Do Amish have fire alarms? I'm pretty sure that people legally need to have fire alarms in every building. But what about Amish? Are they exempt from that law or do they follow it?

Do Amish have fire alarms?

Some Mennonites  and Amish, I am sure have fire alarms in their homes. They are not so much anti-technology as so much to desire to live a much simpler life style than most other Christians. This can cause them to be greatly misunderstood.

The short answer is maybe, but no may be closer to the truth.

The Amish may be forced to install a fire detector by law and enforcement of the law, but whether the fire detector remains in place is not known. Installation of such devices goes against their religious convictions.

  News came earlier this week that the long-running dispute between Amish and authorities in Morristown, New York, has come to an end.  You might remember a post last spring on the Amish smoke alarm issue; if you viewed the PBS documentary The Amish you would have seen this case discussed.

  To review, Amish had refused to follow local building codes (updated by the town in 2006), arguing that they conflicted with their religious beliefs.  Most memorably, the Amish balked at the installation of household smoke detectors. But they also found other regulations problematic, covering everything from the foundation to the roof. Here’s Karen Johnson-Weiner explaining the smoke alarm issue (taken from the transcript of The Amish film):

    Karen M. Johnson-Weiner, Anthropologist: There are a number of aspects of the building code that are problematic. The need for smoke detectors and now carbon monoxide detectors. That’s putting your faith in a manmade device instead of God. What God wants to happen will happen. The Amish are building their homes according to way their Ordnung says they have to build. If, heaven forbid, a fire comes, sweeps through the house and something terrible happens, the child will be in a better place, the people will be in a better place, they’ll be with God. Theirs is not an intellectual faith; it’s a lived faith. In a very real way because everything they do is guided by their Ordnung, by their beliefs. In a way they’re always in church.

  Both sides have conceded points in the dispute.  Though not on every issue.  I found the following bit amusing:

    On the thorniest issue — smoke detectors — neither side caved. The town’s code inspector will install detectors before giving homes a final approval, but whether they remain is up to the homeowners, as it is in any home.

  Any Morristownians in the market for a smoke detector, barely used? I have a hunch there will be a few soon available (if they don’t land in the junk pile behind the barn first).

  As one of the principals in the case pointed out, this resolution means both parties leave satisfied, with no one having to go to jail.  That of course is in contrast to what went on in Kentucky in 2011-2012, when numerous Swartzentruber Amish ended up in prison in the dispute over the SMV triangle. - Amish smoke detector dispute resolved


What denominations apply the doctrine Nuda Scriptura? I have been hearing about the application of the doctrine of Nuda Scriptura, where the Bible is separated from all the traditional connotation or context of the Church. They reject creeds and confessions, having Scripture as the only theological resource.
But who are the ones who adhere to this doctrine? and on what grounds do they reject Sola Scriptura and Prima Scriptura?

Historical background of Solo/Nuda Scriptura
Keith Mathison wrote a paper Solo Scriptura: The Difference a Vowel Makes published in the journal Modern Reformation Vol 16 Issue 2 (March/April 2007) to contrast Solo vs. Sola Scriptura.  He also wrote the 2001 well-cited book The Shape of Sola Scriptura whose table of contents can be found here. His description of "Solo Scriptura" origin and motivation seem to match your definition of Nuda Scriptura.
Quote from Keith's paper:

In contrast with the Reformation doctrine of sola Scriptura, the revisionist doctrine of “solo” Scriptura is marked by radical individualism and a rejection of the authority of the church and the ecumenical creeds. If we compare the statements made by advocates of “solo” Scriptura with the statements of Reformational Christians above, the difference is immediately evident. It is also important to observe the source of this doctrine in early America. As Nathan O. Hatch notes, the first Americans to push the right of private judgment over against the church and the creeds were unorthodox ministers.
The liberal minister SimeonHoward (1733-1804), for example, advised pastors to “lay aside all attachment to human systems, all partiality to names, councils and churches, and honestly inquire, what saith the Scriptures?” In his own effort to overturn orthodox Christianity,Charles Beecher (1815-1900) denounced “creed power” and argued for “the Bible, the whole Bible, and nothing but the Bible.” The universalist minister A. B. Grosh (d. 1884) declared in a similar way, “In religious faith we have but one Father and one Master, and the Bible, the Bible, is our only acknowledged creed book.”
The radical American version of “solo” Scriptura reached its fullest expression in the
writings of the Restorationists as they applied the principles of Democratic populism to
Enlightenment Christianity. In 1809, the Restorationist Elias Smith (1769-1846) proclaimed, “Venture to be as independent in things of religion, as those which respect the government in which you live.” Barton Stone (1772-1844) declared that the past should be “consigned to the rubbish heap upon which Christ was crucified.” Alexander Campbell (1788-1866) made his individualistic view of Scripture very clear, declaring, “I have endeavored to read the Scriptures as though no one had read them before me, and I am as much on my guard against reading them to-day, through the medium of my own views yesterday, or a week ago, as I am against being influenced by any foreign name, authority, or system whatever.” As the Reformed Princetontheologian Samuel Miller (1769-1850) rightly observed,“themost zealous opposers [of creeds] have generally been latitudinarians and heretics.”

Another resource that talks about the kind of Christians holding Solo/Nuda Scriptura can be found in this short the blog article Sola Scriptura or Nuda Scriptura?.  Quote:

... proponents of NS are themselves confessional Christians of a sort; they just don’t realize it. If you were to ask one to summarize in a sentence or two who Jesus is and why he came to earth, they would, by necessity, need to produce a condensed statement of the relevant points of doctrine in order to answer the question, i.e., produce a confession. The difference between this confession and a standard historic confession is that one was deliberated on, debated, and prayerfully considered by many intelligent, God-fearing men, and the other was not. One such confession has stood the test of time and the scrutiny of generations of believers from all walks of life, the other has not. The fact of the matter is, proponents of NS already have a confession. The question then becomes, is their confession the product of an individual or a very narrow sect, or is it the product of hundreds of years of diligent study, discussion, prayer, and reflection?

Solo/Nuda Scriptura compared with Biblicism
A related issue with Bible Interpretation is Biblicism which also rejects historic creed / confession, but may differ from Solo/Nuda Scriptura in its tendency to reject general revelation and "narrows the scope of its application to only that which the Bible explicitly states and not to that which it implies as well." (quote from chapter 2 of The Case for Traditional Protestantism).
Michael Bird, a well-published Australian evangelical theologian, offered his definition of Biblicism in a Aug 2020 blog article What is Biblicism? then proceeded to contrast it with proper understanding of Sola Scriptura:

Let me say that biblicism is definitely not the Protestant view!
When the Reformers and their progeny articulated Sola Scripture, it did not mean the naked Scripture, mere Scripture, but more like the primacy of Scripture alongside tradition, experience, and nature, etc.
When Protestants articulated the clarity of Scripture, they did not mean all of Scripture was equally clear, but that Scripture was clear when it came to the gospel and salvation, beyond that, one might need a Philip to run beside one’s chariot and to help you explain this or that in your Bible.
When Protestants articulated the sufficiency of Scripture, it was not sufficient to deal with things beyond the Bible’s own subject of discourse, like open-heart surgery, treating bipolar disorder, or macro-economics. The Bible might have values, principles, and affirmations that contribute to these things, but they are not sufficient to deal with them in their entirety.
When Protestants spoke of the authority of Scripture, they meant the authority of the Holy Spirit speaking in Scripture, the same Spirit who was part of the triune economy, who illuminates believers into the truth, who raises up pastors and teachers for the church, and who animates its creedal and liturgical heritage.

Proper practice of Sola Scriptura as Primacy of Scripture
In a blog article Sola Scriptura Then And Now adapted from a paper he delivered earlier at "The Global Impact of the Reformation" conference in Oct 2017, Don Carson shared eight reflections on sola Scriptura, "reflections that are variously historical, theological, and pastoral."  Quote from Reflection #4 (on how Reformed tradition respects the authority of the creeds but places them under Scripture):

4. Sola, Not Solo or Nuda
One cannot too strongly insist that sola scriptura is not to be confused with solo scriptura or nuda scriptura. The doctrine does not open itself to biblicist proof-texting that is devoid of awareness of how Scripture has been read and applied in past generations and in other cultures. As John Peckham astutely comments, “All that is necessary to undergird the ‘sola’ of this principle is for Scripture to present itself as uniquely authoritative over all other factors. Notably, each of the three categories that encompass other possible sources of theology—reason, experience, and tradition—are not excluded but are explicitly subordinated to the unique authority of Scripture.”
...
When we speak of other authorities, such as creeds and confessions (for example, Augsburg, Heidelberg, Westminster), their authority does not subtract from the authority of Scripture, as if by acknowledging their authority, the authority of Scripture is correspondingly reduced. We are not playing a zero-sum game. The authority of the creeds is always a subordinate and derived authority. The authority of a creed invariably leaves the sola of sola scriptura unscathed, because Scripture alone has the authority of the norma normans.[2]
Much more evidence could be adduced to justify a place for creeds, formulas, catechisms, and more. But Christians in the Reformed tradition are not living up to the best insights of the Reformation when confessional documents are given such status that they effectively stand over Scripture, instead of under it.

Summary
The ones who adhere to Nuda Scriptura are those who interpret the Bible with radical individualism and who reject the authority of the church and the ecumenical creeds.  They in effect write their own confessional statements from scratch.
They are to be contrasted with Protestant denominations which base their teachings on the 16th century Reformers whose view were in turn Sola Scriptura properly understood.
Another contrast is with non-denominational churches which respect a historic creed (such as the 381 Nicene Creed) and/or a historic confessional statements (such as the 1647 Westminster Confession of Faith) while maintaining Sola Scriptura (see Don Carson's paper quoted above on how they do this).


