Is there a rule, on how many Patron Saints a Catholic can have? I think I heard on some Catholic forum that we are attributed a patron saint at the moment of our baptism (and/or our Confirmation), and that we are obligated to keep a special devotion to that saint. But that if one desires to work with other saints, one must do so as if it was some kind of temporary collaboration and not elevate those saints to the level of the patron saint attributed to us.

  Essentially I suppose, the question is, can we or can we not have
  multiple saints as our personal patrons? And if we can, how many and
  why?

To answer the question it would be ideal if you quoted Catholic authorities, like cathechisms or even private revelations recognized by the Church.

I believe you're referring to the fact that a person baptized needs a "Christian Name" and that name would be their protection throughout their life.

The sacrament of Baptism is conferred "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." In Baptism, the Lord's name sanctifies man, and the Christian receives his name in the Church. This can be the name of a saint, that is, of a disciple who has lived a life of exemplary fidelity to the Lord. The patron saint provides a model of charity; we are assured of his intercession. The "baptismal name" can also express a Christian mystery or Christian virtue. "Parents, sponsors, and the pastor are to see that a name is not given which is foreign to Christian sentiment
CCC 2158

When your saint's "name day" comes around, it's a bit like your own spiritual birthday, etc..  It's a good an pious practice hat should probably be done more. This is usually your own name, unless your parents named you something that's not particularly Christian and then you get a new name at Baptism.

The code of Catholic Church law issued in 1918 instructed pastors to see to that each person baptized was given a “Christian” name. If the parents of a child to be christened insisted on an “un-Christian” name, the baptizing priest was instructed to add a Christian name on his own initiative and to enter both names in the baptismal register.
The revised code of Church law (1983) is less restrictive. It simply forbids the giving of a baptismal name that is “alien to Christian sentiment.” Most likely, however, this broader rule will not have much influence on the established custom of preferring the names of saints. This is good, for it is better for us to have a heavenly patron saint whom we can admire and turn to. - Baptismal Saints

However, I don't think it's universally recognized that you can only have one patron, especially since that patron was probably chosen for you by your parents and most likely doesn't have a whole heck of a lot to do with your vocation or particular needs. St. Theresa of Avila, who was a bit of a rule breaker - so maybe this isn't a good example, took St. Joseph as her patron to help her in her work.

and I took for my patron and lord the glorious St. Joseph, and recommended myself earnestly to him.
Life of Teresa of Jesus

She believed that he could help her with everything.
I took the name Alphonsus, because I liked Frank Zappa and that was the closest I could get to St. Alfonso (of pancake breakfast fame).  But he did guide me quickly back into the Church when I bought a big book from Ligouri press on a whim that turned out to be a Catechism (which I don't recall having seen in Catechism class).
Digressions aside,  I believe you must have several saints that you are devoted to in order to survive as a Catholic and I don't believe that one will be saddened by your veneration of another.

St. Teresa heard from the next highest authority too, telling us in her autobiography, “She (our Blessed Mother) said that I pleased her very much by being devout to the glorious St. Joseph.”
National Catholic Register

Lastly, and this is just a practice that may be applicable to my diocese, given the way we structure baptisms and confirmations, but when confirmation candidates in High School prepare for the sacrament, they're tasked with finding a saint to go and make their confirmation patron.  It's never incumbent upon them to choose their Baptismal name, although that might be a lapsed practice that uninformed catechists, like myself, would be better off correcting.


Do Catholics subscribe to the "once saved, always saved" doctrine that many evangelical Christians believe in? Many evangelical Christians say that once a person has accepted Jesus as their Savior and repented of their sins they have formed a bond between their soul and the Lord that is unbreakable. Do Catholics believe that this is true? I have heard that confession of sins to a Priest is common in Catholicism, and wondered how a Catholic would respond to a once saved always saved  Christian.

A baptized Catholic would understand "accepting Jesus" as meaning professing the (Catholic) Faith; he would interpret "repenting of one's sins" as receiving absolution from a priest in the sacrament of penance, and thus being in a state of grace (the state of not having the stain of mortal sin on his soul). If he were to die in a state of grace, he would either go straight to heaven, or, if he still has temporal punishment remaining for his already forgiven sins, he would go to purgatory for awhile and eventually go to heaven. Since one can fall out of the state of grace by committing mortal sin, or by committing numerous venial sins that predispose one to eventually commit a mortal sin, one is not guaranteed to be saved "once and for ever" just because one once "accepted Jesus and repented of one's sins."


What is theological root of global warming skepticism? Ed Stetzer, a renowned evangelist and church planter with 100k followers on Twitter, made two tweets today on the IPCC report on global warming. In one he said that "... I'm sure they are all lying." In another, he referred to a poll on how prevalent such skepticism was among US protestant pastors, whom he claimed, "aint buying it."

My question is, what are the reasons for such a widespread skepticism? What are theological and/or sociological roots?

In addition to his evangelism and church planting, Ed Stetzer conducts surveys of pastors for LifeWay. One of the survey questions he asks from time to time is:

Do you agree or disagree with the following statement: I believe global warming is real and manmade.

Stetzer has asked the question in 2008, 2010, and 2013.
In 2010 Stetzer found that the number of American Protestant pastors agreeing with the statement dropped sharply compared with 2008. This matched a trend seen in polls of the American public at large.
Source: New Research: Protestant Pastors & the Environment, Shifting on Global Warming and Teaching on the Environment
Earlier this year, Stetzer found that the number of pastors agreeing with the statement is beginning to trend upward again, but has not yet reached 2008 levels. Again this corresponds with the public at large.
Source: New Research on Protestant Pastors' Views of the Environment
Stetzer further broke down the latest poll results by region, denomination, and political party.

Pastors identifying as Democrats are the most likely to strongly agree (76 percent) in the validity of man-made global warming, followed by Independents (20 percent). Just 7 percent of Republican pastors strongly agree. Conversely, Republican pastors are the most likely to strongly disagree (49 percent), followed by Independents (35 percent) and Democrats (5 percent).
• Pastors in large cities (32 percent) are more likely to strongly agree with the statement than pastors in small cities (20 percent) and rural areas (18 percent);
• Southern pastors are less likely (18 percent) to strongly agree with the statement than pastors in the Northeast (30 percent) and West (25 percent);
• Self-identified mainline pastors are more likely than self-identified evangelical pastors to strongly agree (35 percent vs. 15 percent) with the statement.

Although there is a difference between Mainline and Evangelical pastors, it is much smaller than the difference between Democrats and Republicans, and it is nearly identical to the gap between urban and rural areas. The data suggest the difference is political rather than theological.
A 2009 survey of the general public by the Pew Center seems to confirm this, showing that political party affiliation is the dominant factor affecting views about climate change, and that the economy and the weather may have a small influence.
Also, despite Stetzer's tongue-in-cheek tweet, "I'm sure they are all lying," he points out in his blog that "the consensus in scholarly papers is clear.…A survey of thousands of peer-reviewed papers in scientific journals has found 97.1% agreed that climate change is caused by human activity."


Was regular weekly fasting a widespread, formal tradition in the early Church? In The Story of Christianity,* author Justo Gonzalez offers the following:

  There were indeed times set aside for sorrow for one's sins, in particular during the two weekly days of fasting, which the church adopted from Jewish practice. At an early date, however, at least some Christians began fasting, not on Mondays and Thursday, like the Jews, but rather on Wednesdays and Fridays. It may be that this shift took place in commemoration of the betrayal and the crucifixion.

Was this fasting practiced in a majority of early churches? If so, at what point in history did the tradition cease? Is there more information as to why the days of Wednesday and Friday were chosen over Monday and Thursday?

* Revised edition, Volume 1, Chapter 3.

As far as we can tell, Christian twice-weekly fasting was based on Jewish twice-weekly fasting. Given the later tension between Jews and Christians, this makes an early adoption date likely.

Further evidence comes from the Didache (dating probably to the first century):

  Your fasts should not be with the hypocrites, for they fast on Mondays and Thursdays. You should fast on Wednesdays and Fridays. (8.1)

This passage seems to indicate that a formal twice-weekly fast was the norm—a practice which appears to be analogous to (but distinct from) the Jewish practice.


Was St. Joseph always a righteous man? We read at Mtt 1:18-19 (NRSVCE):

Now the birth of Jesus the Messiah took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been engaged to Joseph, but before they lived together, she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit.   Her husband Joseph, being a righteous man and unwilling to expose her to public disgrace, planned to dismiss her quietly.

That implies that St. Joseph had always been a righteous man-- even before he was betrothed to Mary, and his decision to dismiss Mary quietly, would top up his righteousness. My question therefore is: are there stories available in Catholic tradition  which throw light  on the pre-betrothal life of St. Joseph , and which  would substantiate that he was always a righteous man ?

Was St. Joseph always a righteous man?
According to Catholic tradition, St. Joseph had always been a righteous man.

