Did Jesus have a cover on the head? Is there any referring in the holy books regarding Jesus if he covered his head? And if not, based on what a lot of pastors/bishops or pop, cover their head? (of course, different types and forms of covers on the head, I'm not familiar with their specific names)
Also, I can see for example in the Orthodox Christianity that only people with function in the church are going with this cover, but other people from their community, although they are absolutely religious, they do not cover their head. And it raises another question if it's only for those who have a function in the church?

Did Jesus have a cover on the head?
In general, it is now believed the Jesus did not wear something on his head. Whether or not Our Lord covered his head against the the external elements of nature is anyone’s guess, but prudence would dictate a possibility in this scenario.
We do know that he wore a Crown of Thorns at his Crucifixion. In fact, this is the only occasion that we historically know that Jesus wore something on his head.

Did Jesus Wear a Kippah?
It is certain that Jesus, a Jew residing in the land of Israel in the first century, did not wear a kippah (skullcap).
The custom of wearing a kippah arose in Babylonia between the third and fifth centuries C.E. among the non-Jewish residents—Jewish residents of Babylonia had not yet adopted this custom, as the Dura-Europos frescoes show—and passed from there to the Jewish community of Europe.
Although priests wore a מִגְבַּעַת (migba’at, a turban-like headdress; see Exod. 28:4, 40; Lev. 8:13), other Jews of the Second Temple period did not wear a headcovering. This is confirmed both by the literature and archaeological remains of the period. For instance, the reliefs on the Arch of Titus in Rome, which depict the victory procession in Rome following the conquest of Jerusalem in 70 C.E., show the Jewish captives bareheaded. Likewise, the frescoes of the mid-third century C.E. synagogue excavated at Dura-Europos represent all the Jewish men as bareheaded except for Aaron the priest.

Is our modern imagery of how Jesus truly looked like all that accurate?

Dressed in basics
There is no neat physical description of Jesus in the Gospels or in ancient Christian literature. But there are incidental details. From the Bible (for example, Mark 6:56) you can discover that he wore a mantle – a large shawl ("himation" in Greek) – which had tassels, described as "edges"; a distinctively Jewish tallith in a form it was in antiquity. Usually made of wool, a mantle could be large or small, thick or fine, coloured or natural, but for men there was a preference for undyed types.
He walked in sandals, as implied in multiple Biblical passages (see Matthew 3:11; Mark 1:7, 6:9; John 1:27), and we now know what ancient Judaean sandals were like as they have been preserved in dry caves by the Dead Sea.
He walked in sandals, as implied in multiple Biblical passages (see Matthew 3:11; Mark 1:7, 6:9; John 1:27), and we now know what ancient Judaean sandals were like as they have been preserved in dry caves by the Dead Sea.
He wore a tunic (chitōn), which for men normally finished slightly below the knees, not at the ankles. Among men, only the very rich wore long tunics. Indeed, Jesus specifically identifies men who dress in long tunics ("stolai", Mark 12:38) as wrongly receiving honour from people who are impressed by their fine attire, when in fact they unjustly devour widows' houses.
Jesus's tunic was also made of one piece of cloth only (John 19:23-24). That's strange, because mostly tunics were made of two pieces sewn at the shoulders and sides. One-piece tunics in first-century Judaea were normally thin undergarments or children's wear. We shouldn't think of contemporary underwear, but wearing a one-piece on its own was probably not good form. It was extremely basic.
'Shamefully' shabby?
Perhaps it is unsurprising, then, that Jesus was remembered as looking shabby by a scholar named Celsus, writing in the mid second century, in a treatise against the Christians. Celsus did his homework. He interviewed people, and he – like us – was quite interested in what Jesus looked like. From Jews and others he questioned, he heard that Jesus "wandered about most shamefully in the sight of all". He "obtained his means of livelihood in a disgraceful and importunate way" – by begging or receiving donations.
From the perspective of respectable people, we can surmise then that Jesus looked relatively rough. When the Christian writer Origen argued against Celsus, he rejected many of his assertions, but he did not dispute this.
And so while Jesus wore similar clothes to other Jewish men in many respects, his "look" was scruffy. I doubt his hair was particularly long as depicted in most artwork, given male norms of the time, but it was surely not well-tended. Wearing a basic tunic that other people wore as an undergarment would fit with Jesus' detachment regarding material things (Matthew 6:19-21, 28–29; Luke 6:34-35, 12:22-28) and concern for the poor (Luke 6:20-23). - It turns out our collective image of how Jesus dressed is very wrong

Could Jesus have worn something on his head to protect himself from the heat or cold of the day? It is possible, but tradition and history is silent on this issue.

In any case, St. Paul considered it a dishonor for a man to cover his head when praying or prophesying?


How do devils know what God permits in their doings? (Catholic perspective) Exorcists often say demons can do many supernatural things. For example, transform/move possessed objects and so on. But they say only if God permits them to do so.

From what I know the devils are in total separation from God so how can they communicate with him? Is there any teaching of the Catholic Church on what kind of communication the devils have with God? How do they know what will God permit?

The mode of angelic knowledge is not discursive (reasoning from one premises to conclusions, as in human knowledge) but intuitive.
Addressing whether an angel knows God by his own natural principles, St. Thomas Aquinas answers (Summa Theologica I q. 56 a. 3 c.):

The angels can have some knowledge of God by their own principles. In evidence whereof it must be borne in mind that a thing is known in three ways: first, by the presence of its essence in the knower, as light can be seen in the eye; and so we have said that an angel knows himself—secondly, by the presence of its similitude in the power which knows it, as a stone is seen by the eye from its image being in the eye—thirdly, when the image of the object known is not drawn directly from the object itself, but from something else in which it is made to appear, as when we behold a man in a mirror.
To the first-named class that knowledge of God is likened by which He is seen through His essence; and knowledge such as this cannot accrue to any creature from its natural principles, as was said above (q. 12, a. 4). The third class comprises the knowledge whereby we know God while we are on earth, by His likeness reflected in creatures, according to Rm. 1:20: "The invisible things of God are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made." Hence, too, we are said to see God in a mirror. But the knowledge, whereby according to his natural principles the angel knows God, stands midway between these two; and is likened to that knowledge whereby a thing is seen through the species abstracted from it. For since God's image is impressed on the very nature of the angel in his essence, the angel knows God in as much as he is the image of God. Yet he does not behold God's essence; because no created likeness is sufficient to represent the Divine essence. Such knowledge then approaches rather to the specular kind; because the angelic nature is itself a kind of mirror representing the Divine image.

Regarding "inter-angelic" communication (angels communicating to each other), see: The Thomist 68 (2004): 205-58 on the semiosis (action of signs) of angels.


What's the name of the heresy that declares Mary Mother of God is a goddess? Such heresy was condemned centuries ago by the Church, but I cannot remember its name.

The heresy is known as Collyridianism, after the Greek for the "little cakes" which were offered.

Collyridianism was an obscure Early Christian heretical movement whose adherents apparently worshipped the Virgin Mary, mother of Jesus, as a goddess. The main source of information about them comes from their strongest opponent, Epiphanius of Salamis, who wrote about them in his Panarion of about 375 AD. According to Epiphanius, certain women in then-largely-pagan Arabia syncretized indigenous beliefs with the worship of Mary, and offered little cakes or bread-rolls (Greek κολλυρις – a word occurring in the Septuagint) to her. Epiphanius states that Collyridianism originated in Thrace and Scythia, although it may have first travelled to those regions from Syria or Asia Minor. Little else is known.
[Wikipedia]


What keyboard hymnals do beginner piano accompanists use to learn the Catholic Mass? I'm actually looking for a gift for my wife to buy me for Christmas, but in trying to make this an objective questions for this site, I'd like to know, assuming there is some sort of common underground progression that the accompanists and liturgists make from being relatively crummy amateur piano players (like myself) to being able to crank out "On Eagles Wings" like a virtuoso, are there hymnals that are easier for pianists?  Our local church has been without an accompanist for several years since the last one reverted to Lutheranism, I'd like to help, but I'm kind of a bummer pianist, as I've mentioned previously, anyway, any help would be much appreciated!

See the

Brebeuf Hymnal Organ Accompaniment (3-Volume Set)by Nicolas Viel Publications

for Corpus Christi Watershed's Saint Jean de Brébeuf Hymnal.
The Church Music Association of America (CMAA)'s forum might be able to offer other suggestions (or perhaps they already have; do a search).


Can humans fall in love with each other in heaven? How does falling in love work in heaven? Do we still fall in love?

Is it possible to fall in love with more than one person? Or are we set to love just one person or none at all? Are intimate relationship in allowed heaven at all? Is having sexual relationship allowed in heaven?  Or, is heaven just a sexless, harp-playing place?

In other words, what is the role of sex and love between humans in heaven, beyond the place of the love for God?

So, there are passages that are particularly relevant here:

Matthew 22:29 - 32

  29 Jesus replied, “You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God. 30 At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven. 31 But about the resurrection of the dead—have you not read what God said to you, 32 ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’[b]? He is not the God of the dead but of the living.”

From this we know that there is no marriage but that doesn't say there isn't love.
1 Corinthians 13:12

  12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

Historically there has been an interpretation of this verse that says our current understanding of love is highly limited - our sinful nature is such that we are capable only of a simulcrum of love, one which gets jealous when it reaches more than one, and one which is held back by our fleshly nature.  In contrast, in heaven, where there is perfection, we are able to love more deeply more fully than here.

Indeed, C.S. Lewis' The Great Divorce explores this theme, suggesting an almost open kind of love that is neither pornographic nor chaste.  Mere Christianity picks this up, saying:

  The sins of the flesh are bad, but they are the least bad of all sins. All the worst pleasures are purely spiritual: the pleasure of putting other people in the wrong, of bossing and patronising and spoiling sport, and backbiting; the pleasures of power, of hatred. For there are two things inside me, competing with the human self which I must try to become. They are the Animal self, and the Diabolical self. The Diabolical self is the worse of the two. That is why a cold, self-righteous prig who goes regularly to church may be far nearer to hell than a prostitute. But, of course, it is better to be neither.

