How was the church structured during the time of 300 AD - 500 AD? I know in 1054 AD, the Catholic & Orthodox churches had split - creating the great schism, but I'm curious to learn about the earlier history of the church.

Are there any historical sources which discuss the earlier structure of the church around the time of the Nicene Creed - specifically, the years 300 AD - 500 AD?

Was the church split up like in 1054 AD, or was it more consistently gathered together?

Introduction

The early church had a church polity that had evolved through several centuries from being apostolic to presbytery culminating to predominantly being mono-episcopate.

FIRST CENTURY (1 to 100 A.D.)

Apostolic

The most ancient church leaders were the apostles. The preeminent of these was Peter, having been the first one to confess the true faith that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God (Matt.16:18). By his confession of the faith, Peter was called Cephas (''rock'') by the Lord Jesus. However, in his role of establishing the church , the Lord Jesus equally shared this to the other apostles (cf. Matthew 16:19; 18:18). Paul was clear and emphatic that the foundation of the early church were the apostles and the prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone (Eph. 2:20).

Only Catholicism teaches that the Roman bishop should be the new 'rock' (Peter) to lead the church of the next generations.

It is noteworthy that the Roman bishop did claim this to himself whilst the church disagreed. We have Cyprian (200-258 A.D.) , bishop of Carthage, in the 3rd century very explicit that he was against papacy.

  7th Council of Carthage: http://www.ccel.org... remains, that upon this
  same matter each of us should bring forward what we think, judging no
  man, nor rejecting any one from the right of communion, if he should
  think differently from us. For neither does any of us set himself
  up as a bishop of bishops, 4675 nor by tyrannical terror does
  any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience; since
  every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has
  his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another
  than he himself can judge another. 4676

Cyrian believed that the the other apostles were the same as Peter in regards to both honour and power:

  Treatise 1, Chapter 4 http://www.ccel.org...... He arranged by His
  authority the origin of that unity, as beginning from one. Assuredly
  the rest of the apostles were also the same as was Peter, endowed
  with a like partnership both of honour and power; but the beginning
  proceeds from unity.3110 [Which one Church, also, the Holy Spirit in
  the Song of Songs1 designated in the person of our Lord, and says,
  “My dove, my spotless one, is but one. She is the only one of her
  mother, elect of her that bare her.”]

However, in his Treatise I: On the Unity of the Church , Cyprian did believe in the primacy of Peter referring to the chair of Peter (cathedra Petri) as the source of that oneness or unity by which the church existed. Take note that the primacy of Peter (being held by Orthodox and some Protestants) is very different from papacy.

Presbytery

The New Testament had the original polity of presbytery (''πρεσβυτερίου'  - I Tim. 4:14). This church government is the ruling of bishops over a local church. In the earliest days of the church, bishop and elder are synonymous. The elders were functioning as bishops (''overseers'').

In Acts 20, Paul's ministry was going to finish soon when he gave a ﬁnal word of exhortation to the church in Ephesus. He began in verse 17 by addressing the πρεσβύτερος (elders) of the church, yet a few verses later in the passage, Paul referred to these same men in verse 28 as ἐπίσκοπος, or overseers. He described the same group one time as presbuteros and a second time as episkopos. Paul considered these two words to be synonyms for church leaders.

  17 Now from Miletus he sent to Ephesus and called the elders of the
  church to come to him. 18 And when they came to him, he said to
  them: “You yourselves know how I lived among you the whole time from
  the first day that I set foot in Asia, 19 serving the Lord with all
  humility and with tears and with trials that happened to me through
  the plots of the Jews; 20 how I did not shrink from declaring to you
  anything that was profitable, and teaching you in public and from
  house to house, 21 testifying both to Jews and to Greeks of repentance
  toward God and of faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. 22 And now,
  behold, I am going to Jerusalem, constrained by the Spirit, not
  knowing what will happen to me there, 23 except that the Holy Spirit
  testifies to me in every city that imprisonment and afflictions await
  me. 24 But I do not account my life of any value nor as precious to
  myself, if only I may finish my course and the ministry that I
  received from the Lord Jesus, to testify to the gospel of the grace of
  God. 25 And now, behold, I know that none of you among whom I have
  gone about proclaiming the kingdom will see my face again. 26
  Therefore I testify to you this day that I am innocent of the blood of
  all, 27 for I did not shrink from declaring to you the whole counsel
  of God. 28 Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the
  flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care
  for the church of God,[e] which he obtained with his own blood. (Acts
  20:17-28 ESV)

We also  have the Didache, a 1st century Christian document (ca. 65-80 A.D.) affirming this New Testament polity of elders/bishops.

  "Appoint, therefore, for yourselves, bishops and deacons worthy of
  the Lord, men meek, and not lovers of money, and truthful and
  proved; for they also render to you the service of prophets and
  teachers." (Didache Chapter XV. -Bishops and Deacons; Christian
  Reproof.)

Monoepiscopacy

As early as the first century, churches had a polity that evolved rapidly from the presbytery to monoepiscopacy. In the New Testament, we had seen that such polity existed already in some churches notably of John's.

  I wrote somewhat unto the church: but Diotrephes, who loveth to have
  the preeminence among them, receiveth us not. (3 John 1:9 ASV)

We see in this passage that Diotrephes abuses his authority as leader in his local church. He loved more his position of being first rather than loving the family God has given him.

SECOND CENTURY TO THIRD CENTURY (101-300 A.D.)

Diocesan Monoepiscopacy

The church polity has evolved to having a bishop ruling not just his local church but other local churches as well. An instance is the bishop of Rome in the second century.

The first bishop to exercise jurisdictional authority was Victor I of Rome (r. ca 180 A.D.).

  ''Victor’s actions were more characteristic of a pope than those of
  preceding bishops of Rome.'' (Source)

  "Councils and Dioceses. We first hear of the bishops from local
  congregations in the same province meeting for consultation in the
  second half of the second century in connection with the problem posed
  by Montanism. These meetings were first held in connection with common
  problems but became regular gatherings. As churches in the large
  cities grew, presbyters (elders) were assigned to particular
  assemblies within the city. Earlier all congregational functions had
  been under the supervision of the bishop. Increasingly these had to be
  assigned to the presbyters. Christians living in outlying areas
  would not have their own bishop but would look to the city church for
  leadership. Thus the basis was laid for the bishop to preside over
  several assemblies, although in theory all remained one church. The
  territory presided over by a bishop is now called a diocese."
  (Everett Ferguson, Early Christians Speak, p 16)

FOURTH CENTURY (301-400 A.D.)

The Metropolitan bishops

The church polity has evolved further and now we have a bishop ruling not just local churches but every local church in a city (metropolitan bishop).

  The bishop of the capital city of a province (the metropolis) or of
  another principal city began in the third century to assume a leading
  position among the bishops of the province. He presided at the
  provincial councils, gave his approval for the ordination of bishops,
  and often was the principal ordainer himself when a new bishop was
  installed. The metropolitan bishops of the ancient church were
  forerunners of the medieval archbishops in the western church. The
  idea of councils of bishops led to the calling of ecumenical councils
  (world wide) to represent the whole church, the first of which was
  summoned by the emperor Constantine for Nicaea in 325. The council
  at Nicaea recognized the churches at Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch as
  having jurisdictional authority extending beyond the usual provincial
  limits. This was the germ of the patriarchal system. Eventually five
  patriarchs were recognized: the bishops of the above three churches
  and Constantinople and Jerusalem. When the division between the Greek
  (or Eastern) churches and the Latin (or Western) churches occurred,
  the Greek Church continued to hold to the patriarchal theory of church
  organization, whereas the Latin Church had recognized the bishop of
  Rome as the single pope thus giving it a monarchial organization."
  (Everett Ferguson, Early Christians Speak, p 16)

FIFTH CENTURY (401-500 A.D.)

The Patriarchs

In the fifth century, the church polity had evolved even further. Now we have a bishop ruling over a geographical site (i.e. nation). Such is called the Patriarch. In this century, there are five major patriarchs. One from the West. Four from the East: Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople and Jerusalem.

  "The first ecumenical council of Nice, in 325, as yet knew nothing of
  five patriarchs that would be fully established in 451 AD, but only the three metropolitans (Antioch, Alexandria, and Rome),
  confirming them in their traditional rights." (Philip Schaff, History
  of the Christian Church, book 3, chapter 5)

Discussion

The church polity from fourth century to fifth century was the same. Only Catholicism claimed that the traditional primacy of the bishop of Rome was really a Papacy or jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome over all churches both in the east and the west.

The East–West Schism of the 11th century was a product of centuries of differences (whether when to celebrate Easter, priests should be celibate, rules on fasting and of authority) between the Latin and Greek speaking churches. The bishop of Rome and the bishop of Constantinople had excommunicated each other due to the fact that the former dogmatically asserted his papacy over all bishops while the latter refused to acknowledge his papal authority.

Conclusion

The church structure from 300 A.D. to 500 A.D. was the same in both the East and the West. They were having monoepiscopacy that had evolved from metropolitan to patriarchy. Today the Orthodox remained the Patriarchy while in Roman Catholicism it was the Papacy.


How is the atonement sufficient for salvation according to Calvinists? Because there is not a single verse in the Bible that explicitly states that Christ laid down his life only for believers (the elect), Calvinists typically defend their doctrine of limited atonement by claiming the following argument:

1) The atonement is sufficient for salvation.

2) If Christ shed his blood (made atonement) for all men, then all men would be saved.

3) It is not the case that all men are saved.

Therefore, Christ did not shed his blood for the sins of all men but for the elect only.