When asked by a questioner about the dignity of St. Joseph in Christian tradition, the late Father Francis L. Filas, S.J., the U.S.A.'s leading authority on the subject, responded simply, "Like wife, like husband." The man closest to Jesus and Mary rightly deserves all honor and praise.
The theology of his vocation, dignity, holiness, and intercession began to flower only in medieval times, and the seventeenth century was the golden age. The enthusiasm of St. Teresa of Avila for St. Joseph was remarkable, vividly expressed in her writings, and perpetrated in the twelve new convents given his name.
The ground swell of attention began with the popes of the late nineteenth century. All the popes of modern times, from Pope Pius IX until our present Holy Father, have issued substantial teaching about Joseph on their official documents. Since 1870 the Church officially gave impetus to this new trend when Pope Pius IX declared St. Joseph Patron of the Universal Church. The next pope, Leo XIII, set St. Joseph before us with a rank and place best described in his encyclical about Joseph, Quamquam Pluries, 1889: "There can be no doubt that, more than any other person, he approached that super-eminent dignity by which the Mother of God was raised far above all created natures."
Such an exalted understanding and appreciation of St. Joseph's dignity do not blossom all at once. Sustained study and meditation on his twofold vocation are required. The extremes of too much or too little must be sedulously avoided. A typical reaction often encountered is that the Gospel says Joseph was a just man. What more can be said?
Plenty! In 1989 Pope John Paul II offered us a masterful explanation and reflection on the unique vocation of St. Joseph in God's plan of salvation with Redemptoris Custos (Guardian of the Redeemer). This inspirational pastoral letter, marking the centenary of Leo XIII's landmark encyclical, treats the person and mission of St. Joseph in the life of Christ and of the Church. It recalls what makes him special, not only for us personally, but also for the universal Church.
Some muse that Joseph's role is not treated in any detail in Holy Scripture. But neither is the vocation of Mary. However, what little is said is highly significant. Theologians have reasoned to many of the functions and privileges granted Mary. The same process is followed in regard to Joseph. Once the divinity of Jesus and the divine virginal motherhood of Mary were firmly established in Catholic doctrine and in popular understanding, Joseph began to emerge without concern that his unique position as virgin father of Jesus and virginal husband of Mary would be misunderstood.
The evolution of devotion to St. Joseph is in reality another facet of devotion to Mary. Probing more deeply Joseph's mission leads us to knowing more deeply the greatness of Mary. St. Joseph's position in relation to Jesus Christ, our Redeemer, stems from his position with regard to Mary, Mother of the Redeemer. The parallel holds true also for Mary and Jesus. The better we know Mary, the better we will know her Son, from whom she derives all her dignity and whom she reflects so faithfully. Pope Benedict XV clearly expressed this idea: "By St. Joseph we are led directly to Mary, and by Mary to the fountain of all holiness, Jesus Christ, who sanctified the domestic virtues by His obedience to St. Joseph and Mary."
Absolutely certain is the fact that God did not choose an unworthy man to be the husband of Mary, who was to be the Virgin Mother of God. Even if St. Joseph had been merely Mary's protector and not her husband, he would still have occupied a position far surpassing that of any other human being. But Joseph is her husband, related to the Mother of God in a marriage that was no less genuine because it was virginal. The marriage was brought into existence by God for the express purpose of serving the Incarnation, so that the Son of God might be received and reared within that holy conjugal union. Since, in all creation God could find none more worthy than Mary to be the Mother of Jesus, God could find none more worthy than Joseph to be the husband of Mary, and to be related to Jesus by the spiritual ties of a true fatherhood.
In the words of Leo XIII, "If God gave Joseph as a spouse to the Virgin, He assuredly gave him not only as a companion in life, a witness of her virginity, and the guardian of her honor, but also as a sharer in her exalted dignity by reason of the conjugal tie itself." - Reflection on Saint Joseph

The circumstances of Joseph's death are not known, but it is likely that he died before Jesus's ministry began, and it is implied that he was dead before the Crucifixion (John 19:26-27). Already a patron saint of Mexico, Canada and Belgium, in 1870, Joseph was declared patron of the universal church by Pope Pius IX, and in 1955 Pope Pius XII established May 1 as the "Feast of Saint Joseph the Worker" to counter the Communists' May Day.
As for stories and/or books about st. Joseph to substantiate this,the following may be of some interest:

Apparition de saint Joseph à Cotignac
The History of Joseph the Carpenter An “Apocryphal History of Joseph the Carpenter” (ca AD 400) It’s an apocryphal retelling of the life of Saint Joseph from the perspective of Christ. Again, it is apocryphal, but interesting and edifying all the same.
The Life and Glories of St. Joseph

Addendum:
While not a solemnly defined dogma of the Catholic Faith as is the case with the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, it is a piously-held belief by some Catholics that St. Joseph, as a reward for the faithful fulfillment of his duties as the guardian and protector of the Holy Family, did not have to wait until the Second Coming of Christ to have his soul reunited to his body.
Since the beginning of the Church, Christians have venerated the relics of deceased saints and built churches over the tombs holding their bones. We have first-class relics of the Apostles and many other prominent figures of the early Church; however, first-class relics ascribed to the earthly father of Jesus are conspicuously non-existent. Just as the lack of bones belonging to the Mother of God points to the truth of her bodily Assumption, it likewise lends credibility to the belief in the assumption of St. Joseph.

St. Joseph in the Sky at Fatima: The Pious Belief in the Assumption of St. Joseph


What is the significance of what Jesus ate after his resurrection? Is anyone aware of any special symbolic significance of Jesus eating specifically fish and honeycomb while showing his disciples he was not "a spirit" when he appeared to them (and somewhat scared them) after his resurrection in Luke 24:42-43?

Some commentators do employ a bit of speculation on this question, including Augustine himself.  The Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture summarizes Augustine, saying that the fish "represent the faith of the martyrs that have gone through the fiery trials of suffering." With respect to a similar passage in John 21, Augustine writes that "[t]he fish roasted is Christ having suffered" (Treatise 123).

With respect to the honeycomb (which some manuscripts do not mention), Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown write that it is simply "common frugal fare" (Commentary).  Matthew Henry likewise calls it "mean" (in the sense of "humble") and suggests that a lesson can be drawn from its inclusion:

  The honey-comb, perhaps, was used as sauce to the broiled fish, for Canaan was a land flowing with honey. This was mean fare; yet, if it be the fare of the disciples, their Master will fare as they do, because in the kingdom of our Father they shall fare as he does, shall eat and drink with him in his kingdom. (Commentary)

The more important point, attested by both church fathers and more modern commentators, is that Jesus is proving to his disciples that he is truly resurrected and that he has a real body.  As John Calvin writes:

  During the whole course of his life, he had subjected himself to the necessity of eating and drinking; and now, though relieved from that necessity, he eats for the purpose of convincing his disciples of the certainty of his resurrection.


What is the source of the story about the melted gold in the destroyed temple in 70 AD? In Matthew 24:2, Mark 13:2 and Luke 21:6, Jesus seems to indicate that in the coming temple destruction, "not one stone will be left upon another". And, indeed, this seems to be the case from the current ruins.
However, I have come across several commentaries that state that because the temple was burned, the gold that was on the walls, melted and ran between the stones, as well as into them.  The Roman solders then took stone from stone in a effort to retrieve the gold, thus giving literal fulfillment of Jesus' prophecy.
Having encountered this explanation several times in the course of my studies, I wanted to find the source for this story, but, as of this date, am unable to do so.  I don't find anything in Josephus relating to that gold-seeking activity.
Does anyone know of a source document or documents that can authenticate this story?

The Mystery of the Temple's 'Molten Metals'

Two recent apologists told the story, apparently independently, of molten gold seeping between the temple`s foundation stones during the Siege of Jerusalem in 70 CE.  Both implied the source was Josephus, but neither provided references.  Unfortunately, both had theological motivations for adding these details to their stories despite the lack of support.

On investigation, while much of their accounts of the destruction of the temple came from Josephus’ history – Jewish Wars 6.5.2, 6.6.1, 7.1.1, and 7.5.2 being particularly relevant – it seems the melted gold story did not.  It’s possible, however, the Christian apologists were duped by a medieval forgery into thinking it did.

Pastor Ray Stedman

The earliest example of the story I can find is Ray Stedman’s 1970 sermon on Mt.24:1-3, later published in a book.  Following on Jesus’ apparent prediction about the temple, that “there will not be left here one stone upon another,” Stedman told the story of the First Jewish-Roman War, suggesting his account was based on Josephus, including this:

  “There were great quantities of gold and silver which had been placed
  in the Temple for safekeeping. This melted and ran down between the
  rocks and into the cracks of the stones that formed the Temple and the
  wall around it. When the Roman soldiers finally took the city, in
  their greed to obtain this gold and silver they took long bars and
  pried apart these massive stones. Thus, quite literally, not one stone
  was left standing upon another.”

For Stedman, “this remarkable fulfillment, confirmed so strongly by secular history, is convincing proof” of the authenticity of Jesus’ prophetic message, “fully and literally.”  Though the story is unsubstantiated, Stedman’s telling of it is often quoted (and plagiarized).

Dr. Ernest Martin

Archeological enthusiast Ernest Martin told similar stories in his 1994 book, The Temples That Jerusalem Forgot, and in posts to his ASK website, including, ‘New Evidence for the Site of the Temple in Jerusalem.’  Martin’s controversial hypothesis was that Jerusalem’s temples were not on the Temple Mount platform (which he thought was the former Roman fortress) but on a now-destroyed foundation to the south.  His argument also emphasized Jesus’ phrase, ‘not one stone left upon another’, as well as genuine (and misquoted) passages from Josephus about the “utter ruin and thorough destruction of Jerusalem.”  In ‘New Evidence’ he wrote:

  “Josephus explained the reason why every stone was overturned in the
  city (including those that made up the very foundations). The Jews
  were accustomed to hide their gold and other valuables in the walls of
  their homes. The Temple itself was also the treasury of the Jewish
  nation. [JW 6.5.2] When the fires consumed the whole of the Temple and
  City, the gold melted and descended into the cracks and crevices of
  the stone foundations. In order to recover this melted gold, the Tenth
  Legion had the Jewish captives uproot every stone of the Temple and
  the whole of the City. So much gold was discovered in this fashion
  that the price of the metal in the Roman Empire went down half of its
  pre-war value. [JW 6.6.1] This action of looking for gold by
  overturning the stones (including all foundation stones) left
  Jerusalem as a vast quarry of dislodged and uprooted stones in a state
  of unrecognized shambles.”

While the two footnoted sentences (and other bits) do comport with Josephus, the story about melted gold does not. His theory siting the temple on Ophel Mound rather than Temple Mount has not been embraced by scholars, but one can see why he’d need to emphasize the scope and greedy enthusiasm of the Roman destruction to explain the complete disappearance of the temple AND its entire foundation platform, as he imagined it.

