How does a baptismal certificate work? How does a baptismal certificate work? Why do you even need a certificate? Would other churches disqualify your baptism, or disallow you from participating in other sacraments, if you happen to lose your baptismal certificate? Do Christians keep them in safe places in their homes along with their birth certificates, passports, Visas, social security numbers, and other important documents?

Baptismal certificates are still used by Churches for whom Trinitarian baptism is important. This is so that they can be certain that someone has been validly baptised. The Catholic, Anglican and Orthodox Churches recognise each other’s baptisms and those of many other denominations as a valid, once-for-all and transferable sacrament. But it can only be transferable if it can be proved to be so.

When I and others joined the Roman Catholic Church under Anglicanorum Coetibus, we were required to produce evidence of our baptism. I no longer had my certificate, and others were baptised by a Free Church and never given one in the first place.
     In my case, the [Anglican] parish church had recorded my baptism in a register, as the Church of England requires. It had since deposited its registers with the local authority archive, and they had scanned them and made them available online. So I could easily get a copy of the register entry, and the Catholic Church was satisfied that I had been baptised using a valid Trinitarian formula.1
     Others were not so fortunate, and on joining the Catholic Church had to be baptised by that Church. This was so that the Church could be satisfied that they had been validly baptised: if any previous baptism had been valid, doing it again would make no difference; and if not, then they’d be doing it for the first time.

Certificates of baptism do still have uses within the Christian Church.

1 When I was a churchwarden, I used to do similar searches of registers we held in the parish for those who had been baptised at the church and now wished to marry in the Catholic Church, or even be confirmed in the Church of England.


What is the basis for Topical Preaching? Related:
  What is the basis for Systematic Expository Preaching?

Topical preaching is rather self-explanatory - the preacher picks a topic, then finds bible passages or verses related to or supportive of the topic, and preaches on that topic (using the bible passages for proof texts/support)

What is the triumvirate basis for this method? That is, what is the

Scriptural Basis. Obviously this is the #1 basis, but I'm not aware of any passages specifically addressing this, so you might need...
Reasonable Basis. What's the logical, practical point of topical preaching? What's a logical argument for it?
Traditional Basis. Who or what denominations have used this method in the past? Do they specify a reason?

Though I personally tend to favour expository preaching in practice, topical preaching certainly has its place.

Scriptural Basis
A case could be made from Scriptural example...
Jesus's Preaching
Jesus's recorded preaching was purely topical - as far as I know, he never took a passage from the Old Testament and expanded on it.  Rather, he chose topics that his audience needed to hear, and quoted various scriptures when relevant.  For example, see the Sermon On The Mount
Disciple's Preaching
Like Jesus's preaching, records of the disciple's sermons were topical.  They had in mind what they needed to talk about (preaching the Gospel, typically), and they used occasional Scripture references for support.  In other words, their preaching was directed by the subject at hand (using Scripture as support), rather than being directed by a passage (expanding on applications of the passage).
For examples, see:

Acts 2:14-36
Acts 3:11-26
Acts 17:22-31

Letters to Churches
All though they are not strictly sermons, one might argue that the letters to the churches are quite analogous to sermons, and would have been sermons had the authors been among their recipients.  As it is, all of the letters to churches are topical rather than expository.  The argument could then be, since the goals of sermons and letters are the same: to correct doctrine, bring to maturity, encourage, etc, why should the content change simply because the medium changes?
Caveat...
But of course, we ought to keep in mind that when Jesus and the disciples preached, they were preaching something new, and didn't have much material to exposit.  So these Scriptural examples should by no means be used to argue that preaching must be exclusively topical, but they do at least provide a basis for the acceptability of topical preaching.

Reasonable Basis
We think in topics
We think about things in topics.  Whether we preach expositionally, or topically, we reduce things into topics naturally.  Expository preaching is great, but say we want to know about a topic such as freedom in Christ from the law.  Expository preaching will cover that when going through Romans, and also when going through Galatians, but a topical sermon on the subject drawing from a wide range of scriptures would greatly clarify and unify things.
Topics may need to be covered
It is often necessary to preach in order to meet a certain need.  Perhaps there is high confusion about something, or perhaps a congregation simply needs to be brought onto the right track regarding an issue.  If all sermons are simply systematically going through Scripture, then these needs will not be met (unless a topical sermon is interjected, and that is topical preaching).

Traditional Basis
In my opinion, tradition should not be taken into account as the basis for anything.

So, in conclusion, I think both have their place.  One danger with topical preaching (and the reason why I prefer expository preaching) is that it tends to be more eisegetical, as preachers tend to subtly twist Scriptures to fit their arguments.  This is a mistake, and while it is not a fundamental part of topical preaching, it does tend to occur in practice.


According to Catholics (and Mark 7:19) what happens to Jesus' flesh after it is ingested? According to a commentary by Thomas Aquinas, [pita] bread (and I suppose those extremely leavened (aerated) wafers) become "the indestructible flesh of God, the Son":

...The food that sustains the body is perishable, since it is converted into the nature of the body; but the food that sustains the spirit is not perishable, because it is not converted into the spirit; rather, the spirit is converted into its food. Hence Augustine says in his Confessions: “I am the food of the great; grow and you will eat me. But you will not change me into yourself, as you do bodily food, but you will be changed into me.”...

But if the flesh is indigestible, won't it end up being flushed down the toilet?:

  Mark 7:19 For it doesn’t go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body.” (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.)

Has this been considered and addressed?

Unlike perishable food that sustains the body, Christ's body in the Eucharist cannot be broken down and assimilated because His glorified body is incapable of harm.

As St. Thomas Aquinas writes (Summa Theologica III q. 77 a. 7 co.):

  it cannot be said that Christ's true body is broken because it is

  incorruptible and impassible
  entire under every part, as was shown above (q. 76 a. 3), which is contrary to the nature of a thing broken.

cf. this article on Guitmund of Aversa vs. Thomas Aquinas on the question of whether Christ's body in the Eucharist can be chewed (atteri), from The Thomist

After digestion has corrupted the sacramental species, Christ's body and blood cease to be under this sacrament.

Summa Theologica III q. 77 a. 4 co.:

  if the change [of the sacramental species] be so great that the substance of the bread or wine would have been corrupted*, then Christ's body and blood do not remain under this sacrament; and this either on the part of the qualities, as when the color, savor, and other qualities of the bread and wine are so altered as to be incompatible with the nature of bread or of wine; or else on the part of the quantity, as, for instance, if the bread be reduced to fine particles, or the wine divided into such tiny drops that the species of bread or wine no longer remain.*[had such a change been done to the bread and wine before consecration]

cf. this answer, which addresses whether the sacramental species can nourish.


What is the biblical basis for a continued illness indicating unforgiven sin? Jesus says in Mark 2:9-12 [Which is easier: to say to this paralyzed
  man, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up, take your mat and
  walk’? But I want you to know that the Son of Man has authority on
  earth to forgive sins.” So he said to the man, “I tell you, get up,
  take your mat and go home.” He got up, took his mat and walked out in
  full view of them all. This amazed everyone and they praised God,
  saying, “We have never seen anything like this!”]

  Paul says in 1Corinthians 15:56-57[“Where, O death, is your victory?
  Where, O death, is your sting?” The sting of death is sin, and the
  power of sin is the law. But thanks be to God! He gives us the victory
  through our Lord Jesus Christ.]

I am not a native english speaker and am not sure how to put this accross...

From Mark 2:9-12 we may presume that when sin is forgiven the associated illness is also healed.

From 1Corin15:56-57 and related verses we could assume that sin is the cause of almost all(John 9:3) illness and ultimately death.

Say if I have an illness which i think is caused by a particular sin of mine. I go confess my sin and receive forgiveness for my sin and stop repeating that sin. Could this mean that my illness will be healed? However if the illness still remains, would it mean that my sins have not been forgiven? Are there other verses in the Bible that supports this assumption?

In Mark 2:1-12, Jesus attributes the man's sickness to his sin -- "Son, thy sins be forgiven thee" -- which means it arose as the result of some behaviour of his that was counter to the commandments of God. In John 9:1-11, however, Jesus says that neither the blind man nor his parents had sinned, so his disability was attributable to the accumulated consequences of mankind's longterm ignorance/defiance of the commandments of God.

Whether or not illness/disability is attributable to one's own sin or to the accumulated sin of mankind, living life within the safety net of the commandments of God WILL bring a better outcome for one's life into the future.

As Nebuchadnezzar was about to throw Daniel's friends into the fiery furnace for failing to bow to his image, he said, "And who is the god who will deliver you from my hands?". Their reply to him was:

  O Nebuchadnezzar, we have no need to answer you in this matter. If that is the case, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and He will deliver us from your hand, O king. But if not, let it be known to you, O king, that we do not serve your gods, nor will we worship the gold image which you have set up.
  -- Daniel 3:16-18 (NKJV)

They had no expectation of salvation from their fate. Yes, they believed God could rescue them, but even if He chose not to, they were still not going to be moved from their course.

Conclusion

One's attitude towards delivery from the fiery furnace of illness and disability must be the same as Daniel's three friends -- "My God whom I serve is able to deliver me from illness and disability, but if not, let it be known that I will live according to His law, and I will not be moved to serve any other!"

I included the following graphic in another answer, but it bears including here as well.

Each person has only two courses: they will either set their heart to pursue God's pleasure or to pursue their own. The path to blessing, however, is unmistakable and immutable.

He who has ears to hear, let him hear.