Seeking source of a Calvin quote regarding wine in communion In my denomination (Free Methodist) and a number of other protestant denominations, grape juice is used for communion rather than wine.  There is (of course) a longstanding back-and-forth between Christian denominations when it comes to alcohol in general, but the question of wine vs. grape juice in the context of communion is what interests me here.

Specifically, a few years ago I was listening to a radio talk show where the guests were discussing this issue.  One of guests stated that John Calvin had once recommended wine as the only appropriate drink for communion, because -- unlike grape juice -- wine combines sweetness and bitterness, which makes a more effective metaphor for the sweetness and bitterness of Jesus' sacrifice on the cross.

I've spent some time trying to search out the original source of this quote but had no luck.  Can anyone point me to where it comes from?  (Assuming, of course, that the guest on the radio show had his facts straight.)

I went to StudyLight.org and checked John Calvin's commentaries on Matthew 26, Mark 14, Luke 22 and 1 Corinthians 11; the four passages I thought would be most likely to include Mr. Calvin's reasoning for his preference of wine or grape juice for Communion.  I found no remarks.


Phileo/Storge love in God and heaven? My friend and I were talking about the four types of love the Greeks distinguished, and my friend said God's love is purely Agape. But doesn't God wants to be friend with each of us? And doesn't God love us as a "Father"? I think God has Phileo love and Storge love for us as well as Agape, and I also think that in heaven, our love towards the others will be Phileo, Storge and Agape mixed together. So my questions are:

Do Catholics believe that God has Phileo and Storge love for us, as well as Agape?
Will our love for others in heaven be Phileo and Storge, as well as Agape (three mixed together)?

St. Thomas defines charity--supernatural love--as a love of friendship.  In Deus Caritas Est Pope Benedict XVI was careful to note that all three loves, including eros, are included in the Christian's relationship to God.  He begins the first part of the encyclical:

  PART I

  THE UNITY OF LOVE IN CREATION AND IN SALVATION HISTORY

  A problem of language

  God's love for us is fundamental for our lives, and it raises important questions about who God is and who we are. In considering
  this, we immediately find ourselves hampered by a problem of language.
  Today, the term “love” has become one of the most frequently used and
  misused of words, a word to which we attach quite different meanings.
  Even though this Encyclical will deal primarily with the understanding
  and practice of love in sacred Scripture and in the Church's
  Tradition, we cannot simply prescind from the meaning of the word in
  the different cultures and in present-day usage...

Part I extends from paragraphs 2-18, and all of it applies to your question.  Here is an excerpt particularly relevant:

  That love between man and woman which is neither planned nor willed, but somehow imposes itself upon human beings, was called eros by the ancient Greeks. Let us note straight away that the Greek Old Testament uses the word eros only twice, while the New Testament does not use it at all: of the three Greek words for love, eros, philia (the love of friendship) and agape, New Testament writers prefer the last, which occurs rather infrequently in Greek usage. As for the term philia, the love of friendship, it is used with added depth of meaning in Saint John's Gospel in order to express the relationship between Jesus and his disciples...

(Note that storge is affection, and some theologians like C.S. Lewis classify it as a love whereas others such as Ratzinger do not)


How did the man with leprosy come into the city? Anyone with leprosy should stay outside the city until he is clean.

  Leviticus 13:46  He is to live by himself in a home outside the encampment.

With reference with below verses, we see Jesus travelling through Galilee preaching and driving out demons.

  Mark 1:38-39  Jesus replied, “Let us go somewhere else—to the nearby villages—so I can preach there also. That is why I have come.”
  So he traveled throughout Galilee, preaching in their synagogues and
  driving out demons.

Suddenly, man with leprosy came to Jesus for healing.

  Mark 1:40  A man with leprosy came to him and begged him on his knees, “If you are willing, you can make me clean.”

How did the man with leprosy get into city? He was not supposed to come into the city, right?

I assume many people was following Jesus to see his miracles but if so how did his person with leprosy come to Jesus through all these people? Or Jesus outside the city?

The biggest clue here is in the very last words of the verse "outside the encampment". Just with a superficial reading you can see that the cultural context between the command being given, and the point in time which the gospel refers to, are completely different.

This in itself isn't enough to answer the question though because you could argue that the city is effectively the new "encampment" and the verse might still apply despite the change in context.

To answer this it's important to understand more of the differences in context, and what exactly the Leviticus verse was originally addressing. When the command was given, the Israelites effectively lived "in the presence of God" (signified by the pillar of fire/smoke). It was a theocracy, with God giving commands to Moses directly. Because of such close communion with God, there was a degree of ceremonial purity that was necessary even to reside in the camp- the idea is that ceremonial impurity can not exist in the presence of God.

After the time in the Wilderness, Israel became a nation, and progressively became more like the other nations around it. The King ruled, and the King didn't necessarily submit to God. There is no one City that can really be described in such a way that would be equivalent to "the encampment" - rather the people are scattered across several settlements and cities, in much the same way as any other nation would be. Instead, most of the ceremonial purity laws now apply more directly to the Temple, as this is now the place that is considered to be where God's presence rests.

By the time we get to the Gospels, the Temple has been destroyed, but also rebuilt, and the nation of Israel doesn't even rule itself (politically), but is under the rule of the Romans. So really, the man with leprosy was in the city because he had every right to be in the city. It might be more of an issue if he was wandering around the Temple.


Historicity of which Biblical characters is recognized by Archaeology/History? I know that Historicity of certain Old testament Kings is recognized.

However some like Jonah or Job aren't know to fields of Archaeology or History.

What information, evidence do we have and for what figures? (The list can include both known and unknown or debated figures)

There are tons of resources. I've never seen an itemized list, but I've seen dozens of resources like this one.

Of course, you'll find that some findings are disputed, and as is the case with any science, new discoveries often change existing assumptions, so such a list would be ever-changing.

There is  list of 61 such people here.

More at this set of search results.


Is it correct to say "any effort using scientific way to prove or disprove God is in vain"? Am I right in saying that we can never use science to find the physical existence of God, neither could we disprove that?

I am in academic, I am surrounded by so many "science-is-the-ultimate-answer" friends.

I'd like to hear and learn from you how you guys are sharing the Gospel with non-believer friends who are so believing in modern scientific achievement. My way is usually this, but I am not sure, if this is a good one.

Science is correct as long as it is telling the truth;
Science have never and will never disprove the possibility of God;
You will always have an ever-enlarging unknown zones if you are trusting science;
It is fully logical and possible (50%) and make sense if a supreme God is in control;
So you are disbelieving, is not because science shows God is not there, but because you choose to interpret scientific results with a no-God conclusion, you are shutting down the other 50~100% percent of possibilities.
To know God, actually one has other ways (then I will go special revelations, like Bible, sin, testimony, even though most of them are not supernatural)
Ask him/her to think about her personal life, the problems, the families, the relationships. Which means I will go in this part ask him/her to think many un-scientific data.

PS: Any goog books that are very updated and also sound in teaching that I can read? Thanks

You may look into Dr. William Lane Craig, who is a preeminent Christian philosopher/apologist, especially his book On Guard covers a lot of material related to your question. You might also look into Alvin Plantinga's book, Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism.

The answer is that you can make philosophical statements for the existence or non-existence of God, and you can use scientific evidence to support any premises made in that argument. For instance the cosmological argument goes like this:

Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence;
The universe has a beginning of its existence;

Therefore:
The universe has a cause of its existence.

You can use science to back up points 1 and 2 (for instance the scientific evidence for the existence of the big bang in the second point) or you could use science to disprove those points as well (some people have claimed quantum physics can disprove the 1st point), but the conclusion is philosophical one.

The problem with science is that it has an epistemological boundary of only being able to make statements of truth about empirically observable phenomena. When you are talking about God you are talking about something that transcends the universe, and is by definition then is not something that is empirically observable (and if he was then he wouldn't be transcendent).

Now science can proof or disprove specific claims, like I could claim that God made my severed arm grow back and science could present evidence for or against that having actually occurred. Likewise archaeology could potentially prove or disprove events in the Bible. But if you start going down the path that nothing does exists aside from what is empirically observable by science then you have fallen into the pitfall of scienstism.


If Satan is not omnipresent and supposedly wanders around like a roaring lion, how can he tempt and interact with all humans? There are millions of human beings and there is no way that Satan can interact/tempt all of us in a one-on-one relationship. So how does Satan perform his evil works?  I know that I am a sinner and have sin inherently in me but I don't see how Satan personally has had anything to do with me sinning.  It all seems to stem from my own evil nature. Thoughts?

Satan is most assuredly not omnipresent, Satan was and is an Angel (although he be a fallen Angel) and you must remember two things.

Satan (Lucifer) has no more power or ability than any of the other Angels.
When Lucifer was ejected from Heaven one third of the Angels were ejected with him:

Revelation 12:9  KJV

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

Rev 12:4 KJV

  Now the dragon’s tail swept away a third of the stars in heaven and hurled them to the earth. Then the dragon stood before the woman who was about to give birth, so that he might devour her child as soon as it was born.

These fallen angels are also Devils

Luke 8:30 KJV

  And Jesus asked him, saying, What is thy name? And he said, Legion: because many devils were entered into him.

Some of these devils assist Satan in his efforts to tempt man away from God. The reason that they are so successful in their efforts to tempt us is because Satan has disguised Sin as a pleasant and desirable thing to have, and unfortunately having the knowledge of good and evil did nothing for our ability to see sin in its true character. Illicit sex would surely not be as tempting if it was seen ahead of time that it can lead to AIDS, or the many other STD's.