He develops this further, saying that sex is a second thing, not a first one. InFirst and Second Things, he shows that sex is spiritual, but that made an end unto itself, it loses its meaning. As Peter Kreeft writes:

  It could certainly be spiritual intercourse—and, remember, that includes sexual intercourse because sex is spiritual. This spiritual intercourse would mean something more specific than universal charity. It would be special communion with the sexually complementary; something a man can have only with a woman and a woman only with a man. We are made complete by such union: "It is not good that the man should be alone." And God does not simply rip up His design for human fulfillment. The relationship need not be confined to one in Heaven. Monogamy is for earth. On earth, our bodies are private. In Heaven, we share each other's secrets without shame, and voluntarily. In the Communion of Saints, promiscuity of spirit is a virtue.

In short, the idea of heaven in this understanding is that sex will be way more open, the complete perscription to the diagnosis in Genesis that it is not good for the man to be alone.

If this is true, we'll be getting way more, and way better sex up there than down here. Whether or not this is physical, whether or not this is even true, the real point is that anyone who is simply convinced there can't be sex in heaven does have a bit of theology against which to contend.


Is Heaven up and Hell down? Ever since I was a little tyke I have heard people say go up to Heaven or down to Hell.

Up and down would seemingly have its relationship to the surface of the Earth, and while down in that case can only mean toward the center of the Earth; Up would be relative to where you were on the surface of the Earth.

In the Bible Jesus himself appears to fortify that assumption in:

  John 3:12 and 13 KJV  If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?  13  And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

and again in:

  John 20:17 KJV  Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

So when:

  Luke 24:51 KJV  And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried up into heaven.

So then if up is in relation to the spot where Jesus ascended from, would up on the opposite side of the Earth still be toward the clouds or would it be in the opposite direction?

It would seem more logical to me ascending and descending would be more in line with being closer to God or further away from him.

Has this been addressed before by any denomination, Theology, or Biblical Scholar?

We do not know exactly where heaven or hell is.  However, in Scripture, the word "up" is commonly used in association with the location of heaven and "down" is typically associated with the location of hell, either figuratively or literally.  Also, from the vantage point of heaven, earth is down.
The "up" and "down" context may certainly be completely figurative, as heaven is exalted and glorious and hell is shameful and desolate.
Up to Heaven

And Elijah went up by a whirlwind to heaven. 2 Kings 2:1b NASB
The Lord has looked down from heaven upon the sons of men To see if there are any who understand, Who seek after God.  Psalm 14:2 NASB
We lift up our heart and hands toward God in heaven.  Lamentations 3:41 NASB
And behold, a severe earthquake had occurred, for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled away the stone and sat upon it.  Matthew 28:2 NASB
While He was blessing them, He parted from them and was carried up into heaven.  Luke 24:51 NASB

Down to Hell or Hades

And you, Capernaum, will not be exalted to heaven, will you? You will be brought down to Hades!  Luke 10:15 NASB
In Hades he lifted up his eyes, being in torment, and *saw Abraham far away and Lazarus in his bosom.  Luke 16:23 NASB


Are the Bible and God the same... thing/being? Or why do people here always ask "What does the Bible say?"... why not ask the proper "What does God say?".

I hope it's obvious that the Bible (a book) and God (a divine being) are not the same thing. It has never been part of Christian theology that the Bible should be worshipped, or that believing the Bible is synonymous with Christianity. The Bible as we know it today did not exist at all for many decades after Jesus' death, and in its present form for hundreds of years, yet Christians certainly existed during that time. Almost all Christians take the Bible as a true and infallible word from God. But views on other communication from God differ. One area of difference is in Jesus statements about what is to happen after his death. He never states that his followers are to use the scriptures only, but "I will be with you" and "My spirit I give to you". Interpretations of that differ.

One view is that the scriptures are foundational, but the Spirit gives additional revelation to Christians. In the Catholic view, the Spirit does this through the Church, specifically the church leadership. In other traditions this can happen through the church in community: in still others, to individual people. In either case revelations though the Spirit cannot contradict the Scriptures, but they can add to them. Some denominations believe in the office of "a prophet", who can convey commands from God for a specific time and place. Except for in some small denominations, and some specific cases in Catholicism, post-biblical revelations are not given the same 'infallibility' status that the Bible has.

In another view the presence of the Spirit to guide the followers of Jesus like this only lasted for the Apostolic Age, and was replaced by the Bible. This is the view of much non-Charismatic Protestantism. For those people the question "what does God say" and "what does the Bible say" are essentially synonymous.

However even the most ardent believer in a solely biblical authority will usually allow for the idea of personal guidance - i.e. that a person can pray to God and ask what to do in their specific circumstances, and receive an answer. In this case that is "what God says" to them. However what God says to one person doesn't necessarily apply to another.


Which was the first Roman Catholic hymnal to include Martin Luther's "A Mighty Fortress Is Our God"? Recently I learned that modern Roman Catholic hymnals include Martin Luther's well-known hymn, A Mighty Fortress Is Our God.  Investigating further on hymnary.org, however, I find that the song is not found in apparently popular Roman Catholic hymnals from 1851 and 1913.

I am speculating that the inclusion of the song only became possible after counter-reformation bad blood between Roman Catholics and Martin Luther waned.  Thus, I'd like to know which was the first popular/official* Roman Catholic hymnal to include the hymn.  Bonus points for an answer that takes into account non-English hymnals, but an English-only answer is fine too.

*Note that I do not know how much oversight the Roman Catholic church exercises over its hymnals.  I'm looking for a hymnal popular or official enough that it indicates at least broad acceptance of the hymn.

The Hymnal Worship II, published in 1975 by GIA, and widely used in the Archdiocese of Chicago, includes an English translation of Luther's German paraphrase of Psalm 46 (Vulgate No. 45) in two versions at number 2 and number 3 in the hymnal. That is the earliest attributed publication in a "Catholic" hymnal of which I am aware. I did once see a small hymnal published in an area of the country settled by people of German descent which included the text cited as "Paraphrase of Psalm 45", set to Luther's tune which was not attributed to him. I saw it in a used bookstore, but wasn't able to purchase it when I saw it; when I returned, to buy the book, it had been purchased by another buyer. I didn't take down publication details at the time, so don't know exactly who published it, when, or where.
In my view, Worship II rises to the level of "popular", but the earlier publication, which had a limited press run and distribution, does not warrant that description.


" IN Quires and Places where they sing, here followeth the Anthem " (Book of Common Prayer 1662) I am following the morning and evening prayers as guided in the Anglican Book of Common Prayer.

In both the morning and evening services there is a section which states:

  " IN Quires and Places where they sing, here followeth the Anthem " (Book of Common Prayer 1662).

What is the Anthem alluded to here?

An 'anthem' is a sung piece of church music, often a musical setting of a biblical passage. They differ from a hymn in that they are usually musically complex and sung by a choir rather than by the congregation.

Not all services will include a choir, so the anthem is optional. However if one is used, it is sung in the place indicated.

'Quire' is simply an old spelling of 'choir', and the word can be used to mean a place where a choir sings.

So the sentence means:

  If you have a choir or other singers, the anthem will be sung at this point in the service.


Does 2 Timothy 1:9 prove the Doctrine of Election? 2 Timothy 1:9 states:

  Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according
  to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was
  given us in Christ Jesus before the world began.

If this verse says what I think it does, that we were chosen to be saved "before the world began," doesn't that prove the Calvinist Doctrine of Election?

No. Even as a Calvinist, one has to understand that it takes more than one verse to put together a complete picture of how we understand salvation to work. The verse you reference in Timothy is indeed very helpful, but it really only proves the part about his purpose as the author of salvation was conceived before we were.

In order to defend the doctrine of election, you will need to reach out to other parts of scripture. For example in 2nd Timothy, how do you know that "us" is specific to individuals and not just representative of a general group of "somebodies" that God planned on saving?

I do think the doctrine can be defended from Scripture, but I don't think you can do it from one verse. You need to take into consideration the whole counsel of Scripture.


Did God really "regret" making man? (Catholic perspective) On the cusp of the flood and God's covenant with Noah, "who found favor with the Lord," Genesis 6:6 [New American Bible] states

[T]he Lord regretted making human beings on the earth, and his heart was grieved.

And in verse 7, God says, "I regret that I made them".

This seems to go against the idea that God doesn't make mistakes. Engaging in a mass slaughter doesn't necessarily seem, for lack of a better expression, out of character, e.g., the Amorites. And making a covenant with a single man, Noah, seems quite reasonable.

But why regret the creation of man (and animals)? God certainly knew of the wickedness of man. It just seems an odd sentiment at an odd time..

Edit: With the possibility that "regret" is not the correct translation, I went to the Hebrew which suggests second thoughts might be an alternative explanation, but not sorrow. [Chabad.org] 6.ווַיִּנָּ֣חֶם יְהֹוָ֔ה   And the Lord regretted   (Further explained:) For example: (Num. 23:19): “Nor the son of man that He should change His mind (וְיִתְנֶחָם)”; (Deut. 32:36): “And concerning His servants He will change His mind (יִתְנֶחָם)”; (Exod. 32:14): “And the Lord changed His intent concerning the evil (וַיִּנָּחֶם)”; (I Sam. 15:11): “I regret (נִחַמְתִּי) that I made [Saul] king.” These are all an expression of having second thoughts

At the very perimeter of this question it's important to remember that:

... God himself, who makes the revelation and can neither deceive nor be deceived.
First Vatican Council Decree

So, if he didn't deceive us by His regret at making us, then He really did regret making us.
Regret, however, is a feeling - not an action, and one thing they tell you in Catholic Marriage class is that feelings are never wrong!  I'm not sure if this applies to God, but the story of the Bible is a love story between God and His Spouse the Church.   Sometimes even spouses regret at having gotten married, but it doesn't make them liars all the way back to their wedding vows. Neither does it make God a liar for having created man for having regretted creating them.  Nor does it mean He made a mistake. Nor does it mean He wouldn't do it the same way if He could (and He could) do it all over again.
God also appears to have changed His mind, for the better - but to no different end - in saying He'd spare Sodom if a few good people could be found there. In fact, what is the point of prayer, if not to change God's mind about the natural course of events He set in place or the divine judgment He revealed to the prophets.

