What does it mean that "the two natures of Christ cannot be separated"? The Ausberg confession states of Christ in the Chief Articles of Faith,

  Therefore, he has two natures, one divine and the other human. They are united in one person and cannot be separated.

What does it mean by separation of the natures? To add context, how does this shed light on Jesus' lament, "My God, my God! Why have you forsaken me?" or conversely, how is it informed by the lament?

I generally write from a reformed perspective, but I don't think there's anything in this post that other Christians (Oriental Orthodox and Church of the East aside) would disagree with.
The doctrine was first formulated clearly by the Council of Chalcedon:

One and the same Son, the Self-same Perfect in Godhead, the Self-same Perfect in Manhood; truly God and truly Man; the Self-same of a rational soul and body; co-essential with the Father according to the Godhead, the Self-same co-essential with us according to the Manhood; like us in all things, sin apart; before the ages begotten of the Father as to the Godhead, but in the last days, the Self-same, for us and for our salvation (born) of Mary the Virgin Theotokos as to the Manhood; One and the Same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten; acknowledged in Two Natures unconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the difference of the Natures being in no way removed because of the Union, but rather the properties of each Nature being preserved, and (both) concurring into One Person and One Hypostasis; not as though He were parted or divided into Two Persons, but One and the Self-same Son and Only-begotten God, Word, Lord, Jesus Christ; even as from the beginning the prophets have taught concerning Him, and as the Lord Jesus Christ Himself hath taught us, and as the Symbol of the Fathers hath handed down to us.

The church fathers at the council were influenced by Cyril of Alexandria's formulation, which stressed that Christ was "one" "out of two natures."
Firstly, according to Chalcedon, he is of two natures "unconfusedly, unchangeably." That is, his human nature and his God nature did not fold into one another to become a third thing neither human nor God. Instead, he is uniquely both God and man, fully and eternally. He is omnipotent, omniscient, and so on because he is God. He has a body, emotions, and so on because he is human.
But secondly, and more to the point of your question, he is of two natures "indivisibly, inseparably." That is, he is not two people. Jesus, God the Son, is the second person of the trinity, is our redeemer who was born to the virgin Mary and walked among us and sacrificed himself for us.
As far as how his natures are united in his person, that's a difficult question which we will never fully grasp this side of eternity. But Daniel Wallace has some thoughts:

We need to think of the divine attributes in two categories: moral attributes and amoral attributes. The moral attributes are those attributes that speak of God’s morality—justice, mercy, love, goodness, kindness, etc. The amoral attributes are those that speak of God’s sovereignty—omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence, infinity, eternity, immutability, etc. What is interesting to observe in the Gospels is that a clear line of demarcation can be seen with reference to Jesus: he never fails to function on the level of the moral attributes, but frequently does not display the amoral attributes. In other words, the moral attributes seem to be “hard-wired” to his human consciousness, while the amoral attributes seem to be subject to the guidance of the Holy Spirit and come to the human conscious level at the Spirit’s choosing. At the same time, since he does occasionally demonstrate the amoral attributes, there is no denying his deity. Although Jesus Christ has both a human and divine nature, he is not two persons. He has one consciousness. It is not enough to say that his divine nature does not always operate at the level of his human consciousness. Why? Because it is only the amoral attributes that fit this description.

What would it mean for his natures to be separable? You'd have Nestorianism. Nestorian thought went thus:

Nestorius tried to answer a question considered unsolved: "How can Jesus Christ, being part man, not be partially a sinner as well, since man is by definition a sinner since the Fall". To solve that he taught that Mary, the mother of Jesus gave birth to the incarnate Christ, not the divine Logos who existed before Mary and indeed before time itself. The Logos occupied the part of the human soul (the part of man that was stained by the Fall). But wouldn't the absence of a human soul make Jesus less human? Nestorius rejected this proposition, answering that, because the human soul was based on the archetype of the Logos, only to become polluted by the Fall, Jesus was "more" human for having the Logos and not "less". Consequently, Nestorius argued that the Virgin Mary should be called Christotokos, Greek for "Birth Giver of Christ", and not Theotokos, Greek for "Birth Giver of God".
Nestorius believed that no union between the human and divine was possible. If such a union of human and divine occurred, Nestorius believed that Christ could not truly be con-substantial with God and con-substantial with us because he would grow, mature, suffer and die (which Nestorius argued God cannot do) and also would possess the power of God that would separate him from being equal to humans.

That is not orthodox, and was condemned at the Council of Ephesus (prior to Chalcedon).
The inseparability of Christ's two natures also makes one other thing clear. Contrary to what one may hear in some corners of Protestantism, Christ's natures did not separate on Calvary. Whatever happened as he cried out from the cross, he did not cease to be God. If God could cease to be God, our whole theology as Christians is in utter ruin. If Christ was not God to begin with, our whole salvation was a sham. We must affirm that Christ was both God and man and that those natures are united and inseparable.
Martin Luther and Charles Spurgeon are both quoted as saying things to the effect of, "God forsaken by God -- who can understand that?" I certainly don't. But read the full Psalm 22 which Jesus was quoting and you'll see that, while he (the Psalmist, in anticipation of Jesus) begins with a lament at God's forsaking him, right around verse 19 he pivots to a message of hope of deliverance. Other commentators have pointed out that, though Jesus doesn't say "Father" as he does in other places, he still is addressing him as "My God." Significant because it acknowledges a personal relationship. I don't wish to belittle the enormity of suffering, helplessness, and desolation that Jesus experienced on the cross (God forbid I do such a thing!) but I do want to make sure two things about it are clear, even if other things unfortunately remain unclear: Jesus did not cease to be God, but Jesus was crying out to God the Father for having forsaken him.


Did Jesus appear post-resurrection to twelve apostles? We see at 1 Cor 15:3-5:

  For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures,  and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.

But, we see Matthias being elected as replacement for Judas Iscariot only after the ascension of Jesus (See Acts 1:9 [Jesus' ascension] & Acts 1:26 [Matthias chosen]).

My question is: whom does Paul refer to as "the twelve" when there were only eleven apostles left in the group before the ascension of the Lord? What is the explanation offered by Catholic Church for the said statement of Paul?

While Matthias was not an apostle at the time that Jesus appeared to the other eleven apostles, the Scriptures do indicate that Matthias was a disciple during Jesus' ministry.

According to Peter’s words (Ac 1:21, 22), Matthias had been a follower of Christ throughout Jesus’ three-and-a-half-year ministry, had been closely associated with the apostles, and was quite likely one of the 70 disciples or evangelists whom Jesus sent out to preach. (Lu 10:1) After his selection, he was “reckoned along with the eleven apostles” by the congregation (Ac 1:26), and when the book of Acts immediately thereafter speaks of “the apostles” or “the twelve,” Matthias was included.—Ac 2:37, 43; 4:33, 36; 5:12, 29; 6:2, 6; 8:1, 14; see PAUL. [article "Matthias" printed in "Insight on the Scriptures" by Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania]

So, Paul was recognizing Matthias as an apostle even though his appointment to that position had not be made yet.
(While not an answer from the Catholic perspective, this does give an answer from the Bible itself.)


How were the footnotes in LDS scriptures created? The LDS scriptures have footnotes at the bottom of every page of every book. How were they made? That seems like an incredible amount of cross referencing for people to do.

I am aware that there are several classic, exhaustive Bible encyclopedias that are thoroughly annotated and they're absolutely huge. Its an impressive feat. Even though the LDS footnotes aren't quite that involved, they do span/cross-reference the Bible and three other books of scripture.

Who compiled these references? How was it done? (Was it a manual process or did computers suggest the bulk of the references?)

Short Answer: Over the course of 7 years by a committee of Apostles, Oxford Scholars, professional editors, computer experts, and many other contributers form both inside and outside the Church.

What we have for footnotes in the standard works today is the result of many lifetimes worth of diligent scripture study, and thousands of hours work completed as part of a huge effort led by the apostles Thomas S. Monson, Boyd K. Packer, and Bruce R. McConkie, Bruce R. McConkie being a very prominent contributor, having established himself as a student of scripture. In addition to writing the chapter headings, the topical guide, and the bible dictionary, he also produced many of his own footnotes (In the OT alone he produced 600 footnotes that just reference text from the JST, and produced the "Selections from the Joseph Smith Translation" for the references that were too long for the footnotes.)

The work began in 1972 with the creation of the Bible Aids committee, presided by then Elder Thomas S. Monson. The presidency of the Church wanted to publish an LDS version of the KJV Bible, previously the church had used the Oxford
edition of the bible in combination with LDS lesson manuals.

The work they completed is daunting, much came from study, but a significant number of footnotes were the result of custom written programs by Stephen Howes of BYU.

  Those of us who witnessed the progress of the project often commented
  how individuals in and out of the Church with needed skills and
  abilities were available at our time of need. For example, as the work
  progressed and it became necessary to process the manuscripts, a
  qualified editor, Eleanor Knowles, was available at Deseret Book.
  Furthermore, the project could not have been accomplished without the
  benefit of modern computer technology; and here again, both in the
  people available and in the development of technology, our needs were
  met. In anticipation of another project, Eldin Ricks at BYU had placed
  every verse of all four standard works into a computer data base. When
  it became desirable to have such a data base for the scriptures
  project, Brother Ricks willingly let the Church use his material,
  saving us thousands of hours.  – Wm. James Mortimer

My former Mission President, Joseph Cook–who was actually mentioned in a talk at the most recent General Conference by his brother Quentin–wrote footnotes into is journals, and would reference them while answering any questions we, his missionaries, may have during personal interviews, it was amazing. I only wish I could see Bruce R. McConkie's personal study journals, but I have a feeling that the vast majority of the fruits of his labours are currently published in the standard works as the study helps, everything else is likely contained in his book, "Mormon Doctrine".

