According to LCMC Lutheranism, why is human imagination considered evil, when unsaved people do some amazingly good things? According to Genesis 6:5 (NIV)

  every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time.

According to Genesis 8:21 states similarly

  ... every inclination of the human heart is evil from childhood.

According to Jeremiah 17:9

  The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?

According to Proverbs 15:26

  Evil plans [imagination] are an abomination to the LORD, But pleasant words are pure.

According to Matthew 15:19

  For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, slanders.

Similarly according to Mark 7:21

  For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed the evil thoughts, fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries...

According to Romans 8:7

  [Bad thoughts or pictures can come from our sinful carnal minds.] Because the carnal mind is enmity [hostile] against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

Yet the EXACT same human mind is capable of solving problems, finding cures to diseases, rescuing abused animals, housing the homeless, feeding the needy, digging wells and performing needed surgeries in 3rd world countries – all of which are done by those without God/Christ in their lives, and if asked those so involved many times they will simply say that they are doing so because they saw the need and were moved to do something about it.

If man's literal every inclination is evil without Christ, then from a Lutheran (more specifically the LCMC synod) perspective, how can anything even remotely good come out an unsaved person's actions?

This issue is addressed in the Augsburg Confession, which the LCMC accepts as "normative for our teaching and practice," like many other Lutheran groups.   First we'll briefly look at the "evil human imaginations" part of this, before looking more closely at why unsaved people can accomplish good things, which seems to be the main point of your question.
Evil imaginations
You've actually provided plenty of evidence for "why the human imagination is considered evil" by Lutherans; they cite similar passages as well as the writings of the church fathers to defend the statement found in AC II:

since the fall of Adam all men begotten in the natural way are born with sin, that is, without the fear of God, without trust in God, and with 2] concupiscence; and that this disease, or vice of origin, is truly sin, even now condemning and bringing eternal death upon those not born again through Baptism and the Holy Ghost.

"Concupiscence" is not a word we normally use, but the Defense of the Confession explains that it is that "which seeks carnal things contrary to God's Word" – that is, the natural desires of man tend naturally toward sin.  These things are "abiding defects"; our hearts are "naturally destitute of love, fear, and confidence in God."  The full defense of article II cites 1 Corinthians 2:14, Romans 7:5, and other passages, as well as several church fathers.
Good things done by the unsaved
So how, then, is anything "good" done by unbelievers?  This issue is addressed in Article 18.  It opens by accepting that even sinful man can do "civil righteousness," but not "spiritual righteousness":

Of Free Will [our churches] teach that man's will has some liberty to choose civil righteousness, and to work 2] things subject to reason. But it has no power, without the Holy Ghost, to work the righteousness of God, that is, spiritual righteousness;

This is because the "natural man," or man in his unsaved state, cannot be spiritually righteous without the Spirit of God:

since the natural man 3] receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, 1 Cor. 2:14; but this righteousness is wrought in the heart when the Holy Ghost is received 4] through the Word.

The Confession appeals to Augustine on this point, and quotes him as arguing that it is "reason" that allows men to perform many "good" "works of this life," and that category includes many positive things that are accomplished by the unsaved:

We grant that all men have a free will, free, inasmuch as it has the judgment of reason; not that it is thereby capable, without God, either to begin, or, at least, to complete aught in things pertaining to God, but only in works of this life, whether good 5] or evil. "Good" I call those works which spring from the good in nature, such as, willing to labor in the field, to eat and drink, to have a friend, to clothe oneself, to build a house, to marry a wife, to raise cattle, to learn diverse useful arts, or whatsoever good 6]pertains to this life.

We might ask, what is the source of these "good" things?  Augustine (and Augsburg) continue by saying that it is the providence of God:

For all of these things are not without dependence on the providence of God; yea, of Him and through Him they are and have their being.

This is an expression of the doctrine of common grace, which teaches that God bestows many blessings (like nature and human reason) widely on mankind, not just on those that are saved.  But nature and reason have limits – because the unsaved "are born in sin" (AC II), these blessings can produce the "outward work," but

cannot produce the inward motions, such as the fear of God, trust in God, chastity, patience, etc.


According to Roman Catholic Church is it only via Jesus you can come in Heaven? Normally it has been said that you only enter Heaven by believing in Jesus. But can you say that that is absolutely and exclusive or do you have to leave an opening because we don't always knows the ways of God?

But can you say that that is absolutely and exclusive or do you have
  to leave an opening because we don't always know the ways of God?

Current teaching leans more toward the latter than the former ... but the simplest (and arguably the best) way is through Christ.   (CCC 1987 - 2029 is a discourse to that effect, in detail, as is the treatment in CCC 1023 - 1029).  A reaffirmation of salvation being through Jesus is found in Dominus Iesus. (@AthanasiusofAlex goes into a detailed analysis of that source in his answer).  The takeaway from that is that if you know of Christ and don't accept the invitation for salvation through him, then having a relationship and a friendship with God is at serious risk.

Discussion

In current teaching the general case is that through Christ is the path to salvation.  The Roman Catholic Church allows that there may be salvation subject to the Grace, Mercy (and discretion) of God for those in a relationship of friendship with God who through no fault of their own don't know Christ.  But even then, it was Christ who opened the path back to Heaven, so salvation has been through him in the meta sense.

  CCC 1026 By his death and Resurrection, Jesus Christ has "opened" heaven
  to us. The life of the blessed consists in the full and perfect
  possession of the fruits of the redemption accomplished by Christ.

Grace per CCC 1996:

  Grace is favor, the free and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call to become children of God, adoptive sons, partakers of the divine nature and of eternal life.

God can give his grace to whomever He so chooses.  How someone responds to that gift of grace will inform their relationship with God.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church, article 1023, you
will find this statement in a discussion about "Particular
Judgment":

  1023 Those who die in God's grace and friendship and are perfectly
  purified live for ever with Christ. They are like God for ever, for
  they "see him as he is," face to face:

  1025 To live in heaven is "to be with Christ." the elect live "in
  Christ," but they retain, or rather find, their true identity, their
  own name.

From the Vatican II council, Lumen Gentium, 16 we find:

  Finally, those who have not yet received the Gospel are related in various ways to the people of God. In the first place we must recall
  the people to whom the testament and the promises were given and from
  whom Christ was born according to the flesh.  On account of their
  fathers this people remains most dear to God, for God does not repent > of the gifts He makes nor of the calls He issues. But the plan of > salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Muslims, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind. Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things, and as Saviour
  wills that all men be saved. Those also can attain to salvation who
  through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His
  Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their
  deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of
  conscience. Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for
  salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet
  arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to
  live a good life. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is
  looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel. She knows
  that it is given by Him who enlightens all men so that they may
  finally have life. But often men, deceived by the Evil One, have
  become vain in their reasonings and have exchanged the truth of God
  for a lie, serving the creature rather than the Creator.  Or some
  there are who, living and dying in this world without God, are exposed
  to final despair. Wherefore to promote the glory of God and procure
  the salvation of all of these, and mindful of the command of the Lord,
  "Preach the Gospel to every creature", the Church fosters the missions
  with care and attention.

To put that all together:

There is a general principle in Christianity (which includes the RCC) that God's grace is required to get into Heaven.
The usual path to God's grace is via Christ.  (The general case for
Christian denominations, not just the RCC as explained in CCC 1987-2029 cited abpve).
The Catechism states that if you die in God's grace and friendship,
you'll meet Christ in Heaven.  (This opens the door for Lumen Gentium's point, or comes from it, as LG was written before the current catechism was published).
Lumen Gentium allows that some other people are expected to be in friendship with God and even in His grace.  Even so, it was via Christ's agency that the path to heaven is even open.  That makes all salvation through Christ, in the larger sense.
The Church has a duty to get as many people as can be to receive Christ and take that general path toward God's grace.

Without turning this into a nine page long post, the Church teaches (as do most Christians I have engaged on this topic) that forming a relationship with Christ is the direct path to being open to receiving God's grace.  I've had that point explained to me by a variety of clergy and lay people in the Roman Catholic faith, as well a Methodists and Episcopals ... just off the top of my head.  There have been others.  This core point underwrites the longer discussion in the Catechism (CCC 1026) about Christ opening the way to Heaven.


Is a claim of 50,000,000 Baptist martyrs accurate? In the book The Trail of Blood by James M Carroll, the author makes the claim that 50,000,000 early Baptists were martyred under persecution by the Catholic Church.  The author makes the claim multiple times without any sourcing for that number.  My question is essentially two parts.  Is the claim of 50,000,000 Baptist martyrs accurate, and if so, can someone point me to a source that validates the claim?

No, there is no reliable historical evidence to support such a claim.

Before going into the question significantly, I should point out that the number of Baptists killed by the Catholic Church depends on how one defines "Baptist" - apparently, there are some who consider any early sect of Christianity which did not practice infant baptism to be a "proto-Baptist"; a predecessor of the Baptists. Rather than decide "who really is a Baptist", I'm just going to count all Christians who were killed, or died, by order or complicity of the Catholic Church: to my shame I must admit there were many.

The first appearance of the number "fifty million" that I can find is in Charles Buck, A Theological Dictionary, Containing Definitions of All Religious Terms, 1836, in the article "Persecution":

  It has been computed that fifty millions of Protestants have, at different times, been the victims of the persecutions of the Papists, and put to death for their religious opinions.

Unfortunately, Buck does not state where he gets this number. In his discussion of "Persecution of Christians by those of the same name", in which he focuses exclusively on post-Reformation persecutions of Protestants by Catholics, he mentions the Inquisition, the Dutch Revolt (not by that name), the French Wars of Religion (likewise not by that name), the English Reformation, the 1641 Irish Rebellion, and unspecified slaughters by Catholics in Scotland and Spain (although it specifies that the Spanish killings it mentions are of Jews, Muslims, and "barbarians", not of Christians).

