Why did human lifespans drop after the Flood? In Genesis 5, a brief account of the lives of Adam's descendants is narrated. All of them had long lives, for instance, Adam lived 930 years, Seth lived 912 years, etc.

But in Genesis 6:3, God seems to shorten the lifespan of man to 120 years or at least that's what I understood reading that verse. Did I understand it right? How is this fact explained by people who consider Genesis to be literal history?

Answers in Genesis and Creation Ministries International, two young-earth creationist organizations, have similar answers to this question.  They don't attribute a direct supernatural cause, but instead attribute the age drop-off primarily to genetics.

Both cite several factors:

Environmental changes following the flood: probably nothing more than a minor effect, since Noah lived another 350 years after stepping off the ark
Genetic bottleneck at the flood: the gene pool was reduced to eight people, perhaps causing the loss, via genetic drift, of genes contributing to longevity
Possible detrimental mutations: particularly in Shem (who died at a much younger age, 600, than his brothers)
Genetic bottleneck at the Tower of Babel: the gene pool was again divided, potentially having a similar effect as the bottleneck at the flood

Some of the ideas that both reject as insignificant are a change in diet (from vegetarian to omnivorous) and reduced oxygen levels after the flood.

Regarding Genesis 6:3, see this related question.  AIG interprets the verse to mean that God was allowing mankind to live another 120 years before destroying it with a flood:

  We can see that Genesis 6:3 does not deal with the length of time a human will live. Rather, it indicates the longsuffering nature of God in the midst of His wrath. He was allowing even the most evil people of Noah’s time 120 years to repent of their sin before he would judge them with a global flood.

References:

Why Did People Start to Have Shorter Lives After the Flood? (AIG)
Did People Like Adam and Noah Really Live Over 900 Years of Age? (AIG)
Longevity or Countdown? (AIG, on Genesis 6:3)
Living for 900 years (CMI)


What is the Unity teachings of Jesus' resurrection? The Unity church is unorthodox, however I was wondering what the exact teachings were of Jesus' resurrection.

While the Wikipedia article mentions that there are no creeds or dogma w/in Unity, I have found by practical experience that this is not the case (by attending a service).

A list of creeds may be found on any of the church's sites, such as Unity Hills:

  Jesus Christ - Jesus is a master teacher of universal truths and the
  Way-Shower in Unity teachings. "Unity teaches that the spirit of God
  lived in Jesus, just as it lives in every person." Jesus expressed his
  divine potential and showed others how to express their divinity,
  which Unity calls Christ. Unity does not refer to Jesus as God, Son of
  God, Savior, or Messiah.

Further more per www.bible.ca:

  Unity rejects the traditional Christian view that Jesus is a deity to
  be worshiped; we point out that at no time did Jesus tell his
  disciples to worship him. Rather, we look upon Jesus as a great
  healer, miracle worker, and mystic who had a direct access to God. We
  believe that his actions can be emulated by believers today. One's
  life is to be dominated by love, and compassion, even toward one's
  enemies.

Unity does not directly address the resurrection of Jesus.


According to Protestantism why did God choose the persona of a Father? Throughout the Bible, God uses the persona of a Father.  Jesus specifically refers to God as Father, and us as his sons.  Why is it significant that God is a Father? And why did God choose the nature of Father to commonly describe his character, as opposed to other relationships that God created, such as that of Mother or a non-descript purely spiritual nature?

How is this viewed in general Protestant traditions? And are their significant variances across these traditions?

As is pointed out in the comments, the question tends to put the cart before the horse.  God established the institution of "father".  The Old Testament represents God by many different names, each one expressing a different aspect of who God is (i.e. El Shaddai-Lord God Almighty, Jehovah Jireh-The Lord Will Provide, etc.)  God is represented as Father in the New Testament, not inconsistent with His OT character.  The difference comes with the intimacy of the term consistent with the intimacy established by the New Covenant.  Paul stated, "the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. (Gal. 3:24,25). The transition from law to faith is paralleled by the transition from "Adonai-Lord, Master" to "Father".  The tearing of the curtain separating the Holy Place from all but the High Priest and then only once a year is yet another illustration of this revelation that God is not only "El Elyon (The Most High God)", but also "Father", a figure of authority who is capable of and expected to love us.  Likewise, Christ's designation as "Son" illustrates someone with whom we can identify and helps us to understand, as Paul puts it, "...our adoption to sonship..." (Rom. 8:23)  Our ability to understand God is limited at best and nobody understands that better than our Creator.  Loving Father is how He wants us to know him.


Spiritual gifts and their exercise within today's Catholic Church Regarding the apostle Paul's discussion of spiritual gifts (τὰ πνευματικὰ χαρίσματα) in 1 Corinthians 12-14, he uses the words ".....when you come together" (1 Cor. 14:26). Is he referring to the exercise and manifestation of spiritual gifts within the celebration of the Eucharist during his time? If so, should these gifts be exercised in today's Eucharistic celebrations, and if so, how? Perhaps the apostle is citing the exercise of these gifts within a different context (e.g., the Agape which preceded the Eucharist - more akin to a "charismatic prayer group" outside the Mass).

What does the Catholic Church teach on this matter? Have these gifts (prophecy, tongues, interpretation, etc.) ceased, or are they still of great value today within the Church?

I'm only a novice, but I have been researching this subject lately and I would be happy to provide you with what little insight I can.

Different Catholic churches will have different positions on cessation vs continuation.

Typically Catholic churches hold a view point of cessation, however, Pope Francis in particular has been increasingly accepting of Charismatic Catholics (the word "Charismatic" here is implying that they believe in the gifts from 1 Corinthians) and he has invited them to the upcoming jubilee.

http://georgiabulletin.org/news/2014/06/pope-invites-charismatics-vatican-2017-jubilee/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Charismatic_Renewal

Hope it helps!


What does INRI stand for? On the crucifix there is sometimes a plate above Jesus' head that has the letters INRI. What does INRI mean or stand for? Why is it there?

According to John 19:19-20,

19 And Pilate wrote a title, and put [it] on the cross. And the writing was, JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS.
20 This title then read many of the Jews: for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city: and it was written in Hebrew, [and] Greek, [and] Latin (KJV, 1769)

The phrase "Jesus the Nazarene, the king of the Jews" was written in three languages: Hebrew (likely Aramaic), Greek, and Latin.
In Aramaic: ישוע נצריא מלכא דיהודיא (see Peshitta)

In Greek: Ἰησοῦς ὁ Ναζωραῖος ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων (See Textus Receptus)

In Latin: Iesus Nazarenus Rex Iudaeorum (See Latin Vulgate)

INRI is an acronym meaning Iesus Nazarenus Rex Iudaeorum, or "Jesus the Nazarene, the King of the Jews."


Why did Luther say "Sin boldy"? I've heard it reported that Martin Luther told his parishioners to "sin boldly". I'm not sure if this is based in fact and his writings or something that is made up by Catholics to paint him badly.

If he did say this, what's the original source/context, and how is it explained? Is he claiming that sin has no ultimate consequences? Is he claiming that sin has no consequences whatsoever? Is he claiming that it's "ok" to sin?

Please help me to exegete Luther's statement.

For most of a year following his trial at Worms in April 1521, Martin Luther was in seclusion.  During this time his associates at Wittenberg were implementing practical changes in the church there.  One of Luther's closest associates, Philip Melanchthon, was reluctant to move forward on some changes in fear that they might tend toward sin.

  If you are a preacher of grace, then preach a true and not a fictitious grace; if grace is true, you must bear a true and not a fictitious sin. God does not save people who are only fictitious sinners. Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly, for he is victorious over sin, death, and the world. As long as we are in this world we have to sin. This life is not the dwelling place of righteousness but, as Peter says, we look for a new heaven and a new earth in which righteousness dwells (2 Peter 3:13). It is enough that by the riches of God’s glory we have come to know the Lamb that takes away the sin of the world (John 1:29). No sin will separate us from the Lamb, even though we commit fornication and murder a thousand times a day (cited in Hendrix, Martin Luther, 121-122).

The quote in question was in a letter of response to Melanchthon in which Luther encouraged him to decisive action.  The quote is often taken out of context because Luther's pessimism regarding mankind's ability to rise above sinful behaviors is often underestimated.  This pessimism, though, is what drove Luther to so elevate the grace of God extended towards us in Christ Jesus.

Luther was not encouraging Phillip to commit sin.  Luther was saying, in effect, whether you act or not you are likely to commit sin so you may as well be bold in acting and bolder still in your reliance upon the grace of God.


Can one take up the cross of someone who is suffering from illnesses and carry them like Simon of Cyrene and pray that to God? If family members are sick and one wants to pray for their recovery and carry their crosses can they pray to God to bestow their suffering on him or her?

Is that a valid prayer?

Can one take up their crosses instead like Simon of Cyrene?

Romans 15:1:

  Now, we that are stronger ought to bear the infirmities of the weak and not to please ourselves.

Galatians 6:2:

  Bear ye one another's burdens: and so you shall fulfil the law of Christ.