“Miracles happen. But they need prayer! A courageous prayer, that struggles for that miracle. Not like those prayers of courtesy: Ah, I will pray for you! Followed by one Our Father, a Hail Mary and then I forget. No! It takes a brave prayer like that of Abraham who was struggling with the Lord to save the city, like that of Moses who prayed, his hands held high when he grew weary...”.
Pope Francis - May 20 2013

I'll give you that Numbers and Genesis seem to contradict each other here.  I'm surprised they didn't have intratext notes for those two verses which pretty clearly fit together, but the footnotes in the NAB for Genesis 6:6 are as follows:

the expression can be misleading in English, for “heart” in Hebrew is the seat of memory and judgment rather than emotion. The phrase is actually parallel to the first half of the sentence

And Numbers 19:23 is as follows:

God is not a human being who speaks falsely, nor a mortal, who feels regret.

And in the context of the "feeling" regret vs having regret contradicts my earlier opinions about regret being a feeling.

A corollary of these contradictions can be found in St. Thomas Aquinas' Summa  articles concerning tempting God. He states:

It is forbidden in God's Law, for it is written (Deuteronomy 6:10): "Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God."

and then goes on to enumerate the ways God favors those who pray without tempting Him.
Similarly, God wants us to know that He is unchanging, while still letting us know that He loves us too much to be a stickler about it.


Did God create man to worship and praise Him? I heard it many times from some Christians and even preachers that God created us to worship and praise Him. I think this idea came from the fact that Psalms contain many phrases like "Praise the Lord" and many words related to worship. I'm still not convinced with verses from Psalms that the main purpose of creating us was to praise and worship God. The purpose of creating human, as I see from Genesis 1:28 is to multiply, fill the earth and subdue it.

Is there any verses from the Bible that clearly indicates we were created mainly to praise and worship God?

Actually, the answer to that question is longer than one should post on a question and answer site, but I would recommend the book "Desiring God" by John Piper. He explains it excellently , but in summary he says this:

  God is the greatest thing that exists, ever has existed  or ever will exist. Therefore, for us to glory anything else, would be sin, as there is nothing greater than God, there is no calling greater than praising God. This is true not only for us, but surprisingly also for God himself, he being the greatest , to glory in anything else would be idolatry. Therefore, if the greatest thing God can do is give himself glory, and no created thing does can be greater than God, the greatest thing we can do (our purpose, you might say) is to glory him.


Which portion of Revelation is the Rapture? The Rapture is the belief that believers will be “caught up” into the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air. Jesus will take away the faithful followers on earth, who patiently waited for His return. In the Book of Revelation, there are two visions of the coming of Jesus, the harvest of the earth (Rev 14) and the rider on the white horse (Rev 19). I’m interested to know whether there have been studies by scholars on the Book of Revelation in order to find the concept of the Rapture.

Which part of Apostle John’s vision is interpreted as the Rapture?

(Note: I'm asking this because my answer to the previous question (Is “Rapture” mentioned in the Book of Revelation?) had 2 downvotes, which made me assume that my answer was wrong!)

The rapture itself is not described in the Revelation, and for that reason there are three common conceptions as to when it will occur, of which I am sure you are aware.

There are however some hints we can use to form our own opinion as to when it will occur in Revelation.

As I'm sure you are aware the rapture is a concept formed from being caught up into the air in:

1st Thessalonians 4:17  KJV

  Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

The first clue we have is in the verse preceding this:

1st Thessalonians 4:16  KJV

  For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:

The second clue comes from the Revalition.

Revelation 19:11  KJV

  And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.

One last clue is in:

Revelation 19:14  KJV

  And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.

Although my answer is probably not what you are seeking it is the best answer I can give.


Is Catholicism a "works" denomination? Catholicism venerates people's works as that is the only way to become a saint - you actually have to DO something.

I understand that there has been a strong debate regarding faith or works (or faith AND works)  requirement for salvation.  That isn't what I am asking.  I am asking; is Catholicism a works based denomination?

Absolutely, definitely not. Works are important, but we are not justified by works.
The Catechism states this unequivocally:

161 Believing in Jesus Christ and in the One who sent him for our salvation is necessary for obtaining that salvation.42 “Since ‘without faith it is impossible to please [God]’ and to attain to the fellowship of his sons, therefore without faith no one has ever attained justification, nor will anyone obtain eternal life ‘but he who endures to the end.’”
42 Cf. Mk 16:16; Jn 3:36, 6:40 et al.

We are not justified by slavishly following the Law (which is what “not justified by works” is saying) — we are justified by faith, and that faith will transform our lives with the fruit of the Spirit which pervades every act so that our works show that we are justified.

Matthew 5:16 — Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.

Peter wrote of this in 2 Peter 1:

1 3 His divine power has given us everything we need for a godly life through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness. 4 Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature, having escaped the corruption in the world caused by evil desires.
5 For this very reason, make every effort to add to your faith goodness; and to goodness, knowledge; 6 and to knowledge, self-control; and to self-control, perseverance; and to perseverance, godliness; 7 and to godliness, mutual affection; and to mutual affection, love. 8 For if you possess these qualities in increasing measure, they will keep you from being ineffective and unproductive in your knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 But whoever does not have them is short-sighted and blind, forgetting that they have been cleansed from their past sins.

Peter deliberately lists the fruits of the Spirit. In "making every effort" to add those virtues to faith, Peter is saying "allow the Spirit to do his work" because a living faith will engender good works (cf James 2:26). Any effort we bring to bear for ourselves is using our conscience to do good works. Verse 4 says that we participate in the divine nature by virtue of God's great and glorious promises. This means that it is necessary that we believe those promises will be fulfilled: this is faith.
This is not to say that good works are not inherently good! They point towards — and ultimately come from — God, as Pope Francis and Pope Benedict XVI have pointed out. One's conscience is God-given, formed by the natural Law, and in doing what we inherently perceive to be good we are allowing the Spirit to work in our lives.
But we are saved by faith. That is all that is necessary. Everything else comes from faith.

You may recognise some of this as coming from another answer to a very similar question.


Was the Roman Catholic Church responsible for the change of Sabbath to Sunday as day of rest? Some historians--both Catholic and Protestants--make reference to Constantine, the emperor, circa 527, as paving the way for the Bishop of Rome as responsible for the change that historically took effect of transferring Sabbath sacredness to Sunday as an act of church authority.

Is there any official church document that confirms such claim?

"Already in apostolic times (Acts 20:7) Christians transferred the
  Sabbath from the seventh to the first day of the week."
  Source: Dictionary: SABBATH, BIBLICAL | Catholic Culture.

cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church: II. THE LORD'S DAY

  This is the day which the LORD has made; let us rejoice and be glad in
  it.1

  The day of the Resurrection: the new creation

  2174 Jesus rose from the dead "on the first day of the week."2 Because it
  is the "first day," the day of Christ's Resurrection recalls the first
  creation. Because it is the "eighth day" following the
  sabbath,3 it symbolizes the new creation ushered in by
  Christ's Resurrection. For Christians it has become the first of all
  days, the first of all feasts, the Lord's Day (he kuriake hemera,
  dies dominica) Sunday:

  We all gather on the day of the sun, for it is the first day [after the Jewish sabbath, but also the first day] when God, separating
  matter from darkness, made the world; and on this same day Jesus
  Christ our Savior rose from the dead.4

  Sunday - fulfillment of the sabbath

  2175 Sunday is expressly distinguished from the sabbath which it follows chronologically every week; for Christians its ceremonial observance replaces that of the
  sabbath. In Christ's Passover, Sunday fulfills the spiritual truth of
  the Jewish sabbath and announces man's eternal rest in God. For
  worship under the Law prepared for the mystery of Christ, and what was
  done there prefigured some aspects of Christ:5

  Those who lived according to the old order of things have come to a
  new hope, no longer keeping the sabbath, but the Lord's Day, in which
  our life is blessed by him and by his death.6

  2176 The celebration of Sunday observes the moral commandment inscribed by
  nature in the human heart to render to God an outward, visible,
  public, and regular worship "as a sign of his universal beneficence to
  all."109 Sunday worship fulfills the moral command of the Old
  Covenant, taking up its rhythm and spirit in the weekly celebration of
  the Creator and Redeemer of his people.

  1. Ps 118:24.
  2. Cf. Mt 28:1; Mk 16:2; Lk 24:1; Jn 20:1.
  3. Cf. Mk 16:1; Mt 28:1.
  4. St. Justin, I Apol. 67:PG 6,429 and 432.
  5. Cf. 1 Cor 10:11.
  6. St. Ignatius of Antioch, Ad Magn. 9,1:SCh 10,88.

Please see also:

Sabbath or Sunday? | Catholic Answers.
Did the early Church move the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday? | Catholic Answers.
APOSTOLIC LETTER DIES DOMINI | Pope St. John Paul II [the Great].
This should be of interest: The Pope Nor the Roman Catholic Church changed Sabbath to Sunday by By Robert K. Sanders.


Do any Christian versions of 'Just War Theory' address cases in which foes exploit the principles of Just War to their own advantage? The ends justify the means.  - attributed (perhaps unjustly) to Niccolo Machiavelli

Christian proponents of Just War Theory would surely reject the quote above as being entirely antithetical to their doctrine, but are no doubt committed to 'doing something'* in response to the spread of evil. With these things in mind, how do they formulate an appropriate response to a foe that does not share their inhibitions in terms of means used?  For example in asymmetrical warfare, insurgents who utilize terror tactics will often be aware of the principles that their enemy operates under and will exploit them for maximum effect - utilizing human shields, booby-trapping corpses, or using children to carry explosives etc. - what are the relevant principles that ensure that a Just War can continue to be prosecuted both justly and effectively in the face of tactics such as these and not sacrifice one at the expense of the other? Which, if any, scripture references are used to support these principles?

edit: I believe many of the down-votes to this question are a result of misunderstanding the intent of the question. I apologize for any lack of clarity about this and have edited the title in response to feedback to hopefully make the intent of the question clearer. Further clarification of what I am trying to acheive with this question can be gained by considering the counterpart question (linked below) addressed to Christian Pacifists. Further description of who this question is addressed to can be found in the 'Chrisitan Proponents' linked Q & A.

