What is an overview of Protestants' answers to why I still sin when I have the Spirit of God in me? If we, as Christians and believers, are indwelt with the perfect and true Holy Spirit, the same spirit of Jesus, which is also the fullness of God, why do we still sin?

  Galatians 4:4-7 ESV But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons. And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!” So you are no longer a slave, but a son, and if a son, then an heir through God.

This passage led me to a debate within myself that went like this:

  Q: If we have the Spirit of Jesus in us, why do we sin?
  A: We sin because we're in the flesh. (Romans 7)
  Q: Then how come Jesus didn't sin while being in the flesh?
  A: Because Jesus was God. Because Jesus had perfect faith. Because he was perfectly obedient. (Philippians 2)
  Q: But if we're given the same Spirit that Jesus had upon believing, the same Spirit as God, why can't we do any of those things? Why do we still sin?
  A: ???

A good answer will show how biblical sources would be utilized by the various Protestant denominations to address the questions listed above.

If I have the Spirit of Jesus in me, why do I still sin?

Jesus did not sin because he had a different father than the rest of us. His father was God.

  Luke 1:35  And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost
  shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow
  thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall
  be called the Son of God.

Our physical connection to Adam means that sin reigns in our flesh.

  1 Corinthians 15:21-22  For since by man came death, by man came also
  the resurrection of the dead.   For as in Adam all die, even so in
  Christ shall all be made alive.

Being freed from the compelling power of sin means that we have the possibility of living by the Spirit free from the influence of sin.

  Romans 6:11-14  Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed
  unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.   Let not
  sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the
  lusts thereof.  Neither yield ye your members as instruments of
  unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that
  are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of
  righteousness unto God.   For sin shall not have dominion over you:
  for ye are not under the law, but under grace.

Any of us who are honest can relate to the frustration of Paul as he reflects of the difficulty of trying to keep the law by the power of his flesh in Romans chapter seven.

  Romans 7:15  For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that
  do I not; but what I hate, that do I.

In chapter eight Paul shifts dramatically talking about the victory the Christian who walks by the power of the Spirit has.

  Romans 8:4-5  That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in
  us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.   For they
  that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they
  that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.

There are many people who intensely deny that any Christian can demonstrate carnality (the flesh). They would say that any demonstration of sin indicates that a person is not a Christian. When pressed on this declaration, they often rephrase it as any demonstration of "gross sin".

There are Christians who fail to mature and become as fruitful as they could or as the Lord would have them.

  1 Corinthians 3:1-3  And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto
  spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ.   I have
  fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to
  bear it, neither yet now are ye able.   For ye are yet carnal: for
  whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye
  not carnal, and walk as men?

There are Christians who are overtaken by sin.

  Galatians 6:1-2  Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which
  are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness;
  considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted.   Bear ye one
  another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.

There are Christians following the course of the world.

  James 4:4  Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the
  friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will
  be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.

Satan has set the course of this world.

  Ephesians 2:2  Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course
  of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the
  spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:

He has designed the world to resonate with the flesh.

  1 John 2:16  For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and
  the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but
  is of the world.

Jesus warned even his disciples about leaven (teachings) that were dangerous.

  Matthew 16:11  How is it that ye do not understand that I spake it not
  to you concerning bread, that ye should beware of the leaven of the
  Pharisees and of the Sadducees?

  Mark 8:15  And he charged them, saying, Take heed, beware of the
  leaven of the Pharisees, and of the leaven of Herod.

The three groups cited each had a worldly characteristic. The Pharisees believed that they had achieved their own righteousness. The Sadducees believed they had inherited their righteousness. The Herodians were not so much interested in righteousness but in political and economic power and influence. These are all influences that can enter the life of a Christian and spread like leaven until the Christian is spiritually immobilized and made ineffective.

It is difficult to reach a carnal Christian. He is both limited in his capacity to understand and is often disinterested in the things of the Lord.

The original question might be more accurately stated as "If I now have the Spirit of Jesus in me, why do I still sin as much as I do?"

Because our physical bodies still have their connection to Adam, we will have the influence of the flesh. This influence can be magnified by any of the following;

Our entanglement with the world.
Our habits and values developed from childhood.
The teachings of our church.
The imprint of the world we receive from TV, work, and school.
The influence of those with whom we associate.
Our comforts and conveniences.
Our divided loyalties (Christ versus 401K, health care, savings account, good job, etc.)

Like the rich young ruler there is often much that we cannot let go of.

  Luke 18:24-27  And when Jesus saw that he was very sorrowful, he said,
  How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!
  For it is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye, than for a
  rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.   And they that heard it
  said, Who then can be saved?   And he said, The things which are
  impossible with men are possible with God.

There is a point where the sinful influence of the flesh will no longer be felt.

  1 Corinthians 15:54  So when this corruptible shall have put on
  incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then
  shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is
  swallowed up in victory.


According to Catholicism, is the existence of God self-evident? According to Catholicism, is the existence of God self-evident? What do Catholic theologians say regarding God’s existence being self-evident?

You're not going to find one answer on this.  To some, the existence of God is self-evident, to others it's not.  Then you get into "what does self-evident mean".

Some of those who say God is self-evident claim so because the complexity of creation screams "an intelligent designer made me". But that's not self-evident, it's evidence from creation.

Others claim Romans 1 and 2 - the existence of God is clearly known because He wrote it on our hearts, but that's not self-evident, either.  The may point to 2 Peter chapter 3 as support that we know God, but are "willingly ignorant" because we'd rather walk after our own lusts, but that's not "self-evidence" either.

St. Thomas Aquinas addressed the question is his Summa Teologica, however, and gives a good answer (that also meets your requested criteria for a quote from a reputed theologian).  emphasis mine in the passage below

He does an excellent job of defining what self-evidence is, and therefore showing how the existence of God meets (or doesn't meet) those definitions.

  First Article

  Whether the Existence of God Is Self-Evident?

  We proceed thus to the First Article:—Objection 1. It seems that the
  existence of God is self-evident. Now those things are said to be
  self-evident to us the knowledge of which is naturally implanted in
  us, as we can see in regard to first principles. But as Damascene says
  (De Fid. Orth. i. 1, 3), the knowledge of God is naturally implanted
  in all. Therefore the existence of God is self-evident.

  Obj. 2. Further, those things are said to be self-evident which are
  known as soon as the terms are known, which the Philosopher (1 Poster.
  iii) says is true of the first principles of demonstration. Thus, when
  the nature of a whole and of a part is known, it is at once recognized
  that every whole is greater than its part. But as soon as the
  signification of the word "God" is understood, it is at once seen that
  God exists. For by this word is signified that thing than which
  nothing greater can be conceived. But that which exists actually and
  mentally is greater than that which exists only mentally. Therefore,
  since as soon as the word "God" is understood it exists mentally, it
  also follows that it exists actually. Therefore the proposition "God
  exists" is self-evident.
  **
  Obj. 3. Further, the existence of truth is self-evident. For whoever
  denies the existence of truth grants that truth does not exist: and,
  if truth does not exist, then the proposition "Truth does not exist"
  is true: and if there is anything true, there must be truth. But God
  is truth itself: I am the way, the truth, and the life (John xiv. 6).
  **Therefore "God exists" is self-evident.

  On the contrary, No one can mentally admit the opposite of what is
  self-evident; as the Philosopher (Metaph. iv., lect. vi) states
  concerning the first principles of demonstration. But the opposite of
  the proposition "God is" can be mentally admitted: The fool said in
  his heart, There is no God (Ps. lii. 1). Therefore, that God exists is
  not self-evident.

  I answer that, A thing can be self-evident in either of two ways; on
  the one hand, self-evident in itself, though not to us; on the other,
  self-evident in itself, and to us. A proposition is self-evident
  because the predicate is included in the essence of the subject, as
  "Man is an animal," for animal is contained in the essence of man. If,
  therefore the essence of the predicate and subject be known to all,
  the proposition will be self-evident to all; as is clear with regard
  to the first principles of demonstration, the terms of which are
  common things that no one is ignorant of, such as being and non-being,
  whole and part, and such like. If, however, there are some to whom the
  essence of the predicate and subject is unknown, the proposition will
  be self-evident in itself, but not to those who do not know the
  meaning of the predicate and subject of the proposition. Therefore, it
  happens, as Boethius says (Hebdom., the title of which is: "Whether
  all that is, is good"), "that there are some mental concepts
  self-evident only to the learned, as that incorporeal substances are
  not in space." Therefore I say that this proposition, "God exists," of
  itself is self-evident, for the predicate is the same as the subject;
  because God is His own existence as will be hereafter shown (Q. 3, A.
  4). Now because we do not know the essence of God, the proposition is
  not self-evident to us; but needs to be, demonstrated by things that
  are more known to us, though less known in their nature—namely, by
  effects.

  Reply Obj. 1. To know that God exists in a general and confused way is
  implanted in us by nature, inasmuch as God is man's beatitude. For man
  naturally desires happiness and what is naturally desired by man must
  be naturally known to him. This, however, is not to know absolutely
  that God exists; just as to know that someone is approaching is not
  the same as to know that Peter is approaching, even though it is Peter
  who is approaching; for many there are who imagine that man's perfect
  good which is happiness, consists in riches, and others in pleasures,
  and others in something else.

