Marriages that are blessed (convalidated) and Holy Communion I married a confirmed Church of England man in a UK registry office.  I am a baptised and confirmed Roman Catholic.

We had our marriage blessed (convalidated) one year later by a Roman Catholic priest  in a Roman Catholic Church; during the private ceremony we both were allowed to take holy communion.  Am I permitted to continue to take holy communion in the Catholic Church?

The short answer is “yes”: as far as the marriage is concerned, there no problem whatsoever. The Catholic party may freely receive Communion. (The non-Catholic party may not; see Code of Canon Law, Can. 884.)

The Church makes no distinction whatsoever between marriages contracted in the “ordinary” way and those contracted by convalidation.

Hence, with the usual conditions (the person who wishes to receive Communion should not be conscious of having committed a mortal sin since his last confession), there is no restriction of any kind on receiving Communion.

As the Code of Canon Law puts it,

  Any baptized person not prohibited by law [which includes practically any Catholic in good standing] can and must be admitted to holy communion (Can.  912).

(For an overview of what convalidation is, see the Code of Canon Law 1156-1160.)


What is the basis for not believing sola scriptura? Sola scriptura is Latin for "by scripture alone". It is the slogan used by early Protestants to indicate their belief, against Catholicism, that the Bible contains all knowledge necessary for salvation.

What is the basis of not believing sola scriptura? Answers from all perspectives which oppose sola scriptura are appreciated.

Sola Scriptura isn't taught in the Bible

Sola scriptura is a self-refuting doctrine because it is extra-Biblical and therefore not consistent with its own principle of "Scripture alone." Rather, we find the following biblical instructions to maintain traditions that were not passed down in biblical writings:

  "I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions just as I handed them on to you" (1 Corinthians 11:2, NRSV).

  "So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by our letter" (2 Thessalonians 2:15, NRSV).

In other words, the Bible itself teaches Scripture plus tradition(s).

Some might argue that verses such as 2 Timothy 3:16-17 or Revelation 22:18-19 provide support for sola scriptura, but it should be kept in mind that γραφή (graphē | "writings"/"Scripture") almost always refers to the Hebrew Bible ("Old Testament").1

Sola scriptura did not originate until the 14th century and did not become widespread until the 16th century. It's already been established that the Bible does not teach sola scriptura, so where did it come from? It was clearly invented by men (Wycliffe, Luther, et. al.).

Most Christians didn't have Bibles

The books of the New Testament were likely not completed until the end of the first century.2 This means there were approximately 60 years between Christ's ascension and the completion of all of the works of the New Testament.

But even then, those works weren't compiled into any official canon until hundreds of years later in history, and many Christians only had some of the works and often several that are not part of the modern Christian canon. Also, the concept of 'canon' at that time had little to do with determining what books had 'authority' or were 'Scriptural' (that word simply means 'writings'), but rather which books would be read during public worship (in fact, Revelation was always excluded from this list until much later in history). It should also be noted that the 'Hebrew Bible' read by most Christians for hundreds of years was the Greek Septuagint which contained numerous books that are not in the modern Protestant biblical canon, and the text conflicts with the Hebrew/Masoretic in numerous places (and this is also the version of the Bible most frequently cited in the New Testament—not the Hebrew version used by Protestants today). In fact, Jesus himself quoted books that have been excluded from Protestant Bibles.3

To complicate things even further, literacy rates were generally low until the medieval period in the West (and history shows that heresy and higher literacy rates are strongly correlated4). Add to this the fact that books were generally too expensive for the common person until after the invention of the printing press in the 15th century, so for most of Church history, the majority of Christians have not had access to a Bible (including many clergy). This means that Christianity was largely passed on through tradition and word-of-mouth instruction for most of its history.

The Church produced the Bible—not vice versa

As evidenced above, the Church predates the formation of the Bible. Not only were there numerous books that were disputed and read in many Christian communities (even to this day), but there were also notable manuscript differences between existing copies of texts and vast differences between various translations of those texts and their supposed originals. In addition, the formation of the biblical canon was a long and complicated process with underlying pragmatic, theological, and even political concerns. Ultimately, various factions of the Christian church decided which books were 'canonical'—and there is still disagreement among Christians on which texts these are to this day.5 The basis for these decisions was usually whether or not these texts were faithful to the apostolic tradition(s) that has been passed down in the Church (keep in mind that no one agreed on which texts were 'authoritative' yet).

Proponents of sola scriptura must trust that the Church got the biblical canon right. If the books were 'self-authenticating' (as many Protestants like to claim), then why would so many Christians have disputed their status, to include folks like Athanasius, Jerome, and Augustine? Why would 'self-authenticating' works take hundreds of years to be accepted? The 'self-authentication' idea simply does not hold up under historical scrutiny. The Bible itself contains no authoritative list of what books are 'Scriptural' / 'canonical' or not (and even if it did, claims of authenticity are not guarantees of it, or else numerous Gnostic texts that the Church unanimously excluded would not have been).

None of the original biblical manuscripts are extant

All that we have are copies of copies of.... We have to rely on the copyists. The field of textual criticism has shown that copyists were far from being inerrant and infallible. The manuscript evidence shows that scribes sometimes modified the biblical texts to harmonize passages, to correct historical errors, and to establish later theological doctrines. The Bible itself makes no claims about God divinely protecting the transmission of manuscripts, and even if it did, it is clear that there are numerous transmission errors. Granted, many of these differences do not affect major teachings or sections of text, but some do. Even if one insists on God's preservation of the biblical texts, then would he not also perfectly preserve Jesus and the apostles' oral teachings as well?

The reality is that many proponents of sola scriptura also believe in an inerrant and infallible Bible that doesn't exist. It's just as much a leap of faith as belief in the preservation of apostolic tradition(s).

The 'fruit' of Sola Scriptura is division and disunity

Jesus taught that one of the criteria for identifying false prophets is to watch for 'bad fruit' (Matthew 7:15-20), and he prayed to his Father for his disciples "that they may all be one... so that the world may believe that you have sent me" (John 17:21, NRSV). The apostle Paul also often exhorted Christians to remain in peace and unity (1 Corinthians 1:10-17, Ephesians 4:1-16), pointing out that

  "There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all and through all and in all" (Ephesians 4:4-6, NRSV).

Given that there were at least 33,000 Protestant denominations in the US alone in 2005, it's safe to say that Protestantism is extremely divided. Granted, Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy are not without their own controversies and divisions, but they handle them quite differently—generally remaining Catholic/Orthodox despite disagreement on some issues (and there is rarely disagreement on the big issues such as salvation, Eucharist, justification, etc. as in Protestantism, where most groups have distinctive teachings about such issues). This shows that Protestant teaching on many issues continuously changes over time, showing that biblical interpretation within a sola scriptura framework is often subjective and mutable. Indeed there are few Protestants who even maintain the teachings of their Reformation forebears (e.g. Luther believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary).

Sola scriptura is a logical fallacy

In addition to the self-refuting axiom that the Bible itself doesn't teach sola scriptura (and thus it is a man-made doctrine), the argument can be shown to rely on faulty assumptions as well. A fundamental assumption of proponents is that the meaning of Scripture is clear enough that anyone could understand it by simply reading it, and thus no one needs the Church's (or any authority's) help in the process (despite the text itself saying the exact opposite about itself in Acts 8:26-40 and 2 Peter 3:161). If this were true, then why are there 33,000+ Protestant denominations all claiming to correctly interpret the Bible?

The reality is that subjective human reason is the ultimate authority for proponents of sola scriptura. One cannot read a text without having first learned the language in which it was written (this alone brings a huge subjective bias/context to the text, hence the study of hermeneutics). Since a majority of Bible-readers do not know Greek, Hebrew, nor Aramaic, most of them rely on translations. Setting aside translation bias (another significant factor), this means that most readers use a secondary source to read the text. On top of this, most folks are largely ignorant of the historical, linguistic, and literary setting(s) forming the context(s) of the biblical text(s), and scholars are continuously learning new things about these contexts that affect biblical interpretation. When variant readings are present, or a variety of possible meaning is present in a text, how is the correct interpretation decided? By subjective human reason and the choice of the individual. Thus sola scriptura elevates human reason as the final authority over the meaning of the text (regardless of how thousands of years of Christians have interpreted it in the past).

1 The notable exception is 2 Peter 3:16, which is likely pseudepigraphal and most likely written much later than a majority of other New Testament texts. Even so, scholars who accept 2 Peter as 'canonical' also recognize that γραφή refers exclusively to the Hebrew Bible for most NT authors. Even if it doesn't, much of the NT was not yet written nor compiled at the time of many such references (how could Timothy know Scriptures 'from infancy' that hadn't been written until he was a young adult?). In addition, 2 Peter 3:16 actually teaches that some texts are hard to understand, and 1:20 teaches that individuals should not derive the meaning of prophecy from private interpretation. Combined with texts such as Acts 8:26-40, a strong case could even be made that the Bible teaches that Scripture requires proper interpretation—and not privately by individuals.

2 I'm aware of the numerous disputes about the dating of various texts. For a hyper-conservative estimate, subtract 30 years from my calculations.

3 For some examples, compare the following passages: Matt. 6:14-15 with Ecclesiasticus (Sirach) 28:2; Matt. 6:7 with Ecclesiasticus (Sirach) 7:15(14); Matt. 7:12 with Tobit (Tobias) 4:16(15); Luke 12:18-20 with Sirach 11:19 (Ecclus. 11:19-20); Acts 10:34 with Ecclus. 35:15 (Sirach 35:12); Acts 10:26 with Wisdom 7:1; and Matt. 8:11 with Baruch 4:37.

4 Yes, yes, I know. Correlation does not equal causation. To evaluate this claim for yourself, cf. Peter Biller & Anne Hudson. Heresy and Literacy, 1000-1530 (Cambridge Studies in Medieval Literature) (Cambridge University Press, 1996). Cf. also Brian Stock. The Implications of Literacy: Written Language and Models of Interpretation in the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries (Princeton University Press, 1987). It is interesting that the only historical proponents of arguing solely from Scripture were heretics (and even Protestants consider most of them to be heretics).