*This is a reference to the quote of Edmund Burke in the counterpart question to this one:

  The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

Summary: No, the Just War doctrine is not intended to provide guidance at this level of detail.

First a brief summary of what the Just War Doctrine is. It's intended to be an answer to the question of whether a Christian can morally fight in a war, and the very brief summary is: "A Christian can fight in a war, as long as it is 'Just'". Many Christian groups hold to this view, with the main alternative positions being the Pacifist one, which says that a Christian can never fight in a war, and the one that says that a Christian can and should fight if ordered to do so by a secular authority.

The doctrine also provides some guidelines for when a war is considered 'Just'. There are two main parts to that. The first is when a war may justly be begun - for example it must not be a war of aggression, it must be fought by a legitimate authority, and only if all other means have been exhausted. The second is the conduct of the war: for example it should be a proportionate response to the evil the war is intended to prevent, and it should involve only what is militarily necessary to achieve its objectives.

The first rules for a Just War were set out many hundreds of years ago, including those of Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) and  Stanisław of Skarbimierz (1360-1431). While there have been variants on these rules, the approach has always been to set out principles rather than to prescribe detailed responses to specific situtions. The principles has been applied to wars from the bow-and-arrow era to that of nuclear weapons.

Because of the level at which they are laid down, it makes little sense to try and address specific situations that have arisen only in the last few decades. It is also worth mentioning that none of the forumlators of the Just War guidelines intended them to be applied only in cases in which the other side also 'played by the rules', and it's widely believed that "do good to other people only when they are being good to you" is foreign to Christian belief. Medieval warfare, the norm when these rules were being set down, was at least as nasty as modern 'asymmetric' warfare.


Is it to say: "We can have reasonable hope that all will be saved" heretical? Unfortunately, we can hear some lay Catholics (sometimes even a bishop) say that: "We can have reasonable hope that all will be saved". It seems obvious that the statement is untrue, however, is it a heretical statement? And would for example bishop who persists in this error becomes a formal heretic?

We know that the Church condemned the following proposition:

  If anyone says or thinks that the punishment of demons and of impious
  men is only temporary, and will one day have an end, and that a
  restoration (ἀποκατάστασις) will take place of demons and of impious
  men, let him be anathema.

It seems that corollary of this statement is:

Corollary: Punishments of impious men will never end.

Imagine now that the statement: "We can have reasonable hope that all will be saved" is true. However, if the hope were to be reasonable, then the object of hope should be really possible, namely, it should be really possible that all are saved. But if all were saved, then the previous corollary would really be attributing some property to an empty set and then the condemnation would be vacuously true. But the opposite of the corollary would also be true (because we can attribute anything to an empty set, see a previous link to "Vacuous truth") in that case. Therefore, the case where all are saved seems logically inconsistent if we want to say that condemnation can not be empty.

Edit. My question is not duplicate. I am not searching an answer to a viewpoint on universal salvation, but I explicitly deny that as untrue. I am searching for what kind (degree) of error is to hold universal salvation (or rather, that "we can have reasonable hope that all will be saved").

Doctrinal Universalism
Barron professes the heresy of doctrinal universalism,

The theory that hell is essentially a kind of purgatory in which sins are expiated, so that eventually everyone will be saved. Also called apokatastasis [ἀποκατάστασις], it was condemned by the church in A.D. 543, against the Origenists, who claimed that

the punishment of devils and wicked men is temporary and will eventually cease, that is to say, that devils or the ungodly will be completely restored to their original state

(Denzinger 411).

Balthasar & Barron believe hell is empty.
The Modernist, syncretist, New Theologian Hans Urs Von Balthasar (1905-1988), influenced by the fake mystic Adrienne von Speyr, promoted the heresy that hell is empty. He also wrote the afterword of a book on Tarot cards and the occult.
Barron wrote the preface to the 2nd edition of Balthasar's Dare We Hope That All Men Be Saved.
One cannot hope for the impossible.
The intellectual virtue of faith precedes the virtue of hope, which exists in the will, since the intellect precedes the will (cf. 21st Thomistic thesis). The object of hope cannot contradict reason.
Discussing how faith precedes hope in Summa Theologica II-II q. 17 a. 7 co., St. Thomas Aquinas writes:

the object of hope is a future good, arduous but possible to obtainObiectum enim spei est bonum futurum arduum possibile haberi.

Thus, one cannot hope for impossible things, e.g., that God doesn't exist, that He contradict Himself, that the Church's dogmas change, that 2+2=5, etc.
Religious Indifferentism
Related to his universalist heresy, Barron professes the heresy of religious indifferentism, which holds that no one religion is necessary for salvation. Recently, he told a Jew that Jesus is the "privileged way" of salvation, which implies there are other means of salvation, directly contradicting, e.g., Acts 4:12 ("Neither is there salvation in any other. For there is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved.").
Hell exists, and its punishments are perpetual.
Athanasian Creed (D 40):

those who have done good, will go into life everlasting, but those who have done evil, into eternal fire
qui bona egerunt, ibunt in vitam æternam, qui vero mala, in ignem æternum

The Fourth Lateran Council (1215) defined the dogma that the rejected will receive (D 429):

everlasting punishment with the devil
cum diabolo pœnam perpetuam

Once a soul is damned, there is no hope that it will be saved.
These dogmas are de fide ("of the faith"). Contradicting a de fide truth incurs the censure of heresy; the effects of denying it are:

Mortal sin committed directly against the virtue of faith, and, if the heresy is outwardly professed, excommunication is automatically incurred and membership of the Church forfeited.


Which sacraments can an intersex individual receive in the Catholic Church? Which sacraments can an intersex individual receive in the Catholic Church?

Hermaphrodites can be baptized.

Regarding 1917 Canon 748 (which has no equivalent in the 1983 Code), which deals with baptism in the case of deformed or abnormal fetal humans, canonist Charles Augustine, O.S.B., D.D., writes in A Commentary on the New Code of Canon Law, on Can. 746:

  There is no difficulty as to hermaphrodites, because sex does not affect the validity of Baptism.

Complete hermaphrodites cannot be validly ordained.

Dom Augustine wrote on 1917 Can. 968 (= 1983 Canon 1024):

  Concerning hermaphrodites, it must be said that complete hermaphrodites, whose sex cannot be determined, may not be validly ordained; whereas those with whom the male sex prevails may be ordained validly but not licitly.

Complete hermaphrodites cannot validly marry.

Dom Augustine wrote on 1917 Can. 1068 (= 1983 Canon 1084), which deals with sexual impotence, an impediment to the valid reception of the sacrament of marriage:

  As to hermaphrodites, or such persons as have the sexual characteristics of both sexes, whether it be androgynia or gynandria or hermaphroditismus neuter, the testimony of physicians is required [to determine whether they are sexually impotent or not]. No hermaphroditus neuter can possibly be called capable of marrying because the sex is not sufficiently determined.

androgynia = hermaphroditic with male aspect predominant
gynandria = hermaphroditic with female aspect predominant
hermaphroditus neuter = a complete hermaphrodite (equal male and female aspects)

There are no other canons explicitly forbidding hermaphrodites qua hermaphrodites from receiving the other sacraments (Confirmation, Eucharist, Penance, Extreme Unction).


How can Psalm 137:9 be defended? Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.

Whenever I debate someone about Bible literal-ism they usually mention Psalm 137:9 KJV.  Based on the Protestant doctrine, how can I handle this?

The meaning is pretty obvious in context.

Ps 137 is a lament for Jerusalem after the Babylonians have invaded and destroyed it.  Verses 7-9 make it explicit:

  7 Remember, LORD, what the Edomites did
     on the day Jerusalem fell.
  “Tear it down,” they cried,
     “tear it down to its foundations!”
  8 Daughter Babylon, doomed to destruction,
     happy is the one who repays you
     according to what you have done to us.
  9 Happy is the one who seizes your infants
     and dashes them against the rocks.

This is sheer gloating on the part of the psalmist.  Whoever overthrows Babylon is someone the author wants to buy a beer! (Put another way, that person is someone really popular with the author.)  Whoever wrote this really hated the Babylonians, and would love to kill their children.

Is this "right?"  Remember, this is a psalm - an ancient song of the Hebrews.  I suspect many a future scholar will puzzle over, say, the misogynistic lyrics of Eminem or many like-minded rappers.  Psalms express the feelings of the writer, NOT THEOLOGICAL RULES FOR YOUR BEHAVIOR. (Although, it is often argued that the feelings reflected in the Psalms should be that of a mature Christian.)

Note also, there is nothing that says "You should bash a baby against a rock."  Doesn't fit with the text or the nature of God. It would be a misreading of the text, which actually proves the point there are "rules" for reading the text.

So, why is it in Scripture?

Who knows. 'Could be that God desired to illustrate that the Exiles had learned their lesson about spurning God's good gifts in Jerusalem, could just be that people agreed with the sentiment.

For a person who doesn't believe the Bible is a "real" book, this verse is actually a pretty good arguement.  If the Bible were merely the work of "men with an agenda," there doesn't seem to be a good reason to let such a genuine feeling in here.

The Bible can be literal but still express itself in the language of feeling.


History of the "three" wise men From  Matthew 2, NIV:

  1bMagi from the east came to Jerusalem...
  11On coming to the house, they saw the child with his mother Mary, and they bowed down and worshiped him. Then they opened their treasures and presented him with gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh.

Nowhere does it say there were three Magi.  For all I can tell from this passage, there could have been two, or thirty.  The only clue I see about there being three is that three gifts are mentioned.

So what is the history behind the concept of three Magi in this story?

I've heard a few different things. You're right though: it's not in canonized scripture. The idea of "three" wise men is only (mostly unimportant, but interesting) tradition.

The enumeration of three specific gifts contributes to the "trio" of persons. Their alledged names even appear in writings later in history.