Fr. Andrew Pradel, O.P., St. Vincent Ferrer: Angel of the Judgment ch. 11 ¶15:

  [Saints] are not content with sharing the sufferings of their brethren, but joyfully take the whole on themselves. Thus the Seraphic Virgin of Siena [St. Catherine of Siena] took entirely on herself the pains of Purgatory which her father ought to have suffered; thus also did St. Michael-des-Saints of the Order of the Trinity, with God’s permission, undertake a malignant fever from which a friend of his was suffering. The Great Model of Saints gave the first example of this. “Surely He hath borne our infirmities,” says the prophet, “and carried our sorrows.” (Isaias 53:4).

Also, suffrages are when we offer our Masses, prayers, sacrifices, or acts of piety for the deliverance of the souls in purgatory.


What does the Nicene Creed mean when it says that the Father and the Son are of the same substance? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed says:

  And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father
  [the only-begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of
  God,] Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being
  of one substance with the Father;

How are the Son and the Father different? In the Nicene Creed it seems that they are separate persons but sharing the same substance.

Do Catholics believe that there is a substance out of which God is made? What is the "substance" being discussed here?

We cannot say that Jesus is God in the sense of identity, because then Jesus is God and the Father is God so Jesus is the Father, which contradicts the doctrine.

The term the Nicene Creed uses for substance is homooúsios. This term was intentionally chosen to separate the Creed from various forms of Arianism that denied the divinity of Jesus. The Nicene Creed is arguing that Jesus is fully divine just like the Father. The common forms of nontrinitarianism at the time commonly denied the divinity of Christ by arguing that he was similar to the Father in attributes, similar in substance to the Father, or different in both attributes and substance. The Nicene Creed explicitly states the 'one in substance' to both affirm the divinity of Christ as well as affirm the truine Godhead. When communicating it in contemporary English, homooúsios is sometimes translated as 'of the same being.'

It is the foundational conception of the Trinity of all major forms of Christianity still in existence: Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant. So no, it is not a distinctly Catholic belief. The substance in question is the 'divine being' of the Godhead: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Each is of the same substance in that they are all fully divine, inseparable yet distinct. It is through this concept of substance that Christians describe the Trinity as 'one God in three persons.' The three persons of the Trinity all share the same divine 'substance' in the sense that they constitute one God -- but they are each distinct from each other in their persons.


Was the first Christian community a model for Religious Orders? Pope Francis:

“The Acts of the Apostles relate that ‘no one claimed private
ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in
common.’ This is not communism, but pure Christianity,” he said. Source

I heard a priest saying that this was to apply to religious orders who take a vow of poverty and not everyone or society as a whole.
Acts 4:32-35

32 The community of believers was of one heart and mind, and no one
claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they had
everything in common. 33 With great power the apostles bore witness to
the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great favor was accorded them
all. 34 j There was no needy person among them, for those who owned
property or houses would sell them, bring the proceeds of the sale, 35
and put them at the feet of the apostles, and they were distributed to
each according to need. Source

So my question is: Is this scripture applying to a religious community which would resemble nowadays Catholic religious orders i.e.: Franciscans or are we all meant to live like this?

The context of Pope Francis's "This is not communism, but pure Christianity" in his 11 April 2021 Homily was a description of the disciples's response, a natural response enabled by Jesus who gave them threefold gifts of mercy (peace, the Spirit, his wounds):

And that is what the disciples did: receiving mercy, they in turn became merciful. We see this in the first reading. The Acts of the Apostles relate that “no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common” (4:32). This is not communism, but pure Christianity. It is all the more surprising when we think that those were the same disciples who had earlier argued about prizes and rewards, and about who was the greatest among them (cf. Mt 10:37; Lk 22:24). Now they share everything; they are “of one heart and soul”” (Acts 4:32). How did they change like that? They now saw in others the same mercy that had changed their own lives. They discovered that they shared the mission, the forgiveness and the Body of Jesus, and so it seemed natural to share their earthly possessions. The text continues: “There was not a needy person among them” (v. 34). Their fears had been dispelled by touching the Lord’s wounds, and now they are unafraid to heal the wounds of those in need. Because there they see Jesus. Because Jesus is there, in the wounds of those in need.

Thus Pope Francis was NOT teaching that the whole society was to live like that.
Secondly, while everyone in the Catholic religious order community have all things in common modeling after Acts 4:32-37, the vow of poverty itself is based on Matt 19:16-22 for responding to the Evangelical Counsels of perfection, which is NOT binding on all Catholics:

[Jesus] also taught certain principles which He expressly stated were not to be considered as binding upon all, or as necessary conditions without which heaven could not be attained, but rather as counsels for those who desired to do more than the minimum and to aim at Christian perfection, so far as that can be obtained here upon earth.

Thirdly, communism implies force, socialism implies ideology, but that is not the correct reading of Acts 4:32, which at the heart is voluntary response (as Pope Francis indicated in his homily as well).  The Catholic Answers website article No, the First Christians Were Not Socialists: We are called to be generous, not to abandon private property said:

Nowhere in the New Testament do we find a prohibition against owning private property. We do find the practice of believers placing goods at the apostles’ feet for communal distribution (Acts 4:34-35), but even this generosity is not mandated for all Christians.
Given the persecution of the early Church, it made sense for Christians to share communal property and meet in private homes for worship (1 Cor. 16:19), but those practices are not proof that all Christians are obliged to live this way. If socialism was morally required of Christians we would expect the New Testament to say this or at least mandate a tithe, but as New Testament scholar Craig Blomberg points out, while tithing was commanded of God’s people in the Old Testament, “no New Testament text ever mandates a tithe but rather commands generous and sacrificial giving instead.”
Further, Acts 2:45 does not unambiguously say first century Christians completely renounced private property. The verse literally says of the faithful and their possessions, “they were selling and were dividing them to all” (Gr. hyparxeis epipraskon kai diemerizon auta) rather than “they had sold and distributed them to all.”  Luke’s use of imperfect verbs in this verse seems to describe a continuing process of selling extra property and goods in order to support the poor. But in order to do that Christians would have had to retain some private property even after becoming believers.


How do I track the history of changes to a given verse's actual text? How do I discover it's "lineage"? Has there been a project that traces the genealogy of each verse of the scripture?

I.e., for each verse, it traces back through all the documents it was translated from, the default translations at the time, ... all the way back to historically verifiable fragments?

I'm not talking about a generic "this book of the bible came from XYZ". I'm talking about details at the grainularity of a single verse. I.e, for each verse, trace it's lineage, through all the translations, back to the original inspired writers.

Thanks!

The type of work you are looking for is called an apparatus, such as Bruce Metzger's Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament which explains the choices made in compiling the UBS4 Nestle-Aland 27 (one of the best Greek texts, pulling together most of the known codexes, manuscripts, and papyri out here)

When using an apparatus, you should become familiar with the distinction between the texts (Say, codex Sinaiticus, an aleph, vs. Codex Vaticanus, a B, what a papyri is, what an Mss. Is, etc.) This link, a guide to the critical apparatus of the BHS (Biblica Hebraica Stugartensia) does a pretty good job of explaining the approach that scholars use in determining the lineage of a text.

It will talk about what manuscripts inform the current text out there, and it will discuss why a particular variant should be chosen. Additionally, it grades the certainty with which the scholars believe it to be "original".
This link is not comprehensive, but gives an excellent overview of some of the more problemmatic variants. An example variant would be described as such:

  2 John 12:

  TEXT: "so that our joy may be made full"

  EVIDENCE: S K L P Psi 104 614 630 945 2495 Byz Lect syr(ph,h)
  TRANSLATIONS: KJV RSV NASVn NIV NEB TEV
  RANK: C

  NOTES: "so that your joy may be made full"

  EVIDENCE: A B 33 81 1739 1881 lat vg cop(north)
  TRANSLATIONS: ASV NASV

  OTHER: "so that my joy may be made full"

  EVIDENCE: cop(south)

  COMMENTS: In later Greek the words for "our" and "plyour" were pronounced alike. It is likely that copyists misheard "our" as "your," influenced by the two previous occurrences of "you" in the verse.

In this instance, particular attention should be paid to the "Evidence" entry.  Each letter or abbreviation refers to a particular manuscript that contains the variant.

Finally, if you check out the Net Bible, their public domain text has incorporated the apparatus into the footnotes in most places where there is any question. For example:

  3 tc ‡ Most witnesses ([א] A P 1739 Ï sy) have καί (kai, “also”) before the article τόν (ton). But the external evidence for the shorter reading is significant (B Ψ 048vid 33 pc sa), and the conjunction looks to be a motivated reading in which scribes emulated the wording of 4:21 (ἀγαπᾷ καὶ τόν, agapa kai ton). NA27 places the conjunction in brackets, indicating doubts as to its authenticity.

Again, notice the 'most witnesses' and the list of manuscripts.  The 'A' representing Tischendorf's stolen Codex Sinaiticus is properly called א in this work.


What determines when the Flores de Mayo and the Santacruzan festival will occur each year? As Wikipedia says:

  Flores de Mayo (Spanish for "Flowers of May") is a Catholic and
  Aglipayan festival held in the Philippines in the month of May...The
  Santacruzan is the pageant on the last day of Flores de Mayo, held in
  honour of Helena of Constantinople (known as Reyna Elena) and
  Constantine the Great finding the True Cross in Jerusalem.

