says, focuses on the rebirth of our heart, our love, and our will.

When we have reformed our life and our thinking about life based on faith and an understanding of the goodness and rightness of God's laws and God's commandments, our spiritual rebirth or re-creation process moves deeper, to the level of our heart and what we love and feel joy in. That is what takes place in the second Creation story, in Swedenborg's interpretation of it.

When this third stage of our spiritual re-creation is complete, we live a good life, not merely because we know and understand that it is the right thing to do—which is a rather intellectual and therefore relatively superficial type of spiritual life—but rather because we feel the love of God in our heart, and this prompts us to spontaneously and warmly love both God and our fellow human beings. So our spiritual life is moved not just by faith and understanding, but even more by a warm and burning love in our heart that prompts us to want and do everything good for the people around us.

This brings God's heavenly kingdom into fruition in and around those who reach this stage of spiritual rebirth.

References to the full exegesis

This is a necessarily brief and sketchy account of Swedenborg's detailed exegesis of Genesis 1 and 2, which he sees as a sort of "preface" to the Bible, providing a summary in two short chapters of everything that follows in the entire Bible.

You can read his fuller exegesis of these chapters in an older translation online at the links below. All linked numbers are from Swedenborg's Arcana Coelestia ("Secrets of Heaven"). Subsequent section numbers can be read sequentially by clicking the "Next" button below each section.

His exegesis of Genesis 1 starts with a preface in #1, and the exegesis proper starts with a summary of the spiritual meaning in #6, followed by a detailed exegesis starting in #14.

His exegesis of Genesis 2 starts with a summary in #73, followed by a detailed exegesis starting in #81.

For a more modern and readable translation, I recommend the New Century Edition, which is available as a free download from the publisher's website here.

Summary and conclusion

In this chronological understanding of the two Creation stories:

When the human being is first created in Genesis 1:27–28, it represents our creation as spiritually aware human beings prompted by faith and an understanding of God's commandments as being good and right for us to follow.

When the human being is created second, in Genesis 2:7, it represents our creation as heavenly human beings, meaning people who are moved primarily by love for God and love for the neighbor, and who live a good life as prompted and motivated by that love. This, Swedenborg says, is God's ultimate goal for us, and completes our process of being born again as new creations in the image and likeness of God.


Is there any evidence for the claim that the Catholic church suppressed translation of Scripture? There is a popular Protestant polemic that Catholics don't (or didn't) want people to read the Bible.  It is often furthermore assumed that the Catholic Church went so far as to ban people from having the Bible in their own language.

Supporting the claim are the stories of:

Martin Luther who is sometimes thought to have been persecuted for translating the Bible into German, but who in fact was accused of heresy, and in any event, was not the first to translate the Bible into German.
William Tyndale who was executed for heresy, but also did not even make the first English translation (rather there were others already extant)
John Wycliffe who is often credited with the first English Bible, although older versions went back to the 6th Century, and who nonetheless was never charged with heresy until a good 30 years or so after his death.

In each of these cases, however, the position does not seem to be the act of translating the Bible, or of making it available, but rather of heretical teachings from these translations.

And, clearly the example of the Jesuits, translating the Scripture into hundreds of languages, seems to run counter to the claim that translating Scripture or encouraging lay popele to read it was heretical.

So, the question is, is there any papal directive that specifically addresses the possession of the Scripture in a vulgar (i.e. native) tongue, or addresses the translation of Scripture outside of Latin in a negative light?

Quoting from The Story of Christianity, chapter thirty (emphasis added):1

  When Alexander died, Hildebrand was elected pope, although the order prescribed by the Second Lateran Council was reversed, for it was the people who demanded his election, and the cardinals who agreed. He took the name of Gregory VII, and continued the work of reformation in which he had been engaged for years. His dream was of a world united under the papacy, as one flock under one shepherd. Among the many steps he took in this direction, he declared that the Bible should not be translated into vernacular languages, for the ministry of teaching and interpretation must be in the hands of Rome...

Additional Context: Chapter thirty is entitled "Movements of Renewal," and Gonzalez is describing the Roman Catholic Church in the eleventh century, following the corruption which existed during and after the decline of the Carolingian empire. The "reformation" referred to is not the Protestant Reformation of the sixteenth century, but rather the eleventh century ecclesiastical reformation internal to the RCC, as initiated by monks from Cluny and other monasteries.

