Would Calvinists classify themselves as determinists? One of Joseph Arminius' arguments against Calvinism was that God's exhaustive foreknowledge does not require a doctrine of determinism.1

My question here is pretty straightforward: Do Calvinists actually consider themselves determinists?  In other words, Is Joseph Arminius disagreeing with Calvinism here, or is this a strawman / caricature of Calvinism?

(I know there are a whole slew of different views amongst those who call themselves Calvinists; I'm mostly just interested in the views of John Calvin and strict adherents to T.U.L.I.P.)

I'd say yes.   Though it may seem a cop-out, there does seem to be some philosophical distinction between hard- and soft-determinism, though, and I think most mainline Calvinists would affirm Compatabilism.    By definition, Compatabilism takes a syncretic view of determinism and free agency. So, yes, determinism is part of the equation, but it's not quite as simple as just leaving it at that.  God -- with full omnipotence and eternal omniscience -- creates each man knowing full well what that man will do, but each man does what he does freely (non-coerced) according to his nature.

I don't know if this helps, but I think the image of God as author -- which seems to be a fairly prevalent theme in Scripture -- helps me understand this.   Authors obviously control the actions of their characters, but a good author creates his characters in such a way that their actions (fore-ordained as they may be) just seem to naturally flow as extensions of their respective natures.


Has any prominent theologian ever explained why Jesus let a thief be in charge of the money? From John 12:4-6 we learn that Judas was a thief, but also that he was in charge of the money bag.

I've always thought of this as Jesus way of allowing Judas to master it rather than be mastered by money or possibly to show Judas His love, even at personal cost.

But I cannot also help but wonder whether it is a bit like leaving an alcoholic in charge of the bar. If Judas really had a money problem, should he have been the treasurer?

Has any prominent theologian ever addressed this?

The theological problem is to explain why Jesus apparently trusted Judas, when he ought to have known better. There are a lot of possible answers! Some have tried to find symbolic or exemplary meaning in his actions - a lesson for the future Church. Others have centered the discussion around the character of Jesus, perhaps reaching similar conclusions for different reasons: framing Jesus principally in terms of love rather than as a ritual performer.

Augustine says in his Tractates on John 50.10-11 that Jesus trusted Judas in order to show the Church should be patient and tolerant even of thieves:

  What lesson then, my brethren, did our Lord Jesus Christ wish to impress on His Church, when it pleased Him to have one castaway among the twelve, but this, that we should bear with the wicked, and refrain from dividing the body of Christ? [...] Why gave He admission to a thief, save to teach His Church patiently to bear with thieves? But he who had formed the habit of abstracting money from the bag, did not hesitate for money received to sell the Lord Himself. But let us see what answer our Lord gave to such words. See, brethren: He does not say to him, You speak so on account of your thievishness. He knew him to be a thief, yet did not betray him, but rather endured him, and showed us an example of patience in tolerating the wicked in the Church.

To this, Thomas Aquinas adds two further suggestions (Lectura super Evangelium Sancti Ioannis 12.1). The first is that Judas was given access to the common fund so that he could satiate his greed there, rather than condemn himself further by robbing others; Aquinas finds this doubtful, since the greedy are never truly satisfied. This matches his Aristotelian ethic of virtue and habit - indulging in theft only reinforces the "bad habit" of having a tendency to steal. He would certainly agree with you that it would be irresponsible for Jesus to not only put Judas where he could be tempted, but even to encourage him in his sinful habits. The second suggestion from Aquinas, which he prefers, is that Jesus sought to teach the Church that spiritual things are more important than temporal things: by giving the money over to Judas, he was showing how little it mattered.

Origen (Commentary on John 32) is of the same opinion as Augustine as far as the lesson - he argues that Jesus showed trust as a deliberate act of love. Moreover, he says that Judas should not be seen as simply an evil person, but as someone who had both good and bad in him (he was a disciple, after all), was continually presented with moral choices, and on several important occasions made terrible decisions. In Origen's view, Judas had the genuine free will to steal and betray, or not, and so Jesus was justified in trusting him. From 32.161-162 (trans. Ronald Heine; Catholic University of America Press, 1993):

  I would not think that he would have been entrusted with the money-box if he were a thief from the beginning. He was trusted with it, therefore, because he was worthy of being trusted, although it was foreknown that he would fall away. And he was so great a man of Christ's peace that Jesus once had high hopes in him, as a good apostle, for hear the words, "In whom I hoped" [from Psalm 41:9, which is quoted in John 13:18].

and 32.240-241:

  If Judas' evil had been obvious to Jesus' disciples it would have been known who was to betray the teacher, since Jesus had said, "One of you will betray me." But now the disciples look "at one another, doubting of whom he spoke" [John 13:22]. Perhaps indeed the apostles were ashamed to suspect anything wicked of Judas because of his previous worthy deeds. It may have been, too, that Judas did not belong totally to evil, even though the devil had already put it in his heart that Judas Iscariot, son of Simon, should betray him [John 13:2]. It was because there was still a remnant of good choice in him that, when he saw that Jesus was condemned when "they bound him and led him away and delivered him to Pilate the governor" [Matthew 27:2] he repented and returned the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, saying, "I have sinned in betraying innocent blood" [Matthew 27:3-4].