The Santacruzan appears to always be held on a Sunday in May (a parade goes by my apartment in New York City). But what determines the dates of the Flores de Mayo (including determining what Sunday the Santacruzan will be celebrated)? One data point: the day for 2014 seems to be today (May 18).

According to a page on the Northern Illinois University site, the festival concludes a Novena (nine days) of prayer.

The festivity commemorates the search of the Holy Cross by Queen Helena (Reina Elena) and her son, the newly converted emperor Constantine. After the Holy Cross was found in Jerusalem and brought back to rome, there was a joyful celebration for thanksgiving.
Nine days of prayer (a novena) in honor of the Holy Cross precedes the Flores de Mayo or Santacruzan. This festival was introduced by the Spaniards in the Philippines and has since become part of Filipino traditions identified with youth, love and romance.

The feast of the Finding of the True Cross as introduced by the Spanish would have been celebrated on May 3, which is when it appeared in the Galician calendar. The festival was suppressed when it was combined with the Roman celebration of the Triumph of the Cross (September 14) in Pope St John XXIII's New Calendar of 1960.
As the main procession in New York always occurs on a Sunday, the Novena of prayer would start nine or ten days prior to that — depending on whether the procession is on the last day of the novena or the day following it, celebrating its completion. This year, it fell on May 18; thus the novena would have started on either Friday 9 May or Saturday 10 May.
I would surmise that the novena starts on the Friday or Saturday following May 3, which would fix the final festival on the third Sunday in May.


What is the basis for the belief that Eve was created on the sixth day, like Adam? I have always thought that Eve was created on the sixth day, a bit later in the day than Adam.  However, I recently discovered that some believe Eve was created on a later day.

What, then, is the basis for the believe that Eve was, in fact, created on the sixth day, a bit later in the day than Adam?

The basis for the belief that Eve was created on the 6th day is a literal interpretation of Genesis 1.

Genesis 1:26-28 ESV Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

Genesis 1:31 ESV And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.

I bolded the keys words. It's important to note that the word "man" in this passage can both refer to a single human male or it can refer to mankind, male and female. Note the use of "them".
Also, it sure would be tough to tell a single male to "be fruitful and multiply."


Was Jesus handsome according to Psalm 45:2? You are the most handsome of the sons of men; grace is poured upon
  your lips; therefore God has blessed you forever. (Psalm 45:2)

Is this psalm about the Messiah or about David himself? Can "handsome" mean something else in this context?

Was Jesus handsome according to this psalm?

Psalm 45 is a love song celebrating a royal wedding.  This view is expressed in the New International Version study Bible, the New Living Translation study Bible and the English Standard Version study Bible.  In order to avoid falling into the trap of giving a personal opinion, allow me to quote from the comments in the ESV:

This is a hymn celebrating a royal wedding; as the title says, it is a love song.  It is impossible to be sure for which king in David’s line the song was first composed, but it does not matter... The psalm has sometimes been taken as directly messianic, because Hebrews 1:8-9 cites Psalm 45:6-7, applying the verses to Christ.  The notes below will make clear how the book of Hebrews uses these verses.
45:1 A Song for a King.  Whether these words are to be sung by the congregation or by a choir, they are addressed to the king.  As a psalm, used in Jerusalem, this would refer to a king in David’s line.
45:2-9 You are a King of Beauty, Majesty, and Justice.  These words speak to the king, praising him for his appearance and gracious speech (v.2), military power (v. 3), and commitment to promoting justice for his subjects (v.4-7a).  These words focus the attention of a young king on the ideals he should hold for his reign and character.  These are what leads to God’s blessing for his people’s king, and to the king’s own respected position in the world (v.7b-9).

In other words, the verse you refer to is not a description of Christ Jesus.  It is a hymn which starts of by addressing the king (to verse 9) then the song turns to the bride and her new role as wife to her husband (the king).  Verses 13-15 describe the splendid attire of the bride (the princess) as she leaves her chamber and is led to the king accompanied by a procession of virgin companions.
It’s a song to be sung at a royal wedding.  The final verses return to the king and speak of the enduring Davidic line.  Is verse 2 saying Jesus was handsome?  No, it is not.  Neither does it mention David.  It seems to be a song to be sung at the wedding of any king from the line of David.
It is true that Hebrews 1:8-9 quotes from Psalm 45:6-7 and applies it to the Son of God, but it does not apply verse 2.
Isaiah 53:2, speaking of the Messiah, says this:

He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him."

Physical appearance is of no consequence.


How did the Church fathers of the first four centuries understand 2 Corinthians 5:21? God made the one who did not know sin to be sin for us, so that in him we would become the righteousness of God. (2 Corinthians 5:21, NET)

I'm interested in an overview of the understanding of the early Christians relating to the fact that Christ was made to be sin.

Church fathers from the first four centuries understand Christ being called "sin" to mean that Christ bore our sin.

Eusebius (260–340), for example, connects this verse with the idea that Christ, "descending into our state of slavery[,] took away our sins."1

Cyril of Alexandria (376–444) emphasizes that Christ himself did not sin:

  We do not say that Christ became a sinner, far from it, but being just, or rather in actuality justice, for he did not know sin, the Father made him a victim for the sins of the world.2

Ambrose (340–397) makes a connection with Galatians 3:13:

  So, was the Lord turned into sin?  Not so, but since he assumed our sins, he is called sin.  For the Lord is also called an accursed thing, not because the Lord was turned into an accursed thing but because he himself took on our curse.3

Gregory of Nazianzus (329–390) also sees John 1:1 as a related passage:

  The passage "The Word was made flesh" seems to me to be equivalent to that in which it is said that he was made sin or a curse for us; not that the Lord was transformed into either of these—how could he be?  But because by taking them upon him he took away our sins and bore our iniquities.4

Proof of the Gospel, 4.17
Letter 41 in Fathers of the Church, v. 76
The Sacrament of the Incarnation of Our Lord, 6.60, in Fathers of the Church, v. 44
Letters on the Apollinarian Controversy, To Cledonius (101)


Why were Deuterocanonical books rejected in the Reformation? The Deuterocanonical books were included in the Septuagint, but not the Hebrew Bible. They are mostly included in the Catholic Old Testament, but not in the Protestant one.

I understand the choice was made by Luther, who called the deuterocanonical books

  Apocrypha, that are books which are not considered equal to the Holy Scriptures, but are useful and good to read

Why weren't the deuterocanonical books considered equal to the Holy Scriptures?

A more ecumenical answer:

They weren't considered equal because they had been considered of dubious origin for quite some time. Back when the Vulgate was being put together Jerome made the points that

The original Hebrew for those texts could no longer be found*
Jews of the late first century onward did not consider them canonical.

Others in the Church countered:

The Church had been using the Greek copies for centuries (clearly evidenced in the New Testament and through the Apostolic Fathers)
Since the Septuagint included those books and the Septuagint was popular among the Apostles, it follows that these books should be on equal footing — whether the Hebrew copies existed or not.

The problem was that there had never really been an official ruling — the prevailing mindset was inclusion (especially since the Patriarchs all seemed to agree to their worthiness), but because the books were never challenged there had never been a need to define their proper place in the canon to begin with. When the early Protestants came along, their priority to get back to an earlier idea of the Church necessarily caused these texts to come into question.+ You can read more about that on Wikipedia.

It was not about Luther

There are some who have said that this is a decision which was made because Luther did not feel that the were consistent with his view of the Gospel, and there is a modicum of truth in that — he most certainly did not view them as entirely consistent with his theology — but that was not his justification or even his primary impetus. It is best to be wary of the stories about Luther in this context — many of them are apocryphal inserts by later apologists of one side or another.

* It should be noted that the Hebrew of Sirach has since been found (and it is fascinating to compare the Greek and Hebrew texts, my Biblical Hebrew professor gave a wonderful lecture on it).
+ It should be noted that Luther was only one of the many early Protestants who included the Deuterocanonical texts but placed them at a diminished stature, and he certainly is not responsible for their exclusion from the modern Protestant Bible. I believe credit with their removal from the English Bibles was the 1611 Authorized Version (the third(?) edition of what we in the US call the King James Bible)


Is there a Christian philosopher who has published a book challenging compatibilism from the point of view of hard determinism? A.W Pink in "The sovereignty of God" says in the introduction- "Two things are beyond dispute: God is sovereign, man is responsible". That compatibilist point of view is compared to Libertarian thinking in Scott Christensen's book "What about Free Will?" page 238. Is there a book which challenges both compatibilist and libertarian thinking by putting forward a third possibility, namely hard determinism?

Hard determinism- all human choices are necessarily determined by prior conditions, which in this Christian context would include God's sovereignty.

Libertarianism- Freedom of choice is the ability to choose contrary to any prior factors that influence the choice including one's motives, desires and even God Himself.

Compatibilism-God determines human choices, yet every person freely makes their own choices.

I'm not aware of any Christian philosophers who take a hard-line determinist point of view.  Of course, no one has read everyone, so I can't say for sure, but it seems like a Christian philosopher who ultimately holds no one except God morally accountable for their actions might be hard to come by.  I'm not saying that the position doesn't have any logical foundation, but the position seems to undermine the foundation of the Christian story, i.e. that people have real choices


Is it true that there is an inscription that says that Yahweh had a wife? In this video, around 1:08:40, Amihai Mazar, of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, says:

  The name "Yahweh", as the name of an Israelite God, [...] appears for the first time in the inscriptions of around 800 BC, found in the Sinai desert, and one of the inscriptions is a dedication to Yahweh and his "asherah": that means, Yahweh, the God of Israel, in this inscription, has a consort, a wife.