Josippon?

An excited supporter of Martin’s theory has posted several quotes from his book online, and one offers a lead on the origin of the melted gold story (or not).  Martin is quoted as writing, “In regard to the total destruction of the temple and all its outer buildings, a Hebrew version of Josephus (known as Josippon) states ...”  And a few lines later: “And recall, Jewish authorities during the Middle Ages accepted this narrative of Josippon as that of Josephus, an eyewitness.”   The quote continues with another version of the melted gold story.

The Jewish ‘history’ attributed to Josippon (aka Joseph ben Gorion, Yosippon, and Pseudo-Josephus) is regarded by modern scholars as a 10th century forgery (or pseudopigrapha).  Though it may have preserved some early Jewish folklore, the portion in question is actually believed to be the work of Pseudo-Hegesippus, the 4th century forger.   As history it’s quite unreliable.

Regardless, given Martin’s penchant for weaving together sourced and non-sourced material in the same paragraph, it’s unclear (from the available quotations) whether he intended to credit the melted gold story to the dubious Josippon.  Martin's later essays retell the story without mentioning him.  Perhaps Josippon said noting at all about melted gold.

So in the end we're left with a story that's either creative speculation, forged folklore, or unsubstantiated history – none of which counts as biblical scholarship.  Perhaps someone with access to Martin’s book or Josippon’s ‘history’ can provide more insights in the comments.


Why are three "Comings" a problem? I have been reading up on various eschatological views and I have noticed an argument that I have not been able to find a detail about. It seems to be a common assertion by the Catholic and Orthodox that the Rapture, as portrayed by the Left Behind series, is non biblical because it calls for three "comings" of Jesus.

catholic.org puts it eloquently enough,

  The problem with all of the positions (except the historic, post-tribulational view, which was accepted by all Christians, including non-premillennialists) is that they split the Second Coming into different events. In the case of the pre-trib view, Christ is thought to have three comings—one when he was born in Bethlehem, one when he returns for the rapture at the tribulation’s beginning, and one at tribulation’s end, when he establishes the millennium. This three-comings view is foreign to Scripture.

Does the bible specifically limit the number of times that Jesus comes to earth? Why would it be a problem for Jesus to come again before the "Second Coming"? Where does this "only two comings" requirement come from?

The need for three comings presupposes the following:

there will be a future period characterized by great suffering referred to as the Great Tribulation
the primary purpose of the secret preliminary coming is to take Christians away from the earth to prevent their experiencing this tribulation

Some non-rapturists, preterists specifically, see these presuppositions as problematic.  The biblical passages commonly used by rapturists to support these ideas have other interpretations that do not require a third coming and may have more evidence in their favor.  For instance, most preterists understand the fulfillment of passages like Matthew 24:36-45, Daniel 9:12,12:1, and Revelation 7:14 as the descriptions of the persecution of the Jewish people under Antiochus Epiphanes and later, the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. by the Romans.

In recent years, fewer rapturists are claiming support for the rapture in Matthew 24:36-45.  A few who still do are John F. Hart, professor at Moody Bible Institute and author Dave Hunt.

Dave Hunt states, in "How Close Are We? Compelling Evidence for the Soon Return of Christ", pages 210-11, that:

  When Christ says, "As it was in the days of Noah and Lot," it is absolutely certain that He is not describing conditions that will prevail at the time of the Second Coming. Therefore, these must be the conditions which will prevail just prior to the Rapture at a different time—and, obviously, before the devastation of the tribulation period.

John F. Hart has written the following 4 articles where he defends the idea that the rapture is referenced in Matthew:
A Defense of the Pretribulational Rapture in Matthew 24:36–44
Should Pretribulationists Reconsider the Rapture in Matthew 24:36-44? - Part 1
Should Pretribulationists Reconsider the Rapture in Matthew 24:36-44? - Part 2
Should Pretribulationists Reconsider the Rapture in Matthew 24:36-44? - Part 3

Partial preterist Steve Gregg attempts to refute the above interpretation of Matthew 24:36-45 in his article Who's Been Left Behind

He essentially argues as follows:

One rapturist interpretation of these verses supposes that the people taken are being saved from the tribulation and those who are left will suffer through it.  However, who are "they" who are "taken" in verse 39? "Noah" and his family or the other "people"? Grammatically, "they" must be the other "people" because "only the days of Noah" is specified, not his family.  And are "they" taken for judgement or redemption? The "people" who were taken in Noah's day were taken as a form of judgement. See Genesis 7:21,23.

However, many rapturists in fact reject the idea that Matthew 24:36-45 describes the rapture.  Although, they still believe it refers to a future Great Tribulation and the final phase of the future Second coming.

Even this view is troublesome for some non-rapturists, preterists specifically.  They see Luke 21:20-24 as a passage directly parallel to Matthew 24:36-45.  Most rapturists, like most scholars, concede that Luke 21:20-24 actually refers to the events of 70 A.D.  One such rapturist is Thomas Ice.

Here's how one preterist, Parker, argues that Ice's acceptance of Luke 21:20-24 as having been fulfilled in 70 A.D. poses a significant difficulty with regard to his contention that Matthew 24:15-21 is a reference to the last phase of the final coming of Christ following the Great Tribulation.  Parker believes that a verse-by-verse comparison of Matthew 24 to Luke 21 demonstrates that although a few statements are radically different between the two and seem to describe events that have not yet occurred, the differences can be accounted for in terms of symbolic language as used in the Old Testament.  Consequently, he reason's that if Luke 21:20-24 is fulfilled, the coming of Christ and tribulation of Matthew 24:15-21 must be as well.  And if the Great Tribulation is past, a two-phase final coming of Christ would seem unnecessary.

For reference, in the table of "Rapture & Second Coming Passages" found on page 3 of Differences Between the Rapture and the Second Coming , Ice excludes Luke 21:20-24 from both the Rapture and Second Coming columns.  Matthew 24:15-21 however is included in the Second Coming column.

Also, in "Differences" above, Ice states:

  Many important biblical doctrines are not given to us directly from a single verse, we often need to harmonize passages into systematic conclusions. Some truths are directly stated in the Bible, such as the deity of Christ (John 1:1, Titus 2:13). But doctrines like the Trinity and the incarnate nature of Christ are the product of biblical harmonization. Taking into account all biblical texts, orthodox theologians, over time, recognized that God is a Trinity and that Christ is the God-Man. Similarly, a systematic consideration of all biblical passages reveals that Scripture teaches two future comings."

Non-rapturists tend to see the exegetical techniques through which  rapturists harmonize passages into conclusions as being very unsystematic.

These techniques are argued to be vague and/or inconsistent for determining when:

dissimilarity in descriptions between particular passages demonstrates distinct referents
similarity in descriptions between particular passages demonstrates identical referents

Partial-preterist Hank Hanegraaff criticizes pretribulationist Tim LaHaye's definition of literalism on page 16 of his book "Apocalypse Code" as follows:

  "Not only is there nothing distinctive about this definition, but it is so vague as to be utterly useless."

Non-rapturists typically also express risks that the above mentioned exegetical techniques can result in dangerous interpretations of passages that they believe to be foundational to essential Christian beliefs and/or conduct consistent with those beliefs.


How is Jesus not lying in John 7? In John 7, Jesus tells his brothers that he is not going up to the festival. Then he goes up in secret. This sounds to me like a lie.

John 7:6-10 (NIV)
6 Therefore Jesus told them, “My time is not yet here; for you any time will do. 7 The world cannot hate you, but it hates me because I testify that its works are evil. 8 You go to the festival. I am not[b] going up to this festival, because my time has not yet fully come.” 9 After he had said this, he stayed in Galilee.
10 However, after his brothers had left for the festival, he went also, not publicly, but in secret.

[b] Some manuscripts not yet

Most Christians believe in Jesus' sinlessness, while believing that lying is a sin. Given those beliefs, how do such Christians explain his words in John 7?

Bob's answer about the intended meaning of 'not yet going' is on the right track but it leaves out a couple of important details.

There are more than one set of Greek manuscripts and there are actually quite a number of one and two character type differences between them. Usually, these involve punctuation or spelling differences and have no affect on the text; but sometimes a snippet can be a little bit different and it's unclear which set of manuscripts to go by.

It is important to note that NONE of these differences in the manuscripts used to produce our translations touch on ANY doctrinal issue so there is no need to fret about that. Even when a word is dropped, the meaning can be matched with the same doctrine in other places in the text. However, sometimes odd linguistic issues like the one in this question do come up. There are at least a dozen or so that I've read about and probably more that I haven't.

First of all, the real trouble is not actually in verse 6 which was [originally] quoted by the OP. In verse 6 Jesus is talking his final hour and time to go to the cross. That is is what he means when he said his time has not fully come, but the disciples completely misunderstand this. Not just this time either: he often references his death and they don't really get the picture. In verse 6 there is no particular problem with the translation, 'not yet' is appropriate, but the subject matter is not understood.

The real issue comes in verse 8 where Jesus actually IS talking about physically walking to the feast. This is the verse that Bob quotes and contains the word issue.  In quite a number of the older manuscripts, the word in question is 'oupō' as quoted and is correctly translated 'not yet', but this word is found in other manuscripts as 'ouk' meaning simply 'not'.

So which is it? The answer is it doesn't matter.

In English, the use of present continuous tense "I am not going" can and often does apply to a events in the future. That would mean the same thing as "I am not going to go at all" However the verb tense used in Greek here simply meant "I am not now going" ... as in he wasn't going to budge that moment and go like they wanted. It wasn't an indication that he didn't maybe plan on going.

