Is there any substance to the claim that Origen supported reincarnation? Origen of Alexandria is considered one of Christianity's greatest systematic theologians, and it is said that he was a believer in reincarnation.

Is there any substance (textual evidence) to the claim that Origen supported reincarnation?

The challenge in answering this question is that we do not have most of Origen's original work.  Proponents of reincarnation argue that translators and scribes made Origen's works more palatable to orthodox Christianity, and excised the most significant pro-reincarnation sections of his works.

One quote commonly attributed to Origen does not appear to exist in any of his works as we have them today:

  The soul has neither beginning nor end. [They] come into this world strengthened by the victories or weakened by the defeats of their previous lives.

However, there are other portions of modern translations of Origen's writings that proponents say are evidence of his belief in the pre-existence of the soul and in reincarnation.  Opponents of reincarnation often argue that these are taken out of context and do not actually indicate that Origen believed in reincarnation.

Evidence for his belief in the pre-existence of the soul is seen in the following passage, from Against Celsus, I.xxxii:

  Or is it not more in conformity with reason, that every soul, for certain mysterious reasons (I speak now according to the opinion of Pythagoras, and Plato, and Empedocles, whom Celsus frequently names), is introduced into a body, and introduced according to its deserts and former actions?

In the following passage, from De Principiis III.iii.5, he is seen to argue that disembodied souls have free will, and that their natural tendencies to good or evil in this state have bearing on their bodily lives:

  To all which instances, those who maintain that everything in the world is under the administration of Divine Providence (as is also our own belief), can, as it appears to me, give no other answer, so as to show that no shadow of injustice rests upon the divine government, than by holding that there were certain causes of prior existence, in consequence of which the souls, before their birth in the body, contracted a certain amount of guilt in their sensitive nature, or in their movements, on account of which they have been judged worthy by Divine Providence of being placed in this condition. For a soul is always in possession of free-will, as well when it is in the body as when it is without it; and freedom of will is always directed either to good or evil. Nor can any rational and sentient being, i.e., a mind or soul, exist without some movement either good or bad. And it is probable that these movements furnish grounds for merit even before they do anything in this world; so that on account of these merits or grounds they are, immediately on their birth, and even before it, so to speak, assorted by Divine Providence for the endurance either of good or evil.

Similar arguments are made in De Principiis III.v.4:

  I am, indeed, of opinion that, as the end and consummation of the saints will be in those (ages) which are not seen, and are eternal, we must conclude (as frequently pointed out in the preceding pages), from a contemplation of that very end, that rational creatures had also a similar beginning. And if they had a beginning such as the end for which they hope, they existed undoubtedly from the very beginning in those (ages) which are not seen, and are eternal. And if this is so, then there has been a descent from a higher to a lower condition, on the part not only of those souls who have deserved the change by the variety of their movements, but also on that of those who, in order to serve the whole world, were brought down from those higher and invisible spheres to these lower and visible ones.

These quotes (also available in Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume IV), however, only support the pre-existence of souls--not necessarily reincarnation.

For reincarnation itself, proponents refer to other sources.  They cite Jerome's letter to Avitus, section 7 (also in Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers), in which Jerome quotes the (now lost) Greek text of De Principiis:

  And again: "but perhaps this coarse and earthly body ought to be described as mist and darkness; for at the end of this world and when it becomes necessary to pass into another, the like darkness will lead to the like physical birth." In speaking thus he clearly pleads for the transmigration of souls as taught by Pythagoras and Plato.

Similarly, section 15 of the same letter of Jerome, again quoting Origen:

  The following passage is a convincing proof that he holds the transmigration of souls and annihilation of bodies. "If it can be shown that an incorporeal and reasonable being has life in itself independently of the body and that it is worse off in the body than out of it; then beyond a doubt bodies are only of secondary importance and arise from time to time to meet the varying conditions of reasonable creatures. Those who require bodies are clothed with them, and contrariwise, when fallen souls have lifted themselves up to better things, their bodies are once more annihilated. They are thus ever vanishing and ever reappearing."


Will we be perfect in Heaven? I think most (if not all) Christians would agree that there will be no sin in heaven. However, we often make mistakes that aren't sinful: accidentally spilling a glass of milk isn't a sin. We don't know everything, we aren't all virtuosos, nor are we all Olympic athletes, but ignorance and a lack of skill and athleticism aren't sins either.

So: will we be perfect in Heaven, mentally and physically?

Only God is perfect, and (except for Mormon teaching) we will never be God. Ergo, we will never be perfect.

Going a bit deeper into the word, however, when the Bible uses the word perfect, it is typically the Greek word telos. Telos does not imply a state of being, but rather a direction toward the end for which a thing is made. It has the sense of a target, minus the actual arrival.

Note: This doesn't mean our bodies won't be a heck of a lot better - our new bodies will be glorified.  That which was sown perishable is raised unperishable.  Our bodies will not be affected by sin, and that makes them way better than we can imagine now.

But perfect is a different level entirely.

Think of it as two ants and looking at my belly and saying "Its the largest thing ever!"  No, it's pretty massive, but there are larger things. (Until I eat them)


How are first-grade relics prepared? Is there a formal practice to the preparation of first-grade relics? How are the remains of a saint divided? Is there a method of preservation involved? Is there now an authority in charge of requisitioning the remains of a saint and then preparing the relics in-house?

I'd like to clarify that I'm asking what the formal ritualistic practices are which takes place upon the death of a saint in order to create relics from his remains. For example, what happens when a saint dies? Does the Vatican claim the body and store it somewhere for quite some time? Is there a doctrine/ritualistic process by way of which the body is divided? And what is the significance of these processes, in a spiritual sense?

Since there is a veneration of the cult of saints, I feel like the Vatican has a say in how the remains of these godly men are handled, especially since The code of canon law says:

  The ancient tradition of placing relics of martyrs or other saints
  under a fixed altar is to be preserved, according to the norms given
  in the liturgical books.

Can. 1237 - §2.

Additionally, if you can please provide information on how the process has evolved over time, that would be appreciated. Some texts for additional reading are also greatly appreciated.

The veneration and collection of relics is a ritual which started in the Middle Ages, following many pilgrimages to the Holy Land following the Crusades. The first relics which were collected were those the Virgin Mary together with those of St. Joseph and Jesus Christ himself. Particularly, relics were collected from the remains of the Holy Cross, which was greatly venerated at the time. Other relics were collected from the house of Nazareth, where the Holy Family lived in.

The Second Vatican Council recalls that "the Saints have been traditionally honoured in the Church, and their authentic relics and images held in veneration" - taken from the document Decretum de invocatione, veneratione et reliquiis Sanctorum, et sacris imaginibus of the Council of Trent. The term "relics of the Saints" principally signifies the bodies - or notable parts of the bodies - of the Saints who, as distinguished members of Christ's mystical Body and as Temples of the Holy Spirit in virtue of their heroic sanctity, now dwell in Heaven, but who once lived on earth. Objects which belonged to the Saints, such as personal objects, clothes and manuscripts are also considered relics, as are objects which have touched their bodies or tombs such as oils, cloths, and images.

There are 3 kinds of relics which are issued by the Holy See. These are ranked as follows:

1st Rank Relics: Actual body parts, clothes, jewellery and pieces of other objects which are known to have belonged to the saint. This also includes bones and blood of the saint in particular.

2nd Rank Relics: Whole objects or fragments extracted from the place where the saint was present at. For example a piece of furniture at the house they lived in would be a 2nd Rank Relic. It is presumed that the said himself/herself was in touch with this particular object during his/her lifetime.

3rd Rank Relics: This are any other objects which were in lifetime, or even after his death, in contact with the body of the saint. These are the most commonly found relics and can be easily obtained in events commemorating the particular saint. They are usually touched to the burial place of the saint, to constitute a 3rd degree relic.

In itself, there is no procedure whereby the Vatican claims the body of the saints upon his/her death, since there is a whole process to be made before the person is finally declared a Saint. This includes miracles to be performed with the intercession of the person. After these have been scrutinized and studied by the respective board at the Vatican, the process for the canonisation of the person is started. This is divided into 3 stages, whereby the person:

is primarily proclaimed Venerable
he is then Beatified
Then he is finally Canonised and declared a Saint

The process of being proclaimed venerable must be started after the death of the person, and it is then, that relics can start to be collected. At this stage in particular, the body is usually moved from the actual burial place, to a better location, where he/she can be venerated in a better manner (unless the person was already being venerated, such as in the case of Saint Pope John Paul II for example).

As already mentioned before, relics are then gathered from body parts, vestements, jewelry or fragments from places visited by the saint.

The Vatican had in fact issued a document on the veneration of Beatified people and Saints in 2001. Paragraphs 236 and 237 speak of relics and their collection. Additionally, chapter 8 of this document speaks of the importance of shrines and pilgrimages, outlining their importance to the Catholic faith.


Why did the devil tempt Eve first? Why did the devil go after Eve and not Adam?
Was it because Eve was weaker than Adam?
Why didn't the devil tempt Adam first?

It must be noted that the Bible never explicitly answers this question, so our answer has to come from related observations we make from the text.  However, we must admit that these observations are not explicitly taught from the Scriptures, so we must not be emphatic where the Scriptures are not.  It is important, then, to identify what it is that we do know and what it is that we do not know.

We do know that the prohibition from eating the fruit of the tree was directly given to Adam by God prior to the creation of Eve.

  15 The LORD God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work
  it and keep it. 16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, “You
  may surely eat of every tree of the garden, 17 but of the tree of
  the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day
  that you eat of it you shall surely die.” 18 Then the LORD God
  said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a
  helper fit for[e] him.”  Genesis 2:15-18 ESV

The Bible never indicates how Eve learned about the command.  We do not know whether God repeated the command to her after He created her or whether Adam passed it on to her.  We do know that she seems to be aware of the command during the temptation, although her statement of it differs from that which was given to Adam--Eve adds the part about not touching it.  She also fails to call the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil by its name, referring to it simply as the tree in the middle of the garden.