As Brother Mortimer witnesses in the quote above, the work was nowhere short of a miracle when it came to meeting the needs of the project.

History of LDS ScripturesHarold B. Lee Library. Bible: LDS Publication of the Bible
The Coming Forth of the LDS Editions of Scripture


What was Origen's view of Jesus' soul? Origen believed in the pre-existence of souls (prior to conception), and that people's souls did things before their embodiment. For example, he taught that Jacob was loved and Esau hated because of what they did prior to their conception.

But what did he believe about Jesus' soul? Did it exist eternally? Or was it created in a moment of time like all other souls, so that at the Annunciation the incarnation had already begun?

Great question. It's a little of both. (We'd have to define what time means for God.) But I suppose we could infer Origen believed Christ's soul - as he believed of all souls - is eternal.

According to his writings, all souls were created by God at some time prior to conception.

  Let us inquire whether God, the creator and founder of all things,
  created certain of them holy and happy, so that they could admit no
  element at all of an opposite kind, and certain others so that they
  were made capable both of virtue and vice; or whether we are to
  suppose that He created some so as to be altogether incapable of
  virtue, and others again altogether incapable of wickedness, but with
  the power of abiding only in a state of happiness, and others again
  such as to be capable of either condition. (De Principiis)

And that Christ has one.

  Therefore, when the Son of God wished to appear to men and live among
  men for the salvation of the human race, He took not only a human
  body, as some suppose, but also a soul, and one like our souls in its
  nature, but like Himself in purpose and power, and such as could
  fulfill without turning all the wishes and dispensations of the Word
  and Wisdom. (De Principiis, emphasis mine.)

And all souls are eternal.

  The soul, having a substance and life of its own, shall after its
  departure from the world, be rewarded according to its deserts, being
  destined to obtain either an inheritance of eternal life and
  blessedness, if its actions shall have procured this for it, or to be
  delivered up to eternal fire and punishments, if the guilt of its
  crimes shall have brought it down to this.  ( Ante-Nicene Fathers re: Origen, Vol. 4, 1995, p. 240)


What is the Catholic view of the Bible's teachings on marrying widows? What is the Catholic Church's view on marry widows, and the Bible's teachings about it? Is it considered a good thing or a bad thing?

Remarriage in
New Testament
St. Paul says it's better for widows (as for virgins, too) to remain unmarried:

1Cor 7:27 Art thou bound to a wife? Seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife* [i.e., a widow]? Seek not a wife.

*by either death of the spouse or separation
But he does not prohibit widows (those "loosed from a wife/husband") from remarrying:

1Cor 7:28 But if thou take a wife, thou hast not sinned.

Young widows
especially if the widow is young and cannot contain her sexual desires:

1Tim 5:11 But the younger widows avoid. For when they have grown wanton in Christ, they will marry:

1Tim 5:14 I will, therefore, that the younger [wanton widows] should marry, bear children, be mistresses of families, give no occasion to the adversary to speak evil.

Old widows

1Tim 5:3 Honour [i.e., support, not marry] widows that are widows indeed.

St. Paul doesn't say widows should remarry; rather,

1Tim 3:4 if any widow have children or grandchildren, let her learn first to govern her own house and to make a return of duty to her parents; for this is acceptable before God.

He doesn't advise childless widows to remarry, either:

1Tim 3:5 But she that is a widow indeed, and desolate, let her trust in God and continue in supplications and prayers night and day.

Marrying widows
St. Paul says candidates for being a bishop must not have ever remarried:

1Tim 3:2 It behoveth therefore a bishop to be blameless, the husband of [no more than] one wife, sober, prudent, of good behaviour, chaste, given to hospitality, a teacher,

cf. the analogous "1Tim 5:9 Let a [female] widow be chosen of no less than threescore [60] years of age, who hath been the wife of one husband."
See St. Thomas Aquinas's commentary on 1 Timothy 5:9-16.
Old Testament

Proverbs 5:18 …rejoice with the wife of thy youth

i.e., honor your first wife.
And the holy young widow Judith didn't remarry, but vowed to remain a widow (cf. Judith 16:22).
Church's Practice
The Church discourages but does not prohibit second marriages. The marriage ceremony of widows is more somber, the father does not walk his daughter down the aisle, nor does he unveil her.
St. John Chrysostom's On Not Entering a Second Marriage (pp. 223-44) strongly discourages widows from remarrying.


From reformed perspective, what does the oil in the foolish virgin's lamp represent? This question is related to the question: How do "once saved always saved" advocates explain the parable of the wise virgins?

Many of the answers explain that the foolish virgins never had oil, however one answer pointed out that the difference is they did not take extra oil in a vessel. "But the wise took oil in their vessels with their lamps" (Mathew 25:4)

It does appear their lamps were burning since both "trimmed their lamps" (Matt 25:7) and the foolish said to the wise "our lamps are gone out" (Matt 25:8).

If this is the case, and the foolish virgins had oil in the lamp but it ran out, what does the oil signify?

John Calvin in his commentary on Matthew encourages us to not get bogged down in the minutia of the parables. However, he essentially equates the oil to zeal.

  Some people give themselves a good deal of uneasiness about the lamps, the vessels, and the oil; but the plain and natural meaning of the whole is, that it is not enough to have ardent zeal for a short time, if we have not also a constancy that never tires. And Christ employs a very appropriate parable to express this. A little before, he had exhorted the disciples, that as they had a journey to perform through dark and dreary places, they should provide themselves with lamps; but as the wick of the lamp, if it be not supplied with oil, gradually dries up, and loses its brightness, Christ now says, that believers need to have incessant supplies of courage, to support the flame which is kindled in their hearts, otherwise their zeal will fail ere they have completed the journey.


Why is the term "hymn" used so frequently to refer to "old-church-hymns?" A hymn is any song giving praise or adoration to a deity, so why is it that the term "hymn" is so popular to the traditional songs of Protestants and Catholics, such as Come Thou Fount of Every Blessing or Ave Maria?

This is a separate topic, but I mention to give a better idea of why I am asking this, but I have seen it many times where people say "rock music is evil," go back to the Hymns, but you have it where the fact is, so long as it is made to praise God or any god (regardless of if you know) it is indeed a hymn, regardless of taste, or place of Origin.

The popular usage of the word "hymn" to refer to a  traditional  musical style  is probably a consequence of the indiscriminate  use of  phrases  like  "worship songs"  to refer to all contemporary  Christian music. Of course hymns are worship songs, and  worship songs are hymns, but contradictory meanings  are quite common in English.

OPs definition of a hymn as any song giving praise or adoration to a deity is extended by HELPS word studies,, in defining the Greek word humnos, as giving honour, praise or thanks to gods, heroes or conquerors. Yet even the most traditional hymn books contain "hymns" which reflect on some aspect of Christian experience or biblical theology, or make prayers and supplications. Are  "Stand Up, Stand Up for Jesus", "Lead kindly light", "Dare to be a Daniel", "Just as I am", "God save the Queen", "The Lord's my shepherd"  and "I heard the voice of Jesus say" not proper hymns?

When is a hymn not a hymn? Am I an animal? Is white a colour? Is the night part of the day? Are Protestants Catholic?  Is a tomato a vegetable?  Does a pound of gold weigh as much as a pound of potatoes? Was  the first man mentioned  in the Bible Scottish?  All these have different answers in different contexts, and it is probably futile to argue that a common usage is just plain wrong, if  it has already  entered the language.

In the Epistle to the Colossians chapter3, verse 16, and elsewhere, we read of psalms and hymns and spiritual songs.   But what is a psalm, what is a hymn and what is a spiritual song?

Matthew Poole said that some would distinguish them by the method of singing, as well as the matter sung. Some commentators interpret a psalm as referring only to ones in the Book of Psalms, The Geneva Study Bible suggests all godly songs are psalms and include  hymns (which praise God) and "odes" (the Greek word rendered "songs") as being particularly artful and fuller of music, in particular. Calvin, at one point anyway, supposed a psalm required accompaniment by a musical instrument. while a hymn might or might not. Some, particularly those who believe in Exclusive Psalmody (the idea that only psalms should be sung in church) interpret  hymns and spiritual songs as simply subsets of the Biblical psalms. William Kelly supposes (his word ) that a psalm was a more stately composition, but not necessarily from the Bible. The Cambridge Bible Guide suggests the Magnificat and the Nunc Dimittus (both from Luke 1) count as psalms, though others consider them hymns, and others songs. . HELPS Word Studies suggests spiritual songs were impromptu or spontaneous, while some suggest they were sung by individuals or small groups (choirs, worship bands) in contrast to psalms which were sung by the whole congregation.

Whether the Colossians understood the difference is not very important, since they were urged to sing all three anyway. But there is no consensus, now, about what the difference was then.

Attitudes to church music have varied. St Hilary of Poiters  wrote many hymns and included in them doctrine opposed to the Arian heresy, Luther and Wesley were great hymnodists, seeing hymns as a great way to  impart knowledge and understanding. Preaching and liturgy (in the widest sense) are vital but perhaps hymns more than anything else inculcate the beliefs of a people.

It is said that a hymn is essentially a poem, something that could be read or prayed without music, but is set to music. A hymn is something that is sung in its entirety by the whole congregation. A choir or worship band may lead,. or sing descants or harmonies, but  all join in the entire hymn, A hymn consists of stanzas  , each with identical rhythm. Yet it is as difficult to define a hymn as a poem. Such hymns as the Te Deum or the Veni Spiritus or the Ave Maria are not metrical, though metrical versions exist.  Ultimately  a hymn is whatever somebody thinks a hymn is.