5 Cf. Lee Martin McDonald. The Biblical Canon: Its Origin, Transmission, And Authority, 3rd ed. (Hendrickson Publishers, 2007). McDonald is an evangelical scholar. There is much more dissenting scholarship on the issue but this is a good start.


Is the Doctrine of Resurrection of the Dead expressed in Pentateuch? What passages in the Pentateuch are commonly believed by Christians to teach the resurrection of the dead?

Background for this question:

After the Jewish people returned from Babylon most of them no longer spoke Hebrew and began to speak in Aramaic. Samaritans in Palestine argue that because the Jews lost their ability to speak Hebrew they could no longer correctly interpret the Pentateuch, which at that time was written with new alphabet. During the time of Jesus Christ, the Sadducees argued that the doctrine of resurrection of the dead was foreign to the early Israelites. To answer their allegation, Jesus quoted from Exodus 3:6,

  [F]or the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was said to you by God, "I am (Gk.  ἐγώ εἰμι) the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob"? He is not God of the dead, but of the living. (Matthew 22:31-32)

But in the Samaritan Pentateuch there is no present indicative such as ἐγώ εἰμι,

  I [am] the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. (Exodus 3:6, Samaritan Pentateuch)

Samaritans to this day argue that Rabbinical Judaism inserted new doctrine into Aramaic Targum to develop man made tradition unknown to the early Israelites prior to Babylonian captivity.

  By the labour of thy hands thou shalt eat food, until thou turn again to the dust from which thou wast created: for dust thou art, and unto dust thou shalt return; for from the dust it is to be that thou art to arise, to render judgment and reckoning for all that thou hast done, in the day of the great judgment. And Adam called the name of his wife Hava, because she is the mother of all the children of men. (Genesis 3:19-20, Palestinian Targum, my emphasis)

Ressurection is mentioned many times in the Bible. Job also said "And after my skin has been destroyed, yet in my flesh I will see God" (Job 19:26).

According to this article, the Sadducees based their doctrine only from the Torah(Pentateuch), rejecting all Jewish Oral Laws and gave no importance to the writing of the Prophets.

In Matthew 22:23-33, Sadducees wanted to test Jesus on the topic of resurrection. Knowing that they accepted only the Pentateuch, Jesus replied them from the Pentateuch itself that resurrection is mentioned(perhaps indirectly). This reply from Jesus silenced the Sadducees.

  Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got
  together. One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this
  question: (Matthew 22: 34-35, NIV)

Their silence would probably mean that Jesus was quoting correctly from the same Scripture that Sadducees were reading. Otherwise they should have argued about the tense used in the Scripture like the one you mentioned from the Samaritan Pentateuch. Also there was no reason why Sadducees would read from the Samaritan Pentateuch because Jews at that time abhorred the Samaritans.

So, to answer your question, "Is the Doctrine of Resurrection of the Dead expressed in Pentateuch?", the answer is definitely YES! according to Jesus or Christian Scripture. But if you ask "Is it mentioned in the Samaritan Pentateuch?", the answer could be 'No' but I think that is irrelevant for Christians because our Scripture is different from what the Samaritans have.


Of what nature is Satan? Recently, a good friend of mine posed the question:

  What (or who) is Satan and how do we know?

I answered him, saying that Satan is an evil angel because this is what I've been taught since I was a child. However, after further investigation (meaning looking through relevant portions of the Bible) I could not justify my claim. In fact, the only form that Satan is described as having, in my investigation, is the form of a dragon. So, that's my question:

What is the form of Satan? Is he/it a dragon, human, angel, something else, or is his/its form indeterminate? Please use scripture to support your answer, and thank you.

2 Corinthians 11:14 says that Satan masquerades as "an angel of Light." From that we can deduce that Satan is, in fact, and angel, Albeit not an angel of light. Still, you are right that there is very little in the Bible about him.

We know that he is "the Accuser of the Brethern" (from Job), and in fact, "Ha-Satan" is Hebrew for "Accuser."

We also know that he is a snake (Gen 3), a lion waiting to devour (Gen 4), and that he is the Prince of the Power of the Air (Ephesian 2:2).

In Revelation 12, he often associated with "the Beast, that evil dragon," but it is wise to remember that Revelation has all sorts of wild imagery that seems intended as metaphor as much as description.

Finally, in Isaiah 14, Christian tradition has said that he is Lucifer, the Morning Star, who was brought down by pride. Ezekiel 28 is another text often applied to him.

Beyond that, most everything else we know about Satan is historical tradition.  Paradise Lost, in particular, has shaped many people's beliefs about "the Fall from Heaven."


What does Mary look like in the Fatima Apparitions? Beginning in the spring of 1917, the children reported apparitions of
  an Angel, and starting in May 1917, apparitions of the Virgin Mary,
  whom the children described as "the Lady more brilliant than the Sun".
  (quoted in Wikipedia) *.

*Was this report accurate? How did Mary really look like in the Fatima Apparitions according to trusted Catholic sources?

(We are not alone in the Universe, Konrad Kulczyk, Sixth Books 2012)

What does Mary look like in the Fatima Apparitions?

Your quotation from “We are not alone in the Universe” by Konrad Kulczyk, seems to be at odds with Catholic statements about Our Lady and her apparitions at Fátima in 1917.

Konrad Kulczyk seems to almost make the whole situation the imaginations of three little children. Nothing is further from the truth.

Yes, it may be possibly true that both Lucia and Blessed Jacinta never stated that the Lady never called herself the Mother of Jesus nor the Mother of God however she did describe herself as “the Lady of the Rosary” in her final apparition!

  It was Mary's final appearance, on Oct. 13, 1917, that became the most famous. In his book "Looking for a Miracle," Joe Nickell states that "an estimated 70,000 people were in attendance at the site, anticipating the Virgin's final visit and with many fully expecting that she would work a great miracle. As before, the figure appeared, and again only to the children. Identifying herself as 'the Lady of the Rosary,' she urged repentance and the building of a chapel at the site. After predicting an end to [World War I] and giving the children certain undisclosed visions, the lady lifted her hands to the sky. Thereupon Lucia exclaimed, 'The sun!' As everyone gazed upward, and saw that a silvery disc had emerged from behind clouds, they experienced what is known [as] a 'sun miracle'." - The Lady of Fátima & the Miracle of the Sun

Wikipedia’s quotation is very close to how Lucia described Our Lady of the Rosary, who is no other than Mary the Mother of Jesus! Nothing more is known.

  On May 13, 1917, ten-year old Lucia Santos and her cousins Jacinta and Francisco Marto were herding sheep at a location known as the Cova da Iria near their home village of Fatima, Portugal. Lucia described seeing a woman “Brighter than the sun, shedding rays of light clearer and stronger than a crystal ball willed with the most sparkling water and pierced by the burning rays of the sun”.

As for Kulczyk, never have I come across any statement comparing Our Lady to the imagery that Mary must have seemed like a 3’8” of 1.1 m tall to the imagination of some 12 or 15 year old child. What nonsense. I have read many, many books on Fátima and have never read about any such conclusions by a Catholic author on this subject. Kulczyk is definitely wet behind the ears.

Sorry Kulczyk: Mary wore a blue dress all the way down to feet and not simply a skirt just to her knees like you mention.

  The first Marian apparition occurred on 13 May 1917 as the children were tending to their sheep. They had had their lunch, and, as was their habit, had started to pray the rosary when they heard “lightning in a clear sky.” Fearing a storm was approaching, they decided to head home. As they prepared to leave, a strange light in the sky moved toward them. The children reported that, although astonished, they felt no fear. They claimed a beautiful lady appeared before them, “above the holm oak tree, wearing a pure white mantle, which was edged with gold, which went to her feet. In her hands the beads of a rosary shone like stars, with its crucifix the most radiant gem of all.” During this first visit the apparition told the children not to be afraid, that she came from Heaven. She asked them to pray the rosary and to return to the same spot on the thirteenth of every month. Then the apparition returned the same way it had come. - The Marian Apparitions in Fátima as Political Reality: Religion and Politics in Twentieth-Century Portugal


In a Venn diagram of the scriptures of Islam, Catholicism, and Judaism, what would be, roughly, the percentages of each portion? In a Venn diagram of the scriptures of Islam, Catholicism, and Judaism, what would be, roughly, the percentages of each portion? I am wondering how much they overlap.

Here's a rough Venn diagram (not to scale):

The approximate numbers of verses in each of these books is as follows:

Catholic Bible (35,500 verses)

Hebrew Tanakh / Old Testament (23,000)

Torah (6,000)
Psalms (2,500)

Deuterocanonical books (4,500)
New Testament (8,000)

Quran (6,000)

Of course, the length of verses varies by book, so it's not a great tool for comparison, but it at least provides a starting point.


Why did God only cure Naaman? Jesus said (Luke 4:27):

  "There were also many lepers in Israel in the time of the prophet Elisha, and none of them was cleansed except Naaman the Syrian."

Several possible interpretations occur to me:

Others were cured too; Jesus is simply wrong or misquoted.
Others were not cured. (Why?)
Even Naaman was not cured, because miracles are fantasy.

What does the evidence say? Is there any extra-biblical source confirming Naaman's curing? Is there any explanation why the other lepers are not cured?

I am mainly looking for extra biblical evidence that would convince the agnosis. After all, if Jesus says so and it were true is not an assumption we all share. Moreover, Jesus often says vague things, (like the time is near) and easily misinterpreted things, like mustard seed is the smallest.