The Story of Christianity, Revised Edition, by Justo Gonzalez. Volume I, p. 337.


What does Paul mean when he says "rather we uphold the law" Romans 3 talks about how we are saved by faith apart from works & the law. At Romans 3:31 Paul tells us:

  Do we then nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather we uphold the law.

From any protestant perspective, what does Paul mean by "upholding" the law?

Does Paul mean we should continue to obey the entire law or does he mean that we should just simply acknowledge it?

As believers, we are obligated to obey God’s moral law and should desire to do so, since that law reflects God's nature, as seen in 1 Peter:

  14 As obedient children, do not be conformed to the passions of your
  former ignorance, 15 but as he who called you is holy, you also be
  holy in all your conduct, 16 since it is written, “You shall be holy,
  for I am holy.” (ESV)

When Paul says, 'We uphold the law', he is concerned some believers might say: ‘Since Jesus met the requirements of the law for us when he died on the cross, we can ignore the law and do what we want.’ To counter such thinking, Paul expounds on this further in Romans 6:

  What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may
  abound? 2 By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? 3
  Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ
  Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were buried therefore with
  him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised
  from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness
  of life. 5 For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we
  shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. 6 We
  know that our old self was crucified with him in order that the body
  of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be
  enslaved to sin. 7 For one who has died has been set free from sin.

*


What does the Bible say about the appearance of angels? In Christian art, angels are often depicted as winged human-like creatures. However, I'm curious if there is any justification for this in the Bible? I've sometimes heard that there isn't, so that's why I'm asking you as experts in the field.

Are there any descriptions of the appearance of angels in the Bible?

Is there any Biblical reason to assume that angels look like the ones in the picture on the left rather than the picture on the right?

The Bible has many descriptions of angels, and in some cases they obviously appear as men, because they are mistaken for men.

The angel of the LORD came and sat down under the oak in Ophrah that belonged to Joash the Abiezrite, where his son Gideon was threshing wheat in a winepress to keep it from the Midianites. When the angel of the LORD appeared to Gideon, he said, “The LORD is with you, mighty warrior.” “Pardon me, my lord,” Gideon replied, “but if the LORD is with us, why has all this happened to us? Where are all his wonders that our ancestors told us about when they said, ‘Did not the LORD bring us up out of Egypt?’ But now the LORD has abandoned us and given us into the hand of Midian.” Judges 6:11-13
...
Then the angel of the LORD touched the meat and the unleavened bread with the tip of the staff that was in his hand. Fire flared from the rock, consuming the meat and the bread. And the angel of the LORD disappeared. When Gideon realized that it was the angel of the LORD, he exclaimed, “Alas, Sovereign LORD! I have seen the angel of the LORD face to face!” Judges 6:21-22 emphasis mine

Other passages describe angels in a variety of different ways.  Ezekiel presents one of the stranger

I looked, and I saw beside the cherubim four wheels, one beside each of the cherubim; the wheels sparkled like topaz. As for their appearance, the four of them looked alike; each was like a wheel intersecting a wheel. As they moved, they would go in any one of the four directions the cherubim faced; the wheels did not turn about as the cherubim went. The cherubim went in whatever direction the head faced, without turning as they went. Their entire bodies, including their backs, their hands and their wings, were completely full of eyes, as were their four wheels. I heard the wheels being called “the whirling wheels.” Each of the cherubim had four faces: One face was that of a cherub, the second the face of a human being, the third the face of a lion, and the fourth the face of an eagle. Ezekiel 10:9-14

I can't recall (and a quick search doesn't turn up) any biblical description of an angel that actually includes the elements of most of their art, a human form with wings and a halo.


Is there a Christian definition of "social justice?" Most (if not all) major Christian denominations seem to support the idea of "social justice." Most sources I've read seem to agree that the term itself was originally a Christian term that's gotten traction in more secular circles. Nowadays, people tend to use it mostly as a catch-all for a wide variety of political movements they believe in. I've seen "social justice" tied to campaigns for organic food, both sides of the abortion debate, tax policy, you name it.