Does such an inscription actually exist? Is this a correct interpretation of the inscription in question?

There are inscriptions found in Kuntillet Ajtud and a further inscription found scratched on bedrock in a tomb at Khirbet el-Qom in Judah, that appear to say the goddess Asherah was considered to be the wife of Yahweh. The first of these was discovered in 1975, when Tel Aviv University archaeologist Ze’ev Meshel decided to excavate at remote Kuntillet ‘Ajrud in the Sinai desert. Here they discovered two large pithoi with inscriptions that mentioned Baal, and also Yahweh and his Asherah. Two further references to Yahweh and his Asherah were found on the walls.

The early Israelite dialect was closer to Phoenician than to that of Judah, creating confusion as to whether the Kuntillet Ajtud inscriptions were written by Phoenician worshippers of Yahweh or by Israelites. Careful linguistic analysis has confirmed these inscriptions to be of Israelite origin. Othmar Keel and Christoph Uehlinger explain in Gods, Goddesses, and Images of God, page 247, the mention of 'Yahweh of Samaria', the fact that the theophoric personal names found at Kuntillet Ajrud are formed without exception using the element -yw (not the Judahite -yhw), the paleographic commonalities that link the pithos inscriptions and the ostraca from Samaria, and the iconographically and epigraphically demonstrable combination of elements of (Syro-) Phoenician and Israelite culture all demonstrate clearly that the caravanserai at Kuntillet Ajrud was not Judahite. It was set up using Phoenician skills but was controlled by Israelites and had no local roots. He says it was probably in use no longer than one generation.

As Khirbet el-Qom is in Judah, presumably the early Judahites shared the belief that Asherah was the consort of Yahweh.


What is the "Leviathan" mentioned in Job? I'm trying to brush up on my apologetics skills, but this is one question I haven't found a clear answer to.

I've seen a few explanations for this — a dinosaur, crocodile, whale etc., but none of them seem to answer the question of why the creature is described as breathing fire (this is described in quite a lot of detail):

  Job 41
  18 Its snorting throws out flashes of light;
         its eyes are like the rays of dawn.
  19 Flames stream from its mouth;
         sparks of fire shoot out.
  20 Smoke pours from its nostrils
         as from a boiling pot over burning reeds.
  21 Its breath sets coals ablaze,
         and flames dart from its mouth.

No known animals could have breathed fire. I considered that it could be a legendary animal known by the people of the time, but then why would God himself talk about it as a real animal? Another possibility could be that the book of Job is more of a parable to teach specific lessons than a historically accurate story.

I'd like to see if anyone else has come across other explanations for this question.

You might like to take a look at the related questions What does the Bible have to say about dinosaurs? and Are Dinosaurs mentioned in the Bible? for some dinosaur-specific ideas; and Do Catholics consider Job to be historical? for, well, exactly what the question title says.

Job is a bit of a tricky book in many ways. It is certainly held up as a preeminent example of "literary" writing in the Bible, regardless of the historicity of the events described. The content and style are sophisticated, in particular the central unresolved ambiguity of the text.1 This sort of thing makes us think that the work might be comparatively "late" (plus certain textual hints), whereas the book seems to be set in an "early" period (no mention of the Law, generally patriarchal flavour in the way Job's life is described). This leads us to a couple of tentative conclusions:

Since the book has many identifiable literary qualities, we  could also expect to see others: perhaps this passage is using hyperbole, symbolism, intertextual reference, etc. This is a short leap in the case of Job, whereas with some other Biblical texts, it's hard to say "oh yes, the author is clearly being figurative" without feeling a bit silly.
Since the book is framed as taking place either very long ago (using the tropes of patriarchal narratives) or not in any particular time (like a fable), we could compare it to other contemporary stories for help in understanding how the text works.
The main moral concept of the text is clear: as Affable Geek wrote in an earlier answer on the monsters of Job, "Basically, they are big and strong, but God is bigger." This is solid, and we can use it as a basis for understanding the detail of how the author of Job presents his message.

Monsters, like Leviathan and Behemoth, are fairly common in the epic literature of the ancient near east. The Enuma Elish, so often related to the Genesis creation accounts, recounts various beasts created by Tiamat:

  She spawned monster-serpents,
  Sharp of tooth, and merciless of fang;
  With poison, instead of blood, she filled their bodies.
  Fierce monster-vipers she clothed with terror,
  With splendor she decked them, she made them of lofty stature.
  Whoever beheld them, terror overcame him,
  Their bodies reared up and none could withstand their attack. 2

Another famous example is Humbaba/Huwawa from Gilgamesh,

  ...the warrior whose face is a lion's grimace, and whose breast is like a raging flood. No one dare approach his brow, which devours the reedbeds. On his tongue, like that of a man-eating lion, the blood never dries. You do not have enough strength for the warrior, such is his might. 3

We even get a mention of fire, though not fire-breathing precisely, in the Lugal-e of Ninurta:

  The Asag leapt up at the head of the battle. For a club it uprooted the sky, took it in its hand; like a snake it slid its head along the ground. It was a mad dog attacking to kill the helpless, dripping with sweat on its flanks. Like a wall collapsing, the Asag fell on Ninurta, the son of Enlil. Like an accursed storm, it howled in a raucous voice; like a gigantic snake, it roared at the Land. It dried up the waters of the mountains, dragged away the tamarisks, tore the flesh of the Earth and covered her with painful wounds. It set fire to the reedbeds, bathed the sky in blood, turned it inside out; it dispersed the people there. At that moment, on that day, the fields became black scum, across the whole extent of the horizon, reddish like purple dye - truly it was so! 4

All of these monsters are definitely big and scary - the terror they impart is the main point. This does match the theme of the Job passage. The reason behind mentioning Leviathan at all is to show the distance between God and Job: Leviathan is incredibly dangerous and incomprehensible to a human, but God is greater still. Other parts of God's speech to Job have a related purpose, such as to show that God knows things which are mysterious to Job, or that God's sovereignty extends over cosmic territory. So here, Leviathan - reminiscent of the famous monsters of other writings - is reframed not as a threat to the divine order, but as a subordinate part of it.

So we see a literary explanation for the supernatural characteristics of the beast. The author is appropriating a familiar image, the fearsome cosmic monster, in order to serve his purpose of teaching the unequaled sovereignty of God. Every phrase that makes Leviathan bigger and scarier also makes God bigger still. Conventional animals do not breath fire: but Leviathan is not a conventional animal. As Matthew Henry said,

  Probably these hyperbolical expressions are used concerning the leviathan to intimate the terror of the wrath of God, for that is it which all this is designed to convince us of. Fire out of his mouth devours, Ps. xviii. 7, 8. The breath of the Almighty, like a stream of brimstone, kindles Tophet, and will for ever keep it burning, Isa. xxx. 33. The wicked one shall be consumed with the breath of his mouth, 2 Thess. ii. 8. 5

These descriptions also help the reader to perceive the connection with monsters like the Asag, who are also described with a kind of "cosmic hyperbole".

It is true that other aspects of Leviathan and Behemoth are reminiscent of real living creatures (hippo? whale? serpent?) or even of dinosaurs. There may be some attempt by the author to unify the cosmic-mythological Leviathan with various known natural creatures, which would more squarely place it in the company of ostriches and donkeys (Job 39) rather than being God-like. But it goes against the spirit of the text to treat Job 41 as a zoologist's description of some existing species. The whole point is that Leviathan isn't a normal sort of creature, but an incomprehensible epic threat.

Does it matter that Leviathan is not a real creature, like an ostrich? I don't think it does. If Job were being written for the first time today, its author could perfectly well say that God eats Death Stars for breakfast and uses Barad-Dur as a toothpick. These are perfectly comprehensible cultural references that are not in the least bit harmed by being fictional.6 We get the point.

Further, there is no need to come up with any outlandish speculation about dinosaur-dragons roaming Mesopotamia. (And so Asag, Humbaba, and company would all be based on folk legends about these real creatures.) That is a theory which explains some things - the answer to "why is Leviathan said to breathe fire?" is "because he actually did". But the theory creates far more problems than it solves. In addition to the obvious archaeological problems, it is bad theology. It is far better to try to read Job as the author probably intended - as a literary, philosophical, and intertextual story about God and humanity - than to project anachronistic notions onto the book.

1. Not to be overly snotty about it, but this is one of the things that people often cite as  distinguishing "proper literary stuff" from "formulaic tripe". I'm thinking of people like Roland Barthes, who exalted paradox, enigma, unresolved tension, and in general any writing that requires the reader to do work (The Pleasure of the Text, S/Z, etc.).
2. Enuma Elish, tablet 2, translated by L. W. King (London, 1902).
3. Gilgameš and Ḫuwawa (Version B), 90-95. From the Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature, t.1.8.1.5.1.
4. Ninurta's exploits, 168-186. ETCSL, t.1.6.2.
5. Matthew Henry, Commentary on the Whole Bible, vol. 3 (1708-1710), commentary on Job 41.
6. Nitpicking about the relative sizes of Barad-Dur and the Death Star, the nutritional value of the latter, or the nature of divine dentition, misses the point. Indeed, it does not make material sense, but neither is it intended to be read in that way.


