Changing determined fate? I am LDS and had a discussion in Seminary the other day. Our Heavenly Father is all knowing, meaning he can see our past, present, and future. Let's say that according to Heavenly Father, I am not going to the Celestial Kingdom. He already knows that. How do we change what he already knows? I know it can change perspective for us, but how can we change it for him? How do we Change our Determined fate based on what Heavenly Father already knows?

God knows the future of what the free-will creatures choose. Free will does not stop becoming free because God knows what will happen. Is this True?

If he already knows everything though, how can it be that we make any different choices than what he already knows we will make?

Although our Father in Heaven is all-knowing, That can not, or at least should have any effect on us. If we are trying to change fate, then we must believe that we are destined to end up somewhere we don't want to be. Why not trust that our fate lies in the celestial kingdom and shoot for that? If we think that things are already decided, and that we cannot make it anywhere else, we are only going to end up shooting ourselves in the foot (on the eternal scale) by either getting disappointed and discouraged, angry,  trying to "prove God wrong", or spending to much time worrying about these things instead of going out and doing good.

The Following is a quote from the lds.org website: The Fullness of the Gospel: Agency

  We do not believe in a deterministic God—that is, one who determines in advance the eventual fate of His children. Rather, we believe in a God who has perfect foreknowledge of the choices His children will make. He may use this foreknowledge to guide us or even to warn us, but He does not use it to preempt our agency. He allows us to become what we truly desire to become. As Elder James E. Talmage of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles wrote: “[God] knows what each will do under given conditions, and sees the end from the beginning. His foreknowledge is based on intelligence and reason. He foresees the future as a state which naturally and surely will be; not as one which must be because He has arbitrarily willed that it shall be.”

Thus, we do not need to "prove" anything to God, and although he does know what will happen under certain circumstances, and does not already have planned out exactly what will happen to us. If this were true, then the entire plan of salvation, and our time here on earth would be for nothing, and of no use, because he already knows everything, and we would just be his puppets.

If God indeed knew everything, the we would actually have no agency, meaning that he must have chosen everything. Proof against this viewpoint is the lives of wicked people who live contrary to his will, as a loving God would not choose to destroy some of his children, or doom them to go to a lesser kingdom.

@anonymous -- I hope this all helps, if I have not answered your question, please comment on my post to let me know.


How do evangelical universalists reconcile their position with the designation for Judas that it would be better if he had never been born? By "evangelical" in this context I am referring to those with the common evangelical view that the Bible is the word of God and inerrant in the autographs.

The idea that Judas might be ultimately saved would be required to hold to universalism, but it seems irreconcilable with the idea that he would be saved and yet be one of whom woe is pronounced and that it would be better for him not to have been born. (Matthew 26:24, Mark 14:21)

I identify as an evangelical universalist. I don't know if you'll find this worthwhile, but here's my take.

It sounds an awful lot like a figure of speech to me. If it is, it's best not to draw too many conclusions based on it. (Bart Ehrman left the faith because the mustard seed isn't really the smallest of all seeds.)

In support of the figure of speech reading, I'd point first to a general pattern in Christ (I assume we don't need a list to agree that Jesus used fos's quite a lot), and I'd point second to the fact that we don't even have to go outside the Bible to see a similar occasion of language predating Christ's usage here. It's in Ecclesiastes:

  Eccl. 6:3 A man may have a hundred children and live many years; yet no matter how long he lives, if he cannot enjoy his prosperity and does not receive proper burial, I say that a stillborn child is better off than he (my emphasis).

Here we see language similar to Christ's ("a stillborn child is better off") to describe someone who "cannot enjoy his prosperity." This last seems a particularly interesting piece of language when applied to Judas, whose prosperity was the field in which he died.

It gets even more interesting after that:

  4 [the stillborn baby] comes without meaning, it departs in darkness, and in darkness its name is shrouded.
  5 Though it never saw the sun or knew anything, it has more rest than does that man—

So verse 5 indicates in what way it's better not to be born--"it has more rest."

Then comes v. 6:

  6 even if he [the man who can't enjoy his prosperity] lives a thousand years twice over but fails to enjoy his prosperity.

And then comes the end of v. 6, where, especially if this passage is Jesus's referent (as it seems to be) things get intensely interesting. I kind of want a drumroll for this, so play one in your mind before you read:

  "Do not all go to the same place?"

That's the end of v. 6. Interesting, huh? :)


What happens to one's sins if the priest omits the words of the Absolution? Say a penitent, in the Sacrament of Reconciliation, confesses his sins with heartfelt sorrow. Now suppose that priest omits deliberately to use the words of the formula (please see below especially the ones in bold),

The question is, according to the Church, what happens to the penitent's sins? What happens to the priest?

What is the scenario when the priest forgetfully omits them?

cf. CCC 1449 The formula of absolution used in the Latin Church expresses the essential elements of this sacrament: the Father of mercies is the source of all forgiveness. He effects the reconciliation of sinners through the Passover of his Son and the gift of his Spirit, through the prayer and ministry of the Church:

  God, the Father of mercies,  through the death and the resurrection of
  his Son  has reconciled the world to himself  and sent the Holy Spirit
  among us  for the forgiveness of sins;  through the ministry of the
  Church  may God give you pardon and peace,  and I absolve you from
  your sins in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy
  Spirit.[OP 46: formula of absolution.]

For a sacrament to be valid, the matter and form ought to be performed according to the proper ritual, along with the due intention on the part of the minister of the sacrament.

The Church teaches very unequivocally that for the valid conferring of the sacraments, the minister must have the intention of doing at least what the Church does. This is laid down with great emphasis by the Council of Trent (sess. VII, On the Sacraments in General, Canon XI).

In the first scenario, a priest omitting deliberately the formula of absolution might be an indication of the Priest not intending to do what the Church does. If that were the case, not only would this invalidate the sacrament, but also on the account of the absence of the correct formula, which is the form of the sacrament.

If the penitent is aware of the omission, they should request for the absolution with the right formula. The Priest would be offending gravely.

In the second case, the priest unintentionally forgetting the formula of absolution, and not through carelessness, and especially if this is one-off, there would be no indication of absence of the intention on the Priest's part, so long as during the administration of that sacrament, the Priest intended to do what the Church does.

Again the penitent if aware, should request for the absolution.

Please see:

ON THE INTENTION REQUIRED IN THE MINISTER OF THE SACRAMENTS: A Summary of Dogma and Theology compiled by Christopher V. Mirus | EWTN.
Sacraments | New Advent.
Intention | New Advent.

The Catechism does not speak directly to a priest forgetting to give absolution, but there are several statements that would make one think forgetfulness does not determine a failure to receive forgiveness for sin.  Here is a sampling of some of the relevant references:

1468 Supports my initial statement above

  “The whole power of the sacrament of Penance consists in restoring us to God's grace and joining us with him in an intimate friendship.” [Roman Catechism, II, V, 18] Reconciliation with God is thus the purpose and effect of this sacrament. For those who receive the sacrament of Penance with contrite heart and religious disposition, reconciliation “is usually followed by peace and serenity of conscience with strong spiritual consolation.” [Council of Trent (1551): DS 1674] Indeed the sacrament of Reconciliation with God brings about a true “spiritual resurrection,” restoration of the dignity and blessings of the life of the children of God, of which the most precious is friendship with God. [Cf. Lk 15:32]

In 1441, the Church points out only God forgives sin so the forgetfulness of it's ordained minister, priest or bishop, would not negate forgiveness

  Only God forgives sins. [Cf. Mk 2:7] Since he is the Son of God, Jesus says of himself, “The Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins” and exercises this divine power: “Your sins are forgiven.” [Mk 2:5, 10; Lk 7:48] Further, by virtue of his divine authority he gives this power to men to exercise in his name. [Cf. Jn 20:21-23]

1461 points out that it is the bishops who are the primary ministers of this sacrament

  Since Christ entrusted to his apostles the ministry of reconciliation, [Cf. In 20:23; 2 Cor 5:18] bishops who are their successors, and priests, the bishops' collaborators, continue to exercise this ministry. Indeed bishops and priests, by virtue of the sacrament of Holy Orders, have the power to forgive all sins “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”

1464 points out that priests must make it available

  Priests must encourage the faithful to come to the sacrament of Penance and must make themselves available to celebrate this sacrament each time Christians reasonably ask for it. [Cf. CIC, can. 486; CCEO, can. 735; PO 13.]


Given God is genderless, why Jesus (God the Son) assumed a male form? To best of my knowledge, God has no definite gender, i.e., he's neither male nor female. Still, Jesus, God the Son, assumed a male form during his ministry. Why is that? Clearly, God the Son could have also assumed a female form, or even a genderless form. Given that, why God the Son choose to represent him as a male?