My question is: Is there a specific Christian definition of the term "social justice" In particular, is it something different from plain ol' justice, or is the extra word just redundant?

No, there's not a specific Christian definition for this phrase.  It means various things to different people based on their own values.  The defiition, in general is the same as it is in the secular world - to champion social causes that are considered "Just".  Beyond that, it gets into "What's 'Just'?".

Put simply, there's no "Specific Christian definition" because "Christianity" is not one single view, it's the sum total of all the views of the believers.  See Is it valid to ask if “Christianity” teaches anything?


Ezekiel on Egypt's 40 year desolation Does anyone have any more knowledge regarding Ezekiel's prophecy about Egypt becoming desolate for 40 years?
I know that Nebuchadnezzar ransacked much of Egypt and carried away booty as Ezekiel had stated, as well as the Egyptians being taken as captives by Nebuchadnezzar.
We know that Cyrus the Great deported the captives back to their original countries including Egypt, as what Ezekiel said; and that after the Egyptians returned Egypt became a lowly kingdom, as what Ezekiel had said.

Does anyone know how long the time span between Nebuchadnezzar taking the Egyptians as slaves to Cyrus releasing the Egyptians?  Was this 40 years, or a different time span?

I have found secular history's time lines to be problematic in several areas. But there is enough information to be able to rely upon the prophesy of the 40 year desolation of Egypt.
Adam Clarke's commentary on Ezekiel chap. 29 indicates a 40 year time span from the taking by Nebuchadnezzar to the release under Cyrus.
Introduction Chap. 29,

"and God is introduced denouncing, in plain terns, the most awful judgments against him and his nation, and declaring that the Egyptians should be subjected to the Babylonians till the fall of the Chaldean empire, Ezekiel 29:8-12. The prophet then foretells that Egypt, which was about to be devastated by the Babylonians, and many of the people carried into captivity, should again become a kingdom; but that it should never regain its ancient political importance; for, in the lapse of time, it should be even the Basest of the kingdoms, a circumstance in the prophecy most literally fulfilled, especially under the Christian dispensation, in its government by the Mameluke slaves, Ezekiel 29:13-16. The prophecy, beginning at the seventeenth verse, is connected with the foregoing, as it relates to the same subject, though delivered about seventeen years later. Nebuchadnezzar and his army, after the long siege of Tyre, which made every head bald by constantly wearing their helmets, and wore the skin of off every shoulder by carrying burdens to raise the fortifications, were disappointed of the spoil which they expected, by the retiring of the inhabitants to Carthage. God, therefore, promises him Egypt for his reward, Ezekiel 29:17-20. The chapter concludes with a prediction of the return of the Jews from the Babylonish captivity, Ezekiel 29:21."

Clarke's Commentary on verse 13,

"Will I gather the Egyptians - It is probable that Cyrus gave permission to the Egyptians brought to Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar, to return to their own country. And if we reckon from the commencement of the war against Pharaoh-hophra by Nebuchadnezzar, to the third or fourth year of Cyrus, the term will be about forty years."  Source: here.

Gill's Exposition on verse 13,

"Yet thus saith the Lord God, at the end of forty years,.... Reckoning from its devastation by Nebuchadnezzar to the taking of Babylon by Cyrus:
will I gather the Egyptians from the people whither they were scattered; from Babylon, and other places; Cyrus very probably being stirred up by the Lord to proclaim liberty to the Egyptians, as he did to the Jews, to return to their own land; and at the same time restored Amasis to the quiet possession of his kingdom, who must be still alive; since, according to Diodorus Siculus (w), he reigned fifty five years; though, according to Herodotus (x), he reigned but forty four years. "  Source: here.