In light of many clear and explicit Bible verses which state that Christ did, in fact, taste death for every man, all men, whole world, etc, Arminians typically state that the atonement was made provisionally for all men at the cross, but it only becomes effective if/when one believes. It seems like the Arminian agrees with the first premise of the limited atonement argument -- that the atonement is sufficient for salvation. In order to avoid universalism, the Arminian is forced to conclude the the blood-atonement is merely provisional rather than actual. But what if both Calvinists and Arminians are wrong on this point? Is it possible that Christ made actual atonement for all men, but not all men are saved?

This leads to my question:

What is the basis for arguing that the atonement is sufficient for salvation?
Do Calvinists use biblical arguments, and, if so, how do they deal with all the Bible verses which clearly state that faith is necessary for salvation?
If not, then what argument can a Calvinist use to support the doctrine of limited atonement?

This is a very old debate, and I remember this and other questions from my Bible College years as a student.

God is a choosing God, and that not all are destined for salvation seems quite understandable despite the atonement of Christ being sufficient for all.

I think it unwise to say that if writings we have constituting the Bible (library) does or does not mention something specifically then it is or is not true.

I believe we forget sometimes that until the reformation, these writings that are held in such esteem now played no part in a believers life. It was the often ignorant, uneducated and debauched clergy who told people what God had said in these writings, what they meant and what He demanded.
As soon as the reformation took hold in many places in Europe and the papacy was "dethroned", to fill the void left by papal authority, Bible literature was given a status that remains to this day in that most non catholic groups hold it as the absolute be all and end all of Christian authority. Catholics hold to this also but equally with church tradition.

My question by way of answering you is when has God ever been anything else than a choosing God as seen in the scriptures? A God who decides what is to happen and ensures that it does happen?

Jesus was asked by those close to Him when would He stop teaching in parables? He said parables are so you can understand, but not these around us "less they turn to me for repentance".Christ was selective not universal in his ministry.

He talked to Pilate but not to the Idumean puppet king Herod who had Johns head removed you will notice, but why if not selective.Did God not intend for Herod to repent?

As believers in this world of trouble our job is to tell all about the good news of Christ, so that "many are called', but then knowing 'few will be chosen".

Incredible don't you think that those destined for salvation were listed in the book of life "before the foundations of the world". People as yet unborn had there names down already, and were not dependant on their own feelings at the time they heard the message of Christ eons of time later.

They were destined and pre ordained to Salvation. God never instigated the Gospel atonement, and then left it in the hands of sinful people to accept or reject! As it is written, faith itself is a gift of God and if not given it is impossible to come to Christ. This is Election.

John Calvin was outdone by those of like mind who came after him, and many subsequently went further than he had gone sadly, and all that they said has been tagged under the term "Calvinism".

Calvin did say that when a person is converted and born again, it is because that person has received a "dose of irresistible grace". In my own life I can attest to that as true. My brother whom I loved dearly was told the gospel many times and to him it remained as fairy tales, and he died early in life unsaved.

No dose of grace for him for some reason not understood by me, but God is God and makes some crockery for destruction, and we don't like it much that He does.

This is a wonderful subject that we are not capable of saying any one of us understands completely, but it has never surprised me that God saves some, but that He would save any at all at such mysterious cost to Himself. In all my life as a Pastor and Bible college teacher I have seen God touch people and leave others in stoney disbelief, and it continues on! This is Him doing what He wills to do, and the word fairness has no part in it. God is not fair, He is a theocrat, albeit a benevolent one.

How wonderful He is that His ways are not mine, because I would not have saved me on the cross!

Petros


What does Catholicism teach about 'The Massacre of the Innocents'? Matthew 2:16 says:

  When Herod realized that he had been outwitted by the Magi, he was furious, and he gave orders to kill all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity who were two years old and under, in accordance with the time he had learned from the Magi.

Wikipedia says that "[The Massacre of the Innocents] is understood as the fulfillment of an Old Testament prophecy. And while I can appreciate that this event is inextricably linked to Jesus' birth, I feel like it has its own significance.

My Question:

How are Catholics taught to respond if they observe infanticide, genocide, or a mass killing in their own lives, when it appears like the event might be fulfillment of prophecy?
Are they taught to simply mourn the dead? Or are they taught to organize and respond in some way?

From the Daily Roman Missal, According to the Roman Missal, Third Edition

  THE HOLY INNOCENTS, MARTYRS, Feast, December 28

  This feast celebrates the memory of the male children King Herod ordered to be killed in his attempt to kill the infant Christ. These
  innocent victims thus bear witness to Christ in the world and God's
  care for even the most helpless of people

The bold is therefore the Church's Teaching.

  Continuing to the ENTRANCE ANTIPHON

  The innocents were slaughtered as infants for Christ; spotless, they follow the Lamb and sing for ever: Glory to you, O LORD.

Their reward for dying for Christ. [Most likely for their mothers too]

How are Catholics taught to respond if they observe infanticide, genocide, or a mass killing in their own lives, when it appears like the event might be fulfillment of prophecy? Are they taught to simply mourn the dead? Or are they taught to organize and respond in some way?

[My thoughts:] Prayer then action are an appropriate Catholic/Christian response. Prayer for God's care and justice for the victims, and prayer for mercy and forgiveness for the perpetrators. Action: do all one can to mitigate what is coming [save as many as one can; the Holy Family escaped to Egypt] and christian charity after it happens.


Did the apostles teach ideas about God the Father that were contrary to the teachings of first century Judaism? Early Christianity surely inherited theology from Judaism.  In particular, at least some of God's characteristics as taught by Judaism.  After all, Jesus and the apostles were Jews. Did they ever teach against the theology of Judaism at the time? In other words, are there parts of first-century Jewish theology they didn't inherit, and instead replaced with contrary beliefs?

The apostles wouldn't believe things that aren't from the Torah, nor things that were against the Torah, right? The Jews didn't teach polytheism, for example. Where can I find empirical evidence that shows they knew and understood the teachings of first century Judaism? It's useful to know if the teachings of the early church contradicted the nature of God according to the existing teachings of Judaism.

I'm looking for evidence that, aside perhaps from their beliefs about Jesus, the apostles weren't otherwise heretical in their beliefs about God, in the context of Judaism of that time (so, God is God as presented by the Torah).

A great deal of early Christianity is anti-thematic to Judaism at that time.

In Judaism G'd is considered non-corporeal. So a son coming down, being human, dying (human trait), and rising, are all outside of Judaism at the time. Evidence of this belief in Judaism includes that Jews were called "atheists" by other groups of people at that time for their insistence that G'd doesn't have a body nor any worldly presentation.

In Judaism the existence of three G'd presentations, one being human, is borderline worship of idols (a human as a G'd). It's why belief in Jesus by a Jewish person, makes them an ex-patriot to Judaism. It put them outside Judaism and they'd have be make teshuva (repentance) to return.

In Judaism, sins are only the responsibility of the sinner, and can only be forgiven by the actions of the sinner to repent and change. There is no original sin taught in Judaism in any of the sacred or study texts (such as Talmud) which reflect beliefs from  the turn of the millennium. Since you aren't born with original sin, there is no need for saving from it.

In Judaism, the messiah will bring peace on earth and an end to all suffering. There is no 2nd coming concept. It's also not a particularly important concept in the 2 millennia since.  At the time, during the fight with the Roman's it was a hopeful idea being talked about. The messiah is supposed to come from the house of David, be a descendant of King David. Jesus is not. Others at the time were considered for the title, such as  Bar Kokhba who lead one of the most successful rebellions against the Romans, and was thought to be by Rabbi Akkiva. When it was unsuccessful, it was considered a mistaken idea. It's thought that Bar Kokhba met more of the criteria than Jesus.
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/rabbi-akiva

A site with a lot of the basic concepts in Judaism is http://www.jewfaq.org. Reading through, one can see how concepts differ from Christianity.

There are also similarity in how G'd is taught. The idea of one g'd for all the world, being all powerful, was different than the beliefs of others around the Jews, and Christianity continued that belief.

Early Christianity borrows a lot from the pagans around it. However, it used that virtually rather than literally. For example, some local communities sacrificed live people to save their communities from sin. There is much debate how much of that borrowing is by the original apostles, and how much is from later interpretations.

Judaism had considerable elements that were intentionally the opposite of the communities around them. For instance, the belief that someone else can't die to save you from anything. With that, the idea in kosher laws around blood, are opposite to the drinking of blood to gain power that was used around them.

There are books written on the topic. I don't remember the names of ones I read parts of, but there are good sources on these concepts from early Christianity.


What is the Biblical basis for asserting that infants can have faith in Christ under a Calvinistic framework? Calvin argued for the election of infants, which opposed Roman Catholic faith, which believed that baptism was necessary for salvation (sacramentalists). He was even more forceful about this view than Luther. Under Calvinism and most reformed Protestants, infants could clearly be saved without water baptism.

Although this might seem less harsh than a sacramentalists position, many Calvinists have since created alternate views. The problem is that in Calvin’s view some infants were also predestined to hell and that contrary to Calvin, it does not seem possible to many people that infants can have faith. For many Calvinists this seems as harsh as the sacramentalists, in terms of reconciling God’s justice with his love. Therefore many modern Calvinists are not strictly Calvinistic.

Two alternate views that many modern Calvinists split from traditional Calvinism are:

Those infants God ‘foreknows’ only are saved: This is a way many Christians get around the potential severity of infant election to hell, by just saying God foreknows anything that we might do and therefore saves some infants based on the fact that ‘they would have received
Christ’ is they had lived longer. It seems based on the assumption that infants can't have faith in Christ as they can't understand the gospel preached.
All infants are saved: This view which automatically includes all infants. The argument is made that only those who reject the gospel, do not receive it, from God’s standpoint and as infants can’t reject it, by default they have received it and are therefore elect. This assumes infants can't reject the gospel because they can't understand it.

Both deviations from Calvin's view seem to be based on the belief that an infant can't have faith and that this is more or less common sense.

Calvin’s original premise seems to be maintained by two possible versions.