  Reply Obj. 2. Perhaps not everyone who hears this word "God"
  understands it to signify something than which nothing greater can be
  thought, seeing that some have believed God to be a body. Yet, granted
  that everyone understands that by this word "God" is signified
  something than which nothing greater can be thought, nevertheless, it
  does not therefore follow that he understands that what the word
  signifies exists actually, but only that it exists mentally. Nor can
  it be argued that it actually exists, unless it be admitted that there
  actually exists something than which nothing greater can be thought;
  and this precisely is not admitted by those who hold that God does not
  exist.

  Reply Obj. 3. The existence of truth in general is self-evident but
  the existence of a Primal Truth is not self-evident to us.


What is renewing of the Holy Ghost? In Paul's epistle to Titus in the third Chapter verses 4 through 7, He is relaying to Titus the change the grace of God makes through Salvation. In verse 5 he states that "he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;"
Titus 3:4 through 7

4  But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared,
5  Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
6  Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;
7  That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

To what is Paul referring when he says the renewing of the Holy Ghost?

The "renewing of the Holy Ghost" is believed to pertain to the work that the Holy Spirit does within us; the process known as sanctification.  This is the process of God's spirit to working in us  to help us to become more like Him, or in other words, cleansing us from our sin nature.  it is the replacement of our own sinful nature with God's Holy nature, enabled and achieved by the work of the Holy Spirit within us.

From Thomas Watson's article on Sanctification:

  First, such as are sanctified, can remember a time when they were
  unsanctified. "Once we too were foolish and disobedient. We were
  misled by others and became slaves to many wicked desires and evil
  pleasures. Our lives were full of evil and envy. We hated others, and
  they hated us. But then God our Savior showed us his kindness and
  love. He saved us, not because of the good things we did, but because
  of his mercy. He washed away our sins and gave us a new life through
  the Holy Spirit." Titus 3:3-5.

Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary on these verses speaks of the outward behavior of the christian, and how all our good deeds are fine and dandy, but without the renewing of the spirit making changes to our own nature, it's all worthless:

  Most pretend they would have heaven at last, yet they care not for
  holiness now; they would have the end without the beginning. Here is
  the outward sign and seal thereof in baptism, called therefore the
  washing of regeneration. The work is inward and spiritual; this is
  outwardly signified and sealed in this ordinance. Slight not this
  outward sign and seal; yet rest not in the outward washing, but look
  to the answer of a good conscience, without which the outward washing
  will avail nothing. The worker therein is the Spirit of God; it is the
  renewing of the Holy Ghost. Through him we mortify sin, perform duty,
  walk in God's ways; all the working of the Divine life in us, and the
  fruits of righteousness without, are through this blessed and holy
  Spirit.

This verse is often understood by commentators of the verse to be referring to Baptism. The "washing of regeneration"  is believed to refer to the physical rite of Baptism, and the "renewing of the Holy Ghost" refers to the work of the Spirit within us to regenerate and perfect us.  In other worlds Baptism is the "outward sign" and the renewing of the Spirit is the internal work of purification of the soul.

The Wesley's notes commentary says this:

  3:5 Not by works - In this important passage the apostle presents us
  with a delightful view of our redemption. Herein we have, The cause of
  it; not our works or righteousness, but the kindness and love of God
  our Saviour. The effects; which are, Justification; being justified,
  pardoned and accepted through the alone merits of Christ, not from any
  desert in us, but according to his own mercy, by his grace, his free,
  unmerited goodness. Sanctification, expressed by the laver of
  regeneration, (that is, baptism, the thing signified, as well as the
  outward sign,) and the renewal of the Holy Ghost; which purifies the
  soul, as water cleanses the body, and renews it in the whole image of
  God. The consummation of all; - that we might become heirs of eternal
  life, and live now in the joyful hope of it.


How do soul sleep adherents explain 1 Peter 3:18-20? 1 Peter 3:18-20: Because even Messiah once suffered for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to Elohim, having been put to death indeed in flesh but made alive in the Spirit, 19 in which also He went and proclaimed unto the spirits in prison, 20 who were disobedient at one time when the patience of Elohim waited in the days of Noaḥ, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight beings, were saved through water,

This seems to disprove consciousness ceases at death.

Most likely the reason this question is not getting much traction is because no one who believes in the unconscious state of the dead prior to Jesus' second coming actually use the term "soul sleep". We believe the spirit returns to God upon death (Ecclesiastes 12:7), and the person is only figuratively sleeping in the grave without consciousness. Moving on...

Often this passage gets quoted to prove that souls are conscious after death, however this interpretation  is a contradiction of another popular parable often quoted for the same purpose, the Rich man and Lazarus. If the common interpretation that Jesus went and preached to the antediluvian souls in hell after death is true, then the whole point of the parable of the Rich man and Lazarus becomes mute.

"If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead." Luke 16:31

Therefore, obviously this cannot be the interpretation. Did they not have Noah preaching to them for who knows how many years? Was not even the Garden of Eden still on earth back then as a testimony against them?
Rather this verse has a spiritual meaning in reference to spirits in prisons. Consider what Jesus states here:

"The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me; because the Lord hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound;" (Isaiah 61:1)

Now to quote some preachers. Uriah Smith, a founding father of the Seventh Day Adventist church has an article on this very verse, writes "The whole idea is forced, unnatural, and absurd. The preaching that was given to them was through Noah, who, by the power of the Holy Ghost (1 Peter 1:12), delivered to them the message of warning. And on the meaning of spirits in prison, "But in what sense were they in prison? - In the same sense in which persons in error and darkness are said to be in prison. Isaiah 42:7: “To open the blind eyes, to bring out the prisoners from the prison, and them that sit in darkness out of the prison-house.”"
Doug Bachelor, a popular Adventist preacher today, addresses it in a video here.
Finally, consider the straight forward reading of 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17 and 1 Corinthians 15:51-52. It is simple, and makes no conflated points of conscious souls descending from heaven to retrieve their physical bodies.

"For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord."(1 These 4:16-17)
"Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed." (1 Cor 15:51-52)


When omniscient God had a plan for Jesus, why did God think of killing everyone? There seems to be a contradiction between these two verses.

  So the LORD said, "I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created--and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground--for I regret that I have made them."
  Genesis 6:7

  “He paid for you with the precious lifeblood of Christ, the sinless, spotless Lamb of God. God chose Him for this purpose long before the world began, but now in these final days, He was sent to the earth for all to see. And He did this for you.”
  1 Peter 1:19-20

In Genesis, God judges mankind and destroys them, seemingly thinking that will fix them. In 1 Peter we're told that salvation through Jesus was the plan since the very beginning. So the motivation for the flood doesn't make sense in this light.

How is this apparent contradiction typically explained?

There really isn't any contradiction between the two Scriptures, their divergence is simply a small look at God.

God is shown in the Old Testament as the God of second chances, and in the New Testament as the God of grace.

In the Old Testament what we see is God continuously  allowing mankind the opportunity to repent and return to the God of creation; and in the New Testament what we find is God in his final frustration reducing the penalty for sin to acceptance of substitutionary sacrifice.

In the books of Exodus and Leviticus and to a certain extent the book of Deuteronomy; we find God giving the Nation of Israel an opportunity for redemption through substitutionary sacrifice. Even though God did extend that redemption, to the Nation of Israel we see that the physical adherence to that system was more than weak humanity would sustain.

All that we need to know about how history and God's plan is covered in Chapter 20 of the Gospel of Luke:

  Luke 20:9 through 16 KJV  Then began he to speak to the people this parable; A certain man planted a vineyard, and let it forth to husbandmen, and went into a far country for a long time. 10  And at the season he sent a servant to the husbandmen, that they should give him of the fruit of the vineyard: but the husbandmen beat him, and sent him away empty. 11  And again he sent another servant: and they beat him also, and entreated him shamefully, and sent him away empty. 12  And again he sent a third: and they wounded him also, and cast him out. 13  Then said the lord of the vineyard, What shall I do? I will send my beloved son: it may be they will reverence him when they see him. 14  But when the husbandmen saw him, they reasoned among themselves, saying, This is the heir: come, let us kill him, that the inheritance may be ours. 15  So they cast him out of the vineyard, and killed him. What therefore shall the lord of the vineyard do unto them? 16  He shall come and destroy these husbandmen, and shall give the vineyard to others. And when they heard it, they said, God forbid.

Let's take a look at what Jesus explained in relation to your question;

  Genesis 6:7 NKJV  And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

This Scripture is revisited in:

  Luke 20:13  Then said the lord of the vineyard, What shall I do? I will send my beloved son: it may be they will reverence him when they see him. 14  But when the husbandmen saw him, they reasoned among themselves, saying, This is the heir: come, let us kill him, that the inheritance may be ours. 15  So they cast him out of the vineyard, and killed him. What therefore shall the lord of the vineyard do unto them? 16  He shall come and destroy these husbandmen, and shall give the vineyard to others. And when they heard it, they said, God forbid.

And if we consider:

  Genesis 6:8 KJV  But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.

What we find is that that is exactly what God did He destroyed the evil mankind which he had created and gave the World to another in the person of Noah and his posterity.

  1st Peter 1:19 and 20 KJV  But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: 20  Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

Since in your question you have acknowledged God's omniscience I will forego that explanation, even though it is cogent to the rest of this explanation.

God knew exactly how each person would react throughout time when He began creating the Universe, and in his great love salvaged a small part of his creation through the cross.

  Revelation 21:1 and 2 KJV  And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. 2  And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

And the final part of God's plan appears in:

  Revelation 21:3 KJV  And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.