Egypt's desolation was also prophesied by Jeremiah in chap. 46.
The indication by many commentators is that when Babylon fell to Cyrus, then Cyrus gave the Egyptians their freedom. But, determining the years from secular historical records is problematic.
Historians place the fall of Babylon about 539 BC.  This would put the fall of Egypt 40 years earlier in 579 BC.  This does not comport with the secular records of Nebuchadnezzar's invasion of Egypt in 568 BC.  The secular records are off.
Excerpt from Keil and Delitzsh OT Commentary on Verses 17-18,
The contents of the prophecy, namely, the assurance that God would give Egypt to Nebuchadnezzar as spoil in return for the hard labour which he and his army had performed at Tyre, point to the time immediately following the termination of the thirteen years' siege of Tyre by Nebuchadnezzar. If we compare with this the date given in Ezekiel 29:17, the siege was brought to a close in the twenty-seventh year of the captivity of Jehoiachin, i.e., b.c. 572, and must therefore have commenced in the year b.c. 586, or about two years after the destruction of Jerusalem, and with this the extract given by Josephus (c. Ap. i. 21) from the Tyrian annals agrees."  Source: here.
As another source places the Nebuchadnezzar's invasion of Egypt in 588 BC, with the end of their desolation in 548 BC.  And, that would mean that the fall of Babylon to Cyrus was about 9 years earlier than secular history records it.  See the info at "Jerusalem 607 BCE" here.


How do Christians exercise self-control in the abstinence of food during fasting? I am aware of the Lord teaching us to pray, detailing how and how not it should be done, but the only thing he said about fasting was

"Moreover when ye fast, be not, as the hypocrites, of a sad countenance: for they disfigure their faces, that they may appear unto men to fast. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.  But thou, when thou fastest, anoint thine head, and wash thy face; " (Matthew 6:16-17).

I do not recall where in the bible but I know faithful servants of God like David, Esther, Isaiah, Barnabas and Simeon fasted. We are even admonished to fast for  spiritual strength.

"Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency." (1 Corinthians 7:5).

How do christians carry out this exercise when food is very important for strength in the physical?

"If ye love me, keep my commandments. " (John 14:15).
How do Christians keep this very commandment?

Please if anyone could help me put this question in a better way to avoid closure, edits are welcomed
[Expecting @RiverC's answer among the responses as he inspired me to reask better.]

First, and foremost, fasting is a wonderful discipline which teaches you to subject your flesh to the desires of your heart.  It is an exercise in which you will struggle. The truth is is, our flesh may have been sacrificed (Rom 12:1) and crucified (Gal 2:20), but it is still with us! (Rom 7).

As an exercise, it is primarily an exercise in willpower.  It is the conscious decision, for a set period of time, to force your body to do what your mind and spirit know is best.  In way, it is much as Douglas Adams described flying -

  Flying is the art of attempting to hit the ground and missing!

In the case of fasting, it means that every time you are tempted to eat during the prescribed period, you take that thought captive (2 Cor 10:5), consciously decide to not act on the impulse, and instead turn to God. Fasting for more than a few hours means repeating this a lot.  In the same way that jumping jacks and pushups are hard work, so too is fasting!

For a more thorough treatment of the topic, the classic book on the subject is Richard Foster's Celebration of Discipline. He'll give many more practical applications of how to do this. (What to eat, what you'll your experience, how to deal with the hunger pains, etc...)

As one example (and I forget if this Foster or someone else), your first 24-hour fast should be from lunch of day one, skip dinner, sleep (when you'll be most hungry), and skip breakfast. Eat a light lunch.  Also, be sure to drink lots and lots of water during the day.


Where does the Body, Soul and Spirit of man go after Death? Here is a question that came during a Bible study and I believe it is very interesting. So much I want to share here and see what answers can come out.

I am going to keep it simple.

So, we all have a Body, Soul and Spirit. Now, at death, the Body returns to dust while the Spirit returns to God (Genesis 3:19, Ecclesiastes 12:7) but where does the Soul go?

I read the bible as teaching that you do not have a soul, but that you are a soul. This being the combination of body and spirit.

Eg, read Genesis 2:7 account of Adam’s creation where God breathed the breath of life into the clay and Adam became a living soul (nephesh) in Hebrew.

Animals are the same. “Nephesh” is used with them too.

The soul, and in particular the idea of an immortal soul, comes from Greek philosophy and is not a biblical teaching. The Bible teaches that you die (which is like sleep in that you are not aware of your surroundings or the passage of time). You cease to be. The breath of life, the spirit, returns to God.