Why does LDS teaching say that the Priesthood returned to earth if John never left? According to The Priesthood of God Returns to the Earth, Peter, James, and John conferred upon Joseph Smith the Melchizedek Priesthood shortly after John the Baptist had conferred upon him the Aaronic Priesthood.

However, LDS teaching also states that the Apostle John never died, but is still alive on earth today.  Since John was one of the three who conferred on Joseph Smith the Melchizedek Priesthood, it seems to indicate that John himself possessed that priesthood.  Since John was still alive on the earth, it would seem, then, that the priesthood never, in fact, left the earth and, therefore, could not be "returned."

So, what does the LDS church mean when it states that the Priesthood returned to earth when it was conferred upon Joseph Smith?

John still held the priesthood during that time (as did the three Nephites who were given the same blessing as John), but the function of the priesthood was limited to his particular, ministerial duties. In other words, the fulness of the Priesthood was not active because its keys did not remain on the earth.

John was not called to be the President of the Lord's church, and thus didn't hold all the keys to the Priesthood. Those keys needed to be restored so that a new prophet (President of the Church) could be called. Peter, James and John together could do this, because they were commissioned by Christ; and Peter, as the president of the primitive Church, held the keys and could confer them.


Why did people stop worshipping God after experiencing the flood? I have just started reading Genesis and have a question about Noah's family. If Noah and his family were the only people left on earth after the flood, why did most of the world forget God and worship other gods, like in Asia and Africa? After being blessed and allowed to live by God, I would think that Noah's family would make sure God's story was passed down through all generations (and parts of the world).

The same way it was lost in the first place.

For the same reason that Cain killed Abel.

Noah was saved physically from the physical calamity, but he was not regenerated. He was not yet saved from sin. He was still a sinful creature as were the other members of his family. The promise from Genesis 3:15 was not yet fulfilled.

The Bible and indeed all of human history is full of the same story. It does not really matter how earth shattering a miracle is witnessed or how clearly people know that God did something (up to and including saving their hides), we all still turn away from God. It's a heart problem.

In Exodus you will find a people that in the course of one lifetime saw God repeatedly intervene on their behalf and they repeatedly turned against him.

The message of the Bible is that you and I are that people.

The solution is still forthcoming. It is found in Christ, but it's a work in progress—secured and completed at the cross but still being revealed to us today. The destruction of the corrupt earth in Noah's day and Noah's being brought over into a new creation was a TYPE or pattern of salvation: a symbol of how the real thing would be but it was not the real thing. You will find in the New Testament that the flood story is a kind of baptism.

  1 Peter 3:20-21 (ESV)
  20  because they formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. 21  Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

Just as baptism is a physical symbol of being cleansed  and the reality that we will be resurrected with Christ yet it does not make us perfect or stop us from sinning, so the flood was a symbol of the same thing but it did not fix the heart problem. It didn't end the sin-nature of man.

One day, the destruction and re-creation that was foreshadowed in the flood (and in baptism) will be completed for real.

  Matthew 24:37 (ESV)
  37  For as were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of Man.

The corrupt wicked world that has rejected God will be judged and destroyed and God's people—the ones he chooses to save—will be brought into a the new heavens and new earth only this time with a our natures renewed to what Adam's should have been. Only then will there be a world that is imperishable and incorruptible.

What you expected to have happen after the flood will happen, but the flood was only a precursor to the real thing.


Is there a mentioning about the wisdom of a crowd in the Bible? In the Bible is there any mention of how smart or stupid large groups of people are?

No, not really. Half the time 'crowds' are mentioned the word is basically synonymous with 'mob' and the other half it's just a big group of people.

There is advice about seeking counsel from wise friends. The company you keep is important, and there are lots of stories (both good and bad) to show that. Most importantly, the Bible says that true wisdom always starts with knowing and rightly fearing the Lord, and that any understanding comes after that.

  Proverbs 9:10 (ESV)
  The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and the knowledge of the Holy One is insight.

As Christians our source of wisdom should always be first and foremost God's word, and having a few sound counselors to help us in understanding it rightly. If we do not know and fear God it cannot be said that we are wise.


Who wrote the Book of Revelation? More specifically: What authorities claim that the Book of Revelation was written by the Apostle John? What authorities claim otherwise?
This C.SE answer apparently references Pliny and Tacitus in favor of a single author, and a comment to this answer calls on "Justin Martyr confirmed by Melito of Sardis and Irenaeus of Lyons" in support of the same.
This answer quotes a passage from Eusebius that seems to call the Book of Revelation's authorship into question. And church historian Justo Gonzalez, in his widely regarded work The Story of Christianity,* offers the following:

The task of reconstructing John's later career is complicated by the frequency with which the name of John appears in early records. There is an ancient tradition that claims that John was killed in a pot of boiling oil. But the book of Revelation places John, at about the same time, in exile on the island of Patmos. Another very trustworthy tradition speaks of John as a teacher at Ephesus, where he died around the year 100. All this indicates that there were at least two people with the same name, and that later tradition confused them. A second-century Christian writer -- Papias of Hierapolis -- affirms that there were indeed two persons by the name of John in the early church: one the apostle, and another an elder at Ephesus, who received the visions on Patmos. It is clear, from the enormous difference in their use of the Greek language, that the John of Revelation did not write the Fourth Gospel -- commonly known as the Gospel of John. In any case, there was indeed toward the end of the first century, in the city of Ephesus, a Christian teacher named John, whose authority was great in all of the churches of Asia Minor.

So, were the Gospel According to John and the Book of Revelation written by the same author, or not? And the all-important follow-up question: "Says who??"
A note on scoping:
The concept of "authorities" as used in this question is, of course, open to interpretation. I'm primarily interested in what has been said by the Church Fathers and the principle figures of the Reformation. If the theory of multiple authors is more modern, then what modern writers have advocated the idea?
Edit: Here is a blog entry at Canon Fodder from RTS President and Professor of NT Michael J. Kruger that is quite germane to this question. An excerpt:

Lately, I have been doing a good bit of research on Revelation’s canonical history in preparation for writing an academic piece on the subject.  Here are a few highlights about Revelation’s journey:
Revelation’s early reception was Outstanding: Perhaps as much as any other NT book, we have evidence for an early, widespread, and consistent reception of Revelation.  Our evidence goes back as early as Papias (c.125) and also includes Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, the Muratorian Fragment, Hippolytus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and Origen.  That is an impressive list.
In addition, it is worth noting that almost every one of these church fathers accepted the book of revelation on the same grounds, namely the belief that the apostle John, the son of Zebedee was the author.

* The Story of Christianity, Justo Gonzalez. Revised edition, Volume I, Chapter 4, p. 36.

The internal evidence of the authorship is found in four passages in the Book of Revelation. It is in these four passages that the author refers to himself as "John".

  Rev 1:1 This is the revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants the things that must happen soon. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John,
  Rev 1:4 From John to the seven churches in Asia.......
  Rev 1:9"I, John, both your brother and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was on the island that is called Patmos for the word of God and for the testimony of Jesus Christ."
  Rev 22:8 "Now I, John, saw and heard these things. And when I heard and saw, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel who showed me these things."

Also the very title of the Book includes in it the name John. This title "occurs in several MSS, including the Codex Sinaiticus".

Additionally, the fingerprints of John the apostle are all over the apocalypse. For example, Jesus Christ as the Lamb is referred in both these books. Also, John, and John alone, identifies Jesus as the Word, or Logos (John 1:1, 14; Revelation 19:13). Likewise, John alone identifies Jesus as the true witness (John 5:31–47; 8:14–18; Revelation 2:13; 3:14), and it is John who most exploits the Mosaic requirement of two witnesses (John 8:12–30; Revelation 11:1–12).

With mention of this single name as John, with no attempt to clarify any further on it, obviously indicates that he was well-known to his first readers, to whom no further identification was necessary. This conclusion is supported by most ancient historians.

Revelation has long been attributed to the author of John's Gospel, in spite of the differences in style of writing. The reason for this difference in style could possibly be that, the book of revelation was revealed to John the apostle at his old age and was possibly penned with the help of someone who was not good in Greek language. Since Domitian died in A.D. 96, the date attributed to the book of Revelation coincides with this date by which time John would have been quite old (Date of death of John is taken as 100AD at the age of 94). The evidence against John the Apostle being the author is minimal, and largely based on grammatical and writing style differences with the John’s Gospel.

Homer Hailey states concerning this matter:

"Although a few relatively early writers raised the question of authorship, the Apostle John's composition of Revelation was never seriously questioned until modern nineteenth-century liberal criticism."

Early church fathers were unanimous that it was John the apostle. As one examines this segment of history, one needs to be reminded that the further away from the first century one gets the lesser reliable evidence to know about the correctness of any claim on this issue.