First, it may be simply ‘resigned into the hands of God’ by faith. In other words, salvation is ‘ordinarily’ obtained through hearing the gospel and personally believing it, however, God is not limited to that means and saves elect infants anyway upon reasons that we need not ask.
Second, God by His Spirit can generate faith in an infant so that even thought not fully conscious of their choice, they can actually
personally believe the gospel under a lower intellectual capacity
than younger children or adults might do.

This question is asking for the Biblical basis of the second option as opposed to the first and ideally includes infants in the womb..

Calvin puts his own view on the subject most directly in a section of his institutes of religion called “Paedobaptism. Its accordance with the institution of Christ, and the nature of the sign.” In this section he is arguing for the case of infant baptism and one of the arguments from the Anabaptists was that why should you baptize an infant who can’t have faith? Now as Calvin did not think baptism was necessary for salvation, only that he thought it was good to continue the practice, the more serious and important subject of ‘infant election’ is addressed.

Calvin states his belief that elect infants can be justified and in some sense have faith. He denies the supposition that infants can’t have faith. First is asserts a form of the First option, i.e. that infants can be justified within a mystery where we do not really understand how it is that they have faith:

  But how, they ask, are infants regenerated, when not possessing a knowledge of either good or evil? We answer, that the work of God, though beyond the reach of our capacity, is not therefore null. Moreover, infants who are to be saved (and that some are saved at this age is certain) must, without question, be previously regenerated by the Lord. For if they bring innate corruption with them from their mother’s womb, they must be purified before they can be admitted into the kingdom of God, into which shall not enter any thing that defileth, (Rev. 21:27.) If they are born sinners, as David and Paul affirm, they must either remain unaccepted and hated by God, or be justified. (Institutes, Vol.4: Part 17)

Calvin does not stop here. He also moves to the Second, i.e., that infants can have faith by the ‘work of the Spirit’ even in the womb, although admittedly this might be very rare:

  But to silence this class of objectors, God gave, in the case of John the Baptist, whom he sanctified from his mother’s womb, (Luke 1:15,) a proof of what he might do in others. They gain nothing by the quibble to which they here resort, viz., that this was only once done, and, therefore, it does not forthwith follow that the Lord always acts thus with infants. That is not the mode in which we reason. Our only object is to show, that they unjustly and malignantly confine the power of God within limits, within which it cannot be confined. (Institutes, Vol.4: Part 17)

What I find about Calvin’s argument is not any illogical part but that they are simply thin. I guess as he was only arguing about another point he failed to more thoroughly address the subject.  There are two things that make me feel more is required to provide a biblical basis. Two answers still need to be provided. Why is the Bible more or less silent about the subject of the faith of infants and why should we consider that John the Baptist’s sanctification from the womb could have been evidence of faith in Christ?

To answer the first question, ‘Why is the Bible more or less silent about the subject of the faith of infants?’ It is safe to say that where the scripture does not provide light, we are to be content trusting God by faith without clarity.  The whole problem over these sorts of subjects is that we seek a systematic theology that answers every question, and then we think we have finally ‘arrived’ at the answer. However there are several subjects that God has not made fully know to us and even when our knowledge is very small we have arrived at the answer only because God has taken us in his hand and we have taking his in trust. The greatness of his mind leaves all our sailing thoughts left behind, but we can trust he loves us and loves all children, whether elect for salvation or damnation. Faith trusts God, like Abraham who was willing to offer up Isaac as a sacrifice knowing that God could raise him from the dead.

Too answer the second question, ‘Why should we consider that John the Baptist’s sanctification from the womb could have been evidence of faith in Christ?’ We must acknowledge that the scripture is mostly silent on this issue and the few places where the womb is talked about are few and could be seen as merely marking out God’s calling on the individual.

Here are some few examples of something happening in the womb that seems to be an interaction with the Spirit:

  The children struggled together within her, and she said, “If it is thus, why is this happening to me?” So she went to inquire of the LORD. (Genesis 25:22)

This could be understood as simply a unlikely movement of infants which Rebekah superstitiously considered as a bad omen, but there are many coincidental things about Jacob and Esau which the scriptures lift up almost centrally to view the subject of predestination with, therefore it could also be a mark that the Spirit of God was moving on Jacob.  We can’t help but notice that this struggling seems to have also resulted in the outcome of Jacob holding Esau’s heel as he was already seeking the birthright from which Messiah would come. Yes these are all seeming coincidences but even later Hosea the prophet matches Jacob’s wrestling in the womb to his later wrestling with Christ for the blessing (Hos 12:3)

Sometimes when the Bible mentions God’s calling from the womb there is no mention of anything actually occurring in the womb so it can be inferred that this is simply a way of describing and eternal calling on one’s life. For example Paul used this idea in Galatians 1:15. Samson was ‘dedicated to God’ from his Mother’s womb (Judges 16:17).  Jeremiah was ‘set apart’ in eth womb (Jeremiah 1:5), etc. However in the case of John the Baptists we again, like Jacob have mention about something literally happening in the womb.

First John is said to be ‘filled with the Spirit’, even in the womb:

  for he will be great before the Lord. And he must not drink wine or strong drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb. (Luke 1:15, ESV)

But not only so, John literally responds to Jesus in the womb:

  And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the baby leaped in her womb. (Luke 1:41, ESV)

Yes, it could be that again just a coincidental movement of the baby occurred under God’s miraculous guidance to create the ‘impression’ that John was reacting to the nearness of the Christ, or he was actually being filled with the Spirit in the womb and could not help but react literally to Christ. It is the second possibility that Calvin argues as a sample case, to ‘partially pierce the veil of the mystery’ of election, where infants are concerned.


What is the "General Magisterium" in Roman Catholicism? I understand that there are three magisterium in Roman Catholicism.

What is the General Magisterium according to Roman Catholic belief?

I hadn't heard of (or recalled) three layers of Magisterium until seeing this question (and I was hoping someone who was more familiar would post and answer sooner), but I was able to find a page (just one) that refers to three levels. Effectively, this resource claims that the General Magisterium, i.e., the general teaching authority of the Church on faith, is the full body of Baptized and confirmed and/or ordained Catholics.

http://www.catholicplanet.com/TSM/general-magisterium.htm

  The general Magisterium

  a. seeks the truth fallibly, includes the possibility of significant
  error, but is guided by the Holy Spirit. b. this search for truth has
  the charism of certain fruitfulness. The faithful who seek new
  insights into the Faith, in accord with the teachings of the
  Magisterium proper, cannot fail to bear fruit that will last. c. is
  exercised by all the faithful by virtue of the Sacraments of baptism,
  confirmation, or ordination. d. is expressed in speculative theology,
  in discussions among the faithful, in sermons by ordained persons, and
  in non-official writings and discussions of Popes and Bishops. e. The
  Holy Spirit guarantees that this search for new insights into the
  truths found within Tradition, Scripture, and the teachings of the
  Magisterium proper will bear fruit that will last. f. assent is not
  required, except that all the faithful are required to assent to a
  sincere search for truth within Tradition, Scripture, and the
  teachings of the Magisterium proper g. anyone may dissent from
  particular ideas expressed in speculative theology, but no one may
  entirely dissent from the sincere search for truth within the Faith

However, as the author begins to summarize this in more plain English, he uses a concept we more commonly hear of, and which can be found more directly in the Catechism and other documents.

  The difference between the proper Magisterium (the Sacred Magisterium
  and the Ordinary Magisterium) and the general Magisterium is analogous
  to the difference between the priesthood of all ordained persons and
  the priesthood of all the faithful.

The Church teaches that we're all (Catholics) called to be priests, prophets, and kings to some extent. As laity, we're much more limited in our authority and jurisdiction, of course. But, we do have a call to participate in these roles, and therefore a call to teach faith -- more accurately, to forward and/or extrapolate in a non-authoritative manner on the faith, which is taught authoritatively by the higher level(s) of the Magisterium.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church talks more about the hierarchy and the three roles of all Catholics, but doesn't phrase it in terms of levels of the Magisterium so directly. See Christ’s Faithful—Hierarchy, Laity, Consecrated Life if you're interested in that.


Why is the Gospel of Mark said to present Jesus as "the Servant"? It is often asserted that the Gospel of Mark distinctively presents Jesus as the Servant, even the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53.

What is it about the particular content of the gospel of Mark that gives rise to this assertion?  What is the basis for this distinction?

Since Mark presents the Savior as a Slave, he does not tell His genealogy and status, as the ancestry of a slave is not worthy of note. Mark also does not intend to impress us with the Slave’s wonderful words (as Matthew does with His marvelous teachings and parables concerning the heavenly kingdom, and John with His profound revelations of divine truths), but he impresses us with His excellent deeds in His gospel service, providing more detail than the other Gospels, in order to portray the Slave-Savior’s diligence, faithfulness, and other virtues in the saving service He rendered to sinners for God.

In Mark’s Gospel is the fulfillment of the prophecy concerning Christ as the Slave of Jehovah in Isaiah 42:1-4, 6-7; 49:5-7; 50:4-7; 52:13—53:12, and the details of the teaching regarding Christ as the Slave of God in Philippians 2:5-11. His diligence in labor, His need of food and rest (Mark 3:20-21; 6:31), His anger (3:5), His groaning (7:34), and His affection (10:21) display beautifully His humanity in its virtue and perfection. His lordship (2:28), His omniscience (2:8), His miraculous power, and His authority to cast out demons (1:27; 3:15), to forgive sins (2:7, 10), and to silence the wind and the sea (4:39) manifest in full His deity in its glory and honor. Such a Slave served sinners as their Slave-Savior, with His life as their ransom (10:45), for the fulfillment of the eternal purpose of God, whose Slave He was.