There are many accounts of people being healed in the Scriptures.  It seems that God sometimes used this to authenticate His message or His messenger.  Other times, it seems to be just an act of compassion.  The resurrection of Jesus is the most significant miracle, of course, and it is certainly not fantasy.  There is ample evidence to support the occurrence of miracles.
The particular instance in Luke 4 comes as Jesus is speaking in His hometown of Nazareth.  The people there are rejecting Him because they are familiar with Him and His family.
Jesus cites two examples where non-Jewish people were healed and Jewish people were not.  The Jews were God's chosen people, to be sure, but their history is one of consistent rejection of God.
This appears to be a warning to the people of Nazareth to not reject Jesus just because of their familiarity with Him.  In times past, God had turned from the Jews and bestowed His blessings on Gentiles, so just because the people of Nazareth were Jewish did not preclude them from being rejected by God if they rejected Jesus as the Son of God.

22 And all spoke well of him and marveled at the
gracious words that were coming from his mouth. And they said, “Is not
this Joseph's son?” 23 And he said to them, “Doubtless you will quote
to me this proverb, ‘Physician, heal yourself.’ What we have heard you
did at Capernaum, do here in your hometown as well.”
24 And he said,
“Truly, I say to you, no prophet is acceptable in his hometown. 25 But
in truth, I tell you, there were many widows in Israel in the days of
Elijah, when the heavens were shut up three years and six months, and
a great famine came over all the land, 26 and Elijah was sent to none
of them but only to Zarephath, in the land of Sidon, to a woman who
was a widow. 27 And there were many lepers in Israel in the time of
the prophet Elisha, and none of them was cleansed, but only Naaman the
Syrian.” 28 When they heard these things, all in the synagogue were
filled with wrath.
29 And they rose up and drove him out of the town
and brought him to the brow of the hill on which their town was built,
so that they could throw him down the cliff. 30 But passing through
their midst, he went away.  Luke 4:22-30 ESV


Was Jesus a separate god? The New World Translation of John 1 seems to indicate that Jesus was a separate god from the Father.

1 In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.
2 This one was in [the] beginning with God.
3 All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence.

How does the concept of the trinity fit with this concept of Jesus being a separate God?

The verse in question is:

  Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ
  λόγος.

That bold part is, somewhat literally, "God the word was".

The issue here is the lack of the indefinite article in Greek. They had no word for "a, an". Depending on context, it is acceptable and even necessary to insert those words into a translation. The question is whether or not it is appropriate here.

I think not, for lots of reasons. John and all the apostles were Jews, monotheists, and if they were teaching some new polytheism, wouldn't it have shown up in more places than an ambiguous Greek sentence?

edit in response to @Sotiris' comment:

Greek usually uses the definite article in front of proper nouns, which is probably what you're getting at. But in this case the lack of the article before θεὸς is easily explainable. A word-by-word translation would be "God was the word". Word order is flexible in Greek, and since both θεὸς and λόγος are in the nominative case, it would be impossible to determine which is the subject and which is the predicate nominative except for the placement of the article. ὁ λόγος clearly identifies λόγος as the subject, but ὁ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος would be ambiguous (God was the word, or the word was God?).


Is a prenuptial agreement permitted for a Catholic marriage? A prenuptial agreement typically outlines what happens in the event a marriage ends in divorce or some other dissolution of the marriage. This at first appears to be at odds with the idea of a Catholic marriage being two people vowing to be married "till death do us part" (i.e. they are still married even if they are civilly divorced).

Is a prenuptial agreement permitted for a Catholic marriage? I'm particularly wondering if a prenuptial agreement would be used as grounds for annulment, since it might suggest that they weren't serious about their marriage vows.

No.
From the perspective of God and the Church, a validly contracted marriage is indissoluble, "till death do us part."
There can be conditions attached to the marriage contract (conditional marriages); however,

Can.  1102 §1. A marriage subject to a condition about the future cannot be contracted validly.
§2. A marriage entered into subject to a condition about the past or the present is valid or not insofar as that which is subject to the condition exists or not.
§3. The condition mentioned in §2, however, cannot be placed licitly without the written permission of the local ordinary.

§1 thus forbids contracts like: "I marry you provided we cease having children 1 decade from now." etc.
The 1917 Code can. 1092, which permitted future conditions, explicitly specified that a contract "against the substance of marriage" (such as divorce) "renders [marriage] invalid."
cf.• commentary on 1983 can. 1102 / Dom Augustine's commentary on 1917 can. 1092• Chapter 9 on pre-marital agreements of Ford, S.J.'s Validity of Virginal Marriage


Is there a commandment to love your parents? In Exodus 20:12 or Deuteronomy 5:16 (i.e. in the ten commandments), it states that you should honour your father and mother. I have often heard that we are commanded to love our parents: is this just folk-religion? Is there a Biblical commandment to love your parents? Is this just loving your parents as part of loving your neighbour (e.g. Mark 12:31)? Or is there a specific commandment?

No, there is no specific commandment to, 'love,' your parents.

Neither the Hebrew, 'ahav,' or the Greek, 'agape,' which may fairly be described as, 'love,' are commanded with regard to parents.  We are however commanded to both, 'ahav,' and, 'agape,' almost everyone else, from The Lord to our enemies.

I guess it is assumed that we will love our parents regardless, and only have to be commanded to honour / fear / obey them.

Ahav:
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H157&t=KJV

Agape:
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G25&t=KJV

As to, 'honouring,' parents in the Ten Commandments, the root word is, 'kavod,'  which implies weight, glory, or wealth.  We are commanded to obey our parents as people who deserve great respect, but not to love them in the emotional sense.

Ex 20:12 Ex 21:15 Ex 21:17 Lev 19:3 Lev 20:9 Deu 5:16 Deu 21:18-21 Mat 19:17-19 Mar 7:9-13 Eph 6:1-2 (incomplete list, various root words)

However, honouring parents is secondary to obeying the Lord.

Deu 33:8-11 Mar 10:28-31 Luk 12:51-53 (incomplete list)


Canticle of Zachariah daily? Why? I am a long distance truck driver who prays the Liturgy daily. I have always wondered why the Canticle of Zachariah is part of the daily morning prayer? As I am a bit isolated and unable to take part in an individual church community I have limited access to resources.

Why is the Canticle of Zachariah is part of the daily morning prayer?

There is no one sure answer to this question.  But it seems probably due to the first part of the canticle, as a song of thanksgiving for the coming of the Redeemer, that it finds an appropriate place in the office of the Church every morning at Lauds.

  The Benedictus, given in Luke 1:68-79, is one of the three great canticles in the opening chapters of this Gospel, the other two being the Magnificat and Nunc dimittis. The Benedictus was the song of thanksgiving uttered by Zachary on the occasion of the birth of his son, St. John the Baptist. It is Jewish in form, but Christian in sentiment. The local colouring and nationalistic character of the first half are so noticeable that Loisy has conjectured that it existed previously as a simple psalm, which Zachary adapted, his additions being, he contends, easily discernible. (Revue d'hist. et de lit. relig., May-June, 1903, p. 289). There are, however, grave objections to this view, and an opposite theory has been put forth that the Benedictus was composed with special reference to the names of Elizabeth, Zachary, and John, for Elizabeth, Jusjurandum quod juravit; Zachary, Memorari (testamenti sui sancti); and John, Ad faciendam misericordiam.

  The whole canticle naturally falls into two parts. The first (verses 68-75) is a song of thanksgiving for the realization of the Messianic hopes of the Jewish nation; but to such realization is given a characteristically Christian tone. As of old, in the family of David, there was power to defend the nation against their enemies, now again that of which they had been so long deprived, and for which they had been yearning, was to be restored to them, but in a higher and spiritual sense. The horn is a sign of power, and the "horn of salvation" signified the power of delivering or "a mighty deliverance". While the Jews had impatiently borne the yoke of the Romans, they had continually sighed for the time when the House of David was to be their deliverer. The deliverance was now at hand, and was pointed to by Zachary as the fulfilment of God's oath to Abraham; but the fulfilment is described as a deliverance not for the sake of worldly power, but that "we may serve him without fear, in holiness and justice all our days".

  The second part of the canticle is an address by Zachary to his own son, who was to take so important a part in the scheme of the Redemption; for he was to be a prophet, and to preach the remission of sins before the coming or the Orient, or Dawn, from on high. The prophecy that he was to "go before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways" (v. 76) was of course an allusion to the well-known words of Isaias (40:3) which St. John himself afterwards applied to his own mission (John 1:23); and which all the three Synoptics adopt (Matthew 3:3; Mark 1:2; Luke 3:4). It is probably due to the first part of the canticle, as a song of thanksgiving for the coming of the Redeemer, that it finds an appropriate place in the office of the Church every morning at Lauds. It is believed to have been first introduced by St. Benedict (Beaume, I, 253). According to Durandus, the allusion to Christ's coming under the figure of the rising sun had also some influence on its adoption. It is also used in various other liturgical offices, notably at a funeral, at the moment of interment, when words of thanksgiving for the Redemption are specially in place as an expression of Christian hope. - The Benedictus (Canticle of Zachary)


Is 1 Corinthians 7:26–40 not the 'Word of God'? Paul makes it clear that the following section is not a command from God but his own opinion:

  Now concerning the betrothed, I have no command from the Lord, but I give my judgment as one who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy. (1  Corinthians 7:25, ESV)

Does this mean that 1 Corinthians 7:26–40 is not the 'Word of God'? If it is, how can this be explained? If it isn't, doesn't this call some other verses, particularly from the epistles, into question, i.e., that they might be just the writer's opinion?

One of the things it is important to realize about the Bible is that the authors did not sit down to 'write the Bible'. Books of the Bible have to be taken first as what they were intended by their authors to be - a biography of Jesus, a history of the early church, or a letter to one of the churches. Yes, God did inspire those authors to write something that would be infallible and of eternal value, but he did not simply dictate a message for all people for all time which Paul or whoever then wrote down. It's highly likely that Paul did not realize that he was writing Infallible Scripture when he did it. He certainly wrote other letters that are not included in Scripture.

Because of this we find things in the Epistles which are of unclear value to those of us who read them 2000 years later. Paul asks the church to greet specific people that he knows. That isn't God instructing us to greet those people, it's Paul sending a greeting to people he knows. It's part of God's awesome power that he can use those writings to instruct us, without making everything a direct commend from him.