Which groups believe that Jesus is a Created Being? This question refers to people who believe that Jesus is a Created Being.  Who are these people? Which groups who identify as Christian teach that Jesus was created? I'm guessing they're not professors of the Nicene Creed "Begotten not made".  Is there one name to refer to such a classification of Christians or are they a multitude of denominations?

There are several denominations who believe that Jesus is a created being.  Jehovah’s Witnesses are probably the most vocal in their belief that Jesus, in his pre-mortal existence, was created by Jehovah God as the mighty spirit creature known in heaven as Michael the archangel.  It was the spirit of Michael who entered into the child born to Mary and who became known as Jesus.  [1]
Another group who believe that Jesus is a created being are Latter Day Saints (Mormons).  However, they differ from every other group because they also say the God Elohim, the literal parent of a spirit son called Jehovah (who then had to come to earth to be born as Jesus), was originally a man.  [2]
Way out on a limb is the Unification Church (Moonies) who say Jesus is a finite separate being, the offspring of Zechariah and Mary.  Since this group is considered to be a cult I do not propose to say any more about them, other than to refer to the book below. [3]
Source [1] chapter 8; [2] chapter 10; [3] chapter 17: ‘World Religions and Cults – Counterfeits of Christianity – Volume 1’ edited by Bodie Hodge & Roger Patterson, published 2015.
The clue as to what ‘umbrella’ best covers groups that say Jesus is a created being is ‘Unitarianism’:

Whereas Trinitarianism teaches that God is three in one (triune), Unitarianism teaches that God is simply one (unity). Unitarianism rejects the doctrines of the Trinity and the deity of Christ.  Unitarianism should also be distinguished from Modalism, which is also non-Trinitarian. Modalism teaches that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three modes of existence for the One God. Modalism is found today in the United Pentecostal Church. While both Modalism and Unitarianism are non-Trinitarian, Modalists affirm the deity of Christ. Unitarians teach that Jesus was an inspired man, a great teacher, and an example to follow but certainly not God.
Unitarianism began to flourish in various parts of Europe. Gradually, a number of individual ministers in the Church of England embraced Unitarianism, and, later, Unitarian societies were formed. These beliefs also spread to many Congregational churches in New England in the 18th century. Harvard College, which had been founded for the training of Calvinist ministers, swung to Unitarianism with the election of a Unitarian minister to the Hollis Chair of Divinity in 1805.  https://www.gotquestions.org/unitarianism.html

Unitarianism rejects the deity of Christ and claim he is finite, with a beginning.  They believe that God is One Being and that Jesus is not the eternal Son of God.  Probably the best known is the Unitarian Universalist Church.

Unitarian thought and Universal thought were merged together during the late eighteenth-century in America during the Age of Reason...   To the Unitarian Universalist, Jesus was a good moral teacher, but nothing more. He is not considered to be divine, and every miracle associated with Him is rejected as being outside of human reason.   https://www.gotquestions.org/unitarian-universalism.html

Then there is Biblical Unitarianism:

Biblical Unitarians deny the Trinity, teaching that God is one being (hence the word Unitarian in their name). Jesus, according to Biblical Unitarianism, is not the eternal Son of God; rather, He was created by God in the womb of Mary. Jesus was later exalted by God and given authority over creation, making Him like God, but He remains a finite, separate being with a beginning. ... Organizations that fall under the category of Biblical Unitarianism include the Church of God General Conference (CoGGC) and the Christadelphians. https://www.gotquestions.org/Biblical-Unitarianism.html
Regarding the deity of Christ, Christadelphianism teaches that Jesus was more than a man, but less than God. According to A. Hayward, in Great News for the World, p. 41, Jesus was a created being with “strength of character to right some of the most appalling wrongs of his time.” Christadelphians teach that Jesus had a sinful nature and he, too, needed salvation from sin, that he was not pre-existent and did not come into existence until he was born in Bethlehem.  https://www.gotquestions.org/Christadelphianism.html

I’m still searching for other groups that say Jesus is a created being, but I think that’s enough for now!
EDIT: I’m not sure if the Cooneyites, or Two by Two’s, believe Jesus was created prior to coming to earth, but from the research I conducted on this group, they appear to deny the divinity of Jesus:

The Two by Twos are anti-Trinitarian. The Holy Spirit is perceived as an attitude or force from God. Jesus is a fully human figure who came to earth to establish a way of ministry and salvation, but He is not God Himself. The Two by Twos believe that Jesus overcame His own flesh. Great stress is laid upon following the example of Jesus but less emphasis on Jesus as Savior—Jesus’ life is more important than His death.  https://www.gotquestions.org/Two-by-Twos-Cooneyites.html

It is also noteworthy that Muslims deny that Jesus pre-existed before he was born.  However, I took the original intent of this question to refer to Christian denominations.


Is penal substitutionary atonement most prevalent among Calvinists? I've been looking at penal substitutionary atonement and am finding that although Calvinists and Arminians seem to affirm it, it appears to be Calvinists who affirm it most strongly.

Is this accurate?

The strongest defenders of penal substitution are going to be conservative Calvinists: that is, those who hold to the "five points" of Calvinism and reject modernist approaches to Scripture.  Outside this group, many nonetheless hold to penal substitution, but there is more diversity of opinion.
A few examples of conservative Calvinists who hold to penal substitution are R. C. Sproul, Louis Berkhof, Charles Hodge, and Wayne Grudem.  Harder to find are those that question the theory; one example of a Calvinist who has been criticized for innovation in this area is John McLeod Campbell, a 19th century Scottish theologian.  Even his views, however, are described by some as de-emphasizing the penal aspect of atonement, not jettisoning it.
In the broader evangelical movement, many reject one or more of the "five points" of Calvinism but nonetheless hold to penal substitution.  A prominent example would be Calvary Chapel, an association of churches whose statement of faith says that in his death Christ bore God's wrath on our behalf.  But there are exceptions here as well; for example, C. S. Lewis was not particularly comfortable with this view.
In more Arminian circles, particularly in Methodism, penal substitution is less widely held.  John Miley is a key figure in this respect; he preferred a governmental theory and was highly influential in 19th century Methodism.  Still, even here some who associate themselves with "classical" (i.e., non- or pre-Methodist) Arminianism hold to penal substitution.
And finally, among those influenced by Modernism, penal substitution is often rejected.  Unsurprisingly it is opposed by the likes of Schleiermacher and Ritschl, but even a "conservative Modernist" like Karl Barth was not fully satisfied with penal substitution, though his views on the subject appear to be a matter of some debate.
Summary
In general, you are right: penal substitution is most closely associated with Calvinism and evangelicalism.  Beyond these groups it finds some adherents, but not as consistently.


Is there scriptural basis for feelings such as "electricity", "fire", "heat" or "burning all over" reported in Pentecostal and Charismatic circles? Doing my own independent research, I've noticed a clear pattern of religious people reporting feelings and sensations that they usually describe with expressions such as "waves of electricity", "fire", "heat", "burning all over", among others. I've heard expressions like these mainly from individuals in Pentecostal and Charismatic circles.
For illustrative purposes, here are some example video clips from individuals describing their first-hand experiences: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O.
Also, here is a quote from a very descriptive testimonial posted on Charisma Magazine:

[...] In an instant, the Spirit of God gave me a single word in tongues to speak out, and as I repeated it, more words erupted through me. The power of the wonderful Holy Spirit enveloped me as what seemed like waves of electricity and what I can only describe as God's love and power washed over me. It seemed as though a spotlight exploded out of my mouth as I spoke in tongues, with my arms and hands surging with tremendous currents of electricity as the waves of power washed over the rest of my body as I loudly spoke in tongues, feeling immersed in His Spirit. [...]

Source: https://www.charismamag.com/spirit/revival/32085-this-is-what-it-looks-like-when-holy-spirit-s-electric-power-sweeps-over-you (cached version)
Reviewing literature about these experiences in Google Scholar, I came across a paper published in 2014 by Julia L. Cassaniti and Tanya Marie Luhrmann titled The Cultural Kindling of Spiritual Experiences (https://doi.org/10.1086/677881). In this paper, the authors themselves acknowledge the existence of the phenomenon (although they attribute it to "adrenaline rushes", which I find unjustified):

The “Holy Spirit” experience, for example, is a concept often used to describe an event in which someone feelings an intense surge of power sweeping through their body like electricity, or what we would call the bodily affordance of an adrenaline rush.

These three phenomena—cataplexy, or the loss of muscle
control; adrenaline surge, as if electricity is shooting through
the body; and emotional surge, when someone experiences intense, overwhelming emotion—are examples of physiological phenomena that are common to all human bodies but unusual enough so that people can remember the moment
independent of a specific label.

So, given the abundant reports of these dramatic spiritual experiences allegedly attributed to the Holy Spirit, is there any scriptural basis for them?

I regret that I can't speak specifically to Pentacostalism, which uses as one of its fundamental verses the experiences of the Day of Pentecost in the book of Acts (Acts 2:1-4), which appears to be more of an external experience than an internal (feelings) experience. But let's examine a couple of Biblical verses.

When the Lord shall have washed away the filth of the daughters of Zion, and shall have purged the blood of Jerusalem from the midst thereof by the spirit of judgment, and by the spirit of burning. (KJV Isa 4:4)

This appears to be speaking of the end-days when God shall restore Israel. He speaks of doing so by the "spirit of judgement" and the "spirit of burning." Part of any restoration must be (a) the individual's realization that past behavior was wrong and (b) some means of knowing that the new behavior is acceptable to God. I believe the spirit of judgement and the spirit of burning refer to (b). A person who successfully changes their lives to conform to the Gospel will know that their life is acceptable through a feeling (the "spirit of burning").