There is a story in several  places on the web, but to whom it is attributable I do not know:

  An old farmer went to the city one weekend and attended the big city church. He came home and his wife asked him how it was.

  “Well,” said the farmer. “It was good. They did something different, however. They sang praise choruses instead of hymns.”

  “Praise choruses?” asked the wife. “What are those?”

  “Oh, they’re okay. They’re sort of like hymns, only different,” said the farmer.

  “Well, what’s the difference?” asked the wife.

  The farmer said, “Well it’s like this … If I were to say to you, ‘Martha, the cows are in the corn,’ well that would be a hymn. If, on the other hand, I were to say to you, ‘Martha, Martha, Martha, Oh, Martha, MARTHA, MARTHA, the cows, the big cows, the brown cows, the black cows, the white cows, the black and white cows, the COWS, COWS, COWS are in the corn, are in the corn, are in the corn, in the CORN, CORN, CORN, COOOOORRRRRNNNNN,’ then, if I were to repeat the whole thing two or three times, well that would be a praise chorus.”

  As luck would have it, the exact same Sunday a young, new Christian from the city church attended the small town church. He came home and his wife asked him how it was.

  “Well,” said the young man, “It was good. They did something different, however. They sang hymns instead of regular songs.”

  “Hymns?” asked the wife. “What are those?”

  “They’re okay. They’re sort of like regular songs, only different,” said the young man.

  “Well, what’s the difference?” asked the wife.

  The young man said, “Well it’s like this … If I were to say to you, ‘Martha, the cows are in the corn,’ well that would be a regular song. If on the other hand, I were to say to you,

  Oh Martha, dear Martha, hear thou my cry
  And incline  thine ear to the words of my mouth.
  Turn thou thy whole wondrous ear by and by
  To the righteous, most glorious truth.

  For the way of the animals who can explain
   There is in their heads no shadow of sense,
  Hearkenest they in God’s sun or His rain
   Unless from the cool, tempting corn they are fenced.

  Yea those cows in glad bovine, rebellious delight,
   Have broken their shackles, their warm pens eschewed.
   Then goaded by minions of darkness and night
   They all my mild Chilliwack sweet corn have chewed.

  So look to that bright shining day by and by,
   Where all foul corruptions of earth are reborn
   Where no vicious animal makes my soul cry
   And I no longer see those foul cows in the corn,

  then, if I were to do only verses one, three and four, and change keys on the last verse, well that would be a hymn.”


What is the scriptural basis of the Tabernacle with the Blessed Sacrament as in the Catholic churches? This question extends from this one.

Is there scriptural basis of the Tabernacle WITH the Blessed Sacrament as in the Catholic churches?

As far as I can tell, there is no scriptural basis for a Tabernacle with the Blessed Sacrament.

The Tabernacle found in Catholic churches follows from the Ark of the Covenant. The Ark was said to hold Manna (See Exodus 16:32). (The new Testament corollary being the Eucharist.) You can see the similarities in design (e.g. the two angels facing each other) from the pictures on the page you linked.

If you would like more information about Tabernacles in the Catholic Tradition you can visit the Catholic Encyclopedia

For more information about the Ark of the Covenant.


Does Irenaeus indicate that people were raised from the dead in the 2nd century? The following words of Irenaeus are recorded in Eusebius's Church History:

  For some of them drive out demons effectually and truly, so that those who have been cleansed from evil spirits frequently believe and unite with the Church. Others have a foreknowledge of future events, and visions, and prophetic revelations. Still others heal the sick by the laying on of hands, and restore them to health. And, as we have said, even dead persons have been raised, and remained with us many years.

This passage was satirized by Edward Gibbon in his History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, 2.15.3; he sees no other credible evidence for this during this time and mockingly overstates Irenaeus's quote:

  In the days of Irenaeus, about the end of the second century, the resurrection of the dead was very far from being esteemed an uncommon event; that the miracle was frequently performed on necessary occasions, by great fasting and the joint supplication of the church of the place, and that the persons thus restored to their prayers had lived afterwards among them may years.

Is there an alternative interpretation here?  Is Irenaeus really saying that people were being raised from the dead during his lifetime at the end of the 2nd century?

Christians from both sides of the continuation of spiritual gifts debate understand Irenaeus's quote here more charitably than Gibbon, and do not see it as evidence that people were being raised from the dead in the late 2nd century.  I'll refer to the writings of cessationist B. B. Warfield and charismatic Ronald A. N. Kydd.

Warfield addresses Gibbon directly and agrees with his assessment of the period, saying "Irenaeus alone of all the writers of this period speaks of raisings of the dead at all."  Eusebius mentions one raising told by Papias from the apostolic age, but his overall work indicates the scarcity of such events:

  It is very clear that Eusebius was not familiar with raisings from the dead in his own day, and also that Papias was not familiar with them in his day; and it is equally clear that Eusebius did not know of numerous instances of such a transaction having been recorded as occurring in the course of the early history of the church, which history he was in the act of transcribing. (14)

Warfield cites the writings of several other early authors, such as Theophilus of Antioch and Tertullian.  The latter in particular, in On Modesty, XXI, contrasts the spiritual powers of the apostles from their successors, saying that the former "raised the dead."  Warfield concludes:

  It is an understatement to say that Irenaeus's contemporaries were unaware that the dead were being raised in their day.  What they say amounts to testimony that they were not being raised. (14)

So why, then, does Irenaeus say this?  Kydd defends Irenaeus as a scholar, citing the vindication of his writings on Gnosticism following the discovery of the Gnostic Nag Hammadi documents in the 1940s.  And based on their analysis of the passage, Kydd and Warfield hold that Irenaeus is actually refering to the apostolic-era raisings of the dead, not ones happening in his own day. Warfield writes:

  Irenaeus throws the raisings from the dead well into the past.  This is made evident not only from the past tenses employed, which are markedly contrasted with the present tenses used in the rest of the passage, but also from the statement that those who were thus raised had lived after their resuscitation a considerable number of years, which shows that recent resuscitations are not in view. (242)

Warfield also notes the phrase, "as we said," which he argues points back to Irenaeus's mention of raisings from the dead in the apostolic era (5.7.2), not recent instances.  Kydd summarizes:

  Warfield concludes by saying that "there is no reason why the cases he [Irenaeus] has in mind may not have occurred during the lifetime of the Apostles or of Apostolic men," and I think he is right. (45)

Eusebius, Church History, from Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series II, Volume 1
Kydd, Charismatic Gifts in the Early Church, 43–45
Warfield, Counterfeit Miracles, "The Cessation of the Charismata," 11–16, 241ff.


What evidence do we have that the book of Enoch was translated correctly? How do we know that the book of Enoch was translated correctly, are any of the original writings still intact? Or were the supposed "originals" found already translated?

I ask this because some valuable words can be "lost in translation" such as the commandment "Thou shall not kill" or "Thou shall not murder", which can and has been interpreted differently throughout history. Another example would be some Christians believing in "Hell", and others believing in the "abyss", and again others believing that the two are separate, one being a place of holding and the other following eternal damnation by god's judgement.

To directly answer your question Wikipedia dates the oldest copy of the book of Enoch as being from 300BC. Parts of it like the section called the Book of Parables were not found in the Qumran.

I agree with AffableGeek. If we were to go back in time and mystically derive from Plato a perfect translation of the Republic it would not be canonical. If we were to modify it and cross reference it with Bible verses and give it the name of a supposed Saint it still would be Platonism. If the Book of Enoch was predestined to be used by God as canon it would have been re-written by Moses or one of the other ancient inspired writers very similar to the Book of Job and and we would have it available just as if we had traveled back in time and heard the heart of God concerning the topics contained therein. However the Book of Enoch was not deemed fit enough to be rewritten and preserved by God through Moses (or other inspired writers) so we know that it failed in some (if not all) crucial areas. As per the supposed two sentences referencing it in the New Testament, like Plato, having some similarity or parallel to a Bible truth expressed in inspired writings doesn't validate the whole.


Which denomination agrees with our beliefs? My husband and I are looking for a church.  We believe that ordaining women is a way of accepting that God may call any gender to spiritually lead a congregation.  We also believe that practicing homosexuals are engaged in sin.  We don't believe that this sin is any different or worse than the sins we commit.  The difference is that we attempt to repent and no longer commit sin, whereas, one who is living in a homosexual relationship is living as though that behavior is acceptable to God.  We believe that they are His beloved children, just like we are, but that they should not spiritually lead a congregation.  What denominations agree with us?

The Free Methodist denomination agrees with your beliefs on both points.

Women have been ordained, and eligible to lead a congregation, for over a century.  In fact my own (southwestern Pennsylvania) congregation was pastored by the Reverend Laura Lamb in 1915-16.  Free Methodist pastor B.T. Roberts wrote an entire book (published in 1891) examining the biblical principles involved and concluded there was no barrier to allowing women to be ordained: Ordaining Women.

The denomination also maintains a biblical & traditional view of sexuality (fidelity within marriage, celibacy outside of it, marriage is one man and one woman).  Homosexuality is acknowledged as a sin, without 'elevating' it as though it's a worse sin than any other:

  Paul makes it clear in the first section of his letter to Rome that
  behaviors such as gossip, greed and boasting in the same category as
  homosexual sin. [See] Romans 1, starting at verse 26 [through verse
  32].

The above quote comes from this much lengthier article: Sexual Issues: A Pastoral Resource.

There may or may not be a Free Methodist congregation near you (you don't mention where you live), so this may or may not be an option.  And also, I'm sure there are other denominations that hold the same principles.

Either way, my own advice -- beyond checking doctrines, which is a good thing to do -- is to seek God's guidance in earnest prayer to find a church that He wants you to attend.  1 Corinthians 12:18 reads, "But in fact God has placed the parts in the body, every one of them, just as he wanted them to be."  Acknowledge and submit to His leading when it comes to the church you choose.