Thus, whichever set of manuscripts you choose to go by, whether you use 'not' or 'not yet' in verse 8 is a matter of discretion of the translators. It is not necessarily a mistake in the NIV or any other translation to use simply 'not' because the best manuscripts have it written that way in Greek, however because of the verb tense we also know that whether the alternate 'not yet' Greek version is original or not, that sense is indeed intended by the original author of the text. You will find many translations that use 'not yet' because it gives us a clue about what is being said that is lost in our English verb tense.

And no -- any way you add it up, Jesus was not lying. He did not jump up and do what the disciples wanted him to do (verse 8) nor had his final time come (verse 6).


Is Leviticus 14 describing a cure for leprosy? It seems like a "cure" for leprosy that involves taking two birds, killing one and dipping the other in the blood of the first, then sprinkling the blood in a particular fashion, multiple times.

Taken literally, I can't see any explanation except that it is some shamanic recipe dating from the bronze age, and medically completely bogus if not downright dangerous.

Does it have an interpreted meaning? How do Bible literalists justify this?

Small excerpt, there are pages and pages of ritual...

  4 the priest shall order that two live clean birds and some cedar wood, scarlet yarn and hyssop be brought for the person to be cleansed. 5 Then the priest shall order that one of the birds be killed over fresh water in a clay pot. 6 He is then to take the live bird and dip it, together with the cedar wood, the scarlet yarn and the hyssop, into the blood of the bird that was killed over the fresh water. 7 Seven times he shall sprinkle the one to be cleansed of the defiling disease, and then pronounce them clean. After that, he is to release the live bird in the open fields.

Matthew Henry Explains this passage with the following in his Commentary:

  Some make the slain bird to typify Christ dying for our sins, and the living bird Christ rising again for our justification. The dipping of the living bird in the blood of the slain bird intimated that the merit of Christ's death was that which made his resurrection effectual for our justification. He took his blood with him into the holy place, and there appeared a lamb as it had been slain. The cedar, scarlet wool, and hyssop, must all be dipped in the blood; for the word and ordinances, and all the operations of the Spirit, receive their efficacy for our cleansing from the blood of Christ.

Note that if you read the entire passage you will see that this is a cleansing ceremony after someone previously diagnosed with leprosy had been pronounced free of the disease:

Leviticus 14:3 (NIV) (emphasis mine)

  3 The priest is to go outside the camp and examine them. If they have been healed of their defiling skin disease,

Thus this is not a cure, but a purification ritual following a cure. As Henry says some people see this as pointing to the cleansing blood of Christ.


Where does the concept of a "God-shaped hole" originate? There's a concept that I heard used many times throughout my life in regards to idolatry.  The idea is that inside each of us is a "God-shaped hole"--a place inside of our hearts that only God can fill.  If we try to put anything else in there, it won't fit (meaning, it won't fill the need we have inside of our heart/soul).

Where does this concept originate?  Is it a biblical concept or just a fanciful rhetoric?

In 1670, Blaise Pascal published Pensées, which was a defense of the Christian religion.  (It should be noted that this book was published after his death in 1662.)

In that book, he has a quote:

  “What else does this craving, and this helplessness, proclaim but that there was once in man a true happiness, of which all that now remains is the empty print and trace?  This he tries in vain to fill with everything around him, seeking in things that are not there the help he cannot find in those that are, though none can help, since this infinite abyss can be filled only with an infinite and immutable object; in other words by God himself.”
  - Blaise Pascal, Pensées VII(425)

Since then, the concept has taken on a life of its own and the phrase "God-shaped hole," a close approximation of the concept, has been found throughout many Christian circles.  (Recently, in 2002, a book was published with the title 'God-Shaped Hole'.)

While other answers show that the concept can be supported biblically, the concept that there is a void/vacuum/hole is actually a non-biblical one.


What do Jehovah's Witnesses say about Matthew 16:28? If Jesus didn't come until 1914 why didn't those surrounding Jesus not experience death until then?

  [Mat 16:28 KJV] 28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

Were the people "standing there" part of the "first class anointed ones" or of the "second anointed class"?

This question was asked and answered  in an older Watchtower magazine. The take away is that those apostles who lived to see Jesus  coming in his kingdom were the apostles Peter,James and John  who witnessed the transfiguration.

  About a week after saying what he did at Matthew 16:28, Jesus took “some of” the apostles (Peter, James and John) up on a lofty mountain, likely Mount Hermon. There he was transfigured to appear in a vision with Moses and Elijah. And God said: “This is my Son, the one that has been chosen. Listen to him.” —Luke 9:28-35; Matt. 17:1-5; Mark 9:2-6.
  The transfiguration was a vision of Jesus in Kingdom power and heavenly glory, as Peter later confirmed. Referring to the transfiguration, Peter explained that they had thus “become eyewitnesses of his magnificence.” He added that in the transfiguration Jesus had “received from God the Father honor and glory.” (2 Pet. 1:16-18) So, it appears that when Jesus said that before they died some of the apostles would see him in his kingdom, he was referring to the transfiguration scene that some of them witnessed shortly afterward.

Additional discussion of this event is found here.


How do Jehovah's Witnesses understand Hebrews 1? Hebrews 1:4–14 contrasts Jesus with the angels.  How do groups like Jehovah's Witnesses, who see him as an angel, understand these verses?

The Jehovah’s Witness understanding is based upon their doctrine of the Son of God having been created by Jehovah God as his first created creature. They say the first thing Jehovah created was the Archangel, Michael, who also has the name, the Word of God. This Archangel then created all the other angels, this universe, this planet and all life on it, with Jehovah’s enabling. He later became the man, Jesus Christ. It is Michael the Archangel who will return in the future, they claim.

This is what their ‘What Does The Bible Really Teach?’ book (2009 printing) says about Jesus as Michael the Archangel (pages 218-219):

  "Likewise, the Bible indicates that Michael is another name for Jesus
  Christ, before and after his life on earth… Moreover, Jesus is linked
  with the office of archangel… Thus the voice of Jesus is described as
  being that of an archangel. This scripture therefore suggests that
  Jesus himself is the archangel Michael… Since God’s Word nowhere
  indicates that there are two armies of faithful angels in heaven – one
  headed by Michael and one headed by Jesus – it is logical to conclude
  that Michael is none other than Jesus Christ in his heavenly role."

Their “Insight On The Scriptures” Vol. II page 394 (published 1988) uses Revelation 19:11-16 to conclude

  “that Michael is Jesus Christ, since Jesus is Jehovah’s appointed
  King, commissioned to destroy all the nations at Har-Mageddon.”

So Jehovah’s Witnesses believe it will be Michael the Archangel who heads up the angelic armies at the battle of Armageddon. All of the foregoing establishes clearly their belief that Jesus is actually a created angel.
Now it becomes obvious why their New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures renders Hebrews 1:6 as,

  “But when he again brings his firstborn into the inhabited earth, he
  says, ‘Let all God’s angels do obeisance to him’.”

Angels must not receive worship - a clear teaching in the Bible that Jehovah' Witnesses agree with. That is because angels are created and creatures must not be worshipped. Now, I quoted that verse from their 1984 edition. Yet their 1969 ‘Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures’ says,

  ‘…let all God’s angels worship him’.”

I do not know what year that transition from ‘worship’ to ‘do obeisance to’ was made, but it seems that the change was made to prevent their version of the Bible from even hinting that God would have his angels worship Christ.

In their New World Translation, every time the word for worship applies to Jesus, they render it as bowing down with respect. But every time the word applies to Jehovah God, they render it as worship. An article on this view of Jesus is found here

The Jehovah's Witnesses say that angels are merely to bow down respectfully before Jesus but deny that this amounts to worship. That is how they see Hebrews chapter 1.  Yet verse 3 presents a theological problem to them, which they don’t seem to have taken account of. Their KIT renders it as,

  “[Jesus] is the reflection of [God’s] glory and the exact
  representation of his very being.”

Well, if the Jehovah’s Witness Jesus has the being of an angel, they are effectively saying that Jehovah God also has the being of an angel. However, that requires another question as you did not seem to include verse 3 in your question, asking specifically about verses 4 to 14.


Why does the LDS church  (Mormon) put so much more emphasis on the family than most other denominations do? Why do Mormons put so much more emphasis on the family than most other denominations do? What about their doctrine causes this? Or is it more because of culture/tradition?

I'm answering this only because of the year I spent in a Mormon (LDS) church.  If anyone who is LDS would like to post a different answer, please do.  This is based only on what I observed and learned during that time.

There are actually a few reasons for the emphasis on family.  The first section below is presented to add emphasis to the "meat" of the answer found later on.

The first has to do with the fact that LDS doctrine teaches that you have to add works on top of the free salvation presented by Jesus' sacrifice if you want to attain to the highest level of Heaven (also referred to as the highest degree of glory.

This underlies a lot of why members of the LDS Church are such stellar examples of how to behave, or at least why so much emphasis is put on "being good".  Doing the will of God and actually following the commandments is seen as necessary to achieve the highest level of glory.  One of the basic principles of the LDS Church is that other denominations are false, because Christianity went into full apostasy.  They view the concept of salvation by grace through faith apart from works as a false doctrine that encourages people to continue sinning while believing they are saved.  I can't tell you how many times I heard Matthew 15:8 quoted in Sunday Schools and in services.

The emphasis on being a good person springs from this belief.  This is, from what I've experienced, the most crucial aspect of LDS doctrine, and the belief that good works are necessary to future glory underlies a great deal of the emphasis on goodness.  Part of the emphasis on family springs from this.  Quite obviously, it is good to love your family and to have a close family.

Their teachings also include the idea that your family life continues on in heaven, and they want to be able to spend eternity with their families. This  feeds the emphasis on family, because close families are less likely to drift away from the Church. Since the view is that a person who leaves the Church is going to attain a lower level of glory, they want very much to maintain close ties to keep their children and loved ones in the fold.  The best way to do this is to encourage family time, and closeness in the family.

You can read the official LDS statement on the importance of family  while a more "evangelical" and less "doctrinal" explanation can be found here.