What are the main reasons of EOC for why the Protoevangelium of James was not to be included in the canon? What are the main reasons of Eastern Orthodox Church for why the Protoevangelium of James was not to be included in the canon? I was looking for a resource stating those reasons, but couldn't find. Wiki's article on Protoevangelium of James doesn't say anything about that.

While I can't speak on behalf of my EOC brothers, I may be able to offer some insight as to why the Coptic Orthodox Church considers it apocrypha, and for that matter, give some reasons as to why the EOC considers it the same.

There are certain criteria for canonization that each book of the Holy Bible must follow in order to be accepted by the Church as divinely inspired.

Criteria for Canonization

Apostolicity
Orthodoxy
Antiquity
Catholicity (Universaility)
Intrisic soudness

The Protoevangelium of St. James is dated to be written in the second to third century. Therefore, he would not have been alive at the time of the writing of this document which brings some question in regards to the apostolicity of the text.

The teachings of the Protoevangelium differ from Orthodoxy in general in that it mentions that Joseph was married prior to his betrothal to St. Mary. This differs from the teachings of the 4 gospels. It is upon this basis that the author builds the idea that James and our Lord Jesus Christ are step-brothers. This idea deviates from Orthodoxy as well as Catholicism and is not accepted.

As previously mentioned while the text may seem of old age, dating back to the second and third centuries, in comparison to the Gospels, it is not. All four gospels were written prior to the second century and entail none of the mentioned events that occurred in the Protoevangelium of James. A book that was written after the gospels by several hundred years, contains items that none of the 4 evangelists wrote about. While second and third-century texts may seem ancient, in regards to the gospels, they are not.

The Catholicity speaks for itself. The Orthodox church regards the book as Apocrypha, therefore it is not widely accepted by all of the churches as other books of the bible are.

Finally is intrinsic soundness. The Protoevangelium offers some embellishments such as the birth of Jesus in a cave and his hiding in a trough.

Each one of the New Testament books of the Holy Bible stood in front of these 5 criteria and were canonized. The Protoevangelium stood in front of these same five criteria and even if it was only slightly flawed in one, the church fathers made sure that documents such as these, would not be included in the Holy Bible.

Some sources

Protoevangelium of James in the Bible?

Orthodox Wiki on the Protoevangelium of

Decretum Gelasianum

Coptic Heritage | James, the brother of the Lord

St. Mary in the Orthodox concept


Are there any groups of Christians who believe that all loans made with their money should be made without the expectation of repayment? In Luke 6:35, Jesus says that Christians are to:

  "lend, expecting nothing in return"

Are there any denominations or groups in Christianity (past or present) which have taught and acted on the belief (and are known for this belief in a published source) that each and every loan made with their money - whether the loan was made by them directly or made through a 3rd party - is to be made without the expectation of repayment?

Note: Please exclude any Christian denomination or group which sanctions modern banking, as modern banking by its nature relies on making loans which expect something in return.

For further clarity, this is the only example I know of, which portrays the meaning I'm getting at.

Strict Eastern Orthodox Christian teaching requires this.

Although written in the 18th century, Counsels on the Particular Duties of Every Christian by Tikhon of Zadonsk is still considered by Orthodox Christians to be one of the most practical guides available for Christian living.  (It is available in an English translation of the Greek version entitled Journey to Heaven).  Tikhon writes:

  When a debtor comes to such destitution and poverty that he genuinely
  has nothing with which to pay back his creditor, Christian love
  demands that the creditor either be patient, or, what is better, even
  to forgive the debtor his debt.  Christian!  He who took a loan from
  you is truly your debtor, but you are God's debtor.  He is indebted to
  you for material things, but you are indebted to God for sins.  His
  debt is very small against your debt of sin, it is as though it were
  nothing.  Thus when you beg God to forgive you your ten thousand
  talents, forgive your neighbor his hundred pence.  Spare the poor that
  God may spare you.  Be a man merciful to men, that you may pray to God
  without pangs of conscience, God, be merciful to me a sinner! (Luke
  18:13).

Tikhon also taught that the taking of interest in loans was expressly forbidden by Luke 6:35.

  The holy word of God forbids the taking of interest.  Lend, hoping
  for nothing again, says the Lord.

  Interest or usury is considered to be among the greater sins as we see
  in the 14th Psalm, He hath not lent his money on usury.  Read this
  Psalm for yourself diligently, and you will see the truth.

  It is safer before the all-seeing God and before His just judgement
  not to take from those that do not have, than to take interest.  Then
  choose the safer course.

I think I should add that Tikhon also cautions those who decide to take a loan to be careful to pay back everything "lest you appear before Christ's Judgement in debt".


How do Mormons translate, "Elohim"? According to Mormon doctrine, Elohim is God the Father. The literal translation of Elohim (אֱלֹהִים), is "Gods". How do Mormons interpret Elohim to mean, "Heavenly Father?"

El (אֵל), as the Hebrew word for God or Divine Being, is used in various Hebrew word combinations to identify Deity and to reveal particular things about him. Thus El Elyon (אֵ֣לעֶלְי֔וֹן) means the Highest God, the Possessor or Creator of heaven and earth:

  And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high God,
  possessor of heaven and earth: (Gen. 14:19);

El Shaddai (אֵ֣לשַׁדַּ֔י) signifies God Almighty

  And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the Lord appeared to
  Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and
  be thou perfect. (Gen. 17:1);

El Elohe Yisrael (אֵ֖לאֱלֹהֵ֥ייִשְׂרָאֵֽל׃ס) is the God of Israel

  And he erected there an altar, and called it El-elohe-Israel.
  (Gen. 33:20.)

Elohim is the plural of the Canaanite El or the Hebrew Eloah; consequently, its literal meaning is Gods. Accordingly, as the Prophet pointed out, such Old Testament passages as,

  "In the beginning God (Elohim) created the heaven and the earth" (Gen.
  1:1),

should more properly be translated,

  "In the beginning the head of the Gods brought forth the Gods," and they created the heavens and the earth. (Teachings, pp. 370-371.)

Elohim, plural word though it is, is also use as the exalted name-title of God the Eternal Father, a usage that connotes his supremacy and omnipotence, he being God above all Gods. (The Father and the Son: A Doctrinal Exposition by the First Presidency and the Twelve, cited, Articles of Faith, pp. 465-473; 1 Cor. 8:6.)1

1 Mormon Doctrine, Bruce R. McConkie.


What is the significance of Noah, after the flood, getting drunk and cursing his son who saw him Naked? A strange passage in the beginning of Genesis contains the account of Noah who, after surviving the flood, planted a vineyard and made wine. After he drank the wine and became drunk one of his sons (Ham) sees him naked, tells his two brothers about it and they cover Noah up. After Noah wakes up he figures out what has gone on while he is asleep and curses Ham and his descendants.

Here is the passage: Genesis 9:20-27 (KJV)

  20 And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard: 21 And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent. 22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without. 23 And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father's nakedness. 24 And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him. 25 And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. 26 And he said, Blessed be the LORD God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. 27 God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.

What is meaning/significance of this passage? I have heard that it was used to justify slavery in the 17th and 18th century. I suspect that the Israelites used it to justify their invasion of Canaan in ancient times.

Is there not a better, more spiritual or redemptive interpretation on this passage?

I certainly think the clarify of the passage is a bit lacking.

As I understand verse 22, Ham "saw" the nakedness of his father...perhaps not just as in accidentally, but more of a deeper "examination" of his fathers nakedness? There is no mention of what Ham's thinking was...perverse or spiteful...disrespectful...but I think the difference between Ham's attitude and his brothers attitude in relation to their father's state is clearer given the rest of verse 22, and verse 23: Ham told his brothers...jokingly, mockingly, making fun of his father?...and his brothers in turn respectfully covered their father without looking at him at all.

There is probably some facet of culture not included in biblical text here, but it does seem clear the difference between Ham's "seeing" and his brothers "backing in, faces turned away, and covering their father" that gave Noah reason to curse Ham's offspring, and bless Japheth and Shem. While it may not usually end up with a curse, I believe the same kind of behavior from a mans son's today would result in some kind of punishment for a son that showed a lack of respect to a father, regardless of whether that father's own choices resulted in a disappointing state. Children respecting their fathers is a fundamental teaching of the bible.


How does Christianity view such persons who are Xianpo(s)? I live in China, and there is a kind of person called Xianpo here. The Xianpo can talk to the dead soul, and the soul can tell the Xainpo what he saw.
One day, I told the Xianpo that I met a woman, so the Xianpo said to me the following things:
The Xianpo said:

She has neither promised nor refused to fall in love with me now.
She is my classmate.
She is a little shorter than me.
She is a outsider.
She has a good figure, an oval face, and her face is white and beautiful.
I miss her so I can't sleep at night.
She has long hair.

I met this woman recently. The Xianpo hasn't seen her, but she can describe her figure and appearance very accurately.
The Xianpo also said that some people have mental disorders because their souls have entered hell and married female souls.
How does Christianity view such Xianpo? What is the biblical basis of this phenomenon?
My respond：

Even if all Jesus encountered were evil souls, it cannot be said that all those with this ability are evil souls. It is unreasonable to say that others are evil just because of this ability.

I live in a place where I don't know what Jesus is, and I am more curious about Jesus.

How does Christianity view such persons who are Xianpo(s)?
What is a Xianpo?

Various types of shamans can be traced to the [Culture of] Hakka [in China]. There are male sorcerers (PY: shunggong) and their female counterpart (PY: shungpo) who cast out devils and other evil influences. Contact with the spirits of the deceased is conducted through mediums (PY: xianpo).

Thus the xianpo are mediums and the Scriptures are very clear that sorcerers and mediums are not allowed to exist in Israel. They are considered an abomination in the eyes of God.