The implication of the comparison above is that:

  John 3:14 through 17 KJV  And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: 15  That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. 16  For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 17  For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

This is the consensus of the serious Bible students with which I have had the pleasure of associating over the years.

Hope this helps.


Who were the "wise men from the east" (Magi) spoken of in Matthew 2? I have heard a few ideas about who the wise men from the east were who came to Jesus at his birth (or shortly thereafter) and offered gifts.  What are the best theories on this and what evidence is there that supports them?

Also, how many wise men were there?

In Persia is the city called Saveh, from which the three Magi set out when they came to worship Jesus Christ. Here, too, they lie buried in three sepulchres of great size and beauty. Above each sepulchre is a square building with a domed roof of very fine workmanship. The one is just beside the other. Their bodies are still whole, and they have hair and beards. One was named Beltasar, the second Gaspar, and the third Melchior. Messer Marco asked several of the inhabitants who these Magi were; but no one could tell him anything except that they were three kings who were buried there in days gone by. ... Let me tell you finally that one of the three Magi was from Saveh, one from Hawah, and the third from Kashan.

Marco Polo The Travels: The Travels of Marco Polo, Translated and with an Introduction By Ronald Latham, Penguin Books Ltd., Harmondsworth, England, UK, 1976. pp. 58-60.

It is believed they were from Hecatompylos (now Damghan: DaiMogan: convent of Mogi) the capital city of Parthians. But Marco Polo cites three different cities. It is correct since Mogi in Parthians time were part of the ruling class and used to convene in a Mogistan at the capital from far and near cities. Mogistan had the role of advisory parliament for Parthian kings and had a mixture of aristocracy and priests. So three Mogi could be priests or princes or barons.


Does Satan actually laugh? I've watched a lot of horror movies and I can't help noticing Satan or any demons are often portrayed 'diabolically' laughing somewhere in the movie. But then, Satan is supposed to be our prosecutor* at the Last Judgement and a professional prosecutor would NOT laugh for other reasons. So, my question is - are there any facts in the Book or elsewhere confirming that Satan indeed laughs?

* I got the idea that Satan will be our prosecutor from the Book of Revelation but please also explain that imagery if my interpretation is wrong.

"Laughter" has two completely different manifestations: it can be joyous or a cynical sneer.

Joyous laughter: not possible for Satan since Joy is a fruit of The Holy Spirit.

Sneering: not recorded in the Bible from Satan, but certainly used by his followers, see both in the Old Testament (Isaiah 57:3-5) and New when the Pharisees sneered at Jesus, both regarding His attitude to money and His failure (in their perception) to save Himself.

Personal note: I'm pretty sure I can hear the sneering when I read Biblical accounts of Satan, e.g. in his first appearance.


What is the history of the term "state of perfection" before, during, and after Vatican II? Traditionally, Catholics used language of "state of perfection" (as we can for example read in Aquinas). Why did not Vatican II use this term? What is the history of the term "state of perfection" before, during, and after Vatican II?

“state of perfection” in Vatican II's
preparatory documents
Vatican II's preparatory commission drafted two documents related to religious perfection:

De statibus perfectionis adquirendæ (On the states for acquiring [evangelical] perfection), 15 June 1962
De Ecclesia [On the Church] ch. 5 "De statibus evangeliciæ acquirendæ perfectionis", 1 December 1962(English translation PDF pp. 21-23)

council interventions
from Fr. Ralph Wiltgen, S.V.D.'s Inside Story of Vatican II ch. "The Second Session", § "Religious Orders and the Universal Vocation to Sanctity":

The position of the European alliance was based on the arguments advanced by Father Rahner and Monsignor Philips, and submitted to the German-speaking Fathers meeting in Munich in February, 1963. Those arguments were that the inclusion of the chapter on the religious life would “confirm Protestants in their objections, namely, that in the Church, through the religious state, there exist two essentially diverse paths to salvation; that the laity are not called to evangelical perfection and automatically are always on a lower level of sanctity; and that those who are members of religious orders are automatically considered better than those who are joined in marriage.”

promulgated documents
Lumen Gentium
Chapter 5 of Vatican II's 21 November 1964 dogmatic constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium, is on the religious, and, although it includes the phrase "religious state"

From the point of view of the divine and hierarchical structure of the Church, the religious state of life is not an intermediate state between the clerical and lay states. […] the religious state, whose purpose is to free its members from earthly cares, more fully manifests to all believers the presence of heavenly goods already possessed here below.

it does not use the phrase "state of perfection":

religious families give their members the support of a more firm stability in their way of life and a proven doctrine of acquiring perfection. […] The importance of the profession of the evangelical counsels is seen in the fact that it fosters the perfection of love of God and love of neighbor in an outstanding manner and that this profession is strengthened by vows.

Perfectæ caritatis
The 28 October 1965 decree Perfectæ caritatis (PC) dealt with the "adaptation and renewal of religious life".
The Little Catechism of the Second Vatican Council part 8 notes the following innovations in PC:

"Whereas the old 1917 code* divided people into three categories (clerics, religious, laity), the new code of 1983** – applying Vatican II – divides the « People of God » (sic) into three groups ordered thus: the faithful of Christ, the hierarchical constitution of the Church, and the institutes of consecrated life (in which the religious are diluted)."*can. 107: "By divine institution there are in the Church clerics distinct from laity, although not all clerics [possess orders that] are of divine institution; either of them can be religious." (commentary)**can. 207: "§1. By divine institution, there are among the Christian faithful in the Church sacred ministers who in law are also called clerics; the other members of the Christian faithful are called lay persons. §2. There are members of the Christian faithful from both these groups who, through the profession of the evangelical counsels by means of vows or other sacred bonds recognized and sanctioned by the Church, are consecrated to God in their own special way and contribute to the salvific mission of the Church; although their state does not belong to the hierarchical structure of the Church, it nevertheless belongs to its life and holiness."

PC §15 "erases the hierarchy […] between the lay religious and choir religious":That all the members be more closely knit by the bond of brotherly love, those who are called lay-brothers, assistants, or some similar name should be drawn closely in to the life and work of the community.  Unless conditions really suggest something else, care should be taken that there be only one class of Sisters in communities of women.


Eucharist as a definition of the Church in any early universal councils before the 1054 split? Was it stated in any one of the universal councils before the schism in 1054 that the One Universal Church is defined by Eucharist? I mean a statement that if the Eucharist is not practiced in a certain Christian group than this group is not a part of the Church.

No.

The general rule of the Councils is that they are created out of a great crisis in the Church. This could be either theological (as in the first seven), or political (the healing of the Great Western Schism). While the identification of the eucharist with the body and blood of Christ can be seen in both the East and the West prior to the split, the first major challenges (there had been a minor challenge while the Church was united, but that never gained real traction) to the doctrine were only felt immediately after the schism (literally, within the same decade).

A couple of related thoughts:

One can only wonder if the anti-eucharistic theology had gotten traction earlier if the resulting Council would have helped prevent the schism.
Vatican II was the only Council which was not created at a definitive time of crisis. Interesting to think about at least.
While the major crises of the East were resolved by Councils, Manichaeism and Donatism really never had a presence in the East. Those two heresies had a profound impact on Western theology. That is one reason why there is a difference between how Catholics and Orthodox view who is appropriate minister of Baptism (Catholic = anyone, clergy preferable; Orthodox = clergyman only).


Was everyone who worked on the tabernacle given the Spirit? Them hath he filled with wisdom of heart, to work all manner of work, of the engraver, and of the cunning workman, and of the embroiderer, in blue, and in purple, in scarlet, and in fine linen, and of the weaver, even of them that do any work, and of those that devise cunning work.  (Exodus 35:35 KJV)

Does this verse mean that every person that worked on the tabernacle was given the Spirit, or just Bezaleel and Aholiab?

Also, does this imply that they walked like Christians today, or did the Spirit solely provide wisdom for building?

The pronoun "them" at the beginning of vs. 35 refers to Bezaleel and Aholiab.  We have to stay with the scriptures immediately preceding:
Ex. 35:30-35,

"And Moses said unto the children of Israel, See, the Lord hath called by name Bezaleel the son of Uri, the son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah;
31 And he hath filled him with the spirit of God, in wisdom, in understanding, and in knowledge, and in all manner of workmanship;
32 And to devise curious works, to work in gold, and in silver, and in brass,
33 And in the cutting of stones, to set them, and in carving of wood, to make any manner of cunning work.
34 And he hath put in his heart that he may teach, both he, and Aholiab, the son of Ahisamach, of the tribe of Dan.
35 Them hath he filled with wisdom of heart, to work all manner of work, of the engraver, and of the cunning workman, and of the embroiderer, in blue, and in purple, in scarlet, and in fine linen, and of the weaver, even of them that do any work, and of those that devise cunning work."  (KJV)

Bezaleel and Aholiab were given the knowledge to be able to teach others how to do all of the workmanship in order to build the tabernacle according to all of God's instructions.  You might think of it as a kind of delegation.
I am not sure what you mean by "walked like Christians today".  But, in the context of the question of the work of the Spirit....
The Spirit goes where He wills to do what He wills.
John 3:8,

"the Spirit where he willeth doth blow, and his voice thou dost hear, but thou hast not known whence he cometh, and whither he goeth; thus is every one who hath been born of the Spirit.'"  (YLT)

The Christian is born of the water and the Spirit (John 3:5), and this is a result of baptism (immersion).  The tribes of Israel were "baptized" in the cloud and the sea -
1 Cor. 10:1-4,