And they were astonished at his doctrine: for his word was with power. (KJV Luke 4:32)

My belief in this verse may be a bit more esoteric, but I believe it's valuable. The modern interpretations of the ancient Greek tend to favor the word "authority" over "power." But I've "spoken with authority" in my own profession (Engineering), speaking with both conviction and certainty — and I've never once had the reaction like that recorded in Scripture. Yes, Jesus did not come out of the Schools of Law, so it may be that they were simply surprised that He was as good a preacher as He was without that formal training — but I believe the Surprise had more to do with what they were feeling than what they were experiencing. And to support this idea, we have the following:

And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures? (KJV Luke 24:32)

That's perhaps the most obvious of the scriptural references to a feeling (specifically a "burning," perhaps the "spirit of burning" spoken of by Isaiah).
And finally, the words of Paul.

And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: (KJV 1 Cor 2:4)

Paul talks about not simply speaking words, but those words being verified (a "demonstration") by the Spirit via some sort of power.
So, there is scriptural support for strong feelings, notably a feeling of "burning," that accompany the witness of the Holy Ghost to the preaching of the Word.
However…
In my experience, it can often be difficult to discern the difference between the Spirit and Showmanship. Humanity (and most certainly the devil) learned long ago that emotions can be manipulated. Those manipulations are the root of music, dance, drama, and other forms of entertainment. They're used for education, indoctrination (good and bad) — and frankly are tapped into for commercial marketing.
I believe it is for this purpose that God ensured the following verse was available to us today:

And he said, Go forth, and stand upon the mount before the Lord. And, behold, the Lord passed by, and a great and strong wind rent the mountains, and brake in pieces the rocks before the Lord; but the Lord was not in the wind: and after the wind an earthquake; but the Lord was not in the earthquake: and after the earthquake a fire; but the Lord was not in the fire: and after the fire a still small voice. (KJV 1 Kings 19:11-12)

As dramatic as that feeling of burning is (I know I have felt it), it must be discerned (analyzed, considered, tested) with patience, peace, and stillness. This secondary confirmation is so very important.

If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed. (KJV James 1:5-6)

Because that wavering is what allows us to think that we felt a spiritual burning when what we really experienced was showmanship. I suspect that if we could interview people who heard Adolph Hitler speak in 1937, they would have said they felt a burning, too.


The extent of different approaches to Revelation There are of course a number of different approaches to, and interpretations of the book of Revelation. When I read theological works on end times I stumble upon some of those. But I never really understand how widespread those are.

Approaches: Idealist approach, the futurist approach, the church historical approach and the preterist approach (among others).

Different views on the millennium: Historic premillennialism, premillennialism (and dispensialism), postmillennialism and amillennialism.

What I am interested in is some statistics of present day Christianity. Are there any estimates on how many people that support those different approaches and views on the millennium (I'm most curious of the later). And what kind of Christians do generally hold on to which view?

I have still not found any good answer to this question. But I post some hints that have been helpful to me. Hoping that it might be helpful for someone else and maybe intriguing to give a better answer. The following is a quotation from Steve Gregg, Revelation - four views, 1997, p. 33-34.

  The contemporary conservative protestant scene

  Conservative Protestants commentaries (those that not follow the
  literary-critical approach) in the 19th and 20th centuries have been
  divided:
    The historicist approach continued into the 19th century in
  the writings of E. B. Elliott (Horae Apocalypticae, 1847), A. J.
  Gordon, Albert Barnes, and others. To my knowledge, the only modern
  commentaries that espouse this view have not come from recognized
  scholars (not that this fact should condemn them), but from
  essentially self-published authors who are desirous to reintroduce
  this viewpoint to a modern readership. Eugene Boring would seem to be
  correct when he writes, "Although widely held by Protestant
  interpreters after the Reformation and into the twentieth century, no
  critical New Testament scholar today advocates this view."   The
  preterist approach was followed in the 19th century by Moses Stuart (1845), and in the early 20th century by James Snowden (1919).
  Preterism has had a recent resurgence in the writings of Christian
  Reconstructionists like David Chilton and Kenneth Gentry.   On of the
  first popular presentations of the futurist approach, and the most
  influential, was that of J. A. Seiss (Lectures on the Apocalypse,
  1909). In the 20th century, the futurist approach to Revelation has
  become most common - especially since the publication of the
  phenomenally successful The Late Great Planet Earth, by Hal Lindsey
  - having its place almost in the very common stock of American pop culture. Futurism has been advocated by sound scholars, such as
  Walvoord, Mounce, and Ladd, as well as by innumerable cranks and
  eschatelogical faddists, who have often given it a bad name by their
  repeated speculations concerning the date of the Second Coming and
  their assigning of correspondences between the symbolic visions and
  specific developments in an ever-changing modern political milieu.
  The spiritual approach has received wide acceptance in modern
  commentaries, though various labels have been attached to it. Since
  Eichhorn, in the 18th century the dramatic nature of the book has
  intrigues many students of the book. In 1939, William Hendriksen
  popularized this view in his book, More Than Conquerors, though it
  was found in a number of works earlier in the 20th century as well. As
  I write, there appear to be more new commentaries published advocating
  a dramatico-spiritual approach to Revelation than there are
  advocating any of the other conservative approaches.

Authors emphasis. All spelling mistakes are (probably) mine. I do, by the way, highly recommend this book (even though I only started).


If baptism washes away original sin, why do women still get periods and pain? Catholic doctrine states that baptism washes away sin including original sin. Well, periods and pains related to child birth are the punishment for original sin, at least for women. Why are we still being punished for a sin that is washed away?

The Catechism is not exactly a clear to get an answer to this question.  Although the Bible says that pain during childbirth is a punishment (as well as man's toil, which I can attest to and woman being subjected to her husband, which I can't exactly attest to but I've heard things about in antiquity).

Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence". Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ's grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle
CCC - 405

The fruit of Baptism, or baptismal grace, is a rich reality that includes forgiveness of original sin and all personal sins, birth into the new life by which man becomes an adoptive son of the Father, a member of Christ and a temple of the Holy Spirit. By this very fact the person baptized is incorporated into the Church, the Body of Christ, and made a sharer in the priesthood of Christ.
CCC 1279

The Bible does not say what the effect of Sanctifying Grace is and freedom from original sin is, other than being able to live forever in heaven, which is worth all the pain and toil in the world.
The fact is, that you still have, in addition to the aforementioned curses as a result of original sin, something called concupiscence

Etymologically, "concupiscence" can refer to any intense form of human desire. Christian theology has given it a particular meaning: the movement of the sensitive appetite contrary to the operation of the human reason. The apostle St. Paul identifies it with the rebellion of the "flesh" against the "spirit." Concupiscence stems from the disobedience of the first sin. It unsettles man's moral faculties and, without being in itself an offense, inclines man to commit sins.
CCC - 2515

And concupiscence is what mainly separates someone who is free original sin (like Our Lady and Our Savior) and the rest of us.
The big question is, whether the Blessed Virgin Mary had pain during childbirth, and several mystics and theologians posit that she did not.


Did Adam and Eve have children in paradise? I was just reading the account of Adam and Eve in the NIV 84 and it doesn't really say they didn't.

The Bible does mention when Sarah had her first boy. When Mary had her first son. But not really when Eve had her first son. Does it?

I'm just wondering because I have in my mind that they had children after they got kicked out. Partly because of the common belief. What am I missing?

The crux of this question is really How long was it before Adam and Eve sinned?

The biblical record only has the following facts:

Adam and Eve's first child was Cain, and the second Abel, by virtue of Genesis 4.
Genesis 4 also suggests that Seth was not born until after Cain killed Abel, an act that could not have occurred in the Garden.
Genesis 5 says that Adam was 130 when Seth was born, so that establishes an upper limit for the length of the time on the garden.  (I will repeat my assertion that had I been Eve, I only would have lasted about 32 minutes before getting kicked out, nonetheless I digress.)

This means that the only two children who could have been born in the Garden are Cain and Abel.

Circumstantially, I would have to suggest that the evidence would make a much stronger case for the children being born after rather than before:

There is no mention of anyone other than Adam or Eve being cast out.  (And the Lillith thing is just Jewish legend.)
The fact that the narrative records the conception of Cain after Genesis 3 gives no reason to suspect it happened before.


Does the LDS discuss the issue of LDS children "playing Sacrament"? In the LDS faith, the Sacrament (most analogous to the Eucharist in other Christian faiths) is a very sacred ordinance performed weekly as part of Sacrament Meeting:

  Partaking of the sacrament is a witness to God that the remembrance of
  His Son will extend beyond the short time of that sacred ordinance.

  Source

To further stress the sacred nature of this ordinance:

  The ordinance of the sacrament makes the sacrament meeting the most
  sacred and important meeting in the Church.

  Source

Given how sacred the ordinance is, it seems given that children shouldn't be permitted to "play" Sacrament.  For example, constructing their own version of the sacrament from bread and water in the kitchen and then serving to themselves.

However, understanding that young children often imitate things they encounter (these are young children we are talking about here, ages 2, 4, and 5), and that they clearly are not intending any disrespect or irreverence, it could also be looked at as a form of reverence in itself that they want to administer and partake of it as part of their play.  Also, it is something they look forward to each week and there is concern that putting the kibosh on it during playtime at home may suck the fun and excitement out of it.  Children can be particularly susceptible to shaming and guilting, and that does not seem appropriate.  However it does seem important to teach them to respect the ordinance.