For some reason Satan has been able to disguise sin so completely that man will fall into his traps over and over.

Just consider the undesirable effects caused by not observing the 10 commandments.

It appears that man has been just as blinded to true beauty as when God destroyed the World in Noah's time.

Genesis 6:5  KJV

  And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.


Modern Book of Jasher - Genuine? I've been reading the book of Jasher (supposedly the one quoted in the book of Samuel) and its quite amazing.

But I ask - what is the proof or lack of proof on it's authenticity?

There are however a few seemingly sensationalized accounts, like a wolf talks to Jacob, sons of Jacob leaping up walls, strange humanoid creatures stealing donkeys, Joseph's mother speaking from the grave, and so forth. Unless I misread, it even states that it took a year to bring bricks to the top of the tower of Babel, which leads me to believe they must have had space-suits in those days :D.

Although I greatly appreciated the back-story of Nimrod vs Abraham, I found the passing-through-the-fire account (as well as the attempted infanticide) to be mirrors of other accounts in the scriptures. While repeats of events are known to happen, this seemed derived to a degree.

There is also the seeming God-evolution of Enoch, the "skins" of Adam and Eve which gave Nimrod power (which did not seem to have a symbolic purpose other than a super-hero story).

I also found it interesting that Esau killed Nimrod during a hunting expedition fulfilling a prophecy voiced in Jasher, but the bible simply states that Esau came back hungry from routine hunting.

Of course stories such as Jonah and the fish leave much to faith, which one could take Jasher on, but I was curious what proofs might exist for or against the book of modern day.

The Book of Jashar is mentioned in two places in the Bible:

2 Samuel 1:18 (NASB)

  and he told them to teach the sons of Judah the song of the bow; behold, it is written in the book of Jashar.

Joshua 10:12-13 (NASB)

  Then Joshua spoke to the Lord in the day when the Lord delivered up the Amorites before the sons of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel,“O sun, stand still at Gibeon,And O moon in the valley of Aijalon.”So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped,Until the nation avenged themselves of their enemies.Is it not written in the book of Jashar? And the sun stopped in the middle of the sky and did not hasten to go down for about a whole day.

It's not clear, from your question, to which specific modern version of the Book of Jasher you are referring.  There are several different books by that name.  However, of that list, there are only two likely candidates for the one about which you are asking:

Pseudo-Jasher
Sefer haYashar

Neither of those two books are considered by most people to legitimately be the book mentioned in the Bible.

Pseudo-Jasher

This book was first published in 1751 by Jacob Ilive.  It claimed to be an English translation of a Hebrew text which was found (and translated) by Flaccus Albinus Alcuinus.  It was widely criticized as being a forgery by its contemporaries.  It's author, Jacob Ilive, was sentenced to three years in jail for publishing it.  You would be hard pressed to find anyone serious today who considers this book to be authentic.

Sefer haYashar

This is a Hebrew midrash of unknown origin.  It was supposedly first published in Naples in 1552, but the oldest extant copies are from a later reprinting in Venice in 1625.  The 1625 edition claims that the text from a manuscript which was found in the ruins of Jerusalem in 70 AD, but many people believe that it was likely written at a later date.  Although it has sometimes been presented as the Book of Jasher that is referenced by the Bible (most notably by Moses Samuel's English translation in 1840), rabbinical Judaism does not accept that claim and the book does not itself make that claim either.  Unlike Pseudo-Jasher, however, many people do believe that Sefer haYashar at least does contain legitimate Jewish legends.


According to universalists, why should we obey God? If universal reconciliation is true- so that everybody will eventually come to know God because of his son Yeshua, and therefore nobody will have their flesh burned forever and ever- why should we obey God?

There are two things that most universalists generally agree with- they deny that “hell” lasts forever, and they deny that we have a free will. The sovereignty of God- mixed with his desire that all of mankind will know him- means mankind has no other choice but to eventually know him. So by all means, anybody could live in disobedience if their will should lead them down that path; but there is another force at work in us- our love for God.
Our love for God does not come from some magic free will substance. We love God because God prepared us with the ability to love, and “because he loved us first”.

”Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. The one who does not love does not know God, for God is love.” 1 John 4:7-8

The love God provides for us is much too wonderful to reject.  We see his plan of reconciliation, and we know that God is good. Therefore, whatever he says is good- and that means his law is good. There is no better way to live our life than to live it according to his word. I think all Christians, and even Judaism, can agree that the life God provides for us now is far superior to any other lifestyle; as the joy he brings to us is far superior to anything the world can provide.
Yeshua says:

”If ye love me, keep my commandments.” John 14:15

The “if” is not a stipulation; it’s simply the truth. If we love God, then we will understand the perfection of his commandments, and we will desire to obey them. God does not threaten us with physical torture to force us into obedience. He is most certainly to be feared, as a child ought to fear their father; however:

”There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves punishment, and the one who fears is not perfected in love. We love, because He first loved us.” 1 John 4:18-19

Why should we obey God?
Because we love God. It is a real, uncontrollable, unconditional- yet very much explainable- love:

”O how love I thy law! it is my meditation all the day.
Thou through thy commandments hast made me wiser than mine enemies: for they are ever with me.
I have more understanding than all my teachers: for thy testimonies are my meditation.
I understand more than the ancients, because I keep thy precepts.
I have refrained my feet from every evil way, that I might keep thy word.
I have not departed from thy judgments: for thou hast taught me.
How sweet are thy words unto my taste! yea, sweeter than honey to my mouth!
Through thy precepts I get understanding: therefore I hate every false way.” Psalm 119:97-104


According to Anglicanism, is the Pope the Antichrist? In the Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter XXV, article 6, we read:

  There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ. Nor can the Pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalts himself, in the Church, against Christ and all that is called God.

There is also this document which goes through the wording of several Anglican theologians, leaders, and government officials, arguing precisely that same thing (and thus arguing against any effort of collaboration). The documents states:

  If  the   English  Reformers  are   to  be  believed,   and  the  official  language  of  the  Church  of  England  for  a  couple  of  generations   at  least  after  the   Reformation  is  to  be  accepted,   the  Church   of  Rome  is  the   Apocalyptic  “Babylon   the Great ,” and  the Pope  that “Man of Sin”  delineated by the  Apostle, as one  of the  manifestations of  Anti-Christ.

Thus, is the above article of faith in effect stating that, for the Anglican church, the Pope is the Antichrist? Is this thus official doctrine?

No.

The Article of the Westminster Confession quoted in the question clearly identifies the Pope as the Antichrist. However the Westminster Confession is not a doctrinal standard of the Anglican Churches. In the UK the Westminster Confession is the official doctrinal standard in Scotland, but not in England. The Church of Scotland, however,  is not an Anglican Church.  (There is an Anglican denomination in Scotland, the Scottish Episcopal Church, but it is not the official national Church.)

The Westminster Confession was produced in England during the mid-seventeenth century period of the Civil Wars. It was intended to replace the 39 Articles as the doctrinal standard for the Church of England. Following the death of Cromwell and the Restoration of the Monarchy, in the person of King Charles II, the Westminster Confession was not accepted, and the 39 Articles were restored.

The 39 Articles do not mention that the Pope is the Antichrist. Article 19  state that the Church of Rome, like those of Jerusalem, Alexandria and Antioch, has erred. Article 37 affirms that the Pope has no jurisdiction in England.

Article 35 refers to two books of homilies saying they contain a godly and wholesome doctrine and were judged to be read in churches. (At the time the Articles were finalised in 1563 many priests were not licensed to preach but only to read homilies, the reason being lack of education.) It does not imply that everything in the Homilies Books is necessarily to be regarded as an article of faith, having the same status as the Articles themselves.

The question references a document produced by the Church Association, a body formed primarily to oppose Romanising and ritualist tendencies in the Church of England and seems to have been written following the Malines Conferences between Anglican and Roman Catholic bishops in the 1920s. It identifies three references within the homilies which it says  supports the identification of the Pope with the Antichrist.  One refers to the "Romish doctrine of Justification  by human merit as the greatest arrogancy  and presumption that Antichrist could set up". The second says the Bishop of Rome ought rather to be called Antichrist than Vicar of Christ. The third that many popes have been false Christs, together with a reference to Luke 21 v8 ("many shall come in my Name").    It can be argued that the first, while stating the worst thing the Antichrist could do was what the Pope actually did do, can be argued not necessarily to imply that the Pope is the Antichrist, merely that the Antichrist could, in this particular respect, not be any worse than the Pope. The second, in saying the Pope is rather one thing than another is argued not to imply that he is necessarily either. The third by referring directly to Luke 21 seems not to be talking about the Antichrist but the many who falsely come in Christ's Name.

So it is not clear that even in the Homilies is there anything in formal Anglican doctrine that clearly states that the Pope is the Antichrist.

There have at times been special prayers, often to be said annually over many years, that gave thanks for delivery from Popery, but these are no longer observed. (The Anniversary of the Gunpowder Plot was for over 200 years a national holy day of thanksgiving in England.)  Nevertheless even there there seems no specific identification of the Pope and the Antichrist as one and the same person.

The Thirty-Nine Articles, many of which were originally drafted by Cranmer, were approved by Convocations in 1563 but not officially promulgated until 1571. This followed the Pope's excommunication of Elizabeth in 1570. Only in 1571 were they are-approved by the Convocations (of Canterbury and York), the Houses of Commons and Lords, and the Queen. It is thought they were somewhat reticent on the Pope as Elizabeth had no strong wish to antagonise him, at least before 1570.