"And I do not wish you to be ignorant, brethren, that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea,
2 and all to Moses were baptized in the cloud, and in the sea;
3 and all the same spiritual food did eat,
4 and all the same spiritual drink did drink, for they were drinking of a spiritual rock following them, and the rock was the Christ;" (YLT)

However, 1 Cor. 10:5-6 makes it clear that God was not pleased with many of the children of Israel as they were evil at heart, and unbelievers who turned to idolatry.  So, the Spirit only works with those believers who follow after God.
The tribes of Israel were given a set of instructions - the law of Moses - and the obedient believers followed it as best they could.  The animal sacrifices were a type that looked forward in time to the One sacrifice that would redeem all believers from their sins.
Those of the OT days that walked after God, the obedient who believed in God were redeemed by Christ at His crucifixion and are now part of His kingdom (Gal. 4:5).
The obedient believers today who follow after Christ according to the gospel of Christ are put into that same kingdom when we are baptized into Christ.  We are the royal priesthood (1 Pet. 2:9) that God had purposed originally of the tribes of Israel in Ex. 19:6.
God had wanted them all to be priests, not just a few.  The purpose was for Israel to be an example to all nations of the earth so that all people could know God.  The work of the Spirit has always been to accomplish the will of the Father in bringing all people to the knowledge of the Father.
There were many strong men and women of faith in the OT who were lights to many of other nations.  Ruth, a Moabitess, raised in paganism, is in the line of Christ because of her belief.  Rahab, once a harlot, is in the line of Christ because of her belief.
So, it has always been the line of the faithful that have walked according to the Spirit (Rom. 1:17; 3:27; 4:16).  And, the Spirit breathed that life to others who heard the word, and also believed.
Under the gospel of Christ, under the new covenant, all who are baptized into Christ, put on Christ and are born of the water and the Spirit (John 3:5).  Our sacrifices are the fruit of our lips, continually praising His name (Heb. 13:15-16). We are to always stand ready to speak as the oracles of God (1 Pet. 4:11) to give an answer of the hope that is within us (1 Pet. 3:15), and the Spirit then uses that spoken word - breathed word - to work on the heart of those who will hear it.
He has always done so.  And, so I would say that those believers in ages past had much the same walk that we do today.  The walk of the faithful.
You might like to read some of the commentary on the wind and breath of the Spirit at BibleHub on John 3:8 here.  I especially like Ellicott's.


How many mistresses did Solomon actually have? As read here, it says, in 1st Kings, 11:3, "And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines: and his wives turned away his heart." This is speaking of King Solomon. My confusion: are the concubine and princesses included in the 700, or separately, and if so, how many did they account for? I am simply having issues understanding the verse's wording.

Compare a number of English versions here. Nearly all have the form 700 and 300. The Bible in Basic English (BBE) specifically reads,

  He had seven hundred wives, daughters of kings, and three hundred other wives; and through his wives his heart was turned away.

There is no real reason to think the numbers don't add together to make 1000 total, and in fact the "1000 wives" of Solomon are considered by some commentators to be an illustration of the bride of Christ. The 700 wives are royalty, so considered an equal match for Solomon to marry. The other 300 presumably were commoners, so had lower social status and were called "concubines" instead of wives.


What is the Catholic understanding of 'reign with him' in 2 Tim 2:12? 2 Timothy 2:11-13 (RSVCE) has:

  The saying is sure:

  If we have died with him, we shall also live with him;

  if we endure, we shall also reign with him;

  if we deny him, he also will deny us;

  if we are faithless, he remains faithful— for he cannot deny himself.

What is the Catholic understanding of 'we shall also reign with him'?

One difficulty, if all reign, who are the subjects?

One Protestant perspective is the thinking that the subjects would be the people in the Millennial Rule of Christ; the ones that were not raptured or survived through the tribulation. Also a thought is that people would still have families and offspring born of them during that time.

Ideas Board

sketches

'Let them be masters ...' [Gn 1:26]; Joseph and Potiphar Genesis 39:8-9 (RSVCE); 31 and he has filled him with the Spirit of God, with skill, with intelligence, with knowledge, and with all craftsmanship, 32 to devise artistic designs, to work in gold and silver and bronze, [Exodus 35:31-32 (RSVCE)]; David's Adminstration[1 Chronicles 18: 14-17]; 'Truly, I tell you, he will set him over all his possessions.' [cf. Lk 12:44]; The Parable of Talents; you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel (Matthew 19:28 (RSVCE), 'I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly.' [John 10:10 (RSVCE)], etc.

Also Kings Pele, Elvis, etc.

Filling the stations abandoned by the fallen angels?

King of kings; All nations shall serve and obey him (nations continue?); you are royal priesthood

I have always understood it as being connected with the Mystical Body of Christ. If we endure, stay firmly connected to the Mystical Body, then just as Christ is the King of the Universe, we are also part of that kingship by our connection to Him.


What is the status of Catholics who reject Vatican II? Are they considered heretics? Are Catholics opposing Vatican II considered heretics (by the Roman Catholic Church)?

It is always good to start with definitions.

Heresy1 ≡ is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same. [cf. CCC 2809.]

1. Fuller treatment here: Heresy | New Advent.

The chief things which God has revealed, and therefore to be believed, are contained in the Apostles' Creed. [cf. Penny Catechism, 13.]

An example of a a heresy is Arianism, the first heresy that gained a strong footing in the Church and seriously endangered its very nature and existence. Arius bluntly asserting that Christ was not God like the Father, but a creature made in time.

Next it would be good to say what the council was all about from the Church's perspective.

The future Pope Benedict XVI [now Pope Emeritus], when he was still prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, said in an address, given July 13, 1988, in Santiago, Chile before that nation's bishops, that, the truth is that this particular council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council.2

2. cf. Library: Cardinal Ratzinger's Remarks Regarding the Lefebvre Schism - Catholic Culture.

Therefore from the Church's perspective pre and post Vatican II, there has been no change in the truths to be believed.

Continuing to how the Church interprets the Council.

Carol Glatz in a post on Friday, 30 Nov 2012 in the Catholic Herald reported Archbishop Gerhard Müller saying that what Pope Benedict XVI has termed “the hermeneutic of reform, of renewal in continuity” is the “only possible interpretation according to the principles of Catholic theology”.

In the article, the Archbishop continued:

  “Outside this sole orthodox interpretation unfortunately exists a
  heretical interpretation, that is, a hermeneutic of rupture, [found]
  both on the progressive front and on the traditionalist” side.

Note: The Archbishop's reflections are here in Italian.

Therefore Answering

According to Archbishop Muller, there are "progressives" and "traditionalists" who refuse the Council, who do not have the unique orthodox interpretation of the Council which Pope Benedict XVI termed "the hermeneutic of reform in continuity". Theirs is an interpretation of "discontinuity and rupture" and the Archbishop terms this interpretation as a heretical interpretation.


Do non-Catholic traditions ever have family altars? Catholics may have a special place in their homes designated as the family altar.

This is mentioned many places:

  In contradistinction to the typical home which has a television set as its centerpiece, the focal point of a Catholic home should be the family altar -- a place where the family can gather to offer up their prayers to the Most Holy Trinity and to ask the Saints to pray for them. Morning Offerings, family Rosaries, prayers for special intentions, family novenas, Lectio Divina, etc., can all be made here. source emphasis added

CatholicMom.com provides a list of Home Altar Ideas.

And photos of such altars are easy to find on google and pinterest, such as this one:

Are there any non-Catholic traditions that do a similar sort of thing? If so, what is the purpose of having a family altar, and what do they typically put on it?

After some research via Google, I have found that, in general, Protestants think of the "family altar" as an act of family worship, rather than a physical place set aside for such things. The previous answer dealing with Protestants generally being iconoclasts sums that up quite well.

Wikipedia's "home altar" article, as of this writing, provides a picture of a family altar in "a Methodist Christian household," thereby indicating that some people from non-Catholic traditions set up physical places for family worship. The article also has references to Lutheran sources.


What is the central idea of the Bible? I know there are many denominations in the Christian circle. I was wondering if there is a consensus on what the Bible is about? Or in other words is there a consensus in Christianity today on what is the main theme of the Bible.

Luther said of the Bible:

  None of its parts are obscure... The scriptures is the book the more clear in all the world
  The Bondage of Will by Martin Luther

Jesus is the central "idea" of the Bible:

The old Testament begins with the fall of man and the prophecy of the Redeemer (Jesus)
The Jewish religion was constantly looking forward to the Messiah (Jesus)
The New Testament records Jesus' life and public ministry
The Epistles both explain the doctrine of Jesus as well as re-establish the proofs that the old testament prophecies were fulfilled in Jesus (esp. St. Paul's letter to the Hebrews)
Revelations/Apocalypse looks forward to the second coming of Jesus


Is there any evidence to support a preference for second-career pastors coming disproportionately from IT? Anecdotally, I know a lot of bi-vocational and second-career pastors who came from IT. At seminary, I saw a lot of them, and 2 of the 4 pastors at my current church have this background.

I remember reading William Willimon who essentially said there were really only three kinds of professionals who had to read texts closely: lawyers, IT folk, and pastors. That has stuck with me, and led me to see a natural flow from IT to the pastorate.

My question is - do I just notice this because of my own IT background, or is there any sort of statistical evidence that would bear this out? Where could I find a good data source to see first careers of second-career pastorates in the United States?