31You must not turn to mediums or spiritists; do not seek them out, or you will be defiled by them. I am the LORD your God. - Leviticus 19:31
You shall not permit a sorceress to live. - Exodus 22:18
10 There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch.n11 Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer. 12 For all that do these things are an abomination unto the Lord: and because of these abominations the Lord thy God doth drive them out from before thee. - Deuteronomy 18:10-12

Mediums, magicians, and others who practice occult arts might offer entertainment by means of deception, but some mediums legitimately communicate with either the dead or with demons. The point is that any spirit not from God comes from Satan.

Occultists in the Bible and Throughout History
People have been consulting with the dead for millennia, hoping to find out what is on the other side; believing they can learn the future; desiring control and power.
As the Philistines continued to threaten the kingdom of Israel, Saul sought help from Samuel, but since Samuel was dead, Saul consulted the witch of Endor (1 Samuel 28). As a slave, the power of “fortune-telling” was a source of income to her owners (Acts 16:16-19).
Mediums, magicians, and others who practice occult arts might offer entertainment by means of deception, but some mediums legitimately communicate with either the dead or with demons. If there is any doubt that such a thing is possible, one should remember that “we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the [...] cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil” (Ephesians 6:12).
Whether a medium is speaking to a client’s dead relative or to a demon posing as a deceased loved one, the point is that any spirit not from God comes from Satan.
Why Mediums are Unwelcome in God’s Kingdom
King Saul was already on the way out as the king of Israel, but consulting a medium was “the final step in [his] tragic downfall” because he failed to seek God’s guidance. We are invited to ask God for wisdom. “His way is always best, and He wants to show it to you — because He loves you.”
John Piper designates spiritualism as “the use of psychic or spiritual forces to control another person or the course of events.” People who engage in “divination, soothsaying, augury, sorcery, the use of charms, mediums, wizardry, or necromancy” are doing so in order to “gain […] power over destiny, and for controlling people and events to [their] liking.” “God frustrates” their plans when “directed against His people.” Their plans and the individuals themselves are “abominable in the eyes of God.”
Whether those actions include human sacrifice or merely playing around on the fringes of spiritualism, “every inclination to the deed is evil.” It’s an act of “rebellion” rooted in deception, taking us right back to the garden where the devil tempted Eve by saying “you will not certainly die” (Genesis 3:4).
Piper argues that “we belittle God and exalt ourselves” when we try to discover the unspoken mysteries of our futures and of God’s plans. Jesus is the “Revealer,” appointed by the Father.
Knowing the Difference
Christians need to pay attention because “the coming of the lawless one” will be accompanied by “false signs and wonders” (2 Thessalonians 2:9). Satan and his retinue are “ravenous wolves” wearing “sheep’s clothing” (Matthew 7:15). These demons seek to lead Christians into chaos and pre-Christians to destruction.
They use mediums and astrologers and others of spiritualism to do their work. Prophecy is a "miracle of knowledge, a declaration or description or representation of something future, beyond the power of human sagacity to foresee, discern, or conjecture." Prophecy is a “human report of a divine revelation.”
Christians are warned to “test the spirits” (1 John 4:1). False prophets “reject the word of the Lord” and also say “let us go after other gods” (Deuteronomy 13:2). The gift of prophecy as a revelation directly from God was given “temporarily” in order to “lay the foundation of the early church” and to teach followers before there was a completed bible for reference to God’s “revealed word.” “If someone now claims to have received a ‘special revelation,’ we must test it against Scripture.” Even if it “is consistent with Scripture, then we have to ask why an ‘extra’ word was necessary if its truth is already contained in the Bible.”
The gift of prophecy in today’s church is not a means of satisfying curiosity or easing anxiety about the future, but is understood as “the divine strength or ability to communicate God’s truth and heart in a way that calls people to a right relationship with God.”
Is There Hope for Mediums?
As Piper says, individuals who practice spiritualism are abominable to God, but “not beyond the reach of God’s love.” While preaching in Samaria, “a man named Simon, who had previously practiced magic” and had become arrogant with his fame and skill “believed the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ” (Acts 8:9, 12).


Why is the first question of the Westminster Shorter Catechism so different from the Westminster Confession opening statement? The former is based on the latter, being drawn up by a special Assembly convened in London in 1643, to be a Catechism for the Christian Church in England, Scotland and Ireland. It was adopted by the (Presbyterian) Church of Scotland in 1648 as a means of Christian instruction. Here is how a 1981 Presbyterian Church of Australia words question and answer No. 1 –

  “What is the chief purpose for which man is made? The chief purpose
  for which man is made is to glorify God, and to enjoy him for ever.
  Scripture: 1 Cor 10:31; Rom 11:36; Ps 73:24-26; John 17:22, 24; Rev
  7:17.”

Yet in “The Westminster Confession of Faith for Study Classes”, the first declaration is all about God revealing himself through his works of creation and providence, but primarily through written Scripture, so to declare his will to the Church as his former ways of revealing his will to his people have ceased (Heb 1:1-2).

The Shorter Catechism No. 2 appears to make the link:

  “What rule has God given to direct us how to glorify and enjoy him?
  The Word of God, which consists of the Scriptures of the Old and New
  Testaments, is the only rule to direct us how to glorify and enjoy
  him. Scripture: Gal 1:8-9; Isa 8:20; Luke 16:29-31; 2 Tim 3:15-17.”

The Westminster Confession of Faith 1.6 opens up with,

  “The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own
  glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down
  in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from
  Scripture…”.

Yet, ironically, the previous Study Class question is asked, “How do Protestants sometimes subordinate the authority of Scripture to men?” and I wonder if the first Shorter Catechism exemplifies this fault.

Thus my question is, why would man be made the object of the first question, not God and his written word? Is there something intrinsically wrong with the first Shorter Catechism question and answer?

To discover why the first question of the Westminster Shorter Catechism appears to be different to the first section of the Confession (‘Of The Holy Scriptures’), I read comments written by those subscribing to that Confession. Here are some quotes:

  Thomas Watson, 17th century divine, on glory and enjoyment re. Q38 of the Westminster Shorter Catechism (‘What benefits do believers receive from Christ at the resurrection?’) “At the resurrection, believers being raised up in glory, shall be openly acknowledged and acquitted in the day of judgment, and made perfectly blessed in the full enjoyment of God to all eternity.” A Body of Divinity Contained in Sermons upon the Westminster Assembly’s Catechism, p 305 (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, repr., 1965)

This shows the sense in which glory and enjoyment is understood – there can be no divine glory and permanent enjoyment for man outside of Christ and God. There can only be failed and temporary attempts if God is not made the object of the believer’s life as shown by this Church of Scotland minister’s explanation as to how the will of God is biblically unfolded:

  “The hallmark of coming to know the will of God is objectivity. Jean Piaget, the Swiss thinker and psychologist has suggested that the fundamental difference between childhood and truly adult thought is that while the child is dominated by an egocentric attitude to life and influenced by his own wishes and inner needs rather than the objective reality beyond him, the adult lives his life in the light of that world and brings his perception into line with it. It is surely obvious that there is a spiritual parallel… the basic need is for Christians to learn …to live their lives out of God as their centre rather than self as their centre; to escape from a self-dominated view of Christian living, and to see that their chief end is to glorify God and enjoy him… When we are concerned to glorify God, guidance will cease to be a problem and appear increasingly as a joy and a privilege.” Sinclair Ferguson, Add to Your Faith, p 69 (Glasgow, Pickering & Inglis 1980)

This shows that the first question in question here does not promote man at the outset, but gets man to consider God as the One who should be his goal, his object, his reason to live, for it is God’s glory that will give ultimate and everlasting satisfaction and joy. On the matter of how man can know what his will and purpose ought to be, the next quote shows that God reveals this through the gospel message (contained in scripture):

  “In order for man to be the image and likeness of God two things were essential. His being must be like God’s, and his will or purpose must also be like God’s… However, the purpose of man is a matter of choice. As God is free to do as he will, so man (being created in the divine image) is free to do as he will. But even in his freedom of will man cannot escape the absolute control of God because the being of man (he is only an image) is wholly dependent upon God. In setting his will against the will of God revealed by the Word of God, man can only violate, but can never destroy, his dependent relationship to God. Man’s determination to be independent of God is doomed to frustration, and he is clearly and constantly reminded of this through natural revelation… so the remedy for man’s present need comes by way of word revelation. Only the gospel can supplement natural revelation in such a way as to (a) disclose the means of removing God’s enmity and (b) make man once more a willing subject of the will of God.” G.I. Williamson, pp 2-3 The Westminster Confession of Faith for Study Classes (Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1964)

The obvious reason for the first question in the Shorter Catechism is now seen to be to direct man at the outset to his need of God, to focus on and live for God’s glory and then he will enjoy God forever. This leads beautifully into the opening part of the Confession about the holy Scriptures.

Finally, to clinch it, consider the opening words to students in this Workbook on the Shorter Catechism:

  “Your study of the Shorter Catechism is planned to take two years. A bird’s-eye view of its organization may help you to understand the lessons that follow. The catechism is divided into two main sections. Questions 1-38 teach what man is to believe concerning God. Questions 39-107 explain what duty God requires of man. The first three questions form an introduction to the entire catechism. Question 1 tells us the chief purpose of man’s creation: to glorify God. Question 2 states that the Scriptures are the only rule for faith and duty, and question 3 tells us the two main topics treated in the Bible.” Dorothy Partington Anderson, Bible Doctrine, 1. Of God and Man (The Banner of Truth Trust, 1954 The Orthodox Presbyterian Church, Inc, USA)

Note how the first three questions are an INTRODUCTION to the whole catechism? They lay the foundation for all that is to come, and the foundation laid is about God, not man, and about God’s provision of the scriptures to inform and direct man in the way he should go. So, the first question in the Shorter Catechism is not different to the Confession’s opening points – it introduces it to help students understand what the Confession is about, and all to God’s glory, from start to finish.