The official Anglican doctrine then is silent as to whether the Pope is the Antichrist. It was the view of most Protestants in most countries in the early generations of the Reformation and is the official doctrine of the Church of Scotland. But not in the Church of England or other Anglican Churches.

In the seventeenth century most Anglicans held that he was and in the twenty-fist the vast majority hold that he is not; but the Church has no official position on the matter.


How to pray and meditate while saying the rosary? What to think about when praying the rosary? If one thinks about the mystery (e.g. sorrowful mystery) while praying, then one can not pay attention to the words of Hail Mary but if one concentrates on Hail Mary then one can not meditate the mystery. How to pray the rosary properly, ie. in a way that one concentrates both on the Hail Mary and on the mystery?
I would prefer examples from the lives of saints and an explicit answer to my question from saintly authority (because it is impossible that no one asked this question before). Thanks.

The Handbook of Prayers contains a number of meditations written by St. Jose Maria Escriva which put you and him in the place where Jesus and Mary are in that particular mystery.  It is a lot like the Stations of the Cross in that regard, where in the short meditation, to be read before each decade, St. Jose Maria explains the feelings and thoughts a person might have when experiencing the things that Scripture and Tradition say happened during the events in the mysteries.
If you want to go even deeper, there is a meditation published on CatholicTradition.org which goes bead by bead which is adapted  from Ven. Mary of Agreda's work "City of God" (a work detailing visions she received).
However, neither of these have the Luminous Mysteries.

As for the Saint's who have given their input into the matter of the Rosary, there's no better work than St. Louis De Montfort's The Secret of the Rosary which you can also find on CatholicTradition.org (or at TAN books).  It's got writings from Bl. Alan De La Roche who revived what St. Dominic was handed from Our Lady herself. He also received visions and messages from The Virgin Mary on how and why to meditate on the mysteries of the Rosary:

She also taught it to Blessed Alan de la Roche and said to him in a vision: "When people say one hundred and fifty Angelic Salutations this prayer is very helpful to them and is a very pleasing tribute to me. But they will do better still and will please me even more if they say these salutations while meditating on the life, death and passion of Jesus Christ----for this meditation is the soul of this prayer."

But you're right, it is difficult to discern when you're meditating on the words and when you're meditating on the mysteries.  Because St. Louis also wrote this, concerning the Our Father:

People who say Our Lord's Prayer carefully, weighing every word and meditating upon it, may indeed call themselves blessed for they find therein everything that they need or can wish for.

Nevertheless, it would seem that mediating on the Lord Prayer inbetween the mysteries is more important and that Bl. Alan also says that you can't possibly fathom the meaning of "Hail Mary" so it's a mystery within a mystery.  The best advice I can glean from The Secret of the Rosary is that the meditation on the Hail Mary beads is mystery-related and the meditation between is on the meaning of the words of the Lord Prayer and other prayers.

Having attempted to put some of the word of St. Louis De Montfort into practice in praying the Rosary lately has greatly improved my understanding of what it means to pray the mysteries.  There are several sections in the Secret of the Rosary which break down the parts of the Hail Mary and the Our Father.  I believe the key to your question is in there.  It's not the individual words themselves, but the parts of the prayer in reference to the mystery.  The Hail Mary consists of two parts, the praise part and the petition part.  So in reference to the mysteries of the Rosary, one can praise Our Lady with the frame of reference being the backdrop of the mystery you are mediating on, then ask her intercession with that same backdrop.
In any event, here is one more resource that could come in handy, St. Louis apparently taught many ways of praying the Rosary, so you might be be able to have your cake and eat it too, just not at the same time.


Does modern protestantism have any deviations from sola fide? I have read that modern protestantism on one hand, and catholicism on the other, tended to abridge their historical differences. Are there any cases in modern protestantism where justification can come other than from faith?

Sola fide or faith alone is a key point within Reformed Protestantism.  Sola fide—the doctrine of justification by faith alone apart from works—teaches that righteous works are the result and evidence of a born-again person who has been justified by God and regenerated by the power of the Holy Spirit.  Sola fide is so important to a biblical understanding of salvation that Martin Luther described it as being “the article with and by which the church stands.”  The teaching that we are declared righteous by God (justified) on the basis of our faith alone and not by works is a key doctrine of Reformed Protestantism.
There are some modern Protestant denominations that insist works are necessary in addition to faith although you would be hard-pressed to find any overt declaration to that effect.  One clue is whether or not that denomination is “performance oriented.”  They may place great emphasis on performance-related works—attending every meeting; volunteering to help at local, regional, and national events; and devoting required minimum amounts of time to proselytizing.   Everyone must do more in the advancement of “God’s work.”  The dedication of each member is tracked and measured by the amount of time, effort, and money they give to the cause.  If an individual’s efforts begin to slip below expectations, it will be noticed, questions will be asked and privileges withheld.
To establish whether or not a Protestant denomination deviates from sola fide and proposes that justification can be achieved other than by faith alone, one would have to examine their doctrinal basis of belief with regard to their position on Calvinism and Arminianism.  It boils down to whether or not the denomination subscribes to Calvinistic soteriology or not, namely:

“that sinners do not save themselves in any sense at all, but that salvation, first and last, whole and entire, past, present and future, is of the Lord, to whom be glory for ever; amen.” (J. I. Packer, “Introductory Essay,” p. 6)
“God’s choice of certain individuals unto salvation before the foundation of the world rested solely in His own sovereign will...  God gives faith and repentance to each individual whom He selected...  Thus God’s choice of the sinner, not the sinner’s choice of Christ, is the ultimate cause of salvation.” (The Five Points of Calvinism by David N. Steele and Curtis C. Thomas, by Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing in 1963 – pages 16-17)
“All those whom God hath predestinated unto life, and those only, is he pleased in his appointed and  accepted time, effectually to call by his word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ.” (The Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 10, Section 1)

In other words, we are justified not by anything we do, but entirely by what God has done, which includes giving us faith.  Some Protestant denominations have deviated from this original position but it is very difficult to pin down any declaration as to whether they are with Luther and Calvin or whether they are in the Arminian camp.
I have first-hand experience of one fairly new (out of the late 19th century revival) denomination that insists upon good works in addition to faith being necessary to salvation, yet their official web site would lead you to believe otherwise.  And no, I’m not about to name them because Christianity Stack Exchange is not in the business of calling out individual denominations.  The only way to establish what a church really thinks about the Reformed Protestant position on sola fide is to examine how they operate and whether they are “performance orientated” or not.
Edit: The article in this link (provided by One Face) may be relevant to the question being asked: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Declaration_on_the_Doctrine_of_Justification


If Israel is the vine that prefigures Jesus, the "true" vine, isn't Israel's purpose fulfilled? The question of which vine is being contrasted when Jesus claims to be the "true vine" (John 15) received this answer that the vine contrasted with the "true" vine is Israel; taken from Egypt, planted in the promised land, grown great under God's faithfulness and yet uprooted and fruitless, cursed on account of their own faithlessness.

Psalm 80 describes Israel as a vine. Brought out of Egypt, and planted like a plant potted and travelled and transplanted in a foreign land. Grown vast, with boughs like cedars. But, latterly, burned with fire, in judgment.  Wasted, and forlorn. Fruitless. Carried off to another land, uprooted.
A similar figure is the fig tree, which Jesus cursed, which bore no figs at the proper season, that is to say the season of the coming of the Son of man. Thus, cursed.  But He, himself, is the true vine. Not a figure of that which is yet to come. Not a figure which, itself, failed even to properly, in faithfulness, represent that which it was supposed to figure.  But he, himself, is come, the true vine and the branches which are fixed in him shall be fruitful.

The answer builds upon the notion that those things which are intended to prefigure or foreshadow greater things have fulfilled their purpose once that which is foreshadowed arrives.  This is carefully expounded in Hebrews chapters 7-10, summed up for example here:

Thus it was necessary for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these rites, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf. Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own, for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment, so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him. - Hebrews 9:23-28

What are the implications of this for those who hold that God has separate plans for Israel and for the Church (dispensationalism); who hold the eschatological idea that the Church will be raptured out of the world so that God can once again turn His attention toward Israel during 7 years of tribulation followed by a literal reign, of Christ on earth, from a Jerusalem with a rebuilt temple and a re-instituted sacrificial system?

Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles.

For so hath the Lord commanded us, saying, I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth. [Acts 13:45,46 KJV.]

Paul made it very clear in Antioch (in Pisidia) that salvation is by the Gospel of Jesus Christ and that if anyone (Jew or Gentile) rejects that gospel in unbelief, if they 'put it from them' then they have deemed themselves 'unworthy of eternal life'.
So saying, he shook off the dust from his feet (Acts 13:51) when he and Barnabus were expelled from the coasts of that place by the persecution of the Jews.
Again, at Corinth, when the Jews opposed themselves and blasphemed, Paul shook his raiment, and said :

Your blood be upon your own heads ; I am clean. From henceforth I go unto the Gentiles.
[Acts 18:6]

This is hardly the behaviour of a man who expected the Jewish people to be gathered in, at some future event, as Jews, in some separate kind of in-gathering other than the repentance and faith set forth in the gospel.