So, perhaps Eve received the command secondhand and wasn't as certain about it as Adam was.  Again, we don't know for sure, but this is at least a possibility.  If so, then it is reasonable to assume that Satan saw Eve as the one more susceptible to deception.

We do know that by deceiving Eve, though, that Satan got two for one.  He had to deceive Eve, but Adam willingly followed her into sin, despite not being deceived.  Eve seems to not have understood what she was doing, but it seems that Adam actually did--and did it anyway.

  "and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a
  transgressor."  1 Timothy 2:14 ESV

If Adam had been the first to sin, we do not know if Eve would have followed.  Perhaps so.  We do know, however, that Adam did follow Eve into sin.

It could be suggested that Eve's weakness was uncertainty, while Adam's weakness was Eve.

So, again, we don't know for sure, but we can make some observations about the text and draw some possible explanations to answer this question.


Minimum age of marriage in the Catholic Church through the ages I was watching a fictional series situated in XV century France, where a girl (princess) aged 8 married a +18 years old man (prince), through the Catholic Church. I wonder whether that was actually possible.

It seems in the "Middle Ages" (unclear what exactly which years this is to represent) the minimum "legal" (Church?) age for marriage was 12 for girls and 14 for boys (e.g. see here and here). Currently, according to Canon Law, it's 14 and 16 respectively (e.g. see here).

I've been searching for the evolution of this regulation, but haven't found much more than the above. A Wikipedia article about the history of marriage in the Catholic Church has no further information. Anyone know more about this?

Not being of marriageable age is a diriment impediment,

  A condition, circumstance, or situation that makes an action [of marrying] null and void in its intended effects. Thus an existing marital bond nullifies any attempt to enter a second marriage.

The Church has the authority to determine impediments to marriage (cf. Session 24 on Matrimony of the Council of Trent, can. 4), but, according to the commentary of canonist Charles Augustine, O.S.B., D.D., on 1917 can. 1067,

  The Code [of Canon Law] does not determine which of these [impediments] belong to the order of the natural and divine law, and which to the order of ecclesiastical law.

However,

  pastors of souls should deter from it [i.e., from marriage] young people who have not reached the age at which, according to the custom of the country, marriage is usually contracted.In this formulation the impediment is of merely ecclesiastical law, which now demands a higher age than was formerly required. The Decretals [an early codification of ecclesiastical law] followed the Roman law in reckoning the age. There was a controversy between the Cassians and the Proculejans, until Justinian adopted the view of Proculejus, who maintained that the number of years, fourteen for boys and twelve for girls, should be decisive in admitting one to marriage. The Cassians, on the other hand, held that not only age but natural capacity for the marital act should be taken into consideration. […] There are pontifical constitutions which forbid marriage to be contracted at the age of six or seven, but they do not state a precise limit.

Thus, your "series situated in XV century France, where a girl (princess) aged 8 married a +18 years old man (prince), through the Catholic Church" seems fictional.

(Also, the Church can give and has given dispensations regarding consanguinity and affinity.)


Do any major denominations refuse to recognize Holy Baptism in other denominations Most denominations recognize baptisms in other denominations.  (See, for example Eph 4:4-6), "one Lord, one faith, one baptism".)

The World Council of Churches Faith and Order Commission published Baptism, Eucharist, and Ministry in 1982.

Are there major Christian denominations (in the 21st century) who don't go along with this, and who require members to be rebaptized?

There are a number of different cases with regard to accepting baptisms carried out in other denominations.

Catholics Contrary to some perceptions, Catholics actually accept most baptisms carried out by other denominations. "if the proper matter and form be used and the one conferring the sacrament really "intends to perform what the Church performs" the baptism is undoubtedly valid." (Catholic Encyclopedia) The matter and form require that the person be baptized using water, and that the words "I baptize thee in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost" (or equivalent) be used. This actually includes almost all Protestant sects. The major exclusions would be sects that do not believe in the Trinity, and those that explicitly baptize in "Jesus name only".
Major mainstream Protestant denominations follow similar rules to Catholics, and thus accept both Catholic and most other Protestant baptisms.
Protestant denominations that exclusively practice adult baptism almost always consider infant baptisms to be invalid, and require rebaptism of people baptized as infants. This isn't technically a rejection of the baptisms of other denominations (adult baptism of any denomination is usually accepted) but for practical purposes most baptisms by an paedobaptist denomination would be rejected.
Certain denominations have tight restrictions on method of baptism, for example insisting on immersion. A subset of those denominations will consider invalid any baptism carried out by another method, even if done as an adult. The Fellowship Baptists are an example.
Restorationist churches, such as Latter-Day Saints or Jehovah's Witnesses, consider all other baptisms to be invalid and will baptize any new convert regardless of previous baptism.


Did Paul actually report anything about the life of Jesus? In a clip from the movie The God Who Wasn't There the narrator says that Paul knew largely nothing of what we call the story of Jesus. That he only reported Christ's crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension, and that he did not place any of these events on Earth.

Is this claim supportable from primary evidence?

Faulty Premise: Paul knew nothing of Jesus
Paul summarizes his own life story in Galatians 1:

11 I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. 12 I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.
13 For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it. 14 I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers. 15 But when God, who set me apart from my mother’s womb and called me by his grace, was pleased 16 to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, my immediate response was not to consult any human being. 17 I did not go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went into Arabia. Later I returned to Damascus.
18 Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days. 19 I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother. 20 I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie.

By his own testimony, Paul had at least two weeks' direct contact with Peter (aka Cephas) and James, two obvious eyewitnesses of Christ.  Even if you discount the personal encounter with Jesus in Acts 9, Paul clearly had access to those who did know Christ.
Indeed, in his time, Paul was being accused not of not knowing who Jesus was, but rather of trying to claim the other disciples' experiences of his own.  Hence Paul going out of his way in vs. 19 to distance himself from the apostles...
When he says earlier that the Gospel he preaches is not of human origin, he is referring to his direct encounter with Christ, through whom we surmise he learned of Christ.  Later, Peter, who clearly knew Christ, attests that the encounter was genuine and that this is the same Gospel.
To say Paul knew nothing of Christ simply does not square with the primary sources.


Are there any accounts of "words of knowledge" taking place outside of Pentecostal and Charismatic denominations? First of all, let me clarify what I mean by "Word of Knowledge" to avoid confusions. I'm particularly interested in the following definition from Wikipedia:

[...] It can also be defined as knowing the secrets of another person's heart [...]

Or in my own wording:

Person A receives a "download" of very specific private/sensitive information about person B, which person B has not shared with anyone up to that point or at least there is no way person A could've known that information. Person A discloses these revelations to person B together with some encouraging message, and person B reacts with shock, typically expressing their bewilderment with phrases like "How did you know that?!!!!".

In my investigations I've come across a handful of anecdotes that more or less match this definition (e.g. 1, 2). For example, I remember the case of a preacher A approaching a person B and telling them something along the lines of "do you remember when you woke up at 4:00 am in your room on this specific date, you stood up and did these specific actions, and then you asked God these specific things? The Lord is telling me that ..." while person B broke into tears as their secrets were revealed with astonishing accuracy. When I come across anecdotes of "word of knowledge" like this, I can't help but feel very impressed. However, my personal impression is that these sorts of anecdotes are relatively uncommon, and I'm having a hard time recalling a case that didn't happen in the context of a Pentecostal or Charismatic denomination.
Question: Are there recorded occurrences of "words of knowledge" outside of denominations that label themselves as Pentecostal or Charismatic? Say, a Baptist missionary receiving a "word of knowledge" in the jungle which led to an unconverted accepting Christianity, etc.

Are there any accounts of “words of knowledge” taking place outside of Pentecostal and Charismatic denominations?
The short answer is yes.

In Christianity, the word of knowledge is a spiritual gift listed in 1 Corinthians 12:8. It has been associated with the ability to teach the faith, but also with forms of revelation similar to prophecy. It is closely related to another spiritual gift, the word of wisdom.
Among Pentecostal and some Charismatic Christians, the word of knowledge is often defined as the ability of one person to know what God is currently doing or intends to do in the life of another person. It can also be defined as knowing the secrets of another person's heart. Through this revelation, it is believed that God encourages the faith of the believer to receive the healing or comfort that God offers. For example, in a public gathering, a person who claims to have the gift of knowledge may describe a medical problem (such as syphilis or trench foot) and ask anyone suffering from the described problem to identify themselves and receive an effective prayer for healing. According to this definition, the word of knowledge is a form of revelation similar to prophecy or a type of discernment.

Many Catholic saints have had this gift. We generally call it the ability to read souls. It is closely related to a special gift of intuition.