Is there anything in LDS teaching that addresses this issue, or is it a matter left entirely to the judgment of parents?

Previous answers speak of small children receiving the Sacrament, rather than imitating it as play.  As for that question,

  Is there anything in LDS teaching that addresses this issue, or is it a matter left entirely to the judgment of parents?

I'm not aware of anything that addresses this issue specifically, but more generally, Latter-Day Saints believe in the doctrine of the Age of Accountability, the concept that little children are not capable of committing sin, (including sacrilege, which is what making light of sacred ordinances would fall under,) until they are mature enough to understand the basic abstract concepts of morality.

Doctrine and Covenants 18:42 states that

  For all men must repent and be baptized, and not only men, but women, and children who have arrived at the years of accountability.

This is further clarified in Doctrine and Covenants 68: 27:

  And their [church members'] children shall be baptized for the remission of their sins when eight years old, and receive the laying on of the hands.

As the question is dealing with children well below the age of eight, there's no real moral problem with it.  Play-acting is one of the ways that children use to come to understand the world around them; a wise parent would not discourage this, particularly for things that they want their children to understand and engage with, such as their faith.


What traditions fully embrace the concept of a "local parish church"? As far as I understand it, the concept of having parishes and parish churches means that regions are divided up geographically, that each region will have a church that is specifically dedicated to that region, and that everybody in that region is expected/required to be a part of that local church.

I know that there is a huge variety when it comes to implementation. What I would like to know is what modern traditions fully embrace this concept to the point of enforcing it on some level. Are there any traditions that would refuse to let members cross parish lines to attend another church? Do any others with perhaps a less hard line rule have specific doctrines encouraging this but define exceptions where it might not be required?

The Church of England falls into the "partial" category. There is a parish system of around 13000 parishes in England [that's not Wales or Scotland, which have their own autonomous Churches] each with at least one parish church.
Residents in the parish can be baptised in their parish church; baptised people can be married in their parish church; people who die can have a funeral either in the church of the parish where they die or where they lived.
There are some exceptions which extend these permissions. Residents can be baptised in another church with their parish priest's permission. There are "qualifying connections" which can be made with other churches to allow marriage — for example where your parents have worshipped. And there is nothing stopping you from attending church outside your parish and joining the electoral roll of the church you attend. That effectively makes you a parishioner.
Because the Church of England is a broad church with a variety of liturgical practice [and associated theological belief] it's not uncommon for people to "shop around" to find a church which suits them.
The church where I was churchwarden* had a particular ministry to its little bit of the country, an urban situation with a high population of poor and homeless people.
Shameless plug: Go to this map on A Church Near You and enter your location. The parish of the place you select is highlighted, together with local churches. I'm responsible for some of the coding behind that. If you're very lucky you may even find a parish with more than one non-contiguous area, or a tract of land which is not in any parish at all. Anyone resident in such an extra-parochial place can attach themselves to an adjacent parish. The map is intended to provide a service for potential churchgoers to find their local church, or for engaged couples to find their parish church (in order to simplify the process of a church wedding).

*Churchwarden: an ancient layman's elected office in the Church of England with particular legal responsibilities for finance, buildings, ministry and parochial management.


Why were verses taken out of the Bible when it was being formed? Was there any major stuff taken out? I've heard that during the Roman times (AD) when the Bible was first being put together that a lot of texts and scriptures weren't allowed to go into the Bible. I just wondered why this would be and if there were any major scriptures taken out? (By major I mean stuff that would actually redefine the Bible itself).

Yes, some books of the Bible had a harder time than others getting into the New Testament we have today (all 27 "books"). I believe, however, the Holy Bible we possess today, however, comprises all that God wanted it to comprise. Nothing has been "left out," as you put it.

God's word was certainly inspired by the Holy Spirit (2 Tim 3:16), but it was also  preserved from the very beginning, I suggest, by the same Holy Spirit. Ever since it was penned it has been dynamic, living, and powerful (Heb 4:12), containing as it does all that is needed for a life which is pleasing to God (2 Pet 1:3). Ever since it was penned it has encapsulated and preserved the

  ". . . faith which was once for all handed down to the saints (Jude 1:3),

both in written and--let us not forget--spoken forms, since one of the most important spiritual gifts beginning on the Day of Pentecost was the gift of prophecy, which is the foretelling and forth-telling of God's word!

How the Bible came to us is a subject well worth investigating, and I suggest you go here for a nice overview of that fascinating process. That link will take you to other helpful sources of information, including F.F. Bruce's fine book and other valuable tools.

The canon of Scripture came about slowly but surely, with many twists and turns, as believers convened many different colloquies over many years to discuss "what stays in and what stays out." I believe God's Holy Spirit, just as He inspired the writers of Scripture to write what they wrote, also superintended the process of canonization, so that the Bible we have today is exactly what God wanted us to have. The Bible's internal consistency bears witness, I believe, to the supernatural origin and preservation of Scripture.

Having said this, and more apropos your answer, there were two major kinds of colloquies. The first kind focused on which books "should make it" and which books "shouldn't make it." Second Peter had a particularly hard time making it into our Bible, because as Nelson Publishers NASV Updated Edition noted in their NASB Visual Reference Bible,

  "No other book in the New Testament poses as many problems of authenticity as does 2 Peter" (p.1355).

The Muratorian Canon, based on an ancient list of 24 of the 27 books of the NT and compiled in Latin by L.A. Muratori, provides us with significant evidence that the early Councils of the Christian church, such as the Council of Laodicea (AD 363), were "on the right track" in recognizing the authoritative nature of the 27 books of what we today call the New Testament. Other Councils followed, such as the Council of Hippo (A.D. 393) and the Council of Carthage (A.D. 397), both of which also affirmed the same 27 books as authoritative. Again, read more, here.

The second kind focused on how to translate into whatever language the committee chose (whether English, Swahili, Tagolog, Chinese, Aleut, ad infinitum), the books which had already "made it" into the canon of Scripture. These gatherings, or committees, of Bible scholars translated the canon of Scripture by using whatever texts were at their disposal, some ancient and some not so ancient.

A famous text for the New Testament, for example, is the Nestle-Aland text which is now in its 28th edition! The scholars involved in this project took it upon themselves to do critical editing of the original Greek-language version of the NT, the Novum Testamentum Graece. The resulting Nestle-Aland text is the primary source today for modern NT translations, thanks to people such as Cardinal Cisneros and also Erasmus, who produced the first published edition of the Greek New Testament in 1516.

The many translation committees which have convened down through the years were guided, I believe, by the Holy Spirit of God in providing average, ordinary people (some of whom were not even literate and had to rely on hearing the Word of God read to them) with the inestimable privilege of reading and hearing God's special revelation, despite the irrational opposition of the powers that be among authoritative leaders of "the church's" hierarchy. The story of organized opposition to the translation of God's word into the "language of the people" is alternately fascinating, inspiring, and appalling, given the sacrifices many brave men and women made, to the point of losing their very lives on account of their commitment to make Scripture available to people everywhere.

I wish you well in your investigation into the fascinating subject of the process through which our Bible came to us. Both "testaments" came about in slightly different ways, but the end result was (and continues to be) a reliable, trustworthy document, which is not only a perennial bestseller in scores of languages, but has the power to transform the lives of all who read it.

Is the Bible "perfect" in every way? No. Translators have always disagreed and will continue to disagree on the minutiae of how best to translate a given word, or verse, or even an entire passage from the original languages of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.

The upside of all this, however, is that Christians today have an embarrassment of riches of Bible versions, not one of which disagrees with another on any significant and indispensable doctrine of the Judeo-Christian faith which was once and for all delivered to the saints (Jude 1:3).

There may be a version or two, here or there, which deliberately tamper with God's word, such as Thomas Jefferson's expurgated version of the New Testament, which excised all the miracles recorded in the four Gospels, as well as every reference which asserted that Jesus was divine (see here). By and large, however, we have never had such a wealth of Bible-study tools at our disposal (and at the speed of light!), than we do today, thanks to the internet. Praise the Lord!


Can these three "2nd greatest commandments" be put into one sentence? I was playing my homemade Catholic Jeopardy with the Faith Formation class last night and I asked.  "What is the 2nd greatest commandment".  The kids were all like,  "umm obey your parents", "Don't swear", etc... and I just said.  "Love your neighbor".  Well, just then the Director of Religious Ed. walks in and she just wanted to make sure I added the ..."as yourself" part.  I didn't think that was terribly important, she said it was important because teenagers have a hard time seeing themselves as someone loveable.

So, I've got a notion that the following three precious words of Jesus are pretty much the same thing:

  Do to others whatever you would have them do to you.

(Matt 7:12 NABRE)

  love one another. As I have loved you, so you also should love one another

(John 13:34 NABRE)

  You shall love your neighbor as yourself.

(Mark 12:31 NABRE)

What I want to know is:

Is is the commandment itself just to love or is the description of how to love wrapped up in the commandment.
Do we love each other as Jesus loves us and love our neighbor as we love ourselves.
Does 'Do Unto' mean 'Love in this way'
If not how does 'Do unto others' fit into the way we're supposed to treat each other?
How could I phrase what I meant to say so it encapsulates all three aspects of how we're supposed to love and treat each other and ourselves?

I think Pope John Paul II (before he was Pope) wrote in Love and Responsibility something about love your neighbor being more than just 'do unto others', but I'm not sure how.  That might be a good starting point though.

Since this question is about love, and love is eternal, I'd gladly accept any answer that makes sense from any perspective.