According to this source, which cites the "fifty million" number as well (and which refers to the statement by Buck), between fifty and sixty-eight million people (not necessarily all Protestants) were killed by "Inquisition", 1518 and later. This apparently refers to the Roman Inquisition, although it could refer to the Spanish and perhaps the Portuguese Inquisitions as well. This academic source states that relatively few of those tried by the Inquisitions were in fact executed; Wikipedia estimates that the total number of people executed by the inquisition was probably between three and five thousand. There are much higher estimates, but none higher than 350,000; the median of several reliable estimates is 32,000.

The Dutch Revolt appears to have killed between 50,000 and 100,000 people.

The French Wars of Religion probably killed about three million people (Wikipedia estimates between two and four million).

In the English Reformation, based on the Wikipedia list, fewer than 500 people were killed.

In the Irish Rebellion of 1641, about 112,000 Protestants were killed.

Wikipedia, citing an article in The Oxford Book of Scottish History, estimates that "over 1,500 people" were executed for witchcraft, of between 4,000 and 6,000 tried.

These numbers total well under 5 million. While this amount is lamentable, it is nowhere near the fifty million cited.

Perhaps one could add the figures referred to in this source from FaithAssemblyOnline.org, which includes the Albigensian Crusade and the Thirty Years' War. It appears that scholarly estimates of the deaths from the Albigensian Crusade amount to between 100,000 and 1,000,000, roughly in agreement with the Faith Assembly source. Wikipedia's article on the Thirty Years' War, however (citing Europe, A History by Norman Davis), estimates that it caused 8 million deaths on all sides.

Finally, since I am unable to find a good source for the number of deaths caused by the crusade against the Waldensians, let's assume that the number given in the Faith Assembly source (900,000) is correct. These numbers total 14.5 million, nowhere near the 50 million.

Note several things:

This is a total of all self-described Christians whose deaths might be ascribed to the Catholic Church, whether they're considered precursors of Baptists or not.
In conflicts (the Dutch Revolt, the French War of Religion, the Thirty Years' War) for which separate numbers of Catholic and Protestant deaths were not given, I assumed that all people killed were Protestants. This is almost certainly quite far from the truth.
This is the highest possible estimate I could get from the numbers; the low estimate (taking the lowest estimate of non-conflict casualties, and assuming that casualties from conflicts were about half Protestant and half Catholic) is about 4 million.
The conflicts were in part caused by religious divisions, but they were political events as much as if not more than religious events; calling them "deaths caused by the Catholic Church" grossly misrepresents the causes and structure of the conflict, in my opinion. Nevertheless, I have included them to attempt to inflate the numbers as much as possible.

Based on my review of both the sources which provide the "50 million" number, and the historical evidence regarding the events to which the sources allude, I conclude that there is no historical reason whatsoever for believing that this number is anywhere close to accurate.


What is the Orthodox canon? What books does the Orthodox Bible contain? Additionally, when was this settled (if it is settled) and how was it decided?

The Orthodox canon of the Old Testament is close to the Septuagint both by the order of books and by the contents.
However, the Canonical books are those that were originally included in the Jewish canon, with several additions. 60th rule of the Council of Laodicea (about A.D. 363) names 22 books within the Old Testament. They were reorganized and split during the centuries to coincide more with the Septuagint.

The Russian Orthodox tradition includes 39 canonical (coinciding with the Protestant Old Testament) and 11 non-canonical books, thus having a distinction from Catholic Vulgata that contains 46 canonical books forming the Old Testament.

The 11 non-canonical books are: 7, that are known as Deuterocanonical in Catholic canon (Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach or Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees), the Letter of Jeremiah as the separate book from Baruch, and the other 3: 1 Esdras, 3 Maccabees, 3 Esdras.
These non-canonical books are considered as not written under the Holy Spirit, but are accepted by many Fathers.

From the thirty-ninth Letter of Holy Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, on the Paschal festival:

  There are, then, of the Old Testament, twenty-two books in number; for, as I have heard, it is handed down that this is the number of the letters among the Hebrews; their respective order and names being as follows. The first is Genesis, then Exodus, next Leviticus, after that Numbers, and then Deuteronomy. Following these there is Joshua, the son of Nun, then Judges, then Ruth. And again, after these four books of Kings, the first and second being reckoned as one book, and so likewise the third and fourth as one book. And again, the first and second of the Chronicles are reckoned as one book. Again Ezra, the first and second are similarly one book. After these there is the book of Psalms, then the Proverbs, next Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs. Job follows, then the Prophets, the twelve being reckoned as one book. Then Isaiah, one book, then Jeremiah with Baruch, Lamentations, and the epistle, one book; afterwards, Ezekiel and Daniel, each one book. Thus far constitutes the Old Testament.
  Again it is not tedious to speak of the [books] of the New Testament. These are, the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Afterwards, the Acts of the Apostles and Epistles (called Catholic), seven, viz. of James, one; of Peter, two; of John, three; after these, one of Jude. In addition, there are fourteen Epistles of Paul, written in this order. The first, to the Romans; then two to the Corinthians; after these, to the Galatians; next, to the Ephesians; then to the Philippians; then to the Colossians; after these, two to the Thessalonians, and that to the Hebrews; and again, two to Timothy; one to Titus; and lastly, that to Philemon. And besides, the Revelation of John.
  These are fountains of salvation, that they who thirst may be satisfied with the living words they contain. In these alone is proclaimed the doctrine of godliness. Let no man add to these, neither let him take ought from these. For concerning these the Lord put to shame the Sadducees, and said, 'You err, not knowing the Scriptures.' And He reproved the Jews, saying, 'Search the Scriptures, for these are they that testify of Me Matthew 22:29; John 5:39.'
  But for greater exactness I add this also, writing of necessity; that there are other books besides these not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness. The Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Sirach, and Esther, and Judith, and Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles, and the Shepherd.

The Orthodox Synod, convened in Constantinople in 1642, made a decision that is similar to the aforementioned words of Athanasius of Alexandria: the argued books of Old Testament "are non-canonical", but "are venerated as beneficent and pious" (ref. in Russian).

The Prayer of Manasseh is agreed to be non-canonical by all Christian denominations, but it is placed in different parts of the Bible by different Churches. In the Russian Orthodox tradition (also in the late 4th-century Vulgate and the Ethiopian Bible) it is placed at the end of 2 Chronicles, after 36:23 (ref. in Russian).

The list of non-canonical books accepted by the Greek Orthodox Church differs a bit from the list of the Russian Orthodox Church. It contains 4 Maccabees, but does not include 3 Esdras.

27 books of the New Testament are the same for the most of Cristian denominations. The full list on Wikipedia is correct.


From a Roman Catholic point of view, what should a Protestant chaplain do for a dying Catholic? As a Protestant chaplain (but not on staff at any institution), I have wondered what is appropriate (from a Roman Catholic point of view) to do spiritually for a dying Catholic, assuming that a priest isn't available and won't be available before he/she dies. My primary concern is in not offending the person's Catholic family members by doing anything that they might later consider inappropriate.

Is there any guidance on this in Catholic Canons or other official Catholic Church teachings?

Some years ago, I befriended an inmate who was scheduled to be executed and was ask to be at his execution, in order to give him any support I possible could. I prayed the act of contrition with him and encouraged him to trust in Jesus' Merciful love for sinners.

In the absence of a priest, which was my case, I prayed for the inmate the best I could.

Many small Catholic Missals have a selection of prayers for the dying, usually just before or after the various prayers for the dead. One is quite free to follow the dictates and promptings of the Holy Spirit in the choice of prayers to use, but a Perfect Act of Contrition is most important, since this prayer directly prepares the soul for its voyage home: heaven. If you, as a Protestant chaplain are comfortable reciting Catholic prayers, in the presence of the dying, then I would recommend saying the following prayers.

If the Catholic knows how to make a perfect act of contrition, this would be the ideal prayer to begin with. If not, one can teach it to him or pray it with him. There are many version of this prayer and here is an example:

  Forgive me my sins, O Lord, forgive me my sins;
   the sins of my youth, the sins of my age, the sins of my soul,
   the sins of my body; my idle sins, my serious voluntary sins;
   the sins I know, the sins I do not know; the sins I have concealed
   for so long, and which are now hidden from my memory.

  I am truly sorry for every sin, mortal and venial,
   for all the sins of my childhood up to the present hour.

  I know my sins have wounded Thy Tender Heart,
   O My Savior, let me be freed from the bonds of evil through
   the most bitter Passion of My Redeemer. Amen.

  O My Jesus, forget and forgive what I have been. Amen.

One should encourage him to focus on Christ and His Passion:

  Ways of Comforting the Dying and Encouraging Him to Focus on Christ and His Passion

  Throughout the dying person's time in his sick bed, it is good to offer to him short acclamations that encourage the focus on Christ and the prayers of the Saints. Below are the ones listed in the 1958 St. Andrew Daily Missal. Periodically whisper these prayers into the dying person's ears:

  Into Thy hands, Lord, I commend my spirit.

  O Lord Jesus Christ, receive my spirit.

  Holy Mary, pray for me.

  Holy Mary, Mother of grace, Mother of mercy, do thou defend me from the enemy, and receive me at the hour of death.

  It is recommended, too, to read the 18th and 19th chapters of the Gospel according to St. John to the dying, helping him to focus on Christ.

If your are still comfortable reciting more Catholic prayers you could say the prayers Commending the Soul to God.