In other words, God inspired Paul to write those words in his letter. The fact that they are Paul's opinion (but a divinely inspired opinion) are unimportant. They are meant to be there, and they are just as inspired as every other part of the Epistle. The Bible also contains many other things that are not the direct command of God - stories of people who did less-than-righteous things; opinions offered by characters that do not necessarily reflect God's opinions

Why did God cause Paul to write his own opinion as part of Scripture? A good questions, which I don't have a definitive answer for. Maybe it was to draw attention to the fact that Christianity is not just a set of written rules, but sometimes calls for us to use the Holy Spirit that he gave us to work out what the right thing to do is. But I speculate. The answer here is that there is no conflict between Paul writing something that is his opinion, and the fact that God inspired him to write exactly that.


Do infant-baptizing Protestant denominations have any requirements on names? Catholicism views infant baptism as the norm; a child born to a Catholic parent or parents is ordinarily to be baptized soon after birth:

  Parents are obliged to take care that infants are baptized in the first few weeks [sc. after birth].

(Code of Canon Law, Canon 867, section 1)

This baptism is also colloquially and historically known as christening and had much to do with the naming of the child. Even now, the Liturgy of Baptism begins with the question, "What name do you give [or What name have you given] your child?"

The current canon law specifies that

  parents, sponsors, and the pastor are to take care that a name foreign to Christian sensibility is not given

(Canon 855)

so that, for example, a pastor will not baptize a child named "Satan", or a swear word, or something like that.

Is there a Protestant denomination which accepts infant baptism and has any such custom of requiring a "Christian" name (or at least, not a "decidedly un-Christian name") before baptizing a child? (A "No", with any sort of reasonable idea why, or a "Yes", with any single example, will suffice.)

The enquiry is about the policy of Protestant denominations on the choice of baptismal names.

I am an ordained minister (Presbyter) of the British Methodist Church with thirty years' experience.

In the Methodist Church, this matter would be up to the judgment of the officiating minister's conscience, though parents could appeal to superior authorities in the church, or just look around for another Protestant minister.

In practice, I have never had reason to forbid any name, though many times I have wondered about the parents' wisdom of choice.

Exceptions to this might be when adults brought up in another religion and being called, say, Muhammad or Krishna, would be advised to choose an additional Christian name for themselves at adult baptism.


Why was Jesus not welcomed and carefully tested by the Jews if they were (and are) actually waiting for Messiah? I have tried to understand these things all my life. A lot of the Bible stories make no sense to me, which probably means I'm missing something. One of the biggest questions I have is this:

If the Jews were (and still are) waiting for Messiah, why did they become angry instead of overwhelmingly happy/excited from Jesus' arrival?

Let's assume that there had been numerous false Messiases prior to Jesus coming along. OK. But they are still waiting for Him, right? So why did they not have some kind of well-defined test which must be passed for them to believe that whoever claims to be Messiah truly is Messiah? Why wasn't their reaction: "Oh! Yes! Welcome, potential Messiah! Please just prove it to us right here and now and we will believe you and accept you as Messiah! If you cannot, you will be asked to leave and stop wasting our time!"

And then the person claiming to be Messiah would either fail or succeed, and then they could be either happy or angry after that point.

Why instantly assume that Jesus was a fake Messiah, before allowing him (and others) to prove it (or fail to do so before their eyes, giving them proof that it's a fake Messiah)? I don't understand it. Is the real Messiah said to arrive in some specific manner, and that's the reason why they became so furious when Jesus claimed to be Messiah? What if he had actually been Messiah, and they just crucify him like that?

Maybe this is a naive question, and I'm lacking a lot of information, but I really don't like it when I feel as if crucial information is being kept from me when these stories are retold over and over.

He was tested

The Jews living in the time of Jesus did try to discern whether Jesus was the real Messiah that they had been yearning for, because they disliked living under Roman rule and wanted to go back at least to the Hasmonean period, or better yet, to the David & Solomon period (the golden age).

They were waiting for God to provide them with what God Himself promised in His covenant with David (2 Sam 7:12-17), confirmed through His prophet Isaiah hundreds of years later ("a shoot from Jesse's stump", Isa 11:1-10). But as the waiting grew to hundreds of years after Isaiah, theories of what form the Messiah would take abounded. One theory even predicted 2 messiahs, one from the line of David, another from the line of Aaron.  False pretenders came and went.  By the time of Jesus the yearning didn't go away, it only became stronger.

Many passages in the Gospel showed how they approached Jesus, observed what He said and did, saw His miracles, heard testimonies including by John the Baptist, asked for miraculous signs, etc.  They were excited for a while, but when Jesus began to claim that He was the Son of God and broke what they thought to be the right way of observing the Sabbath (and many other rules added to the Torah by the Pharisees) they began to have doubts and thought that maybe Jesus was another false pretender.

The lack of a warm welcome

It was because Jesus did not meet their expectations.

The climax was when Jesus was crucified.  It was a scandal.  A messiah shouldn't die a shameful death.  That meant God was not with him.  The problem was that they didn't read OT the way Christians do.  Many passages in the OT continue to be interpreted differently by the Jews of today (just see Judaism.SE for yourself, such as this answer, to see how different the interpretations can be).  For example, the Suffering Servant prophecy in Isa 53, so critical to Christian theology to identify Jesus as the Messiah sent by God, is interpreted to refer to the nation of Israel which had been displaced and persecuted throughout thousands of years (the 20th century Holocaust only made that interpretation stronger).  The Jews then as well as today don't believe that God resurrected Jesus from the dead.  To them then as well as today, Jesus was either a lunatic or if not a lunatic he committed the most serious blasphemy by claiming to be God.  If Jesus was the latter, by that calculation Jesus deserved to die, since God commanded them to treat false prophets that way (Deut 13:1-5).

I hope reading the Gospels against the background above helps answer all your questions.  Read especially how Jesus responded to them.
Basically, they were too close minded.  They didn't want to believe Jesus's "more than enough" signs and wonders and testimonies, and Jesus & the Gospel writers chalked it up to "hardness of heart", predicted by Isaiah as well (Matt 13:12-17 quoting Isa 6:9-10).


What is fundamentalism? John Piper provides a list of traits that he respects about fundamentalists, yet he does not consider himself one.

In the context of Christianity (of course), what is a fundamentalist?  And especially, how do they differ from mainstream evangelicals such as John Piper?

Evangelicals stem from fundamentalists, but have diverged since the 1950s. Theologically, they hold much in common, but primarily differ in their approach to dealing with society at large. It should be noted that neither is a "denomination" but rather a reforming trend that is cross-denominational, but bound by common purpose to reform the church, stripping it of historical (and liberalizing) accretions of practice, and returning it to the same position as "the first church," centering on its devotion to Jesus Christ.

Fundamentalists sprung up during the "back to the fundamentals" movement of the early 1900s. The seminal Work was a series of essays called The Fundamentals, highlighting such luminaries as R.A. Torrey, B.B. Warfield, and E.Y. Mullins. A brief look at the titles of the essays will highlight the issues important to these reformers.

This movement was deeply affected by the Scopes Monkey Trial of 1925, and largely disengaged from society shortly thereafter. While trying to reform the church, fundamentalists eventually came to the conclusion that they must be separate from the wider culture. Evangelists like Billy Sunday preached a Gospel of being removed from the society and rejecting all its ways. This included a rejection of politics as well as an eschewment of what the culture at large did.

By the 1950s, some in the fundamentalist movement like Carl Henry - the editor of Christian Century and founder of Christianity Today, came to believe that fundamentalists must engage the culture. In 1942, he founded the National Association of Evangelicals, and the point was to be "in the world, but not of it."

With Roe v. Wade, Evangelicals began to become more involved in politics, and helped bring about the rise of the "Religious Right." In the 1980s, fundamentalist Jerry Falwell introduced an innovation to fundamentalism when he sought to bring fundamentalists also back into the political arena, albeit in a more confrontational, "culture war" sort of way.

Theology Unplugged has two podcasts (7/9/06 and 7/8/06) that do a great job of tracing the history and divergence of the two - but basically boils down to approach rather than belief. John Michael Patton (Dallas Theological Seminary) says "Evangelicals are nice fundamentalists," by which he means, they engage rather than separate from the culture.


How do various traditions define the term "sufficient grace"? I have read various polemics on the topics of Augustinianism, Calvinism, Jansenism, Pelagianism, Arminianism, and Catholicism which seem to use the term "sufficient grace" in different ways. For instance, this blog post by a Catholic claims that James White misuses the term "sufficiency of grace," and that White is ignorant of the history of Jansenism's denial of the Catholic doctrine of sufficient grace. However, it seems just as likely that White is simply using the term in a different way.

What is an overview of how the term "sufficient grace" has been used by various perspectives in these debates?

If you do research on Calvinism, Jansenism, Pelagianism, etc., you might find the term "sufficient grace" bandied about. The trouble is, depending on who's using it, it's defined differently, which makes it a not terribly useful term. So I'll try here to clear up who uses the term and what they mean by it.

Catholics and Arminians use the term "sufficient grace" as a synonym for "prevenient grace" as a way of saying that prevenient grace is sufficient to save if it is cooperated with.
Some Calvinists (such as James White) use the term "sufficient grace" as a synonym for "irresistible grace" as a way of saying that God's grace is always sufficient to save if he intends it to save.
Jansenists (17th century Catholics who were condemned as Calvinists by the Catholic Church) use the term "sufficient grace" in the Catholic sense, but only to critique it. They denounce it as "merely sufficient" (as opposed to effectual), and call prevenient grace "little grace," since it is powerless to save.
Similarly, some Calvinists (such as Charles Hodge in all three volumes of his Systematic Theology) use the term "sufficient grace" in its historic sense in order to describe Arminian teachings on prevenient grace. However, they would still claim that it actually makes grace insufficient to save on its own (see last bullet point).
Augustine, whom Jansenists and Calvinists both claim as their early forerunner, used the term similarly to both groups, drawing a distinction between "sufficient grace," given to all men, and "efficacious grace," given only to the elect.
Catholics and Arminians claim that the Calvinist doctrine of common grace (grace which can lead to conviction of sin, but not to salvation unless accompanied by saving grace) denies the sufficiency of grace for salvation.
Calvinists claim that since Catholics and Arminians believe that grace does not save unless it is accompanied by an exercise of the will (which does not always occur), Arminians functionally deny that grace is sufficient.