Is there Biblical support for the concept that 'Whenever a man lies with a woman...a transcendental relation is set up between them'? Inspired by an earlier question, I'm not disagreeing with the opinion of C.S. Lewis, but I'm unable to think of any direct biblical support for it.  What is the Biblical basis for Lewis's quote?

  The truth is that wherever a man lies with a woman, there, whether they like it or not, a transcendental relation is set up between them which must be eternally enjoyed or eternally endured.

There's a very common teaching on what's called "soul ties".

The idea is that there are various things that can tie two human souls together.  One of those is sex.  The Biblical support for this is 1 Corinthians 6:16

  6 Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one
  with her in body? For it is said, “The two will become one flesh.”

How this equates to a "soul tie" is unclear to me, but to the adherents, it seems to implicitly make sense.

A sample of the teaching can be found here.

Excerpt:

  Brief Biblical look at soul ties

  1 Corinthians 6:16, "What? know ye not that he which is joined to an
  harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh."

  Obviously the two didn't get married, but something spiritual
  "happened" when they were joined physically in the act of sex. They
  were "joined"; their souls were "tied." Often there are men who have
  an adultery with a prostitute (one night stand), and afterwards, even
  years later, are still thinking about that girl! That is because a
  soul tie has been created.

There's another article here describing the same thing, going deeper into it and attempting to show that there are ties to body, soul, and spirit.

Again, I don't see these as a natural link, personally, and whether this is strong enough of a "Biblical basis" for any given individual is a personal opinion, but for those that teach and believe in the "soul ties" phenomenon, this is the basis given.


What is the textual evidence from the Bible that the resurrection for believers happens in stages (a Dispensationalist View)? On a separate post, the question about who populates the Millennium   brought this question to mind.
The belief is that Christ rose first, then believers, whether dead or living at the time of the rapture will receive their immortal bodies.  Next, martyrs of the tribulation period would be resurrected to immortality to live through the Millenium, and finally, all others will be resurrected or receive immortality at the Great White Throne.
At the Great White Throne, believers would be resurrected to or granted access to eternal life in the New Heaven and New Earth, because their names are recorded in the book of life, while unbelievers would be resurrected to eternal damnation in the lake of fire, along with the antichrist, false prophet, Satan and all of the demons.
The relationship to the original question about the Millennium was with regard to some people dying "young" at 100 years old during that period, and who those mortals would be if all saints received immortality before the Millennium began, and unbelievers will have perished, according to Revelation 19:

He will tread the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty. 16 On his robe and on his thigh he has a name written, King of kings and Lord of lords.
17 Then I saw an angel standing in the sun, and with a loud voice he called to all the birds that fly directly overhead, “Come, gather for the great supper of God, 18 to eat the flesh of kings, the flesh of captains, the flesh of mighty men, the flesh of horses and their riders, and the flesh of all men, both free and slave,[d] both small and great.”

I wrote this like a timeline of events to identify all the places where believers are taken from the earth, with some special care to pinpoint who populates the millennium. I am depicting the events as literal events and not mere symbolic "apocalyptic imagery."

Christ rose from the dead as "the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep" (1 Cor. 15:20). He is literally the first to rise from the dead and go to heaven.

At Christ's ascension, "He led captivity captive" (Eph. 4:8). Tradition uses this verse to teach that the part of hell where Abraham stayed (Luke 16:19-31) was emptied and those rose up to heaven.

There is a subset of Christians who believe there will be a rapture prior to the coming of Christ, either of the entire church, or only those in the church who are ready (Luke 21:36 is used for this latter group, as well as Matt. 25:1-13). Since they are saved from wrath through Him (Rom. 5:9), and the final years are a period of God's wrath, they will be taken before the tribulation period noted in Revelation, so the teaching goes. So we put a full or partial rapture here.

Some time during the final years before Christ comes, "two witnesses" will be raptured (Rev. 11:1-14).

At His coming, two more groups ascend in 1-2 succession: "the dead in Christ shall rise first" (1 Thes. 4:16). "Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds" (1 Thes. 4:17). "Alive and remain" probably refers to those who have escaped the wars and famine, and the beheading by the antichrist figure in Rev. 6:9-11 and Rev. 13:16-17. This verse is used to support the partial-rapture viewpoint and takes place in Rev. 7:9-17, immediately after Christ comes and His wrath starts in Rev. 6:12-17. This verse is also used in support for the full rapture viewpoint and according to them takes place in Rev. 4:1-2.

After Christ comes, He separates the "nations" which remain after the tribulation period of God's wrath, and one group of nations, the "sheep," are allowed into the kingdom (Matt. 25:31-46) because they demonstrated care for God's people during the reign of the antichrist figure. This is not a resurrection; they seem to be those who populate the millennium along with those of the raptured/resurrected of the previous stage. The resurrected and worthy saints will reign over these nations (Matt. 25:14-30). Also reigning are those who were martyred (Rev. 20:4-6). The other nations who were indifferent to the plight of God's people, the "goats," go into "everlasting punishment."

After the millennium, the Great White Throne is set and the dead are raised for judgment (Rev. 20:11-15). "And anyone not found written in the book of Life was cat into the Lake of Fire" (Rev. 20:15). This is worded such that there could be those whose names are in the Book, such as people who became believers among the "sheep" who lived and died during the millennium.

For the sake of completeness, I will include the stages in 1 Cor. 15:24-28, "when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all."


Why didn't the Archangel Michael save Jesus when he was crucified? I have read several articles about Michael the archangel, who is meant for the protection of people and souls.

Out of curiosity, I wondered: since Jesus is Son of God and also a prophet, why didn't God's Archangel Michael save Jesus when he was crucified?

Jesus' main purpose in coming to earth was to die on the cross in order to redeem mankind from their sins.

He attests to this in a number of places in the Bible, and other writers of scripture also say this.

Therefore to have Michael or any other archangel rescue Jesus would be to go against the wishes of God the Father - which Jesus, in his obedience, did not want.

When Jesus disciples try to defend him he tells them not to, and explicitly addresses this question (Matthew 26:52-54):

  “Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels? But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way?”

He predicts the manner of his death here.

You can see the theological necessity of it in Romans 5: 6-11

  You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous person, though for a good person someone might possibly dare to die. But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.


What would happen if the Pope were to abuse his power? I find it difficult to fathom the amount of power the Pope can potentially wield. According to book 2, part 2, section 1, chapter 1, article 1 of the Code of Canon Law the Pope basically has ultimate, irrefutable, supreme power for life. Nothing and no one can remove him from office except for himself if he were to decide to resign.

  "The bishop of the Roman Church, in whom continues the office given by the Lord uniquely to Peter, the first of the Apostles, and to be transmitted to his successors, is the head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ, and the pastor of the universal Church on earth. By virtue of his office he possesses supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church, which he is always able to exercise freely.." (canon 331, Code of Canon Law).

  "If it happens that the Roman Pontiff resigns his office, it is required for validity that the resignation is made freely and properly manifested but not that it is accepted by anyone."
  (canon 332 §2).

You obviously don't make it to the position of Pope without being a good guy, but I think any rational individual would agree that there are still serious risks attached to electing one man into a position of supreme power for life. Literally, he can say or do anything without recourse.

  "No appeal or recourse is permitted against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff" (canon 333 §3).

It doesn't even matter what state of health the Pope is in, and I assume that also means state of mental health, the Pope maintains supreme power.

  "When the Roman See is vacant or entirely impeded, nothing is to be
  altered in the governance of the universal Church; the special laws
  issued for these circumstances, however, are to be observed." (canon 335)

There is no way to remove him from office, or question anything he does, no impeachment process, no appeals, no nothing. If the Pope speaks ex cathedrâ, then it's written in stone.

There have been occasions where a Pope has spoken heresy (see Papal Infallibility and teaching heresy?). The church later repudiated the heretical positions under the claim that they were not spoken ex cathedra. This repudiation would have happened after the death of the Pope.

It seems to be commonly agreed that the Pope would never lead the Church astray, and I don't want a series of answers that go into detail about how unlikely it would be for a wayward Pope to abuse his power. From a secular perspective, the potential exists for one man to take advantage of the amount of power that is given to the Pope.

Here is my question:

If the Pope were to start declaring things ex cathedrâ like, the creeds were null and void, and that all Catholics were required to wear a colander on their heads at all times and pray to the Flying Spaghetti Monster, what would happen? Would every Catholic be required to comply? Would it be binding and  irreformable teaching forever? Could the next Pope undo his decree ex cathedrâ? Or could something be done to remove that Pope from power besides pressuring him into resigning?

Other than relying on God or the Spirit to prevent the Pope from abusing his power, what can be done to prevent the Pope from exercising unrighteous dominion?

First of all, it is important to understand the very strict conditions under which a Pope declares things ex cathedra. To begin with, he can only make such a declaration about doctrine.

Here is how the Catechism of the Catholic Church describes Papal infallibility:

  891 "The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful—who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals." [...] When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed," and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith." This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself. [The documents quoted are Lumen Gentium 25 and Dei Verbum 10 of the Second Vatican Council.]

Nothing that is strictly disciplinary would enter under that protection. Even in real praxis, Canon Law is never "forever;" it can be changed by the legislator (the pope) as needed. So, for example, requiring Catholics to wear colanders and to pray to the Flying Spaghetti Monster (however ridiculous and scandalous that is) cannot be the subject of an ex-cathedra pronouncement.

In this extremely unlikely scenario, there is a basic principle of the Catholic theory of law that would apply: since a law must be for the sake of the common good, an unjust law does not bind in conscience. St. Thomas Aquinas, reiterating a principle already elucidated by St. Augustine, says,

  [Unjust laws] are acts of violence rather than laws; because, as Augustine says, "a law that is not just, seems to be no law at all." [See De libero arbitrio, I, v, 11.] Wherefore such laws do not bind in conscience, except perhaps in order to avoid scandal or disturbance... (Summa theologiae, Ia-IIae, q. 96, a. 4, corpus).