A facet of Mystical knowledge is a supernatural gift of God whereby a Saint is able to read into the heart and conscience of an individual to then be able to guide and direct the person towards a greater union with God. Over the centuries, this gift of reading into souls has often been given to Priests that they may better guide penitents in the Sacrament of Confession. Some of the Priests famous for the gift of reading souls are St Padre Pio (d. 1968), St Anthony of Padua (d. 1231), St John Bosco (d. 1888), St Philip Neri (d.1595), St Francis of Paola (d. 1507), St Joseph of Cupertino (d. 1663) and St Paul of the Cross (d. 1775) to name just a few.
There have also been many mystics who have received this gift of reading into hearts, such as St Gerard Majella (d. 1755), St Catherine of Siena (d. 1380), St Lydwine of Schiedam (d. 1433), St Hedwig (d. 1243) and in modern times the mystics Blessed Alexandrina da Costa (d. 1955) and Servant of God Marthe Robin (d. 1981), and the American mystic Marie-Rose Ferron (d. 1936) to name just a few.
Perhaps one of the greatest and most documented examples of the gift of reading into souls can be found in the extraordinary life of St. John Vianney (1786-1859), affectionately known across the world as “The Cure of Ars”. St John Vianney was a most zealous priest who spent his whole life for the conversion of sinners. Sainte Jean Marie Baptiste Vianney as he is known in France was a country priest in the small town of Ars, France. He spent literally 16-18 hours a day in the confessional, and people from all over France and abroad made pilgrimages to Ars to visit the “Holy Cure”, and to go to him in Confession. For God, who was pleased with the love and devotion of this holy priest gave him the gift of reading hearts, so as to be able to lead sinners closer to God, and St John Vianney certainly possessed this gift in a most extraordinary way.
The gift of reading hearts in the life of St John Vianney
Because of his gift of reading souls, people came from all over France to go to Confession to the holy Cure of Ars, and although he spent from 16-18 hours a day in the Confessional, there were always long lines of people waiting to seek advice and counsel from him, for he truly was a “alter Christus”, that is, another Christ. He are some true stories about his amazing gift of seeing into the heart of men. -
Mystical knowledge in the lives of the Saints –The gift of reading into hearts

Some years ago, I read “The Cure D’Ars” by Abbe Franicis Trochu in the original French and still have my favourite stories to retell.
On day, Fr. John Vianney was saying Mass and the topic of his homily was on the 6th and 9th commandments. Those present knew that his holy priest could see into the souls of those present. Be fore starting into his sermon he made a little announcement: “I will be preaching on the sins against the 6th and 9th commandments. Anyone guilty of sins on these two commandments should leave now.”
The Cure d’Ars very often would preach while walking down the aisle of the church, going to the pulpit which was situated in the middle of the church. Along the way, he would would rebuke big sinners publicly of their sins. If they denied them, he would numerate them, for all to hear.

In both Catholic and Protestant churches the pulpit may be located closer to the main congregation in the nave, either on the nave side of the crossing, or at the side of the nave some way down. This is especially the case in large churches, to ensure the preacher can be heard by all the congregation. - Location of pulpit


Why do Christians need to promote their religion to non-believers? Door to door Jehovah's Witnesses / Mormons, people preaching in town centres, posters outside churches, alpha course.

Why do  Christians have to promote their beliefs to other people? What difference does it make to believers if other people do not believe the same as them? Do they not think they may offend atheists?

I am interested to hear from people who actively promote their religion to non-believers and what drives them.

You basically have three sub-questions here, so let me attempt to answer them in order.

  Why do christians have to promote their beliefs to other people?

For two principal reasons: because we were commanded to at several different places in the Bible, and as an act of love.  The Gospel improves the lives of those who live its principles, and we want to share that with those who don't have those blessings in their lives.

  What difference does it make to believers if other people do not believe the same as them?

Well, aside from what I posted above about loving others and wanting them to experience the same blessings we have, it makes a huge difference when the other people are not content to simply "not believe the same" and leave it at that, but actively attempt to use force--of either the physical, political or legal variety--to interfere with our ability to live our religion.  And one of the simplest ways to counter that is to turn an enemy into a believer.  (Sometimes it can have a very dramatic result; just look at Paul!)

  Do they not think they may offend atheists?

Perhaps, but that only matters if you think that avoiding hurting someone's feelings is more important than sincerely trying to help them improve their lives.  The Gospel encourages an eternal perspective, which tends to give us a different ordering of priorities than the strong short-term focus so prevalent in the world today.


Why do Pentecostals believe in a closed canon? Pentecostals believe the gift of prophecy continues to the present day. From what I understand, most Christians believe the gift of prophecy is what enabled the writers of Scripture to write "inspired" works. So why do Pentecostals believe in a closed canon if they believe in continuing revelation?

Yes, Pentecostals believe that the gift of prophecy continues to the present day.  However, there is a difference between someone exercising the gift of prophecy and the apostles that were divinely inspired to write Scripture.
In the book Foundations of Pentecostal Theology, in the chapter on Bibliology, authors Duffield and Van Cleave discuss the difference between the gift of prophesy today and the inspiration of Scripture:

The Holy Spirit and the Scriptures
Inspiration accounts for inerrancy, and inerrancy proves inspiration.  This miracle of infallible inspiration is said to be the ministry of the Holy Spirit.  This might well be the very greatest ministry in which the Spirit is engaged.  All Spirit-filled believers have known, to some degree, the miracle of Divine inspiration by the Holy Spirit, but never to the extent experienced by the writers of Scripture.
The Pentecostal Movement has been accused of being an experience-centered movement, and indeed it is!  But it is also a Bible-centered movement.  It is beautiful to see how the Holy Spirit and the written Word are always in perfect agreement.  This must be so, because the Word is the result of the inspiration of the Spirit....
If any people should be people of the Word of God, it should be those who believe in the Pentecostal Baptism with the Holy Spirit.  They have an inspirational ministry.  They believe in prophecy, in speaking with other tongues with interpretation, in inspirational revelations.  How can one tell if these come from God or not?  Just because one claims to have a revelation from the Lord does not mean it should be accepted as if it was from God.  There needs to be a norm, a final court of appeal, by which all manifestations of the gifts of the Spirit can be judged.  In fact, the Scripture admonishes the judging of all prophecy, which Paul recognizes as perhaps the greatest of gifts. "Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge" (1 Cor. 14:29).  "To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them" (Is. 8:20).  There is such a "court of appeal" to which one can come.  It is the written Word, which the Holy Spirit inspired.  Peter calls it "a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as a light that shineth in a dark place" (2 Pt. 1:19).  Those who minister, in any capacity whatever, are never so fully "in the Spirit" as when they are doing so in full accord with the clearly revealed teaching of the Bible, the Word of God.  "He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches," is an admonition which is given seven (7) times in the book of Revelation (2:7, 11, 17, 29; 3:6, 13, 22) and each time it follows a written epistle from the Lord Jesus Christ Himself.


What is the "gospel" in OT according to the Calvinist? This question is following my question before. At my question there I have a quotation from Reformation Study Bible (2015) :

  Divine illumination and persuasion is necessary for the heart blinded
  by sin to respond to the gospel.

From my question there, the conclusion : "Lydia is not a believer in the sight of God when Paul walk to approach the women there" because Lydia has not hear the Gospel yet (as Paul hasn't even sit there let alone talk to the women).

  Genesis 6:9(NIV) This is the account of Noah and his family. Noah
  was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, and he
  walked faithfully with God.

  Job 1:8 (NIV) Then the LORD said to Satan, "Have you considered my
  servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and
  upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil."

When God declare in the verse above, are they a non-believer in the sight of God ?
what is the Good News heard by Noah and Job when they are a non-believer in the sight of God ?

This question appear because in a Christian Forum (in our mother language) I propose that Cornelius (before he met the angel, before he met Peter let alone heard the Gospel from Peter) is a believer in the sight of God, but the Calvinist in that forum say that Cornelius is not a believer in the sight of God before those events, although he worship God. The same with Lydia. Their reason : because they (Cornelius/Lydia) haven't heard the Good News yet... so, God hasn't regenerate them. Besides there is no text read that God already opened Cornelius heart before those events.

When I ask the two questions above, I get the answer which consistent with their reason ---> Noah/Job are a non-believer in the sight of God although they worship God because they haven't heard the Good News, so God hasn't regenerate them yet.

That's why I ask here to confirm.

One has to treat the situation of men who lived prior to the coming of Christ a little differently to those of us who live in the new covenant age after the coming of Christ.

It is certainly true that only those who believe and trust in the Lord Jesus Christ having heard the message of the gospel are saved.
However my understanding of reformed soteriology is that those who lived under the old covenant were also saved by faith, in exactly the same way as those of us who believe are now. Their faith was in the coming Messiah who was revealed to them in the types and shadows of the ceremonial law and the words of the prophets.

Noah and Job were certainly Christians because they trusted and believed in the God that revealed himself to them in their own time. Paul's argument in Romans 4 sets out to show that Abraham was saved by faith because he believed God's promises.
Even though Christ had not yet come and his true nature and mission were still somewhat veiled, yet what was revealed to these old covenant believers was sufficient grounds for them to believe and be saved.


Do Paul and the other Apostles command the keeping of Kosher diet in Acts 15:29? If so, why do many ignore it? I realize there are many verses as well that state in the New Testament that nothing is to be considered unclean anymore, but that makes this verse stand out as particularly odd.

The forbidding of blood comes from before the time of Moses :

But flesh with the life thereof, the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.
Genesis 9:4 - KJV

After the Flood, in a new arrangement, flesh is given men to eat, but not blood. In a world now cleansed with water, flesh is made available :

... my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world
John 6:51 - KJV

Blood is not given to unrepentant mankind to consume. The blood of the everlasting covenant is received by faith, Hebrews 13:20.
So neither blood, nor things strangled (instead of having the throat cut and the blood drained out) are permitted to the gentiles. This is not because of Jewish practice, it is because the commandment of God to Noah pertains to everyone on earth until the end of time.
Meats offered to idols is a matter of fellowship with idols which Paul makes even clearer to the Corinthian believers in the eighth chapter of First Corinthians.
Again, it is not a matter of Jewish practice, or custom, it is a matter of contemporary fellowship with local idolatry.


Was Eastern-Orthodox liturgical music influenced by Islam? If you ever went to an Eastern-Orthodox service, well... their music sounds like Islam to me. It's very different from Western Christian music that is typically accompanied by an organ (even known that instrument was developed in the old Byzantine Empire, it was never used in byzantine liturgy because they forbid it, for some reason...)

Was Eastern-Orthodox liturgical music influenced by Islam?

The short answer is: It is seriously doubtful.