In my opinion, due to the diversity of thought, it is better to use the specific doctrinal terms -- prevenient grace, common grace, irresistible grace -- rather than the easily misinterpreted term "sufficient grace."

Sources:

Eastern Orthodox appraisal of Augustine on sufficient grace
Charles Hodge's Systematic Theology on CCEL: Vol 1, Vol 2, Vol 3
Catholic description of the Jansenist heresy
Catholic appraisal of James White's use of the term, along with historical notes on Jansenism (the blog post linked in the question)


What hymns about death were common in the early 1400s? I am writing a novel and would like to know what hymn a family might have sung as their loved one died - in 1405 in England.

Fourteenth to fifteenth centuries England was Catholic. The most common hymn sung by the faithful could possibly be the Latin hymn: "In paradisum". This hymn is still quite popular and I have sung it on many occasions as the body of a defunct has been lowered into the earth at a cemetery. Traditional religious still sing this at the graveside of their brethren.

Here it is played on YouTube: In Paradiusm - Traditional Catholic Requeim Mass

You may also want to check out the Requiem Mass for more pieces to be sung like Dies Irae for example.

Another possibility could be the Sub tuum praesidium which has always been a popular devotional hymn since Christian antiquity. It is still a Catholic tradition to recite the De Profundis (Psalm 130) in Latin for those accustomed to the Latin to be recited when visiting the graveside of those we love.

  Since the earliest times, Christians have sung "psalms and hymns and spiritual songs", both in private devotions and in corporate worship (Matthew 26:30; Mark 14:26; Acts 16:25; 1 Cor 14:26; Ephesians 5:19; Colossians 3:16; James 5:13; cf. Revelation 5:8–10; Revelation 14:1–5).

  Non-scriptural hymns (i.e. not psalms or canticles) from the Early Church still sung today include 'Phos Hilaron', 'Sub tuum praesidium', and 'Te Deum'. - Hymn (Wikipedia)


Who first said, "We are all born Pelagians?" In What Is Reformed Theology? R. C. Sproul attributes the following quote to Roger Nicole, a 20th century Reformed theologian:

  We are all born Pelagians. (source)

By this, Sproul means to say that all people naturally have Pelagian tendencies, that is, we innately believe we have the ability to choose to do good without God's aid.

My question, however, relates not to Pelagianism itself but to the origin of this quote.  Was Roger Nicole the first to say it?  Or did some earlier theologian say it first?

Roger Nicole was certainly not the first to say this.  The quote can be traced to two 17th-century English authors, Thomas Manton and Nathaniel Culverwell.

Culverwell's version of the quote appears in his 1652 work, published one year after his death, An Elegant and Learned Discourse of the Light of Nature.  He writes that Augustine's attack on Pelagianism led it to "cover its nakedness" and "dress itself more handsomly in Arminianism":

  This spreading error leavened the great lump, and generality of the world, as the profound Bradwardine sighs, and complains, "Totus pene mundus post Pelagium abiit in errorem": for all men are born Pelagians; Nature is predominant in them: it has took possession of them, and will not easily subordinate itself to a superior Principle.1 [script and spelling modernized]

Thomas Manton's commentary on Jude was published a few years later, in 1658.  He writes:

  We have all a heretic in our bosoms, and are by nature prepared to drink in all kinds of errors and lies [...] We are born Pelagians, and Libertines, and Papists.2

He provides an interesting citation, however, that allows us to push the origin of the quote back several more years.  He cites Friedrich Spanheim as his source, who said in Latin:

  Pelagiani omnes nascimur et cum supercilio pharisaico.

The first three words of this translate to our phrase: "We are all born Pelagians."  The location of this quote in Spanheim's works has so far eluded me, but he died in 1649, and his main theological works were published in the 1630s and 1640s.

We can thus trace the quote in English to Nathaniel Culverwell's use of it in 1652.  Its Latin equivalent predates it by at least several years, in the writings of Friedrich Spanheim.

References and Notes:

An Elegant and Learned Discourse of the Light of Nature, pages 165–66.  Culverwell's quote of Bradwardine comes from the preface of De causa Dei contra Pelagium and can be translated, "Almost the whole world went into error after Pelagius."
An Exposition, with Notes, upon the Epistle of Jude, in The Complete Works of Thomas Manton, Volume 5, page 114.


Why has God punished every human for one person's sin? God expelled Adam and Eve from the garden of Eden because Eve ate the fruit that God told her not to. And this let evil into the world. If God loves everyone, so much so that he let his son die for us, then why has every subsequent human and animal had to live and deal with the result of evil?

How does the Bible explain this, given that it says God is just?

There is an assumption in this question that is actually the very problem that the question addresses.

This question assumes that in the exact same situation you would act differently than Adam and Eve would. However, why would you? Would a loving God not have placed the people in the garden that gave humanity the best chance at continuing at sinless existence? Adam and Eve were representatives of all of humanity. Do you think that if a better representative existed God would not have chosen them?

Yes Adam and Eve sinned, but the basic reason is that any human being placed in that situation would have done exactly the same thing. The temptation was very strong and they fell.

This was God's plan. He intended for Adam and Eve to sin so that he could work out his plan and glorify himself all the more. The story of Adam and Eve points to Christ.

Romans 5:17

  17 For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!

If sin entered through one man so salvation has also entered by way of one man. If we cannot acknowledge sin came through Adam then we cannot acknowledge the the sacrifice of Christ was sufficient.


What is the basis for "Church Shopping"? "Church shopping" is when church goers move about from church to church to find one they like, sometimes willing to travel great distances or spend many months visiting dozens of churches. It certainly seems much more common to Christians that prefer less ecumenical churches, such as non-denominational, baptists, etc.

What is the biblical basis for this practice (according to those who believe there is one)? Are there any examples you can draw from in scripture which would suggest, for example, not being fed, as a reason for going from one Church to another?

Although it is granted that there are some Protestants that engage in a practice of "Church Shopping", it is somewhat tendentious to assert that "Church Shopping" is actually a "Tradition" within Protestantism (particularly from a Catholic interlocutor given their particular semantic usage of the term).

The fact is, that many Protestant churches actively discourage "Church shopping" (in its usual perjorative sense) because at its heart it violates the Scriptural principle  inherent in Hebrews 13:17a -

  Have confidence in your leaders and submit to their authority, because they keep watch over you as those who must give an account.

A consumer mentality does not submit itself to godly leadership, rather it places confidence in itself as the ultimate arbiter of what is beneficial. Consequently, most Protestant Churches see "Church Shopping" in a poor light - those who engage in it often do so against denominational guidelines distilled from scriptural principles (eg the practices of writing a commendation, or sending off with a blessing).

That said, there are certainly legitimate circumstances that will lead Protestants of good faith and clear conscience to judiciously choose a new congregation that can be justified on a biblical basis (whether this is still called "Church Shopping" or not, is often in the eye of the beholder):

 1. Geographic Relocation

Most people will see this one as common sense: Protestants may have some denominational loyalty, but if they are relocating beyond reasonable commuting distance, they will be looking for a new congregation to attend and their criteria for choosing a church in a new location may have more to do with other factors. It is not unusual for relocators to visit a few different congregations in their new locality to weigh up these various factors and make a considered choice. This kind of choice is simply not explicitly addressed in Scripture, however examining the character of the different churches addressed in Revelation 2 & 3 gives one a sense that it is non-trivial - the nearest congregation (that isn't disqualified under criteria 2 & 3 below) may not be the best option.

 2. Corrupt Leadership

If the conditional clause in the afore-quoted verse from Hebrews ("because they keep watch over you as those who must give an account"), does not actually hold true in a particular instance, then believers are not bound to follow those who style themselves as leaders in the church but are not themselves submitted to Christ. They are instead encouraged to only follow those who are themselves following the Lord:

  Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ. - the Apostle Paul , 1 Corinthians 11:1 NIV (emphasis added)

The Scriptures detail not just the possibility, but the inevitability of "false shepherds", "lying prophets", "false brethren" & "antichrists" and in the context of the new covenant, the "sheep" are by no means obliged to follow any of these, but are instead to be lead by the Lord himself to "go out and find pasture":

  1 “Very truly I tell you Pharisees, anyone who does not enter the sheep pen by the gate, but climbs in by some other way, is a thief and a robber. 2 The one who enters by the gate is the shepherd of the sheep. 3 The gatekeeper opens the gate for him, and the sheep listen to his voice. He calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. 4 When he has brought out all his own, he goes on ahead of them, and his sheep follow him because they know his voice. 5 But they will never follow a stranger; in fact, they will run away from him because they do not recognize a stranger’s voice.” 6 Jesus used this figure of speech, but the Pharisees did not understand what he was telling them.

  7 Therefore Jesus said again, “Very truly I tell you, I am the gate for the sheep. 8 All who have come before me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep have not listened to them. 9 I am the gate; whoever enters through me will be saved. They will come in and go out, and find pasture. 10 The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full. - John 10:1-10 NIV (emphasis added)

From this, it should be patently obvious that if those who call the sheep to follow them (ie they purport to be leaders within the Church), have not themselves come through Christ and are not acting in accordance with his nature to bring life to the sheep, but instead act to steal, kill or destroy them according to the nature of "the thief"; then true sheep will not be following them at all.

  If you think you're leading and no one is following you, then you're only taking a walk. - Afghan proverb

3. "Significant" Disagreement With Leadership

"Significant" is a pretty subjective term, but a common application of Amos 3:3 -

  Do two walk together
      unless they have agreed to do so?

within Protestant circles, is that it is quite legitimate to seek an alternative congregation to attend when it becomes apparant that disagreements over matters of deep conviction are unresolvable.


