Did John Calvin teach that God creates certain souls only to be destroyed? From what I understand, Calvin not only taught, but effectively systematized the doctrine of "predestinarianism," which holds that:

  God for His own glorification, and without any regard to original sin,
  has created some as "vessels of mercy", others as "vessels of wrath".
  Those created for hell He has also predestined for sin, and whatever faith
  and righteousness they may exhibit are at most only apparent, since all
  graces and means of salvation are efficacious only in those predestined for
  heaven.

(From the Catholic Encyclopedia article on predestinarianism.)

Is strict Calvinism so extreme that it says God created certain souls as "vessels of wrath" destined for destruction?
If so, then what criteria did Calvin say a person could use to determine whether they personally were created for salvation or destruction?

More or less, yes, but the question is slightly misleading by the word 'only' (but about that later).  As this discussion is so complex and visited by so many people with so many quotations, etc., I prefer to try and give you a summary view from many years studying many books on the subject. Mine is not the 'only view' but really on this question you can only get a well-read opinion.

Calvin, like St. Augustine before him believed in dual predestination, whereby God determines in advance of one's birth, if they will ultimately perish or be saved. However unlike St. Augustine who did not believe that we could obtain clear assurance that we are 'the elect' the reformation largely developed by Luther and then in some sense 'systematized' by Calvin, as you say, added the belief that one could and should enjoy the confidence of knowing they are 'elect'.

The doctrine is more or less just a simple resignation to some bible verses that seem to say exactly the same thing.  For example if one just accepts these words without much resistance they automatically become a Calvinist of some sort:

  For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “ For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.
   You will say to me then, “ Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “ Why have you made me like this?” Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory — even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles? (Romans 9:17-24, ESV)

Now it is difficult to accept this doctrine for two reasons, one good and one bad.  The good reason is that we say but 'What about God's love?' and the bad reason is just human pride that will not accept being liable to destruction on any account but 'demands' God's love, even when fully deserving eternal wrath.

Now we come to the word 'alone'. This is the hinge where controversy turns, because it either allows God to be full of love for sinners, or refuses it. If we were to say, 'Did God only created the Devil and the apostates in hell, for the 'sole purpose' of simply suffering, in order that God might be glorified' we would be going a tad further than what anyone has ever believed as we would absolutely be excluding his love for sinners in every way. We would not allow any other reason (.i.e., some loving reason) for their being created other then their destruction (which seems like hate to me).  If we say that 'God created the Devil and apostates in hell, full knowing that they would only end up in hell, although they may have served another purpose, yet, nevertheless as they will be in hell, it is now there ultimate purpose for being created as respects there own life', we would be more along the lines of a Luther or Calvin.

But back to the question about God's love.  Here is where Calvin does seems to fail somewhat, compared to say Luther. Luther would say, yes God chooses without men's will determining anything, yet he would also say God loves each one and to resolve the contradiction he would say, I do not know, it is a mystery, both are true and the answer is hidden from puny men.  Calvin would not directly disagree with Luther but he simply would leave some of the encouragements about God's general love for all, absent from the discussion, leaving some with the impression that his view of God was a cruel one.  In this sense yes, as great as he was in explaining so many doctrines possibly better than any other before him since the Apostle Paul himself I think he makes the impression that his hear was starting to grow a little cold on this subject as he did not seem to make much effort countering the balance of election and God's boundless love. In other words, I am a Calvinist and although I do not disagree with anything Calvin said on the subject of election, I do disagree on what he left out of the subject, which other like Luther put almost front and center.

Now regards assurance, this is quite straightforward. The Calvinist belief is that anyone who sincerely believes in Christ, and has at least some moral assurance from a changed life aft conversions and a sense of their adoption by the Holy Spirit, proven foremost by their love of other believers, can and do entering into a blessed assurance of their eternal blessed state.  I guess we could say this is the warmer side to Calvin, for although he has little heart to consider God's love for the damned, he swings the gates wide open for the enjoyment of God's love without fear for any who flee from God's wrath to the dying love of Christ.

While generations before Calvin and Luther had to suffer without any assurance of their good state, performing penances and various works that were not able to cleanse the conscience, believers now filled with assurance really had the impetus to break away from every kind of cold legalism.  If you read Christian history, what really happened after Calvin was an explosion of missionary work across the globe as had never been seen before. This was partly due to the discovery of the new world and exploration of Europeans, but at the same time knowing God's love without fear, must have made people have a bit more heart for the lost and the opportunity of finding eternal security.  Therefore although the doctrine seems to have a cold edge to it, it many ways it seems to produce a warm effect and confidence in the free love and grace of God.  Seems almost like a contradiction, yet, so does the love of God and his dealings with Pharaoh.  Maybe Luther had it right. Don't try and explain it just believe both. God loves everyone and he elects some to heaven and some to hell according to his unknowable judgments and omniscience.

Note: ( I apologize that I do not have the time to collect a bunch of quotations to prove my summary but I actually have already posted them all in other answers on the same subject, so If asked about a particular point I might add a link to another answer where requested.)


What is Common Grace? The term "Common Grace" is often thrown around in reformed circles. What is this concept? What is the scriptural basis for the belief?

The idea of Common Grace is that the grace of God is accessible and granted to all people (ie "common" to all people).  This is different from "special" or "saving" grace in that special grace is extended only to the elect.

More clearly, it's the idea that there is grace available and inside everyone.  It can be seen in such verses as:

Matthew 7:9-10

  9 “Which of you, if your son asks for bread, will give him a stone? 10 Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake?

This is common grace in that everyone (even pagans, idolaters, and abominations) still love their children and will try to take care of them.  These parents extend grace even though they are not Christians.

However, even though this grace comes through these "evil" parents, it actually comes from God:

James 1:17 (NIV)

  Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows.

Because of this, God has given grace (and love and mercy) to all humans regardless of their state of salvation or their obedience to him.

This is just "common" grace.

Wikipedia has a lot more regarding it, but that's a simple definition of it and the biblical basis for it.


What is a "just cause" in the context of Code of Canon Law, Canon 308? I want to leave a confraternity but I want to do everything according to law. I wonder what the knowledgeable people say about canon 308 and the "just cause", especially if just asking is a sufficient cause or not.

If this canon had a correspondent canon in the older laws, then I would really like to know how it was commented anciently.

Why am I asking? I'm not knowledgeable about legal jargon, but I would suspect that the intention of the law in regards to that point would be that leaving a confraternity is more of a punishment rather than a request of the confraternitee, and maybe that language implies that the possibility of an associate leaving by his own initiative wasn't even taken in account. I can't tell that if that is the case though, because I'm ignorant. My grounds for suspecting this is that it only talks about being dismissed for just cause, and not dismissing oneself.

What is a “just cause” in the context of Code of Canon Law, Canon 308?

First of all let us look at what Canon 308 actually states:

  Can. 308 No one legitimately enrolled is to be dismissed from an association except for a just cause according to the norm of law and the statutes.

A Catholic commentary say the following about this particular canon:

  Even if Canon 304, n.1 does not require that the conditions for dismissal for an association of the faithful be written into the statues, it goes without saying, since in any case they included in the conditions of admission. In effect, if people wish to be admitted into an association, they must make a commitment to espouse it’s purposes, mode of action, government, etc. However, that is not sufficient. The statues protect the rights and duties of the members, as well as of the association itself; they must specify what causes will justify a dismissal, and even the procedures that will lead to it.

Generally speaking a just cause is normally interpreted as as reasonable cause.

We have many different types of associations in our parish. Once again our pastor has told me that dismissal from an association is done by the association against a member for any number of just reasons.

However, if a member desires to leave an association or confraternity, one is quite free to do so under no penalty of sin, since vows are not taken in order to become a member. Membership in many such said associations or confraternities, in fact are open to children.

One is free to leave a confraternity and remain in good standing. Readmission is thus also possible, if desired at a later date.


Is the following rationale for sharing the gospel consistent with reformed theology? One can ask:

if one believes in predestination, then why share the Gospel?

A common response one often hears is:

because God also said to share the gospel or
perhaps God predestined you to be the one to share the gospel to cause this other person to become converted

I never quite found either response intellectually satisfactory. I recently came across the following, and wanted to see if it's consistent with reformed theology:

if you share the Gospel, and the person is among the elect, then you glorify God because you've brought someone closer to salvation (i.e. probably one part of a multi step program)
if you share the Gospel, and the person is not among the elect, then you also glorify God, for you have increased that person's sufferings in Hell, and it glorifies God to punish those in hell

Thus, one should avoid hyper-calvinism in only preaching to only those that one believes to be among the elect, but rather preach to all: for in either way, God is glorified.

Edit

Both of the responses below are beautiful. The flaw in my question is that "intellectual satisfication" is not a vaild measuring stick for biblical doctrine.

Perhaps the two "common" responses are not "intellectually satisfying", but at the very least, they are both highly biblical:

  And He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation." {Mark 16:15}

and

  for "Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved."
  How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher? How will they preach unless they are sent? Just as it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news of good things!"
  However, they did not all heed the good news; for Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed our report?" {Romans 10:13-16}

Therefore, it glorifies God to preach to all because His Word is being proclaimed, and we also know that His Word never returns "empty" {Isaiah 55:11 and 1 Corinthians 15:58}:

  So will My word be which goes forth from My mouth; It will not return to Me empty, Without accomplishing what I desire, And without succeeding in the matter for which I sent it.

and

  Therefore, my beloved brethren, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that your toil is not in vain in the Lord.