It is seriously doubtful considering that the Prophet Mohammad (c. 570 AD – 8 June 632 AD) only came on to the world scene in the late 6th to early 7th centuries. It may in fact be that the opposite could be true.

  The Pre-Byzantium Era

  In the centuries before Constantine, there are no musical manuscripts-all the musical evidence is late; we have no music which is datable with the appearance of the liturgical hymn texts. But if our later musical sources have preserved for us even the essential features of the melodies with which these liturgical texts were first associated, they will enable us to form an idea, however partial, of what the earliest stratum of Christian music must have been like. The insoluble problem of Early Christian music is: how can one make deductions from the evidence in our earliest surviving musical manuscripts? To what degree does the music they contain reflect that of an earlier period? "Throughout the early Christian world," writes Oliver Strunk, "in impenetrable barrier of oral tradition lies between all but the latest melodies and the earliest attempts to reduce them to writing." While it may be possible to date an early musical manuscript, it is virtually impossible to say how old the melodies in it are. The entire question may be seen not so much in terms of a faithful melodic preservation but rather as the degree to which traces of an ancient model may be gleaned from our earliest notated sources.

  A marked feature of liturgical ceremony was the active part taken by the people in its performance, particularly in the saying aloud or chanting of hymns, responses, and psalms. The terms chorós, koinonía, and ecclesía were used synonymously in the early Church. In Psalms 149 and 150, the Septuagint translated the Hebrew word machol (dance or festival group) with the word chorós. As a result, the early Church borrowed this word from classical antiquity as a designation for the worshipping, singing congregation both in heaven and on earth. Before long, however, a clericalizing tendency soon began to manifest itself in linguistic usage, particularly after the Synod of Laodicea, whose fifteenth Canon permitted only the canonical psáltai to sing at the services. The word chorós came to refer to the special priestly function in the liturgy-just as, architecturally speaking, the choir became a reserved area near the sanctuary-and the chorós eventually became the equivalent of the word kléros.

  For the earliest period, however, authorities are fairly well agreed that the background of the worship service is to be found in Jewish ceremonies of that day, and a large degree of continuity between the worship of the Jewish and Christian communities cannot be doubted. What holds for primitive Christian worship in general is no less true for the earliest Christian music in particular. A strong case can be made to support the belief that the background for the earliest Christian music is to be sought in the music of the Hellenistic Orient, and more specifically in the musical theory and practice of Hellenized Judaism of that day. The Old Testament had a conspicuous place in the thought and worship of the New Testament Church. Old Testament quotations and allusions, especially from the Book of Psalms, abound in the literature of the New Testament, and a comparison of the oldest Jewish liturgical poems with those of Eastern Christians points to a relationship between Syriac and Hebrew poetry, thus establishing the possibility of Jewish influence upon Christian liturgical poetry. We know that cantors of Jewish origin were often appointed, even attracted to teach Christian communities the cantillation of scriptural lessons and psalmody. In this, the ancient manner of oral tradition did not fail to show its inescapable vigour.

  The Origins of Byzantine Music

  Byzantine liturgical music did not come about in a cultural vacuum. It has its origins in the desert and in the city: in the primitive psalmody of the early Egyptian and Palestinian desert communities that arose in the 4th to 6th centuries, and in urban centres with their cathedral liturgies full of music and ceremonial. It is this mixed musical tradition that we have inherited today-a mixture of the desert and the city. In both traditions-that of the desert and that of the city-the Old Testament Book of Psalms (the Psalter) first regulated the musical flow of the services. It was the manner in which this book was used that identified whether a service followed the monastic or the secular urban pattern.

  In the desert monasteries psalms were sung by a soloist who intoned the verses slowly and in a loud voice. The monks were seated on the ground or on small stools because they were weakened by fasts and other austerities. They listened and meditated in their hearts on the words which they heard. The monks gave little thought to precisely which psalms were being used-they were little concerned, for example, with choosing texts that made specific reference to the time of the day; that is, psalms appropriate to the morning or ones appropriate to the evening. Since the primary purpose of the monastic services was meditation, the psalms were sung in a meditative way and in numerical order. The desert monastic office as a whole was marked by its lack of ceremony.

  But in the secular cathedrals the psalms were not rendered in numerical order; rather, they consisted of appropriate psalms that were selected for their specific reference to the hour of the day or for their subject matter which suited the spirit of the occasion for the service. The urban services also included meaningful ceremonies such as the lighting of the lamps and the offering of incense. Moreover, a great deal of emphasis was placed on active congregational participation. The psalms were not sung by a soloist totally alone but in a responsorial or antiphonal manner in which congregational groups sang a refrain after the psalm verses. The idea was to have everyone involved in an effort of common celebration: there was no place here for individual contemplation.u

  Thus, it is not until the fourth century, when Christianity and paganism collide as a result of Constantine's mass conversions, and when imperial ceremony entered liturgical solemnity in new and vast cathedrals, that music rears its formidable voice. And even then it did so under very special circumstances, and not without considerable monastic opposition. The monks of the desert likened tunes to demonic theatre, to false praise and to idle pleasure, satisfying the weak-minded and those of little faith and determination. But this does not mean that the monks did not chant. Their rejection was of worldly music, musical exhibitionism and the singing of non-scriptural refrains and chants. It was, in fact, the monastic population that later produced the first and finest hymnographers and musicians-Romanos the Melodist, John Damascene, Andrew of Crete, and Theodore the Studite. And it was the monastic population that also produced the inventors of a sophisticated musical notation which enabled scribes to preserve, in hand-written codices, the elegant musical practices of the medieval East. - [A Brief Survey of the History of Byzantine and Post-Byzantine Chant](https://www.stanthonysmonastery.org/music/History.pdf by Dimitri E. Conomos Oxford University)

What is more interesting is the fact that St. Ephrem (306 - 373) wrote wrote many religious hymns well be before the advent of Islam.

  St. Ephrem [ܡܪܝ ܐܦܪܝܡ ܣܘܪܝܝܐ, literally “fruitful”] was a 4th-century Deacon, Hymnographer, Poet, and Theologian whose beautiful encomiums to the Blessed Virgin Mary continue to draw the admiration of catholic Christians all over the world. He is venerated by the Coptic Orthodox, Syriac Christians, Nestorian Church of the East, Chalcedonian Orthodox, the Roman Catholic Church, and even attracts the veneration of the Anglican Communion. Pope Benedict XV (1914-22) elevated St. Ephrem to the dignify of being a Doctor of the Universal Church. The Pope made a remarkable description of this beloved Saint: “This Harp of the Holy Spirit [Ephrem] never sings weeter songs than when he has set his strings to sing the praises of Mary” (Acta Apostolicae Sedis, 1920, Pg. 467) .  Although many are lost, it is counted that he wrote over 400 hymns. The 5th-century Greek Historian Sozomen, in his famous “Ecclesiastical History” (Book III) speaks very eloquently of St. Ephrem, and his brief description of this awesome Saint is worth sharing, though a bit lengthy. - Holy Ephrem the Syrian on The Blessed Virgin Mary, 306-373 AD

Gregorian Chant as well as Byzantine Chant may have some of the same melodies sang by the Jewish communities of the Early Church.

  The notation of Jewish cantillation and the "neumes" or signs of early Gregorian chant before the adoption of staff notation are similar to the Jewish ones as they emerged as visual "graphs" from hand gestures that give those who live within the oral musical tradition an understanding of varied musical phrases, as opposed to individual notes. This system is still in use in Jewish synagogues around the world. Finally, Werner provides the readers charts of almost identical pieces of Gregorian chant with synagogue melodies.

  Curiously, once Christianity had distanced itself from its Hebraic origins in the fourth and fifth centuries, there emerged written accounts of senior Christian authorities like St. Augustine warning of deviation from the old tradition of singing in the Church -- implying an adherence to the musical traditions that came from Jerusalem. Despite the regional evolution of different kinds of church music, some early church fathers declared later musical innovations to be heresy. -  What Did Jesus Sing?

So it is clear that both Byzantine Chant and Gregorian Chant were not influenced by Islamic Chant. Whether or not Islamic Chant was influenced by Byzantine Chant or Jewish Chant is beyond the scope of this question, but I suspect the later may be true in this historical circumstance.


Is a indulgence valid if granted the night before? Say a person is granted indulgence after Saturday night mass, (which fulfilled the Sunday obligation). Does that mean he can not be granted indulgence the following morning?

I'm assuming an indulgence can only be granted once a day.

Can an indulgence be granted more than once a day?
It all depends if it is a plenary indulgence or a partial indulgence. Only a plenary indulgence may be obtained once a day. Partial indulgences may be obtained as often as one desires, as long as all the conditions are met.

An indulgence that can remove all the temporal punishment due to forgiven sin. No one but God knows for certain when a plenary indulgences is actually gained, because only he knows whether a person's dispositions are adequate. One norm for such dispositions is that "all attachment to sin, even venial sin, be absent." If these dispositions are in any way less than complete, the indulgence will only be partial. The same provision applies to the three external conditions necessary to gain a plenary indulgence: sacramental confession, Eucharistic Communion, and prayer for the intentions of the Pope. If these conditions are not satisfied, an otherwise plenary indulgence becomes only partial. These conditions may be satisfied several days before or after the performance of the prescribed work, though preferably Communion should be received and the prayers offered for the Pope on the same day as the indulgenced work. A plenary indulgence can be gained only once a day. - Catholic Culture

As to your question about receiving an indulgence on Saturday evening and then another plenary indulgence the next morning. "Does that mean he can not be granted indulgence the following morning?" A plenary indulgence may be obtained only once a day, that is to say from midnight to midnight of the same day (January 1st).
We have some parishes within our archdiocese that make it possible to obtain a plenary indulgence by reciting the Te Deum just before midnight on December 31 and then another one just after midnight on January 1 for the recitation of the Veni Creator. The anticipated Mass on Saturday has no bearing on receiving an additional plenary indulgence the following morning.