Who found whom? After Jesus FINDS Philip, why does Philip tell Nathanael "We have FOUND the One..."? In John chapter 1, the Scriptures record that Jesus found Philip and said to him, "Follow me."  Two verses later, Phil tells Nathanael, "We have found the One Moses wrote about..."

  The next day Jesus decided to go to Galilee. He found Philip and said
  to him, “Follow me.” 44 Now Philip was from Bethsaida, the city of
  Andrew and Peter. 45 Philip found Nathanael and said to him, “We have
  found him of whom Moses in the Law and also the prophets wrote, Jesus
  of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.”

So, who found whom?  And who is "We"?

tl dr;

Q: Who found whom?

A: They both found each other - Jesus found a disciple and Philip found a Messiah.

Additional guff:

Overall, this question is essentially based on a translation issue - there is a tacit assumption that the meaning and grammar associated with the original word translated as "found" is essentially identical to how we understand this word in the context of the english language. While understandable, an assumption like this is not particularly helpful in general, and particularly so in this case. The actual word in question is:

  εὑρίσκω

  Greek transliteration: heuriskō

  Gloss:
  (act.) to find, discover, meet; (mid.) to obtain; (pass.) to be found

  Definition:
  to find, to meet with; to find out, to detect, discover; to acquire, obtain, win, gain; to find mentally, to comprehend, recognize; to find by experience, observe, gather; to devise as feasible (source)

In english, 'found' is nearly always used in a transitive sense with a well defined distinction between subject and object, eg: "I [subject] found it [object]". One of the alternative translation choices - 'meet' - is capable of being used intransitively however, eg: "we [subject/object - ie ill-defined object] met yesterday", and if it is used in a transitive construction grammatically, the semantics don't necessarily demand strict choices for subject and object - grammatically, there is a difference between "Harry met Sally" and "Sally met Harry", but as far as semantic distinctions go, you'd be scraping the bottom of the barrel to find one.

If you're a whiz with ancient/koine greek grammar, perhaps you could make more of this issue than I can, but to my mind, we should be wary of unnecessarily projecting a transitive sense into the grammar. Additionally, the alternate translation options, imply that even if the underlying grammar implies transitivity, there may be no particular semantic significance to that transitivity. In conclusion, don't read so much into it.

The short answer I've given above is based on understanding the overall context of the passage - it's relatively agnostic regarding the 'correct' translation choice of εὑρίσκω (just following the crowd) and how strictly transitive the grammar is, it merely relies on the fact that both εὑρίσκω and 'found' can be used with varying levels of significance.

Re the 'we' issue, a somewhat unlikely possibility is that Philip was the one unnamed disciple of the pair mentioned in vv35-40, and his 'we' just meant himself and Andrew. A more likely option, is that Andrew, the unnamed disciple, Peter, Philip and Nathaniel knew each other well enough to think of themselves as a group, and that by that stage, Philip had found out about the other interactions of the group members with Jesus, while Nathaniel had been off doing something else. According to this interpretation, 'we' refers to the rest of the group apart from Nathaniel.


What narrative purpose does the Flood story fulfill? In the Epic of Atrahasis and Epic of Gilgamesh flood myth, the gods are rash, foolish, even weak.

Genesis copies most of the myth. And although it's sanitized quite a bit, some actions seem to be inconsistent with an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good God. God decides one moment that all animals must be killed 6:7, and the next that Noah must save them all himself 6:19–20. All humanity is evil and must be purged, except for Noah, but Noah is punished with spending the better part of a year on a tiny boat filled with polar bears. At the end God promises never to try the scheme again 8:21, apparently one step from an outright apology.

What higher narrative purpose does this myth fulfill, that it's included in the Bible despite its extremely subversive origins and troublesome implications?

The narrative purpose of the flood account is actually quite simple. It reminds us of one simple truth of God's character: God is just.

To the Jew for whom this exact version of the narrative is written (I can leave aside Gilgamesh because it differs in thrust), there is one overwhelming truth- God will punish the wicked. In a world where the wicked often seem to prosper, this is too easily forgotten. To say, the Jews of the exile, this is actually a very comforting thought - that even though they may be temporarily defeated (and that happened a lot in Jewish history) God is simply "slow to anger" not completely silent or ineffectual on the matter.

In punishing the wicked, the righteous will be protected. To an enslaved and defeated  people, this is good news indeed. There will be an accounting when God's wrath is complete. He is not slow in keeping his promises, as some count slowness to be. Neither is he unconcerned, nor is he Powerless.

Peter (who, it should be remembered, was a Jew) says

  if he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven other ... if this is so, then the Lord knows how to rescue godly men from trials and to hold the unrighteous for the day of judgment, while continuing their punishment. (2 Peter 2:5,9)

For the Christian it holds a secondary meaning, namely that God may be love, but he is more than love. God is not just "nice," but he is also just. It is too easy to forget that because God is good, it doesn't mean he can't be powerful too.


How do Baptists catechize children? If Baptists do not believe in the formalized confessional creeds of the church, then how do they catechize children?

In the Small Catechism, Martin Luther notes that learning the Creeds is very important in the Christian education. If Baptists avoid confessionalism, then how do they teach the children the exact doctrine of the church?

The short answer is, they don't. They teach Sunday School.

If you ask a Baptist, they'll probably tell you, we don't have a catechism. (Technically, they're wrong, but in practice, most haven't heard of it.)

Furthermore, if asked to decribe what a catechism is, they will focus on the fact that it is a "rehearsed" set of formulaic questions and answers - and nothing but a "vain repetition."

Instead, Baptists believe whole-heartedly in "studying the Scriptures." Many Baptist churches are named "Berea ," for example, becuase the Bereans are commended for searching the Scripures for themselves.

Futhermore, Baptists very keen on "the priesthood of all believers," and in practice, means that most believers need to read the Scriptures as if they were a preacher who has to teach the word "in season and out." Being suffused with the Word

In short, Baptists don't want a set of pre-written questions and standard responses. In their minds, they want to "know" it like you would know a friend.

Do they use standard terminiology? Sure - but even there, Baptists are often very keen to make sure they aren't use "jargon" or "Christianese." Do "we" use? All them time!  But we feel bad about it when we do!


What is the Biblical basis for saying the Apostles did not necessarily expect the final judgment to occur in their lifetime? I often see comments in Bible commentaries that the Apostles were convinced the second coming would happen in their lifetime. However I have never been convinced by the arguments they make to draw this conclusion. What I am wondering is what the Biblical argument is for the alternative view:  That the Bible and the Apostles did not necessarily expect this, and were not so naive.

Some passages commonly referred to in the subject are:

Rom. 13:11–12; 1 Cor. 1:8; 2 Cor. 1:14; Phil. 1:6, 10; 2:16; 1 Thess. 5:2; 2 Thess. 2:2; Heb 10:25

Note: I do accept that there was this feeling of an imminent return shortly after Pentecost but I am speaking about after when the Epistles were written and there was more scripture concerning this doctrine. It was only natural after Penteconst to assume an immediate return having no other information to go on.

Peter seems to suggest that the coming of the Lord is not as imminent as originally thought, citing God's patience, and his measure of time as the reasons:

"...by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men. 8 But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day. 9 The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.

10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be burned up. 11 Since all these things are to be destroyed in this way, what sort of people ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, 12 looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be destroyed by burning, and the elements will melt with intense heat! 13 But according to His promise we are looking for new heavens and a new earth, in which righteousness dwells. 14 Therefore, beloved, since you look for these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, spotless and blameless, 15 and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you..."
(1 Peter 3:7-15 NASB bold mine)


What Christian denominations accept the idea of a pre-Genesis creation? Some Biblical Scholars insist on a pre-genesis creation in which the angelic beings were made, this creation pre-dates the 6 day creation of the 'heavens and the earth' mentioned in Genesis 1:1.

This idea comes from the Book of Job:
Job 38:4 - "Where were you when I laid the foundations of the Earth; tell me if you know so much... (7) while the morning stars sang together and all the angels shouted for joy?"

We are clearly told here that intelligent beings existed prior to the creation of the Earth and of Adam. Much debate exists concerning exactly when the angelic beings were created. Which denominations support an angelic creation event prior to the Genesis creation event?

Though I am not sure I can speak for an entire denomination, I do have a major in Bible from Free Will Baptist Bible College, so I can say the denomination educated me.  With the preliminaries out of the way, one must consider that there is no mention in any form of the Genesis account of the creation of Angels.  That leaves two possibilities (because such a detail would not have been excluded): that Angels were created either before or after the creation of the earth and mankind.
Your reference to Job 38:4-7 would indicate that it was indeed before. This concept does not conflict with any doctrine I am aware of.  We can also consider that Satan (an angel himself) had already "fallen" and was active in the temptation of Eve and Adam.  Light on Scripture, I know, but God apparently didn't consider that a "need to know" item.


Akathist to St. Lawrence Is anyone aware of an Akathist to St. Lawrence, Martyr and Archdeacon of Rome?  I have akathists to other saints, but not to Lawrence.

I have managed to find an akathist to St. Lawrence in russian, if that helps.


Why was Abraham better able to protect Sarah from Abimelech as her brother than as her husband? As recorded in Genesis 12 & 20:

Abraham was afraid that Abimelech would kill him and take his Sarah from him if the king knew that they were married, so he said she was his sister instead. How did presenting her as his sibling rather than wife protect her from that? Couldn't the king still have killed him and taken her?

As David Stratton states, Abraham was simply trying to not get killed. She was a beautiful woman, so another, more powerful man could simply kill him and take her as his wife. So to save himself Abraham simply said Sarah was his sister, which was a half truth.

So the Pharaoh made Abraham rich by offering gifts, but when he was going to take Sarah as his wife, God intervened. Pretty much the same thing happened in Chapter 20 with Abimelech, king of Gerar.