Does the Jerusalem Bible teach that Adam had a wife before Eve? A Friend told me that the Jerusalem Bible says that Adam had a wife before Eve, she was only together with the devil and not with Adam, so God took her away and created Eve from Adam's Rib.

I am a Catholic of Heart and do not know the Jerusalem Bible. Can you please enlighten me? My grandson's girlfriend is telling these stories, and I have the feeling this family tries to brainwash him.

Please help!

To start with Google Jerusalem Bible and Genesis 1.  The account is the same as NIV and KJV.  The story of another wife before Eve is an old one about Lillith,  It is not Biblical in anyway I forgot where the story is at the moment.  But then this lady becomes a demon later.    So  Nothing Biblical at all.


What Bible translations are accepted by the Southern Baptist Convention? Is there is a list of which translations of the Bible are accepted by the Southern Baptist Convention?

The Southern Baptist Convention, while the highest authority within the Southern Baptist church, is not technically an authority amongst Baptists.  It functions as a voluntary association with which member churches may choose to associate, but cannot dictate terms to anyone.  While it does approve changes to the "Baptist Faith and Message," these are to be taken as guidelines not at odds with the local autonomy of the church.

Within the Baptist Faith and Message (the closest thing Baptists have to a creed), it simply says:

  The Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired and is God's revelation of Himself to man. It is a perfect treasure of divine instruction. It has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter. Therefore, all Scripture is totally true and trustworthy. It reveals the principles by which God judges us, and therefore is, and will remain to the end of the world, the true center of Christian union, and the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and religious opinions should be tried. All Scripture is a testimony to Christ, who is Himself the focus of divine revelation.

The BFM itself is silent on which versions are "approved."

That said, I suspect the question wants to know what translations are preferred.  Here, any major translation would suffice,  I propose the following list to help you figure out which ones are most likely:

Conservative to Evangelical:  English Standard Version (ESV), NIV, HCSB (if you went to Dallas Theological Seminary)
Moderate to Scholarly: NRSV, RSV
Moderate to Gender-inclusively liberal: TNIV
Super-traditional: King James Version.  Maybe New King James, if they're feeling special.
Conservative but Scholarly: The Amplified Bible.
When the Preacher wants to make a point: NLT, "The Message"

Perhaps more useful would be the ones Baptists would be very unlikely to use:

New Jerusalem Bible, Duoay-Rheims:  perceived as too Catholic
New World Translation: restricted to the Jehovah's Witness
Makes most conservatives barf:  The Living Bible, Readers Digest Condensed, Good News Translation.


Using the invitatory at the office of Vigils I read the Office of Readings every day. On Sundays and solemnities, I read it as a vigil office, before Compline/night prayer.

I know broadly how to do it -- after the second responsory, you read the seasonal canticles, then the gospel of the Sunday/solemnity, followed by the closing prayer.

I'm interested, however, in one particular detail.

This is the invitatory. This is supposed to be said before the first office of the day, which for me is almost always the Office of Readings. I'm not sure what to do, however, if I'm reading the Office of Readings as the Office of Vigils the previous evening.

Should the invitatory be said at Vigils, or is it said at Lauds on those days?

The answer is that you should not read the invitatory at Vigils, as it is meant to begin the day's prayer.

  The invitatory is placed at the beginning of the whole sequence of the day's prayer, that is, it precedes either morning prayer or the office of readings, whichever of these liturgical rites begins the day.
  -General Instruction of the Liturgy of the Hours


According to authoritative Catholic exegetes, does 2 Cor. 6:14 forbid Christians from working with non-Christians in the workplace? St. Paul, 2 Cor. 6:14:

  Bear not the yoke with infidels. For what participation hath justice with iniquity? or what society is there between light and darkness?

According to authoritative Catholic exegetes such as the Fathers of the Church,does this forbid Christians from working with non-Christians in the workplace?

John Chrysostom is a 4th century Doctor of the Roman Catholic Church and he does not interpret the passage this way:

  He said not, 'Intermix not with unbelievers,' but rather dealing
  sharply with them, as transgressing what was right, 'Suffer not
  yourselves to turn aside,' says he, For what fellowship have
  righteousness and iniquity?

  Homily XIII on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians


Do different Christian denominations think each other will be saved? There're lots of Christian denominations out there. I'm wondering if each of them have an official answer to "if the Second Coming were today, believers of [other denomination] will/will not be saved". I'm interested in both the bigger denominations (Catholicism, Anglicanism, Methodism ...) and the smaller ones (Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses ...). A full list is likely impractical, but partial tables are also good.

I haven't been able to find anything about this except scattered statements such as "[Jehovah's Witnesses] consider secular society to be morally corrupt and under the influence of Satan, and most limit their social interaction with non-Witnesses" which implies that this denomination will say answer the question with "no" for every other denomination. It's possible I am searching for the wrong terms though, so I am asking this question.

Edit: some clarifications per the comments. I'm only interested in the official doctrine, not the beliefs of individuals. A denomination thinks the other will be "saved" if members of the other denomination are treated the same as members of the original denomination at the Second Coming. It is "not saved" if they are treated the same as unbelievers (i.e. non-Christians). For everything else in between, it's "partial" (i.e. part yes, part no).

Related: Do non-Christians go to hell?, however this question is about people who also identify as Christian.

From a conservative Baptist perspective, which I no longer am but with which I am very familiar, the only people who are 'saved' are those who, in acknowledgement of their sin, have relinquished faith in any and every other thing including good works and religious activity and personally assign their entire hope to the sacrificial death of Christ for the atonement of their sin and to the resurrection of Christ for the imputation of Christ's righteousness to their account.
CB's believe that 'salvation' is an intensely personal and not a corporate affair and is not imparted by a creed or a baptism, nor conferred by a priest or any ritual.
CB's believe that this is what constitutes being 'born again' or 'born from above' and that it is a permanent translation from death to life.  CB's believe that sitting under accurate biblical teaching (especially about the person of Christ) certainly increases the likelihood that a person might respond (and most Baptist churches seem to believe that they teach the most accurately...or maybe that's just all churches) but that church attendance, bible reading, denominational adherence, sacramental participation, and theological training guarantee nothing.
In short, CB's believe that only those who are born again are actually Christian and are saved, regardless of denomination or self-designation.


Does Bible say that God created insects? Does Bible say that God created insects? Does "creeping things" in Genesis imply insects, too?

I don't know of any verse that specifically mentions insects, but at the beginning of John it says 'All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.'. JNDs translation puts it 'All things
received being through him, and without him not one [thing] received being which has received being.' So he must have created the insects...

Some other food for thought.....

Amos 7 'Thus hath the Lord GOD shewed unto me; and, behold, he formed grasshoppers in the beginning of the shooting up of the latter growth;'(be sure to get the context)

Psalm 105 'He spoke, and there came dog-ﬂies, [and] gnats in all their borders....He spoke, and the locust came, and the cankerworm, even without number;'

Psalm 50 'I know all the fowl of the mountains, and the
roaming creatures of the field are mine:'


What is the biblical evidence for God's omnipotence and omniscience? Does God tell us in the bible he is omnipotent and omniscient, or are these attributes which (Greek?) philosophers and theologians merely ascribed to him?

A simple Bible search for 'almighty' would have given you more than enough passages about omnipotence. The first mention, for example, is:

  Genesis 17:1-2 (ESV)
   1 When Abram was ninety-nine years old the LORD appeared to Abram and said to him, "I am God Almighty; walk before me, and be blameless, 2 that I may make my covenant between me and you, and may multiply you greatly."

For omniscience, similarly many, many passages exist -- the combination of them shows quite strongly that God is omniscient. For example:

  1 Samuel 2:3 (ESV)
   3 Talk no more so very proudly,
     let not arrogance come from your mouth;
  for the LORD is a God of knowledge,
     and by him actions are weighed.

  1 Samuel 16:7 (ESV)
   7 But the LORD said to Samuel, "Do not look on his appearance or on the height of his stature, because I have rejected him. For the LORD sees not as man sees: man looks on the outward appearance, but the LORD looks on the heart."

  Matthew 6:4 (ESV)
   4 so that your giving may be in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you.

  Acts 2:23 (ESV)
   23 this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men.


If Jesus ascended to heaven as Michael the angel why is he still called a man? Jehovah's Witnesses believe Jesus was resurrected as a spirit creature Michael the archangel. If this is so, why do they still call him a man?

1 Timothy 2:5 (King James Version):

  For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

His role on this earth was as a man, and he may properly be referred to in this way.

1 Corinthians 15:45-47

  So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living person." The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. However, what is spiritual is not first. What is physical is first, and afterward what is spiritual.  The first man is from the earth and made of dust; the second man is from heaven.

Thus, Jesus is both "a life-giving spirit" and "the second man".


Why are we not seeing miracles in our lives? I am wondering why we as Christians are not seeing those great miracles of old and as promised in Mark 11 vs 17 & 18.

Or is it we are failing short or miracles were for a specific period?

There are two major views on this, with several subsets.

Some (including myself) believe that while miracles do still occur, the kind and frequency is different than we see at the beginning of the church era because the purpose is different; directly binding the occurrences of miracles to the creator. This is generally known as Cessationism, but there are several flavors. The promises you refer to in Mark and elsewhere are understood in a the framework of the Gospel empowering the Kingdom to grow and the greater miracles  refer to the kinds of supernatural events we do continue to see regularly: the regeneration of people through the message of the Gospel.
Others believe that we don't see as many miracles today because people don't have enough faith; directly relating the spiritual state of people to prevalence of miracles. In this camp (which could be called Continuationism but more often is just known as non-Cessationist or by the names of specific traditions which hold the view) the Holy Spirit is understood to have varying degrees of control over miracles, from bringing them when he will to only being able to bring them when called on in full faith.