Humanity was, originally, made in the image of God. Thus was man made, in the beginning, Genesis 2:7.
Having done so, and man having been created, woman was made to be 'an help' for the man, Genesis 2:18.
This further, creative, step expresses something more of God's ultimate intention in creation.
For, ultimately, as all scripture in its progressive unfolding reveals, God's purpose is a body of persons, which, in the future, shall 'neither marry nor be given in marriage', Matthew 22:30, and shall be 'all one, in Christ Jesus', Galatians 3:28.
Thus man and woman both show forth different aspects of Deity and the ultimate purposes of Deity, in humanity. That is to say, during time, within the present creation, before that which is to come in the future, beyond time, God's purpose is expressed in the things which, presently, he made.
But he who made them is above that which he made. He who made all things is not bounded by, or constricted by, the order that he created in expression of himself. That order demonstrates things about him. It does not encapsulate he, himself.
As Jesus said, John 4:24, Pneuma ho Theos; 'Spirit, the Deity' (expressing an equivalence) or (in idiomatic English) 'God is a Spirit'.
'Gender' relates to human manifestation. It does not relate to Divine Spirit.
But God, and God's purposes, may be perceived and understood in the things which he has made, humanity - both male and female - being one very important aspect of what He made.
Jesus Christ, come in the flesh, 1 John 4:2, is a manifestation of Deity in humanity ; 'God was manifest in the flesh', 1 Timothy 3:16 [TR/KJV].
His coming does not represent the Body which was yet to be revealed ; The Church.
The Body, the Church, the Bride, is the complement of all who repent and believe the gospel and follow Jesus Christ. That whole complement of persons is seen set forth, in concept, in the creation. And, throughout scripture, femininity and womanhood demonstrate what all of God's people (as one body) shall be for Christ, the Head over all, 1 Corinthians 11:3, Ephesians 1:23, Revelation 21:9, Ephesians 5:22-32.
They - all of them, who believe - are the reality of that which is represented by created femininity.

(All references are to the TR Greek Text and to the KJV.)


Does Luke 6:30 imply that the person asking has a genuine need? There was another thread in Mi Yodeya where a Jewish individual played a "prank" on a Christian in order to get his money ($20) since he figured the Christian was obligated to give it to him if he asked, according to his understanding of Luke 6:30. Needless to say, this Jewish individual, since he admitted it was a "prank," didn't have a genuine need for the money.

I have been approached many times by people who were scamming for money.

For example, I am approached by a man/ woman outside a grocery store, as many people are. He/ she says, "My truck broke down and I need to call a taxi." I tell him/ her I don't have any money on me, which is the truth. I rarely ever do. I go into the store, and as I walk out, I witness the same  individual driving down the street in his/ her car. It was a scam. What were they scamming for? Likely narcotics or alcohol.

If I had given this individual money, they would have likely used it to buy narcotics or alcohol. Essentially, I would be contributing to and enabling their lifestyle --- a lifestlye which is by no means beneficial for them. In fact, if they bought narcotics with my money, they could very well overdose and die.

A culture of drug abuse didn't exist in the time of Jesus. But, it does today.

Hence, my question. Should a Christian indiscriminately give or lend his money (if indeed he has the money on his person) to everyone who asks him? Should a Christian discriminate who and who he does not give his money to?

If so, what are some things that could assist a Christian in this situation?

I don't see that there's a definitive answer to this.  There doesn't seem to be a whole lot of consensus on this one.  Even the major commentaries, which usually find some common ground, disagree.

A few examples:

  Clarke's Commentary on the Bible  (This agrees with the teachings I've heard on this verse.)

  Ask them not again - Or, Do not beg them off. This probably refers to
  the way in which the tax-gatherers and Roman soldiers used to spoil
  the people. "When such harpies as these come upon your goods, suffer
  the injury quietly, leaving yourselves in the hand of God, rather than
  attempt even to beg off what belongs to you, lest on their part they
  be provoked to seize or spoil more, and lest you be irritated to sue
  them at law, which is totally opposite to the spirit and letter of the
  Gospel; or to speak bad words, or indulge wrong tempers, which would
  wound the spirit of love and mercy." Of such as these, and of all
  merciless creditors, who even sell the tools and bed of a poor man, it
  may be very truly said: -

  Wesley's Notes

  6:30 Give to every one - Friend or enemy, what thou canst spare, and
  he really wants: and of him that taketh away thy goods - By borrowing,
  if he be insolvent, ask them not again. Mt 5:42.

So, having said that there may not be a definitive answer, in context, the principle seems to be that we should assume the asker has a real need.  This has the obvious implications of leaving us open to fraud, scam artists, and the like.  Christ seems to be, in this case, telling us to put the principles of love and faith first, showing the love of God, giving sacrificially, trusting that the asker has a true need, even if we can't know for sure.  In other words, it's better to give willingly and be taken by a con artist than to try to be shrewd and not give at all.  And if we get taken, not to be bitter about it.

This is hard to take for a lot of us. (Me included.)  It's very easy to be bitter about being taken advantage of, and it's very easy to have the mindset that we're not doing thieves a favor by letting them profit by taking advantage of trusting individuals.

However, this verse is smack dab in the middle of a slew of verses that teach the same basic principle:  Show meekness, mercy, and kindness to those that do not deserve it.  In my Bible, this section is under the heading "Love thy enemies":

  Love for Enemies (NIV) Like 6:27-36

  27 “But to you who are listening I say: Love your enemies, do good to
  those who hate you, 28 bless those who curse you, pray for those who
  mistreat you. 29 If someone slaps you on one cheek, turn to them the
  other also. If someone takes your coat, do not withhold your shirt
  from them. 30 Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what
  belongs to you, do not demand it back. 31 Do to others as you would
  have them do to you.

  32 “If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even
  sinners love those who love them. 33 And if you do good to those who
  are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners do that. 34
  And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit
  is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, expecting to be repaid
  in full. 35 But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them
  without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be
  great, and you will be children of the Most High, because he is kind
  to the ungrateful and wicked. 36 Be merciful, just as your Father is
  merciful.

This tells me that this passage, taken in context, tells us to trust, even when it may be foolish to do so.  After all, the things of this world are temporary.

In short, there may be no definitive answer, but taken in context with the surrounding verses, the answer seems to imply that we are to assume there is a genuine need, even if we are skeptical.  It doesn't imply that a genuine need must exists.  It implies that we are to assume that such a need is genuine.  We are to trust, rather than doubt, and show God's love by extending mercy where undeserved.  (And isn't that what the central message of Christianity is all about?  Showing love and mercy where it's not deserved?)


What does it mean when Jesus cannot be separated from the Father and the Holy Ghost? What is the word which means that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost cannot be separated?  When we receive Holy Communion, the Host contains Jesus,
the Father, the Holy Ghost, and all that God created because God is omnipresent in all creation, so everything comes with the Host, most importantly, Jesus' Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity!  But there is a word for this and I cannot remember what it is.  Can you please help?

If I understand your question correctly, then that word is the mystery of the Holy Trinity, a mystery of faith. It said that there is only one God, but in three persons (yes, "persons" is the right term)
There is an analogy provided on Catholic.com, which is really good in giving something that we can relate to, but no analogy is perfect, and this one is no exception. Here is the analogy:
"In God we see the Father—the “being one” and first principal of life in the Godhead—the Son—the “knowing one”—the Word who proceeds from the Father—and the Holy Spirit—the “willing one”—the bond of love between the Father and Son who proceeds as love from the Father and Son. These “three” do not “equal” one if we are trying to say 3=1 mathematically. These three are distinct realities, relationally speaking, just as my own being, knowing, and willing are three distinct realities in me. Yet, in both God and man these three relationally distinct realities subsist in one being.
As St. Augustine points out, we can never know God or understand God completely through this or any analogy, but it can help us to understand how you can have relational distinctions within one being. And we can see this is reasonable.
The weakness inherent here—there are weaknesses in all analogies with reference to God—is that our knowing, being, and willing are not each infinite and co-extensive as the persons of God are. They subsist in one being in us, but they are not persons."
Hope that helped


In what sense do Mormons believe salvation is only through Christ? As background to my question, I found this statement by a Mormon that shows Mormons believe that there are many gods in the universe:

  “While we believe that there are other gods out there, they are not our God.“

My question is this. Since Mormon's claim that salvation is only through Christ, why aren't those other gods able save their own followers?

The author of the quote above goes on to explain:

  I find that an analogy helps me think about this clearly: At work, I
  have one boss. He is my boss and no one else is. There are other
  bosses, but I do not report to them, they do not affect my quarterly
  reviews, and I don't really interact with them in any sort of
  manager-underling relationship.

I don't really interact with the other bosses but their subordinates do. And they have to respect and follow their bosses just as I do my own.

Taking the analogy further, what sense would it make for me to try to steal some person from another department into my own? It's not like my department is the only one that pays for work done. Why rock the boat and create all the trouble proselytizing in the name of Christ?

This analogy doesn't fully satisfy me as an explanation. What is the official LDS doctrine on the ability of gods other than Christ to save people?

A Prophet in the Book of Mormon Proclaims:

  And moreover, I say unto you, that there shall be no other name given nor any other way nor means whereby salvation can come unto the children of men, only in and through the name of Christ, the Lord Omnipotent.

-Mosiah 3:17

Mormons believe that salvation is only attainable through the Atonement of Jesus Christ, however they believe that a full understanding of the Gospel as revealed through Joseph Smith is necessary in order to attain full salvation. This view was expressed by the late Apostle David B. Haight:

  Our understanding, belief, and faith in [Joseph Smith's first vision] of God the Father and His Only Begotten Son appearing to Joseph, thereby ushering in this final dispensation with its great and precious truths, is essential to our eternal salvation. Salvation comes only through Christ. Joseph Smith is the instrument or revealer of that knowledge, divinely called to teach of the terms and conditions of the Father's plan and given the keys of salvation for all mankind.

-Speech given at Brigham Young University, March 2, 1986 (Emphasis Added)

The Book of Doctrine and Covenants also affirms:

  For we saw him [Jesus Christ], even on the right hand of God; and we heard [a] voice bearing record that he is the Only Begotten of the Father — that by him, and through him, and of him, the worlds are and were created, and the inhabitants thereof are begotten sons and daughters unto God.