Dr. Talmage remarks on this in his excellent book, Jesus the Christ:

  Much has been written, beyond all possible warrant of scriptural authority, concerning the visit of the magi, or wise men... As a matter of fact, we are left without information as to their country, nation, or tribal relationship; we are not even told how many they were, though unauthenticated tradition has designated them as "the three wise men," and has even given them names; whereas they are left unnamed in the scriptures, the only true record of them extant, and may have been numbered but two or many.

See also: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/356642/Magi


What's up with Tobiah's dog? Either Tobiah or Archangel Raphael (or maybe both?) has some sort of relationship with a dog, as shown in Tobit 6:2 and Tobit 11:4.  The dog goes out with them and comes back with them and isn't otherwise mentioned.  Does the dog have any special significance?  Given Tobit 2:13-14 it seems pretty odd for Tobiah to have picked up a dog somewhere in the past.

Those studying and commenting on Tobit have long been intrigued and puzzled by the presence of Tobit's "canine companion". This answer is based on Carey Moore's work, Tobit: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (Anchor Bible 40; Doubleday, 1996). He signals the measure of bemusement this creature brings as he begins his comment on the 11:4 occurrence (p. 261):

  That elusive dog again!

He offers most of his discussion about this canine character at 6:2 (pp. 197-8). Condensing and simplifying, with a few notes of my own, the main options canvassed by scholars are these:

An old scribal mistake, which turned ha-leb ("the heart") into keleb ("dog") -- but this is an old suggestion which has not been taken up.
An "echo" of the "Tale of Ahiqar", counselling careful speech, since "the tail of a dog gives him bread, but his mouth gets him blows". This seems like a fairly dim and distant allusion (if it is one) to me (although there is an "Ahiqar" character in the story, cf. 1:21-22; 2:10; 11:18; 14:10).
There are several suggestions which cluster around the role of the dog in Persian/Zoroastrian culture and ritual; cf. Mary Boyce, A History of Zoroastrianism: 1. The Early Period (Brill, 1996), pp. 302-3 ("It is possible to find rational and historical grounds for the Zoroastrian regard for the dog."); and F. Kotwal and J.K. Choksy, "To Praise the Souls of the Deceased and the Immortal Spirits of the Righteous Ones", in M. Stausberg (ed), Zoroastrian Rituals in Context (Brill, 2004), p. 399. But while this might add an element of verisimilitude to the story, there is no ritual role for this particular dog.
Moore's own view is that Tobit draws on an older "secular" folk tale, and "the safest conclusion is that the dog, which is the only gratuitous piece of description in the story, was originally part of the secular folktale used by the narrator" (p. 198). At the 11:4 context, Moore concedes that the dog might have played a more integral role in that "original" tale, and that what remains is fairly vestigial.

Important to note for OP's form of the question, though, is that the dog has no particular relationship with the archangel Raphael, but appears to be part of the Tobit household (or perhaps a friendly "neighbourhood" dog): the two explicit mentions of the dog marking the beginning (6:2) and end (11:4) of the journey.


Did God want Satan to tempt Jesus as a means of showing the spiritual realm that Jesus's love for and loyalty to God was undeniable? Matthew 4:1
"Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil."

I am wondering if God wanted Jesus to be tempted by Satan as a means of showing Satan and the demons, and also all the angels in Heaven, that Jesus was truly devoted to God and would always remain loyal to Him despite whatever temptations that Satan would throw at Jesus.

Did God want Satan to tempt Jesus as a means of showing the spiritual realm that Jesus's love for and loyalty to God was undeniable?

There are a lot of biblical insights we can draw from this encounter.

Look for example at Johns description of the worlds temptations

    For all that is in the world—the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life—is not of the Father but is of the world.  1 John 2:16 NKJV

Jesus experiences these three in his encounter with Satan.

The lust of the flesh: He hungers for bread, his body wants it, its natural human desire.

Lust of the eyes: He is taken to the mountain tops and shown all the kingdoms that he could want.

Pride of Life: He was tempted to jump off of the temple (In plain sight of the worshippers). To show in a dramatic way his glory, and earn the praise of the crowds. (as opposed to the path God put before him of suffering and shame leading to the cross).

This is also a pattern for believers in how to resist sin, notice that in each temptation Jesus responds with the Word of God, citing the Bible to refute the temptations of Satan.

    Then Jesus said to him, “Away with you, Satan! For it is written, ‘You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him only you shall serve.’ ” Matt 4:10

Jesus is the example for the believers, modeling what James says

    Therefore submit to God. Resist the devil and he will flee from you. James 4:7

Also, This shows us that Jesus is familiar with the types of struggles which we encounter daily! He is familiar with temptations, and lived a life that we can relate too.

    Seeing then that we have a great High Priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. 15 For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin. Hebrews 4:14-15

Finally, like you mention in the question, Jesus entire life was a witness to his love for the Father, especially in his temptation. Look what Jesus says about the Satan, and the Father in John

    30 I will no longer talk much with you, for the ruler of this world is coming, and he has nothing in Me. 31 But that the world may know that I love the Father, and as the Father gave Me commandment, so I do. Arise, let us go from here. John 14:30-31

Jesus says that Satan has nothing in him, which was evidinced by his ability to withstand temptation. He also says, that his obedience to God is a witness of his Love for the father.

This witness stands today, as a witness before not only the spiritual realm, but also the mortal realm.

We see from Paul in Ephesians that one purpose of God in Jesus Christ was to reveal his plan to the world and the spiritual world

    To me, who am less than the least of all the saints, this grace was given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, 9 and to make all see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the ages has been hidden in God who created all things through Jesus Christ; 10 to the intent that now the manifold wisdom of God might be made known by the church to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places, 11 according to the eternal purpose which He accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord,


How do Calvinists explain Calvin's use of Baruch? In his commentary of 1 Corinthians,  Calvin seems to use Baruch to explain verse 20 of chapter 10,

  It is certain from the Prophet Baruch, (4:7,) that those things that are sacrificed to idols are sacrificed to devils (Deuteronomy 32:17; Psalm 96:5.) In that passage in the writings of the Prophet, the Greek translation, which was at that time in common use, has δαιμόνια — demons, and this is its common use in Scripture. How much more likely is it then, that Paul borrowed what he says from the Prophet, to express the enormity of the evil, than that, speaking after the manner of the heathen, he extenuated what he was desirous to hold up to utter execration!

Here I seem to see Calvin confirming the prophetic office of Baruch. Confirming the prophetic authorship of the book of Baruch. And confirming the apostle Paul's use of Baruch.

How would a Calvinist today explain his words?

Actually, in his magnum opus "Institutes of the Christian Religion" (ICR), he cited Tobit, Baruch, 1 and 2 Maccabees, and Siriach. The Geneva Bible, which Calvin accepted and fostered, also contains the Deuterocanonical books. This doesn't say however that Calvin accepted them as having the same rank as others books. In fact, he wrote precisely about this.
First, to give context, recall that ICR was written in 1536. The Council of Trent, in response to the reformation wave, was held between 1545 and 1563. Among all the conclusions of the council, the fourth session (1556) issued a decree, with full doctrinal power, about the Canon of the Bible, reasserting the inclusion of the Deuterocanonical books.
In response to this decree (and every other decree of the council), Calvin wrote "Acts of the Council of Trent, with the Antidote" (albeit published posthumously, in 1547, it seems). The specific section about the biblical canon is quite long, but I present some extracts below (emphasis mine):

Secondly, in forming a catalogue of Scripture, they [the Synod of Trent]  mark all the books with the same chalk, and insist on placing the Apocrypha in the same rank with the others. [...]
Add to this, that they provide themselves with new supports when they give full authority to the Apocryphal books. Out of the second of the Maccabees they will prove Purgatory and the worship of saints; out of Tobit satisfactions, exorcisms, and what not. From Ecclesiasticus they will borrow not a little. [...]
I am not one of those, however, who would entirely disapprove the reading of those books; but in giving them in authority which they never before possessed, what end was sought but just to have the use of spurious paint in coloring their errors? [...]
Of their admitting all the Books promiscuously into the Canon, I say nothing more than it is done against the consent of the primitive Church. It is well known what Jerome states as the common opinion of earlier times.
And Ruffinus, speaking of the matter as not at all controverted, declares with Jerome that Ecclesiasticus, the Wisdom of Solomon, Tobit, Judith, and the history of the Maccabees, were called by the Fathers not canonical but ecclesiastical books, which might indeed be read to the people, but were not entitled to establish doctrine. I am not, however, unaware that the same view on which the Fathers of Trent now insist was held in the Council of Carthage. The same, too, was followed by Augustine in his Treatise on Christian Doctrine; but as he testifies that all of his age did not take the same view, let us assume that the point was then undecided. But if it were to be decided by arguments drawn from the case itself, many things beside the phraseology would show that those Books which the Fathers of Trent raise so high must sink to a lower place. Not to mention other things, whoever it was that wrote the history of the Maccabees expresses a wish, at the end, that he may have written well and congruously; but if not:, he asks pardon. How very alien this acknowledgment from the majesty of the Holy Spirit!

Based on this, it seems Calvin did approve of these books, but did not consider that doctrine could be derived from them.
PS: for a Catholic rebuttal to Calvin's criticism, see here.
PS2: I'm not a Calvinist.


Catholic view on Mary's free will In Luke's gospel, we read about Mary's consent to become mother of Jesus.
The question:was it a free decision? If so, what is the authoritative statement of the Church. What council or pope addressed this topic explicitly?
Attempts so far:

Each person has free will.
The presence of sin reduces the freedom. Thus, Mary's will is even more free.
Jesus has a human free will that is subordinated to his divine will in Gethsemane. So was the teaching of Maxim the Confessor. If Mary would be without free will, then Jesus from Nazareth would have a non-human formation.