I will try to answer this, but how to love is shown in various parts of the NT, but I think the best description of what is not love is

  1 Cor 13

You will find that love is not a feeling, but an action. For example, Jesus ordered that we love one another.

  JOHN 13:34 NKJ  34 "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one
  another; as I have loved you, that you also love one another.

If it was a feeling you can't command people to feel a certain way, but you can command that they act a certain way.

So, when we are ordered to love our neighbor, and we know from the story of the Good Samaritan that everyone is our neighbor, and Jesus talked about how we should love our enemies:

  Matt 5:44  But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who
  persecute you

So, love is more encompassing that just feeling or pretending to love by being nice to others.

So, perhaps something along the lines of:

Love everyone, especially those that hate you, where you are willing to die for them, just as Jesus was willing to die for us, but start with loving yourself, as Jesus loved us enough to die for each of us.

What I am trying to show is that Jesus valued us enough to die, so we should reciprocate by loving ourself, as, if we can't love ourselves, then how can we truly love anyone else.  The Holy Spirit isn't going to hang out in a place that is filled with hate, and if you hate yourself, then that is not a hospitable home for the Holy Spirit.


The Servetus Controversy: What was Calvin's involvement? The "Servetus Controversy" tells of a man named Michael Servetus who was burned at the stake for heresy -- not by Roman Catholic Inquisitors, but by Protestants in 16th century Geneva, France.

Here is a brief description of the event in a document at Calvin.edu, and here is a link to a Youtube video of a panel of Calvinist pastors discussing the topic at a conference.

Are there any authoritative historic documents that shed further light on what Calvin's involvement may have been?

Calvin's involvement

Calvin's involvement and even leadership in having a man guilty of heresy put to death according to the civil laws of his day does not seem something that can be denied based on his personal letters.

Here is the one most often quoted as the strongest recorded statement from Calvin on the Servetus affair is a 1561 letter from Calvin to the Marquis Paet, high chamberlain to the King of Navarre, in which he says:

  Honour, glory, and riches shall be the reward of your pains; but above all, do not fail to rid the country of those scoundrels, who stir up the people to revolt against us. Such monsters should be exterminated, as I have exterminated Michael Servetus the Spaniard.

This shows he openly admitted his involvement and direct leadership in the affair.

My opinion on Calvin's sinfulness

I think the question is not whether Calvin sinned or not, for he should have sought to remove the ability of the sate to punish heretics, but rather how big was his sin.

It is difficult for us to imagine a world where heretics were considered just like thieves and murderers liable to capital punishment as under the Old Testament. This does not excuse Calvin at all in my mind, but when we cast the first stone we are probably just as guilty ourselves in the unwarranted anger we have had against our neighbors.

  But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, 'Raca,' is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell. (NIV Matthew 5:22)

The sins of the world at that time appeared to have infected Calvin. I do not think we can defend him, or overly judge him. After all Calvin was just a man, and though pretty clever, I have never imagined him the most holy. I find him sometimes precocious and annoying on a personal level.  Even though I agree with much of what he wrote, I often feel as though I would not have liked him personally. Luther I feel I would have loved.

I say this a a long-term Calvinist who is not really surprised or bothered in finding out Calvin's guilt in this matter. We sometimes romanticize church leaders above the realm of sin, and clearly such views of men are ungodly. Furthermore at a time in history so different from our own, we need not fall into shock over their failings.  They would probably faint if they had a glimpse into the great sins of our generation.

I suppose some might not like my indifferent attitude but it comes from a man that believes in the total depravity of human nature, even more than Calvin. The sin of anyone does not surprise someone as skeptical as me, neither do I believe those who claim to be so much holier than Calvin and ready to 'cast the first stone.'

Let's keep in mind the greatest sin is rejecting the love of God in the gospel, either by our doctrine or by our actions. Servetus probably did it both ways, every day, but Calvin also failed terribly in some of his actions also, especially in this one.

Does it help to recall that King David was more guilty in his sin, as he first slept with the man's wife before 'arranging' his murder?


Old Testament verses other than Genesis 3:15 speak of the "seed" of a woman. How, then, does it indicate a virgin birth? I am researching prophecies about the virgin birth of Jesus in the Old Testament and am currently trying to find answers on specific issues.

Genesis 16:10; 24:60; 4:25; Leviticus 22:13; 1 Samuel 2:20-21.

The above verses talk about women and their "seed". How do these verses and prophecies agree with the prophecy of Genesis 3:15 if this verse refers to the virgin birth?

And how does the "seed of the woman" in Genesis 3:15 differ from the 'seed of' the women mentioned in all the other Old Testament verses?

Can anyone enlighten me as to how these verses fit together?

Women and their seed is merely a reference to the women's offspring, children, and/or posterity. 1

Gen 16:10 is in reference to Sarah's descendants being unnumerable

Gen 24:60 Rebekah's descendants will possess the gate of those that hate them

Gen 4:25 talks about Seth being another son since Cain slew Abel

Lev 22:13 mentions a priest's widowed daughter without a child

1 Sam 2:20 Elkanah and his wife will be blessed with children as they have prayed them

Gen 3:15 is about enmity between Eve's descendants and Satan's descendants/followers

None of these prophecies explicitly refer to the virgin birth. If it is your understanding that it does, none of the other references agree or disagree, as they are about different people.

1 http://biblehub.com/hebrew/2233.htm


Luke 12 and going to work everyday Put God’s Kingdom First
22 Jesus said to his followers, “So I tell you, don’t worry about the
things you need to live—what you will eat or what you will wear. 23
Life is more important than food, and the body is more important than
what you put on it. 24 Look at the birds. They don’t plant, harvest,
or save food in houses or barns, but God feeds them. And you are worth
much more than crows. 25 None of you can add any time to your life by
worrying about it. 26 And if you can’t do the little things, why worry
about the big things?
27 “Think about how the wildflowers grow. They don’t work or make
clothes for themselves. But I tell you that even Solomon, the great
and rich king, was not dressed as beautifully as one of these flowers.
28 If God makes what grows in the field so beautiful, what do you
think he will do for you? That’s just grass—one day it’s alive, and
the next day someone throws it into a fire. But God cares enough to
make it beautiful. Surely he will do much more for you. Your faith is
so small!
29 “So don’t always think about what you will eat or what you will
drink. Don’t worry about it. 30 That’s what all those people who don’t
know God are always thinking about. But your Father knows that you
need these things. 31 What you should be thinking about is God’s
kingdom. Then he will give you all these other things you need.
Don’t Trust in Money
32 “Don’t fear, little flock. Your Father wants to share his kingdom
with you. 33 Sell the things you have and give that money to those who
need it. This is the only way you can keep your riches from being
lost. You will be storing treasure in heaven that lasts forever.
Thieves can’t steal that treasure, and moths can’t destroy it. 34 Your
heart will be where your treasure is.

After reading this it is obvious to ask - is going to work everyday putting God's kingdom second?
Would we have enough to survive if we all did missionary work?
What is the image Jesus wants us to follow here?

The word "vocation," the word that many people use to describe their line of work, means "calling."  To say that vocations outside of the ministry are not part of God's work is deny what many protestants believe about work.
Just to cite one prominent example, Martin Luther writes:

God is milking the cows through the vocation of the milkmaid

and

vocation is a "mask of God." He is hidden in vocation. We see the milkmaid, or the farmer, or the doctor or pastor or artist. But, looming behind this human mask, God is genuinely present and active in what they do for us.

In short, God uses our work to be glorified.  The same article goes on to say:

Luther's Doctrine of Vocation
To understand fully the doctrine of vocation, one should begin not with the Puritans-who tended to turn the doctrine of vocation into a work ethic-but with Luther and with Lutherans, from the composers of the Book of Concord to modern theologians such as Billing and Gustaf Wingren. It goes something like this: When we pray the Lord's Prayer, we ask God to give us this day our daily bread. And he does. The way he gives us our daily bread is through the vocations of farmers, millers, and bakers. We might add truck drivers, factory workers, bankers, warehouse attendants, and the lady at the checkout counter. Virtually every step of our whole economic system contributes to that piece of toast you had for breakfast. And when you thanked God for the food that he provided, you were right to do so.
God could have chosen to create new human beings to populate the earth out of the dust, as he did with the first man. But instead, he chose to create new life-which, however commonplace, is no less miraculous-by means of mothers and fathers, wives and husbands, the vocations of the family.
God protects us through the vocations of earthly government, as detailed in Romans 13. He gives his gifts of healing usually not through out-and-out miracles (though he can) but by means of the medical vocations. He proclaims his word by means of human pastors. He teaches by means of teachers. He creates works of beauty and meaning by means of human artists, whom he has given particular talents.
Many treatments of the doctrine of vocation emphasize what we do, or are supposed to do, in our various callings. This is part of it, as are the various aspects that I outlined above, but it is essential in grasping the magnitude of this teaching to understand first the sense in which vocation is God's work.

The sense of God acting in vocation is characteristically Lutheran in the way it emphasizes that God works through physical means. Luther and his followers stress how God has chosen to bestow his spiritual gifts by means of his Word (ink on paper; the sound waves emanating from a pulpit) and Sacrament (water; bread and wine). And he bestows his earthly gifts by means of human vocations.


According to the Catholic Church, are there levels of spiritual enlightenment in Christianity? In Judaism there is the Kabbalah. In other religions there are ways to spiritual enlightenment.
Every religion has its own formula.

From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked. (Luke 12:48)
I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ. (Galatians 1:11)
was caught up to paradise and heard inexpressible things, things that no one is permitted to tell. (2 Corinthians 12:4)

So are there levels of enlightenment in Christianity? If so, how do we get there? What is the Catholic Church's doctrine on this question?