-Section 76: Vs 23-24

The plurality of worlds here has led some church leaders to suggest that Christ is not only the means of salvation for this earth, but also for many other worlds. There has been no official doctrine as to Christ's significance in other realms beyond our own, however statements seem to support a strong opinion that he does indeed play a significant role.

As far as why Mormons believe Christ is the only one who can provide salvation for us stems from the fact that the teachings of Joseph Smith are not solely based on works he produced, but also on the Bible. Mormons do not reject the Bible outright, and believe firmly in all the declarations pertaining to Christ and his providence of salvation. One particular unambigous passage Mormons have no reason to reject is the following:

  Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

-John 14:16

Implications that some Mormon doctrines may hold are speculated upon wildly in both Mormon and Non-Mormon literature, yet there has never been official doctrine regarding them. There have never been statements by any leader implying that anyone except our own God and Savior Jesus Christ can provide salvation, and such would contradict not only Mormon literature but also that of the Bible. We can conclude, therefore, that despite the Mormon belief in a plurality of Gods as taught by Joseph Smith, they continually affirm a strong belief in the necessity of Christ's Atonement to attain salvation for all of God's children. God here referring to the Heavenly Father of all mankind. Mormon references to a supreme creator always refers to him and none else. The affairs of other Gods have never been revealed nor have they ever been spoken of by any of the leadership. The reality and necessity of Christ and his atonement has been repeatedly emphasized by them, however.


Is the Summa Theologia infallible to Catholics or not? Me: Ah, so the Summa Theologia IS considered infallible! (Assuming that if the Magisterium and Pope are, then their trusted sources must be through them!)

Catholic: No, it isn't infallible by itself, just as an individual bishop isn't infallible by himself.

I'm confused. If the Pope and the Magisterium are infallible, why aren't their trusted resources seen as such? Surely, at some point, some Pope or Magisterium must have indicated whether such a famous theological text is or is not of relevance?

No, the Summa Theologica/Theologiae is not infallible. It was written by St. Thomas Aquinas, who though he was very good, holy, and learned, was not infallible.

On those occasions on which the Pope is considered infallible (that is, when he addresses the whole Church as its teacher and pastor, and defines a doctrine which must be held by the whole Church), or for that matter on occasions when any group (e.g. an ecumenical council) is held infallible, it is not the Summa or any similar work that is ultimately the source of this infallible understanding; it is the Word of God Himself. That is the only possible source of infallible knowledge:

  At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, [the Magisterium] listens to [the Word of God] devotedly, guards it with dedication, and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith.

(Dei Verbum Section 10 Part 2, quoted in Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraph 86)

One example in which we see this quite clearly is in the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. This is a belief of the Church from ancient times, proposed as a dogma in 1854 by Pope Pius IX. Yet Aquinas disagreed with the idea! In his discussion of the question "Whether the Blessed Virgin was sanctified before animation?", that is, before the infusion of the rational soul, which was understood at the time to take place after conception, Aquinas says:

  In whatever manner the Blessed Virgin would have been sanctified before animation, she could never have incurred the stain of original sin: and thus she would not have needed redemption and salvation which is by Christ, of whom it is written (Mat. 1:21): "He shall save His people from their sins." But this is unfitting, through implying that Christ is not the "Saviour of all men," as He is called (1 Tim. 4:10). It remains, therefore, that the Blessed Virgin was sanctified after animation.

(Summa Theologica, Third Part, Question 27, Article 2)

Obviously St Thomas, being wrong in this respect, could not have been infallible. It was quite some time before the theology of the Church's understanding caught up to the belief itself.


Did Judas play an important role for God’s salvation? In reading the bible, we see Judas as the great enemy who betrayed our Lord Jesus. But looking in a different perspective, was his role gave benefit for the fulfilment of death and crucifixion of the Saviour Christ. Without Judas, would there still be a death and crucifixion?

In Acts 2 Peter addresses a Jewish crowd and says that the death of Jesus was both the act of humans and the plan of God:

Acts 2:22-23 NIV: Fellow Israelites, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know. This man was handed over to you by God’s deliberate plan and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross.

This reflects the traditional compatibilist view that two things are simultaneously true: that God's will is completely sovereign, while humans have real wills.
If Judas had not desired to betray Jesus we can conclude that Jesus's death would have gone ahead according to God's plan. Indeed, even within the Gospels it's not really clear that Judas accomplished much; the Jewish leaders knew who Jesus was and he wasn't trying to hide from them. Perhaps all that Judas accomplished was alerting them to where Jesus was at a time when they could arrest him without the whole city observing, so that he could be killed in time for Passover.


Carrying the cross: a profane act or religious act? Recently, in Brazil, a transsexual performed the crucifixion of Jesus. As one would guess, this event had a very strong response from Christians around the country.

I wonder, however, if the feelings of outrage are just feelings, or if the claim of disrespect of the religion(s) is well supported? After all, the controversy seems much more related to the context— the fact that it was performed during the gay parade by a transsexual— than to the act itself. It's not clear to me in which sense a performance (religious in intention, rather than mockery) is considered profane according to Christianity.

I understand the attitude towards religious symbols (and specifically of the crucifixion) and performing the passion might differ across many Christian groups. In that case, I'd be more interested in the Catholic view and an overview of the Baptist (and perhaps Presbyterian) positions on this matter.

The procession of the Way of the Cross is an important Catholic tradition, so any criticism of a transgender person taking part in such a procession can only be based on the person's gender identity. However, it is possible for Christians to object to participation in an actual mock crucifixion, and the evidence for this is mixed.

Crucifixion in the Philippines is a devotional practice held every Good Friday, where the custom is said to be strongly discouraged by the Catholic Church in the Philippines. How 'strongly' is unclear, since the Church has not stamped out the practice even in urban centres.

A school in Brazil has had very young children enact crucifixions for Holy Week complete with fake wounds and a crown of thorns. Although the children suffered no physical harm, the practice has been condemned by some as akin to manipulation, but the story has also attracted many Facebook 'likes'. What is interesting here is that this kind of play-acting by children can only encourage adults to act out crucifixion, yet there is no evidence the Church hierarchy has condemned it.

The bishops of Brazil have, however, condemned a Brazilian sports magazine for printing photo-shopped photos of famous soccer star Neymar, in which he appears to be crucified. Their concern seems to be more with the inappropriate use of religious images than with the inappropriateness of mock crucifixion.

A symbolic reenactment of the crucifixion of Christ performed in Brazil at World Youth Day, attended by Pope Francis, can only encourage those who believe these reenactments have papal support.

The news item suggests that even the gay parade itself drew condemnation. There is no suggestion that those taking part were not as sincere as other Christians taking part in Way of the Cross parades on Good Friday, so the objection appears to be to gays openly parading their Christian faith, rather than a suggestion they were mocking the faith. The actual reenactment by a transgender person drew a strong response, including a death threat. If there were evidence that others who have taken part in reenactments in Brazil have been denounced in the same way, then we could say the objections were grounded on objections to profane performances, but this is not the case.

The position of the Catholic Church is ambiguous. On the one hand, Filipino bishops frequently object to reenactments in the Philippines, on the other hand, we are told that a crucifixion reeneactment was part of the entertainment at a World Youth Day attended by Pope Francis, in Brazil.

The Baptist and Presbyterian Churches are not so well represented in Brazil, but here we see a fairly casual non-denominational parade that takes place in Australia every year. Churches participating in the Walk for the Cross were St. Giles Presbyterian Church, The Seventh Day Adventist, St. John The Baptist Anglican Church, St. Joseph's Roman Catholic Church, and St. Matthew Wesley United Church. There is no suggestion that the Walk ends in a mock crucifixion.


What is Carlo Maria Viganò's religious order? I was wondering in which religious order did Viganò got ordained as a priest (is he franciscan, jesuit, dominican)?

According to catholic-hierarchy.org Carlo Maria Viganò was ordained as priest of the diocese of Pavia on 24th of March 1968.

So he was a (normal) diocesan priest before becoming bishop and is no member of any order.


Conversion of the Romans and the Bible's Portrayal of the Romans I have trouble understanding how the Romans converted to Christianity. In the Bible, the Romans weren't portrayed very nicely. For example, Herod the Great did quite a lot of awful things. Jesus was crucified by Roman soldiers. The Bible obviously seems to portray the Romans as the enemy of the Chosen People of God. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me that the Romans could still become Christians.

[I want to apologize ahead if my questions sound disrespectful to anybody. This isn't my intent. I grew up in East Asia which has very few Christians. I have been studying the Bible on my own. My knowledge could have serious defects and my terminologies could be way off. I would appreciate if you guys can bear with me, and help me understand the history and the Bible better.]

You seem to have a basic confusion over who are the ‘good people’ in the Bible. The Bible declares all are equally bound up under sin and are equally guilty before God. Therefore, all require salvation by Christ who personally died for the penalty of their sin.  In this sense the more wicked you are, the greater candidate you are for Christianity. The blood of Christ brings peace between sinners and God by his free loving kindness not by collecting the good people together, but by forgiving and collecting the bad people together by salvation. Salvation is not at all dependent upon any good behavior or lack of animosity on the part of those who are converted to Christ by faith.

  “None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.” The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. 2001 (Ro 3:10–12).

You also seem to think the Bible had a long-term view of treating the Jews as ‘God’s people’ as though he was not always planning to include the entire world into his salvation. God is not a racist. God planned to save the world by calling one physical race, from which a Messiah would be born, in order that the whole world might be offered salvation. Right from the beginning God called Abraham in order that through his seed, (i.e. the Christ) Abraham would be the genealogical source of a ‘blessing to many nations’. The fact that the non Jewish world has accepted the Jewish Messiah, vindicates that Jesus is how Abraham became a source of blessing to the world. There has been no other 'Jewish religion' received by the world. Only this one by faith in the Jewish Messiah, Jesus Christ. This is miraculous that what happened was predicted to occur so long ago.