What was demonstrated in Israel, in the wilderness and in the temple, was an everlasting testament, (Hebrews 13:20) and that everlasting testament was inaugurated with the blood of Jesus Christ.
Once the everlasting testament, in reality, was founded in the sufferings and death of Jesus Christ, then all that was old - passed away (2 Corinthians 5:17).
If any man be in Christ, says the apostle, he is a new creation.
The individual Jew, who believes in Jesus Christ, is become a new creation.
But if anyone, Jew or gentile, rejects this gospel, they have rejected eternal life.
The fulfilment of all that was set forth in Israel, is the redemption that is in Jesus Christ.
If the fulfilment be rejected, then the whole purpose of the setting forth is nullified.
It becomes pointless. That is to say, it is nullified and pointless in regard to the one who rejects it.

If I pay an architect to make a model of the building I want to be built, then once the building is built, I dispose of the model, for the reality stands before me and the reality was the point of the whole exercise.
I don't pay the architect the agreed fee and then attempt to live in the model.
But if the architect is agreeable then she may marry me and we can share the new building together. And we can keep the model in a cupboard, just as a fond memory of our introduction.


Old testament accuracy of God's Word As has been discussed before there are differences between the old and new testament.

What I wish to know is this: How accurate is the word of God written in the old testament? How much of it is/was culture and how much of it God?

I ask this because of a few things:

Much of it spans generations, some of which was then rewritten by others and passed on by word of mouth.
Jews are only allowed to eat foods under specific dietary restrictions. Most meats not allowed are already some of the most 'dangerous' to consume. As such while this may have been a said by God for safety, was it an actual command to only consume these things (or rather, is it a command to protect our health, or our spirit)? (interesting article on dietary restrictions)
The old Testament follows much of the history of Israel, so at what point is it truly God's word versus man's?
Did God talk to people directly, or as he does now, through an understanding of what must be done? I ask as if he did no talk directly to not only people in the bible, but those who wrote it, much of what was said could have the beliefs of those who he commanded intertwined in them, due to the free will God himself bestowed upon us.
In cases the bible follows the life of a single person, whose history we do not know how the writer obtained, even if he had God's blessing to write it.

Now, I'll admit the New Testament also has some similar problems. Jesus did not have a personal scribe who followed him around, and many books were not included in the bible, as while they followed what Jesus commanded, they were considered to polluted by the beliefs of those who wrote them. Yet I ask about the Old testament as it is much older, written over vast periods of time, and in cases the teachings can be quite different than those expressed in the new testament.

God chooses who does his biding and knows all. But as seen in much of the bible, it was written such that even a simple man could grasp the words. Depending on the writer, the examples given could vary. Similarly I could know God wishes me to do something, but ultimately how I go about doing it is left to how I feel it should.

On a side note, does old / new Testament get capitalized? Also I tried to remain somewhat objective and not to repetitive, but sorry for any failing of mine on either account.

The Christian position is this:

The Old Testament is just as much God's Word as the New Testament is.
There are differing Christian positions on how much we should consider the Old Testament to be history. The majority position would be that most of it is considered roughly historical. A substantial number would consider it all to be 100% historical, and a minority would consider it all helpful but not necessarily historically accurate.
There are many answered questions on this site and elsewhere about specific Jewish regulations, including dietary restrictions, and why they are not followed by present-day Christians. The distinction between 'cultural' and 'commanded by God' is a false one. God may have given the commend at a specific time and place for a specific reason. Your question about the purpose behind these commands should be asked separately.
Your other questions also really deserve to be asked separately.
Yes, Old Testament and New Testament are proper names denoting specific collections of books, and so should be capitalized.


Does God's knowledge increase in time? Does God today have different knowledge than yesterday?
In other words, did God not know yesterday what will happen today?

I'm mostly interested in Catholic and Protestant traditions

If God is increasing in knowledge, then God is by definition changing.  As such, technically you would be rejecting the "immutability" of God, the doctrine that says God never changes.

While proponents of Open Theism would be more than happy to reject it, these are a fairly minor subset of Christians. Indeed, for the Open Theist, God is able to form relationships with humans only if he doesn't know what is happening in that relationship. And for the Open Theist, God's whole creation is a journey of discovery of the consequences of his Creation, hence God's knowledge is increasing.

That said, most Evangelicals and technically all Catholics would reject all of this.  In a nutshell, if God is mutable, he cannot be omniscient nor can he be omnipotent. Many heresies spring from Open Theism and rejection of God's immutability.  Amongst other mainline Protestants, you'll most likely find more reject the assertions of Open Theism than those who would accept it. Historically, the immutability of God was the point - that God never changes - and to deny it would be heresy.

There is much more in this question:

What is the basis of the argument that Open Theism is heretical?

and this one:

Can God Change his mind?

If you'd like to understand the relative merits of the positions.


How did Matthew conclude that Isaiah 7:14 refers to Jesus? The verse reads: "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." Matthew quotes it in Matthew 1:23, with it's fulfillment in Jesus' birth.

But when we read the context in Isaiah 7:1-17, we find that the sign is in reference to God telling King Ahaz that the Assyrians will come against Israel, and the 7:14 sign is to indicate something about when it will happen. 7:8-9 tells us that Ephraim will be broken in 65 years; 7:15-16 tells us that something will happen while the child of 7:14 is still young.

In what way can this passage of scripture be likened to Jesus' situation so that it reasonably applies to him? Since Matthew believes Jesus is the Christ, and this passage refers to Jesus, I am asking for answers from likeminded writers as to how this passage can apply. Perhaps Matthew had a similar point of view in mind.

Here are the verses:

Isa 7:1-9

  And it came to pass in the days of Ahaz the son of Jotham,
  the son of Uzziah, king of Judah, that Rezin the king of Syria, and
  Pekah the son of Remaliah, king of Israel, went up toward Jerusalem to
  war against it, but could not prevail against it.

  And it was told the house of David, saying, Syria is confederate with
  Ephraim. And his heart was moved, and the heart of his people, as the
  trees of the wood are moved with the wind.

  Then said the LORD unto Isaiah, Go forth now to meet Ahaz, thou, and
  Shearjashub thy son, at the end of the conduit of the upper pool in
  the highway of the fuller's field;

  And say unto him, Take heed, and be quiet; fear not, neither be
  fainthearted for the two tails of these smoking firebrands, for the
  fierce anger of Rezin with Syria, and of the son of Remaliah.

  Because Syria, Ephraim, and the son of Remaliah, have taken evil
  counsel against thee, saying,

  Let us go up against Judah, and vex it, and let us make a breach
  therein for us, and set a king in the midst of it, even the son of
  Tabeal:

  Thus saith the Lord GOD, It shall not stand, neither shall it come to
  pass.

  For the head of Syria is Damascus, and the head of Damascus is Rezin;
  and within threescore and five years shall Ephraim be broken, that it
  be not a people.

  And the head of Ephraim is Samaria, and the head of Samaria is
  Remaliah's son. If ye will not believe, surely ye shall not be
  established.

Isa 7:10-17

  Moreover the LORD spake again unto Ahaz, saying,

  Ask thee a sign of the LORD thy God; ask it either in the depth, or in
  the height above.

  But Ahaz said, I will not ask, neither will I tempt the LORD.

  And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David; Is it a small thing for
  you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also?

  Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin
  shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

  Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil,
  and choose the good.

  For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the
  good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her
  kings.

  The LORD shall bring upon thee, and upon thy people, and upon thy
  father's house, days that have not come, from the day that Ephraim
  departed from Judah; even the king of Assyria.

Since all scripture is inspired by God1, no one comprehends it except by the Spirit of God2.

There are at least a couple of ways from scripture that may have enabled St. Matthew to present what he was writing as a fulfillment of the Isaiah passage.

Since he was the Gospel writer, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, God, who inspires all scripture, and
Since he was an Apostle, when the LORD opened their minds to understand the scriptures3.

Were he not an Apostle, the third way to know would have been from they to whom it had been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of God4 as was the case with the Ethiopian Eunuch to whom Philip, beginning with a passage from Isaiah, told of the good news of Jesus5.

1. cf. 2 Tim 3:16 (RSVCE).
2. cf. 1 Cor 2:11 (RSVCE).
3. cf. Luke 24:45 (RSVCE).
4. cf. Luke 8:10 (RSVCE).
5. cf. Acts 8:26-40 (RSVCE).

Please see also bruisedreed's answer. It's an excellent addendum.


What are Christian arguments against the use of anesthesia? I understand that the practice of using chloroform as an anesthesia was forbidden by Protestant Christians early in the history of its discovery. That is until Queen Victoria used chloroform during the delivery of her son.

What were the early arguments against the use anesthesia, what biblical references were used?

There was no 'forbidding' from any official Protestant denominations. What opposition there was, centred on its use in Obstetrics and came primarily from within the medical community.  According to the abstract of the article Early Opposition to Obstetric Anaesthesia1:

  Some of the arguments used to oppose the introduction of inhalation anaesthesia - especially in obstetrics - are considered. These arguments were mainly based upon a desire to retain the sensation of pain, either as a factor necessary for survival or as a diagnostic aid: moral arguments were also adduced but religious opposition is no more than a myth of historiography. The opposition to anaesthesia lasted for less than 15 years and is seen as essentially a reflection of contemporary views on the role of pain. [emphasis added]

This assertion is justified within the article itself as follows:

  Religious objections

  In
  addition
  to
  medical
  and
  moral  arguments
  it
  has  often
  been  alleged
  that
  opposition
  to
  anaesthesia
  was
  raised
  upon
  religious
  grounds.
  However, despite widespread references
  by
  20th
  century
  commentators
  to
  religious
  attacks
  upon
  anaesthesia,
  especially
  in
  obstetrics,
  evidence
  of
  any  such
  attack
  in
  contemporary
  writings
  is
  singularly sparse.