In Genesis, we could read the story of Adam and Eve. They have the free will to choose to eat the fruit of knowledge of good and evil. It was NOT the will of God for them to eat the fruit He has forbade them, but still Adam and Eve ate the fruit. It is clear that humans have free will to choose, and so Mary decided in her own free will to bear the child Jesus. God also knows EVERYTHING what will happen in the future. That is why prophets know things what WILL happen because it came from God. As humans, we DO NOT know what will happen, and so Mary was chosen by God since He knows she will bear the child. It's like this: God knows the world will end because it is written in the Bible (Revelations). But, people don't know when the world will end. So, we have the free will to choose heaven or hell (we are not FORCED to choose). However, God knows what we will choose. If Mary was chosen to bear Jesus, then she will bear Jesus.
4 Even before the world was made, God had already chosen us to be his through our union with Christ, so that we would be holy and without fault before him. (Ephesians 1:4)


Did Jesus reject the apocrypha? In this video, John Barnett says "Jesus rejected the apocrypha" at 2:06:46. He goes into detail to discuss how Jesus accepted particular writers but rejected others.

Are there any scriptural evidence to validate the possibility of Jesus's rejection of particular deutronomical teachings?

Video source:
WHAT IS THE CATHOLIC Church? (YouTube)

In the New Testament, Jesus never prescribes or approves of any particular canon

Jesus doesn't anywhere speak of the canon,1 except to refer to common ways of dividing them: "the Law and the Prophets" (Matthew 5:17), "the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms" (Luke 24:44; cf. 24:27). This latter one is significant for our purpose becaues among the Jews, the Psalms began the section of Scriptures known as the Writings.

Yet even in the fifth century or sixth century we read Rabbis quoting from Sirach as Scripture (part of the Writings, using the formula, "as it is written"):2

  Baba Kamma, 92b

  א"ל רבא לרבה בר מרי מנא הא מילתא דאמרי אינשי מטייל ואזיל דיקלא בישא גבי קינא דשרכי אמר ליה דבר זה כתוב בתורה שנוי בנביאים ומשולש בכתובים ותנן במתניתין ותנינא בברייתא
  כתוב בתורה דכתיב וילך עשו אל ישמעאל שנוי בנביאים דכתיב ויתלקטו אל יפתח אנשים רקים ויהיו עמו ומשולש בכתובים דכתיב כל עוף למינו ישכון ובני אדם לדומה לו

  Raba said to Rabbah bar Mari: Whence do people derive the saying: A bad palm tree wanders about seeking a grove of barren trees? Who said to him: This is written in the Torah, and repeated in the Prophets, and is repeated again in the Writings, and we learned it as well from an oral tradition, and from yet an extra source of tradition. It is written in the Law, as it is written: And so Esau went to Ishmael [Genesis 28]. It is repeated in the Prophets [Judges 11], as it is written: And some foolish men gathered themselves around Jephthah, and they went with him. And is repeated again in the Writings, as it is written: All fowl will resort unto their kind, and a man unto another like to himself. [Sirach 13, 27].

Mishnah Yadayim also speaks about what renders the hands ritually unclean (i.e. what is Holy Scripture in this case).

  Mishnah Yadayim, 3:5

  רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר ... כל כתבי הקדשׁ מטמאין את הידים. שׁיר השׁירים וקהלת מטמאין את הידים. רבי יהודה אומר, שׁיר השׁירים מטמא את הידים, וקהלת מחלקת. רבי יוסי אומר, קהלת אינו מטמא את הידים ושׁיר השׁירים מחלקת. רבי שׁמעון אומר, קהלת מקלי בית שׁמאי ומחמרי בית הלל. אמר רבי שׁמעון בן עזאי, מקבל אני מפי שׁבעים ושׁנים זקן, ביום שׁהושׁיבו את רבי אלעזר בן עזריה בישׁיבה, שׁשׁיר השׁירים וקהלת מטמאים את הידים. אמר רבי עקיבא, חס ושׁלום, לא נחלק אדם מישׂראל על שׁיר השׁירים שׁלא תטמא את הידים, שׁאין כל העולם כלו כדאי כיום שׁנתן בו שׁיר השׁירים לישׂראל, שׁכל הכתובים קדשׁ, ושׁיר השׁירים קדשׁ קדשׁים. ואם נחלקו, לא נחלקו אלא על קהלת. אמר רבי יוחנן בן יהושׁע בן חמיו שׁל רבי עקיבא, כדברי בן עזאי, כך נחלקו וכך גמרו

  ... Rabbi Judah says ... All the Holy Scriptures render the hands unclean. Song of Songs renders the hands unclean. Rabbi Judah says that Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes render the hands unclean, but about Ecclesiastes there is dispute. Rabbi Josei says Ecclesiastes does not render the hands unclean, but about Song of Songs there is dispute. Rabbi Simon says that with regard to Ecclesiastes the school of Shamai is more lenient, and the house of Hillel more strict. Rabbi Simon ben Azzai said: I received a tradition from the seventy-two elders on the day they appointed Eleazar ben Azariah over the college that Ecclesiastes and Song of Songs render the hands unclean. Rabbi Akiba said: Far be it! No man of Israel has ever disputed that Song of Songs renders the hands unclean. For the whole world is not as worthy as the day on which Song of songs was given to Israel: all the Books are holy, but the Song of Songs the Holy of Holies; if there was ever a dispute, it was about Ecclesiastes. Rabbi John ben Joshua, son of Rabbi Akiba's father in law, said in accordance with words of ben Azzai: so they disputed, and so they reached a decision.

There was clearly no consensus even in the second century, or this dispute would never have taken place in the first place.

There is also attestation to the fact that the primitive church at least regarded Sirach other later books as Holy Scripture, by inference from the following (again second century):

  Tosefta Yadayim, 2

  הגליונים ספרי מינין אינן מטמאות הידים. ספרי בן סירא וכל הספרים שנכתבו מכאן ואילך אינן מטמאין את הידים

  ... The the Gospels of the Christians4 do not render the hands unclean: nor does, henceforth, Sirach, or any of the books written after it.

This is as ridiculous and irrelevant as saying, "The Gospels and Spiderman comics aren't Holy Scripture" unless Sirach and the later books of the 'apocrypha' (a question-begging term for these books) were considered Holy Scripture at least by second century Christians.3

Moreover, Palestinian Jews are not the only Jews. The diaspora Jews clearly seem to have at the least revered the deuterocanonical books as doctrinally sound, and possibly (likely) viewed them as Scripture, found in the various codices of the Septuagint. Indeed, that most of the deuterocanonical books have been discovered to have Hebrew or Aramaic originals, proves they were specifically Jewish sacred works, not the inventions of Christian after Jesus, or by the Church.

Argument from Silence Useless

An argument of silence, such as "Jesus never quotes from these books" won't work, as He doesn't quote from Judges, Ruth, Ezra, Esther, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Lamentations, Obadiah, Jonah, Zephaniah, nor do any of the apostles or writers of the New Testament. (But of course it's already a fallacious argument without begging the question as to whether these books are obviously to be considered part of the Bible.)

Likely Allusions in the New Testament

Although Jesus doesn't speak to the canon, we can derive some sense of how the apostles and other writers of the New Testament viewed these books, whom we can safely assume agreed with Jesus.

A striking example of a clear allusion to a book is in Revelation, where St. John describes seeing "the seven angels who stand before God," and that they offer our prayers before God. However, this comes from the book of Tobit (Aramaized verision of the Hebrew name Tobiyah, meaning "God's goodness"), which by implication is proved to have inspired knowledge of the heavenly realm.

  Aramaic Tobit, Vul 12:12-15

  ... I offered thy prayer to the Lord. And because thou wast acceptable to God, it was necessary that trial should prove thee. And now the Lord hath sent me to heal thee, and to deliver Sara thy son's wife from the devil. For I am the angel Raphael,5 one of the seven who stand before the Lord.

  Revelation 8:1-4

  And when he opened the seventh seal, there was silence in heaven for about a half an hour. And I saw the seven angels who stand before God, and trumpets were given to them. And behold another angel came and stood at the altar, having a golden censer, and much incense was given to him, that he should offer the prayers of all the saints at the golden altar which is before the throne. And the smoke of the incense of the prayers of the saints ascended from the hand of the angel before God.

Another example is St. Paul alluding to the book of Wisdom (also called Wisdom of Solomon) in several Epistles.

If St. Paul quotes or alludes to a certain passage, he expects his readers are aware of the immediate context of that passage. This is the same here, Wisdom surpasses even the stars, is is the effulgence of God's very glory, and thus his primary and preliminary argument in Hebrews that Christ, the "wisdom of God" (1 Cor. 1:24) is superior to the angels, reminds him of this passage of Scripture:

  Wisdom 7:24-30

  For wisdom is more active than all active things: and reacheth everywhere by reason of her purity. For she is a vapour of the power of God, and a certain pure emanation of the glory of the almighty God: and therefore no defiled thing cometh into her. For she is the effulgence of eternal light, and the unspotted mirror of God's majesty, and the image of his goodness. And being but one, she can do all things: and remaining in herself the same, she reneweth all things, and through nations conveyeth herself into holy souls, she maketh the friends of God and prophets. For God loveth none but him that dwelleth with wisdom. For she is more beautiful than the sun, and above all the order of the stars: being compared with the light, she is found before it. For after this cometh night, but no evil can overcome wisdom.

  Hebrews 1:1-3

  God, who, at sundry times and in divers manners, spoke in times past to the fathers by the prophets, last of all, in these days hath spoken to us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the world. Who being the effulgence of his glory, and the express image of his substance, and upholding all things by the word of his power, making purgation of sins, sitteth on the right hand of the majesty on high. Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath inherited a more excellent name than they.

Also, the word used for "effulgence" (απαυγασμα—radiance, effulgence) used in both is an extremely rare word in Greek literature, and is only used here in Hebrews 1 and Wisdom 7 in the entire Greek Bible—further excluding all doubt as to the allusion here intended;  it comes close to a quote.