Here is an article for Catholics (Eucharist Ministers) on how they should give the Sacraments for the Dying in the Absence of a Priest (Viaticum). Although only for Catholics, it does point out that one should at least have the dying person pray a Perfect Act of Contrition.

  "Can. 916 Anyone who is conscious of grave sin may not celebrate Mass or receive the Body of the Lord without previously having been to sacramental confession, unless there is a grave reason and there is no opportunity to confess; in this case the person is to remember the obligation to make an act of perfect contrition, which includes the resolve to go to confession as soon as possible." Code of Canon Law, Sanctifying Office of the Church, Participation in the Blessed Eucharist.

  (Being in danger of death should certainly constitute a "grave reason" and the "absence of a priest" would mean no opportunity to confess.)


Is Calvary Chapel a denomination? There seem to be many Calvary Chapel churches with no denominational affiliations, but it's unclear whether Calvary Chapel is itself a denomination.

It may depend on whom you ask. According to the Calvary Chapel website regarding the History of the Calvary Chapel, the church was founded in 1965 in Costa Mesa.

  What began as a small local church has now grown into an international ministry of over 1600 fellowships throughout the world, all in the last 40 years.

And you can search their church locator to find a church within this 1600 church network.

According to their page about the Calvary Chapel Association,

  The Calvary Chapel Association (CCA) is the administrative connection point for the Calvary Chapel Movement of churches. It keeps a record of associated Calvary Chapel senior pastors. One of the functions of CCA is to promote official Calvary Chapel regional, national and international events. CCA also serves in various support roles to local Calvary Chapel churches and senior pastors. It is overseen by the Calvary Chapel Association Council, which consists of over 20 seasoned Calvary Chapel senior pastors from around the world.

The CCA has a published philosophy of ministry, statement of faith, and statement of faith.

In this regard, if it looks like a duck and walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck. On the other hand, Under the Calvary Chapel's "What We Believe" page from 2011, it states,

  We are not a denominational church, nor are we opposed to denominations as such, only their over-emphasis of the doctrinal differences that have led to the division of the Body of Christ.

According to Donald Miller in Reinventing American Protestantism: Christianity in the New Millennium, Pastor Chuck Smith, the founder of the movement,

  ...was not attempting to create a denomination; rather, what emerged was a loose fellowship of like-minded people.... Asked about what is preventing the a movement the size of Calvary Chapel, Smith emphatically answers, "Me," and then clarifies how a relationally based movement was ensured "by being fiercely independent and implanting this independence in them [the offspring churches]; by each of them incorporating independently; by not requiring reports; by keeping the affiliation [of churches] just a very loose affiliation." He states that there are no requirements, no calls, no letters from headquarters, unless there are major deviations from Calvary Chapel philosophy, at which point there might be a call from "Dad" to inquire what is going on.

And so in this regard, the Calvary Chapel distinguishes between a denomination and an association of churches and considers itself the latter.


What did John Wycliffe teach about the fate of infants who die? I saw a movie of John Wycliffe's life, and it portrayed him as disagreeing that those dying in infancy go to hell. Instead, he cited David's belief of seeing again his dead infant son as proof that such infants go to heaven.

Is it true that he taught this?

John Wycliffe's views on this subject don't seem to be quite as straight forward as was portrayed in the movie you refer to, but he did tend in this direction more than those of his day.
We must begin by putting the question in its historical context: there was little debate at the time over the fate of baptized infants.  The fate of unbaptized infants who died was more controversial.  Many church fathers wrote that unbaptized infants would be damned, but Wycliffe was more cautious.  Albert Henry Newman writes:

While he believed in baptismal regeneration, he thought it possible that God might save such infants as died without it, but denied that any injustice would be involved in case he should damn such. (Manual of Church History, 607)

William Wall says that Wycliffe "suspends all opinion" on the matter, and provides several direct quotes from Wycliffe:

When an infant of believers is brought to church, that according to Christ's rule he may be baptized, and the water or some other requisite is wanting, and the people's pious intention continuing, he dies in the mean time naturally by the will of God, it seems hard to define positively the damnation of such an infant; when neither the infant nor the people have sinned, that he should be damned.  Where then is the merciful liberality of Christ? [...]
[I]t is not clear to me whether such an infant shall be saved or damned; but I know that whatever God does in it will be just, and a work of mercy, to be praised of all the faithful.  (History of Infant Baptism, II, 164–65)

This is further than many church fathers were willing to go, but still not the same thing as "all those dying in infancy will be saved."
B. B. Warfield summarizes Wycliffe's view and connects it to that of his followers:

John Wycliffe (d. 1384) had already with like caution expressed his unwillingness to pronounce damned such infants as were intended for baptism by their parents, if they failed to receive it in fact; though he could not, on the other hand, assert that they were saved.  His followers were less cautious, whether in England or Bohemia, and in this, too, they approved themselves heralds of a brighter day. ("The Development of the Doctrine of Infant Salvation," in Works, IX, p. 416)

Thus Warfield sees Wycliffe as taking cautious steps away from the traditional understanding and toward the possibility of infant salvation without baptism.  His followers went further, and ultimately infant salvation came be accepted by some reformers (notably Zwingli) and from there more widely to Protestantism (for more on this, see Schaff, History, VII, 559–60).


How do proponents of Original Sin support a strictly literal interpretation of Genesis Many modern theologians who adhere to the doctrine of original sin are often proponents of the claim that Genesis is to be interpreted strictly literally (most strictly as a 7 day creation of a young earth) and never allegorically.

Original sin is the concept that mankind shares in the original sins of Adam recorded in Genesis 3. It seems then that "Adam" meaning man is supposed to be an allegory for all humankind and insofar as Adam represents all of humanity, humanity is tempted and succumbs to temptation in our own ways and in our own modern contexts and seeks to shift blame to others and hide from God thereby sinning.

Merriam-Webster's Diction defines allegory as

  The expression by means of symbolic fictional figures and actions of truths or generalizations about human existence
  a symbolic representation

One needn't necessarily assume the character as fictional however in order to apply and many explanations of original sin do in fact apply the text in this way (in a many very similar to double-fulfillment using something like a PaRDeS hermeneutic framework)

Under a a strictly literal interpretation however, we lose this allegorical application of Genesis. The fall is something that happened to Adam. And something that Adam did. It is not something that I as an individual did and it would thus seem that I am being held responsible for and facing the consequences for the mistakes of my ancestor, which seems unfair.

So, according to those who believe in such a strict literal interpretation in what way does mankind share in Adam's original sin and/or how do they define their interpretations as non-allegorical (also)?

We are only as good as our nature
The reason we have sinful inclinations, suffering etc. to begin with is due to our nature as fallen human beings. We are fallen and not 'perfect' human beings because Adam was created specially; but we are born from him, and are therefore according to his nature as we recieve it. Since the Fall corrupted human nature, it was passed onto us as it was in Adam.
We read about this in Genesis 3. Close attention must be paid to gather all that is being conveyed in this narrative. No matter how much of it you interpret as allegorical. (I don't take it to be allegorical at all).

6 And the woman saw that the tree was good to eat, and fair to the eyes, and delightful to behold: and she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave to her husband who did eat. 7 And the eyes of them both were opened: and when they perceived themselves to be naked, they sewed together fig leaves, and made themselves aprons. 8 And when they heard the voice of the Lord God walking in paradise at the afternoon air, Adam and his wife hid themselves from the face of the Lord God, amidst the trees of paradise. 9 And the Lord God called Adam, and said to him: Where art thou? 10 And he said: I heard thy voice in paradise; and I was afraid, because I was naked, and I hid myself. 11 And he said to him: And who hath told thee that thou wast naked, but that thou hast eaten of the tree whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldst not eat?
...
To the woman also he said: I will multiply thy sorrows, and thy conceptions: in sorrow shalt thou bring forth children, and thou shalt be under thy husband's power, and he shall have dominion over thee. 17 And to Adam he said: Because thou hast hearkened to the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldst not eat, cursed is the earth in thy work; with labour and toil shalt thou eat thereof all the days of thy life. 18 Thorns and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herbs of the earth. 19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread till thou return to the earth, out of which thou wast taken: for dust thou art, and into dust thou shalt return. 20 And Adam called the name of his wife Eve: because she was the mother of all the living. 21 And the Lord God made for Adam and his wife, garments of skins, and clothed them.

In defying God and doing what it was they were commanded not to do (however much of an allegory the forbidden fruit is), several things happen:

Their nature, clearly, is changed, inasmuch as they now recognize their being naked is shameful and feel the need to cover up and hide from God. This is both real, and yet symbolic of yet a further inner shame and realization of the gravity of sin and evil, in which they've just now taken part.

Women and men in mankind now recieve the punishment of toiling and being in pain. Examples relevant to the sexes are given (giving birth; working the field), but are not exclusive, due to their obviously summary nature.

This kind of change in nature is not something which will not be proper to their children. It is an intrinsic change in what seems to be more detectable or manifest in the corporeal component of their nature as a body-soul composite (Genesis 2:7 cf. Ecclesiastes 12:7).