I emailed Cynthia Woolever of The Parish Paper and got this response:

  The statistics come from the U.S. Congregational Life Survey (Wave 2)
  conducted in fall 2008 and spring 2009. Almost 700 pastors (693 to be
  exact) completed an extensive survey about their background,
  education, and current experiences. These pastors had to be currently
  ministering in a congregation as the solo or senior pastor to be
  eligible. Therefore, ministers in specialized positions (like hospital
  chaplain) were not in the survey. Much of the details are on the U.S.
  Congregations website. Further details are reported in our book,
  "Leadership That Fits Your Church: What Kind of Pastor for What Kind
  of Congregation" published by Chalice Press (2012).

  I remember from reading the "raw data" (actual returned surveys) that
  some pastors had been in IT work before working in a local
  congregation. However, we did not use this as a specific category when
  we coded the responses. Here are some of the relevant categories:
  Lawyers, judges, or legislators (3%) Teachers and professors (12%)
  All other professionals (28%) Managers and administrators (24%)

  Clergy who had previously been in the IT field would have been coded
  in the "All other professionals" category. Those in this category were
  also grouped by denomination or faith group. For Catholic priests--39%
  of those had a full-time occupation before entering ministry were
  coded as "all other professionals"; For mainline Protestant
  pastors--31% were coded as "all other professionals"; and for
  conservative Protestant pastors--20% were coded as "all other
  professionals."

  The entire dataset is available on the Association of Religious Data
  Archive.


Does God have a sense of humor? Does he laugh? I've always heard "God must have a sense of humor because he created X".  Usually X is "the platypus" or "me".

Also, it should be evident that Jesus, being human, had a sense of humor.  It's part of the human experience.

But, is there anywhere in the Bible where humor on the part of God is actually recorded?  Furthermore, is there any doctrinal stance supported by extra-biblical (yet inspired) text that indicates God's sense of humor?

I'm interested in both humor from Jesus (as I don't know of any) as well as humor from the heavens (either God while Jesus was here on Earth or anything before or after that point).

Sadly, there is no record of Jesus laughing. The closest is in Luke 10:21:

  At that time Jesus, full of joy through the Holy Spirit

I'd imagine that, when He was full of joy, at the very least He had a big smile on His face.

Update: apparently Jesus thinks laughing is a blessing; from Luke 6:21b:

  Blessed are you who weep now, for you will laugh.

(Two verses further, He even commends jumping for joy!)


Does the Catholic Church teach that Jesus' Human Nature was created? I think this is one of the reasons the we can call Mary the Mother of God.  But I'm confused about the exact meaning of Human Nature and Human Soul.

So my question is mainly this. What was created at the Incarnation?

Human nature entails a human soul. When Christ became man, every aspect of His human nature was created:

  It is to be remembered that, when the Word took Flesh, there was no
  change in the Word; all the change was in the Flesh. At the moment of
  conception, in the womb of the Blessed Mother, through the
  forcefulness of God's activity, not only was the human soul of Christ
  created but the Word assumed the man that was conceived. (The Incarnation, The Catholic Faith)

The soul, as I understand it, is the rational substance that moves the body. See:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1075.htm


Where was God prior to creating the ***Heavens*** and the Earth? Genesis chapter 1:1 says:

  Genesis 1:1 NKJV  In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

That verse has always been an enigma to me. It clearly states that God created more than one Heaven. So before creating multiple Heavens, where did God abide, and even more intriguing is did God; who is Spirit even need a place in which to abide?

Several good questions being asked here:

Regarding the word "heavens", Paul makes mention of visiting the "third heaven" (2 Corinthians 12:2). It was common for Jews to use the word heaven to mean the sky, outer-space, or spiritual heaven where God dwells. So "in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth" may have meant the creation of earth and its atmosphere, and the immediate universe around it.

Spiritual heaven and angels likely existed before the creation of earth. We see this in Job where God asks "Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? ... When the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy." (Job 38:4-7)

But no matter what order you think things were made, God existed before anything was made:

"For by Him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by Him, and for Him" (Colossians 1:16)


What is the significance of Lamech's boast? Lamech said to his wives,
   “Adah and Zillah, listen to me;
    wives of Lamech, hear my words.
   I have killed a man for wounding me,
    a young man for injuring me.
   If Cain is avenged seven times,
    then Lamech seventy-seven times.”
  (Genesis 4:23-24, NIV)

What is the significance of Lamech's boast? What role does it play in the Genesis narrative?

Lamech killed some younger man. Lamech represents the fifth and last generation mentioned of the Cainites, who by that time were probably a large multitude occupying cities. Lamech represents the culmination of those that turned away from the promise of the Messiah to Eve, in contrast to the Sethites which were the early church.

What we have in Lamech's short poem to his wives, whose names in Hebrew mean 'ornament' and 'shade', is the height of violent boasting.  He essentially say's 'I will kill (and have) who I want and anyone who avenges it shall suffer!'  Grabbing beautiful wives (a polygamy of ornament and 'shade', possibly cast from the lovely flowing hair by his second wife) and having children that were committed to establishing crafts and skills and building cities, implies that in addition to the violence of this people, they were vain, lustful and seeking permanent settlement into the pleasures and ambitions of this world.  The Sethites on the other hand were more like visitors to the world, looking for a better life by faith. Basically Lamech's great boasts, lusts and violence was the early version of Heathenism later represented so well by Greece and Rome.

Note: In my answer I have mostly summarized points learned from Alfred Edersheim's 'The Bible History, Old Testament  Volume I ' but the idea of two races developing with different agendas early in Genesis is common to most Bible Commentaries.


Why did God create such complexity in man? During Creation, God created man:

Genesis 2:7 KJV

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

Why did God created such complexity - down to cellular level, with so many organs and fluid - into man? Wouldn't things be much simpler if we were created with less complexity - and probably with the chance of reducing all the medical problems that we face today.

He created such complexity because it exists in Him as well, as we are explicitly created after His own image and in His likeness, as His children.

Genesis 1:27 (KJV)

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

As for medical problems, those are inherently bound up with death and mortality, which weren't part of the original creation, but were introduced in the Fall.


In light of the fact that Donatism is heresy, why do most churches require a priest to bless the elements? As the church was emerging from its persecutions under Diocletian and into legitimacy under Constantine, there arose a schismatic church named the Donatists.  Now, as one might imagine in a time of persecution, there were priests who, when given a choice between denying Jesus and being thrown to the lions, did in fact, deny their Lord.  A question then arose as to whether or not the Eucharist that these priests celebrated was legitimate - the Donatists said 'No,' but the official orthodox position of the church (especially as articulated by Augustine), was that 'Yes,' in fact the Eucharist was valid because, "the efficacy of sacrements is not affected by the worthiness of celebrant."
That idea - that the Eucharist is not affected by the worthiness of the celebrant - seems to be quite a firecracker if taken to a seemingly natural conclusion.  Namely, if the efficacy of the sacrement is strictly ex opere operato (meaning from the work performed) and not ex opere operantis (from the worker who performs it), why then is a priest required to bless the elements, in most traditions?
So, some disclaimers:

Disclaimer #1:  Yes, some Radical Anabaptists like John Smythe had no problem celebrating the Eucharist even without ordination, but it is a fairly fringe case.  Even many traditional mainline Baptist churches require that the elements be blessed by the minister, and without that, it is not considered communion. Certainly within the Catholic, Anglican, Presbyterian, and even I suspect the Methodist churches, if the Youth Minister decided to bless the elements, he'd get a minor toungue-lashing for the offence.

Disclaimer #2: Yes, there are some churches that don't believe Donatism is a heresy.  They are fringe cases - the vast majority of the church holding that Donatism is, in fact, heresy.

Disclaimer #3: This question touches on why Catholics believe a priest is required.  In an otherwise excellent answer, the key part of the question that I am interested in (Why can't laity bless the elements), I read:

In terms of why the laity cannot yield the effect of transubstantiation, I don't have an extensive enough knowledge to pin that question down precisely.

Disclaimer #4: I am fully aware of the emergency situation where any priest - defrocked, heretic, or otherwise, is obliged to administer the sacrement of absolution.  A good answer may extend this case, but should reference appropriate sources.

So, with all that said, Why can't the laity bless the elements in most churches?  Is there a biblical case to be made, or is it just tradition.  If the answer is 'tradition,' is it canon law? (Cites would be fabulous, and various denominational rules are acceptable!) Contratriwise, are there denominations (other than LDS - who I do believe would allow this!) that would say, for example, "Sure, the father can serve communion to his wife and children" ?
In short, why do we need priests (Catholic or Protestant!) to bless the Eucharist, if in fact, Christ is the one who is present in the elements to begin with?

As far as the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of England are concerned, it certainly is Canon Law.

900 §1. The minister who is able to confect the sacrament of the Eucharist in the person of Christ is a validly ordained priest alone.
907 In the eucharistic celebration deacons and lay persons are not permitted to offer prayers, especially the eucharistic prayer, or to perform actions which are proper to the celebrating priest.
[CLC]

B 12 Of the ministry of the Holy Communion

No person shall consecrate and administer the holy sacrament of the Lord's Supper unless he shall have been ordained priest by episcopal ordination in accordance with the provisions of Canon C 1.