While God's Will is ultimately accomplished - whether via displaying His grace or in pouring out His wrath on evil, He does not please Him to punish anyone:

  "For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone who dies," declares the Lord GOD. "Therefore, repent and live." {Ezekiel 18:32}

and

  "Say to them, 'As I live!' declares the Lord GOD, 'I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn back, turn back from your evil ways! Why then will you die, O house of Israel?'"  {Ezekiel 33:11}

The first point you raise, therefore, would be both biblical and in keeping with reformed theology, but the second point (regarding helping to increase punishment to Hell) is both unbiblical, and out of line with reformed thinking.


What is the biblical basis for believing that Christ is the man upon the throne from Ezekiel 1:26? In Ezekiel 1:26 we read

  And above the firmament that was over their heads was the likeness
  of a throne, as the appearance of a sapphire stone: and upon the
  likeness of the throne was the likeness as the appearance of a man
  above upon it.

My question is:

What is the biblical basis of those who interpret this as a vision of Christ, the Messiah (himself, not just a figure of him)?

A good answer must take in consideration respected published commentaries.

The included commentaries include references to the following verses, among others (the citations in each have been preserved in this answer).

Daniel 7:13-14 In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man,[a] coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. 1He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.
Rev 1:12-18 NIV I turned around to see the voice that was speaking to me. And when I turned I saw seven golden lampstands, and among the lampstands was someone like a son of man, dressed in a robe reaching down to his feet and with a golden sash around his chest. His feet were like bronze glowing in a furnace, and his voice was like the sound of rushing waters. The hair on his head was white like wool, as white as snow, and his eyes were like blazing fire. In his right hand he held seven stars, and coming out of his mouth was a sharp, double-edged sword. His face was like the sun shining in all its brilliance. When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. Then he placed his right hand on me and said: “Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last. I am the Living One; I was dead, and now look, I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades.

Since he "was dead," but is "alive forever" it's clear that this person in the latter verse must be Messiah. Notice the similarity of the description of the person in the verses immediately following Ezekiel 1:26. These commenters found this to be strong biblical support to interpret the vision recorded there as one of Messiah.
Here is Matthew Henry's commentary on Ezekiel 1:26-28

The eternal Son, the second Person in the Trinity, who afterwards took the human nature, is here denoted. The first thing observed was a throne. It is a throne of glory, a throne of grace, a throne of triumph, a throne of government, a throne of judgment. It is good news to men, that the throne above the firmament is filled with One who appears, even there, in the likeness of a man. The throne is surrounded with a rainbow, the well-known emblem of the covenant, representing God's mercy and covenanted love to his people. The fire of God's wrath was breaking out against Jerusalem, but bounds should be set to it; he would look upon the bow, and remember the covenant. All the prophet saw was only to prepare him for what he was to hear. When he fell on his face, he heard the voice of One that spake. God delights to teach the humble. Let sinners, then, humble themselves before him. And let believers think upon his glory, that they may be gradually changed into his image by the Spirit of the Lord.

That Pulpit Commentary agrees that the man alludes to Messiah, if it was not his own appearance, and includes cross references from Daniel:

It is noticeable that this preluding anticipation of the thought of the Incarnation, not recognized in the vision of Moses (Exodus 24:10) or Isaiah (Isaiah 6:1), appears prominently in the two prophets of the exile - here and in the memorable Messianic vision of "One like unto the Son of man" in Daniel 7:13. What might have been perilously anthropomorphic in the early stages of the growth of Israel, when men tended to identify the symbol with the thing symbolized, was now made subservient to the truth which underlies even anthropomorphic thought (comp. Revelation 1:13).

Elliot's commentary briefly includes,

Yet possibly there may be even her a hint at the great truth of the incarnation. (Comp. Daniel 7:13; Revelation 1:13.)

Lastly I'll include the Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary, which is for our purposes the most poignant:

The Godhead appears in the likeness of enthroned humanity, as in Ex 24:10. Besides the "paved work of a sapphire stone, as it were the body of heaven in clearness," there, we have here the "throne," and God "as a man," with the "appearance of fire round about." This last was a prelude of the incarnation of Messiah, but in His character as Saviour and as Judge (Re 19:11-16). The azure sapphire answers to the color of the sky. As others are called "sons of God," but He "the Son of God," so others are called "sons of man" (Eze 2:1, 3), but He "the Son of man" (Mt 16:13), being the embodied representative of humanity and the whole human race; as, on the other hand, He is the representative of "the fulness of the Godhead" (Col 2:9). While the cherubim are movable, the throne above, and Jehovah who moves them, are firmly fixed. It is good news to man, that the throne above is filled by One who even there appears as "a man."


Where is the Holy Spirit in Jesus life before baptism in the river Jordan happen? Baptism in the Jordan River is where Jesus received the anointing of the Holy Spirit.

  The Baptism of Jesus
  …16As soon as Jesus was baptized, He went up out of the water. Suddenly the heavens were opened, and He saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and resting on Him. 17And a voice from heaven said, “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased!”(Matthew3:16-17)

Would it mean that Jesus for thirty years is living without the Holy Spirit dwelling in His soul?

This answer is from Trinitarian perspective shared by the 3 mainstream branches of Christianity: Roman Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant.

This article succinctly shows how Jesus in His human nature needed the Holy Spirit power especially at critical junctures of His mission on earth.  The anointing at the Jordan river's baptism signified God the Father revealing Jesus to be Messiah and the Holy Spirit empowering Jesus in His human nature for the role.  See another article discussing the relationship of Jesus with the Holy Spirit.

Jesus as human being was conceived by the Holy Spirit, so the human nature Jesus already had the Holy Spirit since birth.  The anointing at baptism didn't imply that the Holy Spirit was not yet given by the Father, but more of empowerment, probably similar to how we as believers can, sometime after baptism, be given spiritual gifts for ministering to the body of Christ.  Jesus did not sin before baptism, so technically He didn't need to be baptized.  The baptism was the occasion chosen by God the Father for the unveiling.

About your comment:

  Your link cited Jesus said "the Spirit of the Lord is now upon me". Does it mean before baptism the Holy Spirit was not yet present?

the context was Jesus preaching at the synagogue in his hometown, Nazareth: Luke 4:14-30.  This was after his baptism / annointing.  Jesus was announcing the fulfillment of Isaiah 61:1-2.  He was referring to the empowerment mentioned above.  It is safe to assume that throughout the many villages and cities he visited before his crucifixion, he made similar announcement because people needed to know the good news of the coming Kingdom of God and Jesus taught them how to respond (i.e. by repenting, believing, and then living according to the ethics of the Kingdom).


What Defines an Early Church Father? There are a number of early writings about Christianity apart from Scriptures (the NT 27 books per this question).  Some of those authors are considered by some to be what are called Early Church Fathers (ECF).  Is there a particular definition that makes them such, besides the fact that they wrote within one or two generations of the apostles?

Early Church Fathers (Wikipedia)

Was it their doctrines?  Was it their faith and morals?  Was it that they were taught directly by an apostle?

For example, Papias evidently believed in a literal millennial reign of Christ following the six days of work.  Many groups today do not agree with this, yet Papias is considered an ECF by some.

Papias of Hierapolis

Clement of Rome was influential, but his extant work is not fully agreed upon.

The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians

Origen wrote and some of it is agreed upon, yet some do not agree that he is an ECF some.  It is the same as with Tertullian or Cyril of Jerusalem or Clement of Alexandria.  Not every thing they wrote is agreed upon.  And then there are others like Valentinus who some reject and some accept and there are other writings like Infancy Gospel of James that are both rejected and accepted by some.

So, what is it that defines an ECF?  How does an Orthodox define ECF?  How does a Catholic define ECF?  How does a Protestant define ECF?  The fact of some agreement with a doctrine of today?  The fact of influence?  Or what?

I do not think there is a clear-cut answer to this question, primarily because the list of Fathers adhered to by the Church (particularly Roman Catholic and Orthodox) would not be exactly the same as that adopted by the secular academy.  From the ecclesiastical standpoint, no one should be accepted as a Father who taught what came to be regarded as heresy, though this is not consistent (as for example "Saint" Justin Martyr accepted a subordinationist Christology).  Thus, men like Tertullian (a schismatic) and Origen would be excluded.  Usually a Father would also be regarded as a saint. (I know of no exceptions.)

But the Academy is more inclusive.  Those whose teachings tended toward orthodoxy, in spite of some heresies, are regarded as Fathers (including Tertullian and Origen).  The Fathers are generally divided chronologically into two classes - those who lived prior to the Council of Nicea (the pre-Nicenes) and those who lived later (the post-Nicenes).  The last of the Fathers is considered to be John of Damascus (8th century).


Where did the rich young ruler hear of eternal life? Something prompted the young ruler in Matthew 19:16 to ask Jesus what he must do to inherit eternal life. (Word search for "eternal life" and "everlasting life" )

The phrase "everlasting life" appears once in the OT, in Daniel 12:2. Jesus' usage in the gospels is brief. What did the ruler hear that made him rush to Jesus to ask for it? Are there any clues I missed that give us a fuller picture? Are there Christian writings that have addressed this point?

The Pharisees were the dominant religious sect of Judaism in Jesus's time. They taught strict adherence to the Law and all of the other laws added to it. They also taught the resurrection of the dead. In their contemporary writings, the Pharisees talk about eternal hell and they used very specific terms we know mean eternal hell because they explain it at length. They also believed in eternal life as an alternative if one followed the laws to a T.

The rich young ruler said he'd kept the Commandments since he was a boy, so it's possible he held Phrisetical beliefs. He would have also heard teachings about eternal life from the Pharisees.