You can't have taken from you what you never had
Actually, it is fair. We recieve a nature different to that which Adam and Eve originally had. A fallen human nature, to be precise. As such, we were never entitled to—just as they weren't after they sinned (or technically even when they had it: Romans 11:35; Job 41:11)—to the life of grace in which they had originally been constituted: amity with God, enjoyment thereof in general, and all its benefits.
This is the great loss of the Fall—loss for Adam and Eve, but not for us! You see, we never had it. Nor are we entitled to anything, let alone paradise. We are expected to obey the inner voice of God, in our conscience, calling us back to Him, ultimately, through Christ, who can restore us to that grace in baptism; the Church teaching that Mary was the firstfruits of that Redemption, being not freed from original sin, but consituted as a new Eve to the new Adam, Christ (1 Corinthians 15:22,45), without ever having had it—an Eve for a new creation, in which the devil doesn't decieve the woman, but is conquered through one (Genesis 3:15).
The only unfairness would be if we were entitled to and originally possessed some greater happiness, and then had it taken by violence. Except we have only been what we are: fallen human beings. Since it is not impossible to make it back to God and recieve divine life, grace, again, it is not unfair at all.
In addition, we also partake in Adam's sin in a real sense, each time we sin. To sin is to tread on the same forbidden ground that Adam did. Because any sin by definition is willful disobeying God, we commit the same kind of offense as Adam, to varying degrees, with every sin. You could say Adam's sin was to will to sin period.

Romans 5:12
Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death; and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.

When Adam sinned, as it were, we were all there, sinning with him. Because our having sinned is known with God from the beginning, and ourhaving sinned is to partake in the same sin of Adam. But our personal sins are not our original sin. Original sin is our situation, of which we are nonetheless deserving. We are only held responsible for our personal sins. But original sin, of a different nature than other sin, is a deprivation of something we are not entitled to, and in which fallen nature we are expected to follow the dictates of our conscience as guided by God, to seek restoration in Christ. It's called sin because it offends God, as He wants us to be fappy and fulfilled, and because it obstructs us somewhat from pleasing Him,and because it is properly called evil: an absence of some good.

Wisdom 2:23-24
For God created man [to be] incorruptible, and to the image of his own likeness he made him. But by the envy of the devil, death came into the world: And they follow him that are of his side.

Death and original sin are in the world regardless of whether we side with the devil/Adam in disobeying God. But we are shown that there is a choice, where we can yet follow God and recieve another fate than his.
TL;DR
We are not Adam. We are not Eve. We are not owed a nature the same as, or even similar to Adam's or Eve's. God's divine and ineffable justice is such that Adam's children recieve the same nature he had after the Fall. Their sin is still their own. Our sins is still our own. But Adam's original sin is of a different kind, and affects the very nature, because it was so fundamental: the first sin, the first privation and shutting-out of God from our lives, which are wholly dependant on Him.


According to the LDS church, why was Jesus Christ born when he was born? Why was Christ born when he was born? Why not earlier? Why not later? Does the time period of his life have a symbolic or practical importance?

I am not aware of any reason why Christ needed to live when he did other than to fulfill prophecy, but that prophecy only exists because God had previously chosen the time for Christ's birth. So why?

The reason for Christ's life was to perform the Atonement, but I can't imagine the particular timing of it mattered much since it was an infinite atonement.

Another effect of the atonement is that it enabled missionary work in the spirit world as well as performing temple ordinances for them. Many spirits had to wait a few thousand years for this to happen. It seems like they might have preferred if Christ had lived earlier so that they didn't have to wait so long. One might say that time only exists on this earth and not in the world of spirits, so why then is genealogy and temple work so important?

I'm willing to accept that the answer to my question is "because God said so" but I would like to know if there happens to be more than that.

Not being familiar with the term "meridian of time" I clicked on your hyperlink and read the definition given there. While there are many terms Christians use today which are not in the Bible, including "the meridian of time," I can only suggest there is a term in the Bible which tells us why Jesus came when He did. It comes from Galatians:

  ὅτε δὲ ἦλθεν τὸ πλήρωμα [pleroma] τοῦ χρόνου [chronos], ἐξαπέστειλεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ, γενόμενον ἐκ γυναικός, γενόμενον ὑπὸ νόμον (4:4)

In other words, "when the time had fully come," or "at the appropriate time," or "in the fullness of time," that was the time God sent His Son,

  ἵνα τοὺς ὑπὸ νόμον ἐξαγοράσῃ, ἵνα τὴν υἱοθεσίαν ἀπολάβωμεν [born of a woman, born under the Law that He might rescue those under the Law, that we might receive the full rights of sonship]

So we have the "fullness of time" and the "full rights" of sons, both expressions fitting in nicely with the theme of Galatians, which is the fullness offered by Christ, versus the emptiness offered by the Judaizers. Christ offers freedom; the Judaizers offer slavery. But I digress.

The importance of prophecy, as you indicated in your question, must not be underestimated.
While God may inhabit eternity, He reveals Himself in time and space. That was His plan from all eternity. That plan comprises part of the eternal decrees of God. God is the only One who works out all things according to the purpose of His will (Ephesians 1:11).

God, as the Lord of time, knows the end from the beginning and the beginning from the end. As both omniscient and omnipotent, God not only can do (i.e., He has the power to do) what He has decreed He will do, but He also will do what He has decreed, and in the best possible way (i.e., He has the wisdom and knowledge to "pull it off").

There were other, more prosaic--albeit important--factors at work when Jesus appeared on the scene at the appropriate (or the fullness of) time:

The Pax Romana, or Roman peace, which was characterized by an epoch of relative calm  made possible by the sheer power, not to mention the administrative expertise, of the dominant world power of the day, imperial Rome.
The ubiquitous presence of the Greek language, attributable to the tremendous admiration the Romans had for all things Greek. The dissemination of the message of the Christian Gospel was aided in no small measure by the existence of Greek as a significant medium of communication.
The improvement of transportation throughout the Roman Empire, thanks to the wealth of Rome, not to mention, again, its administrative ability, its military might, and ready access to slave labor to do the dirty work in creating roads, some of which are still in existence today (e.g., the Applian Way, an ancient Roman highway extending from Rome to Brundisium--now Brindisi, which was constructed beginning in 312 BC by Appius Claudius Caecus, and was about 350 miles long).  The better the infrastructure of transportation, the more readily the good news could spread to the far corners of the empire.
The spiritual state of Judaism at the time Jesus burst on the scene. If ever there was a time for a nationwide revival within the geographical heart of Judaism in Israel, it was the first century of the common era. That is why the forerunner of Jesus, His cousin (John the Baptizer), preached a message of repentance to prepare the way of the Lord. John bore witness to that light which was coming into the world as a testimony not only to the Jews but also to the Gentiles (see Luke 2:32, 38).  We must remember that God's covenant with Abraham was a far-reaching covenant which would touch with blessing all the nations of the earth, starting of course with Israel.
The receptivity of the people to the message of Jesus, due in part to the bifurcation within the Roman Empire between the "haves" and "have nots". If ever there was a time for a Redeemer who would bring a message of hope to the underdogs of society, it was in the first century (see Luke 4:14-21 in this regard).
The need for God to fulfill not only His prophecies, but also His promises.

All of which brings us back to the "fullness of time." God is a God of His word. His word is His bond. What He says He will do, He will do, and it will be done in His time, according to His timing, and in the best possible way. In short, the "who, what, when, where, how, and why" of Jesus' birth were perfectly orchestrated by God well in advance, right down to the minutest detail. (Even Martha Stewart would be proud of how perfectly things were laid out, if only her heart were directed toward what really matters in life!)

At this time of year, when we celebrate the birth of baby Jesus--Emanuel, our Savior and our Lord, it is comforting to know that God's purposes and decrees could not be thwarted, neither by a Jewish king called Herod, whose heart "the prince of the power of the air" filled with hatred for the true King of the Jews, nor by an emperor, Caesar Augustus, who decreed that the then-known world be taxed, which only served to bring the parents of Jesus to the City of David, Bethlehem, the "house of bread," where a child would be born who would one day declare Himself to be the bread of life (John 6:48 ff.).


What is a non-denominational church? Some Christians claim a non-denominational church is better. However, as a scientist I like to see all angles of the story:

I was under the impression that since all Christians don't belong to one church,
(They agree to disagree on Ephesians 4 and opt for the Nicene Creed) then
all Christians doctrines are denominations - there by:
1c penny doctrine,
5c nickel doctrine,
10c dime doctrine,
25c quarter doctrine,
50c half-dollar doctrine, etc
= 1.00 dollar Eph 4 Church - some claim all Christians are part of the universal church.

I like the idea that non-denominational churches reject the idea of a denominational
structure and opt for autonomous churches. This is similar to Paul when he opted not take
money from the Corinthians but still claimed to have authority over them.

Maybe that is what non-denominational is, that there is no central government and only Christ is the head or leader?

So if non-denominational or denominational has nothing to do with doctrine. That begs the question: What is the definition of the One Doctrine in Eph 4?

Or, simply explain: What is a non-denominational church?

A non-denominational church is exactly what it sounds like.  It is a Church that doesn't adhere to any earthly authority other than maybe the local Pastor at that Church.  It doesn't recognize any denominational authority, just that of God and His Word.

I'd like to also address this portion of your question as well:

  I was under the impression that since all Christians don't belong to
  one church, (They agree to disagree on Ephesians 4 and opt for the Nicene Creed) then all Christians doctrines are denominations
  - there by: 1c penny doctrine, 5c nickel doctrine, 10c dime doctrine, 25c quarter doctrine, 50c half-dollar doctrine,
  etc
  = 1.00 dollar Eph 4 Church - some claim all Christians are part of the universal church.

Most Christians understand the universal Church to be the body of all saved Christians, period. It has nothing to do with denominations.

From Gotquestions.org

  The universal church is the name given to the church worldwide. In
  this case the idea of the church is not so much the assembly itself
  but those constituting the church.

See also A Study of the Nature and Meaning of Jesus' Church: Universal and Local

  A. The Church (Universal) Is the Body of All Saved People Everywhere.

  It includes all those who have been redeemed by Jesus' blood, have
  received forgiveness of their sins, and have been born spiritually
  into His family.