Justin Martyr (A.D. 110-165) in his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew (LXXXI) says. "There was a certain man with us, whose name was John, one of the apostles of Christ, who prophesied by revelation," and then refers to the thousand years, the resurrection and the Judgment of Revelation 20. Again Justin Martyr (100-165 A.D.) quotes John the Apostle that Jesus Christ would dwell in Jerusalem one thousand years.

Irenaeus (120-200 A.D.) quoted in every chapter of Revelation. Irenaeus who had heard Polycarp, a disciple of John the apostle, wrote in his Against Heresies (IV. xx. 11), "John, also the Lord's Disciple ..... says in the Apocalypse," and then quotes profusely from that Book. (11) Having thus identified him as the "Lord's Disciple". Irenaeus says later: "In a still clearer light has John, in the Apocalypse, revealed certain things," which the writer proceeds to discuss (V.xxi 1).

Tertullian (155-220 A.D.), sometimes called "the Father of Latin Christianity," a voluminous writer, also quotes from almost every chapter of Revelation and attributes John the Apostle as author. He wrote five books Against Marcion  Hippolytus (170-235 A.D.)  also attributed Revelation to John, he quotes Revelation chapter 17 and 18 a great deal. In book III. xxv, Tertullian writes of the Jerusalem let down from heaven. He quotes Paul, who called it "our mother" (Galatians 4:26), and he says, "the apostle John beheld" it, referring to Revelation 21:2.

Clement of Alexandria ( 150-211 A.D.) and Origen (185-254 A.D.) also attribute John the Apostle as the author of Revelation.  In his treatise, Who is the Rich man that Shall be Saved? (XLII), writes of "the apostle John" who "returned to Ephesus from the Isle of Patmos" after "the tyrant's death." The tyrant is unnamed but is believed to be Domitian.

Ignatius (30-108 A.D.) writes regarding John the Apostle,

Origen (A.D. 185-254), in De Principiis says, "According to John, God is Light" (I. II. 7), unquestionably referring to the Apostle John. Then later he says, "Listen to the manner in which John [the John whom he had quoted above] speaks in the apocalypse". (I. II. 10). Surely Origen knew only one John who wrote Scripture, and that was John the Apostle.

Hippolytus (A.D. 170-236) ; Victorinus (Died in persecution A.D. 303) as well as the Muratorian Fragment, ect. all lend their support to the genuineness of Revelation and that of being from John the Apostle of Christ. It is with great surety that such an array of testimony can lead one to accept John the Apostle as the writer of Revelation.

Eusebius (A.D. 300-340) the father of church history writes in his Ecclesiastical History about the connection between John the Apostle and Domitian.

  It is said that in this persecution the apostle and evangelist John, who was still alive, was condemned to dwell on the island of Patmos in consequence of his testimony to the divine word. Irenaeus, in the fifth book of his work Against Heresies, where he discusses the number of the name of Antichrist which is given in the so-called Apocalypse of John, speaks as follows concerning him:  “If it were necessary for his name to be proclaimed openly at the present time, it would have been declared by him who saw the revelation. For it was seen not long ago, but almost in our own generation, at the end of the reign of Domitian.”

Prior to the third century, there was no dispute of apostolic authorship.  The bishop of Alexandria, Dionysius (200-265 A.D.), was the first to raise questions about the apostle John being the author.  He claimed, based on the writing style and the lack of an apostolic claim in the book, John the Elder (Presbyter) was the author not John the apostle.  Dionysius, who studied under Origen, also denied the teaching of a literal Millennium.  The teaching on the Millennium was based on a literal reading of the book of Revelation (Revelation 20:1-7).  The Alexandrian school taught scriptural symbolism and allegorical interpretation, rejecting a literal Millennium interpretation of Revelation.  By questioning John the Apostles authorship of the book, their Amillennial view had greater credibility.

There is valuable information from the writings of Papias as brought out in Catholic Encyclopaedia:
Irenæus makes mention of these as the only works written by Papias, in the following words: Now testimony is borne to these things in writing by Papias, an ancient man, who was a hearer of John, and a friend of Polycarp, in the fourth of his books; for five books were composed by him.  In the Papia-I,  Papias describes his way of gathering information. This is preserved through Eusebius (III, xxix):

  "I will not hesitate to add also for you to my interpretations what I formerly learned with....., but in those who relate the precepts which were given by the Lord to the faith and came down from the Truth itself. And also if any follower of the Presbyters happened to come, I would inquire for the sayings of the Presbyters, what Andrew said, or what Peter said, or what Philip or what Thomas or James or what John or Matthew or any other of the Lord's disciples, and for the things which other of the Lord's disciples, and for the things which Aristion and the Presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, were saying. For I considered that I should not get so much advantage from matter in books as from the voice which yet lives and remains."

Here Eusebius has caused a difficulty by pointing out that two Johns are mentioned, one being distinguished by the epithet presbyter from the other who is obviously the Apostle.

Dionysius Misconception of two John:
The historian Eusebius adds that Dionysius of Alexandria said he heard there were two tombs of John at Ephesus. To quote Catholic Encyclopaedia, this view has been adopted by practically all liberal critics and by such conservatives as Lightfoot and Westcott. But Zahn and most Catholic writers agree that Dionysius was mistaken about the tomb, and that Eusebius's interpretation of Papias's words is incorrect. For he says that Papias frequently cited John the Presbyter; yet it is certain that Irenaeus, who had a great veneration for the work of Papias, took him to mean John the Apostle; and Irenaeus had personal knowledge of Asiatic tradition and could not have been ignorant of the existence of John the presbyter, if there ever was such a person in Asia. Again, Irenaeus tells us that the Apostle lived at Ephesus until the time of Trajan, that he wrote the Apocalypse in the last days of Domitian.

Irenaeus had heard Polycarp relate his reminiscences of the Apostle. Justin, who was at Ephesus about 130-5, asserts that the Apostle was the author of the Apocalypse (and therefore the head of the Asiatic Churches). But if the Apostle lived at Ephesus at so late a date, (and it cannot be doubted with any show of reason), he would naturally be the most important of Papias's witnesses. Yet if Eusebius is right, it would seem that John the Presbyter was his chief informant, and that he had no sayings of the Apostle to relate. Again, "The Presbyter" who wrote I and II Johnhas the name of John in all manuscripts, and is identified with the Apostle by Irenaeus and Clement, and is certainly (by internal evidence) the writer of the fourth Gospel, which is attributed to the Apostle by Irenaeus and all tradition. Again, Polycrates of Ephesus, in recounting the men who were the glories of Asia, has no mention of John the presbyter, but of "John, who lay upon the Lord's breast", undoubtedly meaning the Apostle. The second John at Ephesus is an unlucky conjecture of Eusebius.

Some more readings here, and here


What doctrinal changes did the Westminster Confession bring to the Church of Scotland? After the reforms of the 16th century, the Scots Confession served as the primary confession for the Church of Scotland for just over 80 years. In 1648 it was replaced by the The Humble Advice of the Assembly of Divines, a later revision of which is widely known as the Westminster Confession of Faith and is still used today in many Protestant denominations. Meanwhile I don't hear much about the Scots Confession.

I'm curious what changes switching to the Westminster Confession brought over the Scots Confession of the previous century. According to what the Westminster divines set out in the WCF, on what points would the Scots confession have been considered either incomplete, not clear, or outright wrong?

I like this question because it forces us to read the Westminster Confession in its context, and not just as a settled statement of belief. In summary, the two confessions are in continuity, but the earlier Scots Confession was more permissive. Especially, it did not exclude the option of episcopal polity, or of royal power over the Church. The Westminster Confession includes more ramified theological content, and is more strongly Calvinist. This is partly the result of its having been written by theological experts, and vetted by others in the Scottish universities before its adoption, and partly because the writers were commissioned to make sure there would be an official "weapon" to use against Arminians and so on.

The project of the assembly at Westminster was to create a unified religious settlement for the three kingdoms (England, Scotland, Ireland), incorporating reformed doctrine, polity, procedure for worship, psalm and prayer texts, and relationship with the civil order. It was the product of a "covenant" between presbyterians in the different nations, seeking to establish their ideas over Catholicism on the one hand, and more radical Protestant factions on the other. In the period, the kingdoms were engaged in civil war, and this project was a claim for how it should be resolved.

From official correspondence from the Scottish side, the main doctrinal points they thought should be included in the settlement were:

Conformity in the three kingdoms. Everyone would have to follow the new Confession and related documents. They also envisaged that this would be an example for the world, both morally (look how holy we are) and practically (we've written this stuff for you already, just sign up).
Presbyterian polity. This was opposed to royalist counterproposals for retaining bishops in some capacity or in some areas, and to more radical congregational views that would have eliminated any church structure beyond the parish.
Excommunication. Ministers - and nobody else - were to have authority to exclude someone from the sacraments. In particular, they could rebuke even the King, and on the other hand the King would not have any authority over the administration of the sacraments. They were also keen on a general suppression of vice and immorality (drunkenness, non-observance of the Sabbath, etc.).
Elimination of heresy. "Socinianisme, Arminianisme, Anabaptisme, Antinomianisme, Brownisme, Erastianisme, Independency, and that which is called (by abuse of the word) Liberty of Conscience, being indeed liberty of errour, scandall, schisme, heresie, dishonouring God, opposing the truth, hindering reformation, and seducing others; whereunto we adde those Nullifidians, or men of no religion, commonly called Seekers" were to be suppressed, by power of the civil magistrate and with the authority of doctrinal statements against them. 1

Comparison with the Scots Confession shows that the Westminster document is more explicit about doctrine, including Calvinist theories of soteriology rather than more general statements that might cover Arminian views as well. It also declares a stricter separation between the roles of Crown and Kirk. Under Westminster, regulation of the ministry of word and sacrament is excluded from the responsibility of the civil magistrate: he must suppress heresy and keep order, but it's for the Kirk to decide what heresy is. The Scots Confession leaves it open that the King's role for "maintenance of the true religion" could be more expansive, perhaps including the power to excommunicate or readmit.