  I will multiply your offspring as the stars of heaven and will give to your offspring all these lands. And in your offspring all the nations of the earth shall be blessed (The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. 2001 (Ge 26:4)

The basic idea to Christianity is that Jesus was the long awaited ‘Jewish Messiah’ to extend the Jewish religion to the entire world. Therefore the good people are the sinners who have taken hold of this Savior, who forgives and frees them from their sins, through his dying love. This includes Jews, Romans, Chinese, etc. In this sense a Jew (a person separated to God) is not a Jew according to race but is a Jew inwardly, according to faith in Christ.

  For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical.  But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. (The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. 2001 (Ro 2:28–29))

Basically race and moral dispositions have no relevance to our candidacy for Christianity. The only qualification is that we recognize we are all sinners and have faith that Christ died for our sins.  The Romans were ideal candidates as they were clearly a wicked and violent part of human history. They were just the type of people God has great joy in forgiving, saving and making holy. We are also just that type.


How does Christianity deal with biblical criticism related to the Old Testament? As an orthodox Jew I have seen quite a stir lately regarding the topic of biblical criticism, specifically towards the Old Testament (Torah).

I have perused several questions in this stack which seem to address this topic in general, and learned a lot about apologetics, but I have not seen answers that address some of the major claims of biblical criticism, especially as it pertains to the Old Testament.

For example:

The story of Noah and the flood seems to be contradicted by archaeological evidence as well as having been 'borrowed' from earlier flood narratives such as the Gilgamesh story
Many of the portions of the Old Testament seem to be borrowed from earlier near eastern texts such as the Hammurabi code
The notion that there are multiple authors (documentary hypothesis) of the Old Testament.

In short, how does Christianity deal with some of the major contentions of biblical criticism towards the Old Testament?

I apologize if any parts of my question offend any sensibilities to which I am unaware.

Christians are very diverse on how they handle this type of criticism. Probably the most visible school of thought in today's media are the literalists. These Christians accept that the Bible was fully authored by God and is complete and infallible. For them, Gilgamesh is either fiction or a pagan account of the Genesis story. Hammurabi's code is a set of inferior pagan laws.

The most liberal Christians treat the Bible as one of many worthwhile ancient writings and as a product of the sharing of knowledge across cultures. The Genesis account was inspired by Gilgamesh. Mosaic Law and Hammurabi's Code may have been derived from the same source.

Most Christians fall somewhere in between the two. The Bible wasn't written in a vacuum and it's just a matter of course that there are similarities to other writings from other cultures. It doesn't change the Bible's supremacy and it doesn't impact their faith. An explanation I heard from a conservative reform Jew fits nicely. God spoke to lots of people. The Jews were just the ones who heard and obeyed.

That there were multiple authors of the Bible is just a given. Even the most conservative literalists believe that God used many people to write His word. Different groups might disagree on how many authors there were, but there was definitely more than one.


What is meant by "Calvinistic Work Ethic"? How does this compare, if applicable, with protestant work ethic?

I regard "protestant" or "Calvinistic" as equivalent qualifiers of "work ethic".
The many exponents of christian work ethic have included Benjamin Franklin (an agnostic who viewed Christian ethics favourably) and particularly the French theologian John Calvin 1509 - 1564 who based their thought on verses such as:

1 Timothy 5:18 For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward. (KJ)

2 Thessalonians 3:10 The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.

Calvin understood work as a means through which the believers expressed their gratitude to God for their redemption in Christ and as a service to their neighbours. Everybody was obliged to work; loafing and begging were rejected. The idea that economic success was a visible sign of God's grace played only a minor role in Calvin's thinking. It became more important in later, partly secularized forms of Calvinism and became the starting-point of Max Weber's theory about the rise of capitalism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Calvin

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_ethic


Can or should a consecrated Host be adored by way of a live Eucharistic televised broadcast? I've often wondered, while watching the various televised Eucharistic celebrations on EWTN (i.e. the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, Eucharistic adoration, World Youth Day events, etc.), whether or not there is any connection between the reality of Christ's Real Presence that is being recorded/broadcast live and the viewer(s) who are perceiving the live broadcast.

Lets hypothetically say that I'm flipping through TV channels and I happen to land on EWTN precisely at the moment that Fr. Mitch Pacwa is elevating the consecrated Host during the liturgy of the Eucharist. As a Catholic, I'm obligated to believe that in that situation I would be looking at a real-time image of Jesus' body, blood, soul, and divinity present on the altar. Of course there should be some sort of reverence involved, but to what extent?

I found it very interesting that during World Youth Day 2013 there were giant screens set up throughout the audience in order for everyone (3 million+) to be able to see the Eucharistic celebrations. It seems apparent to me that Catholics were able to actively participate in the WYD 2013 Eucharistic events even though they might have been a mile or two down the beach.

I'm wanting to know what the Catholic Church officially teaches about the metaphysical relationship between Christ's actual presence on the altar, and his "presence" on the receiving end of a live broadcast. Can someone who is home bound and is unable to attend Mass/adoration adore the Host as if they were truly present? To what extent are all Catholics obliged to revere the televised Host?

It is important to understand that this question is exclusively about a live broadcast feed in real time, and not about any other type of Eucharistic image.

This is specifically a Catholic question...so please no anti-Catholic "new age iconoclasm" please.

This is the obligation for the people:

  On Sundays and other holy days of obligation, the faithful are obliged to participate in the Mass. (Code of Canon Law 1247)

And the requirements of the elderly/home bound:

  If participation in the eucharistic celebration becomes impossible because of the absence of a sacred minister or for another grave cause, it is strongly recommended that the faithful take part in a liturgy of the word if such a liturgy is celebrated in a parish church or other sacred place according to the prescripts of the diocesan bishop or that they devote themselves to prayer for a suitable time alone, as a family, or, as the occasion permits, in groups of families. (Code of Canon Law 1248 §2)

So the standard is, "participate unless it is impossible", and "participate", as it is used in Canon Law, would necessitate actual attendance. Televised broadcasts would certainly fulfill the recommendation in 1248 §2, but that is clearly on a subservient level and can be readily exchanged for other forms of prayer.

As to "how are we to reverence the image of the Eucharist in a televised broadcast?" well, it would seem that this would be less than the amount of reverence would be due as if you were walking by a Church and saw the elevation of the Host through an open door. It is a good thing to acknowledge that you are looking at Jesus, but you are not required to fall on your knees, or do anything at all, really. (Personally, I do the sign of the cross when passing in front of Churches)

So the long and the short: the Eucharist, as a televised image, is worthy of reverence and it is a good thing to watch Mass when you can, but it is never necessary and nothing compares to the real thing.


Calvinism: Does God force people to be saved? Calvinists often object to the criticism that their doctrine teaches that God forces men to be saved against their will. From what I've read, Calvinism teaches that God changes a man's nature and desire so that it is the man's utmost will that he become saved. In this sense, it seems technically true that Calvinism does not teach that God saves men against their will. However, I'm wondering if this is just a semantic argument on the part of the Calvinist?

The doctrine of total depravity teaches that men (even elect men) despise God in their natural state. In order for a man to love God, he must first be supernaturally regenerated. But God-hating men do not desire to be regenerated. It is not their will that their will be changed. It is not their desire to desire God. Thus, even though salvation may not be forced, I don't understand how any Calvinist could claim that the act of regeneration is not a forceful act accomplished against the will of the recipient, which (at the moment immediately preceding regeneration) is inclined to hate God utterly.

Since regeneration leads inescapably to salvation (with some Calvinists even claiming that the two events occur at the same moment in time), it seems like a semantic argument to claim that God doesn't force men to be saved against their will. He may not force them to become saved, but if he forces them to become regenerate and regeneration leads inescapably to salvation, then are Calvinists simply dodging the issue when they claim that their doctrine does not teach that men are saved against their will? Am I correct in asserting that traditional Calvinist doctrine teaches that regeneration is forceful?

You are correct in your estimation of God's action. God does, indeed, "force" salvation. The Scripture (e.g. Paul's description of the moral condition of man in Romans 3) makes it clear that it could be no other way since unregenerate man is unable to willingly turn to God. The analogy that Jesus used in his explanation to Nicodemus of salvation (John 3)  brings home this fact. He uses the metaphor of physical birth for the act of salvation. You did not ask to be born. Your will was not involved in the process of birth. Jesus indicates that the spirit moves where the spirit moves and that the recipient's will is not a participant in that process.

As you accurately point out, however, once regeneration has taken place, having eyes to see and ears to hear, the person who has been regenerated now makes a willing choice since they are no longer bound in slavery to sin.

Once given the inability, as described in Scripture, to willingly come to God, there is no other logical way for a person to be saved except for the monergistic work of God.

As you look throughout Scripture, you find that God chooses. That is his modus operandi. In Genesis 12, God chooses Abram rather than Abram choosing God.

Those who have and are teaching and preaching this "forcing of Salvation" are Alistair Begg, John Calvin, D. A. Carson, Jonathan Edwards, Sinclair Ferguson, Martin Luther, John Knox, John MacArthur, John Piper, R.C. Sproul, Charles H. Spurgeon, and Paul Washer.

And one final thought, would you "force" an intervention in the life of someone you loved if they were a drug addict and could not stop on their own?