In fact, it's recognized that within any given denomination, there are likely saved and unsaved people, so not all Baptists, for example, belong to the Universal Church, but some do and so on.

This can be represented with a really crude drawing (Sorry about the quality. the only graphics program I have on this PC is MS Paint.)

The large circle represents the Universal Church, and the little ones, the individual denominations and non-denominational churches.  Bear in mind that according to the doctrine of Sola Fide, it's also possible for someone to be saved, and therefore also a member of the Universal Church without belonging to any earthly Church.

As for the One Doctrine...

If the definition of "Universal Church" is what I say above, then the "one true doctrine" is the "right" doctrine about Christ. By definition, it would be the doctrine that separates true Christians from false.  It is what defines "who are the real Christians?", which means it exists out there in the real world, but is not answerable on this particular site.


Why is the Nation of Israel called Israel and not Abraham? Is there a biblical, or otherwise extra-biblical, explanation of how the nation of Israel came to be known as Israel instead of Abraham?

I know you could make cases for arguing that it makes more logical sense for the name Israel or the name Abraham to have come to be associated with the people (and I guess the land), however is there a specific reason?

God did promise the land of Canaan to Abraham. For example God says to Abram (Abraham) in Genesis 17:8:

  The whole land of Canaan, where you now reside as a foreigner, I will
  give as an everlasting possession to you and your descendants after
  you; and I will be their God.

However, a few verses earlier, God said that Abraham would be "the father of many nations":

  Abram fell facedown, and God said to him,  "As for me, this is my
  covenant with you: You will be the father of many nations. No longer
  will you be called Abram; your name will be Abraham, for I have made
  you a father of many nations. I will make you very fruitful; I will
  make nations of you, and kings will come from you." (Genesis 17:3-6)

Israel (another name for Jacob) was only one of those nations. It would not give due respect to Abraham, the father of many nations, to name only one of those nations after him. For a chart of the nations descended from Abraham based on the names of his descendants in the Bible, see The Genealogy of Abraham.

Isaac was the father of two nations, the Israelites and the Edomites, so the land of Israel could not be named after him, either.

Jacob, or Israel, was the father of a single nation composed of twelve tribes. In the Bible story, that nation conquered and adopted as its homeland Canaan and the transjordan valley. So his name is applied to that nation rather than the name of Abraham or Isaac.

According to the biblical story, later, when that nation began to fall away from faithfulness to God, it broke up into two kingdoms, Judah and Israel, each of which acted as a separate nation. However, the promise to the Patriarchs--Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob--is seen as fulfilled in the reign of King David, under whom a unified nation of Israel reached its greatest extent.


Is confessing to a priest the only way to be forgiven? We first confess in our first communion and the priests say that we should always confess our sins, but is it the only way to be forgiven by God ?

Can't we pray and ask for forgiveness? I've heard of people confessing to a priest before dying.

Since the teaching on this may vary depending on the perspective of the answerer, please limit answers to those that specify the denominational view of the answerer, and make them good, supported answers.  A survey of the answer from various perspectives would be even better, as it will give information from the perspectives of a wider audience.

What is confession? St. John wrote:

  If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not
  in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us
  our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say we have
  not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us (1 John 1:8-10, ESV).

The verb used for 'confess' is the first-person-plural form of ὁμολογέω (homologeo). The word ὁμολογέω literally means "to say the same thing." It can also mean to "agree with," "acknowledge," or "confess" (source).

People often tend to think of confession as apologizing for our sins, asking for forgiveness. Some as a result believe that they only receive forgiveness for sins of which they ask to be forgiven (and/or apologize for). But confession is less about asking forgiveness for specific sins as it is agreeing with God that our wrong deeds are indeed sinful. It is more of an acknowledgement that what God calls sin is actually sinful. For instance, if we lie, confession means acknowledging that lying is wrong and that you sinned against God. Otherwise, the truth is not in us (and we are living in a state of sin, i.e. unrepentance).

Concerning confessing our sins, St. James says:

  Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another,
  that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person has great
  power as it is working (James 5:16, ESV).

Clearly it is good to confess our sins to other Christians, indeed it is essential for our healing.

Who is a priest? There are a few ways to look at this. For the sake of the Stack Exchange community, allow me to explain a couple of these views. But before I do that, let's start where (most) everyone agrees: 1 Peter 2:5-9 describes believers as a holy and royal priesthood. Thus all Christians are priests before God. Under the old covenant, the faithful needed a priest to approach God, but now under the new covenant this is not necessary. Because of Jesus' sacrifice, all believers can now approach God's throne with confidence (Hebrews 4:16). Most Christians agree with this thus far. Now here is where they start to differ (understand that this must be brief, I cannot offer an apologetic for the priesthood here, I am giving only a cursory explanation).

In ancient expressions of the Christian faith (Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, some Anglicans and Lutherans, a few other groups), a priest is usually someone who has been ordained by other appointed Christian leaders for our good, and is an excellent person to whom we may confess our sins. In the early Church, Christians publicly confessed their sins to the entire congregation. This soon became impractical and appointed leaders (elders, who are spiritual fathers, cf. 1 Corinthians 4:15) began hearing people's confessions privately. Priests of course believe that Christians can confess their sins directly to God, but a spiritual father can also give advice and help a Christian heal by praying for them (James 5:16). This has to do with learning humility and acknowledging that we cannot heal ourselves. Some traditions go so far as to say that priests are appointed by God to stand "in the stead" of Christ, having the ability to forgive (or not forgive) sins on God's behalf (cf. "Office of the Keys," Matthew 16:19; John 20:23).

Most evangelical Protestant Christians do not have a functioning priesthood in the historic sense of the term, but they do have the equivalent (a pastor/elder) who will offer advice, but they do not generally view confession of sins to them as any different as to other believers. They do not believe that anyone should function as a mediator between a Christian and God and that the historic Christian priesthood violates this (cf. 1 Timothy 2:5).

So is confessing to a priest the only way to be forgiven? Regardless of which perspective of the priesthood that you adopt, the answer is no. First, remember the meaning of the word 'confession' that was previously discussed. If we die before we had a chance to confess a specific sin, that isn't going to send us straight to eternal torment. It is failure to acknowledge that our actions are sinful (saying a sinful action is not sinful, i.e. not saying the same thing as God) that will jeopardize our relationship with God (this is calling God a liar according to St. John). Even traditions which practice the historic priesthood do not believe that this is the only way to be forgiven (but they do believe that it is a divinely appointed means of forgiveness).


What Christian groups believe sex was the original sin, and not disobedience? There is a story in the Bible that Adam and Eve ate the fruit and thus sinned against God. But other religions, including some Christians, describe that they were having intercourse and that's why God threw them out of the garden. Which Christian groups believe this, and what is their reasoning?

I believe that you are referring to the theory that the original sin was sex. This, however, is not Biblically true. Before the fall, God said:

  And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and
  multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion
  over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every
  living thing that moveth upon the earth.

  Genesis 1:28

How could they multiply if sex was a sin? The original sin, according to the Bible, was disobedience. (See Genesis 3)

EDIT: Because the question was edited, my answer has now been edited too. I have ran into a few people, mostly from the Catholic faith,  who believed in this teaching. As far as I know, this is not Catholic doctrine, they just had been misinformed.


How do trinity-believers explain these verses from John 17? Christians that believe in the Trinity believe that God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost are one and the same God. How then, do they explain John 17:21 where Jesus prays that his disciples "may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us"?

Are the disciples supposed to become one with each other in the same way that God the Son is with God the Father?

Two other similar phrases appear in the same chapter:

v. 11: "that they may be one, as we are"

v. 22-23: "And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one"

Read it in the context as one in purpose, yet separate in person... John 1:1-14

While I am a separate person, in purpose I am in unity and the same as other followers of Christ.

To quote a sermon of John MacArthur's:

  He [Jesus] prays that there may be a spiritual, holy, loving oneness, a visible oneness that the world can see in order that they may believe.


Who sent John the Baptist to baptize with water? In the first chapter of the Gospel of John, the following account of John the Baptist's introduction of Jesus is given:

  29 The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold, the
  Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! 30 This is he of
  whom I said, ‘After me comes a man who ranks before me, because he was
  before me.’ 31 I myself did not know him, but for this purpose I came
  baptizing with water, that he might be revealed to Israel.” 32 And
  John bore witness: “I saw the Spirit descend from heaven like a dove,
  and it remained on him. 33 I myself did not know him, but he who sent
  me to baptize with water said to me, ‘He on whom you see the Spirit
  descend and remain, this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.’ 34
  And I have seen and have borne witness that this is the Son of God.”  John 1:29-34

John specifically states that the one who sent him to baptize with water was the one who informed him that he would be able to recognize the one for whom he himself was the predecessor.  The indicator would be that John would see the Spirit come down and remain on him.

So, my question is, "Who was it that sent John to baptize with water and who told him how he would be able to recognize Jesus?"  Is there anything in church tradition or elsewhere in the Bible that informs us who this was?  An angel?  God Himself?  Another prophet?

When the angel came to Zechariah to announce the birth of John, he said that the child would be "filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother's womb. (Lk 1:15)" Also, Jesus said of John that "all the Prophets and the Law prophesied until John. (Mt 11:13)" It seems most reasonable to view him as a prophet like those of the OT, that he was commissioned and sent directly by God, and that he received inspiration and revelation directly from God.


How can women be forbidden to speak and yet prophesy and speak in tongues? In 1 Corinthians 14, Paul give forbids women from speaking in church.