[Canons of the Church of England]

That the Eucharist is not affected by the worthiness of the minister is also enshrined in a number of church documents (Article 26 in the Church of England, for example).
However, an unworthy minister is still a minister. The ontological change wrought by the Spirit at ordination is what makes a man able to effect the sacrament. Whether he is worthy or not is of no consequence. A layman has not undergone that ontological change, and so is unable to celebrate the Eucharist. He can say the words and do all the right actions, but it is simply not effective.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church addresses this:

1141 The celebrating assembly is the community of the baptized who, "by regeneration and the anointing of the Holy Spirit, are consecrated to be a spiritual house and a holy priesthood, that . . . they may offer spiritual sacrifices."9 This "common priesthood" is that of Christ the sole priest, in which all his members participate:10

Mother Church earnestly desires that all the faithful should be led to that full, conscious, and active participation in liturgical celebrations which is demanded by the very nature of the liturgy, and to which the Christian people, "a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a redeemed people," have a right and an obligation by reason of their Baptism.11

1142 But "the members do not all have the same function."12 Certain members are called by God, in and through the Church, to a special service of the community. These servants are chosen and consecrated by the sacrament of Holy Orders, by which the Holy Spirit enables them to act in the person of Christ the head, for the service of all the members of the Church.13 The ordained minister is, as it were, an "icon" of Christ the priest. Since it is in the Eucharist that the sacrament of the Church is made fully visible, it is in his presiding at the Eucharist that the bishop's ministry is most evident, as well as, in communion with him, the ministry of priests and deacons.
9 Lumen Gentium 10; cf. ⇒ 1 Pet 2:4-5.
10 Cf. LG 10; 34; Presbyteriorum ordinis 2.
11 Sacrosanctum Consilium 14; Cf. ⇒ 1 Pet 2:9; ⇒ 2:4-5.
12 ⇒ Rom 12:4.
13 Cf. PO 2; 15.


When did Lucifer's fall take place? Was it the act of seducing Eve to eat the apple that was his downfall, was he already fallen before that, or was it after?

That happened before the Garden of Eden incident.  Before then, he walked in heaven (on the holy mount of God).

Ezekial 28:14-15 (NIV)

  14 You were anointed as a guardian cherub,     for so I ordained you.
  You were on the holy mount of God;     you walked among the fiery
  stones.  15 You were blameless in your ways     from the day you were
  created     till wickedness was found in you.

He was actually cast down because he became proud.

Ezekial 28:17 (NIV)

  Your heart became proud     on account of your beauty,  and you
  corrupted your wisdom     because of your splendor.  So I threw you to
  the earth;     I made a spectacle of you before kings.

Then he thought that he could be God, that he could take God's place in the universe as ruler of it:

Isaiah 14:13-14 (NIV)

  13 You said in your heart,     “I will ascend to the heavens;  I will
  raise my throne     above the stars of God;  I will sit enthroned on
  the mount of assembly,     on the utmost heights of Mount Zaphon. 14 I will ascend above the tops of the clouds;
    I will make myself like the Most High.”

That was his downfal:  Pride--he thought he was as good as God.


Which Catholic encyclicals discuss the Catholic teaching on the results of Jesus' sacrifice? Which Catholic papal encyclicals discuss questions like -

1) Why did Jesus have to die?

2) What are the effects of the sacrifice of Jesus?

3) How does God look at the world before and after the sacrifice of Jesus?

If there aren't any papal encyclicals, are there any books / writings that discuss the same?

This is a very broad question, but to answer your question briefly, the Baltimore Catechism says:

Q. 398. Why did Christ suffer and die?
A. Christ suffered and died for our sins.

Q. 453. Which are the chief effects of the Redemption?
A. The chief effects of the Redemption are two: The satisfaction of God’s justice by Christ’s sufferings and death, and the gaining of grace for men.

For your third question, God still considered the created world to be good: "For every creature of God is good." (1 Tim. 4:4a).

An excellent encyclical that covers Christ's sacrifice, its necessity for our redemption and salvation, and its relationship to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is Pope Pius XII's 1947 Mediator Dei.


How do reformed theologians reconcile John 15:2 with “once saved always saved"? Every branch in me (εν έμοι ) that beareth not fruit, he taketh it away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he [the Father, v1] cleanseth it, that it may bear more fruit. (John 15:2, ASV)

Some reformed  like James White say that once someone is “in Christ” [1] they are eternally saved.   But Jesus said that some branches in him that don't bear fruit will be removed from him and burned. (15:5)

How do reformed theologians reconcile John 15:2 with the doctrine of “once saved always saved"?

[1] 3) the phrase en Christo (in Christ) or its equivalent in Him, is central to Paul’s thought. All of salvation takes place only “in Christ.” (https://reformedspirit.blogspot.com/2015/08/god-is-redeeming-for-himself-people-and.html?m=1)

Within that sentence are two statements.  The first is that the Father (who is the vine-dresser) will take away the branch that does not bear fruit.  The second is that the Father will prune the branch that does bear fruit so that it may bear more fruit.
If this parable was the only place in the New Testament to address the issue of eternal security, then there would be every reason to fear that a lack of “fruit” would result in the loss of salvation.  But it isn’t.  Please read John 6:39-40:

“And this is the will of him who sent me that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”

Given that John 15 is a metaphor or an allegory, then we do well to consider it in the light of other passages that speak clearly about the assurance of salvation given to those who have come to saving faith in Christ Jesus.  It would be foolish to take three verses alone to support a view, one way or the other.
Isaiah 5:1-7 is a striking Old Testament image of Israel being likened to an unproductive vineyard that is rejected by God and made into a wasteland.  Here, God is rejecting his people because they have rejected his law.  No doubt, Jesus’ audience were familiar with the illustration.  But God has never entirely abandoned his people, and even in the future, all of Israel will be reconciled to God.  Yes, there is a dire warning against any person who claims to belong to God yet proves by their actions (or lack of actions) they have only an outward profession of faith.
In Matthew 13 Jesus gave a parable about seed that fell into different types of soil.  Some plants start to grow but then wither away.  Does that mean the person who has been adopted into God's family has no security, that they must constantly strive to do good works?  No.  If a branch is not receiving the life-giving nourishment it needs from the roots, then it will not produce fruit.  If a person is not genuinely abiding in Christ and living their life to the glory of God but is simply pretending to be a Christian, then they too will wither away like the seed that fell onto stony ground.  Jesus will say to them, “I never knew you.”  If a person does not obey Jesus then they are not a part of the one, true vine.
You ask, does John 15:2 disprove “once saved always saved?”   Frankly, that expression is so misleading I reject it because it gives entirely the wrong idea about the grace of God and the doctrine of salvation.  I put it to you that John 15:2 neither proves nor disproves any false assumption that a person can make a claim to be a Christian without producing evidence of a transformed life, a life that produces the fruit of the Spirit.  Only those who are indwelt by the Spirit will mature and grow in their Christian walk, producing the fruit that brings honour to our Lord and Saviour.  All I can say is it’s a good job Jesus knows who belong to him.
EDIT: Given the extended and currently revived comments that follow my answer, can someone please place these comments into a chat room?  I don't know how to do that.  Thanks.


Why do Jehovah's Witnesses not pray with people of other faith? I had it happen several times that Jehovah's Witnesses refused to pray together with me, even though I offered that they say the prayer. The reason, according to them, was that they believe we don't worship the same God.

This happened to me both in France where I was an LDS missionary, and in Germany where I accompanied some.

I understand the reasoning in the case when they would have to participate in a prayer others are saying. But why do they also not want to pray together when given the opportunity to say the prayer themselves?

Both Jehovah's Witnesses and LDS have different meaning of God and Christ, so their understanding the very nature of God differs from the rest of the christians and from each other.

Jesus in Jehovah's Witnesses views is created by God. Whereas in LDS, Jesus is born and is first of many sons. Not to mention that Jehovah for LDS cosmology is Jesus.
See also
What exactly does it mean that Jesus Christ is the son of God?

  When servants of God assemble and pray together, their petitions can be effective. If the group is united in spirit and the prayer offered in their behalf reflects Scriptural principles, God is pleased. JW.org

As for Orthodox views on praying with others - christians can pray by themselves to God in any situation (in mosque for example), but social, common praying cannot be done with heretics. Thats why symbol of faith exists.

  If anyone pray in company with one who has been excommunicated, he shall be excommunicated himself.
  Canons of the Apostles, nr. 10,45,46

Even catholic and orthodox praying is separate. For example when Alexy II visited France, praying was done in order, not together.

  No one shall join in prayers with heretics or schismatics. Canon rule nr. 33 of the Council of Laodicea

My personal understanding of this is that prayer is a message. Labeling who the target is, is important. You can help with delivery by doing it in group, or through saint, deed or with use of icons. But if its collective, then its important to have same target and message for all participants.


Can a person be faulted for disbelief if they request evidence via direct revelation? In the book of John when the other disciples relate to Thomas the resurrection of Jesus, Thomas declares he will not believe until he himself is able to witness the resurrected Jesus.
Jesus, instead of ignoring this request, grants his request and reveals himself to him.
In the book of Acts, Paul is described as a persecuter of the early Church, rejecting the claims of the disciples of Jesus. It is not until when Paul is on the road to Damascus when Jesus reveals himself to Paul that Paul believes. If it were not for this act, Paul would remain an enemy and persecuter of the Church.
We see time and again that instead of damning some disbelievers for their rejection of the gospel, that Jesus himself caters to their standards of evidence and reveals himself directly. So we know this is not an unreasonable and far-fetched request.
In that case, if some people could only be convinced via direct revelation, and given that Jesus is aware of that, can such a person be faulted for not yet receiving evidence in such form?