What are the main differences between 7th Day Adventists and Catholic/Protestant churches? What are the main differences between 7th Day Adventists and Catholic/Protestant churches?

The most notable position of the Adventist is the degree of Biblical Literalism. Generally, if the verses can have a literal meaning then that is the belief that they take.

The outsider will notice some or all of these if they spend a short time with an Adventist:

Worship on Saturday (after all, it is in their name. I will expand on this later).
Not eating unclean animals, per the OT Law distinction. That means no pork, like many Jews. The animal must have a cloven hoof and chew the cud, or be a fish with scales, or a non-predatory bird of the air.
No Alcohol or any other recreational drugs including caffeine. Medication is fine when necessary. I suspect they are hesitant of consuming opiates and other pain medications.
General emphasis on health and what you eat, although not doctrine, many are vegetarians.
No jewelry, save a simple wedding band, or excessively fancy clothes.

All of the above have Biblical justification, although those same verses are either ignored or interpreted differently in other denominations.

The outsider will likely not notice these unless they sit in on Adventist worship services and sermons or read Adventist literature.

Intense disdain for Sunday Worship. According to theology it is the mark of the beast (I will explain this later).
Intense disdain for the Roman Catholic Church (RCC). That is the Harlot Church of Revelation.
Intense disdain for the Papacy, not the Pope specifically. The office of the Papacy is the Antichrist.
High focus on eschatology and the second coming of Christ. "Keeping the eye on the prize" or "Finishing the race strong."
Intense guarding of the Young Earth Creationist view (YEC). They will argue this until they are blue in the face.
No special interest in a person Ellen G. White, but rather in her many writings and visions, most of which are regarded as prophetic or otherwise inspired.
There is no eternal quality of any kind to humanity. There is no such thing as the eternal soul. They are Annihilationists.
The archangel called Michael is another name for Jesus.

I will address each one of these, now, referring to their number when necessary.

The first four are all highly related. That theology is also not new with the Adventists. The idea that the RCC is the harlot church (2) and its leader, the Pope, is the Antichrist  has its roots all the way back to the Reformation. The primary distinction concerning the Pope and the RCC between Reformation theology and Adventists is that Adventists call the Papacy, not the Pope (3), the AntiChrist (apparently, calling the Pope the Antichrist was a bit of a name calling thing half the time during the Reformation). What I believe is unique to them is that Sunday worship is the mark of the beast (the Antichrist). I first heard of it when studying Adventistism and have never heard it anywhere else. There is much theology around this, and really could be no fewer than three questions to cover it fully but here is the basics:

The Pope is called the "vicar of Christ, His voice on Earth." Antichrist is actually better translated as Psuedochrist. The Papacy is a fake Christ; he is not Christ's voice on Earth.
Naming the RCC as the Harlot Church is the same as naming it as the terrible beast from Daniel 7. To them, the RCC is the only "nation" that fits the description. The little horn that supplants three bigger horns is the Papacy. They match all this up very well with history and make a very sound argument.
The RCC changed Sabbath to Sunday. There is a lot of History to support that the RCC throughout history encouraged and even forced Sunday rest, instead of Sabbath rest. There is Catholic documents verifying this. With all of this in mind, plus a revelation by E. G. White which I will discuss later, leads them to conclude that calling and observing Sunday as the Sabbath is the mark of the beast, the RCC.

Now to YEC proponents and E. G. White (5 and 6). Ellen White is considered a prophet by Adventists. She wrote thousands of pages and is purported to have had many visions. Wikipedia article on her is extensive. One particular vision she had took her through the entire Creation. She witnessed it happen in 6 literal days and the climax was the Sabbath. Because God created everything in 6 literal days and rested on the seventh He sanctified the seventh day. Therefore, Adventists take the Sabbath very literally. After all, it is one of the commandments.

For point 7, the lack of an eternal soul, there is much to say and this could also be a separate question. They are not the only group to say this nor are they the only group to profess it today. The primary points that they use to support this are that in Genesis the word translated soul can also be translated as living creature or just plainly creature. It is the same word used for the animals that were created earlier. Also, no where in the Bible do the words "immortal soul" appear together. If that weren't enough the Bible says in more than one place that only God is immortal.

New section: I am always learning, it seems and I only recently learned that a large chunk of Adventists believe that the Archangel called Michael is Jesus (Point 8). Unlike the Jehovah's Witnesses, in the Adventist's mind this does not reduce the character of Jesus to a mere angel. It increases the character of Michael to the divine and holy Christ (Source). So when reading passages that mention Michael, Adventist's read Jesus, the begotten Son of God. To them, it is a lesser issue not worth "dwell[ing] upon at length." This is mostly because they way they interpret the scriptures redefines Michael, not Jesus; Jesus is still God.

For other Christian beliefs, they generally agree with the mainstream. The Trinity, Christ's divinity, holiness and infallibility of Scripture, etc.

The only group that is similar to Adventists is Jehovah's Witnesses, but only on the smaller issues like jewelry, save Annihilationism, which both groups hold. The Witnesses do also believe that Michael is Jesus, but in the opposite direction of Adventists; they believe that Jesus is lesser than God and they use the Michael is Jesus arguments to support that. Both Charles Taz Russell and E. G. White were influenced by Millerite Christians. After that, I would call them, and their theology quite unique.

There might be the inclination for outsiders to call them cultic or just plainly a cult, however, having studies with them (though I am not one), that is far from the truth. They are kind and understanding people, never resorting to trickery typical of a cult, very willing to help fellow Christians, whether Adventists or not, and even non-Christians, have a heart for mission work and to bring the gospel to all who will hear it, and are passionate about God, the Bible, Christ, and finally meeting Him at the end. They are a great bunch of people (the ones I have met anyway) and are worth knowing even if you do not buy the theology.


How does entertainment glorify God at all? In the modern context, we have many things to keep ourselves entertained and motivated to do work - music, videos, movies, games, magazines etc.

According to 1 Corinthians 10:31 KJV

  Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God.

It is clear that in whatever we do we will do it for the glory of God.

However I really wonder how does gaming, watching video and having self-entertainment would do to glorify God.

Entertainment is one way we relax, and the Bible does tell us to rest, in many places, including Exodus 20:8: "Remember the Sabbath."

Entertainment can also be a community-building event, although not as much so in the context of "self-entertainment," that you mentioned.

I would also say that many things are not purely entertaining, but also educational or enlightening.

Having said all of that, I think many of us take entertainment to extremes, to the point that it is no longer glorifying to God. I know I'm guilty of this at times.


What day and year was the first public and general confession held in the Church of England? What day and year was the first public and general confession held in the Church of England? Was it prescribed in the Act of Supremacy of 1532?

It was not prescribed in the Act of Supremacy, which occurred in 1534 (see that info further below). It looks like the rights to confession were first included in the "39 Articles of Religion," a small book with revisions throughout the years. Several sources confirm that these articles were drawn up in 1563 but I managed to find "An Essay on the 39 Articles of Religion," partially typed and partially handwritten, and as you can see below, it reads: "Agreed on 2 in 5 1562."

Also found this audio where you can actually hear the articles here, on MP3: (pdf)

The right of confession is listed under the 25th article, titled "On Sacraments." This is a partial text.

  "There are two Sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel, that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord. Those five commonly called Sacraments, that is to say, Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and extreme Unction, are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel, being such as have grown partly of the corrupt following of the Apostles, partly are states of life allowed in the Scriptures; but yet have not like nature of Sacraments with Baptism, and the Lord's Supper, for that they have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God. The Sacraments were not ordained of Christ to be gazed upon, or to be carried about, but that we should duly use them. And in such only as worthily receive the same have they a wholesome effect or operation: but they that receive them unworthily purchase to themselves damnation, as Saint Paul saith."

Antonio Garcia Fuerte, with a Theology degree from Catholic University in Spain, is Anglican and supportive of his religion. He explains the apparent controversies of his church's beliefs on confession in a scholastic paper here: (pdf)

According to the Encyclopedia Brittanica, the Act of Supremacy (1534) was issued through Parliament, making Henry VIII the head of the church of England. It required its patrons to acknowledge his marriage to Anne Boleyn. The act was revoked in 1555 and in 1559 a new act was adopted under Queen Elizabeth.

You can find it in its original, older English language here: (pdf)

This is The Act of Supremacy (1534) in its full text:

  "Albeit, the King's Majesty justly and rightfully is and oweth to be the supreme head of the Church of England, and so is recognised by the clergy of this realm in their Convocations; yet nevertheless for corroboration and confirmation thereof, and for increase of virtue in Christ's religion within this realm of England, and to repress and extirp all errors, heresies and other enormities and abuses heretofore used in the same, Be it enacted by authority of this present Parliament that the King our sovereign lord, his heirs and successors kings of this realm, shall be taken, accepted and reputed the only supreme head in earth of the Church of England called Anglicana Ecclesia, and shall have and enjoy annexed and united to the imperial crown of this realm as well the title and style thereof, as all honours, dignities, preeminences, jurisdictions, privileges, authorities, immunities, profits and commodities, to the said dignity of supreme head of the same Church belonging and appertaining. And that our said sovereign lord, his heirs and successors kings of this realm, shall have full power and authority from time to time to visit, repress, redress, reform, order, correct, restrain and amend all such errors, heresies, abuses, offences, contempts and enormities, whatsoever they be, which by any manner spiritual authority or jurisdiction ought or may lawfully be reformed, repressed, ordered, redressed corrected, restrained or amended, most to the pleasure of Almighty God, the increase of virtue in Christ's religion, and for the conservation of the peace, unity and tranquillity of this realm: any usage, custom, foreign laws, foreign authority, prescription or any other thing or things to the contrary hereof notwithstanding."