Humans doing miracles Jesus says quite a few times that if you have enough faith you can do anything.

Matthew 21:21
Jesus replied, "Truly I tell you, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only can you do what was done to the fig tree, but also you can say to this mountain, 'Go, throw yourself into the sea,' and it will be done.

Luke 17:6
He replied, "If you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mulberry tree, 'Be uprooted and planted in the sea,' and it will obey you.

He's talking to his apostles, but who is Jesus addressing when he says "you"?
Does Jesus suggest that we can do those miracles today,
was that something his apostles could do back in the times of Christ,
or is this a parable of the forgiveness of sins?

In Matt 21, he was talking to those disciples that were with him.  He was giving them a lesson about faith and doubt and that they can see those same results.

In Luke 17 it would appear he was also talking directly to his disciples but there were a lot of people about the place.

Is that the end of the story? no.

Does Jesus suggest that we can do those miracles today? I believe he does

Firstly, the 12 original Apostles were not the only ones doing miracles.  There were others who were sent out to do so.  See Luke 70.  Jesus commisions 70 to go out and...  "And heal the sick that are therein, and say unto them, The kingdom of God is come nigh unto you." - Luke 10:9.  And they did because they came back with a good with Joy saying even the devils are subject to them.

However, John 14 makes it pretty clear. The only qualifier is believe on Jesus. What were the works he was doing? healing the sick, casting out devils, raising the dead.

  12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believes on me, the works
  that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do;
  because I go unto my Father.

  13 And whatsoever you shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the
  Father may be glorified in the Son.

  14 If you shall ask anything in my name, I will do it.

Also the great commission in Mark 16 "go into all the world"... The only qualification is that signs will follow those who believe.  Some would argue that he's saying "those disciples" that were with him.  In that case, why preach the gospel since by that logic Jesus only told those disciples to do so.  No this is for those that believe.

  17 And these signs will follow those who believe: In My name they will
  cast out demons; they will speak with new tongues; 18 they[a] will
  take up serpents; and if they drink anything deadly, it will by no
  means hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will
  recover.”

There is also an argument going around that says we have the whole bible so therefore we don't need miracles today. And the bible verse that is used to back that up is:

  1 Corinthians 13:8 - "Charity never faileth: but whether there be
  prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall
  cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. 9For we know
  in part, and we prophesy in part. 10But when that which is perfect is
  come, then that which is in part shall be done away."

The claim is that that which is perfect is come and his name is Jesus and he's said on the cross - it is finished, therefore miracles are no longer needed.  However, this doesn't make sense.  Tongues have not ceased, prophesies are not failing and I'm sure everyone would agree knowledge is actually on the increase.

Nope, miracles are definitely for today and I've witnessed some big ones.

I should clarify.  Without God we're nothing. We can't do anything.  It's God doing the miracle, but he uses people.  He works through people.


According to Catholicism, how was Mary born without original sin? I am slowly converting to Catholicism and am confused on the doctrine of Immaculate Conception. I do understand that it is Mary's conception that she was free from original sin. According to St. Augustine, original sin was passed down via sexual intercourse. Augustine also said that because Jesus did not have a human biological father and was not conceived with sperm.  From what I understand of the story of St. Joachim and Anne, they had intercourse at the gates of Jerusalem. I may be wrong on these things as I am still learning. But taking these things into account, how can Mary be born without original sin if her parents had intercourse.

According to Catholicism, how was Mary born without original sin?

And the angel answering, said to her: The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the most High shall overshadow thee. And therefore also the Holy which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. - Luke 1:35

The idea that the Virgin Mary was Immaculately conceived and born without any stain of original sin was due to the fact that it was by a unique privilege accorded by Almighty God.

The Immaculate Conception is a dogma of the Catholic Church which states that the Virgin Mary was free of original sin from the moment of her conception. It proved highly controversial in the Middle Ages, but was revived in the 19th century and was adopted as Church dogma when Pope Pius IX promulgated Ineffabilis Deus in 1854; this had the overwhelming support of the Church's hierarchy, although a few, including the Archbishop of Paris, warned that the Immaculate Conception is not stated in the New Testament and cannot be deduced from it. Protestants overwhelmingly rejected Ineffabilis Deus as an exercise in papal power and the doctrine itself as without foundation in Scripture, and Eastern Orthodoxy, although it reveres Mary in its liturgy, called on the Roman church to return to the faith of the early centuries. The iconography of the Virgin of the Immaculate Conception shows her standing, with arms outspread or hands clasped in prayer, and her feast day is 8 December.
Doctrine
The Immaculate Conception of Mary is one of the four Marian dogmas of the Catholic Church, meaning that it is held to be a truth divinely revealed, the denial of which is heresy. Defined by Pope Pius IX in Ineffabilis Deus, 1854, it states that Mary, through God's grace, was conceived free from the stain of original sin through her role as the Mother of God:

We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.

(Since the 19th century a dogma has come to bear the meaning of a divinely revealed truth proclaimed by Church teaching and hence binding for all time on the faithful; while the Immaculate Conception asserts only Mary's freedom from original sin, the Council of Trent, held between 1545 and 1563, affirmed in addition her freedom from personal sin.)

The Immaculate Conception in Scripture is not explicitly supported for the doctrine of Mary's Immaculate Conception, but Catholic theologians say that biblical support is not totally absent either.

Sacred Scripture does not explicitly proclaim the doctrine of Mary's Immaculate Conception (i.e. freedom from original sin from the very start of her life). The Catholic Church reflected on this question for centuries, considering biblical texts which seemed related to the topic, at least implicitly. As a result of this prolonged reflection, Pius IX issued a dogmatic definition in 1854 affirming Mary's Immaculate Conception. This declaration (Ineffabilis Deus) indicates that the teaching has been infallibly revealed by God through the living Tradition of the Church. There are also a number of scriptural passages which may be cited in support of the teaching. The angelic greeting in Lk 1:28 refers to Mary as "highly favored" or "full of grace." Both translations refer to the Greek term kecharitomene, the past perfect participle of charis which means a gift, favor or grace. In Biblical Greek, this verbal form suggests permanence and singularity. Such singular, permanent grace in Mary is essentially the same concept affirmed in the dogma of the Immaculate Conception.
Another source of biblical evidence involves the references to Mary as "Woman" (e.g. Jn 2 and Jn 19). The evangelist alludes to Eve, who is called "Woman" in Gen 2. There are other parallels between the Genesis account of Creation and its Fall and the Johannine account of the Redemption. For example, the tree of knowledge caused Adam's death in paradise. The tree of the cross caused the death of Jesus, the new Adam, in Jn 19. So there is a certain biblical parallel between Mary, the Woman of the New Creation, and Eve, the Woman formed in original justice at the first Creation (i.e. before the Fall). This parallel is stated explicitly by very early Church Fathers like Justin Martyr (d ca 160) and Irenaeus (d. ca 220). None of this is explicit proof of the doctrine. However, it is solid support from Scripture alone. - Immaculate Conception: Scripture

For more information about this subject matter the following may be of interest:

What is the biblical basis for the Immaculate Conception?


Is there a name for the belief that God is not omniscient, but rather is "learning" how to deal with humanity? A Lutheran pastor told me that she believes God is not omniscient (and that this was a Greek concept later applied to God), but rather that God is in a process of "learning" how to deal with humanity. She elaborated her belief by explaining the following:

The way that God has dealt with humanity has changed over time. First a flood, then Mosaic Law, then Christ's sacrifice. She also sees a growing Christian acceptance of things that were historically classified as a sin (notably homosexuality) as a continued sign of God learning.
God has changed his mind, which suggests that he received new information and thus does not know all (e.g. Exodus 32:14 NRSV "And the Lord changed his mind about the disaster that he planned to bring on his people.")
If humans were created in God's image, the fact that original sin entered through them suggests that God did not know that this would be a consequence (otherwise, he might have chosen either to not create them or to change the circumstances so that they would not have sinned).

She did however seem to think that God had some unchanging qualities, such as that he was benevolent. I suppose that an alternative way to interpret her view is that if these qualities are changeable, then God has not changed them and is not inclined to change them.

Answers as to the validity or orthodoxy of this doctrine are probably best served in other questions. For now, I'd like to know if there is a name for this view.

This sounds most like process theology, though open theism is similar on this point.  C. Robert Mesle explains the former simply:

In process theology, divine omniscience—God's perfect knowledge—means that God knows everything there is to know.  But the future does not exist yet, except as a range of possibilities that have not yet been chosen. (Process Theology, 37; emphasis in original)

Process theologian Bruce G. Epperly goes into more detail:

Divine perfection has been understood [traditionally] in terms of God's complete and unchanging awareness (omniscience) and absolute and unilateral power (omnipotence).  Process theology takes a very different approach, affirming the primacy of love, transformation, and growth as essential to understanding of God's nature. (Process Theology, 34)
Divine omniscience, according to process theologians, does not entail a timeless vision of the future in its actuality.  Rather, God knows the actual completely as actual, while embracing future possibilities as potentialities, not settled events.  New things happen to God; God has new experiences. (Process Theology, 50)

Open theism ultimately takes similar views, though rather than the idea of God learning or growing, it emphasizes libertarian freedom and a non-deterministic view of the future.  It therefore argues that God's foreknowledge is limited or "open" in some way.  There are a number of varieties (Wikipedia lists several), so generalizations are difficult, but Alan Rhoda writes that open theists by definition hold to the following two things:

Future Contingency:  The future is, as of now and in some respects, causally open, i.e., there are future contingents.
Divine Epistemic Openness: The Future is, as of now and in some respects, epistemically open for God. ("Generic Open Theism," 4)

More detail than that seems outside the scope of this question, but interested readers can take a look at Rhoda's article to follow his argument.