A law can be unjust because it is excessively burdensome, or else because it commands people to act sinfully. Imposing the colander would clearly be excessively burdensome; requiring worship of the Flying Spaghetti Monster would be a kind of idolatry (or at best simply ridiculous and hence excessively burdensome).

So no, Catholics would not be bound to follow such decrees. Of course, if any Pontiff were to behave in this way, he would cause untold scandal and damage to the Church. Thankfully, no pope, not even the infamous Renaissance popes, or the (even worse) popes in the era following the fall of the Carolingian empire, has ever attempted anything of the kind. (They certainly abused their power in other ways, of course.)

Declaring the Creeds null and void would, however, enter into the domain of faith and morals. We have to keep in mind that—as the passage from the Catechism explains—when the Pope defines something ex cathedra, he has to

Intend to act as the universal pastor. (I.e., it is not enough for him to give his personal opinion or even to act simply as the bishop of Rome.)
Intend to proclaim whatever it is as to be held definitively by all the faithful.

It is the same intention and conditions that an ecumenical council has when it teaches.

In this case, Catholics believe that the Church as a whole (and therefore the Holy Father, by virtue of his office) is protected from teaching error. Nullifying the Nicene Creed, say, is clearly an error, and so the Church (and therefore the Pope) is prevented from performing that kind of action.

And in fact, no Pontiff has ever attempted such a reversal. (If you think about it, even the most disgraceful holders of the office would have had little motivation to do so.)

Supposing that the constitution of the Church were different, and that the Roman Pontiff were not protected from error, then, naturally, the faithful would not be bound to follow such erroneous decrees. (Such a scenario would, however, make it difficult to determine exactly which doctrines were the "correct" ones; the infallibility of the bishop of Rome, in the Catholic perspective, is an essential guarantee of the infallibility of the Church as a whole.)

(Another question, which perhaps the original poster had in mind is, "Could a pope privately be a heretic?" Could an closet Arian be elected the bishop of Rome? Could he confuse people by expressing his questionable or heretical personal opinions? The answer, at least in theory, is "yes." He would, however, be unable to impose his heresies "officially" as dogma.)

To answer the final question in the original post, in the case of a grossly misbehaved Pontiff, the only course of action would be to bring some kind of moral or political pressure to bear on him. Such a pope would be morally obligated to resign, but he would have to do so freely.


According to Catholic Church, to what extent is faith a gift of God in terms of Romans 12: 3? We see St. Paul telling the Romans (Romans 12:3) the following:

For by the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think of yourself more highly than you ought to think, but to think with sober judgment, each according to the measure of faith that God has assigned.

We also see Jesus telling at Mtt 13:12:

For to those who have, more will be given, and they will have an abundance; but from those who have nothing, even what they have will be taken away.

While Mtt 13:12 pre-supposes some basis measure of faith which one is supposed to gain through one's efforts so that God can top it up, Romans 12:3 appears to be telling that even the basic measure of faith one has, is assigned by God.
Interestingly, the list of Seven Gifts of Holy Spirit namely,  wisdom, understanding, counsel, fortitude, knowledge, piety, and fear of the Lord, does not include  faith.
We also see Jesus getting rejected at  Nazareth, at Mark 6:5-6:

He could not perform any miracles there, except to lay His hands on a few of the sick and heal them. And He was amazed at their  unbelief.

Should one presume that the people of Jesus'home-town had been given zero measure of faith by God(going by Romans 12:3), on account of which they rejected Jesus?
My question therefore is: According to Catholic Church, to what extent is faith a gift of God in terms of Romans 12:3?

According to Catholic Church, to what extent is faith a gift of God in terms of Romans 12: 3?

3 For I say, by the grace that is given me, to all that are among you, not to be more wise than it behoveth to be wise, but to be wise unto sobriety, and according as God hath divided to every one the measure of faith.

Faith is one of the three theological virtues that is infused in the believer, by which the intellect is perfected by a supernatural light.

The theological virtues are three: faith, hope, and charity.
Faith
Faith is an infused virtue, by which the intellect is perfected by a supernatural light, in virtue of which, under a supernatural movement of the will, it assents firmly to the supernatural truths of Revelation, not on the motive of intrinsic evidence, but on the sole ground of the infallible authority of God revealing. For as man is guided in the attainment of natural happiness by principles of knowledge known by the natural light of reason, so also in the attainment of his supernatural destiny his intellect must be illumined by certain supernatural principles, namely, Divinely revealed truths.
Hope
But not only man's intellect must be perfected with regard to his supernatural end, his will also must tend to that end, as a good possible of attainment. Now the virtue, by which the will is so perfected, is the theological virtue of hope. It is commonly defined as a Divinely infused virtue, by which we trust, with an unshaken confidence grounded on the Divine assistance, to attain life everlasting.
Charity
But the will must not only tend to God, its ultimate end, it must also be united to Him by a certain conformity. This spiritual union or conformity, by which the soul is united to God, the sovereign Good, is effected by charity. Charity, then, is that theological virtue, by which God, our ultimate end, known by supernatural light, is loved by reason of His own intrinsic goodness or amiability, and our neighbour loved on account of God. It differs from faith, as it regards God not under the aspect of truth but of good. It differs from hope inasmuch as it regards God not as our good precisely (nobis bonum), but as good in Himself (in se bonum). But this love of God as good in Himself does not, as the Quietists maintained, exclude the love of God as He is our good. With regard to the love of our neighbor, it falls within the theological virtue of charity in so far as its motive is the supernatural love of God, and it is thus distinguished from mere natural affection. Of the three theological virtues, charity is the most excellent. Faith and hope, involving as they do a certain imperfection, namely, obscurity of light and absence of possession, will cease with this life, but charity involving no essential defect will last forever. Moreover, while charity excludes all mortal sin, faith and hope are compatible with grievous sin; but as such they are only imperfect virtues; it is only when informed and vivified by charity that their acts are meritorious of eternal life.
Virtue (Catholic Encyclopedia)

Faith is the theological virtue by which we believe in God and believe all that he has said and revealed to us.

Faith
1814 Faith is the theological virtue by which we believe in God and believe all that he has said and revealed to us, and that Holy Church proposes for our belief, because he is truth itself. By faith "man freely commits his entire self to God." For this reason the believer seeks to know and do God's will. "The righteous shall live by faith." Living faith "work[s] through charity."
1815 The gift of faith remains in one who has not sinned against it. But "faith apart from works is dead":81 when it is deprived of hope and love, faith does not fully unite the believer to Christ and does not make him a living member of his Body.
1816 The disciple of Christ must not only keep the faith and live on it, but also profess it, confidently bear witness to it, and spread it: "All however must be prepared to confess Christ before men and to follow him along the way of the Cross, amidst the persecutions which the Church never lacks." Service of and witness to the faith are necessary for salvation: "So every one who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven; but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven." Catechism of the Catholic Church


What is the origin of Zoe (ζωή) vs Psyche (ψυχή) life in St. John? It seems in John's gospel and and in other letters by John, there is a big theological emphasis on the difference between (in the Greek) ζωή "Zoe" life and ψυχή "Psyche" life.

  John 12:25 (NIV)
  25 The man who loves his life [ψυχή / Psyche] will lose it, while the man who hates his life [ψυχή / Psyche] in this world will keep it for eternal life [ζωή / Zoe].

Is there any evidence of this idea preceding Christ, in Jewish thought up to that point, or in other religious traditions or is this unique to Christianity?

Aristotle (384-322 BC) talked about zoe versus psyche in his treatise De Anima ("On the Soul").  However, his concept of the mortal and immortal components of the complete human is a bit different than our current understanding.

An excerpt from the Catholic Encyclopedia discusses this:

  For Aristotle, in the case of living natural bodies the vital principle, psyche is the form. His doctrine is embodied in his famous definition: psyche estin entekexeia e prote somatos fysikou dynamei zoen exontos. (De Anima, II, i), i.e. the soul is therefore the first entelechy (substantial form or perfect actualization) of a natural or organized body potentially possessing life. The definition applies to plants, animals, and man.

That source goes on to say

  The human soul, however, seems to be of a different kind (genos etepron), and separable as the eternal from the perishable.

However, it should be noted that while Aristotle considers the zoe to be separable from the psyche, it's the psyche that is eternal, not the zoe:

per Wikipedia:

  Aristotle also argues that the mind (only the agent intellect) is immaterial, able to exist without the body, and immortal.

And also

  He holds that the soul is the form, or essence of any living thing; that it is not a distinct substance from the body that it is in; that it is the possession of soul (of a specific kind) that makes an organism an organism at all, and thus that the notion of a body without a soul, or of a soul in the wrong kind of body, is simply unintelligible.

finally

  Some commentators have suggested that Aristotle's term soul is better translated as lifeforce

Given this, I would have to say that yes, the concept that there is a mortal component and an eternal component to us all is an older concept the Christianity.  However, the concept isn't quite the same as our current understanding.


What do mormons believe about eschatology? As I understand, mormons affirm some sort of final judgment where people are judged according to their works.

I'm curious what that looks like. Is it a balancing scale, where if you did more good than bad you pass and if you did more bad than good you fail? Or is it more of a "everything bad you do will be punished and everything good you do will be rewarded"?

Furthermore, how does mormon belief on this issue compare to the three mainstream christian views: Universalism, Annihilationism and Eternal-Conscious-Torment?