It's important to note that Jesus did not use the same terms to describe hell that the Pharisees used. Jesus used words that normally mean age-bound correction. But due to doctrinal beliefs shifting in the 5th Century A.D., the Latins began translating His words as eternal judgment and eternal punishment. Due to the difference in terms that Jesus used, it's possible the rich young ruler was drawn to Jesus' more loving teachings of God rather than the harsh Pharisetival teachings he'd grown up seriously adhering to. The Greek Church Fathers taught that hell was temporary and everyone there would eventually be purified and go to heaven. They were the first Church Fathers and spoke the New Testament's Koine Greek as their native language and therefore understood it perfectly well.

Also, in the Old Testament, eternal life doesn't appear, just as eternal torment doesn't appear either, not when translated properly. The Ancient Hebrews of Abraham's day were nomads and their Paleo-Hebrew language (Pheonecian) was built around the way they thought and lived--with nomadic terms.

"Olam/Owlam" is their word we translate to mean eternal. However, "olam" doesn't mean eternal. It literally means "over the horizon," which is their way of saying "future," because they didn't know what was over the horizon until they got there. They had another saying that meant the distant future (I forget the exact phrase), which literally means "over the horizon and back." In their culture, they didn't speculate on things they didn't know for certain. So they simply described the afterlife as the unseen or as the future or distant future.

Life was described the same way, as "future" life or "distant future" life. Our translators simply translated their mainstream doctrinal and cultural beliefs into the texts, which is nearly impossible not to do if you understand how translation must be done and how much has to be guessed at due to cultural differences and unknowns such as their exact beliefs back then. Translation isn't nearly as simple as "Casa" means "home" in Spanish. It's extremely difficult and pretty much impossible to get a 100% accurate translation.

Despite what I just said about the word eternal, that doesn't mean eternal life isn't stated in the Bible. When the Koine Greek word aion/aionios/aionion (age or age-bound) is paired with something we know to be eternal (like God), then we translate aionios as "eternal." The problem, though, is that we don't know for certain if judgment or punishment is eternal, yet we translate aionios to mean "eternal." Since the Church Fathers use the term aionios punishment/judgment just like Jesus but in the same sentence say that the person being judged/punished is purified by it and then goes to heaven, this likely proves that the term doesn't actually mean "eternal" when paired with judgment/punishment.

Furthermore, the Koine Greek words Jesus & Paul used for punishment and judgment are corrective terms rather than vengeful terms. Corrective implies an end purpose of purification rather than annihilation or eternal torment.

In other words, the word used to describe eternal is a very controversial term, but when used in relation to life, we're pretty sure it means eternal life, but in the Old Testament, we don't know for certain that the idea of eternal life, as we conceptualize it, is ever used. We do know that the general beliefs and ideas from the Old Testament are being conveyed in the New Testament by Jesus and the other writers, though, because they quote the Old Testament so frequently.

I hope that wasn't too in-depth or too widely focused to answer your question to your liking.


How does a Catholic theocracy differ from other Christian theocracies? I'm taking a Catholic Church history class and the instructor said that life under a Catholic theocracy, like the Papal States, was different than life under a Protestant theocracy, but because most people's idea of a theocracy is a Protestant one that it seems worse than it might have been.
So, what I'm wanting to know is, are there any works or descriptions of life under a real Catholic theocracy and how that governance would have been different than a Protestant or Orthodox one?

There were many theocratic states in Germany, taking OP's definition of a theocracy as a state in which the civil power is vested in an ecclesiastical official. One example was the Hochstift of Cologne, an area not identical with the Archdiocese of Cologne. This area was ruled by the Prince-Archbishop.
The position of Archbishop of Cologne was, for centuries, filled by a member of the Bavarian ruling dynasty, usually a younger son of one ruler and brother of the next. Joseph Clemens was appointed archbishop at the age of 16 in 1688.
Since the archbishop held the civil power, it could be seen as a theocracy. In practice, far from theocratising the state, it secularised the Church.
Even in the case of the Papal States the ruler, the Pope, was usually drawn from the ruling families and was expected to appoint his nephews as cardinals. It is questionable whether at conclaves the good of the Catholic Church was uppermost in all cardinals' minds. With whom would a papabile side was always an issue.
Luther's objection to the sale of indulgences was widely approved in Germany in part because it could be seen as the abuse by the rulers of Central Italy of the fact that they were, ex officio, popes. It is a perspective which is easy for moderns to overlook.
Pope Sixtus V in the sixteenth century devoted a lot of time and energy, and his subjects money raised through very heavy taxation, to rebuilding and beautifying Rome. He brought in vigorous methods to reduce crime, executing around 5,000 brigands. He tried to stamp out corruption.
Church of England Bishop Lee of Lichfield was credited with hanging 5,000 Welshmen as well as "some of the best blood in Shropshire".
Until 1836 he Protestant (i.e. Church of England) Bishop of Durham was known as Pronce-Bishop within the county of Durham, where he had the same powers as the monarch did in the rest of England. Shute Barrington was bishop from 1791 to 1826. He was responsible for many public works. When the miners in pits owned by the Diocese went on strike he sent in troops against them and came down very harshly on poachers even in a time of hunger.
It would be hard to say there was any significant difference between Protestant and Catholic theocracies though there were enormous differences in conditions at differing times and places. It is perhaps more a question if there was any difference between a prince-bishop and any other prince.
Mount Athos is an autonomous peninsula under the direct authority of the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople. However it contains only monasteries and no civilian population so perhaps is not truly theocratic government in the general sense.


Does the Orthodox Church accept Gay marriage and why? Some say that it is "okay" some say that it is not, but these are just opinions.
What does the Orthodox Church thing about that, and how do they deal with it?

According to  this article from the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America, marriage should be reserved for a man with a woman, and struggle with homosexual desires can have benefit to a person's spiritual growth.

  How is the Christian to understand the appeal for homosexual marriage? Persons with a homosexual orientation are invited to use their struggle as a means of sanctification. In scripture homosexual behavior is not blessed by God and specifically prohibited: "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination" (Leviticus 18: 22); and from St. Paul: "... because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen. For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men ... " (Romans 1:25-27). This is not the same thing as saying that a person who struggles with same-sex desire has lower value in the eyes of God. The focus is on the behavior, not the person.

this post is an example of gay marriage ceremony with Orthodox Church traditions, but it makes it clear that it was not performed in a non-Orthodox church building, and the church's website confirms that the officiating pastor was not Orthodox.


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

If I did something sinful between myself and God, like watching pornography, smoking, getting drunk, having sinful thoughts, involving in some sinful activities etc. and I want to stop doing it, do I have to confess my weakness to others and bring shame to myself? It would be fine if the audience are my good friends but if there are new people in the church, I don't think it is appropriate to share my personal life to a stranger. I think personal problems should be shared with the pastor and ask him to pray for us, encourage us and strengthen us.

Do I have to share my shameful private life and humiliate myself in front of everyone?
Does this verse imply only to confessing and asking forgiveness to the person that we hurt and sin against?

I would prefer answers from Evangelical or Pentecostal.

Jesus also said:

  “Behold, I am sending you out as sheep in the midst of wolves, so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves. (Matthew 10:16)

and

  Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces. (Matthew 7:6)

Wisdom would suggest that one choose one's counselors wisely.  This would not mean a stranger.

Confessing your sin is also done privately, per Matthew 18:15

  “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother.


Is Latin considered a holy language in the Catholic Church? I've heard that many Roman Catholic Churches still hold Mass services and particularly ceremonies (e.g. weddings) in Latin. Is this true, and if so why is Latin considered to be a better language than the native language(s) of the region in which the church is in?

Yes, prior to the promulgation of the Novus Ordo Mass finished by 1970, Latin was the language used at Mass throughout the world.  The change to the vernacular didn't change the official language of the Catholic Church which is Latin.
Many parts of the Mass are still (or can be) proclaimed in Latin.  If you've got some time, watch or listen to the Mass on EWTN.  I think there's a lot more Latin in that Mass than there is in the average town's parish.  I think there are at least two reasons for that:

It is beautiful

They've got a handful of priests who are familiar with the language.

Beyond that, it was obviously the desire of Mother Angelica to have a more traditional (and therefore holy, beautiful and sacred) liturgy.  But it doesn't make it more "meaningful"; Christ isn't less present at Masses proclaimed in the vernacular.

In 2007, Pope Benedict XVI issued a Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum (only in Latin) in which he said that it was OK by him if people used the old Roman Missal (only in Latin), which incidentally is less than 10 years older than the new one, for their Mass.   This lifted the responsibility from the Bishops to say yes or no and made a few Traditional Catholic groups happy.
But he made it clear that this is the "Extraordinary Form" of the Mass, not the Ordinary one.  And, every time you hear the word "Extraordinary" in the Catholic Church, it indicates something that is not really necessary for salvation in general, but good for some circumstances.  (Extraordinary Ministers of Communion, Extraordinary means of Baptism, etc...)

It's not more holy, in the sense that it is "special in God's eyes". But it certainly is more holy in the traditional sense of the word "set apart", more so today than in the hey day of the Holy Roman Empire.
But, it is the official language of the Church and as long as the Pope is in Rome, it always will be:

The Latin language has always been held in very high esteem by the Catholic Church and by the Roman Pontiffs.
Pope Benedict XVI - Latina Lingua


What did Jesus mean by 'take up your cross and follow me'? What exactly did Jesus mean when He said, “Take up your cross and follow Me” (Matthew 16:24; Mark 8:34; Luke 9:23).