What is the meaning of "rigid Catholic" according to the mind of Pope Francis? A look on the definition of the word "rigid" means - unable to bend or be forced out of shape, not flexible.

From the point of view of Catholic faith or teachings or much better according to the mind of Pope Francis, what is the meaning of "rigid Catholic"?

Here are his usages of the word "rigid" (and its derivatives) from the Pope Francis Little Book of Insults, with citations:

  Rigid Christians!
  They call themselves Christians, they call themselves Catholics, but their rigid attitude distances them from the Church!
  They are men who are locked in their calculations! They are slaves to their rigidity!
  Those who take refuge in the slavery of rigidity and know nothing of God's mercy!
  The closed, legalistic slave of his own rigidity!
  God does not love rigidity!
  A rigid idealism that prevents reconciliation between each other!
  The rigidity of the laws and an idealism that harms us!
  Jesus frees us from the chains of the law's rigidity and tells us: ‘But do that up to the point that you are capable!’
  Escape from all rigidity!
  People will try to block you, to make you think that God is distant, rigid and insensitive!
  Behind an attitude of rigidity there is always something else in the life of a person!
  Rigidity is not a gift of God!
  Rigidity conceals the leading of a double life, something pathological!
  It is not easy to walk within the Law of the Lord without falling into rigidity!
  Those who think that by becoming rigid they are following the path of the Lord!
  Unchanging, rigidity…the Law is about moving forward, the Kingdom of God is moving forward, it is not standing still!
  A rigid person only has masters and no father!
  But to make themselves important, intermediary priests must take the path of rigidity!
  They are rigid, [they are] those rigid ones that load upon the faithful so many things that they do not carry [themselves]!
  Rigid Intermediaries!
  ‘This cannot be, this cannot be ...’. And so many people approaching, looking for a bit of consolation, a little understanding, are chased away with this rigidity!
  Rigidity – which wrecks one’s interior life and even psychic balance – goes hand-in-glove with worldliness!
  About rigidity and worldliness, it was some time ago that an elderly monsignor of the curia came to me, who works, a normal man, a good man, in love with Jesus – and he told me that he had gone to buy a couple of shirts at Euroclero [the clerical clothing store] and saw a young fellow - he thinks he had not more than 25 years, or a young priest or about to become a priest - before the mirror, with a cape, large, wide, velvet, with a silver chain. He then took the Saturno [wide-brimmed clerical headgear], he put it on and looked himself over. A rigid and worldly one. And that priest – he is wise, that monsignor, very wise - was able to overcome the pain, with a line of healthy humor and added: ‘And it is said that the Church does not allow women priests!’
  Instead of opening their heart to the gift, they hid, have sought refuge in the rigidity of the Commandments, which they had multiplied up to 500 or more!
  These rigid characters were afraid of the freedom that God gives us: they were afraid of love!
  The rigidity of the closed Commandments, that are more and more safe – with emphasis on the scare-quotes!


Do we answer the arguments of fools or not? How are Proverbs 26:4-5 to be understood? Proverbs 26:4-5 (NLT)

  4 Don’t answer the foolish arguments of fools,
          or you will become as foolish as they are.

  5 Be sure to answer the foolish arguments of fools,
          or they will become wise in their own estimation.

At first read, these seem to be contradicting one another. Verse 4 tells us not to answer fools' arguments and verse 5 tells us do answer fools' arguments. With such a seeming contradiction, there is certainly some sort of official material out there that resolves this issue. According to the Wesleyan denomination (or as close as possible), how is this apparent contradiction resolved?

The common understanding of this apparent conflict is that the two verses describe two situations.

One involves answering foolish questions...  The ones that are so foolish they don't deserve an answer.  The ones that people ask to get a rise out of you, or make a point, when there's no real possibility of an intelligent conversation.  The kind we quickly vote to close, downvote, and delete. Don't waste your time on them.
The other addresses rebuking foolishness where necessary. When someone is honestly confused, or their foolishness is causing another to stumble or fall into error.

There's a relevant article on it at Ask the Pastors that spells this out better than I, with the following points.

Wisdom is only acquired by those who want it bad enough to work for it
Every issue has many sides to it
There are exceptions to some rules

and the conclusion of that article:

  In the proverb you cite, there is a time to answer a fool according to
  his folly and a time not to. Jesus talked about not casting our pearls
  before swine (Matthew 7). This describes a situation where the
  receiver of truth despises truth and it is not worth telling it to him
  and may even be dangerous to. Paul is an example, however, of
  answering a fool according to his folly when in 2 Corinthians he brags
  and boasts of his “accomplishments” to the Corinthians because it was
  the only way they could receive him (11:16; 12:11). The wise person
  will learn when and how to respond to the fool in the best way
  possible, though even then he or she may not know which way was best
  until he or she got into it.


Has the Church historically considered biblical texts concerning slavery to be transcultural or finite? How have the Bible's passages concerning slavery been interpreted and applied throughout Christian history, especially passages such as Exodus 21:2-11, Leviticus 25:44-46, and 1 Timothy 6:1-2?

Have Christians historically applied these passages to employer/employee relations as many commentators have suggested, or is this an inappropriate cultural parallel?

Note that I am not asking, "Does the Bible condone slavery?" You may of course share your opinion on this question when giving your response (I understand that this question is somewhat implicit), but I am specifically interested in how the Christian Church has historically interpreted and applied these passages.

Historically, these verses have not been applied to employer/employee relations, at least not in the sense that we understand employment today.
In ancient times slavery was fairly common; employment, however, was not. Most free people lived and worked on the family farm. Employment contracts did exist, but only to protect the employer's interests. Contracts usually bound the employee to the employer for a set time; as such, employment was just a limited form of slavery.
In medieval times slavery was gradually replaced by serfdom. Serfs had more rights than slaves but were bound to the land on which they worked. If the land was sold the serfs were required to work for the new landowner. Employment remained a subset of slavery.
With the rise of the merchant class and the beginning of the industrial revolution this began to change; however, as recently as the early 1900s the majority of the population even in industrialized nations lived on family farms. Instructions on employer/employee relations simply were not relevant to most people's lives.
With all that in mind, it should not be surprising that commentators historically have not applied these texts to contractual employment.

Here's a few examples of what they have said.
In the 4th century, John Chrysostom wrote commentaries covering most of the New Testament. He did not comment on 1 Timothy 6:1-2, but he did say this about Colossians 3:22.

“Servants,” he saith, “obey in all things your masters according to the flesh.”
And see how always he sets down the names, “wives, children, servants,” being at once a just claim upon their obedience. But that none might be pained, he added, “to your masters according to the flesh.” Thy better part, the soul, is free, he saith; thy service is for a season. It therefore do thou subject, that thy service be no more of constraint. “Not with eye-service, as men-pleasers.” Make, he saith, thy service which is by the law, to be from the fear of Christ.

Commenting on 1 Corinthians 7:20-21, Chrysostom said,

“Let each man abide in that calling wherein he was called. Hast thou been called, having an unbelieving wife?  Continue to have her. Cast not out thy wife for the faith’s sake. Hast thou been called, being a slave? Care not for it. Continue to be a slave. Hast thou been called, being in uncircumcision? Remain uncircumcised. Being circumcised, didst thou become a believer? Continue circumcised. For this is the meaning of, “As God hath distributed unto each man.” For these are no hindrances to piety. Thou art called, being a slave; another, with an unbelieving wife; another, being circumcised.
Astonishing! where has he put slavery? As circumcision profits not: and uncircumcision does no harm; so neither doth slavery, nor yet liberty. And that he might point out this with surpassing clearness, he says, “But even (Αλλ' εὶ καὶ δυνάσαι) if thou canst become free, use it rather:” that is, rather continue a slave. Now upon what possible ground does he tell the person who might be set free to remain a slave?  He means to point out that slavery is no harm but rather an advantage.

Jerome, writing Against Jovinianus, referenced Exodus 21. He said the laws about setting slaves free do have application outside the physical practice of slavery, but he was thinking in terms much larger than employment contracts.

And if we read that every Hebrew keeps the same Passover, and that in the seventh year every prisoner is set free, and that at Jubilee, that is the fiftieth year, every possession returns to its owner, all this refers not to the present, but to the future; for being in bondage during the six days of this world, on the seventh day, the true and eternal Sabbath, we shall be free, at any rate if we wish to be free while still in bondage in the world. If, however, we do not desire it, our ear will be bored in token of our disobedience, and together with our wives and children, whom we preferred to liberty, that is, with the flesh and its works, we shall be in perpetual slavery.

In early modern times, Bible commentators focused on the plain meaning of the text or extrapolated to general moral principles.
Matthew Henry comments on Exodus 21

The Israelites had lately been servants themselves; and now that they had become, not only their own masters, but masters of servants too, lest they should abuse their servants, as they themselves had been abused and ruled with rigour by the Egyptian task-masters, provision was made by these laws for the mild and gentle usage of servants.

He adds, a little later,

This law will be further useful to us, (1.) To illustrate the right God has to the children of believing parents, as such, and the place they have in his church. They are by baptism enrolled among his servants, because they are born in his house, for they are therefore born unto him, Eze. 16:20 . [Emphasis in original]

Henry extrapolates a further application not to employees but to children, because like servants they belong to the household.
John Gill says

Now as this servant, in the state of servitude, was an emblem of that state of bondage to sin, Satan, and the law, which man is brought into by his theft, his robbing God of his glory by the transgression of his precepts; so likewise, in his being made free, he was an emblem of that liberty wherewith Christ, the Son of God, makes his people free from the said bondage, and who are free indeed, and made so freely without money, and without price, of pure free grace, without any merit or desert of theirs; and which freedom is attended with many bountiful and liberal blessings of grace.