A partial indulgence is granted to the faithful, who devoutly recite the hymn Come, Holy Spirit, Creator blest.
A plenary indulgenceis granted, if the hymn is recited publicly on the 1st of January and on the feast of Pentecost.
A partial indulgence is granted to the faithful, who recite the Te Deum in thanksgiving.
A plenary indulgence is granted, if the hymn is recited publicly on the last day of the year.

The official Vatican list of plenary indulgences can be read here, however it is in Latin.
The only day one is able to receive an additional plenary indulgence on the same day is on one's deathbed (In articulo mortis).


Is it a blessing to live long on the earth? [Ephesians 6:2-3] "Honour thy father and mother; (which is the first commandment with promise;) That it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth."

Are we supposed to desire to live long on the earth?  It seems to me that after someone in born again he/she is looking forward to meeting and serving and worshiping our Lord forever.

All these can be done although with difficulties on this earth. I am not saying we should desire to not live and serve our Lord on this earth.

It is also not about us but about Him.
So is God more pleased in giving us more years, maybe because we get the chance to become more pure?

Philippians 1:21-24 (NASB)
  For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain. But if I am to live on in the flesh, this will mean fruitful labor for me; and I do not know which to choose. But I am hard-pressed from both directions, having the desire to depart and be with Christ, for that is very much better;  yet to remain on in the flesh is more necessary for your sake.

Paul's desire was to go home to be with the Lord. He was, however, content to stay for the sake of serving others. Being blessed with a long life gives us more of an opportunity to glorify God, which is good for us, too.

Addendum: It is also possible for our desire to leave the troubles of this life behind to have selfish motivations. It is better (for us) to be with the Lord, but it is better for others that we remain here. What should an unselfish person choose?


Why is "Fearing the Lord" equated to loving Him? This question is probably more directed an Old Testament pattern of a description of our attitude towards the Lord.  I equate "fear" more closely with "hate". For example today there was local news that a  mountain lion "may have attacked a pet dog".  That fear factor would lead to efforts to have the mountain lion killed.  That's pretty far from love.
Let's go an assumption (that I made up) that "fear" were intended more closely to "respect". That may be the case but one can just as easily respect someone you love as someone you fear.
Are there multiple words/nuances of fear in the Biblical languages (Hebrew? Greek? Aramaic) ?  Similarly are there some aspects of the Biblical Hebrew culture - or even more generally Semitic/Middle Eastern culture - that explains why "fear" is chosen as the way to instruct/describe the attitude/disposition to the Lord?

Shorter answer
Talking about lion, we are to hate our "adversary the devil who prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour" (1 Pet 5:8).  But the Fear of the LORD is qualitatively the opposite, as this fear enables us to enjoy and grow in our love for God, the key to our happiness.
Longer answer
I'm attempting to show through examples below, that our everyday use of fear in common English today ALSO carries the nuances of fear that the Biblical authors utilized to render what our attitude to God should be.  Therefore, I think we need not look into specifically Hebrew / Semitic / Ancient Near Eastern culture as to why the Biblical authors chose the word 'fear'.  In this answer I attempt to show how fear can be compatible with love and in fact can help one to deepen the love beyond feelings.
If we analyze semantically, in the Biblical books the fear of the LORD is a key element of loving God, similar to how a child both fears and loves his father, or how a citizen both fears and loves his king, or how a husband both fears and loves his wife.  Of course it has to be a certain kind of fear that can be compatible with love, and not the kind of fear that leads us to hate and want to kill an enemy.
For example, a husband can fear to hurt his wife (example: not being appreciative / aloof, or doing things that his wife hates for good reason).  A citizen can fear to incur the king's just wrath (example: siding with the king's enemy, or oppressing the helpless whom the king protects, or violating laws that the king enacted).  A child can fear to alienate his father's good graces by climbing to reach the cookie jar in a precarious manner (going his own way rather than trusting his father's wisdom).
In all the examples above, the fear is the internal power within us which prevents us from hurting another's feeling, distrusting another's wisdom, disobeying a good rule/law, and damaging the trust and enjoyment of the relationship.  In relationships where there is a natural imbalance of power (such as the child to the father and the citizen to the king), the fear is supplemented by an external force to aid our internal power which in turn prevents us from doing the same things.  For example, the fear to be (justly) punished or the fear that one is at the mercy of the other's power help us from disobeying a (wise) commandment for our own good.
All those aspects of fear are compatible with our love for God, and more specifically for the LORD (Yahweh), the God of the Israelite and the Christian God:

We fear His awesome power (the imbalance between creature and creator)
We fear his (just) discipline for our own good
We fear the curtailing of his blessings if we don't do what we are supposed to do
We fear becoming His enemy: possible since He allows it (we have free will), which will result in our destruction (since He promised to punish the wicked)

All those are external force aiding our internal power of fear of hurting God (He was hurt in Hosea) to prod us into living in the right path so we can enjoy more fully our loving relationship with Him.  This force also motivates us to obey God's wisdom reflected partly in his commandments so we do not go into dangerous areas outside the right path, just like the child who has been told not to climb the cupboard to reach the cookie jar.
IN CONTRAST, fear for demons (God's enemy) which is similar to fear of natural enemies (like your lion example, criminals, terrorists) is NOT compatible with love since this fear DOES lead to hate and move us to kill them.  This fear is qualitatively different and leading us into alarm, anxiety, and defensive posture rather than into alertness, safety, and openness:

We fear their superior knowledge and power over the natural which they use to deceive us (Satan is the Father of lies)
We fear their persistent hate toward the human race (like how we fear Sauron in the Lord of the Rings)
We fear our falling into temptation which then damages our love for God and for our loved ones

CONCLUSION: God wants us to fear Him in love, by graduating FROM merely the fear of external forces of the power imbalance or of punishment TO the healthy internal fear resulting from our humility (of being creature), respect (of God being wiser), and desire for happiness in our loving relationship with Him.  Bottom line: we fear damage to our own happiness, which can only be found in our love for God, which needs to include fear of the LORD.
The book of Proverbs (wisdom for living) has these verses to highlight various aspects of this healthy kind of fear (see other verses, including from other books, here):

Fear leads to trusting God's wisdom and discipline Prov 1:7: Fear of the Lord is the foundation of true knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and discipline.
Fear acknowledges God's power to determine short/long life Prov 10:27: Fear of the Lord lengthens one’s life, but the years of the wicked are cut short.
Fear prods us to walk only in the right paths leads to our security, refuge, and protection:

Prov 14:26-27: ²⁶ Those who fear the Lord are secure; he will be a refuge for their children.  ²⁷ Fear of the Lord is a life-giving fountain; it offers escape from the snares of death.
Prov 19:23: Fear of the Lord leads to life, bringing security and protection from harm.
Prov 14:2: Those who follow the right path fear the Lord; those who take the wrong path despise him.

Signs of those who fear to obey God's commandment:

Coveting only God: Prov 23:17: Don’t envy sinners, but always continue to fear the Lord.
Truth, integrity, humility Prov 8:13: All who fear the Lord will hate evil.   Therefore, I hate pride and arrogance, corruption and perverse speech.


Does the parish priest have the authority to forbid communion in the mouth due to COVID pandemic? Does the parish priest have the authority to forbid communion in the mouth due to COVID pandemic, if he does not have explicit permission from his bishop? Note that I am not saying that the bishop would be against the decision of the parish priest, but just that he had not made any announcement (say for example that it is just probable that the bishop would agree with him).

Does the parish priest have the authority to forbid communion in the mouth due to COVID pandemic?
The short answer is no.
But there is a caveat to my response, which I am sure will not go down smooth with some of those who are very traditional.
A priest, of his own accord, can not refuse to give any faithful communion on the tongue and require that they receive Our Lord on the hand. Communion on the tongue is the norm within the Catholic Church and communion on the hand is permitted only by indult or special permission.

[92.] Although each of the faithful always has the right to receive Holy Communion on the tongue, at his choice, if any communicant should wish to receive the Sacrament in the hand, in areas where the Bishops’ Conference with the recognitio of the Apostolic See has given permission, the sacred host is to be administered to him or her. However, special care should be taken to ensure that the host is consumed by the communicant in the presence of the minister, so that no one goes away carrying the Eucharistic species in his hand. If there is a risk of profanation, then Holy Communion should not be given in the hand to the faithful. - Redemptionis Sacramentum

Thus it is obvious that communion on the tongue is our ecclesiastical right and no priest has the authority to change that fact on his own merits.
The faithful have the right to receive Communion in the hand or on the tongue. (See the article on Guidelines on Sacraments and Pastoral Care.)
Ultimately the pope could require communion on the hand due to a pandemic as a temporary measure to stop the spread of the coronavirus. It is highly doubtful that any pope would go that route.
Many dioceses have special protocols in place in regards to communion in regards to the present Covid-19.
Here are the new guidelines for the Archdiocese of Vancouver, where I live:

Reception of Holy Communion within Mass
In coming forward to receive Communion, physical distancing in single file must be maintained in the procession, though members of the same household need not do so.
As far as possible, all aisles should be only for one-way traffic.
It is recommended that the dialogue between the minister and the communicant take place with two metres separating them. The communicant bows to the minister, who says, “The Body of Christ,” to which the response “Amen” is given. The communicant then steps forward to receive Communion in the usual way.
The minister should take special care not to touch the faithful in any way (hand, tongue, etc.). If the minister senses that his fingers have touched the communicant or that the communicant’s hands have touched him, he should pause, place the ciborium on the corporal, purify his fingers in the ablution cup and then use hand sanitizer. The ablution cup should be cleansed after each Mass. The minister should repeat this process as often as he judges necessary during the distribution of Communion. It is not necessary, however, for the minister to use the ablution cup and hand sanitizer between each communicant, unless he makes actual physical contact.