Genesis 12:11-13 Pretty much explains the reason:

11 And it came to pass, when he was close to entering Egypt, that he said to Sarai his wife, “Indeed I know that you are a woman of beautiful countenance. 12 Therefore it will happen, when the Egyptians see you, that they will say, ‘This is his wife’; and they will kill me, but they will let you live. 13 Please say you are my sister, that it may be well with me for your sake, and that I may live because of you.”


Know any Bible verses on 'faith,' 'knowledge' or what it means to 'believe'? I was assigned to present a paper on epistemology, which is the philosophy of truth, knowledge and belief, and to convey it on the terms of my judgment. I am blessed to have a professor who encourages his students to freely express their opinion, and this is what I intend to do.

Do you know any good verses on 'faith' and 'knowledge' and what it means to 'believe?'

Thank you!

Ava

Hebrews 11: 1 says "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see."

This is probably one of the most fundamental verses you can quote when asked about faith. It is the most obvious and clear definition of what it means to believe something especially God.

Knowledge is pretty much the same as faith. We all know the color of the shirt we are wearing today; and we know it is either red, or blue because we believe it is. You might say, we do not just believe it, because we actually 'see' it, but have you considered asking: What if red isn't really red? or color isn't really color? We 'know' things because we 'believe' they are.

We are certain of something, like a God or a supreme being because we 'believe' there is a God, we  perceive God, through nature, through His works, through the emotions we feel about Him, and that collection of perception becomes the very foundation of 'knowledge' of God.

PS: Faith is like eating in a fast-food restaurant, you'll never know how it was made, but you believe it's safe, and you eat it anyway.


What is the main theological point of Philippians? I learned recently that many of the epistles have a main theological point. For example, the main point of Ephesians is that the Church is the body of Christ, and that it may bring unity to the world and reconciliation with God. The main point of Colossians is the supremacy of Christ, as he existed before creation. These points can be verified by reading the epistles, or, more briefly, by reading the linked articles on Wikipedia.

This leads me to wonder, what is the main theological point of Philippians? In other words, what is the main theme, from a theological perspective, if there is one?

The Epistle to the Philippians emphasizes the importance of community and unity in the Church.  He congratulates the Philippians for their care towards others (ch 1) and warns against the heresy, particularly the heresy of the Judaizers (3:1-11).

The introduction to the book in the Orthodox Study Bible summarizes:

  Salvation is a dynamic ongoing experience that is not merely personal, but shared among believers.  St. Paul urges the believers in Philippi toward continued unity, humility, selfless generosity, and joy in Christ.


What is the historical cause between the discrepancy of evangelical approaches to original sin and Jewish ones? (Modern) Judaism is usually described as not subscribing to the original sin doctrine, where humanity is seen as inherently doomed per the actions of Adam and Eve. (It looks like it's a generalisation, but I've seen similar statements made elsewhere. It's not an unreasonable reading of the beginning of Genesis as far as I'm concerned, but I digress.)

Now, the Christian understanding I grew up with (somewhat evangelical in nature, prone to "pop-theology") was that we cannot save ourselves -- we cannot achieve goodness because of Adam's actions:

  Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death came through sin, and so death spread to all because all have sinned—sin was indeed in the world before the law, but sin is not reckoned when there is no law. (Romans 5:12-13, NRSVA).

So this is not merely about Adam's actions causing death, since "sin came into the world through one man". (Whether or not this is the correct reading of Genesis seems ambiguous, but that's irrelevant here, and I probably wouldn't be able to solve that question without drastically improving my Hebrew knowledge.) This is reinforced by the earlier statement that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God."

What is the historical cause of this disparity in Jewish and Christian (per my experience of Christianity) attitudes to human nature? Was this an influence of some contemporary (New Testament times) strain of Jewish thought, or perhaps it is linked to other influences ("foreign" ones, or perhaps ones that came later)? Or, to put it another way, what is the history of this doctrine in the Christian church - did the early church have similar views as modern Christians, or did the doctrine evolve over time?

Note: I'm almost certain I might have simply missed some of the context of the Epistles, but I'm asking as it seems like a more efficient way to figure this out.

Judaism has never agreed with the concept of original sin, which is essentially a Western Christian notion, with which the Orthodox Churches also do not agree. According to the Catholic Church, there is an obligation on all Catholics to believe in original sin. Most Protestant denominations follow the Catholic lead in also teaching of original sin, although it is not as central as in the Catholic faith.

In Romans 5:12-13, Paul says that sin entered the world through the sin of one man, but does not say that all future humans share that man's guilt. Prior to Augustine, there was no formalised concept of original sin, but early Church fathers made allusions to a doctrine of an 'original sin'. Tertullian taught when a parent sinned, this physical taint of the soul was passed on to children. Tertullian's concept could eventually be interpreted as allowing Adam's great sin to be passed on from generation to generation, down to the present day. Martin Palmer says, in The Jesus Sutras, pages 175-176, that original sin was unknown as a central theme of Christian thought before the early fifth century. He says The Orthodox Church broke away from the West just in time to avoid the magnificence and the curse of St. Augustine of Hippo, who took the basic notion of original sin and built it into the destructive force it was to become. Even in the West, Pelagius argued against original sin, saying that human nature was basically good but had been corrupted and misguided by human weakness, but of course the theology of Augustine triumphed in the West.

The absence of Jewish support for the concept of original sin does not stem from some contemporary strain of Jewish thought or other influences within Judaism, but has existed from pre-Christian times. It is Christianity that has moved forward with new ideas, at least in the West.


On what do Catholics base their doctrine of the eternal virginity of Mary? I understand that the Catholic Church teaches that Mary is the eternal virgin in that she neither had sexual relations with Joseph (or any other man) either before or after the miraculous conception of Jesus.

What Biblical evidence does the Catholic Church cite in support of this doctrine? Is there any other non-Biblical evidence for this?

From paragraph 499 in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

  The deepening of faith in the virginal motherhood led the Church to confess Mary's real and perpetual virginity even in the act of giving birth to the Son of God made man. In fact, Christ's birth "did not diminish his mother's virginal integrity but sanctified it."And so the liturgy of the Church celebrates Mary as Aeiparthenos, the "Ever-virgin".

The direct precedent is Canon 6 from the Second Council of Constantinople in 553 CE. The only source of this I know of is Denzinger's Sources of Catholic Dogma, a compilation of a ton of loose documents. Unfortunately, this is not available online in English, so you'll have to bear with the Latin. In paragraph 427:

  Si quis abusive et non vere Dei genitricem dicit sanctam gloriosam semper Virginem Mariam, vel secundum relationem, quasi homine puro nato, sed non Deo Verbo incarnato et nato ex ipsa, referenda autem, sicut illi dicunt, hominis nativitate ad Deum Verbum, eo quod cum homine erat nascente, et calumniatur sanctam Chalcedonensem Synodum, tamquam secundum istum impium intellectum, quem Theodorus exsecrandus adinvenit, Dei genitricem Virginem dicentem, vel qui hominis genitricem vocat, aut Christotocon, id est, Christi genitricem, tamquam si Christus Deus non esset, et non proprie et vere Dei genitricem ipsam confitetur, eo quod ipse qui ante saecula ex Patre natus est Deus Verbum, in ultimis diebus ex ipsa incarnatus et natus est, et sic pie et sanctam Chalcedonensem Synodum eam esse confessam, talis an. s.

Here, the council decrees that anyone speaking against the Holy and Glorious ever-virgin Mary shall be anathema.

This was again affirmed in the Lateran Council of 649, from paragraph 503:

  Si quis secundum sanctos Patres non confitetur proprie et secundum veritatem Dei genitricem sanctam semperque Virginem et immaculatam Mariam, utpote ipsum Deum Verbum specialiter et veraciter, qui a Deo Patre ante omnia saecula natus est, in ultimis saeculorum absque semine concepisse ex Spiritu Sancto, et incorruptibiliter eam (eum?) genuisse, indissolubili permanente et post partum eiusdem virginitate, condemnatus sit

The Catholic Encyclopedia also mentions several Church Fathers who spoke of the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary.

At the time of the early Church, the burden of proof was on those to show that Mary was not ever-virgin, as it was commonly held to be true. Just for the sheer theatrical aspect of it, I particularly like St. Jerome's response to Helvidius, one who shared many of the objections held today about the perpetual virginity of Mary. In his response, he dissected the argument word by word and found the conclusion that Mary was not perpetually virgin did not necessarily follow from Biblical evidence:

  Yet it does not follow, as the previous examples showed, that he had intercourse with Mary after her delivery, when his desires had been quenched by the fact that she had already conceived.

In terms of direct Biblical evidence of the perpetual virginity of Mary, St. Jerome and later St. Augustine used Luke 1:34 as evidence of a pledge by Mary to never "know" a man:

  And Mary said to the angel: How shall this be done, because I know not man?

The Catholic Encyclopedia explains:

  As to Mary, St. Luke (1:34) tells us that she answered the angel announcing the birth of Jesus Christ: "how shall this be done, because I know not man". These words can hardly be understood, unless we assume that Mary had made a vow of virginity; for, when she spoke them, she was betrothed to St. Joseph.

Please see also: The Perpetual Virginity of Mary by Dr. Robert Schihl | EWTN.


Why did the pope say gender is a property of essence? In his 2012 Christmas address, Pope Benedict XVI said:

  According to the biblical creation account, being created by God as
  male and female pertains to the essence of the human creature.

The use of the word "essence" puzzles me here. I wonder whether gender is a property of essence or existence. Does gender still exist in Heaven? Isn't gender a property of the body rather than an attribute of each being?  If so, gender is tied to existence. What is official Catholic teaching on this?

In his teaching, The Theology of the Body, Pope John Paul II argues that the essence of being human is both body and spirit.  He asserts that a human spirit without a body is as much an aberration as is a body without a spirit.  Therefore, either without the other is not entirely human.