Origen's exegesis does not see Judas as a moustache-twirling villain, or as a kleptomaniac who couldn't help himself from stealing, but as a very human figure. The fact that he returned the silver shows that he had the capacity to do good. Since the disciples were unaware of Judas stealing from the common purse, his acts must have been more like incidental pilfering than outright theft of the whole amount. Perhaps, along these lines, we can say that Jesus's trust in Judas was not too financially disastrous.

The absolute opposite view on free will is held by John Calvin, who says (Commentarium in evangelium Ioannis) that firstly, the ways of God are mysterious (an admission that he has no real answer), but secondly, Judas was predestined to be lost: Jesus placed an untrustworthy person among the disciples because the plan required one of them to betray him. Calvin's Judas is "required" to be evil and then to be justly condemned, so Jesus can perfectly well put Judas in a position of temptation, knowing that he will fail. This resonates with the opinion of John Chrysostom (Homilies on the Gospel of John 65), who says that Judas was given charge of the purse so that when he betrayed Jesus for thirty pieces of silver, he wouldn't have the excuse that he really needed the money.

Perhaps characteristically, Karl Barth (Church Dogmatics, 35.4, "The Determination of the Rejected") welds all of these ideas, and more, into a single incredibly dense lump of thought. He sees the sin of Judas, in betraying Jesus, principally as an exploitation or rejection of the sacred. This is mirrored in his eventual suicide, in his attitude to the anointing in this passage, and in his love of money. But he is still a human being and a disciple - and all of the disciples have their bad moments, as they fail to live up to the expectations of Jesus. So there is a sense in which Judas provides an example for us, not only personally but in the life of the Church (his replacement by Matthias is critical for this - a purging of communal failure). But the more important statement, for Barth, is that Jesus is on Judas's side, even if Judas is not on his side. We are meant to imitate Christ in love of God and one another, even our "enemies", just as he put trust in the one who would betray him.


Why do Greek Orthodox venerate icons and Roman Catholic statues? Historically how and why did this difference arise?

Why do Greek Orthodox venerate icons and Roman Catholic statues?

This question is quite nicely phrased on a couple points of view. Before going on let me mention that the Eastern Orthodox Church generally venerate icons. But in the West, Roman Catholics tend to venerate statues. I would like to point out that Eastern Rite Catholics do as the Eastern Orthodox do and venerate icons.

  The seventh Ecumenical Council of Nicaea (787) justified the veneration of icons of Christ, his mother and the angels and saints. The ultimate justification of images is God's incarnation in Christ: by taking a human body and nature, God made himself visible and material. The honor paid to sacred images is a "respectful veneration," not the adoration due to God alone. Christian veneration of images is not idolatrous, sacrilegious because the honor rendered to an image passes to its prototype, meaning to the person portrayed in the image. Images are mere things in themselves, but they are leading us on to God incarnate. The "bowing down" has a variety of meanings: in some cultures people like you and me bow before each other. Therefore it is important to know what the "bowing down" means. In the Catholic Church "bowing down" is contrasted to genuflection (kneeling). Generally, the latter indicates worship (God), the former is a lesser act on honoring somebody, i.e. Mary or a saint. - Veneration of Icons and Religious Images

Part of the reason why the East incorporated the veneration of  icons instead of statues is tradition and part is that the use of icons predated the veneration of statues in the West. Let us not forget that in the East, an icon is read.

  An icon (from Greek εἰκών eikōn "image") is a religious work of art, most commonly a painting, from Eastern Orthodox Christianity and Catholicism. More broadly the term is used in a wide number of contexts for an image, picture, or representation; it is a sign or likeness that stands for an object by signifying or representing it either concretely or by analogy, as in semiotics; by extension, icon is also used, particularly in modern culture, in the general sense of symbol — i.e. a name, face, picture, edifice or even a person readily recognized as having some well-known significance or embodying certain qualities: one thing, an image or depiction, that represents something else of greater significance through literal or figurative meaning, usually associated with religious, cultural, political, or economic standing.

  In Eastern Christianity and other icon-painting Christian traditions, the icon is generally a flat panel painting depicting a holy being or object such as Jesus, Mary, saints, angels, or the cross. Icons may also be cast in metal, carved in stone, embroidered on cloth, painted on wood, done in mosaic or fresco work, printed on paper or metal, etc. Creating free-standing, three-dimensional sculptures of holy figures was resisted by Christians for many centuries, out of the belief that daimones inhabited pagan sculptures, and also to make a clear distinction between Christian and pagan art. To this day, in obedience to the commandment not to make "graven images", Orthodox icons may never be more than three-quarter bas relief. Comparable images from Western Christianity are generally not described as "icons", although "iconic" may be used to describe a static style of devotional image.