It is based on obedience and what is in the heart. One scripture that brings this out is:

  "For we labor diligently to write, to persuade our children, and also
  our brethren, to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for
  we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do."
  (2 Nephi 25:23)

It has been stressed that it is not "we are saved because of what we do" but rather "after all we can do" ("The Gift of Grace", President Dieter F. Uchtdorf, 2015 April Conference, Sunday morning session). What can "we do"? We can love God with all our heart, mind, and soul (Matthew 22:26-40). We can then show that love through obedience to the commandments (John 14:15). We can repent of our sins ("After All We Can Do", Elder Claudio D. Zivic of the Seventy, 2007 October General Conference). What it really boils down is to strive to measure up to the stature of Jesus Christ (Ephesians 4:11-13) by overcoming the "natural man":

  "For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of
  Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings
  of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a
  saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a
  child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to
  submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him,
  even as a child doth submit to his father." (Mosiah 3:19)

The LDS beliefs align with Universalism such as is expressed in these Articles of Faith:

  11 We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the
  dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege,
  let them worship how, where, or what they may.

  12 We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and
  magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.

  13 We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and
  in doing good to all men; indeed, we may say that we follow the
  admonition of Paul—We believe all things, we hope all things, we have
  endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If
  there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy,
  we seek after these things.

One point that may differ slightly from Universalism may be that the church itself remains politically neutral and will not allow the buildings to be used for political purposes. However members are strongly encouraged to be active in the political process.

There is no doctrine on Annihilationism that I am aware of though some opinions have been tossed about regarding it. As far as the final judgment goes there will be those that are sent to the Lake of Fire:

  "30 And we saw a vision of the sufferings of those with whom he made
  war and overcame, for thus came the voice of the Lord unto us:

  31 Thus saith the Lord concerning all those who know my power, and
  have been made partakers thereof, and suffered themselves through the
  power of the devil to be overcome, and to deny the truth and defy my
  power—

  32 They are they who are the sons of perdition, of whom I say that it
  had been better for them never to have been born;

  33 For they are vessels of wrath, doomed to suffer the wrath of God,
  with the devil and his angels in eternity;

  34 Concerning whom I have said there is no forgiveness in this world
  nor in the world to come—

  35 Having denied the Holy Spirit after having received it, and having
  denied the Only Begotten Son of the Father, having crucified him unto
  themselves and put him to an open shame.

  36 These are they who shall go away into the lake of fire and
  brimstone, with the devil and his angels—

  37 And the only ones on whom the second death shall have any power;

  38 Yea, verily, the only ones who shall not be redeemed in the due
  time of the Lord, after the sufferings of his wrath." (D&C 76:30-38)

The Eternal-Conscious-Torment belief is held by some based on the following verse while others hold to the previous verse in D&C 76.

  "Therefore if that man repenteth not, and remaineth and dieth an enemy
  to God, the demands of divine justice do awaken his immortal soul to a
  lively sense of his own guilt, which doth cause him to shrink from the
  presence of the Lord, and doth fill his breast with guilt, and pain,
  and anguish, which is like an unquenchable fire, whose flame ascendeth
  up forever and ever." (Mosiah 2:38)

The Bible Dictionary defines "hell" this way:

  An English translation of the Hebrew word Sheol, hell signifies an
  abode of departed spirits and corresponds to the Greek Hades. In
  common speech it generally denotes the place of torment for the
  wicked, although it has been often held, both in the Jewish and the
  Christian churches, that Hades (meaning broadly the place of all
  departed spirits) consists of two parts, paradise and Gehenna, one the
  abode of the righteous and the other of the disobedient. Gehenna, or
  Gehenna of fire, is the Greek equivalent of the “valley of Hinnom,” a
  deep glen of Jerusalem where the idolatrous Jews offered their
  children to Moloch (2 Chr. 28:3; 33:6; Jer. 7:31; 19:2–6). It was
  afterwards used as a place for burning the refuse of the city (2 Kgs.
  23:10) and in that way became symbolic of the place of torment (Matt.
  5:22, 29–30; 10:28; 18:9; 23:15, 33; Mark 9:43, 45, 47; Luke 12:5;
  James 3:6). Expressions about “hell-fire” are probably due to the
  impression produced on men’s minds by the sight of this ceaseless
  burning and are figurative of the torment of those who willfully
  disobey God.

  In latter-day revelation hell is spoken of in at least two senses. One
  is the temporary abode in the spirit world of those who were
  disobedient in this mortal life. It is between death and the
  Resurrection, and persons who receive the telestial glory will abide
  there until the last resurrection (D&C 76:84–85, 106), at which time
  they will go to the telestial glory. In this sense the Book of Mormon
  speaks of spiritual death as hell (2 Ne. 9:10–12). Hell, as thus
  defined, will have an end, when all the captive spirits have paid the
  price of their sins and enter into a degree of glory after their
  resurrection. Statements about an everlasting hell (Hel. 6:28; Moro.
  8:13) must be interpreted in their proper context in the light of D&C
  19:4–12, which defines eternal and endless punishment.

  On the other hand, the devil and his angels, including the sons of
  perdition, are assigned to a place spoken of as a lake of fire—a
  figure of eternal anguish. This condition is sometimes called hell in
  the scriptures (2 Pet. 2:4; D&C 29:38; 88:113). This kind of hell,
  which is after the Resurrection and Judgment, is exclusively for the
  devil and his angels and is not the same as that consisting only of
  the period between death and resurrection. The one group are redeemed
  from hell and inherit some degree of glory. The other receive no
  glory. They continue in spiritual darkness. For them the conditions of
  hell remain. [https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bd/hell?lang=eng&letter=H]


Why did John Newton oppose Handel's Messiah? Recently, while listening to a lecture on worship by Kevin Twit, I was surprised to hear John Newton's opinion on Handel's Messiah:

  John Newton, the author of "Amazing Grace," refused to let Handel's Messiah be performed in his church.  Do you know why?  He thought the musical style was too worldly. ["Does Musical Style Matter?" MTW Global Missions Conference 2013]

Of course, Handel's Messiah, which includes the ever popular "Hallelujah Chorus," is a staple for many churches at Christmas and/or Easter.  Why would John Newton object so strongly to Handel's Messiah?  Is Twit's summary correct?  Or were there other reasons for Newton's dislike of the work?

Newton did indeed have issues with Handel's Messiah, so much so that in 1784–85 he gave a series of 50 sermons at his own church (St. Mary Woolnoth) in response to the oratorio being played at Westminster Abbey as part of a commemoration festival of Handel's 100th birthday.  His stated goal was to preach on the Scriptural passages found in the lyrics of the Messiah, though he also found ample opportunity to further his critique of the oratorio and its performance.
The complete collection of fifty sermons is available online in a number of formats, such as in this one-volume collection of Newton's works.  Thankfully, there are also helpful summaries of the sermons – one by Robert Manson Myers, "Fifty Sermons on Handel's Messiah" (Harvard Theological Review, October 1946) and David W. Music, "John Newton's Sermons on Handel's Messiah" (American Organist, August 2003).
Dr. Music summarizes Newton's objections as follows:

The music of Messiah, though majestic and greatly admired, deflects attention from the scriptural text upon which it is based;
The audience that gathered to hear Messiah came for the wrong reasons; and
The place of its performance was inappropriate.

Messiah distracts from Scripture
One of Newton's concerns was that the impressive music of the Messiah drowned out any chance of valuing the actual words:

It is to be feared, that [...] many persons, who have received pleasure from the music of the Messiah, have neither found, nor expected, nor desired to find, any comfort from the words. (Sermon 1)

He asks those who have heard the Messiah to consider if they were "only captivated by the music," and treated the "great truths of God" found in the lyrics as "if they had no meaning" (Sermon 2).  To Newton, the power of the words was being ignored because of the effect of the music:

The music of the Messiah is but an ornament of the words, which have a very weighty sense.  This sense no music can explain, and when rightly understood, will have such an effect as no music can produce. (Sermon 3)

Messiah's audience
We know from contemporary observers, besides Newton, that the Handel Commemoration at Westminster Abbey was a frenzy—Myers describes the "frank worldliness of a brilliant scene," and the inability of church officials to control the audience (218). This fueled Newton's cricism of the event, and particularly those who attended it.  They treated "the sufferings of the Son of God" as an "amusement" (Sermon 22); they would hear of "his passion and his kingdom" as a part of "musical entertainment, but upon no other occasion" (Sermon 11).
Newton draws an analogy between the Messiah's audience and a group being tried for high treason.  A guilty verdict is inevitable, but instead of seeking mercy from the king, they are "wholly taken up with contriving methods of amusing themselves" so as to maintain "as much chearfulness as possible."  Their preferred form of entertainment is music, and they especially like a work that describes their trial, judge, and sentence, and even, upon its receipt, incorporates the wording of the offer of pardon sent by the king.  "The fearful doom awaiting them [...] is sung for their diversion"; they focus on their entertainment and take no step toward accepting the king's mercy. (Sermon 4)
The seriousness of the subject of the Messiah makes its use as a "fashionable amusement" even worse:

If the far greater part of the people who frequent the Oratorio, are evidently unaffected by the Redeemer's love, and uninfluenced by his commands, I am afriad, it is no better, than a profanation of the name and truths of God, a crucifying the Son of God afresh. (Sermon 50)

The place of performance
Newton also objected to the Handel Commemoration taking place at Westminster Abbey, in part because audiences considered performances of the Messiah to be "equally acceptable, whether performed in a church or in the theatre" (Sermon 50).  But especially egregious was that praise of Handel was allowed to supersede praise of God in worship services:

Mr. Handel [...] has been commemorated and praised, many years after his death, in a place professedly devoted to the praise and worship of God; yes (if I am not misinformed), the stated worship of God in that place was suspended for a considerable time, that it might be duly prepared for the commemoration of Mr. Handel. (Sermon 4)

Summary
Kevin Twit is thus more or less correct; Newton did indeed object to Messiah, and certainly would not have allowed it to be played in his church (though it's not clear that that was ever proposed).  Still, Newton was not so much concerned with the "musical style" of Messiah as with the way it diverted attention from and made entertainment out of the Gospel.