I will admit that that there have been priests in our archdiocese who have refused the faithful communion on the tongue because of the virus. To this I have pointed out the new guidelines for the archdiocese and that he does not have the ecclesiastical authority to alter the norms that the archbishop has put forth.
This would be fine to leave the issue here and move on, but the whole story does not end here.
I am not going to get involved with the whole situation of the church-state, but a few lines need to be addressed here.
In some countries communion on the hand has been imposed by various governments due to concerns about the present pandemic, such as Germany. In this case the bishop might not explicitly tell the priest that state laws must be kept. Many are in favour of this, but not all.

In a letter to The Tablet this week the chairman of the Latin Mass Society, Joseph Shaw, observed that it was not permitted to distribute the host on the hand at the Extraordinary Form, and that in parishes where this was made mandatory, only the priest would consume. He also said that there was no objective medical foundation for suspending reception on the tongue.
Professor Jim McManus, Director of Public Health, who has advised the Bishops’ Conference on their response, told The Tablet: “The guidance is consistent with the fact that coronavirus is spread through saliva. That is backed up by studies which show that the virus has been consistently detected in the saliva of 91.7 per cent of patients.”
Mgr Basil Loftus, in another letter for The Tablet, said that it was urgent that the bishops forbid the giving of Communion on the tongue. - Coronavirus dispute over communion on the tongue

Matters of this nature are always reserve to the Holy See. Bishops must defer any questions to Rome on these matters. However, our present Holy Father seems to simply state indirectly that in countries which are ordered to give communion on the hand by government health rules pertaining to the present health situation are to obey those same governmental requirements.

Pope Francis waded into the church-state debate about virus-imposed lockdowns of religious services, calling Tuesday for “prudence and obedience” to government protocols to prevent infections from surging again.
Francis’ appeal came just two days after Italian bishops bitterly complained that the Italian government offered no provisions for Masses to resume in its plan to reopen Italian business, social and sporting life starting May 4.
While it wasn’t clear if Francis intended to send a different message than the bishops, his appeal for obedience and prudence was in line with his previous calls to protect the most vulnerable, and for economic interests to take a back seat to shows of solidarity.
At the same time, Francis has certainly chafed at the lockdown, saying early on that he felt like he was in a “cage” and lamenting more recently that the church isn’t really “Church” without a community of faithful present and the administration of sacraments.
“As we are beginning to have protocols to get out of quarantine, let us pray that the Lord gives his people, all of us, the grace of prudence and obedience to the protocols so that the pandemic doesn’t return,” Francis said Tuesday.
Francis' weekly Sunday blessings from his window overlooking an empty St. Peter’s Square, not to mention his solo Holy Week and Easter services, have served as a stark visual reminder of how the pandemic has radically altered the practice of communal religious observance around the world.
Some Catholic conservatives and traditionalists have bristled at the closures and framed them as a violation of their right to religious liberty. Some evangelical pastors in the U.S., Brazil and elsewhere have resisted lockdowns and held services, and big religious observances in South Korea, France and Iran have been been blamed for helping to spread the infection early on. - Pope urges virus lockdown obedience amid church-state debate

The pope in simpling asking the faithful to obey. He has not stated that they must obey quarantine requirements. But logic dictates that that the majority of the faithful will heed the words of Pope Francis.
To obey the government rules of lockdown, does not mean that we can not challenge these same rules through dialogue with various levels of government. Legal steps within the courts have already been done by some Catholic Bishops already in various countries.
The following articles may be of interest:

Can We Be Required to Receive Holy Communion in the Hand, Because of the Virus?
US Bishops Approve Communion on the Tongue


What is the opposite of Total Depravity? One of the core beliefs of all Calvinists (and many Christians in general) is that of Total Depravity.  Fundamentally, it suggests that mankind is inherently fallen, corrupt, and incapable of doing good of his own accord. There is a good question on the site here, and I will admit, I find it to be a very compelling biblical case.

The question is - what do you call the opposite of total depravity? In other words, if man is capable of being sufficiently good to save himself, (at least in theory if not practice) but just regularly chooses not to, what do you call that doctrine?  And, what, if any biblical support would there be for it?

D'Oh!
@SanJacinto answered the question perfectly by reminding me of Pelagianism.  Pelagiansim is the heresy that posits:

There is no original sin
ergo

Man is, in theory, if not in practice, capable of perfection, if he were to so choose.
but

In practice never does.


What is the basis from the Church's Sacred Deposit of the Faith for the concept of "gradualism"? During the 2014 Extraordinary Synod on the Family, there has been a reference to the [theological] concept [/law/principle] of "gradualism", mention here and here in the media.

It is also mentioned in the Synod's "Relatio post disceptationem".

What is this "law of gradualness"?

What is its basis in the Catholic Church's Sacred Scripture and Holy Tradition, with reference to the Church Fathers?

cf. This Article What Should Evangelicals Make of the Rome Synod on the Family? by Russell D Moore, on his take on the concept.
Please see also this report in which Card. Burke is quoted as saying

  The document lacks a solid foundation in the Sacred Scriptures and the
  Magisterium. In a matter on which the Church has a very rich and clear
  teaching, it gives the impression of inventing a totally new, what one
  Synod Father called “revolutionary,”teaching on marriage and the
  family. It invokes repeatedly and in a confused manner principles
  which are not defined, for example, the law of graduality.

In Familiaris Consortio, (Latin roughly translated as "of family partnership"1, but titled in English On the role of the Christian Family in the Modern World), a postsynodal Apostolic Exhortation written by Pope St. John Paul II [the Great] and given on November 22, 1981, it appears that the saintly Pope set out clarify what is 'the law of gradualness' and contrast it with 'gradualness of the law,'

  "And so what is known as 'the law of gradualness' or step-by-step
  advance cannot be identified with 'gradualness of the law,' as if
  there were different degrees or forms of precept in God's law for
  different individuals and situations [...]".2

1. cf. Familiaris Consortio | Wikipedia. Online Latin to English has "family-company".

2. John Paul II, Homily at the Close of the Sixth Synod of Bishops (Oct. 25, 1980), 8: AAS 72 (1980), 1083.

This article - St. John Paul II and "the law of gradualness" by Province of St. Joseph | Dominican Friars - using an excerpt from a Zenit article by Fr. Dominic Legge, O.P., explains “the law of gradualness”

  What John Paul called “the law of gradualness” does not refer to a
  “gradual” turning away from sin, but to the perennial Christian
  doctrine that we are not yet perfect in the first moment of our
  conversion.  When we receive a grace of conversion, we break
  definitively from evil and then gradually advance in holiness.  We may
  even fall back into grave sin, but, helped by grace, we repent and
  start anew.  Here, the sacrament of Penance has an important role to
  play: it calls us to renounce our sins definitively with a firm
  purpose of amendment.  In effect, he who will not yet repent, will not
  yet accept God’s mercy, and so is not forgiven.  (CCC no. 1451;
  DH 16763.)

The Zenit article continues

  As St. John Paul says, the “law of gradualness” presupposes this
  turning-away from evil, so that one can begin to walk “step-by-step”
  on the upward – that is, gradually ascending – path of good.  “What is
  needed is a continuous, permanent conversion which, while requiring an
  interior detachment from every evil and an adherence to good in its
  fullness, is brought about concretely in steps which lead us ever
  forward.”  (Familiaris Consortio no. 9.)  The ascent is gradual,
  but the renunciation of sin cannot be.

The law understood this way, is in harmony with Scripture

  Mark 1:14-15 (RSVCE) 14 [...] Jesus came into Galilee,
  preaching the gospel of God, 15 and saying, “The time is fulfilled,
  and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent, and believe in the
  gospel.”

  Acts 2:38 (RSVCE) 38 And Peter said to them, “Repent, and
  be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the
  forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy
  Spirit.

First step is always, "break with sin", and then step-by-step advancement to the perfection that all have been called to.

3. cf. Sources of Catholic Dogma by Denzinger, Chap. 4. Contrition | Council of Trent, Session 14, the Decree regarding the Sacraments of Penance and Extreme Unction [Anointing of the Sick].
897 Contrition, which has the first place among the aforementioned acts of the penitent, is a sorrow of the soul and a detestation of sin committed, with a determination of not sinning in the future. This feeling of contrition is, moreover, necessary at all times to obtain the forgiveness of sins, and thus for a person who has fallen after baptism it especially prepares for the remission of sins, if it is united with trust in divine mercy and with the desire of performing the other things required to receive this sacrament correctly. The holy Synod, therefore, declares that this contrition includes not only cessation from sin and a resolution and a beginning of a new life, but also hatred of the old, according to this statement: "Cast away from you all your transgressions, by which you have transgressed, and make to yourselves a new heart and a new spirit" [Ezech. 18:31 ]. And certainly, he who has considered those lamentations of the saints: "To Thee only have I sinned, and have done evil before Thee" Ps. 50:6]; "I have labored in my groanings; I shall wash my bed every night" Ps. 6:7]; "I will recount to Thee all my years in the bitterness of my soul" [Isa. 38:15], and others of this kind, will readily understand that they emanate from a certain vehement hatred of past life and from a profound detestation of sins.

Looking at the point below from the 2014 Synod's "Relatio post disceptationem", one can see why His Eminence Cardinal Raymond Leo Burke says,  '[it] invokes repeatedly and in a confused manner principles which are not defined, for example, the law of graduality.'

  13 From the moment that the order of creation is determined by
  orientation towards Christ, it becomes necessary to distinguish
  without separating the various levels through which God communicates
  the grace of the covenant to humanity. Through the law of gradualness
  (cf. Familiaris Consortio, 34), typical of divine pedagogy, this
  means interpreting the nuptial covenant in terms of continuity and
  novelty, in the order of creation and in that of redemption.