I believe you are looking for the three ways or states of the spiritual life.

  Our process of conversion to Christ is a journey that takes place over the course of a lifetime. You can probably look back to times in your life where you can remember making great progress on your spiritual journey, and other times when you have felt like you were moving backwards.

  The Fathers, theologians, and saints of the Church discuss three stages, or states, of perfection in the spiritual life: the purgative way, the illuminative way, and the unitive way. Each “way” or state represents an advancement toward sanctity—perfection—and total union with God.

  Here is a quick synopsis of the ways:

  Purgative Way:

  This is the state of beginners. In this stage it is often difficult to overcome daily temptations, and practicing the virtues can require an inner battle because of attachment to venial sin. Though the desire for perfection and progress is there, the beginner falls frequently. If a beginner concerns himself seriously with repenting of his sins and has an actionable desire to stop offending God, he may eventually move to the Illuminative Way.

  Illuminative Way:

  This is the intermediary stage between purification and total union with God. In this stage, there is enlightenment in the ways of God and a clear understanding of his will in one’s life. There are now only occasional “slips” into sin.

  Unitive Way:

  This is the final stage of Christian perfection. A soul in the unitive state has a constant awareness of God’s presence and habitually conforms to God’s will. In this stage, the soul loves God and others without limit. - The Three Ways or States of the Spiritual Life

Many Catholic authors have written extensively on the subject of these three stages of the spiritual life including Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P. (in The Three Ages of the Spiritual Life: Prelude of Eternal Life) and St. John of the Cross (in The Dark Night of the Soul).

cf. St. Thomas Aquinas's Summa Theologica II-II q. 24 a. 9 c.:

  The spiritual increase of charity may be considered in respect of a certain likeness to the growth of the human body. For although this latter growth may be divided into many parts, yet it has certain fixed divisions according to those particular actions or pursuits to which man is brought by this same growth. Thus we speak of a man being an infant until he has the use of reason, after which we distinguish another state of man wherein he begins to speak and to use his reason, while there is again a third state, that of puberty when he begins to acquire the power of generation, and so on until he arrives at perfection.

  In like manner the divers degrees of charity are distinguished according to the different pursuits to which man is brought by the increase of charity. For at first [purgative way:] it is incumbent on man to occupy himself chiefly with avoiding sin and resisting his concupiscences, which move him in opposition to charity: this concerns beginners, in whom charity has to be fed or fostered lest it be destroyed: in the second place [illuminative way:] man's chief pursuit is to aim at progress in good, and this is the pursuit of the proficient, whose chief aim is to strengthen their charity by adding to it: while man's third pursuit [unitive way:] is to aim chiefly at union with and enjoyment of God: this belongs to the perfect who "desire to be dissolved and to be with Christ."

The Catholic Encyclopedia has an excellent article on this subject.

It could be noted that the unitive way is the stage which some souls receive the gifts of contemplation and union with God.

  It is in this state that the gift of contemplation is imparted to the soul, though this is not always the case; because many souls who are perfect in the unitive way never receive in this life the gift of contemplation and there have been numerous saints who were not mystics or contemplatives and who nevertheless excelled in the practice of heroic virtue. Souls, however, who have attained to the unitive state have consolations of a purer and higher order than others, and are more often favored by extraordinary graces; and sometimes with the extraordinary phenomena of the mystical state such as ecstasies, raptures, and what is known as the prayer of union. -  Catholic Encyclopedia.


Do Christians have the authority to forgive sin? Catholic doctrines of Penance teach that if a priest forgives the sin of a parishioner, then that sin is forgiven by God as well- the sacrament of Penance is effective, and not just ceremonial. Likewise, the doctrines on excommunication from the church say that if a person is damned by the church, the anathema is effective. A common phrase in the Gopels (cf. John 20, Mark 18) is What is loosed is loosed, and what is bound is bound.

What denominations or Christian groups other than the Roman Catholic Church teach specifically that a Christian can or cannot forgive the sins of another person?

If a particular denomination teaches that they can do, do the doctrines of the denomination distinguish between the members of the Church that are able to perform this ministry and those that are not?

The sacrament of confession (or penance or reconcilliation) was not specifically instituted by any of the Gospels.  However, all four Gospels address the forgiveness of sin and the sacrament is entirely consistent with what Jesus is purported to have said and done.  This is evidenced not only by John 20:22-23, but on the other Gospel accounts of Jesus forgiving sins as an inherent component of the act of healing (Matt 9:2-8; Mark 2:5-12; and Luke 5:20-26).

Early New Testament churches were more focused on compassion, correction, and forgiveness.  Mutual correction and forgiveness were part of the fabric of community life.  Compassion was balanced with the understanding of the impact of sin upon the communal life and mission of the church.  At times, a form of excommunication (1 Cor 5: 3-5; 1 Tim 1: 19-20) was exercised for the good of the church.

Over time, the sacrament of confession changed as the church spread to different cultures and societies.  At times, Confession was a sacrament that was to be administered only once during an individual's lifetime.  This administration usually was for the forgiveness of particularly onerous offenses such as apostasy, murder of adultery or upon the deathbed of the individual.  The sacrament usually required demonstrable proof of repentance and often included a vow of celibacy from that point forward.  For this reason, many individuals delayed the sacrament until they were close to death.  A penitent (person requesting forgiveness) would be excluded from receiving the Eucharist and would be excused from the celebration at the offertory along with the catechumens.

As the needs of the people and the circumstances of the Church changed, private penance became the norm.  By the end of the 6th century, "penance" became known as "confession."  The once in a lifetime public rite of penance ended in the Western Church with the Fourth Council of Lateran's decree in 1215 that all baptized Christians must confess their sins and receive Holy Eucharist at least once each year.

The sacrament was influenced over the intervening centuries by many factors.  The influence of the Celtic churches was significant.  The monastic nature of the Celtic Churches brought the sacrament into a more private environment.  In effect, the sacrament was taken out of the church as a whole and into the private chambers of the penitent and his/her confessor (the person hearing the confession).  This Celtic influence extended the confessor relationship to priests as well as bishops who had that role exclusively exclusively.

From the eleventh to the fourteenth centuries, major changes occurred in the sacrament of penance.  Penance became the satisfaction, confession, contrition and absolution of sins.  The emphasis had shifted from the reconciliation of the sinner with the Church (and with God) to doing 'penance.'  Also, the act of confession was deemed to have redemptive value in the life of the penitent. That redemptive value also assisted in converting the heart of the sinner, who if truly contrite, was already forgiven even before the act of confession.  This aspect contributed to Albigensian and Waldensian heresies that denied the need to confess to a priest.  These heresies were condemned by the Fourth Lateran Council as well.  The role of the priest was then reinforced and the element of absolution was added to the sacrament.

St. Thomas Acquinas had a great influence on the sacrament and his views were incorporated into the Council of Florence decree for the Armenians in 1439.  This document stated that Penance is a sacrament; it consists of contrition of the heart; oral confession to a priest; satisfaction (such as prayer, almsgiving, fasting, etc...); and absolution by the priest. The end result of the sacrament is the forgiveness of sins.

During the Reformation, there were some objections to this formula.  Luther accepted Penance as a sacrament, but rejected the aspect that an individual's works were in any way more important than God's Mercy.  He also rejected that the power of forgiveness was limited to priests.  Calvin accepted private confession and absolution as a means of arousing faith and the recognition of God's Mercy but rejected it as a sacrament.  These arguments were addressed by the Council of Trent in 1551.  In the Doctrine on the Sacrament of Penance, the following teachings were affirmed: Penance is a sacrament instituted by Christ; it is distinct from Baptism; the three acts of the penitent are contrition, confession of all serious sins and satisfaction; and absolution is reserved to priests alone.

As a result of Vatican II, there has been a revision to the Rite and nature of the sacrament.  The purpose of these revisions is to express both the nature and the effect of the sacrament.  The purpose is to "obtain pardon from the mercy of God: and to be "reconciled with the Church whom sinners have wounded by their sin."  The new Rite of Penance is frequently referred to as the sacrament of Reconciliation.  That name more accurately reflects the intended purpose of the sacrament.  It takes the focus off the acts of restitution and places it more on the restoration of the individual to the body of Christ, His Church.

There are four forms in the new rite.  They are indidual, communal with individual confession and absolution, communal with general absolution and an abbreviated ritual in cases where death is near.  The new rite clearly shows the nature and effect of the sacramen; the role of the church community; an emphasis on the reading of God's Word; a shift of emphasis to the public and away from the private forms; and simplicity.

Finally, a thought about the role of the priest in the Sacrament of Penance and Reconciliation.  In the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1441 states, "Only God forgives sins. Since he is the Son of God, Jesus says of himself, “The Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins” and exercises this divine power: “Your sins are forgiven.” Further, by virtue of his divine authority he gives this power to men to exercise in his name."  This clearly indicates that it is not the individual priest who is forgiving sins and granting absolution... It is the priest acting in the name of Jesus Christ.  This is a role that is granted to the priest when Holy Orders are bestowed upon him.

Fr. Chuck Bradley


Which is hell: punishment, or revenge? Let me first explain my understanding of these words (punishment & revenge):

Punishment is typically when you do something to one person to make things better for society, or for that person.  It is either something unpleasant, so that the person will not want to do the bad thing, because they know the punishment is there, or they do the crime, but because of the punishment (death penalty / chopping off someone’s arm / being locked away) they cannot do the crime again or will think twice before doing it again.