Very good question. Let's unpack this.
1 Corinthians 1:22-31
King James Version
22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
Jesus said,
Matthew 16:4
A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas. And he left them, and departed.
The truth is that God has to give faith to any person in order for that person to believe. This is because " none seek after Him..." (Romans 3:11) and Romans 10:17. A person believes because God chose them from before the foundation of the earth ( Ephesians 1:3), not because of anything about the person, but because if God's sovereign election. There is absolutely no-one who has been chosen by God who will not believe. He identifies them and predestinated their belief.
Direct revelation would cause anyone to believe -- by sight, not faith -- but God has a plan He is working out and that plan involves different groups or classes of people coming into His Kingdom at different times for specific reasons and purposes. He is calling out those He has chosen and is giving them the faith to believe now. Israel He has hardened in part until the full compliment of the Gentiles comes in (with a small remnant of Jews). After Christ takes the church out, God will resume His dealings with Israel. The rest will come later, for Christ said...
John 12:32-43
King James Version
32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.
We have the testimony of the creation itself as indirect revelation.
We have the written Word, which reveals Christ and God's will.If you have been chosen, that's all you need!
So to conclude, God doesn't give direct revelation except in special circumstances. He wants people to believe what He says, which is evidenced by what He has already done. a person who "requires" a sign in our day and time has obviously not been chosen. He or she will believe later, by sight instead of faith.
Praise God for His love, His mercy, His grace and His wisdom.
Colossians 1:20
I Thessalonians 15:20-28 reveal the order of all who are dying in Adam will be made alive in Christ.  God will be All in all.
Hope this helps.


According to mainstream Christianity, what happens after one dies? Old Belief [held for decades]

After a person dies, the person sleeps until Judgment day, and is then awakened and goes into either heaven or hell.

New Belief (realized only yesterday)

Immediately after a person dies,

the soul separates from the body
the soul goes to either heaven or hell (A)
at final judgment, soul + body are united, then the person either goes into heaven or hell (same place as in [A])

This new belief is backed by:

http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/
http://www.gty.org/resources/Sermons/52-17
http://www.gty.org/resources/sermons/90-311/what-happens-when-a-christian-dies

In particular, the Lazarus / Abraham story was literal, and not fiction -- after one dies, one can "see" everyone else who has died (and whether they belong in heaven and hell.)

Question:

I think my Old Belief is wrong, and the New Belief is correct. Is New Belief inline with mainstream Christianity? [I suspect Yes, but want to double check.]

The Athanasian Creed, which is accepted by most christian, (esp. catholic, orthodox, anglican, Lutheran, etc.) reads thus:

  ...He ascended into heaven, he sitteth on the right hand of the God the Father Almighty, from whence he will come to judge the quick and the dead. At whose coming all men will rise again with their bodies; And shall give account for their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting; and they that have done evil, into everlasting fire. This is the catholic faith; which except a man believe truly and firmly, he cannot be saved.

But then, also, in Luke, Jesus says quite clearly:

  Jesus answered him, "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise."

  Luke 23:14

Jesus doesn't imply any form of waiting here. (though there is an interesting discrepancy here because Jesus descends into the place of the dead, and rises again on the third day).

Anyways, most christians hold that:

Sin causes separation: Man from God, will from actuation (we must work, and strive to survive cf. Gen 3:17-19), and Body from Soul
Jesus's sacrifice 'tears the Vail' between us and God (bridges the separation) (cf Matthew 27:51) and allows us to enter into the kingdom of heaven.
Because of bullet 2, at the end of our earthly lives (or, in catholic doctrine, after the refining of our souls in purgatory, the souls of the faithful go to heaven where they await the coming of the end of time, where they will 'give an account for their own works', and see God create 'a new Heaven, and new Earth..."

  "Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea." (Rev 21:1)


What is the background of the verse Heb 10:25 Let us not give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but let us encourage one another—and all the more as you see the Day approaching.

Hebrews 10:25

What would be the reasons to give up meeting? And a sub question, How can we motivate others for Sunday worship for denominations which have Sunday worship?

Why did the author make this statement? By reading before and after this verse, we can get an idea of his mindset when he wrote it.

The beginning of the chapter tells us that the worshipers in the OT had to keep sacrificing animals every year, having no consciousness that their sins were forgiven. But we may come to church with the sense that the blood cleanses us from all sins. Perhaps some were staying away because they felt too sinful to come.

v14 tells us that we have been perfected forever, especially those who are being sanctified, who have set themselves apart for Christ's purposes. Perhaps some are staying away from church because they are filled with their own purposes. By participating in church activities, we'll find Christ's church-building purposes fulfilled through us.

in v26-ff, we find that we can be deceived by sin and stay away from church, and forget that we were cleansed from sin, and therefore set ourselves up for an awful judgment. The church is a place to hear the preaching of the Word, which can point out our sins and keep us repenting of sins. Perhaps some Hebrews could have been recovered from their sin if they had continued.

These are several situations the author may have had in mind when he wrote the passage; he encouraged the Hebrews to continue attending and strengthening other believers while there.


How do Christians in support of gay marriage interpret anti-gay Bible verses? I don't want to spark a debate, but I'm curious how Christians in support of gay marriage interpret seemingly anti-gay Bible verses? See the following:

Leviticus 20:13

  If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

1 Corinthians 6:9-11

  Don't you realize that those who do wrong will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don't fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, or who worship idols, or commit adultery, or are male prostitutes, or practice homosexuality, or are thieves, or greedy people, or drunkards, or are abusive, or cheat people-none of these will inherit the Kingdom of God. Some of you were once like that. But you were cleansed; you were made holy; you were made right with God by calling on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

1 Timothy 1:8-10

  Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine ...

I would first like to thank you for asking in a polite and constructive way! The following answer is based on my experience as a member of a congregation which is accepting of QUILTBAG people - a category which includes the minister - and their loving relationships; not everyone is in favour of same-sex marriage, but we've talked about it quite a bit. I have affection and respect for people who disagree, and I hope that we can all get along as we learn about this issue in good faith.

There are two sides to the answer. You asked about one of them, which is how to deal with the apparently anti-gay passages in Scripture. The other one, which I'll get to as well because it is closely related, is the positive case for affirming homosexual people and relationships on the same level as heterosexual ones. (The title of your question asks about marriage, and to get all the way over there one must do a bit more than just say that homosexual behaviour or activity isn't that bad.)

As far as the "clobber verses" go, the usual answer is to distinguish between what it is that homosexual people do today, and what is being condemned in those passages. Today, the idea of "same-sex marriage" is proposed to be exactly the same as opposite-sex marriage, except that the two people in the marriage are the same sex. In all other respects - love, mutual trust, shared commitment, and so on - it is meant to be identical. But this is indeed a new idea, and is not characteristic of the way that relationships between people of the same sex were construed in the ancient world. In a system where the institution of the family hinges on the dominant presence of the paterfamilias, typical male homosexual relationships ended up being socially marginal (no inheritance is going on here) and unequal (the penetrator being treated differently from the penetrated - the latter was shameful because he had degraded himself to the level of a woman). The point is that what's being condemned may be the unequal, abusive, lust-filled sort of relationship that would have come to Paul's original readers' minds when they thought about men in sexual relationships with other men.

Accompanying textual criticism has tried to understand just what Paul might have meant by his neologism arsenokoites, for example. This is the Greek word that is often translated as "homosexuals" or "sodomites" in the two NT passages you quote. It seems that there's definitely a sense of men (arsenes) going to bed/having sex (koite) but some have argued that he was upset about paedophiles, or procuring male prostitutes, or something else, in addition to the option I presented in the paragraph above. Lesbians do not seem to be treated here.

There is also a strand of interpretation that says that Paul did mean all homosexual people, but that he was wrong - and equally, that the Law of Moses did intend to condemn everyone who participated in a male homosexual act to death, but that it was wrong to do so. This differs from what I've mentioned so far because it doesn't even attempt to recover anything from Paul's words, instead only dismissing them as the product of a flawed culture. (In so doing, some obvious other problems are created.) This view is probably quite common but it is far from universal.

Now at last, the positive case is about believing that the love that exists between a couple is the same love regardless of their sex, and that their love is of divine origin. In other words,

  God, who knows the human heart, testified to them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as he did to us; and in cleansing their hearts by faith he has made no distinction between them and us. Acts 15:8-9 (NRSV)

Peter was speaking there about whether Gentiles could become Christians, but he is also making a general point about the testimony of the Spirit. We Gentiles can be saved because

  There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus. Galatians 3:28 (NRSV)

Recall that for Paul, these three distinctions were all about social caste. There is still such a thing as male and female identity, but what has vanished is the associated power relationship and privilege that denies proper love. This goes right back to the divergent ideas about homosexuality I spoke about above. Christians who support same-sex marriage find that it fits better with passages like these than with the clobber verses. Moreover, the ideas expressed here by Peter and Paul are felt to be closer to the heart of the Gospel. While this is very far from an open-and-shut case - there's a ton of stuff to consider about natural law, reproduction, and so on - it is the central pillar of the argument.


Does the Pope have the authority to baptize aliens (martians)? Does the Pope have the moral authority to baptize Martians? Or any power from the bible?

This is the article:

  Pope Francis says he would baptise aliens: 'Who are we to close doors?'
      Pontiff made the out-of-this-world pledge during homily on acceptance

  Adam Withnall @adamwithnall Tuesday 13 May 2014 08:47 BST
      http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/pope-francis-says-he-would-baptise-aliens-9360632.html

[In case of necessity], [a]nyone [, even a non-baptized person, with the required intention], can baptize [CIC, can. 861.2.], provided he use water and the correct [Trinitarian baptismal] form[ula]: "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen." [cf. CCC V. WHO CAN BAPTIZE?, 1256]

In the case of extraterrestrials, there is doubt whether they are human, so a conditional baptism would be required: "If you are human, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen."