1 Corinthians 14 NIV

  34 Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to
  speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. 35 If they want to
  inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home;
  for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

... later

  39 Therefore, my brothers and sisters, be eager to prophesy, and do
  not forbid speaking in tongues. 40 But everything should be done in a
  fitting and orderly way.

I am assuming the word in Greek Paul is using here for church is Ecclesia, and that he wasn't, in fact, referring to a physical meeting place, or house, but rather a Christian gathering in general (but perhaps I am mistaken in this).

I wonder how it is that he explicitly forbids them to speak "They are not allowed to speak", but then a mere four verses later he is instructing 'brothers and sisters' to be eager to prophesy, and speak in tongues. If not at Christian gatherings, then where else were they prophesying and speaking in tongues? I understand that context is probably the key here, and that things in the Corinthian church had probably gotten very much out of hand, however, It just seems strange to me that if he meant women to speak in tongues and prophesy, he would have said "They are not allowed to speak out of turn", or something to that effect.

It seems that in Corinthians some women were assuming to much in the equality and liberty that the gospel provided them. They supposed since thy were equal they could 'speak in public gatherings' as though exercising authority over others including men.  There may have been other fellowship gatherings where they could exercise gifts of prophesy such as during worship, more private discussions or teaching children, etc. It is difficult with full accuracy to recreate what the primitive church service was actually like, but there does seem to be some part of it when 'non clergy' could speak with gifts that moved them, one at a time, possibly women included.

I assume in this view that prophetic gifts (wise insights into biblical subjects which may or may, or more usually did not, include future predictions) were not seen as 'always operative on demand' as the regular teaching of a person in authority was. Rather the nature of these gifts is that they would 'come and go' like the 'wind', so when a person was 'inspired' to speak, 'allowing' them to do so, was not seen as rebellious at all. They were seen as humble people being moved by God, even 'daughters' could prophecy under this scenereo per Joel
2:28. This respect for the inspiration of the Spirit seems to carry its own meek authority removing the concern over the pretense of 'speaking officially' as those in charge that allowed the more ecstatic impromptu sharing. This 'respect for random inspiration' is clearly seen by the fact that 'one person speaking' will 'stop and remain silent' so that another who receives inspiration can start. This switching from one to the next was regardless of the persons involved and how regularily important they may have otherwise been. (1 Corinthians 14:30).

This ancient practice of allowing people to speak in a service seems more or less lost in most churches today. In fact quite soon in the history of Christianity this practice of the ancient synagogue and more miraculous version added by the outpouring of the Holy Spirit seems to have been abandoned or in some sense possibly not Gods will in some aspects. Instead the preacher just gives a one way sermon with no opportunity for any discussion afterwards (ref this post). There are some charismatic groups that try to re-create it, or even to the more fringe movements support 'sales oriented' woman leading whole ministries, but in my experience this is often even worse and carnally based than the dry charismatic resistant churches which I confess to mostly attend as a lesser of two evils. Pray for me ;)

So one must think this 'speaking' was some kind of 'public', 'authoritative' and 'official' role which Paul did not at all grant women, nor did any other church. This is why he then says about a less private forum such as:

  If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church. (1 Corinthians 14:35 ESV)

It seems a little harsh to most of us today but we should keep in mind Christianity promoted a status for women and slaves high above what was the norm while not compromising the God ordained structure of the family which most world cultures actually have little difficulty with, recognizing the need for wives to submit and husbands to love and cherish. Actually most wives do not find it that hard to submit to men who genuinely love them. The church was not meant to overthrow these house relationships once various families joined together into community under Christ as their head.


What was Calvin's view of capital punishment? What was John Calvin's position on use of the death penalty?

For what offenses did he support its use?
Did he support or oppose any particular methods of execution?
In what ways did his views change through his life? For example, on pages 313-317 Did Calvin Murder Servetus?, Stanford Rives argues (convincingly I think) that Calvin waffled on whether it was permissible to execute people for heresy. A good answer will deal (preferably briefly) with this example and give other examples if applicable.

Calvin is a controversial figure, and capital punishment is a controversial subject, so I suspect most sources will have some sort of bias. I would prefer that answers rely chiefly on sources that are at least mildly sympathetic toward Calvin, but without ignoring the charges that opposing sources bring.

According to a variety of sources, Calvin supported capital punishment in some instances.

As listed here, between 1562 and 1563, the following executions were carried out in "Calvin's Geneva":

  Capital punishments:

  2 women for witchcraft
  3 for homicide
  3 men for raping children
  2 for sodomy
  3 for theft (either for several thefts or large sums)
  1 goldsmith for counterfeiting (beheading)

In his commentary on Genesis 9, he says:

  Verse 6

  6.Whoso sheddeth man’s blood (291) The clause in man which is here added, has the force of amplification. Some expound it, ‘Before witnesses.’ Others refer it to what follows, namely, ‘that by man his blood should be shed.’ (292) But all these interpretations are forced. What I have said must be remembered, that this language rather expresses the atrociousness of the crime; because whosoever kills a man, draws down upon himself the blood and life of his brother. On the whole, they are deceived (in my judgment) who think that a political law, for the punishment of homicides, is here simply intended. Truly I do not deny that the punishment which the laws ordain, and which the judges execute, are founded on this divine sentence; but I say the words are more comprehensive. It is written,

  ‘Men of blood shall not live out half their days,’
  (Psalms 55:23.)

  And we see some die in highways, some in stews, and many in wars. Therefore, however magistrates may connive at the crime, God sends executioners from other quarters, who shall render unto sanguinary men their reward. God so threatens and denounces vengeance against the murderer, that he even arms the magistrate with the sword for the avenging of slaughter, in order that the blood of men may not be shed with impunity.

And on Acts 25:

  Verse 11

  11.I appeal unto Caesar. After that he hath professed that he doth not refuse to die if he be found guilty, he freely useth such helps as he could find at the hands of men. Wherefore, if we be at any time brought into like straits, we must not be superstitious, but we may crave help of the laws and politic order. Because it is written, that magistrates are made and appointed by God to the praise of the godly ( Romans 13:3; and 1 Peter 2:13). Neither was Paul afraid to go to law under an unbelieving judge; for he which appealeth commenceth a new action. −

  Therefore, let us know that God, who hath appointed judgment-seats, doth also grant liberty to his to use the same lawfully. Therefore, those mistake Paul who think that he doth flatly condemn the Corinthians, ( 1 Corinthians 6:1) because they require help of the magistrate for defense of their right, seeing he reproveth in that place a manifest fault, to wit, because they could suffer no wrong, and because they were too much set upon suing one another, whereby they caused the gospel to be evil spoken of.

He also deals with capital punishment (by inference at least, if not directly) in Chapter 20 of his Institutes.

Based upon all of that, it seems Calvin approved of the death penalty being meted-out for crimes according to the jurisprudence of an appropriate government.


What is a biblical commandment? I understand there are the ten commandments, which I naively presumed were the only "commandments" in the bible. I am under the impression that this is not true and that there are additional commandments. If this is true, what defines an instruction as a commandment in the bible?

A Biblical commandment as applied to scripture is a directive from God to a people group. In the Old Testament, this was always from God the Father and was always directed to Israel by way of the Prophets. Most of the commandments are found in the Pentateuch, although God spoke through other prophets during different times in Israel's history.

In the New Testament, commandments came from the Messiah directly and were directed to Christian believers. The Apostles did not add to the commandments of Messiah but referred to Messianic commandments in their writings to the churches.

Any other commandments found in scripture would not be considered Biblical commandments but instead represent historical commandments from humans to other humans.


What is the distinction between ordinance types in the LDS church? I recently listened to a discussion between a couple of LDS leaders in which there was a clear distinction drawn between "priesthood ordinances" and "temple ordinances". Baptism, at least, seemed to be of the former sort, but it wasn't clear what the other ordinances were or why there were two types.

What is the difference between these two types of ordinances and where did the distinction originate?

Priesthood ordinances are any ordinances performed by the Priesthood authority. Temple ordinances are only those ordinances performed in the temples. All ordinances are performed by the authority of the Priesthood, though, so I think the phrase "priesthood ordinances" is just used for emphasis or clarity. Either that, or "priesthood ordinances" might also refer to those ordinances directly involving the priesthood, such as conferring it to another man or ordaining to a particular office.

In the general sense, temple ordinances are a subset of priesthood ordinances.

There are many ordinances in the LDS Church performed by this authority, here are a few:

Baptism
Laying on of hands to confer the gift of the Holy Ghost (known as "confirmation")
Laying on of hands to confer the priesthood
Temple ordinances, which includes, among several, endowments and sealings (eternal marriages)
The Sacrament (administered every Sunday in church)
Consecrating oil used for...
...laying on of hands to bless the sick and afflicted
Giving blessings of comfort/counsel
Setting apart church members for their respective callings in the Church, including missionaries
Dedicating/consecrating buildings
Dedicating graves
Giving new babies in the church a name and a blessing (like a typical Christening in other churches)
Patriarchal blessings

This may naturally lead to the question, are there any ordinances performed not by the priesthood? No, not in the LDS Church. Maybe the word has different meanings elsewhere, but most commonly among the Latter-day Saints, it is a term referring directly to exercising the priesthood authority.

From lds.org:

  "Priesthood is the authority and the power which God has granted to men on earth to act for Him. When priesthood authority is exercised properly, priesthood bearers do what He would do if He were present."

  —President Boyd K. Packer

Here is a more comprehensive summary of the most common ordinances in the LDS church.


Clarifications on "Temporal Predestination" I was just perusing the wikipedia article on predestination, and came across an interesting blip on "Temporal Predestination":

  Temporal predestination is the view that God only determines temporal matters, and not eternal ones. This Christian view is analogous to the traditional Jewish view, which distinguishes between preordination and predestination. Temporal matters are pre-ordained by God, but eternal matters, being supra-temporal, are subject to absolute freedom of choice.