Regarding 1 Timothy 6, Henry says,

Here is the duty of servants. The apostle had spoken before of church-relations, here of our family-relations. Servants are here said to be under the yoke, which denotes both subjection and labour; they are yoked to work, not to be idle. If Christianity finds servants under the yoke, it continues them under it; for the gospel does not cancel the obligations any lie under either by the law of nature or by mutual consent.

John Wesley says,

6:1 Let servants under the yoke - Of heathen masters. Account them worthy of all honour - All the honour due from a servant to a master.Lest the name of God and his doctrine be blasphemed - As it surely will, if they do otherwise.
6:2 Let them not despise them - Pay them the less honour or obedience. Because they are brethren - And in that respect on a level with them. They that live in a religious community know the danger of this; and that greater grace is requisite to bear with the faults of a brother, than of an infidel, or man of the world. But rather do them service - Serve them so much the more diligently. Because they are joint partakers of the great benefit - Salvation. These things - Paul, the aged, gives young Timotheus a charge to dwell upon practical holiness.

Gill says,

these things teach and exhort;
the Syriac and Arabic versions add them; the servants. The apostle was not above instructing and exhorting persons of such a capacity, and in so low a state of life; and it became Timothy to do so likewise; and every minister of the word.

None of these commentators gives the slightest hint that they thought this passage could apply to employer/employee relations.


Is it possible to get into heaven, but then be cast out at a later date? People struggle to enter Heaven, but what guarantees you that once you get there you won't be cast out from Heaven? In the Bible there is no guarantee about that. What will prevent you from making bad mistakes there?

In the parable of the Rich man and Lazarus, Jesus says no:

  And he cried out, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me. Send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am suffering torment in these flames.’ Abraham replied, ‘My child, remember that you received what was good during your lifetime while Lazarus likewise received what was bad; but now he is comforted here, whereas you are tormented. Moreover, between us and you a great chasm is established to prevent anyone from crossing who might wish to go from our side to yours or from your side to ours.’  (Luke 16:24-26 NABRE)

Now, Heaven here is the "bosom of Abraham", but if this parable has anything to do with us (and all scripture has something to do with us) I doubt Jesus is only talking about Heaven in the moral sense here.


How could Queen Victoria of England marry her first cousin? How could Queen Victoria of England marry her first cousin?  Isn't it forbidden by the church to marry one's first cousin?

In the Roman Catholic Church canon law forbids marriage between first cousins. The same applied in England before the Reformation, but since then the Church of England has allowed marriage between first cousins. Even within the Catholic Church it is possible for a dispensation to be granted allowing marriage to occur in specific cases even when forbidden by canon law. In the case of European royalty, in several countries, the Pope granted dispensations allowing marriage between first cousins and even between uncles and nieces. As Tapestry points out, many genetic defects have been ascribed to this practice.

The English Reformation got off to a slow start and the initial schism between England and Rome was over marriage rules.

Catherine of Aragon married Prince Arthur, eldest son of Henry VII of England.  The hope was that when Arthur became king, Catherine would be his Queen, and having a Spanish princess  married to the King of England build alliance and preserve peace.

Sadly Prince Arthur died before his father. The new plan was that she marry the new heir, Prince Arthur's younger brother, Prince Henry. However it was against canon law for a man to marry his brother's widow. Pope Julius II granted a dispensation and, when Prince Henry became king, as Henry VIII,  he and Catherine were married.

Catherine had seven pregnancies. There were two miscarriages, two stillbirths and two babies died. Only one daughter, Mary, survived. Henry wanted a male heir. England, it was widely held, needed him to have a male heir.

Leviticus 18 v16 says a man must not have sex with his brother's wife. Leviticus 20 21 warns such marriages will be childless. Was the lack of a male heir an instance of the curse? Was God angry that Henry had married his brother's widow? Yes, said Archbishop Cranmer of Canterbury. Influenced by the Reformation on the Continent they came to believe that, in marrying Catherine, Henry had defied God's law. In granting a dispensation the Pope had tried to usurp God, he had no right or power to overrule the Bible. The Pope's dispensation was invalid, so Henry's marriage was invalid, so he was free to marry Anne Boleyn.

This led to schism between England and Rome. As the Reformation and Counter-Reformation progressed the Church of England and the Church of Rome pulled away from each other in different directions, but the first salvos were on marriage laws and Papal power.

This , I hope, explains why there are different rules in the Church of England than in the Roman Catholic Church. The Church of England bases its bans on Leviticus chapter 18. This lists several types of relative a man cannot marry. There are some implicit rules for women. A man cannot marry his mother. This implies a woman cannot marry her son. He cannot marry her so she cannot marry him. The idea that sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander led the Church of England to say that if a man cannot marry his mother, then a woman should not marry her father.

Also Leviticus bans certain in-laws from marying and the Church of England extends this to all very similar relations. A person cannot marry a grandparent, parent, sibling, child, grandchild, aunt/uncle or nephew/niece. The same applies to a former spouse's grandparent, parent, sibling, child, grandchild aunt/uncle or nephew/niece; and the former spouse of a grandparent, parent, sibling, child, grandchild, aunt/uncle or nephew/niece.

There is nothing in the Bible to prohibit marriage between first cousins. Therefore there is nothing in the Church of England to forbif it.

Albert and Victoria were both Protestants, he was a Lutheran who converted to the Church of England,  the church of which she was already, at the time of their marriage,  Supreme Governor.


How does the Snake in the Desert foreshadow the coming of Jesus? In His conversation with Nicodemus, Jesus referenced the story of the snake in the desert and indicated that it foreshadowed Himself.  How exactly does this story foreshadow Jesus?

  And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up.    John 3:14 ESV

Numbers 21:6-9 (NIV)

  6 Then the LORD sent venomous snakes among them; they bit the people and many Israelites died. 7 The people came to Moses and said, “We sinned when we spoke against the LORD and against you. Pray that the LORD will take the snakes away from us.” So Moses prayed for the people.

  8 The LORD said to Moses, “Make a snake and put it up on a pole; anyone who is bitten can look at it and live.” 9 So Moses made a bronze snake and put it up on a pole. Then when anyone was bitten by a snake and looked at the bronze snake, they lived.

I believe the key here is the type of action that was taken "raising up" and the result of that action "healing". If you recall the people of Israel were struck with a plague of snakes. To alleviate the plague Moses was instructed to raise up a bronze snake and all who looked at the snake were healed.

Jon 3:14-15(NIV)

  14 Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, 15 that everyone who believes may have eternal life in him.”

We are bitten with a plague of sin, Christ was raised up on the Cross. Those who look to Christ are healed. I also don't think its a coincidence that the plague was snakes. This goes back to more snake imagery involving Jesus from Genesis:

Genesis 3:15(NIV)

  15 And I will put enmity
     between you and the woman,
     and between your offspring and hers;
  he will crush your head,
     and you will strike his heel.”

Jesus' coming was foreshadowed with snakes as far back as Genesis, this is a continuation of that theme.


Can a priest act on a confession of molestation? What, if any, ability does a priest or bishop have in order to stop a brother priest who has confessed to molestation of minors, according to Canon Law?
Very often I hear, and am personally aware of local priests, being re-assigned; so presumably some action can be taken in response to a confession like this. What can a priest do without breaking the seal of the sacrament? What is the strongest action he can take to stop the molester?

Canon law is very explicit on this...

The priest can't betray the person confessing (983.1)

  The sacramental seal is inviolable; therefore it is absolutely forbidden for a confessor to betray in any way a penitent in words or in any manner and for any reason.

  Sacramentale sigillum inviolabile est; quare nefas est confessario verbis vel alio quovis et quavis modo de causa aliquatenus prodere paenitentem.

Considering these rules, if the priest confessing sexual attacks only ever discloses it in the sacrament of reconciliation, he is free from any disciplinary action from the bishop.

If he were to disclose such abuses outside the sacrament of reconciliation, (or get caught), only then is he vulnerable to disciplinary actions.

Let's say the Bishop was suspicious about a priest and decided to tell a random person to eavesdrop on the confession...

Canon Law 983.2 covers that

  The interpreter, if there is one, and all others who in any way have knowledge of sins from confession are also obliged to observe secrecy.

The priest facing disciplinary actions as a result of such abuses (hopefully) either got caught or disclosed it outside the sacrament of reconciliation.

The priest hearing this confession can encourage him to give himself up.

What if the Priest told the guy confessing that his penance is giving himself up?

Using the example of another type of sin, (murder) Fr. Charles Grondin answered this question saying...

  To require that someone turn himself in to the police would be to require him to reveal his confession to a third party. While the sinner is free to do so if he chooses, to require it would appear to be the equivalent of the priest revealing the contents of the confession via a secondary source. In light of canon 984, the priest only knows who the murderer is based on the confession. To require the penitent to turn himself in to the police would be to use that information to the detriment of the penitent. And if the absolution is essentially conditional upon this requirement it would seem to also violate canon 980. If someone is not sufficiently contrite the confessor can simply withhold absolution. If the penitent is sufficiently contrite the priest can most certainly encourage him to turn himself in to the police but to require someone to reveal their confession to another would violate canon law.

  Can. 980 If the confessor is in no doubt about the penitent's disposition and the penitent asks for absolution, it is not to be denied or delayed.

  Can. 984 §1. A confessor is prohibited completely from using knowledge acquired from confession to the detriment of the penitent even when any danger of revelation is excluded.


How does the life of Joseph (son of Jacob) foreshadow the life of Jesus the Messiah? In theology, there are many things identified in the Old Testament as foreshadowing things in the New.  The life of Joseph, the son of Jacob, is one of these that is identified as such the life of Jesus.

What is the identification based on and how exactly does the life of Joseph foreshadow the life of Jesus the Messiah?

Joseph foreshadows the life of Jesus a few ways, and I'm sure that the list I'm about to give you isn't exhaustive by any stretch of the imagination, but I'll try to give a brief parallel summaries of both stories, which may help to highlight the similarities between both situations.