  Wisdom 13:1-9; 14:22-31  1 But all men are vain, in whom there is not the knowledge of God: and who by these good things that are seen, could not understand him that is, neither by attending to the works have acknowledged who was the workman: 2 But have imagined either the fire, or the wind, or the swift air, or the circle of the stars, or the great water, or the sun and moon, to be the gods that rule the world. 3 With whose beauty, if they, being delighted, took them to be gods: let them know how much the Lord of them is more beautiful than they: for the first author of beauty made all those things. 4 Or if they admired their power and their effects, let them understand by them, that he that made them, is mightier than they: 5 For by the greatness of the beauty, and of the creature, the creator of them may be seen, so as to be known thereby. 6 But yet as to these they are less to be blamed. For they perhaps err, seeking God, and desirous to find him. 7 For being conversant among his works, they search: and they are persuaded that the things are good which are seen. 8 But then again they are not to be pardoned. 9 For if they were able to know so much as to make a judgment of the world: how did they not more easily find out the Lord thereof? ... And it was not enough for them to err about the knowledge of God, but whereas they lived in a great war of ignorance, they call so many and so great evils peace. 23 For either they sacrifice their own children, or use hidden sacrifices, or keep watches full of madness, 24 So that now they neither keep life, nor marriage undefiled, but one killeth another through envy, or grieveth him by adultery: 25 And all things are mingled together, blood, murder, theft and dissimulation, corruption and unfaithfulness, tumults and perjury, disquieting of the good, 26 Forgetfulness of God, defiling of souls, changing of nature, disorder in marriage, and the irregularity of adultery and uncleaness. 27 For the worship of abominable idols is the cause, and the beginning and end of all evil. 28 For either they are mad when they are merry: or they prophesy lies, or they live unjustly, or easily forswear themselves. 29 For whilst they trust in idols, which are without life, though they swear amiss, they look not to be hurt. 30 But for two things they shall be justly punished, because they have thought not well of God, giving heed to idols, and have sworn unjustly, in guile despising justice. 31 For it is not the power of them, by whom they swear, but the just vengeance of sinners always punisheth the transgression of the unjust.

  Romans 1:18-32 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of those men that detain the truth of God in injustice:  because that which is known of God is manifest in them. For God hath manifested it unto them. For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable. Because that, when they knew God, they have not glorified him as God, or given thanks; but became vain in their thoughts, and their foolish heart was darkened. For professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. And they changed the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of the image of a corruptible man, and of birds, and of fourfooted beasts, and of creeping things. Wherefore God gave them up to the desires of their heart, unto uncleanness, to dishonour their own bodies among themselves. Who changed the truth of God into a lie; and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature. And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men working that which is filthy, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error. And as they liked not to have God in their knowledge, God delivered them up to a reprobate sense, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all iniquity, malice, fornication, avarice, wickedness, full of envy, murder, contention, deceit, malignity, whisperers, detractors, hateful to God, contumelious, proud, haughty, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, foolish, dissolute, without affection, without fidelity, without mercy. Who, having known the rightousness of God, did not understand that they who do such things, are worthy of death; and not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them.

Jesus seems to make profuse use of Sirach (perhaps explaining Tosefta Yadayim cited above):

  Sirach 7:15 Be not full of words in a multitude of ancients, and repeat not the word in thy prayer.

  Matthew 6:7 And when you are praying, do not babble at length, as the heathens. For they think that in their much speaking they may be heard.

  Sirach 28:2 Forgive thy neighbour if he hath hurt thee: and then shall thy sins be forgiven to thee when thou prayest.

  Matthew 6:14 For if you will forgive men their offences, your heavenly Father will forgive you also your offences.

  Sirach 51:33-36 I have opened my mouth, and have spoken: buy her for yourselves without silver, and submit your neck to the yoke, and let your soul receive discipline: for she is near at hand to be found. Behold with your eyes how I have laboured a little, and have found much rest to myself. Receive ye discipline as a great sum of money, and possess abundance of gold by her.

  Revelation 3:18-20 I counsel thee to buy of me gold fire tried, that thou mayest be made rich; and mayest be clothed in white garments, and that the shame of thy nakedness may not appear; and anoint thy eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see. 19 Such as I love, I rebuke and chastise. Be zealous therefore, and do penance. 20 Behold, I stand at the gate, and knock. If any man shall hear my voice, and open to me the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

  Matthew 11:28-30 Come to me, all you that labour, and are burdened, and I will refresh you. Take up my yoke upon you, and learn of me, because I am meek, and humble of heart: and you shall find rest to your souls. For my yoke is sweet and my burden light.

  Sirach 4:12 Wisdom inspireth life into her children, and protecteth them that seek after her, and will go before them in the way of righteousness.

  Luke 7:35 And wisdom is justified in all her children.

  Sirach 7:19 Humble thy spirit very much: for the vengeance on the flesh of the ungodly is fire and worms.

And,

  Judith 16:20-21 Woe be to the nation that riseth up against my people: for the Lord almighty will take revenge on them, in the day of judgment he will visit them. 21 For he will give fire, and worms into their flesh, that they may burn, and may feel for ever.

  Mark 9:41-47 And whosoever shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in me; it were better for him that a millstone were hanged around his neck, and he were cast into the sea. 42 And if thy hand scandalize thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life, maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into unquenchable fire: 43 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not extinguished. 44 And if thy foot scandalize thee, cut it off. It is better for thee to enter lame into life everlasting, than having two feet, to be cast into the hell of unquenchable fire: 45 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not extinguished. 46 And if thy eye scandalize thee, pluck it out. It is better for thee with one eye to enter into the kingdom of God, than having two eyes to be cast into the hell of fire: 47 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not extinguished.

And countless other possible allusions and linguistic borrowings.

At the least, Jesus and the authors of the New Testament appear to have approved of these books. I would argue they cite them in a way that impies they have authority (think Paul assuming the greater context of a passage he quotes a little of conhesively proves his point, not that they 'happened to be right,' especially with Tobit.

Moreover, many prophetic sayings are found in these books, such as Wisdom:

  Wisdom 9:19 For by Wisdom they were healed, whosoever have pleased thee, O Lord, from the beginning.

The exclusive and sole reason any man was spared since the Fall was because of Christ.

  Wisdom 14:7 For blessed is the wood by which righteousness cometh.

The Cross.

  Wisdom 2

  For they have said, reasoning with themselves, but not right: The time of our life is short and tedious, and in the end of a man there is no remedy, and no man hath been known to have returned from hell: 2 For we are born of nothing, and after this we shall be as if we had not been: for the breath in our nostrils is smoke: and speech a spark to move our heart, 3 Which being put out, our body shall be ashes, and our spirit shall be poured abroad as soft air, and our life shall pass away as the trace of a cloud, and shall be dispersed as a mist, which is driven away by the beams of the sun, and overpowered with the heat thereof: 4 And our name in time shall be forgotten, and no man shall have any remembrance of our works. 5 For our time is as the passing of a shadow, and there is no going back of our end: for it is fast sealed, and no man returneth. 6 Come therefore, and let us enjoy the good things that are present, and let us speedily use the creatures as in youth. 7 Let us fill ourselves with costly wine, and ointments: and let not the flower of the time pass by us. 8 Let us crown ourselves with roses, before they be withered: let no meadow escape our riot. 9 Let none of us go without his part in luxury: let us everywhere leave tokens of joy: for this is our portion, and this our lot. 10 Let us oppress the poor just man, and not spare the widow, nor honour the ancient grey hairs of the aged. 11 But let our strength be the law of justice: for that which is feeble, is found to be nothing worth. 12 Let us therefore lie in wait for the just, because he is not for our turn, and he is contrary to our doings, and upbraideth us with transgressions of the law, and divulgeth against us the sins of our way of life. 13 He boasteth that he hath the knowledge of God, and calleth himself the son of God. 14 He is become a censurer of our thoughts. 15 He is grievous unto us, even to behold: for his life is not like other men's, and his ways are very different. 16 We are esteemed by him as triflers, and he abstaineth from our ways as from filthiness, and he preferreth the latter end of the just, and glorieth that he hath God for his father. 17 Let us see then if his words be true, and let us prove what shall happen to him, and we shall know what his end shall be. 18 For if he be the true son of God, he will defend him, and will deliver him from the hands of his enemies. 19 Let us examine him by outrages and tortures, that we may know his meekness and try his patience. 20 Let us condemn him to a most shameful death: for there shall be respect had unto him by his words. 21 These things they thought, and were deceived: for their own malice blinded them. 22 And they knew not the secrets of God, nor hoped for the wages of justice, nor esteemed the honour of holy souls. 23 For God created man incorruptible, and to the image of his own likeness he made him. 24 But by the envy of the devil, death came into the world: 25 And they follow him that are of his side.

The conspiracy against Christ.
(Wis. 2:20 | Jas. 5:6; Wis. 2:3 | Jas. 4:14; Wis. 2:12,20 | Acts 7:51-53; Wis. 2:12 | Mt. 23/Jn.7:19; Wis. 2:15-16  | Jn. 7:46/Mt. 23:27-28/Jn. 5:18; Wis. 2:16 | Mt. 5:2-10; Wis. 2:17-18 | Mt. 27:41-43. Wis. 2:19 (cf. Jas. 5:6) | Jn. 11:46-48, 53; 19:1/ Mt. 26:67/ Lk. 24:20)

Conclusion

The canon is not clearly outlined in Scripture itself (and to seek it therein is to already assume, not prove, a canon), and any 'it seems to be the Word of God' or 'it seems not to be the Word of God' argument is inherently subjective, and presupposes a canon of works on which to base such a judgement. Therefore, the canon is something settled by an authority higher than mere subjective feeling—but not by post-Christian Rabbis who rise no higher than such. According to the ancient Church, the Church settled the canon, with its inherent power to bind and loose matters upon the faithful, and when it did meet to settled the issue of canon, it settled upon the Catholic canon of the Bible.6

Thus, at best, the notion that Jews or Jesus rejected these books before the Rabbis of the second century and beyond is unfounded, and based on no evidence from history. At best, one has to trust the "decision" made by the Rabbis in the second century on what is Scripture or not, in order to condemn these books found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Septuagint, and moreover the Ethiopian Jews' canon.

Footnotes

1 In Luke 11:51/Matthew 23:35, often cited by Protestants, Jesus is not talking about inspiration or the extent of the canon, but the prophets who were murdered by their own people. It's more likely He is picking examples of righteous men speaking the truth, and for that reason being murdered, which He identifies Himself with (Jn. 7:19; cf. Mt. 21:37-38). Moreover, at best, one would have to demand we see "Zechariah son of Barachiah" as the same person as the Zechariah mentioned in the Old Testament, "Zechariah son of . Cf. Eph. 4:11; 2 Pet. 3:15-16; Rev. 22:18.