Jesus: “into your hands I commend my spirit”. On his death, Jesus, slept until his father called him from the tomb and returned his breath of life (spirit) to him.

Note that the simple words “breath of life” hide a transformative effect, a massive alteration of the clay in Adam’s case, or the body as in the case of Jesus or Lazarus.

Taking Adam as an example, the breath of god turned clay into living cells in exquisite detail, DNA, blood, brain, muscles and a nervous system, but also included a fully “programmed” or “imprinted” brain. IE, A character. Adam received the knowledge of language, co-ordination, the ability to focus his eyes, to walk, to reach out and grasp, all those things a new born baby does not have though it is otherwise complete and perfect.

To Jesus and to Lazarus were returned their original characters, knowledge and memories. It was everything that made Jesus Jesus, and Lazarus Lazarus. In the case of Jesus he received also the power and authority that he had laid aside when he “emptied himself” and took the form of humanity, but that is another topic entirely.

——
Addendum:

Lesley has asked below for more references re “soul sleep” as the statement is given that most christians, protestant or catholic, believe in an immortal soul.

True, it is a catholic teaching and originated with them, and from which many churches have inherited the same.

I will refer to the original protestant, the well known Dr Martin Luther who said the following:

"But I permit the Pope to make articles of faith for himself and his faithful, such as The Bread and wine are transubstantiated in the sacrament. The essence of God neither generates, nor is generated. The soul is the substantial form of the human body. The Pope is the emperor of the world, and the king of heaven, and God upon earth. THE SOUL IS IMMORTAL, with all those monstrous opinions to be found in the Roman dunghill of decretals, that such as his faith is, such may be his gospel, such his disciples, and such his church, that the mouth may have meat suitable for it, and the dish, a cover worthy of it."

(Edit 3: FULL CAPS added by me for easy reference to the pertinent comment. I should also add, as others have in quoting this passage, that this forthright and coarse-sounding language was used frequently by these robust Reformers. To ears accustomed to the suavities and euphemisms of our times, they sound rough and uncouth. But such phraseology was part of the common parlance of the time, employed by outstanding men of the day who were desperately in earnest. They were fighting a relentless, merciless and deadly foe at close quarters and against terrific odds, and in so doing they used blunt phrasings. Martin Luther escaped death only by the protection of German nobility else he too would have ended as did Huss and Jerome)

Luther further wrote:

“For just as one who falls asleep and reaches morning unexpectedly when he awakes, without knowing what has happened to him, so we shall suddenly rise on the last day without knowing how we have come into death and through death. We shall sleep, until He comes and knocks on the little grave and says, Doctor Martin, get up! Then I shall rise in a moment and be happy with Him forever."

It is also a Seventh-day Adventist teaching, but as you can see, originated centuries before them and not from them.

For biblical reference see Jesus referencing death as sleep, and the statement that the dead know nothing in Ecclesiastes.

Further reference that the bible teaches that immortality belongs to God, and is not a human trait. God said if you eat of the tree you will surely die. Satan said you will surely not die.

The teaching that you (the essence of you, your soul) does not die is the same thing that Satan taught. The teaching is his, not God’s.

When you believe that the soul is immortal you get into all kinds of trouble with the resurrection. Jesus returned to the tomb to fetch his body why? He returned to the tomb, entered his dead body and then waited a moment or two till Gabriel told him his Father was calling him back “and this time bring your human body with you”? Does Joseph return to earth to collect his dried bones? For those who died millenniums ago, for which no trace of body remains, why do they return to the earth to be resurrected? Only good old earth clay will do?

No, Martin Luther hit that nail on the head 500 years ago, this is an invention of Catholicism. It is not a biblical teaching.

——
Addendum 2:

For a good reference to Greek philosophy being the originators of the soul being distinct and separate, then try https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ancient-soul/


Can you be a Christian and not go to church? Possible Duplicate:
  Do I have to attend church every Sunday?

Simply put, can you be a true christian and not go to church? Or is it a mandate to go to church on Sundays?

No.

Actually yes it is of course quite possible, but if someone is asking this question at all, it is likely that there is some other issue. Fellowship and the community of saints is such a basic part of the Christian faith that someone who wants to avoid that part on purpose has probably not understood the purpose of church at all and may not have the kind of regenerated heart that would want such a thing.