Does it mean we should carry our burdens in life, or what?

What Jesus means is to crucify our "old man" ie. our flesh. Paul talks about this.

  That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts;
  Eph 4:22 (KJV)

We are to crucify (put off) the old man.


Question on John 4:13-14 - How do we drink of the water from Jesus? I've been struggling with this passage for a while:

  Jesus said to her, “Everyone who drinks of this water will be thirsty again, but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him will never be thirsty again. The water that I will give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life.”
  John 4:13-14 (ESV)

How does one drink of the water from Jesus?

John Calvin's commentary on this passage affirms that "water" means the Spirit:

Though the name Water is borrowed from the present occurrence, and applied to the Spirit, yet this metaphor is very frequent in Scripture, and rests on the best grounds. For we are like a dry and barren soil; there is no sap and no rigour in us, until the Lord water us by his Spirit. In another passage, the Spirit is likewise called clean water, (Heb 10:22,) but in a different sense; namely, because he washes and cleanses us from the pollutions with which we are entirely covered. But in this and similar passages, the subject treated of is the secret energy by which he restores life in us, and maintains and brings it to perfection.
There are some who explain this as referring to the doctrine of the Gospel, to which I own that this appellation is fully applicable; but I think that Christ includes here the whole grace of our renewal; for we know that he was sent for the purpose of bringing to us a new life. In my opinion, therefore, he intended to contrast water with that destitution of all blessings under which mankind groan and labor. Again, living water is not so called from its effect, as life-giving, but the allusion is to different kinds of waters. It is called living, because it flows from a living fountain.

He finds that the reference to the spring or fountain has a particular significance:

For he does not say that, from the very first day, we drink so as to be fully satisfied, but only means that the Holy Spirit is a continually flowing fountain; and that, therefore, there is no danger that they who have been renewed by spiritual grace shall be dried up. And, therefore, although we thirst throughout our whole life, yet it is certain that we have not received the Holy Spirit for a single day, or for any short period, but as a perennial fountain, which will never fail us. Thus believers thirst, and keenly thirst, throughout their whole life; and yet they have abundance of quickening moisture; for however small may have been the measure of grace which they have received, it gives them perpetual vigor, so that they are never entirely dry. When, therefore, he says that they shall be satisfied, he contrasts not with Desire but only with Drought.
Shall be a fountain of water springing up into eternal life. These words express still more clearly the preceding statement; for they denote a continual watering, which maintains in them a heavenly eternity during this mortal and perishing life. The grace of Christ, therefore, does not flow to us for a short time, but overflows into a blessed immortality; for it does not cease to flow until the incorruptible life which it commences be brought to perfection.

The final paragraph shows the relevance of this passage to Calvinist ideas of irresistible grace and perseverance of the saints.
To me, this text brings to mind Matthew 20:20-23 and Mark 10:35-40, where Jesus asks his disciples "Can you drink the cup that I am to drink?". This question has been variously interpreted as referring to:

Martyrdom
General troubles and pains of life, not necessarily martyrdom
Baptism
The Eucharist
Receiving the Holy Spirit
Living a Christ-like life

It may not be possible or desirable to separate these meanings. Calvin's commentary is happy to assign multiple interpretations to the cup, since they are all bound up in the same idea.


Understanding Trinity, is the belief that each Person has independent Will? In the trinity the belief is that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the holy ghost is God.

The Father is a Person, and Son is a Person, and the holy Ghost is a Person.

And they all always existed, no beginning to any of the Persons.

Co-equal, co-substantial, co-eternal.

Now is the understanding that they have independent Will?

Luke 22:42 | Bible Hub

  Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will,
  but yours be done

If they have different Will's, how can they still yet be All-Powerful?

Have they ever had different Will's?

Example when Jesus was in such distress and was calling out 'Why have your forsaken me' it would seem obvious his Will was to be saved?

What I am trying to get at is, if indeed they have different Will's, one of the Person's will want to overcome the other.

Interested to hear what theologians have said regarding this matter as it seems to be logically you can't get around this issue.

If you say that they don't have independant Will, then they are not All-Powerful.

Example:

Jesus wants A, Father wants B. Jesus wants to do what the Father pleases (B), and the Father wants to do what Jesus pleases (A). So do they choose A or B? And whenever either of them submits to anothers Will that would make them not having the attribute of All-Powerful.

It becomes more complicated when you bring in the 3rd Person.
Jesus wants A, the Father wants B and the holy ghost wants C.  Now they all have to agree before doing something, and have to agree who will be submitted their will and forgoing their attribute of All-Powerful.

The question, as it stands, really isn't soluable.
Reason #1: The Crucifixion raises other Trinitarian questions
First and foremost, the Trinity itself is hard enough to understand. There is no good analogy and any attempt to make one will necessarily fail by over emphasizing oneness or threeness.
Worse, the Crucifixion and death of Christ means that either Jesus was in some fashion separated from the Father were separated on the cross, or else there is the problem of Patripassianism - meaning that the Father somehow dies too.
One solution kenosis modifies the hypostatic union to explain how Jesus can be fully God and yet somehow not able to do everything God did, but it is just one solution.
Reason #2: The Trinity logically requires that the Wills cannot be separated
In 2007, William P. Young write a book called The Shack which was rather popular in the Contemporary Christian market for a bit. The story itself imagined a Mack, a man whose daughter was killed, spending a weekend in which he got to meet Jesus face to face.  Along the way, develops the characters of "Papa" an African-American female personification of God the Father, Jesus, and Sarayu, the Holy Spirit. His general idea was to understand the Trinity as the God whose very essence modeled true love-in-relationship that mankind was supposed to be.
From that vantage point, he was able to illustrate the Trinity and its coordinate implications for separate wills that I, as an evangelical, found useful.
To begin with, Young acknowledges that man has only a finite capacity to comprehend a finite God. He has "Papa" say:

"The problem is that many folks try to grasp some sense of who I am by taking the best version of themselves, projecting that to the nth degree, factoring in all the goodness they can perceive, which often isn’t much, and then call that God. And while it may seem like a noble effort, the truth is that it falls pitifully short of who I really am. I’m not merely the best version of you that you can think of. I am far more than that, above and beyond all that you can ask or think.”
“Never mind that,” she continued. “What’s important is this: If I were simply One God and only One Person, then you would find yourself in this Creation without something wonderful, without something essential even. And I would be utterly other than I am.”
“And we would be without . . . ?” Mack didn’t even know how to finish the question.
“Love and relationship. All love and relationship is possible for you only because it already exists within Me, within God myself. Love is not the limitation; love is the flying. I am love.”

Mack and "Papa" explicitly mention the Trinity, and Mack's inability to understand, and then get to the question you have: Namely, what happens if "Papa" and "Jesus" and "Sarayu" are in disagreement.  Sarayu picks up the conversation, saying:

“Mackenzie, we have no concept of final authority among us, only unity. We are in a circle of relationship, not a chain of command or ‘great chain of being’ as your ancestors termed it. What you’re seeing here is relationship without any overlay of power. We don’t need power over the other because we are always looking out for the best. Hierarchy would make no sense among us. Actually, this is your problem, not ours.”
“Really? How so?”
“Humans are so lost and damaged that to you it is almost incomprehensible that people could work or live together without someone being in charge.”
“It’s one reason why experiencing true relationship is so difficult for you,” Jesus added. “Once you have a hierarchy you need rules to protect and administer it, and then you need law and the enforcement of the rules, and you end up with some kind of chain of command or a system of order that destroys relationship rather than promotes it. You rarely see or experience relationship apart from power. Hierarchy imposes laws and rules and you end up missing the wonder of relationship that we intended for you.”
Sarayu continued, “When you chose independence over relationship, you became a danger to each other. Others became objects to be manipulated or managed for your own happiness. Authority, as you usually think of it, is merely the excuse the strong use to make others conform to what they want.”

...

“We carefully respect your choices, so we work within your systems even while we seek to free you from them,” Papa continued. “Creation has been taken down a very different path than we desired. In your world the value of the individual is constantly weighed against the survival of the system, whether political, economic, social, or religious—any system actually. First one person, and then a few, and finally even many are easily sacrificed for the good and ongoing existence of that system. In one form or another this lies behind every struggle for power, every prejudice, every war, and every abuse of relationship. The ‘will to power and independence’ has become so ubiquitous that it is now considered normal.”
“It is the human paradigm,” added Papa, having returned with more food. “It is like water to fish, so prevalent that it goes unseen and unquestioned. It is the matrix; a diabolical scheme in which you are hopelessly trapped even while completely unaware of its existence.”
Jesus picked up the conversation. “As the crowning glory of Creation, you were made in our image, unencumbered by structure and free to simply ‘be’ in relationship with me and one another. If you had truly learned to regard each other’s concerns as significant as your own, there would be no need for hierarchy.”
Mack sat back in his chair, staggered by the implications of what he was hearing. “So are you telling me that whenever we humans protect ourselves with power . . .”
“You are yielding to the matrix, not to us,” finished Jesus.
“And now,” Sarayu interjected, “we have come full circle, back to one of my initial statements: You humans are so lost and damaged that to you it is almost incomprehensible that relationship could exist apart from hierarchy. So you think that God must relate inside a hierarchy like you do. But we do not.”