From the Reports of Circuli Minores, Circulus Anglicus "A" responded

  We had serious questions about the presentation of the principle of
  GRADUALITY. We wished to show in our amendments that we are not
  speaking of the GRADUALITY of DOCTRINE of faith and morals, but rather
  the gradual moral growth of the individual in his or her actions. -
  Relatio (Synod 2014) - Circulus Anglicus "A" | Moderator:
  Em.mo Card. Raymond Leo BURKE | Relator: S.E. Mons. John Atcherley DEW

Please see also:

Rock of Ages    By David Warren, Friday, 17 October 2014 | The Catholic Thing.


Which of these interpretations of Malachi 3:1 can be eliminated? The authorised KJV translates Malachi 3:1 as follows:
"Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the LORD of hosts."
Does the Hebrew grammar of the verse eliminate any of the following interpretations?

The verse is in response to the last part of Malachi 2:17 "Where is the God of judgement?". There will be a messenger who will prepare the way and then God (who the people are wondering where he is in Malachi 2:17, and who the people delight in) who is also the messenger of the covenant (the covenant given to Moses), will suddenly come to his temple. "Behold he shall come" refers to the messenger who will prepare the way, otherwise it would be behold I shall come.

The verse is in response to the last part of Malachi 2:17 "Where is the God of judgement?". There will be a messenger who will prepare the way and then God (who the people are wondering where he is in Malachi 2:17, and who the people delight in) who will also be the messenger of a new covenant, will suddenly come to his temple. "Behold he shall come" refers to the messenger who will prepare the way, otherwise it would be behold I shall come.

The verse is in response to the last part of Malachi 2:17 "Where is the God of judgement?". There will be a messenger who will prepare the way, and then God (who the people are wondering where he is in Malachi 2:17) will suddenly come to his temple, as will the messenger who will prepare the way who is also the messenger of a new covenant, and is a messenger the people delight in (presumably the Messiah). Behold he shall come refers to the Messiah messenger, otherwise it would be behold I shall come.

The verse relates to the last part of Malachi 2:17 "Where is the God of judgement?" but is not a response to it. There will be a messenger who will prepare the way, and then another messenger will come to the God of judgement's temple and this other person will be the messenger of a new covenant, and will be a Lord that the people seek and delight in (presumably the Messiah). "Behold he shall come" refers to the Messiah messenger.

The verse relates to the last part of Malachi 2:17 "Where is the God of judgement?" but is not a response to it. There will be a messenger who will prepare the way, and will also be a messenger of a new covenant, and who will also be a Lord that the people seek and delight in (presumably the Messiah), and that this messenger will come to the God of judgement's temple.

Actually I don't see the need to try and eliminate various interpretations. How about using some "reasoning" skills/logic to figure out what the Bible says are the messengers.
Isaiah 40:3, "A voice is calling , Clear the way for the Lord in the wilderness; Make smooth in the desert a highway for our God." Mark 1:1-4, "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. vs2, As it is written in Isaiah the prophet, Behold I send My messenger before your face, Who will prepare Your way;
Verse 3, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make ready the way of the Lord, Make His paths straight." Vs 4, "John the Baptist appeared in the wilderness preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins." So we know for a fact the first messenger is John the Baptist. You can also read Luke 3:1-6.
Notice from Isaiah 40:3, "Make smooth a highway for our God." The messenger of the covenant is the preincarnate Jesus Christ known in the Old Testament as "the angel of the Lord." He appears "physically" to the OT saints.
He is also identified as God at various places, "Genesis 16:13, Genesis 22, where He swears to Abraham that He will bless his descendants. And most notably is at Exodus 3 when he appears in the burning bush.
So to sum up the first messenger is John the Baptist. The second messenger is the Lord Jesus Christ who is equated with God and the one who came to "HIS" temple and fulfilled this prophecy.


Why isn't the virgin birth of Jesus mentioned in all of the gospels? Does it matter? I recently saw Bill Maher's documentary and he mentions that the virgin birth is only mentioned in two of the gospels. He goes on to bug Christian people several times by asking questions such as "How can you believe in the virgin birth if it's only mentioned in two of the gospels?". I know for a fact that the virgin birth is mentioned in the gospels of Matthew (1:18) and Luke (1:26-35), however, it is mentioned in neither Mark nor John. In spite of that, millions of Christians world-wide take the virgin birth for granted. My question is, as stated above, why isn't the virgin birth of Jesus mentioned in all four gospels?

The birth of Jesus is also only mentioned at all in Matthew and Luke.  Following the logic, since only half of the Gospels mention that means we should discard the theory that he was ever born at all.

In 100% of the cases where a birth narrative is present, the miracle of God becoming man is mentioned. Indeed, in John, even where the birth narrative isn't present, the incarnation - that God became man - is explicit.

Neither John nor Mark say anything about the birth of Jesus at all, so it is not surprising at all that there is nothing about the virgin birth.


What is the meaning of the word "ONE" in the Bible? In the Bible it talks of Jesus being one with the Father John 10:30 but also says that we should be one with them John 17:11. In the Bible's original Greek text, is the same word used for both, or is the word that describes our oneness with them different? The scriptures that speak of our heavenly Father and Jesus as being one are often used to prove the doctrine of the Trinity. (The Trinity being of one nature and one substance.) Does the original Greek word denote a physical oneness in substance, or a oneness in unity, purpose, action, and nature?

Working in unison, living in unity.

Mark 10:8 8

  and the two will become ·one body [as though they were one
  person; T one flesh; Gen. 2:24]’. So they are no longer two, but one.

John 10:16

  16 I have other sheep that are not in this ·flock [fold; pen; C a
  reference to future Gentile followers of Christ], and I must bring
  them also. They will listen to my voice, and there will be one flock
  and one shepherd.

John 10:30

  30 The Father and I are one.”

Judges 20:11 (ASV)

  11 So all the men of Israel were gathered against the city, knit
  together as one man.

Oneness usually implies oneness of mind, actions, and so forth.

1 Corinthians 1:10 (In contrast to modern setting.)

  10 But I urge and entreat you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus
  Christ, that all of you be in perfect harmony and full agreement in
  what you say, and that there be no dissensions or factions or
  divisions among you, but that you be perfectly united in your common
  understanding and in your opinions and judgments.

Colossians 3:13-14 (Note relationship between love and unity (oneness))

  14 And above all these [put on] love and enfold yourselves with the
  bond of perfectness [which binds everything together completely in
  ideal harmony].

In a deeper sense, just as a Husband and Wife are ONE through a God-ordained arrangement, the Christ is ONE with the congregation. This principle is especially important, because its necessary in saving through unity:

1st Corinthians 7:14 (Note the saving aspect of oneness)

  14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified in the wife, and the
  unbelieving wife is sanctified in the brother: else were your children
  unclean; but now are they holy.

In this way the congregation (Christ's bride, loved as his own body) is also cleansed by the Christ due to marital contract and attains everlasting life.

Conversely, the "Harlot" separating, disuniting from the Christ, unifying with Satan's world, becomes one with the world, and they share sins all the way back to Abel's murder.  Luke 11:51, Revelation 17:2 COMPARE TO: 1 Corinthians 6:16


What are the names of two thieves who were crucified along with Jesus? What are the names of two thieves who were crucified along with Jesus?

I was informed that their names were Dismas and Gestas. When I searched on the Internet, I got similar info.

Is it true that Dismas and Gestas were the name of the two thieves? How were the names  identified?

If those are the names, then which one is with Jesus now?

Gospel of Nicodemus
The earliest known record of the thieves' names occurs in the anonymous work which eventually (several centuries later) became known as the Gospel of Nicodemus.  The work is basically orthodox in nature and was likely composed in the early-mid fourth century.  The first part of the work purports to be a translation of the official trial record of Jesus' crucifixion, written by Pilate.  Although few, if any, scholars consider it possible that the so-called Acts of Pilate reflects an actual letter of Pilate, most do believe it was a significantly earlier work incorporated into the Gospel of Nicodemus.
The Acts of Pilate was likely written in the late second century.  Earlier, around 155, Justin Martyr wrote:

And that these things did happen, you can ascertain from the Acts of Pontius Pilate. (The First Apology, Ch. 35)

thus suggesting his reader consult the official trial log of Pilate.  Whether such a log actually existed or Justin Martyr just assumed it did cannot be known.  Either way, scholars generally think the Acts of Pilate was written to answer critics who were calling for the document to be produced.
There are two thief passages of Gospel of Nicodemus, both found in the Acts section.  The textual tradition of Gospel of Nicodemus is fairly corrupt, resulting in two fairly different readings.
The first passage reads, in the better attested (Greek) version of Nicodemus:

Then Pilate ordered the curtain of the tribunal where he was sitting to be drawn, and says to Jesus: Your nation has charged you with being a king. On this account I sentence you, first to be scourged, according to the enactment of venerable kings, and then to be fastened on the cross in the garden where you were seized. And let Dysmas and Gestas, the two malefactors, be crucified with you. (Ch. 9)

The other version is not significantly different.  The second passage reads:

And one of the malefactors hanging up spoke to Him, saying: If you are the Christ, save yourself and us. And Dysmas answering, reproved him, saying: Do you not fear God, because you are in the same condemnation? And we indeed justly, for we receive the fit punishment of our deeds; but this man has done no evil. (Ch. 10)

the other (Latin) version reads more straight-forward, not incorporating the Gospel-like language:

And in like manner did they to the two thieves who were crucified with him, Dimas on his right hand and Gestas on his left.