Can someone knowledgeable elaborate on this view for me?

Would a scholar from this camp reject the idea of God preparing a place for the elect in Heaven, or would they just say that while God does know those who will end up in Heaven, and does prepare a place for them, ultimately it is their choice?
Are there any major Christian denominations or scholars who hold this view?
EXTRA CREDIT: If this was the traditional Jewish view, why was it abandoned by Christians?

Bullet Points

The "elect" in this view is the same as Arminianism - God knows all who will freely choose Him ("those He foreknew... he also glorified") and He elects to save all who believe in Jesus Christ.
Ken Grider (one of the translators for the NIV Bible) is the only major/well-known theologian I know of that holds this view. I would bet many in Arminian churches hold this view without realizing it (assuming there is a real difference between the two; Arminianism allows but does not require libertarian free will).

Temporal Predestination

Temporal predestination attempts to reconcile the facts of both God's foreknowledge and His eternal plan with our free will (limited in this view) - while He predestines our actions in time and what happens in the world, He allows each of us full freedom in choosing whether to follow or reject Him. For example, God determined that Judas would hand Jesus over to the chief priests (Luke 22:22), but Judas freely chose to reject Christ.

Proponents of temporal predestination sometimes claim that in every place that the Greek word proorizo ("to predestinate") is found in the New Testament (as well as other terms signifying His knowledge, actions, and decrees), not one of them refers to God predetermining our eternal destiny1; a better term for this view might be temporal-only predestination, as I have seen people use "temporal predestination" when they specifically want to refer to the predestination of events, regardless of whether or not our destinies are predestinated.

J. Kenneth Grider explains the concept via commentary on Scripture:

  Take the Romans 8:29, 30 instances of proorisen. There we read, "For those God
  foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of His Son, that he might be
  the firstborn among many brothers. And those he predestined, he also called; and those he
  called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified." Here, "predestined," is
  probably not used with reference to eternal destiny-although perhaps a better possible
  case could be made for such reference in v. 30, than can be made for such a reference in
  any of the other predestination passages. This passage states that "those God foreknew,"
  meaning surely those He foreknew would believe, "he also predestined to be conformed
  to the likeness of his Son." That is, He pre-determined that the ones who would believe
  would be conformed to Christ's likeness... The point here, however, is that eternal destiny does not enter into the picture at all.

The obvious problem with his reasoning is that Paul draws a clear link from God's predestination to our glorification. He answers this objection by claiming the glorification of the predestined is almost a side-effect rather than the intended result (that is, Paul is explaining a chain of causality rather than the process by which God works):

  It is also to be noted that in the next verse the same kind of non-destiny meaning
  probably obtains. There, "those he predestined" (based on His foreknowledge according
  to the previous verse), he "called," and the ones He called He "justified," and the ones He
  justified He "glorified." Here, unlike what obtains in the previous verse, the writer does
  get around, finally, to a word that has to do with destiny: glorification. So it could
  conceivably be interpreted that the predestination has to do with destiny-and it does,
  finally. But the passage states that, having predestined or predetermined for believers,
  through His foreknowledge (v. 29), that they would freely believe, He called them and
  justified them-and, perhaps because of His foreknowledge of their continuing as
  believers, He "glorified them." As mentioned, destiny does get referred to in this
  passage; but the reference is so much disjoined from what is itself said to be
  predestinated that this glorification destiny can hardly be said to be what is itself
  predestinated.

Temporal predestination is probably closest to an Arminian (conditional predestination) view than to other major views (sublapsarian, supralapsarian, etc). In fact, the only people I have seen who distinguish between them are those who hold to temporal-only predestination2.

Footnotes

1: I find this unconvincing. This claim concerning some passages is dependent upon the interpretation of the text, which is the very point in question.

2: My personal opinion is that temporal-only predestination is merely a subpar method of explaining an Arminian view that denies full libertarian free will.

*: Concerning temporal predestination being the traditional Jewish view, see Tomáš Frydrych, Living Under the Sun: Examination of Proverbs and Qoheleth, Volume 90 of Supplements to Vetus Testamentum, in which he argues that the author of Ecclesiastes did not hold such a view because of the statement "why should you die before your time?"


Did Angels sent to earth before Jesus have literal human bodies? There  are many instances of angels appearing to humans in the Bible.  For example, Genesis 32:21–32  describes Jacob wrestling with an angel.  The angel Gabriel appears to deliver messages three times: first to the prophet Daniel (Daniel 8:16); next to the priest Zechariah to foretell and announce the miraculous birth of John the Baptist (Luke 1:19); and finally to the virgin Mary to tell her that she would conceive and bear a son (Luke 1:26–38).

What is the biblical evidence that these angels had actual flesh and blood, human bodies?

How about the section of scripture in Genesis 18:1-15 where Abraham is visited by our Lord and informed he is to have a son? In the story we read about two who were traveling with our Lord as follows:

  Gen 18:6-8 - So Abraham hurried into the tent and said to Sarah, “Quick! Take three measures of fine flour, knead it, and make bread.” 18:7 Then Abraham ran to the herd and chose a fine, tender calf, and gave it to a servant, who quickly prepared it. 18:8 Abraham then took some curds and milk, along with the calf that had been prepared, and placed the food before them. They ate while he was standing near them under a tree.

Those who I can see and who eat before me I generally consider having a literal human body!

But this, and all of scripture, does not suggest such a literal human form was the only form they could appear in. It was the appearance they were to use when visiting Abraham with our Lord. Humanity is bound by God to be flesh and blood but not so with angels.

And to be clear, most translations refer to the two who were with our Lord as two angels a little later on in Gen 19:1. They are also referred to as two messengers in a few but scripture is clearly identifying them as non-devine (angels in other words).
    Ref: https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Genesis 19:1


Did Lucifer have any chance? When Lucifer defied God he must have thought he stood a chance of winning. Did he? And if not how is it he didn't realize that?

It may be that Satan has always defied God, or (and) that he believes his own lies.  The Bible doesn't touch the subject directly.


How does the doctrine of the URC differ from its predecessors? The United Reformed Church is a denomination in Britain that was formed out of a merger of the Congregationalist and Presbyterian denominations in 1972. What doctrinal compromises had to be  made for the merger to succeed? In other words, what are/were the differences between Presbyterianism and Congregationalism, which beliefs and doctrines were carried forward into the URC and which had to be dropped?

The "Basis of Union" can be found here: http://www.urc.org.uk/what_we_do/the_manual/the_basis_of_union

For me, understanding any denomination usually hinges on two issues - salvation and governance.  In my head, most any other distinctive could be chalked up to a peculiar practice or worship style, with its own concomitant theology.  The comparatives are usually in salvation or governance.

Salvation

So, from the beginning it should be said that Presbyterians descend from a Calvinist tradition (in Scotland), whereas Congregationalists and Puritans descend from a decided mixture of Calvinistic and Arminian traditions.  In practice, I would assume that any already-in-the-minority free will positions that some Conrgegationalists held would have been further de-emphasized, but I couldn't find anything in the URC statement of belief to corroborate this.

Governance

  Statement 2: Identity The URC will be a Church where every local congregation will be able to say who they are, what they do and why they do it.

In terms of church governance, Congregationalists stress the complete autonomy of the local church, although in practice many (like the Baptists) will come together in association in order to maximize their effectiveness. Presbyterians are very close to this - individual churches hire their own pastors, for example, but the power of the association and synod is a little greater.  (Its nothing like say, a Catholic church, but there is some governance!)  In practice, then, governance would have been a fairly easy compromise.


Do exorcisms need to be performed in a particular language? In Catholicism, does an exorcism need to be performed in a certain language, such as Latin? Or can it be performed in a language of the priest’s choice? Does it need to be one that the demon-possessed person understands?

Do exorcisms need to be performed in a particular language?

The short answer is no.

It may be true that the Devil and his agents hate the use of Latin within the Roman Rite, but an exorcism may be performed in another [vernacular] language as well.

For example a Catholic priest of the Greek Rite is quite free to use the "Rituale" of their particular rite. This applies to all liturgical languages (such as Greek or Ukrainian) of all other rites which possess a "Rituale" according to their liturgical rite.

The language used in an exorcism does not need to be understood by the victim of possession to be efficacious. Generally speaking, very few possessed persons understand Latin.

Prior to Vatican Council II, all exorcisms in the Roman Rite were in Latin. This not so much true any more, although many exorcists still use the Rituale Romanum in Latin for exorcism. The Devil hates Latin.

  The first official English-language translation of the ritual book “Exorcisms and Related Supplications” is available from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

  Distribution of “Exorcisms and Related Supplications” is limited to bishops, though exorcists, other clergy, scholars and seminary professors also can obtain a copy with the permission of a bishop.

  Having it available now in English “should make it easier for a bishop to find a priest who can help him with this ministry,” said Fr. Andrew Menke, executive director of the USCCB’s Secretariat of Divine Worship.

  “Given that there’s less facility in Latin than there used to be, even among priests, it opens the door to more priests to do this. Until now, not only did the priest have to be wise and holy, but he also had to have strong facility in Latin,” Fr. Menke told Catholic News Service.

  “It makes it easier for a priest who might otherwise be a good exorcist but who would be intimidated by a requirement to use a Latin text. Having it available in the vernacular means he can concentrate on prayer and on the ritual, without needing to worry about working in another language,” he explained.

  The translation is from the rite that was revised following the Second Vatican Council. It was promulgated in Latin in 1999 and then slightly amended in 2004. The revised text draws from rituals used by the Catholic Church for centuries.