  In  December
  1847
  Professor
  James  Young
  Simpson published
  a
  pamphlet entitled
  Answer
  to
  the
  Religious
  Objections
  Advanced
  Against   the
  Employment   of  Anaesthetic
  Agents
  in
  Midwifery
  and
  Surgery33
  and
  it
  is
  this
  which
  appears
  to
  have
  caught
  the
  attention - and
  imagination - of
  subsequent
  commentators.
  In
  this
  pamphlet Simpson
  considered
  the
  assertion
  that  the
  use
  of
  obstetric
  anaesthesia
  was
  a
  breach
  of
  the
  ‘primeval curse’
  enunciated  in  Genesis
  3,
  vl6 - "in
  sorrow
  thou
  shalt bring
  forth
  children" - and
  with
  a
  clever
  use
  of
  logic
  and
  philosophy  sought
  to
  establish
  that
  the
  use
  of
  anaesthesia
  during
  childbirth  did
  not
  actually breach Holy writ.

  In
  fact,
  as  a
  recent  exhaustive  study
  of
  the
  contemporary
  medical, theological
  and
  lay
  literature  has
  revealed,
  up
  until
  that  date
  no  such
  assertions  had
  been
  publicly
  made,
  nor  is  there
  any
  evidence of
  such
  views
  being
  held
  privately
  by
  any
  more than a
  small
  handful
  of
   individuals.34
  It
  has
  also
  become
  clear
  that
  all  subsequent  comments
  about
  the  religious propriety  of
  obstetric
  anaesthesia arose
  as
  a
  result
  of
  the publication
  of
  Simpson’s
  pamphlet,
  and
  generally   referred
  directly
  to
  it.
  Indeed, Simpson
  himself
  wrote only
  7 months later
  that
  "Here,
  in
  Edinburgh,
  I
  never
  now
  meet
  with any objections
  on
  this
  point,  for
  the
  religious,
  like
  the other forms
  of opposition to
  chloroform,
  have
  ceased
  among
  us".35

  It
  may also
  be
  noted
  that
  the
  only two contemporary theologians
  of
  note
  who
  were
  consulted
  on
  the
  issue
  did  not  consider
  there
  was
  any
  ground  for
  religious  objections
  to
  anaesthesia.
  Thomas
  Chalmers
  (1780-1847),
  possibly
  the
  greatest
  of
  19th  century   Scottish  churchmen,
  regarded
  the
  issue
  as
  one
  for
  "small
  theologians"
  who,
  if
  they entertained  such  objections,  would
  thus
  be
  taking
  "an
  improper
  view
  of
  the
  subject".33
  George
  Rapall  Noyes
  (1798-1868),
  Professor
  of
  Hebrew
  and
  Oriental
  languages
  and
  Lecturer
  in
  Bibilical
  literature   and
  theology
  at
  Harvard
  Divinity  School,
  has
  been  described
  in
  the
  Dictionary
  of
  American  Biography
  as
  "one  of
  the
  ablest
  Biblical
  scholars
  of
  his
  day".
  His
  view,
  expressed in
  1848,
  was
  that
  "God
  could
  not
  have
  intended,
  by
  any  thing   in
  the
  Scriptures,
  to
  oppose
  the
  development
  of
  any
  of
  the
  laws  of
  nature;
  which
  are
  his
  own  laws.
  The
  application
  of
  the
  agents
  of
  nature,
  by
  human
  ingenuity,
  to
  the
  relief
  of
  pain,
  is
  also
  the
  use
  of
  God-given
  means
  by
  God-given powers.
  How,
  then, can
  such
  a
  course
  be
  irreconcilable with any
  intimations
  of
  the
  divine
  will
  whatever?".36

  It
  is
  almost  certain
  that
  Simpson’s pamphlet
  Answer
  to
  the Religious Objections.
  .
  .
  was
  written
  to
  forestall objections which, in
  the
  event, did
  not
  arise,
  and that
  its
  publication
  has
  subsequently
  been
  mis-interpreted
  by
  other
  commentators  as
  evidence
  for a
  non-existent
  opposition. Personal
  reservations
  about
  anaesthesia
  upon
  religious
  grounds
  were
  certainly  felt,  but  the
  lack
  of
  evidence - either
  for  theological  opposition
  to
  anaesthesia  from
  the
  institutional
  churches
  or
  of
  any
  widely
  held
  (or expressed)
  opposition
  on
  the
  part
  of
  individuals - is
  too
  significant
  to
  be
  discounted.  It
  must
  be
  concluded
  that
  there
  never
  was
  any
  formal
  ‘conflict’ between
  religion
  and
  science
  at
  this
  point,
  and that
  the
  whole
  episode
  is
  no
  more
  than an
  artifact
  of
  historiography34.

  ...

  33.
  SIMPSON
  JY.
  Answer  to
  the
  Religious  Objections
  Advanced  Against
  the
  Employment  of
  Anaesthetic
  Agents
  in
  Midwifery
  and
  Surgery.
  Edinburgh:
  Sutherland
  &
  Knox,
  1847.

  34.
  FARR
  AD.
  Medical  Developments
  and
  Religious
  Beliefs. with Special Reference
  to
  Europe
  in
  the 18th
  and
  19th
  Centuries.
  Open  University,  Ph.D.thesis,
  1977.

  35.
  SIMPSON
  JY.
  (Letter
  to
  Dr
  Protheroe  Smith
  of
  London, dated 8th July
  1848.)In:
  SmithP.
  Scriptural
  Authority
  for
  the
  Mitigation
  of  the Pains
  of
  Labour
  by
  Chloroform
  and
  Other   Anaesthetic
  Agents.
  London:
  S.
  Highley,
  1848: 43-52.

  36.
  NOYES
  GR.
  Letter to Prof.
  W.
  Channing, dated 3rd
  February
  1848.
  In:
  Channing
  W.
  A
  Treatise
  in
  Etherization
  in
  Childbirth.
  Boston:
  Ticknor,
  1848:
  145.

1. A.D. Farr, Early Opposition to Obstetric Anaesthesia [in Anaesthesia, the Journal of the Association of Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland, Volume 35, Issue 9, pages 896–907, September 1980]


What was G.K. Chesterton's proof of original sin, and what is so unique about it? Certain new theologians dispute original sin, which is the only part of Christian theology which can really be proved. - Orthodoxy, by Gilbert K. Chesterton; The Maniac Page 1

What is GKC's proof of original sin, and what is unique about it that similar logic can't be used to prove any other belief?

What was G.K. Chesterton's proof of original sin, and what is so unique about it?
For Chesterton not only is sin a fact, original sin is a fact, an observable fact one can "see in the street." It is his particular logical outlook on the matter.
Someone once asked Bill Vallicella his opinion on the following passage from G. K. Chesterton:my opinion of the following passage from G. K. Chesterton:

Modern masters of science are much impressed with the need of beginning all inquiry with a fact. The ancient masters of religion were quite equally impressed with that necessity. They began with the fact of sin -- a fact as practical as potatoes. Whether or no man could be washed in miraculous waters, there was no doubt at any rate that he wanted washing. But certain religious leaders in London, not mere materialists, have begun in our day not to deny the highly disputable water, but to deny the indisputable dirt. Certain new theologians dispute original sin, which is the only part of Christian theology which can really be proved. Some followers of the Reverend R. J. Campbell, in their almost too fastidious spirituality, admit divine sinlessness, which they cannot see even in their dreams. But they essentially deny human sin, which they can see in the street. The strongest saints and the strongest sceptics alike took positive evil as the starting-point of their argument.

What Chesterton is saying is that sin is a fact, an indisputable fact, whether or not there is any cure for it. Not only is sin a fact, original sin is a fact, an observable fact one can "see in the street." Chesterton also appears to be equating sin with positive moral evil.
Is moral evil the same as sin? If yes, then the factuality of moral evil entails the factuality of sin. But it seems to me that moral evil is not the same as sin. It is no doubt true -- analytically true as we say in the trade -- that sins are morally evil; but the converse is by no means self-evident. It is by no means self-evident that every moral evil is a sin.  Let me explain.
Moral evil is evil that comes into the world from a misuse of free will. As such,  it could exist whether or not God exists as long as there are free agents.  All that would be required for the existence of moral evil, in addition to free agents, would be moral values and/or moral laws. Sin, however,  implies God by its very concept. Sin is an offense against God. A sinful act is not just a wrongful act, but an act of disobedience, a contravention of a divine command. From the Catholic Encyclopedia article on sin:

In the Old Testament sin is set forth as an act of disobedience (Genesis 2:16-17; 3:11; Isaiah 1:2-4; Jeremiah 2:32); as an insult to God (Numbers 27:14); as something detested and punished by God (Genesis 3:14-19; Genesis 4:9-16); as injurious to the sinner (Tob., xii, 10); to be expiated by penance (Ps. 1, 19). In the New Testament it is clearly taught in St. Paul that sin is a transgression of the law (Romans 2:23; 5:12-20); a servitude from which we are liberated by grace (Romans 6:16-18); a disobedience (Hebrews 2:2) punished by God (Hebrews 10:26-31). St. John describes sin as an offence to God, a disorder of the will (John 12:43), an iniquity (1 John 3:4-10).