In short, Young is suggesting that the question is most properly answered "Mu", meaning the question has a certain level of sense, but that a direct answer is ultimately non-sensical because the question holds an inherent problem within it.
Here, it is most fair to represent Young as saying that the Trinity is in relationship but not in hierarchy. The question of a separate "will" is sensical, but ultimately not answerable, because the relationship is so tight. (A situation that in statistics would be called Multicollinearity).
Put yet another way, there is no way to separate the wills, but that does not abrogate their theoretical existence. God's perfection in relationship means that wills cannot be in contradiction to one another, but this does not mean that they are the same.
Or, if the 8th Century Theologian Boethius in De Trinitae can better say:

Thus ‘different’ is said in respect to either genus, species or number. But it is variety among accidents that produces difference in respect to number. For three men differ nei- ther in genus nor species, but in their accidents; for even if we mentally separate all acci- dents from them, there is still a different <168.60> location for each and all of them, which we can in no way imagine to be one: for two bodies will not occupy one location; and location is an accident. Therefore these three men are many in respect to number, since they become many by their accidents.

Reason #3: Second Council of Constantinople (553 AD) is hard to understand
Really, this is your full answer. It will go into the nature of the hypostatic union, the homoousion, and the definition of persons, wills and essences.  This will literally take semesters of study to be comprehensible, but is your official "Christian" answer.
Ultimately, the creeds are trying to avoid errors such Modalistic Monarchism and still make it comprehensible.  Good luck.


How did the Apostle Matthew die? I see different sources of Apostle Matthew's death

staked or impaled to the earth by spears and then beheaded
killed by a sword wound
natural death
he angered a local king who ordered him nailed to a bed, covered his whole body with paper, brimstones, oil, asphalt and brushwood and set him on fire
stoned

Which one is true?

How did the Apostle Matthew died?

We simply do not know for sure. The facts about his death have not been historically proven, beyond a reasonable doubt.

  Of Matthew's subsequent career we have only inaccurate or legendary data. St. Irenæus tells us that Matthew preached the Gospel among the Hebrews, St. Clement of Alexandria claiming that he did this for fifteen years, and Eusebius maintains that, before going into other countries, he gave them his Gospel in the mother tongue. Ancient writers are not as one as to the countries evangelized by Matthew, but almost all mention Ethiopia to the south of the Caspian Sea (not Ethiopia in Africa), and some Persia and the kingdom of the Parthians, Macedonia, and Syria.

  According to Heracleon, who is quoted by Clement of Alexandria, Matthew did not die a martyr, but this opinion conflicts with all other ancient testimony. Let us add, however, that the account of his martyrdom in the apocryphal Greek writings entitled "Martyrium S. Matthæi in Ponto" and published by Bonnet, "Acta apostolorum apocrypha" (Leipzig, 1898), is absolutely devoid of historic value. Lipsius holds that this "Martyrium S. Matthæi", which contains traces of Gnosticism, must have been published in the third century.

  There is a disagreement as to the place of St. Matthew's martyrdom and the kind of torture inflicted on him, therefore it is not known whether he was burned, stoned, or beheaded. The Roman Martyrology simply says: "S. Matthæi, qui in Æthiopia prædicans martyrium passus est".

  Various writings that are now considered apocryphal, have been attributed to St. Matthew. In the "Evangelia apocrypha" (Leipzig, 1876), Tischendorf reproduced a Latin document entitled: "De Ortu beatæ Mariæ et infantia Salvatoris", supposedly written in Hebrew by St. Matthew the Evangelist, and translated into Latin by Jerome, the priest. It is an abridged adaptation of the "Protoevangelium" of St. James, which was a Greek apocryphal of the second century. This pseudo-Matthew dates from the middle or the end of the sixth century.

  The Latin Church celebrates the feast of St. Matthew on 21 September, and the Greek Church on 16 November. St. Matthew is represented under the symbol of a winged man, carrying in his hand a lance as a characteristic emblem. - St. Matthew (Catholic Encyclopaedia)


What is the biblical basis for the argument against the Catholic teaching on the primacy of Peter? The Catholic Church uses, for example, the following NT passages in support of its teaching on the primacy of Peter:

Mt 16:13-20.
Lk 22-31-34.
Jn 21:15-23.

What is the biblical basis that argues against these passages as supporting the Catholic teaching on the primacy of Peter, and what others argue against the aforementioned Catholic teaching?

Related: What are the biblical arguments against the papacy and papal succession?

Background: This question was prompted by the comments exchange following this bruisedreed's answer.

The term 'Primacy of Peter' is primarily a Catholic term and comes highly loaded - in it's normal usage, it is inextricably linked to and fundamentally inseparable from the institution of the Papacy. It is worth noting that the original meaning of Primate is:

  one first in authority or rank (source, emphasis added)

While Protestants generally do not deny that Peter was a principal leader in the early church and that Christ specifically gave him responsibility to shepherd the flock, for them to use the term 'Primacy of Peter' to describe this - given the Catholic use of the term - would be highly unusual, and probably a signal that they are looking to leave their current church polity, and submit themselves to the authority of the Bishop of Rome.

The Protestant view regarding the limitations of Peter's role really does hinge on the interpretation of the Matthew passage. Clearly a 'Rock' on which the Church will be built carries immense significance. As important as Peter was in the life of the early church, he eventually died and his legacy in terms of contribution to scriptural canon and role in establishing, nurturing and leading the early churches, seems much on a par with James ("the just", author of the epistle that bears his name, the Bishop of Jerusalem according to tradition, the "brother" of the Lord, not to be confused with either of the two James who were amongst the 12 disciples) and the Apostle John, and significantly less than that left by the Apostle Paul. From this, (ie with the benefit of hindsight) it doesn't seem that the significant terminology of the 'Rock on which I will build my church' accurately describes Peter's personal effect and ministry towards the early church: If the Rock is so important, it either must be pointing beyond the man to the actual role he supposedly embodied (ie a papal system of some kind), or be about something else again.

The case that the latter option should be preferred, is quite strong in consideration of the principle 'scripture interprets scripture': ie if we examine all the scriptures that speak to ecclesiological issues, do we see such a pivotal role as a pope (or a one-of-a-kind primate in Peter) given an important emphais? The answer is an emphatic no!

I will not reproduce all relevant scriptures, but will refer to one of the most significant in terms of this particular argument:

  19 Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and strangers, but fellow citizens with God’s people and also members of his household, 20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. 21 In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. - Ephesians 2:19-21 NIV

This is clearly taking about the church and it's establishment. In my view, the only way for someone to interpret this particular passage as being consistent with a papacy or even 'the Primacy of Peter' is to employ eisegesis to twist the scripture. On the other hand, if we use this passage to help interpret Matthew 16:18 particularly noting that the Prophets gave revelation concerning the Christ to come, while the Apostles bore witness to him and using 'Christ as cornerstone' as a key to guide us, the interpretation of the confession of Jesus as the Christ being what is referred to as the rock is eminently preferable. In fact, this is the only valid choice to be made if we are operating on the basis of harmonizing scripture.

A final scripture reference to refute the concept of a Primate as being compatible with biblical ecclesiology:

  25 Jesus called them together and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. 26 Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, 27 and whoever wants to be first must be your slave— 28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” - Matthew 20:25-28 NIV

As soon as you start naming someone as a 'Primate', you are transgressing this instruction, which is why the early Bishops of Rome were loathe to adopt the formula regarding their office that was used by later successors:

  "I say it without the least hesitation, whoever calls himself the universal bishop, or desires this title, is, by his pride, the precursor of Antichrist, because he thus attempts to raise himself above the others. The error into which he falls springs from pride equal to that of Antichrist; for as that Wicked One wished to be regarded as exalted above other men, like a god, so likewise whoever would be called sole bishop exalteth himself above others....You know it, my brother; hath not the venerable Council of Chalcedon conferred the honorary title of 'universal' upon the bishops of this Apostolic See [Rome], whereof I am, by God's will, the servant? And yet none of us hath permitted this title to be given to him; none hath assumed this bold title, lest by assuming a special distinction in the dignity of the episcopate, we should seem to refuse it to all the brethren." - Pope Gregory 'the Great' - see related question.


When did Martin Luther lose his Apostolic succession according to Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churchеs? As far as I understand Martin Luther according to the Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox Churches possessed the Apostolic succession while he was in the Roman Catholic Church (he was a priest, after all). However, now both Luther and all his followers are considered by both Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Church as those who don't posses the Apostolic succession. So, according to them, at what particular point Martin Luther lost his Apostolic succession?

According to the Catholic Church, the short answer is that he never lost it. In fact, in the strict sense, Martin Luther never participated in apostolic succession to begin with.

Apostolic succession refers to the fact that all bishops can trace their holy orders all the way back to the Apostles. That is, the Apostles ordained certain men bishops (or what we would call bishops today) by the laying on of hands, and these, in turn, ordained other bishops, and so forth. (See Catechism of the Catholic Church [CCC] 77-79, as well as 1 Timothy 5:22, which is an example in the Scripture of where this kind of succession occurred.) Thus, at least in the strict sense, apostolic succession does not apply to presbyters (i.e., priests).

Since Martin Luther was only a presbyter, not a bishop, he did not (at least in the strict sense) participate an apostolic succession. For example, he never had the capacity to ordain another man bishop. (Only a bishop can confer the Sacrament of Holy Orders. Hence, Luther could not ordain deacons or priests either; see CCC 1576.)

What the O.P. may have been thinking of was the status of Martin Luther’s holy orders.

The Catholic Church teaches that the Sacrament of Holy Orders confers a permanent “mark,” called a character, on the soul of the person who is ordained. (See CCC 1582; it is a “mark” in a metaphorical sense, of course: the character consists in the capacity of the ordained minister to perform the ministry that he is called to, especially the capacity to confer certain sacraments.) This character is permanent, and no power on earth can remove it.