How much water is necessary for baptism (Catholic perspective)? In Catholicism, how much water is necessary for someone to be baptized?

For example, if the only water present is a single droplet on a leaf, is that sufficient to baptize or is more needed?  How much more?

Or if there is not even a droplet of water, but it is a humid day, and there is water in the atmosphere, is the atmospheric water that is continuously in contact with the skin sufficient, or is more required?

The Catholic Church has always taught that the three valid forms of Baptism are immersion, pouring, and sprinkling.  Evidence that the Church has validated the form of pouring instead of immersion is demonstrated by the Didache which was written around A.D. 70:

  "Concerning baptism, baptize in this manner: Having said all these
  things beforehand, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son
  and of the Holy Spirit in living water [that is, in running water, as
  in a river]. If there is no living water, baptize in other water; and,
  if you are not able to use cold water, use warm. If you have neither,
  pour water three times upon the head in the name of the Father, Son,
  and Holy Spirit."

These instructions were composed either while some of the apostles and disciples were still alive or during the next generation of Christians, and they represent an already established custom.

Perhaps the "minimum" amount of water required to effectively administer the sacrament is impossible to quantify. In order to answer the question as accurately as possible, lets assess which situation would call for the smallest amount.

These days, the rules for administering the Sacrament of Baptism are clearly given in the Rituale Romanum:

  The form for baptism is as follows: I baptize you in the name of the
  Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and it is absolutely
  essential. In no circumstance can it be altered, and these words must
  be pronounced simultaneously with the pouring of the water. The water
  is to be poured on the head with a triple ablution (or the head is to
  be immersed three times), each time in the form of a cross, saying the
  words simultaneously.

The Rituale Romanum also decrees that in the event of a complicated birth an emergency conditional baptism should be administered to the infant:

  No child is to be baptized while still enclosed in the mother's womb,
  as long as there is a probable hope that it can be properly brought
  forth and then baptized. If only the head of the child has come forth
  and there is danger of its dying, it should be baptized on the head;
  if afterward it is born and lives, baptism may not be repeated
  conditionally. If another member of the body makes its appearance and
  there is danger of death, the baptism should be conferred
  conditionally upon that member; if the child lives after birth it must
  be rebaptized conditionally. Should a mother die in confinement, the
  fetus should be extracted by those obliged thereto by their
  profession, and if there is a certainty that it lives, it should be
  baptized absolutely, otherwise conditionally. A fetus baptized while
  in the mother's womb must be rebaptized conditionally after birth.

  One should see to it that every abortive fetus, no matter of what
  period, be baptized absolutely if it is certainly alive. If there is
  doubt about its being alive, it should be baptized conditionally.

Considering that a new born (or, unborn in the case of an abortion) infant/fetus is about as small as any recipient might be, I would say, "However much it takes to roll 3 beads of water across a baby's forehead.


Do Mormons believe that Jesus was not begotten by Holy Spirit but by Adam? This question is about this section in Journal of Discourses, Vol 1, p.50 (approx. half-way down the page):

  When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it
  with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He
  helped to make and organize this world. He is Michael, the Archangel,
  the Ancient of Days! about whom holy men have written and spoken—He is
  our Father and our God, and the only God with whom we have to do.
  Every man upon the earth, professing Christians or non-professing,
  must hear it, and will know it sooner or later. They came here,
  organized the raw material, and arranged in their order the herbs of
  the field, the trees, the apple, the peach, the plum, the pear, and
  every other fruit that is desirable and good for man; the seed was
  brought from another sphere, and planted in this earth. The thistle,
  the thorn, the brier, and the obnoxious weed did not appear until
  after the earth was cursed. When Adam and Eve had eaten of the
  forbidden fruit, their bodies became mortal from its effects, and
  therefore their offspring were mortal. When the Virgin Mary conceived
  the child Jesus, the Father had begotten him in his own likeness. He
  was not begotten by the Holy Ghost. And who is the Father? He is the
  first of the human family; and when he took a tabernacle, it was
  begotten by his Father in heaven, after the same manner as the
  tabernacles of Cain, Abel, and the rest of the sons and daughters of
  Adam and Eve

I chose to include a rather large section to show that the term "Father" is in the section used only about Adam. The question I have is however only about this part in above text:

  When the Virgin Mary conceived the child Jesus, the Father had
  begotten him in his own likeness. He was not begotten by the Holy
  Ghost. And who is the Father? He is the first of the human family;

From other postings at this site (such as in the accepted answer to this question) I understand that the Mormon church does not officially view material in the Journal of Discourses as doctrine.

On another hand it looks like above section contains text that is currently viewed as part of the official doctrine, such as the concept that Adam is also Archangel Michael.

For this reason I wanted to ask about the statement, that seems to be made above, that Jesus was not begotten by the Holy Spirit but by Adam.

Does the Mormon church currently believe that Adam made Mary pregnant?
If this is the case, is Adam viewed as having been in the flesh or
as a spirit being when he made Mary pregnant?

No, Mormons do not believe that.

  The doctrine was never submitted to the councils of the Priesthood nor to the church for approval or ratification, and was never formally or otherwise accepted by the church. It is therefore in no sense binding upon the Church. Brigham Young's "bare mention" was "without indubitable evidence and authority being given of its truth." Only the scripture, the "accepted word of God," is the Church's standard.

  —Joseph F. Smith, letter to A. Saxey, January 7, 1897, HDC.

The best we can figure, as far as I know, is that Brigham Young was misquoted or, at least, it was entirely his opinion. Today the LDS Church refutes it as false doctrine.


According to Jehovah’s Witnesses why did John write the words found in John 1:1? Jehovah's Witnesses translate John 1:1 as:

" In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god."

whereas its more generally translatedas something like :

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

i.e. the NWT adds the word "a". This is justified because the Greek language of the first century did not have an indefinite article, and they feel that this rendering of the verse makes it more consistent with the rest of the bible (which they see as teaching that Christ is an Archangel, rather than a person within the Godhead).

If this is the case, why do they think John used this phrase? That is what was he trying to communicate?

If John is simply trying to say that Christ was with God, and through him all things were created, this clause could be removed from the sentence- and the passage would become clearer, because Johns Greek speaking audience wouldn't have to wonder if John means Jehovah or simply some lesser god.

Additionally this would avoid all the problems that they see as coming from the miss-translation of the verse being used to support trinitarianism

EDIT:

This Question is flagged as similar to another. The difference is subtle- that one asks what textual support is there for the verse, this asks, assuming that the JW understanding of the scriptures and Johns intentions are true, why John would write the verse as it is - appearing to endorse at least the divinity of Christ.

The reason why is because they like other Christians believe that the context of John's whole gospel is Jesus and his role in salvation. One JW said it this way to me: John wanted to establish Jesus as his agent for creation as well as his instrument for salvation. He wanted to make it clear that Jesus existed in the presence of God as an angel or (lesser god) before he came to be a man on earth.

Now, you're right. It certainly is peculiar for a first century Jew to use words akin to hierarchal duo-theism while his contemporaries were strictly monotheistic. Why didn't he just say out right that he was an angel? That certainly would have cleared up the issue. John like other jews believed in one God and that no other god was formed after him or before him (Isa. 43:10) making this interpretation of John 1:1 problematic.

Having debated many JW's myself over this verse, they find comfort in their logic for the lack of the article making theos indefinite rather than definite, but when applying the same logic to other indefinite thoes's in the same chapter and even in the same book, they do not apply the same logic. In other words their are many places where thoes lacks the definite article but they do not render those passages as 'a god'. Why the inconsistency? In my opinion, it's theological bias.


Are there any Antipope Saints aside from Hippolytus of Rome? Have any antipopes other than Antipope Hippolytus of Rome ever been canonized as saints by the Roman Catholic Church?

Only one other antipope than Hippolytus of Rome is considered a saint in the Catholic Church.

The antipope Felix II has been given the status of a saint in the Roman Martyrology with a feast day of July 29.

  According to the "Liber Pontificalis", which may be registering here a reliable tradition, Felix built a church on the via Aurelia. It is well known that on this road was buried a Roman martyr, Felix; hence it seems not improbable that apropos of both there arose a confusion (see FELIX I) through which the real story of the antipope was lost and he obtained in local Roman history the status of a saint and a confessor. As such he appears in the Roman Martyrology on 29 July. - Catholic Encyclopedia


Is there a formal statement or opinion in the Catholic Church regarding martial arts? I have two kids. We don't do contact sports, but some of our friends are involved in American football or hockey, and there's plenty of contact, but it seems like a game. Indeed over the course of my life, such sports have tended towards more game less violence through tweaking their rules. Wrestling seems definitively like a contest not based on violence. Boxing I have no defense for, but it's not part of my question.

I just witnessed my son's friend's dojo, and the weaponry and actions of the participants sickened me. Now it's possible I'm being a pansy, and the CCC allows for self defense, but it sure seemed the participants were leaving communion in their actions.

So, is there a formal statement regarding martial arts within Catholicism? Is there a line in which crossed one has sinned?