  The USCCB approved the English translation at its 2014 fall general assembly. The Vatican gave its “recognitio,” or approval, of the translation earlier this year. - US bishops publish English-language translation of exorcism ritual

The Church has now approved the 1999 Rituale Romanum in a number of other vernacular languages.

  The traditional Rite of Exorcism can be said also in Slovenian and Croatian. The two vernacular translations of the Rituale Romanum were printed in 1932 (slo) and 1929 (cro). Benedict XV gave permission for the use of vernacular Rituale for all the dioceses of the then existing Kingdom of Yugoslavia. - Mohor Fortunat


How is 2 Thessalonians 2:3 understood by those who believe in the imminence of Christ's return? In 2 Thessalonians 2:3 Paul writes:

  Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not arrive until
  the rebellion comes and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of
  destruction. (NET)

For those who believe in the imminence of Christ's return, that is, he could return suddenly at any moment, how do they understand this verse to have already been fulfilled, and who do they understand to be the revealed man of lawlessness? It seems clear that this verse must be fulfilled before Christ's return could be imminent.

Another option could be that those who believe in the imminent return of Christ do not believe that the man of lawlessness has been revealed but that one event could happen directly after the other.


When does the Pope speak ex cathedra? The Catholic Church considers the Pope infallible, but only in limited circumstances. The Pope is a human being like the rest of us, and capable of sinning. However, when the Pope speaks ex cathedra, i.e. with papal authority, he is infallible.

How do Catholics know when the Pope speaks ex cathedra?

Vatican I defined it.
A true pope (not an antipope or heretic claiming to be the pope), when speaking on a matter of faith or morals (not economics or science) when speaking to the universal Church (not a letter to a friend) is guided by the Holy Spirit.

when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,
that is, when,

in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church,


Why did Virgin Mary call herself the servant of the Lord? We see at Luke 1:38 the response of Virgin Mary to the Angel Gabriel  "Here am I, the servant of the Lord; let it be with me according to your word."

One wonders why Mary called herself the servant of the Lord. She could have very well said "daughter of the Lord". Is it that she was hinting at a total turn in her life that she had not been prepared for, before the Annunciation and something which only  a servant could have meekly accepted?

My question therefore, is: How does the Catholic Church explain the nuances of the attribute "servant of the Lord" that  Virgin Mary used for herself?

She calls herself a "handmaid" (ancilla, δούλη) in Luke 1:38 and in her Magnificat canticle (Luke 1:48) because she is very humble.
Fr. Cornelius à Lapide, S.J., commentates Luke 1:38:

Mark the humility, modesty, and resignation of the Virgin, for though saluted by the angel as Mother of God, she calls herself His handmaid, not His mother; handmaid by nature, mother by grace. Pet. Dam. (Serm. 3 de Nativ. Virg.) And S. Bernard (Serm. in Apoc. 12) says, “A great sign: deservedly is she made mistress of all who declared herself servant of all.”

and

Ver. 48.—For He hath regarded, &c. S. Augustine (super Magnificat) says, “This is the grace of her exultation, that He hath regarded the low estate of His handmaiden: it is as if she said, because I exult in His grace, therefore my exultation is from Him; and because I love His gifts on account of Himself, therefore I exult in Him. S. Bernard (Serm. 57 in Cant.) says, “God regards the earth and causes it to tremble; He regards Mary and infuses grace. He hath regarded, she says, the lowliness of His handmaiden, for, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed. These are not the words of one lamenting or fearing, but of one rejoicing. Hence He says to her, Arise quickly, my love, my dove, my fair one, and come away.”
Lowliness, or low estate. Vulgate, humilitatem; Greek, ταπείνωσιν. Humility here properly means lowliness of estate, not the virtue of humility as opposed to pride, for this is called ταπεινοφροσύνη; for humility alone among virtues is ignorant of itself; and he who boasts of his humility is proud, not humble.
Secondly, however, by humility may be understood the virtue itself of humility; for on account of this God had regard to the Blessed Virgin, and chose her for His mother; for a humble person recognises his virtues as being the gifts of God; wherefore among them he sees also his own humility, but he ascribes it not to his own strength, but to the grace which he had received from God.
As, therefore, the Blessed Virgin here recognises her election to be the Mother of God (which was a far greater thing), so likewise she recognises that she was fittingly adorned for so great a dignity by her humility, virginity, and other virtues which had been imparted to her by God. For a humble person recognises his own low estate, his misery, his poverty, yea, even his own nothingness, and ascribes all that he is and has to God, Whose he is, and says with the Psalmist, Not unto us, O Lord, not unto us, but unto Thy Name give the glory.
Listen to S. Augustine (Serm. 2 de Assump.), “O true humility which hath borne God to men, hath given life to mortals, made new heavens, and a pure earth, and given liberty to the souls of men. The humility of Mary was made the heavenly ladder by which God came down to earth. For what does regarded mean but approved? For many seem in the sight of men to be humble, but their humility is not regarded by the Lord. For if they were truly humble, then they would not wish to be praised by men, and their spirit would not rejoice in the world but in God.” And S. Chrysostom (Hom. 2 in Ps. 50) says, “The greatest sacrifice or all is humility, for the same man who by sinning has separated himself from God, subjects himself to Him by humility, when he is converted to penitence.” And lastly S. Bernard says, “It is humility which truth begets for us, and it has not heat, and it is humility which love forms and inflames. The latter consists in affection, the former in knowledge: by the former we learn that we are nothing, and we learn it from ourselves and our own weakness; by the latter we tread underfoot the glory of the world, and we learn it from Him Who emptied Himself, and Who, when men sought to make Him a king, fled; but when He was sought for reproaches and for the Cross, He did not flee, but offered Himself willingly.” The Blessed Virgin had both these (humility and love) in an eminent and heroic degree.


Can the God of the Old Testament be seen as a consistent moral law giver? There seems to be instances when God tolerates sin, since it is an improvement over the cultural conditions of the time. For instance, the laws regarding the treatment of slaves some have argued were encouraging people to treat slaves as human, and thereby eventually leading to the world we have today, in large part, which sees slavery as a great moral crime. Or requiring a rapist to marry the woman he raped is progressive. The argument goes that during this time in history, if a woman was raped she was essentially soiled for life; no one would want to marry her afterwards. This law is essentially forcing the rapist to take responsibility for his crime, and see that the woman is taken care of (materially at least, or in some sense, though it is hard to imagine today).

There are other times where God is incapable of tolerating sin, there are examples of the death penalty being used in punishment of transgression of the Sabbath, keeping spoils of war, striking your parents, etc.

How then can God be seen as a consistent moral law giver given these seeming contradictions?

Edit
For context, this is a question that I hear a lot from atheists as to why it is not rational to believe Christianity (or Judaism) in a particular. It is one I have a hard time answering. I am wondering what the Christian reply is.

I wouldn't have answered this had you not added the context.  However, with the context added....

It sounds like what you're looking for is an answer that will sound reasonable to an atheist that's asking this question.  As a former atheist and anti-theist, who thought that the Christian God was not only made-up, but that the (Please forgive me, Lord) "God that these Christians made up" was cruel, evil, and unjust, I'm sorry to say that there is no argument that can be given to someone with this mindset.

There are some things that God has commanded that are very hard to understand without the proper understanding of God's nature.  Understanding God's nature, and his view of sin is necessary to answer questions, such as "How could a moral God command the Israelites to kill all of the inhabitants of the various lands they took in Deuteronomy?".

To answer these questions alone sound hollow.  The answers are completely unsatisfying to an atheist that doesn't even believe that God exists, much less is wiser than us.

For  samples question and Christian answer, see this link: http://www.rationalchristianity.net/genocide.html

The first question and answer:

  Why were the cities destroyed?

  The primary reason was punishment for wrongdoing. The populations of
  the destroyed cities had long histories of grievous sins (Gen 15:16,
  Dt 25:17-19), which often included sacrificing their children to false
  gods (Dt 12:29-31). Their consciences should have told these people
  they were doing wrong. Had they listened and changed their ways, they
  would not have been destroyed. God has said that if any nation is
  about to be destroyed as punishment but repents, he will forgive them
  and not destroy them (Jer 18:7-8). In fact, this occurred in the city
  of Ninevah (Jonah 3:4-10).

  In the cities that were given to the Israelites as their inheritance,
  there was a secondary reason: totally depraved cultures were destroyed
  so that they would not corrupt the Israelites into committing the same
  evil acts (Dt 7:1-4, 20:16-18). This did in fact occur: when the
  Israelites didn't obey God and destroy cities, they too began
  practicing child sacrifice (Ps 106:34-40).

  Additionally, the destruction of wicked nations served as an
  instructive warning to contemporaries (Josh 2:1-11) and future
  generations (1 Cor 10:1-11).

The above answer is completely unsatisfying to an atheist, who believes that the God of the Bible is made up.  In order for the explanation to sound reasonable, we ahve to first accept that

God exists
He is the God described in the Bible
He knows better than us
He is righteous and incapable of doing wrong, therefore his actions were righteous.

An atheist, particularly, and anti-theist believes none of that.  Pretty much every answer to the questions about God's apparent "immorality" are based on an initial assumption.  That God exists and is good.   That becomes  circular reasoning, and an atheist can recognize it.  To satisfy an atheist, you would have to first convince them that God exists and that He is the God of the Bible.

Personally, when confronted with this type of question while witnessing, I answer honestly and say, "If you can accept that God might exist, I can answer this question, and it probably won't satisfy you.  If you believe firmly that He doesn't exist, then nothing I can say will answer this for you..."  and move on to something else.