Why did the Presbyterian Church of Korea split in 1959? The number of Presbyterian denominations in Korea is breathtaking: Wikipedia lists dozens of them.  From what I can tell, most of these denominations originate in the Presbyterian Church of Korea, which was founded in 1884.  In 1959, however, the denomination apparently split in half, some members forming the TongHap and others the HapDong.  These are now two of the largest Presbyterian denominations in the world, each with about 3 million members.

Wikipedia provides some very high-level information about the debate (conservative vs. liberal, disagreement over ecumenism).  But I'd like to have a deeper understanding of the underlying issues behind the divide.  Were common "Western" debates a factor, like biblical inerrancy and female leadership?  Do outside observers see personality conflict to be a major cause of the divide, as many do with respect to some Presbyterian denominations in the US?

What is an overview of the causes of the 1959 split of this denomination?

I realise you asked this question five years ago, and an answer may no longer be needed, but I was curious, so here is a summary of what I found, starting with an introduction:

The Presbyterian Church of Korea (PCK) is based in Seoul, South Korea. However, its inception took place in Hwanghae Province, current North Korea. There, Sang-Ryun Suh founded the first Protestant church of Korea, the Sorae Church in 1884...  Soon after the liberation from Japanese Occupation, the General Assembly experienced divisions of the “Koshin” group in 1951, “Kijang” group in 1953 and the “Hapdong” group in 1959 due to issues such as the forced Japanese shrine worship and related theological disputes, and the General Assembly re-identified itself since then with the current name, “The Presbyterian Church of Korea”, as the “Tonghap” group. Source: https://www.cwmission.org/member-church-feature-presbyterian-church-of-korea-pck/

From there I found a paper entitled ‘Unity and catholicity in the Korean Presbyterian Church: An ecumenical Reformed assessment’ which delves into the history of the PCK and the disunity that resulted in three major schisms (1952, 1953 and 1959).  These schisms arose after the Japanese annexation (1910-1945), and during and after the Korean Civil War (1950-1953).
I will partially quote from the paper, in the hope that is allowed.  I went to the “How to cite this article” link, but couldn’t understand what I was supposed to do, so here is the link to the paper that I refer to:  http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2074-77052016000100032

One socio-political factor that played an important role in the disunity in the PCK was the Japanese annexation of Korea in 1910 and subsequent forced Shinto worship, with a meticulous plan. Regardless of opposition by most pastors of the PCK, Japan finally compelled the PCK to practise Shinto worship.

One element of conflict in the PCK at that time was theological education. After the closure of the Presbyterian Theological Seminary in 1938 due to Shintoism, the Chosun Theological Seminary was founded in 1940 by Korean pastors who did not take Shintoism seriously, but actively helped the Japanese policy and were theologically liberal, denying the infallibility of the Bible in the conservatives' eyes. After liberation the Chosun Seminary was the only theological seminary and was approved by the GA in 1946. An example that reflects the seriousness of liberal theology in the Chosun Seminary was an incident where 51 students opposed its liberal teaching and appealed to the GA. As a result of that incident, Pastor Han Sang Dong, who was a central figure among the released pastors and their followers, opened a new theological seminary, the Korea Theological Seminary, in the hope of restoring and purifying the PCK through teaching pastoral candidates conservative orthodox theology.

In 1959 the PCK experienced a devastating schism that tore it into two halves of almost the same size, between the party advocating for the World Council of Churches (WCC) and the anti-WCC (or National Association of Evangelicals) party. This schism began with an illegal and morally shameful incident involving a most influential theologian, the principal of the GA (Chonghoi) Presbyterian Theological Seminary, Park Hyung Ryong. Park's followers (of the anti-WCC party) thought of his collapse as their political collapse in the power struggles of the PCK. At that time, the membership of the WCC became an item on the agenda of the GA meeting. The anti-WCC party criticised the WCC and attacked the WCC party by raising questions about its theological liberalism and support of communists and guerrillas. The WCC party regarded the attack of the anti-WCC party as a strategy to escape from its crisis and to maintain its political hegemony in the PCK. This conflict, regardless of attempts at reconciliation, led to a tragic split in the end. The WCC party was called the Tong Hap Church and the anti-WCC party was called the Hap Dong Church.

The fourth schism happened in 1979 in the Hap Dong Church between the mainline GA party and the non-mainline parties. The situation was very complicated and it is difficult to describe it clearly, because a number of parties have come into being since 1979. Not only pastors in the GA, but also professors and students in the theological seminary complained of the secularisation and corruption of the GA leaders and the illegality of the board of directors of the theological seminary. They requested that the leaders of the GA and theological seminary practise purification.

The paper continues with a section on the analysis and assessment of the disunity in the Presbyterian Church in Korea.  I hope you will find the information useful, even though it is five years late!


Can Catholics attend the secular wedding of two people baptized as Catholics? I was born and raised Catholic, but became Wiccan a few years ago.  My fiance is Catholic, but neither of us wants a Catholic wedding.  We've decided on a secular ceremony, neither Christian nor pagan.

Most of the people in my mom's family are Catholic extremists.  They claim that because my fiance and I are both baptized, if we don't have a Catholic wedding then by Church doctrine they're not allowed to attend.  (As you can imagine, this is creating a lot of heartache.)  Is there any truth to this?  If not, is there any evidence I can show them that might convince them otherwise?

For the Church to recognize a marriage between two baptized Catholics as valid, they must follow canonical form:

  Can.  1108 §1. Only those marriages are valid which are contracted before the local ordinary, pastor, or a priest or deacon delegated by either of them, who assist, and before two witnesses…

Thus, you mother understandably does not want to commit a sin of scandal by giving any support to an invalid or doubtfully valid marriage.

The fact you and your fiance positively choose not to have a Catholic wedding shows ill-will on your part toward the only true religion.


Regarding the practice of "cast lots". Was this done by Jews only or did others practice it? Regarding the practice of 'cast lots' in the Old Testament. Was this used by Jews only or did others use this method?

Regarding the practice of “cast lots”. Was this done by Jews only or did others practice it?

The casting of lots was almost universally done in most cultures in the Old Testament times.

  In Judeo-Christian tradition

  Casting of lots occurs relatively frequently in the Bible, and many biblical scholars think that the Urim and Thummim served this purpose. The Hebrew Bible contains several examples of the casting of lots as a means of determining God's will:

  In the Book of Leviticus 16:8, God commanded Moses, "And Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats; one lot for the LORD, and the other lot for the scapegoat."
  According to Numbers 26:55, Moses allocated territory to the tribes of Israel according to each tribe's male population and by lot.
  In Joshua 7:14, a guilty party (Achan) is probably found by lot.
  In the Book of Joshua 18:6, Joshua says, "Ye shall therefore describe the land into seven parts, and bring the description hither to me, that I may cast lots for you here before the LORD our God." The Hebrews took this action in order to know God's will as to the dividing of land between the seven tribes of Israel who had not yet "received their inheritance". (Joshua 18:2).
  In the First Book of Samuel 14:42, lots are used to determine that it was Jonathan, Saul's son, who broke the oath that Saul made, "Cursed be the man that eateth any food until evening, that I may be avenged on mine enemies." (1 Samuel 14:24).
  In the Book of Jonah 1:7, the desperate sailors cast lots to see whose god was responsible for creating the storm: "Then the sailors said to each other, 'Come, let us cast lots to find out who is responsible for this calamity.' They cast lots and the lot fell on Jonah."

  Other places in the Hebrew Bible relevant to divination include:

  Book of Proverbs 16:33: "The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from Yahweh and 18:18: The lot settles disputes, and keeps strong ones apart."
  Book of Leviticus 19:26 KJV "... neither shall you practice enchantment, nor observe times." The original Hebrew word for enchantment, as found in Strong's Concordance, is pronounced naw-khash'. The translation given by Strong's is "to practice divination, divine, observe signs, learn by experience, diligently observe, practice fortunetelling, take as an omen"; and "1.to practice divination 2.to observe the signs or omens". Times in the original Hebrew is pronounced aw-nan'. Its translation in Strong's is "to make appear, produce, bring (clouds), to practise soothsaying, conjure;" and "1. to observe times, practice soothsaying or spiritism or magic or augury or witchcraft 2. soothsayer, enchanter, sorceress, diviner, fortuneteller, barbarian...". In the Hebrew-Interlinear Bible, the verse reads, "not you shall augur and not you shall consult cloud".
  Deuteronomy 18:10 "let no one be found among you who [qasam qesem], performs [onan], [nahash], or [kashaph]".2 qasam qesem literally means distributes distributions, and may possibly refer to cleromancy. Kashaph seems to mean mutter, although the Septuagint renders the same phrase as pharmakia (poison), so it may refer to magic potions.
  In the Book of Esther, Haman casts lots to decide the date on which to exterminate the Jews of Shushan; the Jewish festival of Purim commemorates the subsequent chain of events.
  In I Chronicles 26:13 guard duties are assigned by lot.
  To Christian doctrine perhaps the most significant ancient Hebrew mention of lots occurs in the Book of Psalms, 22:18 "They divide my garments among them, and for my clothing they cast lots." This came to be regarded as a prophecy connecting that psalm and the one that follows to the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus, since all four gospels (for example, John 19:24) tell of the Roman soldiers at Jesus's crucifixion casting lots to see who would take possession of his clothing. (That final act of profanation became the central theme of The Robe, a 1953 film starring Richard Burton.) -
  A notable example in the New Testament occurs in the Acts of the Apostles 1:23–26 where the eleven remaining apostles cast lots to determine whether to select Matthias or Barsabbas (surnamed Justus) to replace Judas. - Cleromancy (Wikipedia)

The Jewish Encyclopedia is very clear that other pagan cultures in the Old Testament cast lots:

  Means of determining chances. Primitive peoples, and occasionally those on a higher plane of culture, resort to lots for the purposes of augury. They spin a coconut or entangle strips of leather in order to obtain an omen. Thieves especially are detected by the casting of lots, etc. (Tylor, "Primitive Culture," German ed., i. 78-82). The pagans on a ship with Jonah under stress of a storm cast lots in order to find out who among them had incurred the Divine anger (Jonah i. 7). Haman resorted to the lot when he intended to destroy the Jews (Esth. iii. 7). The Greek heroes cast their lots into Agamemnon's helmet in order to ascertain who should fight with Hector ("Iliad," vii. 171). In ancient Italy oracles with carved lots were used.