On the Vatican website, Google finds one document which specifically references taekwondo.
It's the record of a General Audience given by Pope Benedict XVI on 9 April 2008, and the reference appears only in the Italian version (as it was a greeting directed to Italian speakers, after the main address):

Saluto gli atleti che partecipano ai campionati Europei di Taekwondo, incoraggiandoli a promuovere anche attraverso questa disciplina sportiva il rispetto per il prossimo e la lealtà.
I greet the athletes participating in the European Taekwondo Championships, encouraging them to promote the sport through the respect for others and loyalty.
Original in Italian

The Catechism  of the Catholic Church has two entries for "Violence: force" in its index, and none for "self-defence" or "martial arts":

1735 Imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullified by ignorance, inadvertence, duress, fear, habit, inordinate attachments, and other psychological or social factors.
2306 Those who renounce violence and bloodshed and, in order to safeguard human rights, make use of those means of defense available to the weakest, bear witness to evangelical charity, provided they do so without harming the rights and obligations of other men and societies. They bear legitimate witness to the gravity of the physical and moral risks of recourse to violence, with all its destruction and death.103
103 Gaudium et Spes 78 § 5

Earlier paragraphs (ibid.) do mention anger and hatred:

2302 By recalling the commandment, "You shall not kill,"93 our Lord asked for peace of heart and denounced murderous anger and hatred as immoral.
Anger is a desire for revenge. "To desire vengeance in order to do evil to someone who should be punished is illicit," but it is praiseworthy to impose restitution "to correct vices and maintain justice."94 If anger reaches the point of a deliberate desire to kill or seriously wound a neighbour, it is gravely against charity; it is a mortal sin. the Lord says, "Everyone who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgement."95
2303 Deliberate hatred is contrary to charity. Hatred of the neighbour is a sin when one deliberately wishes him evil. Hatred of the neighbour is a grave sin when one deliberately desires him grave harm. "But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven."96
93 Matthew 5:21
94 Summa Theologica II-II 158 1 ad 3
95 Matthew 5:22
96 Matthew 5:44-45

Thus, [to answer the question about a line crossed] to the extent that martial arts do not involve anger or hatred, they are not contrary to the moral law. Practising and training in them involves skill, and it is training for self-defence; dojos are also places of absolute authority and detailed rules, mirroring what might be expected in life. Pope Benedict expressed this in his remarks about respect and loyalty.


Why are there passages in the Gospels where the Apostles are not present? In the Bible, in several passages, the Apostles narrate events that they where not participating in. For example, the story of the woman at the Well and the conversation between Jesus and Pilate.

The Apostles were not present during these interactions, how did they know about them? How did they know they happened in the first place?

In the case of Pilate, Jesus died after that, so I think he didn't have the opportunity to tell the Apostles what had happened, even after his resurrection!

We know that Jesus said and worked many more miracles than are simply mentioned in the Gospels.

St. John’s last words of his Gospel admits as much.

  25 Now qthere are also many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that rthe world itself could not contain the books that would be written. - John 21:25

Just because the Gospels do not reveal everything or even how the Apostles became in possession of the events and conversations Our Lord had, when none of the Apostles where present is not hard to imagine.

There are basically just a few ways that the Apostles acquired this knowledge.

Either Our Lord revealed this to them himself and it is not mentioned in Scriptures as such. Or, the possibility that a third party revealed such information to the Apostles.

The Samaritan woman at the well was very talkative as the Gospels point out. She told everyone about Jesus. Perhaps she herself or one of the inhabitants from Sychar told the Apostles what happened. Again perhaps Our Lord told them after his resurrection! We may truly never know, while on earth, but then that is food for contemplation.

  39 Many Samaritans from that town believed in him because of the woman's testimony, “He told me all that I ever did.” 40 So when the Samaritans came to him, they asked him to stay with them, and he stayed there two days. 41 And many more believed because of his word. 42 They said to the woman, “It is no longer because of what you said that we believe, for we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this is indeed the Savior of the world.” - John 4:38-42

As for Pilate’s conversation with Christ, it was not private. There were eyewitnesses! Did one of these tell the apostles what transpired between them or did Jesus mention it after his resurrection we may never know.

There is a tradition within some Christian denominations that Pilate’s wife became a believer and as such could have talked about it to Jesus’ Disciples!

  Pontius Pilate's wife is the unnamed spouse of Pontius Pilate, who appears only once in the Gospel of Matthew, where she intercedes with Pilate on Jesus' behalf. It is uncertain whether Pilate was actually married, although it is likely. In later tradition, she becomes known as Procula (Latin: Procula) or Procla (Ancient Greek: Πρόκλα) and plays a role in various New Testament Apocrypha. At a later date, she acquires the name Claudia Procula in Western tradition, as well as other names and variants of these names. She is venerated as a saint by the Orthodox Church, the Coptic Church, and the Ethiopian Church. She has also frequently been featured in literature and film.

There are so many mysteries within the Scriptures and the Gospels in particular, that we have an endless source of contemplation and admiration as to try to even remotely understand how the Apostles know so much!

In the end, the Evangelists were convinced that this information would be useful for our edification and contemplation.

Ut in omnibus glorificetur Deus!


What is the Baptist justification for anti-confessionalism? According to Wikipedia, "Confessionalism, in a religious (and particularly Christian) sense, is a belief in the importance of full and unambiguous assent to the whole of a religious teaching. Confessionalists believe that differing interpretations or understandings, especially those in direct opposition to a held teaching, cannot be accommodated within a church communion."

So, the main question is this: what is the Baptist justification for anti-confessionalism?

Baptists are one group that may be anti-confessional.

Baptists*, in particular, are fond saying "We have no creed but the Bible."  As this wonderful video shows, that is a creed, but it gets to the heart of your question - why do Baptists view creeds negatively?  [Really -  go watch the video. It does a better job than I will of explaining the reasoning, and debunking it!]

There is one scriptural reason and one legacy:

Baptists have a very particular notion of 'vain repetitions' as used by Jesus in Matthew 6:7. Even the Lord's Prayer or the liturgy--anything that smacks of 'saying the same words without any meaning behind them'--is taught against regularly in Baptist teaching. As such, there tends to be a distrust of anything liturgical.  Along those lines, some will also add Paul's bit about some following Paul, others Apollos, and other 'Christ.'
The simple fact of the matter is that 'credalism' or 'confessionalism' as you prefer to put it, is really a mask for a greater issue - namely, Baptists have a very significant distrust of Roman Catholicism.  This distrust has historical roots and is often taught using the concept that 'traditions' are less 'good' than scripture. (We won't get into the fact that how one reads scripture is a tradition.)  This manifests itself in the 'Trail of Blood' rhetoric and has a long pedigree.

As you can see, even as a Baptist, I don't put much stock in these arguments, but they are deeply engrained in the teaching.

*Just to clarify, I'd suggest that a big asterisk go on "Baptists" here.  This tends to be the view of an older, more fundamentalist strain of Baptistic thought than what is probably the mainstream today. I use the word here to denote what types of protestants are most likely to meet your criteria, moreso than to argue the point for the whole. That said, I don't have any numbers either...


According to the penal substitutionary atonement view, why was Jesus' punishment not eternal? Given Christianity believes that the "punishment for sin is death" (Rom. 6:23, etc.) and that punishment is eternal (2 Thes. 1:9, Matt. 25:41, Rev. 20:10, etc.), how was Christ's punishment a satisfactory punishment when it wasn't eternal?

I realize that Jesus was perfect and didn't deserve death Himself, but since He was/is the Lamb of God (John 1:29,36) how is the eternal punishment of our sin is satisfied in a non-eternal way through Him?

Reformed theologians who hold to penal substitutionary atonement emphasize a) the divine nature of Christ and the increased capacity for suffering that that implies and b) the intensity of God's wrath against him.
Louis Berkhof, in his Systematic Theology (3.2.1.B), writes:

[Christ's] capacity for suffering was commensurate with the ideal character of His humanity, with His ethical perfection, and with His sense of righteousness and holiness and veracity.  No one could feel the poignancy of pain and grief and moral evil as Jesus could.
[Christ] was subject not only to physical, but also to eternal death, though He bore this intensively and not extensively, when He agonized in the garden and when He cried out on the cross, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" In a short period of time He bore the infinite wrath against sin to the very end and came out victoriously. This was possible for Him only because of His exalted nature.

The Heidelberg Catechism, answer 37, reads:

That during his whole life on earth, but especially at the end, Christ sustained
in body and soul the wrath of God against the sin of the whole human race. This he did in order that, by his suffering as the only atoning sacrifice, he might deliver us, body and soul, from eternal condemnation, and gain for us God’s grace, righteousness, and eternal life.

Wayne Grudem, in chapter 27 of his Systematic Theology, emphasizes the meaning of Christ's words on the cross as signifying the completion of his suffering and his victory:

Jesus was able to bear all the wrath of God against our sin and to bear it to the end.  No mere man could ever have done this, but by virtue of the union of divine and human natures in himself, Jesus was able to bear all the wrath of God against sin and bear it to the end. [...] When Jesus knew that he had paid the full penalty for our sin, he said, "It is finished" (John 19:30).  If Christ had not paid the full penalty, there would still be condemnation left for us. (p578)

Other views of the atonement
Grudem notes that Roman Catholic teaching on the completion of Christ's sacrifice is different.  He quotes Ludwig Ott's Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma:

In the Sacrifice of the Mass and in the Sacrifice of the Cross the Sacrificial Gift and the Primary Sacrificing Priest are identical; only the nature and the mode of the offering are different.... according to the Thomistic view, in every Mass Christ also performs an actual immediate sacrificial activity.

Protestants and others who reject the theory of penal substitution also answer this question differently.  Proponents of the moral influence theory, for example, do not suggest that Christ was "paying for our sins" at all, and that therefore punishment of eternal length was not required.
Similarly, under the governmental theory, Christ suffers to show that a penalty must be paid for lawlessness, but he does not pay the penalty for all the sins of the elect, so again, full payment is not required.  More on these and other theories of the atonement can be found on the corresponding Wikipedia articles, and analysis of them is found in both works of Grudem's and Berkhof's that I've quoted.