My first conclusion, then, is that moral evil is not the same as sin. The concept of sin includes the concept of moral evil, but not conversely. This is because sin is an offence against God. If so, then it is difficult to see how sin could be a fact, as Chesterton claims. It is more like an interpretation of certain facts. We need an example.
One man brutally assaults another to get his wallet. He beats him to death with a baseball bat while the vitim's little girl looks on in horror.  The act is evil, and let's assume that the act's being evil is a fact not only in the sense that it is the case, but also in the sense that it is evidently the case, observably the case, indisputably the case.  But is the act of assault sinful? Only if God exists. For only if God exists can there be an offence against God, which is what sin is. But that God exists is not a fact in the sense I just defined. For even if it is the case that God exists -- even if the proposition God exists is true -- it is not evidently, observably, indisputably the case that God exists. Chesterton says one can "see sin in the street."  This is just false. For surely one cannot see God in the street, or in the sky, or in nature as a whole. The theist interprets what he literally sees in terms of, within the horizon of, his belief in God, and so he interprets the evil act as a sinful act. But the sinfulness of the act of assault is not a perceptible quality of it: it cannot be 'read off' the act.
My second conclusion, therefore, is that sin is not a fact in the sense defined. This is because calling an act sinful  involves an interpretation of the act in terms of an entity, God, whose existence is not a fact in the sense defined. It is interesting to note that if sin were an observable fact, then, given that concept of sin include the concept of God,  we would be able to mount a quick argument for God from the existence of sin. That is, we could argue as follows:
There are sinful acts; If there are sinful acts, then God exists; ergo, God exists. This argument is valid in point of logical form, but is not probative because it begs the question in the first premise: anyone who classifies some acts as sinful in so doing presupposes the existence of God.
So, contrary to what Chesterton says above, sin is not a fact one can "see in the street." It is no more an observable fact than the createdness or divine designedness of the universe  are observable facts. They may be facts, but they are not observable facts. I seem to recall Kierkegaard saying something similar to what Chesterton says above.  Kierkegaard, if memory serves, says in effect that Original Sin is the one dogma that is empirically verifiable. But this is the same mistake. The most one can say is that the fact of moral evil is plausibly explained by the doctrine of Original Sin. If the doctrine is true, then we have a plausible explanation of the ubiquity and horrendous depth of moral evil; but other explanations are possible which operate without theistic assumptions.- Is Sin a Fact? A Passage from Chesterton Examined


If one's entry into the church is solemnized by baptism, then how does one leave the church? If one's entry into the church is solemnized by baptism, then how does one leave the church? What are the ways that one may leave the church?

apostasy
backsliding
heresy
blasphemy

Is there a way to leave the church with a good reputation? Committing apostasy, backsliding, heresy, and blasphemy all sound like bad things. For instance, if a person does not commit blasphemy, heresy, backsliding, and apostasy, but still leaves the church out of a personal disenchantment or disinterest of the visible church, then would that still be considered "leaving the church"?

There is no biblical precedent for formal disassociation with the church, other than excommunication.  Excommunication is a church censure for some gross act for which as Paul says, one must be "handed over to Satan," with the idea that the offender will repent and (hopefully) be reinstated.  1 Corinthians 5 goes into this. One might be excommunicated for blasphemy or active, persistent heresy, but it would be rare indeed for simple backsliding to be the cause.  In Amish circles, you might be shunned for for your behavior, but that is a different matter indeed from actual excommunication.

As a practical matter, excommunication in a body that is now a voluntary association is now thus a very rare thing.  It takes a special individual to voluntarily remain a part of a body that  has formally expelled him.  As such, while it is still "on the books" so to speak, it's rarely used.

Furthermore, since excommunication comes from the church rather than the individual, there is still the question of how one would leave voluntarily.  Indeed, many Christians - especially those who believe in eternal security aka 'perseverance of the saints' would say that once saved, you're always saved, and as such there is no ontological means by which one could renounce their salvation.

From 1983 until 2009, the Catholic church recognized defection from the same but has since rescinded it.

To fill this "gap", some atheists have created 'unbaptism certificates' and others have devised makeshift ceremonies, but these are mostly jokes. Indeed, probably the most famous - Count Me Out an Irish group -  formally closed its doors on August 8, 2013, because they acknowledged the church has no official means of voluntary departure. Madelyn Murray O'Hair in particular liked to issue 'debaptismal certificates'.

In practice, what most people do is simply stop attending church.  There have been no laws forcing compulsory attendance in a church in the US since the Bill of Rights, and I am unaware of any Christian country that still has any such laws on the books. (Muslims, different story, but no legally enforced Christian compulsion to attend service exists).

As far as one's reputation goes, that's strictly subjective.  Most Christians will "respect" anyone's decision to leave, but there's no way anyone would be happy about it.  If you're lucky, Michael W. Smith might write a sad song about you, but that's probably as far as it is going to go.


When Friday asks "Why God no kill the devil?" is Robinson Crusoe's response in line with Anglican theology? In Daniel Defoe's novel Robinson Crusoe, the titular character rescues a man from captivity and, since they initially can't communicate, decides to call him "Friday" because that was the day of the week he rescued him.
He eventually teaches Friday about Christianity and finds that although he readily accepts Crusoe's explanations of God and Jesus, he finds the devil to be more difficult to accept. He also asks a question that Crusoe finds very surprising (emphasis mine):

After this I had been telling him how the devil was God’s enemy in the hearts of men, and used all his malice and skill to defeat the good designs of Providence, and to ruin the kingdom of Christ in the world, and the like.  “Well,” says Friday, “but you say God is so strong, so great; is He not much strong, much might as the devil?”  “Yes, yes,” says I, “Friday; God is stronger than the devil—God is above the devil, and therefore we pray to God to tread him down under our feet, and enable us to resist his temptations and quench his fiery darts.”  “But,” says he again, “if God much stronger, much might as the wicked devil, why God no kill the devil, so make him no more do wicked?”  I was strangely surprised at this question

After pretending at first not to hear him in order to buy time, and reflecting on the fact that he isn't really qualified to answer such deep religious questions, Crusoe comes to this explanation (emphasis mine):

By this time I had recovered myself a little, and I said, “God will at last punish him severely; he is reserved for the judgment, and is to be cast into the bottomless pit, to dwell with everlasting fire.”  This did not satisfy Friday; but he returns upon me, repeating my words, “‘Reserve at last!’ me no understand—but why not kill the devil now; not kill great ago?”  “You may as well ask me,” said I, “why God does not kill you or me, when we do wicked things here that offend Him—we are preserved to repent and be pardoned.”  He mused some time on this.  “Well, well,” says he, mighty affectionately, “that well—so you, I, devil, all wicked, all preserve, repent, God pardon all.”  Here I was run down again by him to the last degree

His final frustration seems to be over the fact that the devil isn't expected to repent and be pardoned, unlike they are, and decides to change the subject.
Assuming that Robinson Crusoe is Anglican*, is his response in line with Anglican theology (either at the novel's publication in 1719 or today)?

* Elsewhere in the novel, Crusoe mentions that Friday became a Protestant. Since Crusoe is from England, I'm going to assume that both Crusoe and Friday are more specifically Anglicans. Note that author Daniel Defoe was born to Presbyterian dissenters and he himself attended a Unitarian church, but given that there was persecution of non-Anglicans at the time that the fictional Crusoe doesn't face in this novel or the sequels when he returns to England, I'm just going to simplify this and assume he is Anglican.

Your presumption that Defoe's character Robinson Crusoe was an Anglican appears to be a matter of highly speculative opinion. The Wikipedia page detailing DeFoe's biography states that his parents were Presbyterian dissenters, and that his education was in Presbyterian and Unitarian institutions, and that he was associated with Unitarianism. Under these circumstances, it would seem that there is little theological basis that is specifically Anglican in Robinson Crusoe. Further, as I recall from past reading,  for several hudred years between th Accession of Elizabeth I following the death of Queen Mary, and the resulting restoration of the English Reformation,  the Church of England styled itself as the Catholic Church, not the Anglican church. Under English law it was illegal for an adherent of the Roman church to use the term "catholic". So when Defoe writing "Robinson Crusoe" uses the term "protestant", it is juxtaposed against the situation that what we now know as the Church of England was legally the "Catholic" church, and in that context, "protestant" would likely have meant non-conforming disdenters.

Having written that, it should be noted that during DeFoe's lifetime, the Church of England had a much more Calvinist component to it's theology than the catholic influences that would enter with the Oxford Movement about a century after DeFoe's death.


What is a good reference to explain the different protestant sects and denominations? I would like to gain clarity on the definitions of evangelical, Presbyterian,  Baptist, Methodist, Pentecostal, Calvinist, Jesuit, Lutheran, Quaker, puritan, and others.  It should explain the main differences and how they evolved.  Free but accurate online resources only please.

For ease of access and breadth of scope, it would be hard to go past Wikipedia. Perhaps you should start with either their article on Protestantism or the one on Christian denominations and then start chasing links from there.


Why have conservative Presbyterians objected to chapters on the Holy Spirit and the Gospel in the Westminster Confession? In the United States, the mainline Presbyterian denomination (the PCUSA), along with several other Presbyterian bodies, include two chapters that were first added to the Westminster Confession in 1903.   The PCUSA calls these chapters "Of the Holy Spirit" and "Of the Gospel," while the latter was known as "Of the Gospel of the Love of God and Missions" by the UPCUSA.  They were originally added as chapters 34 and 35 of the Confession, respectively, though now some denominations (like the PCUSA) have renumbered them.

According to this history of changes to the confession, these additions were rejected by the conservative Orthodox Presbyterian Church when it was founded in the 1930s.  Here, I'd like to better understand what conservatives specifically objected to.  Historically, what issues with the text of these chapters have conservative opponents expressed?

I'll quote from two notable opponents of these two chapters.  The first is John Murray; his comments on the Confession were published in 1936 in the newsletter edited by J. Gresham Machen, the founder of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. The second is the 2014 report of the study committee of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church, which recommended that the two chapters be removed from the denomination's version of the Confession.