As a consequence, Martin Luther remained a validly ordained priest to the end of his life. His status in the Church became irregular when he was excommunicated in 1521, but that in no way affected his holy orders.

The reason that Lutherans (as opposed to Luther himself) do not maintain Apostolic succession is that they did not attempt to continue it. Luther himself, as I mentioned, was only a presbyter, so he could not ordain new bishops, priests, or deacons.

Doctrinally, Luther largely disavowed the concept of the ministerial priesthood, so he did not seek to continue it. In any event, in order to do so, he would have had to have the cooperation of a Catholic bishop (or at any rate, a validly ordained bishop, such as an Orthodox bishop), which was not likely during his lifetime. Consequently, although many first-generation Lutherans were priests, their holy orders died with them.


What is the biblical basis for believing that some sense of Deity exists in humans? This view is called “Sensus Divinitatis” and is described as the natural capacity for humans to perceive God.
I understand from this Wikipedia article on Sensus divinitatis that although the concept is primarily associated with the writings of John Calvin it is also found in the work of other Christians:

Roman Catholic theologian Karl Rahner proposed an innate sense of God, which has been noted to share elements in common with Calvin's Sensus Divinitatis.

Jonathan Edwards, the 18th-century American Calvinist preacher and theologian, claimed that while every human being has been granted the capacity to know God, successful use of these capacities requires an attitude of "true benevolence".

Please be aware this question is not about philosophy.  The Wikipedia article presented what seemed to me to be a secular view but I have no interest in delving into a philosophical discussion. I am interested in finding out what a Christian perspective is, and what Calvin, Rahner and Edwards might have in common with regard to this subject.  However, for my benefit, it needs to be kept simple! I only stumbled upon this subject yesterday and what I read in that Wikipedia article made my head spin.
The Apostle Paul seems to suggest that humans have an inherent capacity to perceive God:

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.  For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. (Romans 1:18-20)

What other Bible verses expound on this idea?

In the Catholic ‘Encyclopedia of Theoloy’ edited by Karl Rhaner, there is a three-and-a-half page article under ‘God’ called ‘II. Knowability of God’ written by Eberhard Simons. He cites three passages, namely, Romans 1:18-21, 2:14ff., and Wisdom 13:1ff.  Wisdom is not reckoned to be part of Holy Scripture in Calvinistic circles. However, Simons explains that the Wisdom passage

“affirms that God may be known from the greatness and beauty of
visible good things, as Lord of all creation. Men’s failure to
acknowledge God as Lord of creation is understandable but inexcusable.
Paul writes in the same vein in Rom. 1:18ff.” Page 564 (quoting those verses in
full, as do you).

The third text Simons uses is Romans 2:14-15. It reads,

“Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things
required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they
do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law
are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness,
and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them” (N.I.V. 1987
edition).

The point is made that the knowability of God

“is seen to be inseparable from that of the proof of the existence of
God, but not identical with it. It has the prior task of defining the
framework within which alone a rational proof of the existence of God
can be possible.”

In all that is said there regarding biblical reasons, and if the Wisdom passage is as explained, all Calvinistic groups that I know of would agree. They, too, use that additional section of Romans 2:14-15 in conjunction with 1:18-20, so it’s hardly worth reiterating the same points they make. There is agreement that all humanity is accountable before God, their Maker, because there is no excuse for anyone claiming God is unknowable.
Then Simons makes an important point regarding the two Romans passages, with which Calvinistic groups would similarly agree. The way the conscience of pagans and their words of self-accusation or excuse testify to the law written in their hearts,

“according to which they act by nature, we have here a clear
indication of the universal knowability of God. But the knowledge is
hardly meant as theoretical and conceptual. It is to grow out of man’s
conscience in his contact with the things of this world, which is a
sort of medium through which it is obviously discernible. Being a
practical and existential knowledge of God, it is not threatened by
stupidity or deficiencies on the intellectual or rational level, but
by the moral attitude, the refusal of truth, injustice. Whatever be
the exact translation one adopts for these passages, one must be
careful not to read into them philosophical principles which cannot be
intended [emphasis mine]. The fact that they affirm that the godhead
of God appears and is obvious through the medium of the created world
need not be taken to mean an indirect knowledge of God through
causality or deduction.”

My Presbyterian Line Manager rejoiced at pointing out to me, when we were at gatherings of the mentally handicapped under the care of the Church of Scotland social services we worked for, that many of the clients were believers in God. Occasionally, some would even speak, in their own simple words, of their faith in Christ. No philosophical points had ever come to bear on their stance. They had not been indoctrinated with any particular ‘type’ of religion; they simply believed in God and knew they could trust Jesus, and nobody ever pressed them into speaking of that. They were happy to volunteer uncomplicated expressions of faith. Indeed, a child-like faith is never to be sneered at, for “From the lips of children and infants you have ordained praise” (Psalm 8:2 as quoted by Jesus in Matthew 21:16). And Jesus added, “I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes” (Matthew 11:25).
As a Calvinist, I would add those three scriptures to the biblical basis for believing that some sense of God exists in humans, right from infancy.


How can Paul having been alive apart from the Law reconcile with the doctrine of original sin? How can Paul's having been alive apart from the Law, reconcile with the doctrine of original sin?

  Romans 7:9 NASB--I was once alive apart from the Law; but when the commandment came, sin became alive and I died;

For I was alive without the law once; but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.

Paul means that

Before he heard the law he thought he was OK, fine, alive.  But when he heard the law he realized he was not OK, not fine, but spiritually dead. Or
He means that when he heard the law all it did was stir up sin in him, for "the strength of sin is the law" (1 Corinthians 15:56).  And the law does this because with its demands it just irritates us and increases our rebelliousness.

1.
The law is like a mirror. I thought my face was perfectly clean, but when I looked into the mirror I saw I was filthy.  So when I see the law of God I realize I am spiritually sick, even dead.

2.
Also the law stirs up sin.  It happens like this:  I hear God's standard and it is very high and I realize that no matter how hard I try I am going to fail: so I get angry against God, I resent Him and His laws, and I realize, or maybe I don't realize it, but I actually hate Him more than ever.

Also, I prefer sin to holiness, and I resent that God is against the things I like.  So what do I say?  I will sin against God to spite him to his face. "In for a penny,in for a pound", I might as well go to Hell for stealing a million as for stealing a pound, I will sin all the more; I will silence my conscience by sinning and sinning, I will ignore my conscience over and over until it no longer screams at me, or if it does, until I can no longer hear it.

The trouble with the law is that it can tell you what is the right thing to do, but it doesn't and cannot offer you any help to do it.  It is only a signpost on the road, it isn't an engine with a tank full of fuel.

Furthermore, like all laws, it really shouts loudest when we do the wrong thing; it doesn't pour out congratulations when we do the right thing: when we do the right thing the law says "You know very well you should have done that anyway, that is the least anyone expected of you; you only did your duty"; and when we do the wrong thing it says "You're finished!  Boy, are you in big trouble now, or what?!"

When Christian went to "The House of Interpretter" in the book, Pilgrim's Progress, Christian was shown someone who was sweeping in a room, but all that was being achieved was making a huge cloud of dust... the floor was not being cleaned because all the dust would settle again, in fact the one sweeping was just making things worse, working to no effect.  Once the dust had settled again someone came and sprinkled a little water on the floor, and after that the floor was swept again: this time the dust was nicely swept up.  The first picture is the law working in isolation from grace; the second picture is grace and law working together, the soul is cleansed.

Once I know I am freely and fully forgiven by the free grace of God believing all my sins are paid for by Jesus Christ dying and taking their full punishment then the law can no longer condemn: and now I want to please God by keeping, as much as I can, His law.  Now within me is an inner power to keep his law, not perfectly, but in a measure never before possible, I am sincere in my desire to draw near to God, to grow in grace and holiness.  But it isn't me, its the grace of God in me. Its no longer I who do it but Christ who lives in me.


In Mormonism, do persons ordained as Teachers in the Aaronic Priesthood have actual teaching duties? In the LDS faith, the offices of the Aaronic Priesthood are Deacon, Teacher, Priest, and Bishop. Current practice in the LDS church is to ordain most teenage boys in the church to the first three offices as they progress through their teenage years.

Do LDS Aaronic Priesthood Teachers have actual teaching duties in a practical sense in the 21st century, or are they teachers in an abstract or theoretical sense (e.g. if all priesthood holders except for 15 year old Billy were killed or incapacitated, he would be allowed to take over classrooms, but until then, he is expected to be quiet and let the adult professionals do the actual teaching)? Do they design curricula, lecture, hold office hours, grade papers, administer exams, evaluate students, or otherwise engage in practices associated with professional educators nowadays? Do Aaronic Teachers  have divine authority to teach a wide variety of courses, content, or curricula but in practice don't because there are usually more qualified, professional teachers available at whatever level is being discussed (e.g. college, high school, etc.), or are their actual teaching competencies sharply limited in both theory and practice (e.g. they are authorized only to teach Sunday School, and that only for Grade 5 and below, anything else requires a further ordination, and/or a non-priesthood teaching certification).

EDIT: As of this annoucement, some parts of this answer are out of date. I'll keep it as it is now though for historical purposes.

Yes

Teachers usually do not teach on Sunday (unless assigned to teach a class), but are assigned as home teachers.