2 Composed in Talmudic Babylon, 450-550 A.D.

3 It's not necessary to cite early Christian usage of these books, since it's so ubiquitous and known already.

4 The Jewish Rabbis of the Talmudic era were wont to call Gospel books even gilyon ("Perverse Scroll") or avon gilyon ("Iniquitous Scroll"), both plays on the Greek word for gospel, euangelion. (Shabbat 116a)

5 Raphael is Hebrew for "Healing of God" It could also have said, "I am the angel of God's healing." Proves the Hebrew origin of the work.

6 E.g. St. Jerome is epitomic, "For the studies of the Hebrews rebuke us and find fault with us, to translate this [book of Tobit] for the ears of Latins contrary to their canon. But it is better to be judging the opinion of the Pharisees to displease and to be subject to the commands of bishops." (Preface to Tobit). "this book is found by the Council of Nicaea to have been counted among the number of the Sacred Scriptures" (Preface to Judith). The local Councils of Hippo, Rome, and Carthage, in the fourth century, and Ecumenical Councils of Nicaea II, Florence (with which the Eastern Orthodox agreed for a brief period) and the Council of Trent in the middle ages, all confirm the same canon of the Old Testament.


How do Lutherans or Reformed Christians interpret Acts 8:16? A little context, Acts 8 tells us about Philip baptizing the people of Samaria, however people that have not received the Holy Spirit, even after baptism, until Peter and John lay their hands on them on verse 16.
How do Lutherans and other mainline protestants, who believe the Holy Spirit descends upon a believer at baptism reconcile this idea with this verse?

I'm asking about mainline protestants like Lutherans and Reformed Christians because this obviously is not a problem for credo-baptist Christians or for Orthodox and Catholic who affirm the sacrament of confirmation.

To start out with: I agree with Nigel J that in my life-long experience as a protestant, water-baptism has not generally been made out to be a necessary act to receive the Holy Spirit. On the contrary, most messages I have heard specifically on baptism tend to emphasize that baptism is not necessary for salvation, although it is both beneficial and commanded by Jesus. This is typically to emphasize:

(1) Salvation is by God's grace alone through faith alone (i.e. there is no action you can perform which contributes to your salvation).

(2) Baptism is an outward, and public, sign of the inner reality of regeneration which the Holy Spirit has already begun in a believer's life. In fact regeneration by the Holy Spirit must precede baptism, otherwise the faith which a person puts on display by seeking and receiving baptism is impossible. The effects of total depravity to prevent surrender to God and trap a person in sin, can only be overcome through the unilateral and prior work of the Spirit in a believer's life.

That said, within Lutheran theology there seem to be two ways to look at this question, depending on who is being baptized. According to the Missouri Synod of the Lutheran Church:

  Baptism is one of the miraculous means of grace...through which God creates and/or strengthens the gift of faith in a person’s heart

The key here is in the and/or which is dependent on whether the baptism is of an infant or of an adult.

(1) If an infant is baptized, this baptism is regenerating and actually "creates...new birth" even though it "cannot...be verbally expressed or articulated by the child". This faith "needs to be fed and nurtured by God’s Word" as the child grows up.

(2) In line with the view I expressed at the start of this answer, in an adult, Baptism should "soon follow conversion" [emphasis added]. This is because as cited above, Baptism is only "one of" the means God uses to produce grace. For adults, faith "can also be created in a person's heart by the power of the Holy Spirit working through God's (written or spoken) Word." In other words through the Spirit's conviction and regeneration of a person hearing (or reading) the Word of God in the message of the gospel preached. Therefore, for the adult, Baptism is performed "for the purpose of confirming and strengthening faith" not for creating faith s it does in the infant.

This means that when it comes to adult baptism, the coming of the Holy Spirit to regenerate a sinful person and convert them into a believer is typically seen as an action  distinct from the act of baptism itself. This, although for infants, baptism is believed to actually produce faith and bring the Holy Spirit.

It seems at this point one could then say that for the Samaritans in Acts 8, the order of events occurred in reverse. However, this would be misleading, since while the regeneration of the Holy Spirit and water-baptism are distinct in both act and therefore potentially within time, they nevertheless necessarily occur in that order. Therefore, the Lutheran is still left with explaining why Philip has baptized Samaritans who evidently expressed saving faith (only possible through the prior regenerating work of the Holy Spirit) when their 'receiving' the Holy Spirit comes some time later.

Two other methods could used to explain this apparent contradiction in the Lutheran ordo salutis. The Reformed perspective also seems to fit best with the first.

(1) Verse 16 makes clear that something was different about their baptism, as opposed to the type of baptism commanded by Jesus in Matthew 28:19-20. Instead of the Trinitarian formula being used, in the NIV "they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus."

This is almost an unparalleled occurrence, and for Reformed theologians, this anomaly by itself seems sufficient to explain why the Spirit comes in an anomalous manner. For them, the book of Acts is "the transition in redemptive history" in which the Gospel is transformed from a Jewish to a global religion. For them, the geographical regions singled out in Acts 1:8 mark barriers that the Spirit must anomalously cross.

  ...the Spirit baptisms Luke records in Acts conform to this geographic
  spread of the gospel...

Lutherans too, seem to see this passage as an anomaly which is intended to emphasize the barrier crossing act which was occurring. That is why a writer from "Luther Seminary" says:

  ...Acts 8:14-17 is probably an invitation to cross-cultural discipleship models. Considering the long history of hostility between Jews and Samaritans, the delay of the Holy Spirit is indeed a literary device meant to summon believers to recognize the role of the Spirit in opening worship doors to all people...

If the reader remembers the words of John the Baptist, the difference between the Baptism's he performed and those Jesus would usher in was the presence of the Holy Spirit and Fire. Therefore, this point would explain Acts 8 as being literar-illy and/or redmto-historically anomalous meant to highlight the Holy Spirit's consent to boundary crossing of the the Gospel from Jewish message to global proclamation.

(2) However, another perspective of this passage, and similar passages, is possible from the Lutheran perspective. This also happens to be a perspective more amenable to the Pentecostal interpretation, since it essentially distinguishes between the (a) regenerating work of the Spirit which produces faith and enables water-baptism, and (b) being 'filled with the Spirit' in the form of power for service. This is not exactly the view espoused by some Lutherans, but in an address to the Reformation Lutheran Church one Pastor wrote in reference to several passages in Acts that there seem to be "special outpourings of the Spirit" where specific persons are "given a special measure of the Holy Spirit in order to bring about their service to the Lord."

This still considers such 'filling' to be unique to Acts, and so would explain incidents like those occurring in Acts 8 as being reserved to the Apostolic age (a period during which the original 12 apostles still lived and ministered). Furthermore, the author doesn't seem to apply this generally, but instead to specific persons with specific tasks within the Church, but it opens up the possibility of explaining Acts 8:16 as being a referencing to a sort of 'filling' (Reformed churches are cessationist and Lutherans seem to be de facto cessationist) of the Spirit, distinct from the regenerating work which must precede the baptism of adults.

So, in answer to your question, there are potentially two ways of understanding Acts 8:16 from a Lutheran/Reformed perspective, although the first - that it is a literary and part of a redemptive-historical anomaly - seems to be more canon. As a non-cessationist closer to the holiness side of Protestantism than the magisterial (Lutheran, Anglican, Reformed), I personally prefer to second.


How many languages did apostle Paul speak? Of course, he could speak Hebrew and from such examples like preaching the gospel in Athens it seems that he had no problem speaking Greek. He also wanted to visit Rome, while there were no Jews living in Rome at that time, so does it mean that he could also speak Latin? Also he wanted to go to Spain. Does it mean that he could also speak Spanish? Was Spanish existent at that time?

We know that he spoke Greek, Hebrew, and maybe Latin. The Latin conjecture is based on the fact that he was Roman and the official language of Rome was Latin.

Proof text for Hebrew:

  And when we had all fallen to the ground, I heard a voice saying to me in the Hebrew language, ‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.’ (Acts 26:14, ESV)

Proof text for Greek:

  As Paul was about to be brought into the barracks, he said to the tribune, “May I say something to you?” And he said, “Do you know Greek? (Acts 21:37, ESV)


Is "Rapture" mentioned in the Book of Revelation? In 1st Thessalonians Paul describes the Rapture:
1Th 4:13 through 17   KJV

13  But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope.
14  For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.
15  For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.
16  For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
17  Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

Do any Denominations hold a consensus as to where in the Book of Revelation, this "Rapture" spoken by Paul is mentioned?

This is the LCMS answer to questions concerning the Rapture:

The short answer is: On the Last Day.

When is the Last Day? We don't know. The last day will come "like a thief in the night," bringing destruction to unbelievers but salvation to believers (1 Thess. 5:1 - 10).

  Q:  Does The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod believe in the rapture?

  A:  The answer to your question depends on what you mean by "the
  rapture." The English word "rapture" is derived from the Latin
  translation of the verb "caught up" in 1 Thess. 4:17 (rapiemur).
  Lutherans certainly believe what Paul teaches in this passage, namely,
  that those who are still living on earth when Christ returns visibly
  on the last day "will be caught up" ("raptured") together with "the
  dead in Christ" to "meet the Lord in the air."

  Some Christians teach, however, that the "rapture" will take place not
  on the last day but in connection with an "invisible" coming of Christ
  occurring before a seven-year period of "tribulation" on earth,
  allowing Christians to "escape" this tribulation and then later return
  to earth for a literal "1,000 year reign of Christ."

  Lutherans do not believe that these teachings are based on a proper
  understanding of Scripture. Scripture teaches that all Christians will
  endure varying degrees of "tribulation" until the last day, that
  Christ will return only once (visibly) to "catch up" ("rapture") all
  believers, living and dead, into heaven, and that all believers will
  reign forever with him in heaven. Lutherans understand the "1000
  years" of Rev. 20:11-15 to be a figurative reference to Christ's reign
  here and now in the hearts and lives of believers, which will
  culminate in our reigning with Christ forever in heaven following his
  return on the last day.

  For more information, you may want to read the Synod's theological
  commission report titled The End Times: A Study of Eschatology and
  Millennialism.