Joseph

Joseph says things that seem to claim he has a certain elevated position above his brothers.
Because of these things, his brothers attempt to be rid of him, via selling him into slavery.
Joseph is then gone for a time in Egypt.
He then returns to their lives providing a way to escape the coming famine.
He repays evil with good.
God uses the evil that his brothers intended to do to not only validate Joseph's claims, but also provide good for Joseph's brothers.

Jesus

Jesus says things that seem to claim he has a certain elevated position above others.
Because of these things, people attempt to be rid of him, via crucifixion.
Jesus is then gone for a time in the grave.
He then returns to their lives providing a way to escape the consequences of their sin.
He repays evil with good.
God uses the evil that his brothers intended to do to not only validate Christ's claims, but also provide good for all.

In short, Joseph was a type of Christ in that he saved those who desired to do him harm from themselves being harmed.


Are we in the Messianic Age? (Catholic perspective) Asaph, living in the time of David, was one of the ten elders of Jerusalem and a prophet [1 Chronicles 15:19). He is attributed with several Psalms, including 50 and 74. He speaks of the Day of Judgment, the arrival of the Messiah (Mashiach), and the coming of the Messianic Age.

Psalm 50:15: Call to me on the day of distress and I will free you, and you will honor me.
Psalm 74:19-21: Do not give the soul of your Turtledove to a nation [of idolaters]; do not forget the nation of the poor forever. Look to the Covenant, for the dark places of the earth are filled with dens of violence. Let not the downtrodden one turn back in disgrace; the poor and needy will praise your name.

If Jesus represents the coming of the Messiah, does this not mean we are in the Messianic Age?
However, there is also the Second Coming. Is this a second Messianic Age, a continuation of the first (with the Incarnation), or does Jesus's appearance "not count" as an ushering in of the Messianic Age? To my knowledge, there is little to no evidence from the Hebrew Bible (essentially the Old Testament) on what the Messianic Age would look like in human terms, but it seems clear those following Jesus in his ministries were "walking with God" as other
prophets, such as Isaiah, suggeat as part of the Messianic Age.

It depends on your definition of the Messianic Age.

According to the Catholic Catechism and its interpretation of the Nicene Creed, Jesus is the Christ, the Messiah

  (436) The word "Christ" comes from the Greek translation of the Hebrew Messiah, which means "anointed". It became the name proper to Jesus only because he accomplished perfectly the divine mission that "Christ" signifies. In effect, in Israel those consecrated to God for a mission that he gave were anointed in his name. This was the case for kings, for priests and, in rare instances, for prophets. This had to be the case all the more so for the Messiah whom God would send to inaugurate his kingdom definitively. It was necessary that the Messiah be anointed by the Spirit of the Lord at once as king and priest, and also as prophet. Jesus fulfilled the messianic hope of Israel in his threefold office of priest, prophet and king

So God has definitively established his kingdom with Jesus as king. In that sense, we live in the Messianic Age. It goes on to say that Christ rules in his kingdom already through the Church, but the final triumph of his kingdom has not occurred

  (680) Christ the Lord already reigns through the Church, but all the things of this world are not yet subjected to him. The triumph of Christ's kingdom will not come about without one last assault by the powers of evil.
  (681) On Judgment Day at the end of the world, Christ will come in glory to achieve the definitive triumph of good over evil which, like the wheat and the tares, have grown up together in the course of history.
  (682) When he comes at the end of time to judge the living and the dead, the glorious Christ will reveal the secret disposition of hearts and will render to each man according to his works, and according to his acceptance or refusal of grace.

Since the kingdom is not yet complete, you could say we don't yet live in the Messianic Age.


Which denominations follow prosperity theology? In the comments of an answer to another question, the topic of prosperity theology was raised, and someone stated that a large portion of Christianity is in some way supportive of prosperity theology. I am defining prosperity theology as the following:

  Financial blessing is the will of God for Christians, and that earthly prosperity is a reward for those who follow God.

I personally don't know of any mainstream denominations that espouse prosperity theology (most that I've heard of are non-denominational or independent churches - e.g. Joel Osteen's congregation). I'm not asking if prosperity theology is Biblical or not, I'm asking are there any mainstream denominations that espouse prosperity theology?

This a good question but at the same time it is difficult to make a list of all the denominations. Many Christians and Denominations believe in Prosperity theology but not necessarily included in their core doctrines.
Some notable ones being Word of Faith and other Pentecostal Denominations.

Let's give one example.

David Yonggi Cho, a Korean pastor of the world's largest congregation church, Yoido Full Gospel Church affiliated with the Assemblies of God , is known for his teachings about prosperity.  He emphasizes giving Tithe, Offerings and Seed Faith. "The more you give to God, the more you get" is one of his teachings. His words as mentioned in Wikipedia:

  "We must rethink our misguided thoughts considering material wealth as
  being equated with sin. We must drive out our subconsciously rooted
  thoughts of poverty, condemnation and despair. God acts in concordance
  with our conscience; If our thoughts are filled with poverty and
  despair, God bless us with material blessing."

He is famous for his strange teaching about the "Fourth Dimension". He teaches that we need to learn how turn On our spiritual tap of blessings which is from the fourth dimension and that we need to practice how to exercise our faith in this matter in order to get spiritual and material blessings.


What is a Reformed substitute for Catholic Marian Doctrine in exemplifying the new dignity accorded women? A pattern I see in scripture is that God performs a literal act in history, then makes it into the concrete support for a doctrinal principle, a fitting example.

He creates the world and all of humanity, therefore he has the right to command and judge it.
He destroys the world once by flood, therefore proves that he has the power and intention to judge it again.
He sends Peter a dream to persuade him to accept Gentiles into the church, then affirms this by giving them the Holy Spirit.
Jesus rises from the dead, proving that God can and will do this for his faithful.

There are many such object lessons from which God shaped history and the meaning of the Bible. Concerning racism, we have the Tower of Babel story illustrating the origin of the many languages and peoples, tacked onto the stories of Adam and Eve and Noah, with many genealogies to convey the fact that all people are of one blood, then the statement that in Christ there are no Jews or Greeks, slave or free, etc.
Then we get to the division between men and women. The New Testament seems equivocal here. It affirms a spiritual equality but retains a functional inequality. In looking at Church history side by side with the progress of women, I compared it to the development of Catholic Marian doctrine over the centuries. I see that as greater dignity is accorded Mary, the fortunes of women have improved. If I were a Catholic mystic (which I am not), my apologetic would be that liberating truths emanating from Christ and Mary through the mediating influence of the Catholic Church are transforming the world and progressively reversing the curse upon Eve. Mary is the example for women comparable to the other powerful examples I shared first.
My question is, as far as examples and the slow unfolding and application of Biblical truths to society are concerned, what does a Reformed Tradition have to offer in place of Mary, seeing as much of Mariology is not accepted by the Reformed church?
One specific instance: some religions said women were inherently impure and inferior to men, maybe did not even have souls. Dualistic religions said that all matter is inherently evil. Then Jesus comes and lives a perfect life, showing that a MAN, made of matter, can be perfect, not evil. For Catholics who believe in the Immaculate Conception, Mary did not sin. She is the example WOMAN who lived a perfect life. If you jettison that doctrine, you have no example perfect woman, so need some alternate way to convey the truth that women can be perfected.

The question assumes (and seems to even presume) two major things:  1) That Christ came predominantly as an example to be emulated and 2) That the example of Christ, the man, has particular application to the male gender individually and societally.  Given these assumptions the question asks Reformed Theology for a female role model likened unto Mary as expounded in Catholicism.
A strong correlation is supposed to exist such that the historical increase of truths liberating women "emanating from Christ and Mary through the mediating influence of the Catholic Church are transforming the world and progressively reversing the curse upon Eve".  It would need to be demonstrated that the Protestant reformation and the formal advent of Reformed Theology represent a correlative subduing of these liberating truths regarding women in history since the 16th century.
A reformed look at the assumptions listed above would have to begin at Genesis 1:27:

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

Right from the very beginning there is a distinction in gender without a difference in humanity:  Man, as created by God, includes both male and female.  Both were formed by God from previously created matter (dust and a rib) and both, without distinction, are in His image.  Since Jesus Christ came, uniquely in the image of the invisible God and filled with all Divine fullness (Colossians 1:15, 19), formed by the Spirit of God within the already created matter of a woman, he is therefore able to represent the image of God in which Man was created irrespective of gender.  Thus He is savior of both male and female without distinction.
There is also, right from the beginning, a distinction in roles.  The man was created first and the reason given for the creation of the woman is:

“It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.” Genesis 2:18

This should not be taken to indicate that the male, in his humanity, was created with some lack or deficit since the Divine intention to create Man (in His image) as both male and female is stated prior to the formation of either Adam or Eve.  It should also not be understood from this that the woman was created with a "functional inequality" that the Church and the proclamation of the gospel should strive to overcome.  While it is certain that the sinful heart of Man has birthed and promulgated all manner of grievous societal ills it needs to be stridently maintained that gender, and certain roles assigned to gender, were created by God prior to the incursion of sin and are therefore included in the statement "And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good".  It is therefore to be understood that gender finds it's meaning as divinely assigned roles for humans rather than distinctive valuations as humans.
Scripture is replete with godly women who are held up as examples for us to follow.  Prominent is Hebrews chapter 11 in which are listed Sarah and Rahab.  These women are lifted up along with the many men with which they are enumerated, not for gender specific tasks, but for the faith by which they lived:

By faith Sarah herself received power to conceive, even when she was past the age, since she considered him faithful who had promised. - Hebrews 11:11
By faith Rahab the prostitute did not perish with those who were disobedient, because she had given a friendly welcome to the spies. - Hebrews 11:31

And, indeed, Mary is to be esteemed for the faith by which she humbled herself under the calling with which God called her while yet a virgin:

“Behold, I am the servant of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word.”