An interesting note on this issue is that it is usually those who for whatever reason cannot easily fellowship that understand it's value the most. Christians living in areas where they are persecuted for their faith believe so strongly in their need to meet together that they are often willing to risk their lives for it. It is primarily in affluent secular cultures were the desire to NOT attend creeps into circles of professing Christians. Anybody asking this question should be challenged to re-consider whether they know what being a Christian is all about in the first place.

One starting point is to review what scriptures say about the matter. A vast number of the instructions given to Christians for implementing their faith have to do with our treatment of one another, and the Lord's day is given lots of treatment in the Scriptures as well.


Common arguments in support of the partaking of the divine nature being possible only through Eucharist How do those Christians who believe that believers' partaking of the divine nature that Apostle Peter was talking about in 2 Pet. 1:4 is possible only through Eucharist prove that? What are their main arguments supporting that notion?

  2 Pet 1:4: "Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious
  promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature,
  having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust."
  (KJV)

I am not sure if the concept of Eucharist being the exclusive way of partaking of the divine nature is a must belief in any one branch of Christianity. It is most likely that in each branch there could be found both proponents and opponents of that belief. However, in my question I am primarily interested in the arguments of RCC, EOC and main-stream Protestants.

In the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

  The Word became flesh to make us "partakers of the divine nature":78
  "For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the
  Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and
  thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God."79 "For the
  Son of God became man so that we might become God."80 "The
  only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity,
  assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods."81 CCC 460

"by entering into communion with the Word": since the Word is capitalized, it means the Eucharist.

I think this quote above explains it nicely. I encourage you to read the whole section.


Who represented "the Lord" in Exodus 4:24-26, and what's the deal with the foreskin? In Exodus 4:24-26:

  At a lodging place on the way, the LORD met Moses and was about to kill him. But Zipporah took a flint knife, cut off her son’s foreskin and touched Moses’ feet with it. “Surely you are a bridegroom of blood to me,” she said. So the LORD let him alone. (At that time she said “bridegroom of blood,” referring to circumcision.)

I have 2 questions about these passages:

Who was the person referred to as "The LORD"? Was it The Holy Spirit Himself appearing in human form? Was it Jesus? Or someone else?
Why did the circumcision and touching of foreskin to Moses' feet apparently satisfy Him?

To understand these verses it's helpful to read them in context. I'm using the King James Version, which seems a bit easier to understand (in particular the part about "touching" Moses' feet).

EXODUS 4:22-26 (KJV) And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD,
Israel is my son, even my firstborn: And I say unto thee, Let my son
go, that he may serve me: and if thou refuse to let him go, behold, I
will slay thy son, even thy firstborn. And it came to pass by the way
in the inn, that the LORD met him, and sought to kill him. Then
Zipporah took a sharp stone, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and
cast it at his feet, and said, Surely a bloody husband art thou to me.
So he let him go: then she said, A bloody husband thou art, because of
the circumcision.

Moses was on his way to tell Pharaoh that this time, if he didn't let Israel go, he would slay Pharaoh's firstborn. On the way, the Lord met Moses () to take his life for not fulfilling His commandment to Abraham to circumcise every male. The statement "the LORD met Moses" may have been spiritual: perhaps Moses suddenly became very sick and Zipporah discerned the cause. At any rate, the LORD was there to take Moses' life. (Note that the KJV renders LORD in all caps when referring to Jehovah, {God Above Us}, and Lord when referring to Adonai, {God With Us}).
As the King James Version reads, Zipporah cast the foreskin at Moses' feet because she was a bit of a fireball (in the best sense), and wasn't too happy with Moses at the moment. "A bloody husband thou art, because of the circumcision!"


Laurentian Litany - How pray it? During a prayer service in our Church, we sang the Laurentian Litany to Our Lady. Does someone knows if there exist any rules that say how the litany should be prayed (ex: standing up during liturgical holiday)?

This litany is also known as the Litany of Loreto and the Litany of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

There are six approved litanies within the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church. There are no officials rules as to how to pray any of these litanies. That said, however, there are a few traditional ways of praying them.