Punishment, in theory, serves the majority of people.  It is a good thing.  It has positive benefits to most people (negative to one person – the crime committer – temporarily to solve a social problem).

Revenge is completely different.  That is when you cannot control your anger and hurt someone because they hurt you.  No positive benefit, other than making the angry person feel better.  It is, as I understand it, all about emotions.

Romans 12:19: “It is mine to avenge, I will repay, says the Lord”.  Hell does not seem like punishment, it seems like revenge.  This makes no sense, given the "good" and "just" descriptions of God.

So, based on the above, what is God, who is good and just, intending by sending people to hell:  to punish, or to take revenge?  Please include a logical explanation with your answer.

EDIT

I've been asked to define what I understand as "hell", and the doctrinal context that I want this answered in, so here's my attempt to do that:

I understand hell to be a place of eternal suffering that God created, where He sends people who do not believe in Jesus.

This is what I understand to be the typical protestant view of hell, as described in the bible.  If you have a different view, then you may not be the best person to answer this question, because I really want an answer from those who believe this point of view.

I would also like all answers to include some kind of reference, if their source is not simply logic.

Neither. Both if these options are built around a human centered view of justice.

In reality, God isn't working under the same constraints as we would be and he has other purposes in mind. It still comes down to justice, but not quite the same kind of justice that would be metered out on a court on earth.

Here on earth, our purposes in "punishment" are usually either corrective or protective. Some punishments are given to try to convince the wrongdoer that "crime doesn't pay". Others guard against future harm, sometimes at the expense of giving the offender any more chances.

Also in human terms, "revenge" is in some way trying to regain something that was lost whether possessions or honor, or at least restore a balance between victim and perpetrator but reversing the crime and setting the original perpetrator back.

God's judgement against sin is not quite either of these things. The nature of His person is not such that he has lost anything that would need to be restored and he is certainly not trying to hurt somebody else the way he was hurt just to get even.

On the other hand all of our ideas in this are in some way just echos of something more real and true; our ideas of "punishment" are but a memory destroyed by our own sin of what God's idea of punishment is.

Hell is a just punishment for the crime humanity has committed. In eternally damning some humans to there, God is doing the only just thing. He is also giving men just what he asked for. In his pride man set himself up as god apart from God, and in sin he continues to demand his independence from God. Being permanently cut off from Him is just the logical extension of that.

At the same time there is an element of vengeance in it. God is extracting from the rebels everything they tried to steel from Him. He is demonstrating for all eternity that HE is Lord, there is no other, and that he will not tolerate evil. Never will it be said of Him that he let the wicked prosper unjustly. While human revenge is unjust, God eradicating evil is not.


Forgiveness Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit Here is a conundrum, If we take what Jesus said in the Bible I find there is a problem with this particular sin - Could it be that the early church added it to make a point about something else and unfortunately our generation ran with it.

  Matthew 6:14 For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your
  heavenly Father will also forgive you.  But if you do not forgive men
  their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.

  Matthew 26:28 This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out
  for many for the forgiveness of sins.

  Matthew 7:21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter
  the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who
  is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not
  prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many
  mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never
  knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’

  John 14:23 Jesus answered him, “If anyone loves me, he will keep my
  word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make
  our home with him.

  John 5:24 Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and
  believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into
  judgment, but has passed from death to life.

  John 11:25 Jesus told her, "I am the resurrection and the life. Anyone
  who believes in me will live, even after dying. Everyone who lives in
  me and believes in me will never ever die. Do you believe this,
  Martha?"

Versus this

  Matthew 12:31-32 31 And so I tell you, every kind of sin and slander
  can be forgiven, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be
  forgiven. 32 Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be
  forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be
  forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.

However
If we look closely - Jesus said every kind of sin and slander can be forgiven,  Then he said that one sin will not be forgiven - How can this be?!  You cannot say every sin and then say - except one!

Further if we look at the scriptures above Jesus explicitly says that those who believe in him will inherit eternal life!  How can this be - Surely he should have put a stipulation that Blasphemy can cause one to loose this eternal life!  Considering this sin is the Greatest of All and the Only one that can catch us out it is very odd that this was not elabourated on more!  Not even by his desciples!

To put these Scriptures in proper perspective. The first thing we have to do is to understand what Jesus meant by blaspheming.
According to Merriam Webster blaspheming is defined as:
BLASPHE'ME, v.t. [Gr. The first syllable is the same as in blame, blasme, denoting injury; L. loedo, loesus; The last syllable is the Gr.,to speak.]

To speak of the Supreme Being in terms of impious irreverence; to revile or speak reproachfully of God, or the Holy Spirit. 1 Ki 21. Mark 3.

To speak evil of; to utter abuse or calumny against; to speak reproachfully of.

BLASPHE'ME, v.i. To utter blasphemy.
He that shall blaspheme against the Holy Spirit shall not be forgiven. Mark 3.

To arrogate the prerogatives of God.

This man blasphemeth. Who can forgive sins but God? Math.9. Mark 2.
So let's break it down and see if we can determine exactly what blaspheme meant to Jesus and the circumstances under which it was used.
Starting with the definition of blaspheme we see that it has two parts. The first part is to blame to the point of injury, while the second part denotes speaking. We also note that it is both a transitive to transitive verb, and that in the instance in which Jesus stated that is in the intransitive form a of the verb.
So let's look at the situation and find out what the circumstances were when Jesus made this statement. This

Matthew 12:22 through 24  Then was brought unto him one possessed with a devil, blind, and dumb: and he healed him, insomuch that the blind and dumb both spake and saw. And all the people were amazed, and said, Is not this the son of David? But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils.

We find here that Jesus had just cast out a devil from a dumb and blind man. They are attributing his ability to cast out the devil to being possessed by Satan.

Matthew 12:25 through 27  And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand: And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand?   And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out? therefore they shall be your judges.

Jesus having the ability to read their thoughts understood what they were saying was embedded deeper than just the surface. Then he says that they're not making sense, since it is Satan's desire to take people away from God why would he get rid of a devil which was doing exactly what he wanted. Finally he says if that's what I'm doing how can you expect that you and those following you could ever overcome Satan and take people to heaven?

Matthew 12:30  He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.

Jesus further says that if they're not helping him to get people saved what they are doing is aiding Satan. It appears then that what Jesus is doing is, he is warning him that they are very very close to condemning themselves before God by causing someone to not Believe. This becomes more clear when we consider the following Scriptures.

Matthew 18:6 and 7 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea. Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!
Matthew 18:10 and 11 Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven. For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.
Luke 11:10  For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.
Luke 11:13  If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?


What are the main differences between Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses? Both Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses go from door to door, talking to people about their beliefs. Also neither group accepts the notion of Trinity.

What are the main differences between these two denominations?

There are many doctrinal and practical differences between Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons. I think it will be difficult to arrange a complete and comprehensive list, but below are a collection of differences that immediately come to mind.

Mormons claim to be a restoration of ancient Christianity via divine intervention and angelic visitation. Jehovah's Witnesses claim to be a rediscovery of ancient Christianity through biblical scholarship.
Jehovah's Witnesses hold the use of the correct name of God, Jehovah, to be very important to true worship. Mormons do have beliefs about the correct names of God the Father and Jesus Christ, but do not hold them to the same level of importance as Jehovah's Witnesses do.
Mormons believe that Jesus Christ is Jehovah, that Adam is Michael the Archangel, and that the true name of God the Father is Elohim. Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Jesus Christ is Michael the Archangel, and that the true name of God the Father is Jehovah.
Mormons believe that the Bible contains errors and rely on additional books of scriptures and revelations from modern prophets to interpret it. Jehovah's Witnesses believe that the Bible is completely correct and internally consistent and derive all of their doctrine from their interpretation of it.
Mormons believe in a Spirit World between death and resurrection, Jehovah's witnesses believe that after death the self ceases to exist until resurrection.
Mormons call the Lord's Supper the Sacrament, substitute water for wine, and partake of it weekly on Sundays. Jehovah's witnesses call the Lord's Supper the Lord's Evening Meal and allow only a few worthy to partake of it once a year.
Mormon missionaries are largely young men and women called to serve 18 months to 2 years, other than this, most Mormons do not actively preach door to door. Jehovah's Witnesses believe that it is their responsibility as Christians to witness door to door and hold witnessing as requirement for true membership.


Wall numbers in German church / during German burial ceremony I have just came about a 10 years old photo of my aunt's burial ceremony that took place in June 2009 in one of the German churches (in a small city close to Oldenburg).

Unfortunately, relation both with my aunt and her living family was/is very weak, so I can't even say, if she was Christian or Protestant and thus, in which church following photo was taken?

Does anyone know what are these numbers printed on the wall in the right part of the photograph?

My first and only guess was that these are song numbers that will be sing during the ceremony. But then, what are those additional numbers (or actually some kind of value ranges)? And why to print song numbers permanently on the wall, if they keep to changed (depending on ceremony, day of year etc.) and thus should rather be displayed using some non-permanent way. Like a display etc.

The numbers are on little (wooden) panels that can be pushed in a (wooden) rack. In your case both panels and rack have the same colour a the wall, so they are a bit difficult to see.

The numbers give the songs to sing during the service. The red numbers give the verses to sing.

On the denomination: First I thought it is a Catholic Church (esp. because the seats in the sanctuary), but the numbers given lead to songs in the Catholic song book "Gotteslob" (then used 1975 edition) not fitting on a burial. The songs of the protestant "Evangelisches Gesangbuch" fit better. So probably it was a protestant (near Oldenburg: lutheran) service, but I may be mistaken.