From the Roman Ritual:

  A monster or abnormal fetus should in every case be baptized at least with the following expressed condition: If you are a human
  being, I baptize you, etc. When in doubt as to whether there is one or
  several persons in the deformed mass, one part is to be baptized
  absolutely, and the others each with the condition: If you are not
  baptized, I baptize you, etc.

[cf. CCC IV. WHO CAN RECEIVE BAPTISM?, 1246]


Why was Hebrews included in the canon? Was Hebrews included in the canon solely because it was assumed to be authored by Paul, or was there any other basis for its canonization?

From Eusebius' Canons, one of the earliest church histories (early 300s AD) we have:

  Paul’s fourteen epistles are well known and undisputed.593 It is not indeed right to overlook the fact that some have rejected the Epistle to the Hebrews,594 saying that it is dis
  puted by the church of Rome, on the ground that it was not written by Paul. But what has been said concerning this epistle by those who lived before our time I shall quote in the proper place.596 In regard to the so-called Acts of Paul,597 I have not found them among the undisputed writings.598

Interestingly, Eusebius' view is not really accepted anymore in this regard, but he also rejects 2 Peter, so its not like he's infallible. As Phillip Schaff (the editor of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, from whom this is taken, explains as follows:

  τινες ἠθετήκασι. That the Epistle to the Hebrews was not written by Paul is now commonly acknowledged, and may be regarded as absolutely certain. It does not itself lay any claim to Pauline authorship; its theology and style are both non-Pauline; and finally, external testimony is strongly against its direct connection with Paul.


What does the Roman Catholic Church teach about covenant theology? In Reformed theology, there are summary theological constructs termed the covenant of works, the covenant of grace, and the covenant of redemption. In short, the covenant of works encompasses the path to salvation through perfectly obeying God. The covenant of grace is the path to salvation whereby believers are covered by the blood of Christ, who keeps the covenant of works on our behalf. And the covenant of redemption is between Christ and the Father, where Christ agrees to pay for the sins of his people.

Is there any similar or different version of covenant theology in the RCC? What does the RCC teach about the explicitly mentioned covenants in the Bible, e.g. the covenants with Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, and the New Covenant and Old Covenant that the NT and Jeremiah talk about?

Outline from some RCIA material on the Six Covenants

This outline is backed up by various Cathechism articles and the Catholic Encyclopedia.  I have included some of the scriptural references that I have in the notes.

The Catholic Church teaches that there are six covenants.  But first ...

What is a Covenant?

God’s Covenants are ways that he reveals Himself, and his Gifts, to His people.

  CCC 204 God revealed himself progressively and under different names to his people, but the revelation that proved to be the fundamental one for both the Old and the New Covenants was the revelation of the divine name to Moses in the theophany of the burning bush, on the threshold of the Exodus and of the covenant on Sinai.

It took a bit of explaining from our deacon to get my head around these points.  You see the Old and New Covenants referred to often, to include here in the Catechism:

  The celebrants of the heavenly liturgy
  1138 "Recapitulated in Christ," these are the ones who take part in the service of the praise of God and the fulfillment of his plan: the heavenly powers, all creation (the four living beings), the servants of the Old and New Covenants (the twenty-four elders), the new People of God (the one hundred and forty-four thousand), especially the martyrs "slain for the word of God," and the all-holy Mother of God (the Woman), the Bride of the Lamb, and finally "a great multitude which no one could number, from every nation, from all tribes, and peoples and tongues."

A Covenant (used in this older sense) can be both a Gift and a commitment
A key difference between a covenant and a simple contract is that a covenant in this older sense can be a one-way transaction; it does not hinge upon "offer and acceptance" in the way that a contract does, but for practical purposes the recipient will at least acknowledge it.
The terms Covenant and Testament in English are linked in meaning to the original Hebrew and Greek terms

  (Strong's 1242 diathḗkē (from 1223 /diá, "thoroughly," intensifying
  5087 /títhēmi, "place, set") – properly, a set-agreement having
  complete terms determined by the initiating party, which also are
  fully affirmed by the one entering the agreement).

It's meaning takes a little bit of digging to get a handle on.

  However, at an early date, the Alexandrian translators of the Scripture, known as the Septuagint, employed the word as the equivalent of the Hebrew berith, which means a pact, an alliance, more especially the alliance of Yahweh with Israel.  In St. Paul (1 Corinthians 11:25) Jesus Christ uses the words "new testament" as meaning the alliance established by Himself between God and the world, and this is called "new" as opposed to that of which Moses was the > mediator.  (Catholic Encyclopedia, Testament)

There is the added nuance that ancient Mid-Eastern covenants could be of either a promissory or obligatory character.

The Five OT Covenants

One of the themes we had to emphasize as Catechists was that the History of The Church is The Record of the Covenants between God and Mankind.

Adam and Eve
God revealed the beginning of humanity and gave Man and Woman to each other (Gifts from God, they were to each other, in the beginning)  (Genesis, numerous passages in books 1, 2, 3)
Noah / The Flood;
The covenant/gift/Promise was to never again to wipe clean the world with a Flood (Genesis 6-9) (CCC 56-58)
Abraham
God revealed that all families on Earth would be blessed through Abraham him & his seed.
“I will multiply your descendants as the stars in the heavens.” (Exodus 32:13)
Moses
God freed His people from slavery (Exodus 5: 1). The great gifts of the Law (Ten Commandments) and The Promised Land were granted.
A Kingdom with an everlasting throne.
This covenant is associated with King David. (Isaiah 9:6-7)

In each of the above cases, the people eventually fell into sin, which is by Catholic definition "a turning away" from God.  The call would come through the prophets to repent, which means to "turn toward God" in that sense, although in Noah's case he heard a call to simply listen to and obey God, and in Abraham's his heart's call was to completely trust God.

The Prophecy that foretold the new Testament, the final Covenant, was that “The Kingdom will be re-established by The Messiah” (The anointed one).  That's linked to the fifth OT covenant.

The New Testament (also The Final Covenant)

God’s 6th (final) covenant is that God reveals Himself in “The Word, Incarnate” and in so doing gives the Gift of his only begotten Son.  (Matthew 16:15-17)  This promise, this gift, is meant for all of mankind.  (See Peter Turner's answer on the "scaling up" as the covenants progress).  The fruits of that gift are eternal life.

=================================

I had pages and pages of material on this, but that's a summary of what we  taught.


Is the Promise of Regeneration Enunciated in the Old Testament? Regeneration of the human spirit is a cornerstone doctrine of the New Testament, taught in Jesus’ famous ‘born again’ discourse with Nicodemus. (John 3)  Likewise, St. Paul explains our restoration in scriptures such as Colossians 3:9-10.

  “You have put off the old self with its practices and have put on the
  new self, which is being renewed in knowledge after the image of its
  creator.”

Given that New Testament revelation finds its fountainhead in the Old Testament, was this experience explicitly promised by the prophets?  And where in the Old Testament is the source of the doctrine of Regeneration?

There are approximately 25 to 30 instances where regeneration is promised in the Old Testament. Below are but three of those instances, others you can find through study.

  Deuteronomy 30:6 And the Lord thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live.

This was the basic promise of God's covenant with Abraham.

  Isaiah 1:25 And I will turn my hand upon thee, and purely purge away thy dross, and take away all thy tin:

God's promise to those who return to him.

  Isaiah 32:3-4 And the eyes of them that see shall not be dim, and the ears of them that hear shall hearken. The heart also of the rash shall understand knowledge, and the tongue of the stammerers shall be ready to speak plainly.

God's promise for our regenerated person and some insight into our resurrection bodies.

The Book of Job is also an enumeration regeneration of Job's person after his recognition of God as supreme.

There are many other stories in the Old testament dealing with regeneration, not only of the body but also the Soul. Looking for those specifics as we read the Bible opens a whole new world of understanding Jesus decent to the World.

Hope this helps.


What is the biblical basis against contraception? I don't have hard statistics at hand, but a quick search on the web can easily reveal that the use of contraception is controversial among Christians, as not every denomination or church openly accepts it. Just for the sake of sharing an example, this BBC article claims that:

Christian acceptance of contraception is relatively new; all churches
disapproved of artificial contraception until the start of the 20th
century.
In modern times different Christian churches hold different views
about the rightness and wrongness of using birth control.

Question: What is the biblical basis against contraception? What are common exegetical arguments against the practice of birth control?

Genesis 1:22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful and multiply
Genesis 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful and multiply
Genesis 8:17 Be fruitful and multiply on the earth
Genesis 9:1 Be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth
Genesis 9:7 Be ye fruitful and multiply
Genesis 28:3 God Almighty bless thee and make thee fruitful and multiply thee
Genesis 35:11 I am God Almighty : be fruitful and multiply

On seven occasions in Genesis, fruitful multiplication is encouraged (one might say, commanded) by God or the blessing of it is conveyed.
To Adam and Eve, by God himself ; to Noah, again by God himself after judgment of the earth ; by Isaac to Jacob ; and finally by God himself, again, to Jacob.
Fruitfulness and multiplication is set before humanity, as such, in the beginning and again after catastrophic judgment and again in what might be termed a covenant relationship.
There is every encouragement that, within a marriage union, there should be fruitfulness. The subject of deliberately avoiding having babies is just not there, apparently.