  In Ancient Israel:

  The ancient Israelites likewise resorted to the lot for the most varied purposes. Rhabdomancy was known as late as Hosea (Hos. iv. 12); and Ezekiel (Ezek. xxi. 26 et seq.) mentions the arrow-oracle of the King of Babylon, which was still used a thousand years later among the pagan Arabians (Wellhausen, "Reste Arabischen Heidenthums," 2d ed., pp. 126 et seq.; comp. Sprenger, "Leben und Lehre des Mohammed," i. 259 et seq.; Huber, "Ueber das Meiser-Spiel der Heidnischen Araber," Leipsic, 1883). As the priestly lot-oracles are discussed under Ephod, Urim and Thummim, and Teraphim, the present article deals merely with the lot in secular life. Joshua discovers the thief, and Saul the guilty one, by means of the lot (Josh. vii. 16 et seq.; I Sam. xiv. 42; comp. I Sam. x. 20 et seq.). Primitive peoples divide land and other common property by means of the lot. In Hebrew the word for "lot" ("goral") has retained the meaning of "share"; it has also acquired the more general meaning of "fate" (Isa. xvii. 14, lvii. 6; Jer. xiii. 25; Ps. xvi. 5; Dan. xii.). The land west of the Jordan is divided among the several tribes by lot (Num. xxvi. 55 et seq., xxxiii. 54, xxxiv. 13, xxxvi. 2; Josh. xiii. 6, xiv. 2, xv. 1, xvii. 1, xviii. 6-10, xix. 51, xxiii. 4; Ps. lxxviii. 55, cv. 11; comp. Ezek. xlv. 1, xlvii. 22). Jewish tradition, finding offense in this kind of allotment, declared that the land was really divided under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the lot being merely the visible means of confirming the division for the people (Sifre, Num. 132; B. B. 122a). Prov. xvi. 33 and xviii. 18 indicate that lots were cast in legal controversies. The wicked "part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture" (Ps. xxii. 19; comp. Matt. xxvii. 35; John xxix. 24). Booty of war is divided by lot (Joel iv. 3; Nahum iii. 10; Ob. 11; see also Judges xx. 9; Neh. x. 35, xi. 1; I Chron. xxiv. 5, xxv. 8, xxvi. 13 (see Herzog-Hauck, "Real-Encyc." 3d ed., xi. 643 et seq.).

  In Talmud and Midrash.

  According to the etymology of the word "goral," the lots were probably small stones, or sticks, as Hos. iv. 12 indicates. They were thrown, or possibly shaken (Prov. xvi. 33, "into the lap"), so that one fell out, whereby the case in question was decided. It can not be ascertained whether a tablet with writing on it is meant in Lev. xvi. 8, as the Mishnah assumes (Yoma iii. 9, iv. 1). At the time of the Second Temple the lot was prominent in the Temple cult, and customs were developed, after Biblical example, whereby the several offices were apportioned by lot. The priests drew lots in all cases where differences might arise (Yoma 37a, 39a-41a, 62a-63b, 65b; Zeb. 113b; Men. 59b; Ker. 28a). In Tamid i. 2 the overseer of the Temple calls for the lot; and Yoma 24b records a discussion whether the priests shall draw lots in holy or in secular garments. Lots were cast four times in succession (Yoma iv. 1). The Prophets increased the four classes of priests that returned from the Diaspora to twenty-four; they mixed up the names of the additional ones and placed them in an urn (κάλπη) and then let each of the four original classes of priests draw five names (Tosef., Ta'an. ii. 1, and parallel passages). The urn was originally made of cypresswood; but the high priest Ben Gamala had one which was made of gold (Yoma iii. 9); hence drawing lots from it created a sensation (Yer. Yoma 41b, below). In the sanctuary the lots were taken out by hand (Yoma 39b, 40a). The lot was either a black or a white pebble (Yer. Yoma iv., beginning), or was made of olive-, nut-, or cypress-wood (Yoma 37a). A third kind, consisting of pieces of paper with writing on them (πιττάκιον), is frequently mentioned.

  Many facts seem to indicate that choosing by lot was common in post-Biblical times. Moses chose the seventy elders (Num. xi. 26) by selecting six men from each of the twelve tribes, and then placing seventy-two pieces of paper (πιττάκιον), of which two were blank, into an urn, one being drawn by each man. He proceeded similarly in determining the 273 first-born who were to pay each five shekels ransom, 22,273 tickets in all being drawn (Yer. Sanh. 19c, below, and parallel passages). Eldad and Medad were, according to Targ. Yer. to Num. xi. 26, among the elders who drew lots. Jacob's sons also drew lots to decide who should take Joseph's coat to their father (Gen. R. lxxxiv.). Achan attempted to bring the casting of lots into discredit when he said to Joshua: "If I order you and the high priest Eleazar to draw lots, one of you will certainly be pronounced guilty" (Sanh. 43b). Nebuchadnezzar's casting of lots (Ezek. xxi. 25 et seq.) is mentioned; but, according to the vernacular of the time, the Greek word κλῆρος is used, which occurs also inActs i. 26 (Lam. R., Preface, No. 5; Midr. Teh. x. 6; comp. ib. x. 5 on casting of lots among the Romans, and Krauss, "Lehnwörter," ii. 545b). - Lots (Jewish Encyclopedia)


Does the Catholic Church have a list of Good Books? The Church maintained an index of banned books for a long time, until it got to be a "must read for Satanists" list.  Has the Church (or affiliated bodies) ever maintained a list of good books.

Here's what I know so far:

I know of the Catholic Library Association's book award (but that's just one Children's book per year)
there's the imprimatur and nihil obstat, but I don't think they keep a categorized list and I don't think it generally includes fiction.
The USCCB does movie ratings, but not book reviews as far as I know.
Focus on the Family does book reviews, but it's not Catholic.

Yes. They're called the Biblical Canon. The books of the Holy Bible were originally a number of separate documents that the Church leadership officially agreed to be the authoritative collection of documents on their faith.


What qualifies as work on Sunday? I have a lecturer who wanted me to attend a seminar. However, the seminar is on Sunday.

I don't study on Sundays so I declined this offer. My lecturer is, however, a Jew and he understands the Sabbath as well as the Lord's Day. He says that Jews have been considering this problem for many years and that study is not considered work.

I understand there is a difference between the Sabbath and the Lord's Day. What is the difference, what constitutes as work, and what should/shouldn't I do on Sunday?

Christians are no longer held to the strict laws of Sabbath (an argument can actually be made that Jews were never held to this strict law, either, but that they made it stricter than necessary--but that's beside the point).

I have had jobs in the past where I was required to work on Sunday.  To ensure that I still had a "Sabbath day" (day of rest), I chose some other day of the week as my rest day.  I think this practice is well within the intention of Sabbath rest, as outlined in the Bible.

But you're asking specifically about a certain task, whether it is work or not.  I think Jesus demonstrated that the standard for Sabbath day activity should not be "work,"--as he did several acts of "work" (including harvesting grain, and healing) on the Sabbath.  Rather, I think the more important principle is "Remember the Sabbath day and keep it Holy"--that is, use the day for God's glory.

If, for you, that means no studying, then don't study.  If for you, studying includes attending a lecture, then don't attend that lecture.

For many people, studying is very stressful, and distracting... for those people, I would think choosing to avoid study as part of their Sabbath ritual is a good idea.  For others, studying may be a relaxing thing.  I'm not in school, but I find it relaxing to read--and I rarely ever read fiction.  That means that almost all of my reading is "study" of some form.  If I therefore never "studied" on Sabbath, I would be avoiding one of the most relaxing activities I know.

What it boils down to, I think, is your own personal conviction.

You did the right thing to refuse the lecture, which would have gone against your convictions.  If you decide that your convictions should change, I'd say you're also doing the right thing, as there is no "right" answer in this case.


Should Christians marry non-Christians? The new testament talks of not being yoked with unbelievers -

  2 Corinthians 6:14 "Do not be yoked together with unbelievers."

The old testament forbids intermarriage with other nations -

  Deuteronomy 7:3 "Do not intermarry with them. Do not give your
  daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons."

For modern day Christians, is there any reason where marrying a non Christian is a good idea?

No, there are no reasons that would make this a good idea.

In the Old Testament we see an explicit prohibition on people inside God's chosen people marrying those outside of it on the grounds that it would cause them to turn away from serving their God.