The practical difference between the confessions was shown in the Restoration. On 28 March 1661, Charles II revoked the Westminster Confession via his "Act Rescissory", which repealed all legislation from 1633 onwards. He declared that the Protestant religion would be observed as it had been under James VI and Charles I; and while he said Presbyterian polity would be maintained "in the mean Time" if presbyteries were "keeping within Bounds and behaving themselves", it was only a few months before episcopacy was brought back.2 In effect, the Scots Confession had been restored as the standard of faith, and read in a way that allowed considerable royal latitude, as well as the presence of bishops.

In 1681, the Test Act3 formalized this, at the suggestion of James Dalrymple: its loyalty oath invoked the Confession "recorded in the first Parliament of king James VI", and required the belief in royal supremacy in all matters, "as well ecclesiastical as civil". Religious assemblies were only allowed if the king approved them, and they certainly could not "endeavour any change or alteration in the government, either in church or state". While this was sold as an anti-Catholic measure, it was really an attempt to wrest Protestants back to a more moderate course. (And James VII exempted Catholic officers from having to follow it anyway!) Accordingly, the re-ratification of Westminster in 1690 made it absolutely clear that the presbyterian system would be restored, including that it would be "the only government of Christs Church within this Kingdome". The royal power was taken away, and this settlement was preserved in subsequent legislation, including the Act of Union with England. To this day, doctrine and governance of the Church of Scotland is for the Church itself, and not for the Queen or Parliament.

1. Declaration and Brotherly Exhortation of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland to their Brethren of England, 20 August 1647.
2. The King's Majesty's Proclamation concerning Church-affairs, 10 June 1661.
3. An Act anent Religion and the Test, 31 August 1681


What significance did the "heart" possess in the ancient cultures contemporary with the biblical era? I've had as hard a time with the concept of the heart as I've had with the concept of the soul.  Currently I am thinking the heart is a reference to what your goals are and what you direct your attention to. However, I am not sure.

What does the Bible mean when it refers to the word "heart"? Did they only use it in the sense of a four-chambered organ that circulates blood throughout the body, or did they use it in other ways? How do emotions relate to it? How do thoughts relate to it? What other insight does the scripture provide with respect to the heart?

In ancient thought, at least with respect to the Hebrews, the "heart" (לב) was considered to be the locus of one's thoughts. Today, most might say that thoughts originate from the brain and/ or mind.

Nevertheless, the idea of "to think to one's self" is expressed by the phrase לאמור בלב, which means, "to say in the heart" (cp. Gen. 17:17). This proves the connection they gave between "thought" and "heart."

To circumcise the foreskin of one's heart is to remove all the excess and unnecessary thoughts from one's thoughts and life and to devote one's entire attention and self to serving God. The foreskin signified pleasure and excess.

Were there any specific verses you had in mind?

Wilhelm Gesenius covered the topic well in his entry on the word לב in his lexicon, pp. 507-508.


What is Paul saying in Romans 7:15 - 7:25? The way I interpret it is that he's saying that if we commit sin while we are aware that it is sinful and if we hate the sin we commit then we are not really committing sin but rather the "sin which dwells in [us]" is doing it. Is this the generally accepted interpretation?

The NASB text:

14 For we know that the Law is spiritual, but I am of flesh, sold [m]into bondage to sin. 15 For what I am doing, I do not understand; for I am not practicing what I would like to do, but I am doing the very thing I hate. 16 But if I do the very thing I do not want to do, I agree with the Law, confessing that the Law is good. 17 So now, no longer am I the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me. 18 For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh; for the willing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not. 19 For the good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want. 20 But if I am doing the very thing I do not want, I am no longer the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me.

21 I find then the [n]principle that evil is present in me, the one who wants to do good. 22 For I joyfully concur with the law of God [o]in the inner man, 23 but I see a different law in [p]the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner [q]of the law of sin which is in my members. 24 Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from [r]the body of this death? 25 Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, on the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other, with my flesh the law of sin.

Paul brings up covetousness as a personal example of the tension he is about to explain, which tension is brought about through the new birth.  "When the commandment came", Paul says, "sin came alive and I died" (Romans 7:9).  Now we know that Paul was raised not only as a Jew but also as a Pharisee (Philippians 3:5-6) so it is clear that he is not referring to the first time he was exposed to the 10th commandment; he had known the words his entire life.

When the new birth ushers one into the Kindgom, the commandments come in a new way.  The Spirit of Christ, the living Word, living in and renewing minds through obedience brings the commandments to a newly cleansed conscience and sin is revealed for what it truly is: "Did that which is good, then, bring death to me? By no means! It was sin, producing death in me through what is good, in order that sin might be shown to be sin, and through the commandment might become sinful beyond measure." - Romans 7:13.

Sin is in view in the rest of the passage, not so much as specific instances, but as a governing principle lodged in his humanity.  It is this principle that came to power when the commandment came and he died; not because he suddenly coveted but because the newly illuminated Law revealed how covetous he already was.  The Law is the opposing principle and though it is good and holy it is too weakened by sinful flesh to bring about righteousness: "For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am of the flesh, sold under sin.- Romans 7:14"  Paul could not rid himself of the covetousness
he now abhorred.

Paul has a desire in his renewed mind to do that which is good but does not find within his natural self the ability to carry those things out.  Instead he finds himself doing what he does not wish to do (Romans 7:15).  All sin is birthed at the level of intention which is made clear in the Sermon on the Mount.  He cannot attribute this failing to the presence of the Law (which shines the light upon sin but cannot alleviate it) and so he attributes it to "sin that lives in him." - Romans 7:16-17  He is not dodging culpability but outlining his moral failure at the level of intent.  His responsibility is to consider himself dead to sin but alive to God; essentially to believe the Gospel and act accordingly, relying on the mercy and grace of God every step of the way.

The closing statements reveal where his hope lies in the midst of this tension.  It is not in his agreement with the Law nor in his inner (and newly spiritual) desire to do that which is good.  It is not in his natural ability since, in that arena, he is sold under sin.  "For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being, but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members." - Romans 7:22-23  His hope lies in Christ who both satisfied the Law on his behalf through his obedience and condemned sin in the flesh through the cross:  "Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin." - Romans 7:24-25

Paul is able to live in this tension where the flesh and Spirit lust against one another free of condemnation by faith in the work of Christ and the sanctifying presence of the Spirit.

"There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death.
For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh,
in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit." - Romans 8:1-3

His trust is: "And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ." - Philippians 1:6


How have Protestants explained how Jesus could be born of mankind and be sinless? Very simple question really. If the sin of Adam is passed down through the generations, so that all of us are born with a sin nature, how can it be that Jesus was born of Mary (a human being), yet sinless?

I'm from a Protestant (specifically Baptist) background, and would be interested in knowing how we explain it. Most churches have rather vague doctrinal statements that don't address subtle issues like this. So I am wondering if there are any common answers to this issue. Good answers will show that the position proposed is accepted by more than just the poster.

The only argument I've beard before is that sin is passed via the seed of man, but I find no Biblical support for this, and it sounds like an artificially constructed argument to oppose some Catholic answers to this question which may require the sinlessness of Mary (which would be contrary to the Bible from the Protestant point of view).

The Bible is very clear that Jesus did not begin to exist in the womb of Mary.  As the Second Person of the Trinity, He exists outside of the physical universe of time, space, and matter and with the Father and Spirit created the physical world.

He is holy, was holy, and will always be holy... and sinless and righteous and pure and blameless.

When Mary conceived, the eternal Son of God became flesh and entered into the physical universe.  That act did not require that He become sinful.  He retained His holiness, as He is the same yesterday, today and forever.

His being born of a virgin is an important part of this, of course.  The doctrine indicates that without a human father, Jesus did not inherit the sin nature.

When He was born, He was given the name of Jesus (The Lord saves) because He Himself was the Lord who was saving His people from their sins.


What is the biblical basis for Postmillennialism? Related:

  What are the differences between the different millenialisms?
  What is the biblical basis for Historical Premillennialism?
  What is the biblical basis for Dispensational Premillennialism?

Since my previous two questions on Premillennialism were nicely answered, it's time for the next one:

Postmillennialism is a view of the end times that basically says that things will get better and better, more and more (to eventually almost if not all) are converted, and the church expands. This period (which we are in now) is the millennium, and after it is over (i.e, after the world is almost completely awesomeified), Christ will return. (postmils: correct me if I err in my description).

What is the biblical basis for this belief? Also, what logical deductions that support this belief can you make from biblical passages?