According to LDS (Mormon) teaching, who was the first God who began the eternal progression? I understand that the LDS church teaches the concept of eternal progression, that "As God is, so man can become and as man is, so God once was."  So, men may attain godhood in exaltation.

By implication, God the Father was once a man Himself on another planet where there was another god and attained to godhood Himself through his life on that planet.

So, my question is, according to LDS teaching, who was the first God who began all this--the uncreated God, since all other gods, including God the Father would have been born spiritually through a spiritual union between the god of the previous planet and one of his wives.

Also, is there any worship given in the LDS Church to this first God?

The Mormon doctrine states that creation has always been in existence.  As such, we can't presume that there was a beginning.
Because of this, there wasn't a first God, but an endless succession prior to the one true God.
Brigham Young once stated:

How many Gods there are, I do not know. But there never was a time when there were not Gods...
Brigham Young (Journal of Discourses 7:333)

Furthermore, LDS Apostle Orson Pratt stated:

We were begotten by our Father in Heaven; the person of our Father in Heaven was begotten on a previous heavenly world by His Father; and again, He was begotten by a still more ancient Father, and so one, from one generation to generation
LDS Apostle Orson Pratt (The Seer, pg. 132)

(It should be noted that the Orson Pratt writings were later discounted by the LDS church and shouldn't be taken as doctrine.  Still, it elucidates the point.)
Summary
Essentially, since there was no beginning, there was no "first".  Therefore, there was no "first God" in regards to the eternal progression.  The universe, being eternal, has always been around.  The progression of Gods has likewise been eternal.


According to the Catholic Church, what is meant by the prophecy, "A bruised reed he will not break . . ."? Isaiah 42:3 has this prophecy:

  A bruised reed he will not break, and a smoldering wick he will not snuff out.

What does this prophecy imply, and how was it fulfilled? Are there any authentic teachings from the perspective of the Catholic Church available on this prophecy and its eventual fulfillment?

St. Matthew 12:20 = Isaias 42:3.

The Catholic Haydock Commentary quotes St. John Chrysostom (hom. xli) on this verse:

  The bruised reed. The prophet here shews the mildness of our Saviour, who, though he could have broken them like a reed, and as a bruised reed, yet would not do it; and though he could have easily extinguished their rage and anger, yet he bore with it for a while, with singular clemency, till he should send forth judgment unto victory, i.e. till justice shall have appeared triumphant, till Christ shall have fulfilled all things, and raised his most illustrious trophy: till the Gentiles shall have placed their confidence in his most adorable name, and the Jews have no plea, notwithstanding their unparalleled obduracy, to make in reply.

St. Thomas Aquinas's Catena Aurea ("Golden Chain") cites more Church Fathers on this verse, such as:

  St. Augustine: So He neither bruised nor quenched the Jewish persecutors, who are here likened to a bruised reed which has lost its wholeness, and to a smoking flax which has lost its flame; but He spared them because He was not come to judge them, but to be judged by them.

and

  St. Hilary: Or, he means this bruised reed that is not broken, to shew that the perishing and bruised bodies of the Gentiles, are not to be broken, but are rather reserved for salvation. "He shall not quench a smoking flax, shews the feebleness of that spark which though not quenched, only moulders in the flax, and that among the remnants of that ancient grace, the Spirit is yet not quite taken away from Israel, but power still remains to them of resuming the whole flame thereof in a day of penitence.

and

  St. Jerome, Ep. 121, 2: Or the reverse; He calls the Jews a bruised reed, whom tossed by the wind and shaken from one another, the Lord did not immediately condemn, but patiently endured; and the smoking flax He calls the people gathered out of the Gentiles, who, having extinguished the light of the natural law, were involved in the wandering mazes of thick darkness of smoke, bitter and hurtful to the eyes; this He not only did not extinguish, by reducing them to ashes, but on the contrary from a small spark and one almost dead He raised a mighty flame.

and

  St. Remigius: … "He shall not break the bruised reed," refers to His shunning His persecutors that they might not be made worse…


What was Jesus trying to convey in the parables of the mustard seed and yeast? What message did Jesus Christ tried to give by comparing the Kingdom Of God(Isn't that Heaven?) with the mustard seed and yeast?

Jesus was saying that the Kingdom of God has a huge effect on whatever it interacts with.  That is, the effect is disproportionately large in comparison to what we mortals perceive the Kingdom of God to be.

The Kingdom of God refers to more than just Heaven.  The Kingdom of God also includes his people, many of whom are still here on Earth.


Christian Position on the meaning of Faith We are told, 'The just (upright) shall live by faith.' So I have a question for the Christians here. How do you understand faith? This does not have to be strictly biblical (since the scripture does not interpret itself, except where it really explicitly does so) but can also use anecdotal, philosophical or logical proofs/reasons for your explanation.

A good definition an agnostic gave me once was, 'A strong trust in someone or something'.

Consider the following two sided propositions:

Does faith refer to a blind acceptance?

We are often told, no, and consider the case of Gideon, but --
Job is told he does not understand -- he is expected to accept the goodness of God without an explanation he can grasp

Is faith rational?

In some cases, we are told yes, consider the phrase, 'a reason to believe'... but --
Abraham is asked to do something wrong on orders from God; that he really will go through with it is met with 'Now I know that you are faithful.'

Does faith itself save a person?

John 3:16 suggests this, as do some of Jesus' words, but --
We are repeatedly told, 'Those who endure until the end shall be saved.'

Is faith a work?

In some traditions, faith is contrasted against works, but --
James the Just tells us 'faith without works is dead' and in another place equates Abrahams faith and works ('see how he was justified by works...') and indeed many passages where we have the word 'faith', it is really 'faithing', i.e. trusting, meaning something active: a work.

Is doubt a sin, or at least, the lack of faith?

Jesus warns against doubt as does James the Just, but --
The Apostle Thomas is in our tradition lauded for his doubt ('the precious doubt of Thomas' it is called) and we are also confronted with a contradiction where the man in the Gospels says, 'I believe, help my unbelief' - suggesting doubt and faith can coexist.

Is faith a source of knowledge?

Paul suggests so 'evidence of things not seen'
But we have numerous examples where faith itself is only a substitute for knowledge (for example, Abraham's case.)

What is the 'faith of Christ' (pisteis Christou)?

Some suggest it is Christ's faith, i.e. his personal faith, but
The verbiage is vague, and may be interpreted as 'faith in Christ', i.e. believing in him.

We use faith generically, but is this even correct?

Is having faith in Christ the same as having faith that space aliens exist?
or does our definition of 'faith' implicitly include the object of that faith?

Is it possible to overemphasize faith, as opposed to questioning?

On the one hand, we are told we must enter the Kingdom as little children: that's radical acceptance
We are also told that false Christs will come with false signs and to test all of the spirits. That seems like pretty radical skepticism there.

You may either answer personally or for your tradition, or for another person's interpretation. But most of all, I'm hoping to find a consensus on some if not all of these points. It does not have to be either/or, it can be both/and, but if so, why?

Faith is the conviction and acceptance of what God has revealed to you. Faith persists even when challenged or confronted with reasons to not accept what God has revealed to you.

The object of Christian faith is always God. Christian faith is not blind or baseless, rather it derives it's strength and endurance from it's source: God.

Since faith is based on God's revelation, it outweighs any other form of evidence that one may base a conclusion on.  It may coexist with doubt when doubt is caused by some evidence contrary to what God has revealed, but faith will always win out.


When was Abraham alive? It is generally accepted that Abraham lived 175 years. However, the dates when he lived are rather fuzzy and hotly debated.

When was he alive and what reasons would you give for your conclusion?

What methods have gone into determining the dates in which Abraham (and perhaps other early biblical figures) lived and died?

The best way to find this estimate is to take known historical dates and work backwards from there using dates and durations in the Bible.

The Mesha Stele has been dated to about 840-850 BCE, and seems to pretty clearly describe the time of Omri.  If we assume it was written when the events happened, not long afterwards, we can use it to work backwards.  Omri's reign began in the 31st year of Asa and lasted twelve years, which means that Asa's reign began around 870-890.  Previously, Rehoboam ruled for 17 and Abijah for three.  Although the transition is not entirely clear to me, the prior ruler was apparently Solomon for 40 years.  In his fourth year, he started to build the temple, which was 480 years after leaving Egypt.  So that takes us back 20+36+480 = 536 years further, to 1406-1426 BCE as the dates for the exodus.

Now we come to a difficult stretch because there are, to my knowledge, no clear chronological links between Moses and, say, Joseph.  Moses' grandfather Kehat was with Jacob on the way into Egypt, and if you add up all the ages that's a maximum of 350 years (actually surely less, since Kehat was not an infant), but it's not clear what the minimum was.  The most direct statement is Genesis 15:13, which puts four hundred years between Abraham's offspring and the exodus.  Since the phrase is "in a land that is not theirs", and Ishmael and Isaac did not start off owning the land, it seems that the most harmonious interpretation is that this was 400 years from Ishmael's birth.  We find that Abraham was 86 years old at the time.  The 400 years probably didn't end until after wandering in the wilderness for 40 years, so that's 360 years from Ishmael's birth to the exodus.

Therefore, according to historical and Biblical evidence, Abraham was born somewhere in the range of 1852-1872 BCE and died 175 years later (1677-1697).  If the 400 years are accounted for differently, these dates could change significantly.

For what it's worth, other people have studied the matter and come up with different timelines; it's complicated by the lack of accurately-dated historical evidence for events prior to David upon which to anchor the timeline.

(Beware of lots of little edits to fix up small mathematical errors and other details.)