But to look to Mary or any other person for something gender specific that is supposed to be lacking in what the (male) Christ has exemplified is a category error for:

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. - Galatians 3:28

It is therefore not a gender specific example that Christ has given us but an example of human faith to be lived out in whatever situation one finds themselves.

Only let each person lead the life that the Lord has assigned to him,
and to which God has called him. This is my rule in all the
churches. Was anyone at the time of his call already circumcised? Let
him not seek to remove the marks of circumcision. Was anyone at the
time of his call uncircumcised? Let him not seek circumcision. For
neither circumcision counts for anything nor uncircumcision, but
keeping the commandments of God. Each one should remain in the
condition in which he was called.  Were you a bondservant when
called? Do not be concerned about it. (But if you can gain your
freedom, avail yourself of the opportunity.) For he who was called in
the Lord as a bondservant is a freedman of the Lord. Likewise he who
was free when called is a bondservant of Christ. You were bought with
a price; do not become bondservants of men. So, brothers, in
whatever condition each was called, there let him remain with God. -
1 Corinthians 7:17-24

Reformed Theology holds that there are God ordained roles for both men and women in the family, the church, and the world and that these not necessarily be identical.  It also affirms that the fallen nature of Man tends toward the abrogation and corruption of all that God has created.  The reconciliation of the two is in lifting up Christ and the clarion call for Reformed Theology specifically and Protestantism in general is as follows irrespective of gender:

For you have need of endurance, so that when you have done the will of God you may receive what is promised. For, “Yet a little while, and the coming one will come and will not delay; but my righteous one shall live by faith, and if he shrinks back, my soul has no pleasure in him.” But we are not of those who shrink back and are destroyed, but of those who have faith and preserve their souls. - Hebrews 10:36-39

There is no need, in Reformed Theology, for a female example of perfection to lift up before women "to convey the truth that women can be perfected" since our perfection, both male and female, is in Jesus:

For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified. - Hebrews 10:14


What are modern full-time Catholic proselyting missions like? In reference to this question: What are full-time protestant proselyting missions like?

What are full-time Catholic proselyting missions like in contrast or comparison to LDS missions?

Generally Roman Catholics ('Catholics') do not use the term Proselytize due to the connotations associated with that term. I will therefore assume 'proselytize' in your question is synonymous with 'mission work'. (Pope Francis recently raised eyebrows by saying, in an interview, that “proselytism is solemn nonsense, it makes no sense.”)

"The Church’s missionary spirit is not about proselytizing, but the testimony of a life that illuminates the path, which brings hope and love. The Church—I  repeat once again—is not a relief organization, an enterprise or an NGO, but a community of people, animated by the Holy Spirit, who have lived and are living the wonder of the encounter with Jesus Christ and want to share this experience of deep joy, the message of salvation that the Lord gave us." [Message for World Mission Day, May 19, 2013].

Catholics are not required to do mission work; however, they are generally strongly encouraged to do volunteer work. The prevailing view in Catholicism is simply by the deeds done, people will be drawn to the church. That people will see the good and the love, and people will sua sponte explore the teachings of the Church. (This is one reason why Catholics do not preach 'fire and brimstone'.)

I would divide Catholic mission work into two categories: Lay missions and non-lay or ordained mission work.

Much of the lay work is volunteer work that is organized by larger Catholic organizations. This idea is furthered by other US nonprofits like Catholic Charities USA, which spends nearly 90% of its income on charitable purposes, which are quite extensive.

The second group, ordained mission work, is a bit different. Generally, this mission work is done by religious rites, such as Missionaries of Charity, which was founded by Mother Teresa. Other rites emphasize bringing education to underprivileged areas, much as they did to the US in its early history.


According to the Bible, what kind of debt, if any, is lawful? The Bible has some strong things to say about debt. In the total witness of the Bible, is all debt considered sinful? Or can we differentiate between types of debt, and say that some are lawful while others are not? If there is debt that is considered lawful, can we further distinguish a type of debt that would also be wise (or at the very least, not unwise) to engage in, given the right circumstances?

See related questions on Biblical Hermeneutics: Does Romans 13:8 include a prohibition of taking loans? and What are the proverbs about giving collateral for someone else teaching about loans?

This is a very large subject that might be too big for an answer but I will make an attempt anyway. I apologize for the length.

I think the answer to the question can be almost fully derived by this fairly long section of scripture, so I quote it all:

  1At the end of every seven years you must cancel debts. 2This is how it is to be done: Every creditor shall cancel any loan they have made to a fellow Israelite. They shall not require payment from anyone among their own people, because the Lord’s time for cancelling debts has been proclaimed. 3You may require payment from a foreigner, but you must cancel any debt your fellow Israelite owes you. 4However, there need be no poor people among you, for in the land the Lord your God is giving you to possess as your inheritance, he will richly bless you, 5if only you fully obey the Lord your God and are careful to follow all these commands I am giving you today. 6For the Lord your God will bless you as he has promised, and you will lend to many nations but will borrow from none. You will rule over many nations but none will rule over you.
  7If anyone is poor among your fellow Israelites in any of the towns of the land the Lord your God is giving you, do not be hardhearted or tightfisted toward them. 8Rather, be openhanded and freely lend them whatever they need. 9Be careful not to harbor this wicked thought: “The seventh year, the year for cancelling debts, is near,” so that you do not show ill will toward the needy among your fellow Israelites and give them nothing. They may then appeal to the Lord against you, and you will be found guilty of sin. 10Give generously to them and do so without a grudging heart; then because of this the Lord your God will bless you in all your work and in everything you put your hand to. 11There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward your fellow Israelites who are poor and needy in your land. (Deuteronomy 15:1-11, NIV)

It may seem odd to appeal to Mosaic legislation to understand the Christian view of debts and our obligations under them, but in many ways all Christian principles are first inlaid in the Old Testament.  From the verses above we can conclude two principle aspects about debts under a Biblical framework:

Both lending and borrowing are not condemned, but actually encouraged when the poor need temporary help. This is a peculiar case of a law for an agricultural society who shared the land God was giving them.  Therefore, we can imagine if a neighbor suffered providential loss, due to bad weather affecting their crops, etc., a neighbor might loan his own seeds, tools, etc., recognizing that he may too need help at another time.
It is not moral to take advantage of the poor through a loan, as the principle was to forgive the whole loan, where it could not be repaid after seven years.

From these two aspects the church at a very early age condemned what was called 'usury'. Usury did not mean a high interest loan, but almost any kind of interest on 'money'.  Interest was not the same thing as 'usury' but if the lender did not in some way take on risk in a loan, then it was considered usury.  An excellent article on the history of interest including church views can be found at A Brief History of Interest, Dr. Jurg Conzett.  The basic idea that has floated around the subject relates to the history of the world changing from an agrarian society to a capitalist trading society.  When we think about it it makes sense.  In the early days, such as under Moses, if you needed some seed to survive, a neighbor might lend some of his seed, or land. They did not necessarily have silver coins, so the payment for seeds would be seeds from a successful crop.  It would be easy to pay a bit of interest as one seed would produce hundreds of seeds.  In this way early lending was fair and the lender assumed risk, because if there was no crop, a payment could not be made, and after seven years the whole thing must be forgiven.  Even Aristotle argued against interest on silver, saying that it did not naturally increase as did seed.

We can see these principles applied under the Mosaic law for among brother 'no interest was allowed' but interest was allowed for loans to foreigners:

  Do not charge a fellow Israelite interest, whether on money or food or anything else that may earn interest. You may charge a foreigner interest, but not a fellow Israelite, so that the Lord your God may bless you in everything you put your hand to in the land you are entering to possess. (Deuteronomy 23:19-20, NIV)

However, even for a foreigner the interest could not be a kind of 'usury' that exploited the poor, as:

  “Do not mistreat or oppress a foreigner, for you were foreigners in Egypt. (Exodus 22:21, NIV)

To apply this basic ethic to today, or with the New Testaments command that
'Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another' (Romans 13:8) we can draw the same principles under the gospel light.

First, any loan by a person in need is lawful, in order to help the person make a living and take care of his own family.  Second, such a loan should be provided for without exploitation. Yet we live in a wicked world, so this is not always possible as that would pretty much end all credit-card usage today as they all charge high interest especially among the poor!

As the New Testament is not under a government of God's people following God's laws in Canaan but an invisible church in a wicked world, the New Testament seems to focus more on charity, rather than loans by Christian love, as well as Christian duties for those who have debts in this wicked world. Therefore, for those with debts, the command is to not forsake the obligation of paying them, but work hard at being faithful to our commitments.  It also implies that we must not enter into debt unless necessary:

  The wicked borrow and do not repay, but the righteous give generously (Psalms 37:21, NIV)

The only way we can really determine what debts or lawful, is not under a legalistic rule, but under the rule of love, which must define all principles of godliness. The question we should ask ourselves when entering into a debt obligation is: 'Can we truly incur and repay this loan, without causing anyone harm?' If the answer is no, then the debt is not lawful, for love is the law.

A student loan, to become employed and a productive member of society would naturally be a good debt, for without such many could not earn income for a family or support church ministries and other charities later in life.  A loan to borrow from your next years predicted savings, to go on a vacation because you are stressed might not pass the rule.  The New Testament drives the idea of obtaining an 'independence' and respect from the outside world, which is included in working towards having no debts, where possible:

  And to make it your ambition to lead a quiet life: You should mind your own business and work with your hands, just as we told you, so that your daily life may win the respect of outsiders and so that you will not be dependent on anybody. (1 Thessalonians 4:11-12, NIV)

I myself once took a loan to pay for expenses necessary to adopt an orphan.  I would consider that a good loan.  The question we must ask ourselves when considering to take on a loan, is: 'Do we really need now what we want the loan for, for the benefit of ourself, our family and our brother?'