When scripture quotes a non-biblical source, without any opposition of the source, does it imply any endorsement? In addition to alluding to various Jewish proverbs, sayings, and parables, sometimes the Bible seems to directly quote Greek philosophers (Acts 17:28), Jewish oral traditions (Jude 9, 12) or possibly even  pseudepigraphal works .

Under a biblical framework that holds to the infallibility of the Protestant Bible how are we to approach those extra biblical sources being quoted?  Does the scriptures reference of them pass on some kind of dignity or validity to them, or is a extra biblical reference in the scripture neutral not to have higher esteem than it otherwise would have? Or would each case have to be considered on its own and if so, under what guidelines?

I'm hesitant to give an across-the-board answer, but there is a well-established principle in understanding Scripture that applies somewhat here.  It was included in an earlier answer of mine addressing the question of what we are to take literally as opposed to figuratively in Scripture, from a Fundamentalist standpoint.

First:

  [Because the Bible is inspired, it is inerrant, infallible, and authoritative][2].  No word of fallible man can stand in authority
  over Scripture.

  Scripture is intelligible. God meant for us to understand it.
  Because it is infallible, the Bible is internally consistent. it can't contradict itself.
  Because God meant to communicate truth, and because Scripture is internally consistent, the words of Scripture have only one meaning in
  context. There may be multiple legitimate applications of a passage of
  Scripture, but a passage has only one meaning in context.

Then, the part that I think applies here, important bullet point bolded for emphasis:

  Dr. David L. Cooper, the founder of The Biblical Research Society
  out it much more simply.  Dr. Cooper is known for his “Golden Rule of
  Interpretation” which is as follows:

  When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense,seek no other
  sense;

  Therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal
  meaning unless the facts of the immediate context, studied in the
  light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths
  indicate clearly otherwise.

  so, from this quote, from Dr. Cooper's perspective,  we see that we
  are to take Scripture at face value (literally) unless...

  The immediate context makes it clear that the passage is not to be taken literally.
  Related passages, the literal sense does not make sense
  The literal sense of the passage would contradict axiomatic, fundamental truths.

That last principle can and should, from a Fundamentalist Sola Scriptura, Biblical inerrancy be applicable to anything questionable:

Does the passage contradict axiomatic, fundamental truths

If the Bible includes a passage, and doesn't oppose it in the context of the surrounding verses and doesn't contradict axiomatic, fundamental truths, then we can say, at best, that the author isn't opposing the statement, that it's not doctrinally incorrect, and that it's not blasphemous.  I don't think we can go so far as to say Scripture (or the author of that particular passage) endorses the idea, unless it is clear, within the context of that passage that the author is endorsing it.


Was Abel regenerated before the offering according to the Calvinist? Genesis 4:4–5 [Berean Study Bible]
  (4) The LORD looked with favor on Abel and his offering
  (5) but He had no regard for Cain and his offering

I'm in the middle of conversation with a Calvinist in a Christian Forum (in our language).

First I ask that how come while both of them were totally depraved, but one of them (who is Abel) favored by God. After some back and forth respondings, to my surprise finally he said that it's because Abel is the elected one.

And he gave me Hebrew 11:4

  By faith Abel offered to God a more acceptable sacrifice than Cain's.
  Through this he received approval as righteous, God himself giving
  approval to his gifts; he died, but through his faith he still speaks. (NRSV)

He give the chronology like this :
1. God elect Abel before the foundation of the world.
2. He regenerate Abel in time and give him faith, don't know when but before the offering event
3. Those 2 points above causing Abel do a correct offering.
4. Now God has a reason to look with favor on Abel + his offering
5. and now God can give him approval as righteous through his offering.

When I asked him if he has any reference from any Reformed Church's father, he said he would ask his Church about it. But so far he hasn't followed up.

My question here is the same :
Is there any reference from any Reformed Church's father indicating that Abel was regenerated before the offering ?

Calvin addresses this in his commentary on Genesis 4, arguing that Abel was already accepted by God when he made this offering:

  We must, however, notice the order here observed by Moses; for he does not simply state that the worship which Abel had paid was pleasing to God, but he begins with the person of the offerer; by which he signifies, that God will regard no works with favor except those the doer of which is already previously accepted and approved by him.

A bit later, Calvin states the general principle, that everything done "before faith" is offensive to God:

  All works done before faith, whatever splendor of righteousness may appear in them, were nothing but mere sins, being defiled from their roots, and were offensive to the Lord, whom nothing can please without inward purity of heart

In Calvin's thought, faith and regeneration go hand in hand – in this section, he writes "faith is a gratuitous gift of God, and a special illumination of the Spirit" – so thus we see that Calvin believed that Abel was already regenerated and saved at the time of this offering.


How prevalent is the group known as the 2x2's? Recently, while reading a blog about Mormons, I saw a commenter saying something to the effect that he had been raised in a similarly strict upbringing called the 2x2's.

I have found a little bit of history on them but wondered if the group is still active, and what their membership is?  Perhaps their geographic scope, etc.?

Wikipedia actually has an article on the group: Two by twos.  It's an anti-institutional-church "denomination" that formed at the end of the 19th century in Ireland, coming out of the Holiness movement.  They reject many traditional Christian beliefs, such as the Trinity.

As for its current membership, it appears to be focused in North America, Europe, and Australia.  Wikipedia lists registered names for the group in the countries of the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Sweden, and Australia.  Estimates of the number of members worldwide vary widely, from several hundred thousand to a few million.  Wikipedia quotes several sources:

  During the 1980s, the Sydney Morning Herald gave an estimate of between 1 and 4 million members worldwide,(Gill 30 June 1984, p. 37) while a 2001 estimate put Australian membership at 70,000.(Giles 25 July 2001, p. 014) A sociology masters thesis from 1964 estimated U.S. membership at 300,000 to 500,000 and world membership as between 1 and 2 million.(Crow 1964, pp. 2, 16) Benton Johnson updated the metrics to arrive at a figure of 48,000 to 190,000 for the United States alone.(Johnson 1995, pp. 43–44) George Chryssides states that membership numbers are uncertain, giving an estimate for the United States during 1998 as ranging from 10,000 to 100,000 and a worldwide membership probably three times that figure.(Chryssides 2001b, pp. 330–331) Estimates in other reference materials fall somewhere in between these. (source)


How is repentance understood in Lutheranism? Christ talks a lot about repentance, and how we must repent and believe to be saved, he asks the woman caught in adultery to sin no more (John 8:11). But if we are unable to do any good as Paul says in Romans (Romans 7:18), how can we repent of anything? And also, can we truly say we live a life of "repentance" if we will sin for the rest of our lives, sort of "the old Adam still haunting us", when in contrast we should be as "dead to sin" (i.e. sin no more)?

Lutherans would say that we are by nature sinful and unclean, and are only able to repent because we are enabled by the call of God the Holy Spirit to respond to the Grace of God.


What Greek manuscripts were used for the KJV NT other than the Novum Instrumentum omne? Erasmus famously only had 7 manuscripts on hand when he compiled the first edition of his "Novum Instrumentum omne".  However presumably as his text underwent several revisions after that, and then became the basis of the versions produced by Stephanus, Beza and the Elzavirs, and ultimately the KJV almost a century later, more scholarship was done and more manuscripts were brought in.

Or were they?  Is it possible to know how many (and even which) manuscripts were used by the Textus Receptus editors throughout the decades and ultimately served as the basis for the New Testament in the KJV?  Or does the KJV NT still primarily just rely on the the 7 manuscripts that Erasmus started with?

The King James Version is a variety of the Textus Receptus. The translators who produced the King James Version relied mainly on the later editions of Beza's Greek New Testament, especially his 4th edition (1588-9). But they also  frequently consulted the editions of Erasmus and Stephanus and the Complutensian Polyglot.

According to Scrivener (1884), out of the 252 passages in which these sources differ sufficiently to affect the English rendering, the King James Version agrees with Beza against Stephanus 113 times, with Stephanus against Beza 59 times, and 80 times with Erasmus, or the Complutensian, or the Latin Vulgate against Beza and Stephanus.

However, at the time, in 1611, the focus of the AV translators was to produce an English bible, not a Greek text. They consulted the above texts, intelligently, and - in effect - were producing a new Greek text, an improvement on what had gone before, but they were recording their improvement in English, not in Greek.

So, in 1881, Frederick Scrivener, under contract to the Cambridge University Press, published the Greek text underlying the King James Bible. This edition of the Received Text has been republished many times, most recently by the Trinitarian Bible Society and by the Dean Burgon Society. It conforms to the KJV.

[Compiled from online information in the public domain.]


What kind of "condemnation" is a believer exempt from in Romans 8:1? I've been looking up several of my reference books for a good definition of condemnation, but evidently it's simply "judgment" based on its context, including in Rom. 8:1.
It's clear from other passages that Christians can be chastised/disciplined for their wrong (Heb. 12:3-11) or die at the hand of God for sinning (1 Cor. 11:27-30 and Acts 5:1-11). So these examples are not the condemnation meant, since the person in Christ can't be condemned, according to the promise of Rom 8:1.
Could this condemnation therefore refer to a judgment of eternal rejection, whether preliminary in this life, or at the final Judgment Day to come, that those in Christ are exempted from?
I prefer answers from Protestants who accept the Apostle's Creed.

The immediate context in Romans 8 gives the answer definitively. "For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.". The law of sin and death is what the believer is freed from, therefore death is the condemnation being spoken of. Instead of getting what we deserve ( death due to sin) we receive life through the Spirit because Christ died for us.
Although Christians still die, this will be reversed at Christ's coming for the church. Death will not be permanent.
Hope this helps.