These conservative opponents argue in two main ways regarding these chapters:

They are awkward, ambiguous additions to an otherwise carefully organized confessional statement
They implicitly or explicitly reject elements of traditional Reformed theology

Awkward and ambiguous

First, conservatives regularly point to the logical structure of the original Westminster Confession.  The ARP argues that the two new chapters "disrupt the chapter-by-chapter logic of the WCF’s system of Reformed doctrine," and with regards to chapter 34 in particular write:

  The brilliance of the WCF is found in its pervasive treatment of the person and work of the Holy Spirit throughout many chapters.  The added chapter Of the Holy Spirit in its attempt to soften the Calvinism of the WCF provides, at best, superfluous material.  Its contents appear to be ambiguous, if not subtly subversive statements to the more biblical statements on sovereignty of God designed within the whole of the WCF.

Similarly, John Murray calls chapter 34 "inadequate," "superfluous to the extent of being distinctly misleading," and "destitute of that strength that characterizes the Confession."

Rejections of Reformed theology

Regarding chapter 34, the ARP takes issue with several statements that seem to emphasize human agency over divine sovereignty in the work of salvation. Murray devotes relatively little space to that chapter, and like the ARP, is more critical of chapter 35, particularly its failure to uphold a distinction between the efficacious, saving love of God directed toward the elect, and the more general, non-saving love of God directed toward all.  This "studied omission," he says, is "fatal," particularly because the extent of God's love is always "expressly universalized" in the chapter.  The ARP writes about the same chapter:

  Its emphasis on a universal love of God is representative of an Amyraldian view of the decree of God and extent of the atonement that restricts the sovereignty of God.

Specifically, it argues that the chapter's language, "by His Spirit accompanying the word pleads with men to accept His gracious invitation," fails to account for the distinction between the elect and non-elect described in WCF 10.4.  That chapter specifies that the non-elect receive only "some common operations of the Spirit," not an effectual call.

John Murray concludes:

  In brief, the objection to this chapter is that it is not Reformed, indeed, that there is nothing distinctly Reformed in it. [...] How possibly can a formulation so destitute of Reformed truth on so vital a subject be defended in Reformed Confession? There is no defense.

Summary

Conservative opponents to chapters 34 and 35 argue that these chapters are detrimental to the structure of the Confession; ambiguous and confusing in their content; and, especially with respect to chapter 35, at least implicitly opposed to traditional Reformed theology.  As a result these chapters were rejected by the OPC and PCA when the denominations were founded, and removed by the ARP in 2014.

References:

John Murray, "Shall We Include the Revision of 1903 in Our Creed?" The Presbyterian Guardian, Volume 2, Number 2 (1936-09-26).
Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church, "Report of the Special Committee to Review Westminster Confession of Faith," approved by the denomination at its 2014 Synod. Also preserved on WebCite.

This report includes additional quotes from other opponents, like B. B. Warfield and J. Gresham Machen, and a variety of references to other resources.

Westminster Confession of Faith in the Book of Confessions of the PCUSA


How did Peter recognize Elijah and Moses? Matthew 17:3 Just then there appeared before them Moses and Elijah,
  talking with Jesus.

  4 Peter said to Jesus, “Lord, it is good for us to be here. If you
  wish, I will put up three shelters—one for you, one for Moses and one
  for Elijah.”

I am wondering how Peter recognized that the men were Elijah and Moses?

Photographs and portraits didn't exist back in those days. If they did, Peter being a fisherman wouldn't have been to school to see them.

And I doubt Moses and Elijah began their conversation by saying - "Hello Jesus, I am Elijah and this is my buddy Moses."

So how would Peter know it was Elijah standing there?

Short Answer: We don't know.

Some possibilities:

There was some sort of heavenly announcement, similar to the voice of the Father at Jesus' baptism (reference)
Jesus explained it to them, as He was accustomed to having to do for them.  (Keep in mind that there is a lot of stuff that wasn't recorded in Scripture!) (reference)
They recognized it by divine illumination, similar to Peter's recognition of who Jesus really was (reference)
Prior to Peter referencing them by name, it says (in verse 3) that Jesus was talking with them.  Perhaps Jesus called them by name and Peter overheard.

My money is on the last one, since that's the only one that draws clues from the passage itself, but as I said, we really don't know for sure.


If faith is a gift from God, and atheists (might) go to hell, is God ultimately willing to send atheists to hell? (Catholic perspective) Premise 1: Faith is a gift from God. So says St. Thomas Aquinas here. Also, according to the Dogmatic Constitution of the Catholic Church De Fide Catholica Et De Ecclesia Christi:

... the Catholic Church teaches that this faith, which is the beginning of man's salvation, is a supernatural virtue, whereby, inspired and assisted by the grace of God ...
Wherefore, faith itself, even when it does not work by charity, is in itself a gift of God...

Premise 2: Atheists (who have heard of Jesus) (might) go to hell. Related questions here and here.
Conclusion: Atheists (who by definition have no faith in Jesus and in its Body, the Church) might go to hell because they have not been inspired and assisted by the grace of God. i.e. they have not received faith.

Thus, if faith is a gift from God (i.e. it cannot be acquired through natural means but only through supernatural intervention), according to Catholic belief, are Atheists (and Agnostics and any non-Christian) not to be blamed for their lack of faith? This is, if it is not their fault, why should they, in principle, go to Hell?

By choosing to turn one's back on God, one condemns oneself ...

  CCC 1033 To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God's merciful love means remaining separated from him forever by our own free choice. This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called "hell."

An atheist does not repent (repentance ~ to turn toward God, or to return to God), nor accept God's love (how can one accept love from a person whom you insist does not exist?) and therefore remains separated from God forever by their own free choice.  Unlike the Calvinists, the Catholic Church believes in free will.  The willfulness figures into the self-condemnation, and so the asserted blamelessness in the question has no standing in Catholic belief.

Catholics do not subscribe to "once saved always saved." Even with the gift of faith, from God, and the remission of all sins at baptism the Catholic Church teaches that we are all sinners and that we can screw it up. (CCC 1704 - 17091).  The sacrament of penance and reconciliation has a purpose: to restore the state of being in communion with God.  The question has an embedded assumption of a lack of agency on the part of the atheist.  That is a Determinist assumption that is not valid for Catholic belief which embodies free will.

While there is more to this regarding particular judgment, which I covered here, in a nutshell God doesn't condemn the atheist: the atheist condemns himself, or herself.  To use a bit of imagery: the hand of God is there, extended, in the eternal offer of friendship and communion.

An atheist is not ignorant of God. (An agnostic could make that claim).  An atheist rejects God.  In theological terms, that is a willful turning away when one considers Catholic teaching.  The offer remains there, even with the face and heart turned away from God.

This is God's will (as stated in the CCC):

  CCC (Prologue) 2: God our Saviour desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. (ref 1 Tim 2:3-4.)

The grace that God offers aligns with the point in your question.  I want you to come to me is God's offer.  The atheist (or anyone for that matter) may accept or not accept that offer. The acceptance is an exercise of free will in Catholic belief.

From the opening statement of belief in the CCC:

  I. The life of man - to know and love God
  CCC 1 God, infinitely perfect and blessed in himself, in a plan of
  sheer goodness freely created man to make him share in his own blessed
  life. For this reason, at every time and in every place, God draws
  close to man. He calls man to seek him, to know him, to love him with
  all his strength.  He calls together all men, scattered and divided by
  sin, into the unity of his family, the Church. To accomplish this,
  when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son as Redeemer and
  Saviour. In his Son and through him, he invites men to become, in the
  Holy Spirit, his adopted children and thus heirs of his blessed life.

The atheist rejects this call, and this gift, freely.

  CCC 1022 Each man receives his eternal retribution in his immortal soul at the very moment of his death, in a particular judgment that refers his life to Christ: either entrance into the blessedness of heaven-through a purification or immediately, -- or immediate and everlasting damnation.

This was discussed in some detail in this answer here.

What is Grace?

Grace is an undeserved gift from God.

  CCC 1996
  Our justification comes from the grace of God. 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. [cf. John 1:12-18; 17:3; Romans 8:14-17; 2 Peter 1:3-4.]

You asked about faith as being gifted, assisted, even inspired by Grace.  If one rejects the gift, it is by an action of the will: as above, we are back to free will.

1 Some teaching on Free Will ...

  CCC 1704 The human person participates in the light and power of the
  divine Spirit. By his reason, he is capable of understanding the order
  of things established by the Creator. By free will, he is capable of
  directing himself toward his true good. He finds his perfection "in
  seeking and loving what is true and good."7

  1705 By virtue of his soul and his spiritual powers of intellect and
  will, man is endowed with freedom, an "outstanding manifestation of
  the divine image."8

  1706 By his reason, man recognizes the voice of God which urges him
  "to do what is good and avoid what is evil."9 Everyone is obliged to
  follow this law, which makes itself heard in conscience and is
  fulfilled in the love of God and of neighbor. Living a moral life
  bears witness to the dignity of the person.

  1707 "Man, enticed by the Evil One, abused his freedom at the very
  beginning of history."10 He succumbed to temptation and did what was
  evil. He still desires the good, but his nature bears the wound of
  original sin. He is now inclined to evil and subject to error:    Man
  is divided in himself. As a result, the whole life of men, both
  individual and social, shows itself to be a struggle, and a dramatic
  one, between good and evil, between light and darkness.11

References:  (Gaudium et spes)
7 GS 15 #2; 8 GS 17; 9, GS 16; 10 GS 13 #1; 11 GS 13 #2.