All teachers are assigned one or more families to home teach. A new teacher is usually assigned a more experienced Priesthood holder (such as an Elder or High Priest) to mentor them, but they usually give the lesson half of the time. (This lesson could be considered a "lecture"). For example, in the New Era (a magizine for the youth of the Church), in Watching over the Church

  One of the most important parts of a successful home teaching visit is
  preparing and sharing a lesson. Every other month Brandon Stewart
  gives the lesson. Brandon has learned how to prepare a lesson by
  watching his senior companion, his father. Thanks to his dad’s good
  example, giving the lesson is Brandon’s favorite part of home
  teaching.

They might even create the lesson themselves (under the direction of the older Priesthood holder), although usually they do not. Home teachers also have other duties, which can be said to be "teaching by example", although I guess you would consider this more "abstract".

Some teachers are also assigned as the president of a teacher's quorum (in particular, one per quorum). This will usually be a 14 or 15 year old. They also might teach (in particular, they would teach other teachers), again under the direction of older priesthood holders.

It should be noted as well than any member can be assigned to give a talk on Sunday.

Is a teacher in the Aaronic teacher the same as college professors? Sadly no. Do they teach? Yes.


Do Jehovah's Witnesses believe that the 1918 influenza was caused by Satan? The accepted answer to this other question of mine mentioned that

  epidemics like the Spanish influenza are thought to be strong evidence
  of Satan’s being confined to the vicinity of the earth.

This kind of caught my interest since I had read this book about the 1918 flu by Gina Kolata for which the author had interviewed researchers that had worked on finding the causes behind the Spanish influenza.

Just for summary, some of the features about this pandemic were things like

That it killed young adults to a much larger degree than a typical flu.
That the outbreak was widespread in the summer and autumn in the
Northern Hemisphere; influenza is usually worse in winter (one reason
to this is that people tend to stay more indoors in social settings).
That during the 15 month period that it ravaged the planet it killed
people in such faraway places as Brevig (Alaska), Bombay
(India), New Zealand, South Africa, and
Spitsbergen.

One of the researchers interviewed in the book was virologist Jeffery Taubenberger who said that a virus that is this good for killing people is "far out on the edge of what is possible for influenza viruses" (p.304; reference added to the bottom of the page) because any mutation would likely make it weaker (additionally a much stronger virus might kill its host before being able to propagate).

So clearly the virus behind that pandemic was of a rather nasty type.

Considering the significance that Jehovah's Witnesses place on the events during the years of the First World War, do they view this influenza as having been caused by Satan? Has any official Jehovah's Witness statement ever been made on this?

Screen shot of the page

Jehovah's Witnesses don't necessarily attribute the Spanish flu directly to Satan, but they do believe Satan at least played a large role in it, since it was in the aftermath of World War 1.

—w14 2/1 p. 7 "The War That Changed the World"
War on Earth and War in Heaven
Some 19 centuries before the outbreak of World War I, Satan offered Jesus “all the kingdoms of the world.” (Matthew 4:8, 9) Jesus rejected that temptation, but he later described the Devil as “the ruler of the world.” (John 14:30) Additionally, the apostle John wrote that “the whole world is lying in the power of the wicked one.”—1 John 5:19.
If Satan the Devil has so much power over the world, would it not be reasonable to conclude that he played at least a part in the first world war and its aftermath? Sure enough, the book of Revelation links Satan to the calamities the earth has suffered since 1914. Here is a brief outline of the events described in Revelation chapter 12:
Verse 7 War breaks out in heaven between Michael (Jesus Christ) and the dragon (Satan).
Verse 9 The Devil, “who is misleading the entire inhabited earth,” is hurled down to the earth.
Verse 12 “Woe for the earth and for the sea, because the Devil has come down to you, having great anger, knowing that he has a short period of time.”
Bible chronology and world events indicate that this heavenly war occurred after God’s Kingdom was established in the heavens in 1914.* So the same pivotal year saw the outbreak of war on earth and war in heaven.

In 2005, there was an Awake! magazine where the cover subject was all about the Spanish flu. It also mentions the book you mention by Gina Kolata. The whole magazine is pretty interesting, but here's the part which deals specifically with how it relates to Bible prophecy.

—g05 12/22 p. 10 "The Next Global Epidemic—When?"
Pandemics-What the Future Holds
SOME students of the 1918-19 flu pandemic have been powerfully reminded of Bible prophecies. For example, Gina Kolata notes in her book Flu—The Story of the Great Influenza Pandemic of 1918 and the Search for the Virus that Caused It: “They called the plague of 1918 influenza, but it was like no influenza ever seen before. It was more like a biblical prophecy come true.”
Does the Bible actually say anything that bears on this human calamity? In fact, it does.
Bible Prophecy and Pestilences
The disciples of Jesus Christ asked him for a sign of “the conclusion of the system of things.” (Matthew 24:3) Jesus answered by saying: “Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom; and there will be great earthquakes, and in one place after another pestilences.” (Luke 21:7, 10, 11) The Bible also foretells that during the time of the end, there will be “deadly plague.”—Revelation 6:8.
The Spanish flu epidemic began toward the end of the Great War (1914-18), later called World War I. That period saw the start of the fulfillment of Bible prophecies regarding “the last days.” These prophecies mention horrific food shortages, great earthquakes, increasing lawlessness, and a remarkable deterioration of human values. No doubt you are well aware of those very conditions in the world today.—Matthew 24:3-14; 2 Timothy 3:1-5.

For more information, see these search results on jw.org for "Spanish flu".


How do deniers of the personal pre-incarnate existence of the Son of God interpret John 3:31-32? He that cometh from above is above all: he that is of the earth is earthly, and speaketh of the earth: he that cometh from heaven is above all. And what he hath seen and heard, that he testifieth; and no man receiveth his testimony. - John 3:31-32

Here we have two distinct "he" in view:  "he" from above (heaven) and "he from below (earth), see John 8:23
The "he from the earth is represented by 3rd person singular pronoun:  Of the earth "he is" and of the earth "he speaks".
The "he from above is also represented by 3rd person singular pronoun: From heaven "he is" and what "he testifies" here (and which no man receives) is what "he has seen" and "he has heard" there (heaven above).
There are those who disbelieve that the Son of God had a personal pre-existence prior to being born of a virgin and given the name of Jesus.  The claim, as I understand it, is that prior to the birth of Jesus all reference to "him" is a reference to the Logos as the non-personal "plan of God".  See this related question as an example.
For those who deny the pre-incarnate personal existence of the Son of God:
In the very direct comparison of John 3:31-32,  How is it that 3rd person singular can refer to person-hood in "he who is from the earth"  but not person-hood in "he who is from above"?
Secondarily, How can "he from above" have seen and heard that which "he" later testifies if "he" had no person-hood prior to earthly existence?  Can a plan see, hear, and remember in order to later testify?

The argument seems to be based on grammar of the target translation language, not on that of the source text. The original Greek of John 3 does not echo this "two distinct He" mentioned in the question:

In all cases the Greek Ὁ is the same inflection: "he" is not represented by a 3rd person singular pronoun, but by first person singular nominative (translated as "the one").
Nor does John 8:23:

Where ἐγὼ in both cases is also the same inflection.
If this would be referring to two distinctive "me" or "he", one would expect one (the one above) to be in Nominative and the second (the testifier) in either Accusative or Dative case, depending on whether the association is meant to be direct or indirect respectively, if the argument is to be inferred into the original Greek.


According to LDS doctrine, what is the source of God's power? According to modern revelation - from an LDS perspective, what is the source of God's power?

I'm looking for references from the standard works and quotes from the brethren that may indicate to us what God's power is and how it works.

This is a difficult question to answer. If you asked "What is source of gravity?", what would the answer be? Matter? Matter has gravity.
Similarly, the answer to "What is the source of God's power?" is probably "God". God has God's power. Perhaps that isn't really satisfying, but it's accurate.

Cleon Skousen, a famous LDS scholar, had interesting things to say about God's power.
Disclaimer: These are Skousen's insights, based firmly in LDS doctine, but his own beliefs nonetheless.
Most of this is from  a sermon "A Personal Search for the Meaning of the Atonement". The recording and transcipt are available. Similar statements are also in his book The First 2,000 Years in "The Source of God’s Power."
Skousen quotes Doctrine and Covenants 29:36:

for, behold, the devil was before Adam, for he rebelled against me, saying, Give me thine honor, which is my power; and also a third part of the hosts of heaven turned he away from me because of their agency;

God possesses power over the sea, the earth, the heavens because they honor him. And they honor him because he is who he is.
This honor is more than figurative; all things have an "intelligence"...for lack of better word, a fundamental spark of divinity/existence that cannot be created or destroyed (Pearl of Great Price, Abraham 3). This universe of intelligences honor God, and so he has power.
Alma 42 explains the necessity of Jesus's sacrifice for sin, to satisfy justice while offering mercy:

...except it were for these conditions, mercy could not take effect except it should destroy the work of justice. Now the work of justice could not be destroyed; if so, God would cease to be God.
...which repentance, mercy claimeth; otherwise, justice claimeth the creature and executeth the law, and the law inflicteth the punishment; if not so, the works of justice would be destroyed, and God would cease to be God.
What, do ye suppose that mercy can rob justice? I say unto you, Nay; not one whit. If so, God would cease to be God.

God would "cease to be God" if he were unjust. He would his lose his honor, and also his power. Of course, God is just and good, and will be yesterday, today, and forever, and so all things obey him, and he has all power in heaven and in earth.


Are you unguilty of sin if you never heard the gospel? Jesus says that if he had not come and proclaimed the gospel, that those hearing would not be guilty of sin.