  Deuteronomy 7:3-4 (ESV)
  3  You shall not intermarry with them, giving your daughters to their sons or taking their daughters for your sons, 4  for they would turn away your sons from following me, to serve other gods.  Then the anger of the Lord would be kindled against you, and he would destroy you quickly.

We see no change brought to this concept in the New Testament, however it should be noted that the outlook on "nations" is a little different now than it used to be.

Originally, it was primarily to the nation of Israel to whom God extended the offer of grace and salvation. There were some exceptional cases where outsiders were brought into that covenant, but the marriage restrictions were indicative of the fact that national lines were also belief lines.

With the actual coming of Christ, the floodgates are opened in a new way and gentiles are grafted into the people of the promise. The national boundaries are no longer important because they do not symbolize a difference in reception of God's grace. The terminology is now to be understood in light of the spiritual family of those that have been called by God.

Marrying outside of (and becoming one with) someone outside of God's family WILL cause a rift in your fellowship with God.

  2 Corinthians 6:14 (ESV)
  14  Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness?


What is the difference between Arminianism, Molinism, and Calvinism? I know the basic difference between Arminianism and Calvinism in the soteriology subject, but when Molinism comes I can't grasp the core doctrines that it teaches. I'm not asking for which is better, just a concise, easy, and helpful definition of each one without too much philosophical blather.

I found an article that explains Molinism in simple, easy to understand language.  The second part of the article asks whether it is biblical, but I have left that part out since this is not what you ask. Here is a partial quote:

Molinism is named for the 16th-century Jesuit, Luis de Molina. Molinism is a system of thought that seeks to reconcile the sovereignty of God and the free will of man. The heart of Molinism is the principle that God is completely sovereign and man is also free in a libertarian sense. Molinism partly seeks to avoid so-called “theological determinism”: the view that God decrees who will be saved or damned without any meaningful impact of their own free choice. Today’s highest-profile defenders of Molinism are William Lane Craig and Alvin Plantinga.

The primary distinctive of Molinism is the affirmation that God has middle knowledge (scientia media). Molinism holds that God’s knowledge consists of three logical moments. These “moments” of knowledge are not to be thought of as chronological; rather, they are to be understood as “logical.” In other words, one moment does not come before another moment in time; instead, one moment is logically prior to the other moments. The Molinist differentiates between three different moments of knowledge which are respectively called natural knowledge, middle knowledge and free knowledge.

1. Natural Knowledge – This is God’s knowledge of all necessary and all possible truths: all things which “can be.” In this “moment” God knows every possible combination of causes and effects. He also knows all the truths of logic and all moral truths. This knowledge is independent of God’s will, a point few if any theologians would dispute.

2. Middle Knowledge – This is God’s knowledge of what a free creature would do in any given circumstance. This knowledge consists of what philosophers call counterfactuals of creaturely freedom. These are facts about what any creature with a free will would freely do in any circumstance in which it could be placed. This knowledge, like natural knowledge, is independent of God’s will.

3. Creative Command – this is the “moment” where God actually acts. Between His knowledge of all that is or could be, and all that actually comes to be, is God’s purposeful intervention and creation.

4. Free Knowledge – This is God’s knowledge of what He decided to create: all things that “actually are.” God’s free knowledge is His knowledge of the actual world as it is. This knowledge is completely dependent on God’s will.

Using middle knowledge, Molinism attempts to show that all of God’s knowledge is self-contained, but it is ordered so as to allow for the possibility of man’s free will. In other words, man is completely free, but God is also completely sovereign—He is absolutely in control of all that happens, and yet humanity’s choices are not coerced.

According to Molinism, God omnisciently knows what you would have been like had you lived in Africa instead of Australia, or had a car accident that paralyzed you at age 9. He knows how the world would have been changed had John F. Kennedy not been assassinated. More importantly, He knows who would choose to be saved and who would not, in each of those varying circumstances.

Accordingly, it is out of this (middle) knowledge that God chooses to create. God has middle knowledge of all feasible worlds, and He chooses to create the world that corresponds to His ultimate desires. Therefore, while a person is truly free, God is truly in control of who is or is not saved. Molinists differ on how God defines His underlying desires. For example, some believe God is seeking the maximum number of people to be saved. Others believe God creates in order to maximize some other divine goal.  Source: https://www.gotquestions.org/molinism.html

As to how it differs from Arminianism and Calvinism, I doubt I could do justice to that.  Perhaps you could draw from these articles:
https://www.gotquestions.org/arminianism.html
https://www.gotquestions.org/calvinism.html
https://www.gotquestions.org/Calvinism-vs-Arminianism.html
Like Nigel J, I am simply presenting one particular point of view in the hope it will help to answer your question.  I have permission to copy and paste the Got Questions article on Molinism.


Why are there inconsistencies in the New Testament? Reading the New Testament side by side, one can pick up inconsistencies in the Gospels by various Disciples. For example, some of them mentioned by this website:

  MT 1:6-7 The lineage of Jesus is traced through David's son, Solomon.
  LK 3:23-31 It is traced through David's son, Nathan.

  MT 1:16 Jacob was Joseph's father.
  LK 3:23 Heli was Joseph's father.

  MT 1:17 There were twenty-eight generations from David to Jesus.
  LK 3:23-38 There were forty-three.

  MT 1:18-21 The Annunciation occurred after Mary had conceived Jesus.
  LK 1:26-31 It occurred before conception.

  MT 1:20 The angel spoke to Joseph.
  LK 1:28 The angel spoke to Mary.

  MT 26:18-20, 57-68, 27:1-2, MK 14:16-18, 53-72, 15:1 Jesus' initial hearing was at night on Passover. In the morning he was taken to Pilate.
  LK 22:13-15, 54-66 The initial hearing took place in the morning on Passover.
  JN 18:28, 19:14 It took place the day before Passover, on the Day of Preparation.

  MT 28:1 The first visitors to the tomb were Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (two).
  MK 16:1 Both of the above plus Salome (three).
  LK 23:55 - 24:1, 24:10 Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and "other women" (at least five).
  JN 20:1 Mary Magdalene only (one).

  MT 28:1 It was toward dawn when they arrived.
  MK 16:2 It was after sunrise.
  LK 24:1 It was at early dawn.
  JN 20:1 It was still dark.

  MT 28:1-2 The stone was still in place when they arrived. It was rolled away later.
  MK 16:4, LK 24:2, JN 20:1 The stone had already been rolled (or taken) away.

  MT 28:2 An angel arrived during an earthquake, rolled back the stone, then sat on it (outside the tomb).
  MK 16:5 No earthquake, only one young man sitting inside the tomb.
  LK 24:2-4 No earthquake. Two men suddenly appear standing inside the tomb.
  JN 20:12 No earthquake. Two angels are sitting inside the tomb.

  MT 28:8 The visitors ran to tell the disciples.
  MK 16:8 They said nothing to anyone.
  LK 24:9 They told the eleven and all the rest.
  JN 20:10-11 The disciples returned home. Mary remained outside, weeping.

Why do such inconsistencies occur, given that some people claim Biblical inerrancy, and how do various Christian theologians from the major denominations account for them?

As Narnian said, an answer to all of your listed contradictions would be huge and if you have a real problem with a specific one it should be asked as a separate question.

As a general answer to why there are inconsistencies in the New Testament lets look at some facts.

The gospels were written by mortal men who make mistakes. They were written at different times by the apostles some later then others so some of them would of had a better recollection of the events then others. On that note everyone perceives experiences separately, so this would of also contributed to their different accounts of the same event.

Finally look at the historical timeline. The New Testament is over 2000 years old. We read it today for the most part in English, which is not the original language. And there are always problems when reading translations because every language is different. For example many languages have emphasizers, words that add emphasis to an action or noun, which just do not translate into English because we don't use emphasizers. We don't have access to the original manuscripts so we can't check how accurate the translations are. Not to mention the fact that they were translated by men, who make mistakes.

None of these things detract from the validity or the message that is meant to be conveyed by the New Testament. Namely that God sent His Son to redeem the world because He loves everyone. And that His Son, Jesus the Christ was a perfect example for us to follow and pattern our lives after.

Edit: this part is just opinion and addresses the fact that for a great many Christians inerrancy is not really an issue because of the following:

Since that message comes across clear despite the inconsistencies there is no doubt at least in my mind that God inspired the writers and translators. Else how would we even have the New Testament 2000 years later in the condition that its in.


Who is the American Catholic Church? What are the major doctrinal differences between the American Catholic Church and the Roman Catholic church? Why did they split?

According to Wikipedia article on the American Catholic Church of the United States (ACCUS), if that is what you mean, it notes that there are quite a few differences between the ACCUS and the Roman Catholic Church.

ACCUS is post-Vatican II
ACCUS does not require clerical celibacy.
ACCUS clergy members may be married, be in a domestic partnership, divorced, or widowed.
ACCUS clergy members have ordained women among their ranks.
ACCUS does not bar people based on gender, sexual orientation, race, age, marital status, or previous religious affiliations.
ACCUS clergy members are required to support themselves through outside employment; clergy members are prohibited from receiving money for the sacramental services they perform. They are allowed to receive gifts and monetary donations, as long as they are not the ones soliciting them.
ACCUS disagrees with papal infallibility, which was the main reason why they split.

I have a feeling that ACCUS is Catholic in a sense that it observes the seven sacraments, but it disagrees with the Roman Catholic Church on certain sexual-related issues, or at least the article appears to be focused that way. Call it a "liberal" version of the Roman Catholic Church, though any split-off group of the Roman Catholic Church would probably be recognized as Protestant despite the similarity of the theological traditions.