Later accounts
The Arabic Infancy Gospel, written around the sixth century, and The Narrative of Joseph of Arimathea, date unknown but probably later than that, greatly expand the story.
In the Infancy Gospel, "Titus and Dumachus" meet the Holy Family on their way to Egypt and Titus, the good thief, convinces Dumachus not to physically harm the family.  The young Jesus then prophesizes:

Thirty years hence, O my mother, the Jews will crucify me at Jerusalem, and these two robbers will be raised upon the cross along with me, Titus on my right hand and Dumachus on my left; and after that day Titus shall go before me into Paradise.

The The Narrative of Joseph of Arimathea is probably dependent on Gospel of Nicodemus.  It contains some details about Demas' (so spelled in this account) life:

He was called Demas, and was by birth a Galilæan, and kept an inn. He made attacks upon the rich, but was good to the poor— a thief like Tobit, for he buried the bodies of the poor. And he set his hand to robbing the multitude of the Jews, and stole the law itself in Jerusalem, and stripped naked the daughter of Caiaphas, who was priestess of the sanctuary, and took away from its place the mysterious deposit itself placed there by Solomon.

and has a very long, detailed of Demas' confession of faith.
In Codex Rehdigeranus (8th century), the names Joathas and Maggatras are inserted into the  Gospel account.  In Codex Colbertinus (12 century), the names Zoatham and Camma are inserted into Mark and the names Zoatham and Chammatha are inserted into Matthew.  The 17th century Codez Bezae has Gemas and Demas.1
Analysis
It seems nearly every account gives different names to the thieves.  This highly suggests that the names were made up.  They probably were not known even in the very early church, as there really would have been little reason for anyone associated with Jesus to have known the other criminal's.  They were just random criminals - not associated with Jesus' trial or anything like that.
Additionally, there is a strong tendency in apocryphal texts to give names to nameless figures and otherwise fill in "missing" details of the canonical Gospels.  The same thing almost certainly happened here.  The Greek name Dysmas, perhaps derives from the word dysme which means "sinking" or "setting", thus suggesting "dying".2  This suggests that the name may have been invented to fit the context.
So the real answer is, "we don't know."  If we insist on names then Dismas (or Dysmas) for the repentant thief and Gestas for the unrepentant one is the best we can do.  It is the earliest account and there is small chance the Acts of Pilate has a historical core.

References
1 The Gospel according to Luke by James R. Edwards
2 EWTN Catholic Q & A by William Carroll


How old is the idea of premillenial rapture? Wikipedia claims that the doctrine of rapture was first formed in the 17th century:

  The concept of the Rapture, in connection with premillennialism, was expressed by the 17th-century American Puritan father and son Increase and Cotton Mather. They held to the idea that believers would be caught up in the air, followed by judgments on the Earth, and then the millennium.

Is this the earliest mention of the doctrine?

I don't know how much weight should be put on this reference, but it does give different information:

  It may come as a surprise but the doctrine of the Rapture is not mentioned in any Christian writings, of which we have knowledge, until after the year 1830 C.E. Whether the early writers were Greek or Latin, Armenian or Coptic, Syrian or Ethiopian, English or German, orthodox or heretic, no one mentioned it before 1830 (though a sentence in Pseudo-Dionysius in about 500 C.E. could be so interpreted). Of course, those who feel the origin of the teaching is in the Bible would say that it ceased being taught for some unknown reason at the close of the apostolic age only to reappear in 1830. But if the doctrine were so clearly stated in Scripture, it seems incredible that no one should have referred to it before the 19th century.


How do Christians reconcile God's omnipotence with his omniscience? If God is truly omniscient as in "all knowing", then God knows everything including the future.  But doesn't this then remove his choice to do something other than the choices he takes in the future he knows of?  In which case he is not omnipotent?  Or conversely, if he can truly do anything because he is "all powerful", this has to make the future uncertain even to himself.

How can these two common claims about God be reconciled?

(There are definitely different ways to interpret "omniscience" and "omnipotence", and not all of them are going to be biblically relevant or logically reasonable.  I imagine that these claims represent formalized, philosophical representations of God which might not have an exact biblical basis (like I suspect the Trinity does) -- not meaning they are biblically incorrect but just not necessarily exactly correct in the way a human might understand them.  Still, I think this is a relevant question.)

In historic theology, there are three primary attributes of God, omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence. (I have never heard of omnibenevolence until today, and while we surely could postulate many novel omni-x combinations, they would be just that novel).
Omnipotence is the lack of limitation to cause a desired effect. Omniscience is the lack of limitation on knowledge. Omnipresence is the lack of dimensional limitations.
Bear in mind that we are now dealing with infinite qualities, things which finite men cannot fully grasp - we can only meditate on them, ponder them and "see things dimly":

1 Cor 13:12
12 For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

A common thought-puzzle raised in objection to the omnipotence of God is the question, can God create a weight he cannot lift? However, this question actually postulates a logical contradiction. There are some things God cannot do because they are, to put it plainly, nonsense. For example: God cannot act contrary to his nature; this is not a limitation of his power but a simple fact of his being. It is simply a contradiction to postulate an infinite being acting contrary to his nature; he has no such limitation that would make it possible to do so.
On to the specific difficulty posed in the question. The question fails to recognize the third of God's primary attributes, omnipresence and also misrepresents the attribute of omniscience.
God's omnipresence applies not only to space but also to time. God created time at the same point that he created space (and science also concludes that time began with the material universe, FWIW). God is outside of time; he is not temporally limited in any way. For God, all time is present - he is the great I AM.
Furthermore God's omniscience is therefore not constrained to temporal thinking; he knows everything in the present. He has no conflict with what will happen in the future, and the future does not limit him, because for him there is no future - all of existence is now.
God's choices happen in the eternal-present and in no way limit him because they are made according to his perfect and infinite nature. Whatever God does he does in this capacity and doing something other than what he has done is not within his nature because what God wills simply is. "And God said, let their be light, and there was".
In essence, God quite literally defines all of reality.
Edit 2012-01-04: In response to Indigo's comment, which is a common misconception:

Obviously, if GOD is bound by the laws of logic, then one would have to explain how HE can be bound by something he HIMSELF created (or, if HE didn't, who did it then).

The mistake here is in assuming God created the "laws" of logic, instead of recognizing that logical coherence derives from God's nature as an inherent characteristic. In fact, our capacity for coherent logical reasoning reflects the image of God.
(Interestingly, but as something of an aside, the Bible calls the second person of the Trinity (Jesus) the "Word" of God, from the Greek logos, the same root as our word logic. The Word was not created, but rather "proceeds" from the essence of God by his nature. In other words (pun not intended) the person of Jesus is a natural consequence of the being of God, as are the persons of the Father and the Holy Spirit.)
Edit 2012-01-06: In response to Indigo's subsequent comment:

Ahh, now you make a differnece between "created by God" and "derived from God". Yet this doesn't help with the dilemma, unless you define "almighty" by "bound by its natures inherent characteristics" or something like that. As soon as you do that, I am with you. [sic]

Any being is bound by their nature; God is by nature infinite, which is to say, unlimited. That does not mean he can act contrary to his nature; no being can - it means that anything contrary to his nature is by definition nonsensical, or as I put it in my answer, a logical contradiction. Not even God can make something be black and white at once, not because his power is "limited", but because that's a contradiction in the definitions of the terms. In other words the only way that something can be black and white simultaneously is to alter the definitions of the terms or use abstractions.


How do non-Sabbatarians interpret passages in Acts that show that the Gentiles attended synagogues on Sabbath? Acts 13:42-48 (ESV)

42 As they went out, the people begged that these things might be told them the next Sabbath. 43 And after the meeting of the synagogue broke up, many Jews and devout converts to Judaism followed Paul and Barnabas, who, as they spoke with them, urged them to continue in the grace of God.
44 The next Sabbath almost the whole city gathered to hear the word of the Lord. 45 But when the Jews saw the crowds, they were filled with jealousy and began to contradict what was spoken by Paul, reviling him. 46 And Paul and Barnabas spoke out boldly, saying, “It was necessary that the word of God be spoken first to you. Since you thrust it aside and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold, we are turning to the Gentiles. 47 For so the Lord has commanded us, saying,
“‘I have made you a light for the Gentiles, that you may bring salvation to the ends of the earth.’”
48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.

Acts 15:19-21 (ESV)

19 Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, 20 but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood. 21 For from ancient generations Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues.”

Acts 16:11-14 (ESV)

11 So, setting sail from Troas, we made a direct voyage to Samothrace, and the following day to Neapolis, 12 and from there to Philippi, which is a leading city of the district of Macedonia and a Roman colony. We remained in this city some days. 13 And on the Sabbath day we went outside the gate to the riverside, where we supposed there was a place of prayer, and we sat down and spoke to the women who had come together. 14 One who heard us was a woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple goods, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what was said by Paul.

Acts 17:1-4 (ESV)

Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews. 2 And Paul went in, as was his custom, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, 3 explaining and proving that it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead, and saying, “This Jesus, whom I proclaim to you, is the Christ.” 4 And some of them were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, as did a great many of the devout Greeks and not a few of the leading women.

Acts 18:4 (ESV)

4 And he reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath, and tried to persuade Jews and Greeks.

I've seen these passages cited many times by Sabbatarians to argue that the Gentiles kept the Sabbath at the time of the apostles and, by induction, that Christian Gentiles in general are to keep the Sabbath. Of course, non-Sabbatarians do not arrive at the same conclusion, so they must interpret these passages differently. How do they interpret them?

It's simple,
Paul was going to established synagogues to meet with Jews to convert them to Christianity as is essentially stated in Acts 18:4. Those attending the synagogues were Jews or Jewish proselytes (The Greeks). None of these scriptural examples are of Christian Churches regularly meeting on the Sabbath. It just turns out that synagogues are a great place to meet people familiar with the scriptures, but are not yet Christians.