For example the Litany of the Saints is usually chanted while kneeling during the Mass of Ordination or a solemn profession of a religious. It may be chanted or recited while making a procession as on Rogation Days.

The Litany of Loreto may be said privately or in public as a novena either recited, sung or chanted as the circumstances call.

I know of several monastic communities that will make a procession on the Feast of the Assumption and will chant the Litany of Loreto (in Latin) and end the procession at a statue of Mary (all the time remaining either walking or standing). If remaining in a church, these same communities will take the traditional posture of kneeling while reciting this litany. Once again this is only a traditional way of praying any of the litanies and the faithful are quite free to choose otherwise.

One last note: Please make sure to conclude the Litaniae Lauretanae with the appropriate closing prayer according to the liturgical season (Christmas, Easter, Advent, etc.).


Why did Justin Martyr speak so harshly about Christians who ate meat sacrificed to idols? In his Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter XXXV, Justin replies to Trypho's charge that Christians eat meat sacrificed to idols by saying that such people serve to show more distinctly who are the true followers of Jesus and exhort them to faithfulness, and that such people are wolves in sheep's clothing, causing schisms and heresies.

However, my reading of the New Testament creates the impression that abstinence from food sacrificed the idols was prescribed in the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) on the basis of the preservation of unity, and Paul in 1 Corinthians 8 clarifies that food does not commend us to God, the idols have no real existence in themselves, but that we should use our freedom to not cause the "weaker brother" to stumble (evidently in this case, the one who through prior associations finds a problem with eating the meat). Paul seems to think that it is more of a question of the company one is keeping that might make the action sinful, as opposed to the action itself.

Trypho, as a Jew would have been such a person that the Christians should have at a minimum not publicly ate the meat around, and so they would be guilty of sin. But heresy? Wolves in sheep's clothing? Why does he not argue instead that these Christians are simply guilty of sin?

Justin Martyr (100–165), unfortunately, doesn't provide much additional insight into his position here or in his other writings.  However, his view was a common one in the 2nd and 3rd centuries, so we can better understand it by examining the writings of his contemporaries and immediately subsequent generations of church fathers.  Those holding this view include:

Irenaeus (?–202)
Tertullian (155–240)
Origen (184–254)

Irenaeus's treatment of this subject is similarly brief, but serves to demonstrate that Justin Martyr was not the only 2nd-century father who felt that eating meat sacrificed to idols was evidence of leaving the faith.  He writes:

Others [...] have introduced promiscuous intercourse and a plurality of wives, and are indifferent about eating meats sacrificed to idols, maintaining that God does not greatly regard such matters. But why continue? For it is an impracticable attempt to mention all those who, in one way or another, have fallen away from the truth.1

For the reasoning behind this view, we must turn to Tertullian and Origen.  The key passage they reference is 1 Corinthians 10; verses 19–21 being particularly relevant:

19 What do I imply then? That food offered to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? 20 No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be participants with demons. 21 You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons. [ESV]

Citing this passage, Tertullian argues that idolatry is demon worship and that therefore eating sacrificed meat is an example of eating from the table of demons:

the homage [idolators] render is to demons, who are the real occupants of these consecrated images, whether of dead men or (as they think) of gods. [...] We do not offer sacrifices to the gods, and we make no funeral oblations to the departed; nay, we do not partake of what is offered either in the one case or the other, for we cannot partake of God's feast and the feast of devils.2

Tertullian accepts 1 Corinthians 8:4, "not that an idol is anything," but understands the verse to refer only to the image itself, for "demons have abode in the images."2
Origen also uses the language of 1 Corinthians 10 to explain the apostolic prohibition on eating meat sacrificed to idols in Acts 15:28–29:

For that which is offered to idols is sacrificed to demons, and a man of God must not join the table of demons.3

Summary
Justin Martyr was not alone in strenuously objecting to the eating of meat sacrificed to idols.  The early fathers took the teaching of Acts 15 and 1 Corinthians 10 very seriously, and saw a close association between idols and demons.  As a result, they strongly opposed anyone who practiced or taught that eating meat sacrificed to idols was acceptable.

References:

Against Heresies, I.28.2
De Spectaculis, 12–13
Contra Celsus, VIII.30