It seems the strongest arguments are in favor of Premillennialism, as there are several passages about the tribulations that will happen to Christians, and I'm not aware of any "Fear not, the world's gonna get awesome!" verses, so what's the reasoning behind Postmillennialism?

If tradition can be a convincing argument, feel free to use it.

Enjoying God Ministries (which I don't know anything about other than the page I will link to) has this summary: The Postmillennial View of the Kingdom of God. They list a number of Biblical quotes which, for completeness, I will add here:

Old Testament: Num. 14:21; Psalms 2:6-9; 22:27-28; 47; 72:8-11; 110:1-2; 138:4-5 (cf. 102:15); Isa. 2:2-4; 9:6-7; 11:6-10; 45:22-25; 65; 66; Jer. 31:31-34; Daniel 2:31-35; Zech. 9:9f.; 13:1; 14:9.
New Testament: Matt. 13:31-33; 28:18-20; John 12:31-32; 16:33; 1 John 2:13-14; 3:8; 4:4,14; 5:4-5; Acts 2:32-36,41; Rom. 11:25-32; 1 Cor. 15:20-26, 57-58; Hebrews 1:8-9,13; 2:5-9; Rev. 2:25-27; 3:7-9; 7:9-10; 11:15; 19:11-21.

One of the more interesting quotes (repeated on monergism (again, I have no other knowledge of the site)) is Psalm 22:27-28:

All the ends of the earth will remember and turn to the LORD, and all the families of the nations will bow down before him, for dominion belongs to the LORD and he rules over the nations.

Personal notes:
The verses I've checked so far, like Psalm 22:27-28, could also be pre-millennialism. I don't see any post-millennialism specific verses. The closest I could find is Matthew 28:19:

Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

And the second closest is probably John 12:31-32:

Now is the time for judgment on this world; now the prince of this world will be driven out. But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself.

To put it more simply: I was a pre-millennialist before I started this study. Now I'm a definite pre-millennialist!
(Another, Psalm 47 appears to be more about military conquest and though it has verses that could be interpreted as millennial, they could just as easily be pre-millennial.)


Does Judah's betrayal to Jesus have something to do with Judah's betrayal to Jehovah in OT (Jeremiah 2:23?) Judah got sold for 30 silver coins and betrayed Jesus

Judah (tribe) betrayed LORD by worshipping that false god Baal and other worthless idols

Do these both incidents have something in common?

This is my first attempt at an answer, so bear with me.

They do seem potentially related. And by that I mean, the earlier betrayal of Judah (by worshipping Ba’al) can be seen as a type of what would end up happening to Jesus. But also, Judas himself can potentially be interpreted as a type for the Jews, as it is Judas (which is the same meaning as Judah, or Yehuwdah) that would betray Jesus. And according to the Gospels, it is the Jews that are described as the ones responsible for Jesus’ death when they called for Him to be crucified.

Hence, Judas AND Judah betrayed Him.

In short, there could be a lot in common between those events.


Where was Jesus' tomb? We can be pretty sure it isn't in Japan.  The two most referenced sites are:

The Aedicule of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and
The Garden Tomb.

However, both stake their claims by virtue of their proximity to Golgotha.  (Proponents of the two tomb sites also disagree on the location of Jesus' crucifixion.)  However, I don't see anything in the Gospel texts that indicate where the tomb might have been in relation to the crucifixion site:

  And when evening had come, since it was the day of Preparation, that is, the day before the Sabbath, Joseph of Arimathea, a respected member of the council, who was also himself looking for the kingdom of God, took courage and went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. Pilate was surprised to hear that he should have already died. And summoning the centurion, he asked him whether he was already dead. And when he learned from the centurion that he was dead, he granted the corpse to Joseph. And Joseph bought a linen shroud, and taking him down, wrapped him in the linen shroud and laid him in a tomb that had been cut out of the rock. And he rolled a stone against the entrance of the tomb. Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses saw where he was laid.—Mark 15:42-47 (ESV)

We know who the tomb belonged to, but not where it was situated.  In fact, I can see no reason for the tomb not to be anyone of Second Temple burial sites found around Jerusalem.  Given the little we know about Joseph, I'd say the Sanhedrin Tombs1 are as likely than any other candidate.  More likely still, the tomb was used by Joseph's family and the connection to Jesus was lost.2  It may very well have been destroyed in one of Jerusalem's many rebuilding projects.

Can we know where Jesus was buried?

1. Oddly, it's difficult to find good information on this site, which is practically neglected.  I don't know, for instance, exactly how they got their name or what era they come from.  So this suggestion ought to be taken with a shaker of salt.

2. This theory isn't surprising since according to the Gospels, the tomb would have been empty.  There was nothing to see and no reason to visit!

I believe that God has not given us an answer to this question as it might lead to a form of idolatry.  I remember standing in the Princeton Cemetery at the foot of Jonathan Edward's grave (he is one of my heros of the faith) and thinking, my goodness, this is where that godly man's bones rest until the resurrection.  I was so tempted to worship the place I was standing in because of it's proximity to a bunch of dead bones?!?!  It was a strange feeling, and it was basically a temptation to idolatrous worship.

Now, how much more tempted might we be to worship a hunk or rock which we knew to be the location of that most glorious of events, the resurrection?  I believe God has not told us this so that we are not tempted to worship the place.


What is the Catholic view on EFT? Did the Catholic Church or any of the representatives issued any stance on Emotional Freedom Technique (EFT)?

I realize it comes from an Eastern religion which is not in line with Christianity, but my question is: what would be wrong with a simple tapping. How can evil spirits enter our life through the tapping on our body?

What is the danger? Instead of understanding and accepting the cross we get from a physical pain, we lean to tapping?

Catholics should be wary of the acceptance of eastern, non-Christian religious concepts. EFT appears to have similarities with acupuncture, so I did some looking for acupuncture since EFT is lesser-known. I came across the following:

The Western form of acupuncture, which is based on science and not
Taoism, is acceptable for use by Christians. However, the traditional
Chinese acupuncture belief system is not compatible with Christianity.
"The philosophical thinking behind acupuncture comes from Taoism and
the concept of the yin and yang, and of being at one with the forces
in the universe through meditation," the Irish Theological Commission
wrote in 1994 in its document, "A Catholic Response to the New Age
Phenomenon." (See article)

So the test for whether this practice conflicts with Catholicism is whether it incorporates foreign teachings that conflict with core beliefs within the faith.
If something helps with pain or addiction and has been stripped of the dangerous dogmas of another faith, it may be harmless. This seems to rely somewhat on a placebo effect. Placebo effects can actually be very powerful at overcoming pain, apprehension, and addiction (see further reading)
A word of warning: recognize that these activities have the potential to soften your objectivity when encountering elements from eastern religions like Taoism. It has the potential to inadvertently open you up to oppositional ideas and concepts that could lead you into dangerous territory.


How is "Free Grace Theology" linked with dispensationalism? I have a somewhat vague understanding of dispensationalism and Covenant theology, and have until now preferred the latter to the former because it seems simpler and hence more intuitive. I recently came across Free Grace Theology (FGT), which seems very appealing to me and, to my mind, focuses on the Gospel in a sharper way than either Reformed or Arminian theology. However, in watching talks by FGT people, I've noticed that they link FGT to dispensationalism in a very tight way, as if dispensationalism needs to be assumed in order to arrive at the Free Grace position. I would like to understand how and why this is the case, if it is true. Also, is FGT compatible with Covenant Theology?

The origin of today's "Free Grace Theology" movement is typically associated with Lewis Sperry Chafer, the famous dispensationalist, and one of its leading proponents has been Zane Hodges (of Dallas Theological Seminary, a major dispensationalist institution).  In Major Bible Themes, Chafer writes:

  The Scriptures are violated and the whole doctrine of grace confused when salvation is made to depend on anything other than believing. The divine message is not "believe and pray," "believe and confess sin," "believe and confess Christ," "believe and be baptized," "believe and repent," or "believe and make restitution." (Chapter 28)

This is a fundamental divergence from the historic Protestant doctrine of conversion, which sees both faith and repentance as necessary.  For more on the differences between these two approaches, see my answer to How does repentance fit into the doctrine of sola fide (“by faith alone”)?

FGT flows naturally out of some varities of dispensationalism because of the clear dividing lines drawn between "law" and "grace," and "Old Covenant" and "New Covenant."  Covenant Theology sees them as more connected, arguing that both Old Testament and New Testament saints are saved the same way (the grace purchased by Jesus Christ on the cross) and that the law acts as a restraint, model, and guide for the church in all ages (both BC and AD).  This disagreement has led to debate over whether FGT is a form of the heresy antinomianism.

Incidentally, not all dispensationalists make such strong distinctions between law and grace, and thus not all are comfortable with FGT.  John MacArthur, a reformed baptist and dispensationalist, wrote the book The Gospel According to Jesus, in which he defends the traditional Protestant understanding.

As may now be clear, holding to both Covenant Theology and Free Grace Theology seems fraught with difficulty, though it wouldn't surprise me if some have tried.  Not only do the two views have different views of law and grace, but their doctrines of salvation diverge as well in areas like regeneration, conversion, and sanctification.  A Covenant Theologian would have to jettison quite a bit in order to accept FGT, at which point some would ask if the Covenant Theology label still has any meaning for that person.