If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have been guilty
of sin, but now they have no excuse for their sin. John 15:22
If I had not done among them the works that no one else did, they
would not be guilty of sin, but now they have seen and hated both me
and my Father. John 15:24

What is the belief held by the various churches over this matter?

The sin Jesus speaks of here is the sin of rejecting Him as the Christ. Jesus is condemning the people of the world who hate Him and warning his disciples that the world will hate them also because they bear His name (John 15:18-21).
If God had not sent Him into the world, they would not have been guilty of rejecting Him. If they had not seen His miracles, they would not have been guilty of ascribing His power to Beelzebub, the prince of demons (Luke 11:14-20).
Here is an extract from a sermon delivered on 16 May, 1858 by the Rev. C. H. Spurgeon on human responsibility, based on John 15:22: “If I had not come and spoken to them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloak for their sin.”

THE peculiar sin of the Jews, the sin which aggravated above everything their former iniquities, was their rejection of Jesus Christ as the Messiah. He had been very plainly described in the books of the prophets, and they who waited for Him, such as Simeon and Anna, no sooner beheld Him, even in His infant state, than they rejoiced to see Him, and understood that God had sent forth His salvation. But because Jesus Christ did not answer the expectation of that evil generation, because He did not come arrayed in pomp and clothed with power, because He had not the outward garnishing of a prince and the honors of a king, they shut their eyes against Him, He was “a root out of a dry ground,” He was “despised and they esteemed Him not.”
https://www.spurgeongems.org/sermon/chs194.pdf

It’s a lengthy sermon (8 full pages) and in the final section Spurgeon warns his audience of the sin of rejecting Christ having heard the Gospel.  But when Jesus spoke his words 2,000 years ago, he did not actually say that the Jews (especially the religious leaders) were guilty of sin because they had never heard the Gospel.  The sin they were guilty of was of rejecting Jesus.  The Gospel message had not yet been released to the world – that would not happen till after Jesus’ death, resurrection and the arrival of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.
Context is everything!  This belief is in accord with Reformed Protestant theology.


Will Christians be judged? Possible Duplicate:
  What is the Biblical basis for multiple judgments?

Romans 12:1 says "There is no condemnation for those in Christ Jesus" and 2 Cor 5 :17 says we are new creations and the old has passed away. I take it that this means our past life is cleaned out and we start afresh. So on the judgement day Christians will not be judged as the slate is new, right? How does this reconcile with Heb 9:27 which says ".. just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment" . This Hebrews verse seems to say there is going to be judgment  no matter what. Please shed some light.

Yes everyone will be judged:

  2 Corinthians 5:10 New King James Version (NKJV) - For we must ALL
  appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive
  the things done in the body, according to what he has done, whether
  good or bad.

but not all will be condemned:

  Romans 8:1 New King James Version (NKJV) - There is therefore now no
  condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus,[a] who do not walk
  according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit.


Were Adam and Eve meant to live forever; had they not disobeyed God? In the book of Genesis we are led to believe that as God created man he was immortal.

  Genesis 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Does that indicate that Adam and Eve and all who came after them would still be alive today had they not eaten from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Yes.
As @Brasshat cites in his answer, Genesis 3:22 shows that to take from the Tree of Life allows one to live forever, and Adam and Eve were expelled from the garden specifically so that they could not eat from the Tree of Life and live eternally.
Messiah reveals in John 17 that to live forever means to know the Father and the Son, in the sense of familiarity.
It follows that had Adam and Eve not sinned, they would have had access to the Tree of Life and would have been able to eat continuously of the tree, and therefore have eternal life. The specificity of the reference to the Tree of Life in Genesis 3:22 suggests that it was God's intention for them to remain in the garden and continue to have access to the Tree of Life unless they sinned. Because they sinned, they were cut off from eternal life, and had no access to the source of life, which is the Tree of Life, and separation from the Source of Life is the death of which God warned them when he told them not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
So, because they would have remained in communion with the Source of Life if they had not sinned, they would have had life indefinitely.
According to Christian tradition, Messiah is the Source of Life. He says:

"I am the true vine, and my Father is the Grower. Every branch in me that is not bearing fruit he takes, and every one bearing fruit he prunes, so that it bears more fruit"
"I am the vine, and you are the branches. The one who dwells in me bears many fruit, but apart from me you can do nothing."
"I am the bread of life. The one who comes to me will not be hungry, and the one who believes in me will not ever thirst."
"I am the bread of life. Your ancestors ate who knows what in the wilderness, and died. This bread, the one that descends from Heaven, whoever eats of it will not die. If anyone eats this bread, he will live into the ages."


What is the difference between Protestantism vs Protestants? According to me Protestants are the one who doesn't pray to Mary.

I also came across the Protestantism which speaks about the 95 Theses which Martin Luther started against indulgence.

I don't see any relationship with Protestants and Protestantism. Are they same? Or Protestants came from Protestantism?

Rectify me if Iam wrong.

"Protestantism" is the name of a movement. "Protestants" are people who are part of that movement. It's the same relationship as between the words "Catholicism" and "Catholics". Catholics are the people who are part of Catholicism.

The problem is that your definition of Protestants is far too narrow. Protestants don't pray to Mary (mostly - there are a few exceptions) but it's not the most important thing about them - there are many other differences between them and Catholics too - their beliefs about the authority of the church, the place of the sacraments, the theology of the priesthood are just a few of many examples. It should also be pointed out the Protestantism is incredibly diverse and there is almost nothing that is unquestionably true of all Protestants except that they are not Catholic (or Orthodox, whose followers are also considered not Protestant).


Why did Jesus protest before performing his first miracle? In John 2:1-12 we read of Christ's first miracle, turning water into wine.  Before he performs his miracle, though, he says to his mother:

  “Woman, why do you involve me?” Jesus replied. “My hour has not yet come.”

He seems to be protesting his mother's request that he do something about the lack of wine, but then turns right around and makes wine.

What did Jesus mean that his hour had not come?  Why do his actions seem to contradict his words?

Most likely because he didn't want to gain a lot of notoriety so early on, and doing something like this, especially in such a public setting, would cause a lot of people to notice.  But in the end, he did it, probably because it was his mother asking, and he was required by the Ten Commandments to honor his father and his mother.


What did Luther consider to be novel in his theology of creation? In Colin Gunton's The Doctrine of Creation (T&T Clark, 1997), he says:

  In view of what we have just noted [in the previous section on Thomas Aquinas, Duns Scotus and William of Ockham] about the non-trinitarian treatment of creation in the Middle Ages, Luther's claim that he was the only person to have understood the first chapter of Genesis is only slightly exaggerated. The change he brings about is remarkable. (p71)

A footnote further on in the text says: "Luther is contemptuous of Augustine's mystical interpretation of the text, as well as of his and Hilary's view that God created instantaneously." There is a citation to Luther's Lectures on Genesis.

I am curious about the following:

What did Luther himself think was the major contribution of his interpretation? Was it the trinitarianism, the literal/material reading, the non-instantaneous creation, or something else?
Did he actually say that nobody else had ever understood Genesis 1 properly? (Perhaps this is an example of Lutheran hyperbole.) Did he specifically engage with the full range of patristic writings on the creation?

I do not have broad knowledge of early church Father views of Genesis but I know enough to say that some believed in a Trinitarian view, some did not.  Some believed in literal 24 hour days with the earth being created only thousands of years before Christ, while others did not. Most mixed Greek philosophy with their views.

Besides the rejction of mixing Greek philosophy with his interpretation, Luther must have felt extra 'alone' in that he did not think to highly about many of the church Fathers and the two he admired the most, Hilary and Augustine, they did not take it literally. This meant even his favorites must be left behind in his huge endeavor (5 Volumes of interpreting Genesis in a fresh new light).

This is what Luther say's himself in his introduction to Genesis which presents his attitude about it all.  First, your right he does say he is the first to clear things up on a significant scale:

  Until now there has not been anyone in the church either who has explained everything in the chapter with adequate skill. The commentators, with their sundry, different, and countless questions, have so confused everything in the chapter as to make it clear enough that God has reserved His exalted wisdom and the correct understanding of this chapter for Himself alone, although He has left with us this general knowledge that the world had a beginning and that it was created by God out of nothing.  (Luther's Works Vol 1, Introduction)

He pays respect to Hilary and Augustine but then proceeds to absolutely reject their symbolic view:

  Hilary and Augustine, almost the two greatest lights of the church, hold that the world was created instantaneously and all at the same time, not successively in the course of six days.  Moreover, Augustine resorts to extraordinary trifling in his treatment of the six days, which he makes out to be mystical days of knowledge among the angels, not natural ones.   (Luther's Works Vol 1, Introduction)

Luther proceeds to reject the mixture of Greek philosophy with Genesis interpretations which it appears many theologians did and he names Nicholas of Lyra as particularly guilty on this matter:

  As to Lyra’s belief that a knowledge of the philosophers’ opinion concerning matter is essential because on it depends the understanding of the six days of activity—I am not sure that Lyra understood what it was that Aristotle called “matter.” Unlike Ovid, Aristotle does not designate the shapeless and crude chaos as matter.12 Therefore, disregarding these needless opinions, let us turn to Moses as the better teacher. We can follow him with greater safety than the philosophers, who, without benefit of the Word, debate about unknown matters.  (Luther's Works Vol 1, Introduction)

I think you can gather from these points that Luther was starting something new when he adopted a simple interpretation without a) admixture of Greek philosophy, without b) using symbolism and without c) ignoring the Trinity. Although there were others before him who had a similar view none appear to have taken all three approaches together, at least none whose works were extant and available to theologians at the time.