He makes the very good point that Jesus was raised bodily, and that Paul taught that we will be raised bodily, that indeed that Christian afterlife is a translation into another realm of material existence and not a purely spiritual one.

He also makes the argument that gender is an essential aspect of what it means to be human.  We will not be raised genderless, but as male and female.  Jesus taught only that there will not be marriage in heaven, not that there would not be male and female. According to JP II the reason for that is because we will be experiencing the fullness of relationship that the Trinity share and the marital relationship, being simple a fore-shadowing of that unity with God, will be superfluous.

So all of that to say, yes, as I understand John Paul II's teaching, our sexuality (but not the sexual act) is essential to our being as humans.  That is, to be perfectly clear, sexuality, that is the state of being male or female is, according to JP II (and I agree), essential to being human; the expression of love in sexual intercourse may not be.  The latter may only be a temporal sign of the marriage of Christ and the Church which will be redundant in the eternal state.


How old is the Old Testament? How old is the Old Testament and, like the New Testament, are there multiple versions (i.e. - according to Matthew, Mark, Luke & John)?

There are not multiple versions of the new Testament. There is one version. The first four books happen to be four different accounts of the the same series of events but there are 27 books in total.

How were the books of the New Testament chosen?
No, there is nothing equivalent to the four perspectives of the Gospel books in the Old testament, there is just one collection of books, accepted by both Christianity and Judaism, compiled in their present form in about 450BC then canonized in about 200BC but was written over a period of several thousand years before that and having gone through several redactions.

When was the OT canon as used by Protestants finalized?

There are a few passages where the same story is told more than once for the purpose of recording it from a different perspective, such as in the books of Kings and Chronicals.

On another note, the Old Testament is devoted to foreshadowing Christ. In that sense all the stories, all the crazy history of Israel and all the prophets are all telling the same story.

Really the best way to get your head around this is to read it through, then ask more questions about what it all means.


Why were Sodom and Gomorrah destroyed? I think many people assume that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because of their sexual immortality, and this may at least be part of the reason. However, I recently read Ezekiel and in Ezekiel 16:49-50

  49 Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. 50 They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.

It seems that Ezekiel is turning the traditional interpretation on its head, although there is certainly room for argument in the phrase "did detestable things before me".

Is there any kind of doctrinal consensus or majority view on why exactly Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed?

I believe the reason people remember Sodom & Gomorrah for the sexual immorality may be due to:

The account in Genesis 19 where the men of the town wanted to have relations with the two angels that were spending the night at Lot's house.
The word sodomy creates a huge link to Sodom & Gomorrah.

So yes, the traditional interpretation as you say is focused on the sexual immorality, but Ezekiel reminds us of what the Lord tells Abraham in Genesis 18:20-21

  20 So the Lord told Abraham, "I have heard a great outcry from Sodom
  and Gomorrah, because their sin is so flagrant. 21 I am going down to
  see if their actions are as wicked as I have heard. If not, I want to
  know." (NKJV)

A few verses later God concedes to Abraham and says, "For the sake of ten I will not destroy it,"  which leads us to believe that not only were the people so wicked in Sodom, but not even 10 were found to be righteous.


What are the historical and scriptural reasons why women are prohibited and/or discouraged from wearing pants in some churches? Note: I'm little surprised that this question had not been asked before.
I've noticed that some churches place more emphasis on the issue of modesty than others. In more exaggerated cases, some churches go to the extremes of highly discouraging or straight up prohibiting women from wearing pants (and even makeup and jewelry), favoring instead more modest types of dresses, such as skirts.
Two questions:

What is the historical origin of these modesty-related prohibitions?
What is the biblical basis?

In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; [1 Timothy 2:9 KJV]

Shortly before being martyred, executed by the Emperor Nero, Paul the apostle gives instructions to Timothy regarding order in the church and the conduct of congregations.
With regard to clothing, Paul enjoins that women should adorn themselves 'modestly' which has two meanings, firstly that of not drawing attention by 'costly array' and complicated hair arrangements, but also of modesty in regard to the fit of clothing.
The prophet Isaiah goes into considerable detail when he comments upon the 'daughters of Zion' and their conduct in regard to these matters (Isaiah 3:16 to 26) and comments, also, on the judgments that are about fall upon Jerusalem because of that contribution to a wider spectrum of behaviour, throughout Judah.
It is difficult to convey to those who are a lot younger than myself what a dramatic change has happened in the general arena of those professing the name of Christ over the past half dozen decades : the jettisoning of conduct that was, at one time, not questioned, but rather adhered to without complaint.
As a young boy brought up in the Highlands of Scotland where the influence of Presbyterian  Christianity was considerable, I saw the visible effect of many generations of the preaching and teaching of the gospel and of the adherence to Paul's words.
Men and women attending a place of Christian worship would - all - dress modestly. Makeup of any kind was just not used. Men wore jacket and trousers with shirt and tie. Women wore long skirts and their top clothing was buttoned up to the neck.
Every woman had long hair and every man had short hair. Women also wore a hat or a headscarf, in accordance with the apostle's words in 1 Corinthians 11:5.
Still, today, I know of many congregations in my own country, the United Kingdom, where such practice still prevails. It is considered essential conduct among those congregations.
I well remember a preacher in my youth, perhaps it was in the 1970s, encouraging modest Christian women to take no notice of one who had criticised a certain lady for wearing clothing which the onlooker called 'frumpy'.
The preacher's retort was to say, 'Leave her alone and let her 'frump' her way to glory'.
As a young, single male, growing up in a congregation, in my twenties (forty years ago) I can only say how much I appreciated ladies wearing modest attire. I always deemed it to be considerate and charitable of women not to put temptation in the way of young (and not so young) men.
The corollary would (I can only suppose) be true of men who also dress in such a way as not to draw undue attention to themselves.
If we 'believe in the Lord Jesus Christ' and 'love one another' (as Jesus enjoins us to do) then it should not be a difficult thing for us to consider others in regard to the way in which we dress ourselves.


In the book of John, is the Holy Spirit not in Jesus until the dove descends on Him? When Jesus was baptized by John, and the Holy Spirit descended on Him like a dove, was the Holy Spirit not with Him up until then?

I'll refer you to Summa Theologica 3.39.6,

  I answer that, As Augustine says (Super Joan., Tract. xiii): "After
  being baptized, the Lord baptized, not with that baptism wherewith He
  was baptized." Wherefore, since He Himself baptized with His own
  baptism, it follows that He was not baptized with His own, but with
  John's baptism. And this was befitting: first, because John's baptism
  was peculiar in this, that he baptized, not in the Spirit, but only
  "in water"; while Christ did not need spiritual baptism, since He was
  filled with the grace of the Holy Ghost from the beginning of His
  conception, as we have made clear above (Question 34, Article 1). And
  this is the reason given by Chrysostom (Hom. de Bapt. Christi).
  Secondly, as Bede says on Mark 1:9, He was baptized with the baptism
  of John, that, "by being thus baptized, He might show His approval of
  John's baptism." Thirdly, as Gregory Nazianzen says (Orat. xxxix), "by
  going to John to be baptized by him, He sanctified baptism."

Furthermore, consider that God (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) are fully present in every place once can be said to be present. Thus, Christ is never without the presence of the Father and the Spirit. It is only for the purpose of sanctifying the human institution of baptism (John's baptism) that Jesus "receives" the Holy Spirit which is already with Him.

And as addressed in Question 6 of the same chapter of Summa Theologica, Christ is not so much receiving the Spirit for Himself, since the Spirit is already fully with Him; He is receiving the Holy Spirit into the sacrament of baptism.


Is "formal schismatic" a useful category in practice? Wikipedia says that formal schismatics are those who:

  knowing the true nature of the Church, have personally and deliberately committed the sin of schism.

But if formal schismatics have to truly know the true nature of the Church, is it ever actually a category that can apply to people?

For example, Protestants reject the authority of the Catholic Church and the Pope, and so would not be said, I would think, to know the true nature of the Church.

Likewise, are the SSPX truly formal schismatics if, in their rejection of Vatican II, they believe the true nature of the church is other than that of the Catholic Church after Vatican II?

If you have to know and truly believe in the true nature of the Church in order for your rejection of it to be "formal", then it seems to be that this is a largely academic category, and that there would be exceedingly few actual cases of formal schismatics.

Your Wikipedia article explains this:

Roman Catholic theology considers formal schismatics to be outside the Church, understanding by "formal schismatics" "persons who, knowing the true nature of the Church, have personally and deliberately committed the sin of schism".[8] The situation, for instance, of those who have been brought up from childhood within a group not in full communion with Rome, but who have orthodox faith, is different: these are considered to be imperfectly, though not fully, members of the Church.

It's not that someone knows the Catholic Church is the true Church, but rather that someone knows the true nature of the Church.  For example, if a Catholic refuses to submit to the Pontiff without understanding the Pontiff's role in the Church, he is not a formal schismatic.  If he does understand the Pontiff's role and still refuses to submit, then he is a formal schismatic.  Only in the latter case does he understand the true nature of the Church.
The OP asks, "What's an example of someone who is a formal schismatic?"
See Canon 751 for the definition of schism.  Schism occurs in relation to a specific Church.  If a Catholic leaves the Catholic Church and joins the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, he would be in schism from the first but not the second.  Two simple examples of formal schismatics would be Luther and Calvin:

Thus the schism was well consummated by [Luther and Calvin] before it was solemnly established by the authority which they rejected and transformed by that authority into a just penal sanction.
-Schism, Catholic Encyclopedia


Is violence against LGBT people warranted by scripture? Possible Duplicate:
  Is there any Biblical basis for hating homosexuals?

This week marks the 13th anniversary of Matthew Shepherd's torture and murder, a crime which appears to be motivated by disgust for who he was as a homosexual.

Many Christians read the Bible to prohibit homosexual acts. Does the scripture advocate or justify violence against people who commit sexual sins?

No, as little as it advocates violence against any other sinner. The story in John 8 holds for homosexuals as well: He who is without sin throw the first stone. And when nobody did: Go therefore and don't sin no more.