  After adoption of Christianity as the only permissible Roman state religion under Theodosius I, Christian art began to change not only in quality and sophistication, but also in nature. This was in no small part due to Christians being free for the first time to express their faith openly without persecution from the state, in addition to the faith spreading to the non-poor segments of society. Paintings of martyrs and their feats began to appear, and early writers commented on their lifelike effect, one of the elements a few Christian writers criticized in pagan art — the ability to imitate life. The writers mostly criticized pagan works of art for pointing to false gods, thus encouraging idolatry. Statues in the round were avoided as being too close to the principal artistic focus of pagan cult practices, as they have continued to be (with some small-scale exceptions) throughout the history of Eastern Christianity.
  Nilus of Sinai, in his Letter to Heliodorus Silentiarius, records a miracle in which St. Plato of Ankyra appeared to a Christian in a dream. The Saint was recognized because the young man had often seen his portrait. This recognition of a religious apparition from likeness to an image was also a characteristic of pagan pious accounts of appearances of gods to humans, and was a regular topos in hagiography. One critical recipient of a vision from Saint Demetrius of Thessaloniki apparently specified that the saint resembled the "more ancient" images of him - presumably the seventh century mosaics still in Hagios Demetrios. Another, an African bishop, had been rescued from Arab slavery by a young soldier called Demetrios, who told him to go to his house in Thessaloniki. Having discovered that most young soldiers in the city seemed to be called Demetrios, he gave up and went to the largest church in the city, to find his rescuer on the wall. - Eastern Orthodox and Catholic teaching about Icons

We can see the in the earlier centuries of the Church icons were the ordinary means of Christians expressing themselves in sacred art. The use of statues in the West is a later development in the use of Christian art.

  The use of icons and symbols in Christian worship

  Early Christian art used symbolic and allegorical images mainly, partly no doubt to avoid drawing attention during the persecution of early Christians in the Roman Empire. In the Catacombs of Rome Jesus was represented indirectly by pictogram symbols such as the Ichthys (fish), peacock, Lamb of God, or an anchor (the Labarum or Chi-Rho was a later development). Later, personified symbols were used, including Jonah, whose three days in the belly of the whale pre-figured the interval between Christ's death and Resurrection, Daniel in the lion's den, or Orpheus charming the animals.

  The image of "The Good Shepherd", a beardless youth in pastoral scenes collecting sheep, was the most common of these images, and was probably not understood as a portrait of the historical Jesus. The depiction of Jesus already from the 3rd century included images very similar to what became the traditional image of Jesus, with a longish face and long straight hair. As the Church increased in size and popularity, the need to educate illiterate converts led to the use of pictures which portrayed biblical stories, along with images of saints, angels, prophets, and the Cross (though only portrayed in a bejewelled, glorified state).

  After the end of persecution, and the adoption of Christianity by Constantine, large churches were built and from the start decorated with elaborate images of Jesus and saints in mosaic. Small carved reliefs were also found on sarcophagi like the Sarcophagus of Junius Bassus. However large monumental sculpture of religious subjects was not produced, and in Byzantine art and Eastern Orthodox art it is avoided to the current day. It only reappeared in Carolingian art, among peoples who had no memory of pagan religious statues.

  Paintings of Old Testament scenes are found in Jewish catacombs of the same period, and the heavily painted walls of Dura Europos Synagogue in Syria. Catholic and Orthodox historians affirm, on the basis of these archeological finds in the Catacombs, that the veneration of icons and relics had begun well before Constantine I. - Religious images in Christian theology

As we can see, the West started to develop it's own form of tradition with the use of statues after the Church gained Her freedom from the Roman persecutions. Traditions are never still, but are living and always expanding.

The East chose icons and the West chose statues a few centuries later, due to historical events that fell into place.


Is this interview with Pope Francis going to change Christianity? I was... surprised... to learn this morning that our Pope Francis does not believe in hell. Will this interview change the Catholic Church?

Pope Francis ‘abolishes hell’, saying souls of unrepentant sinners will simply disappear!

Traditional conceptions of hell have been depicted in classic works of art such as The Last Judgement by Hieronymus Bosch, who died in 1516

The story is certainly bogus or at least misleading.

  Okay, Pope Francis probably did not say: “There is no hell.” But that’s the headline story for today—for Holy Thursday. And while maybe the interviewer is responsible for an inaccurate quotation, the Pope himself is responsible for the ensuing confusion.

  The Vatican, naturally, has rushed out another “clarification.” Notice, however, that the Vatican statement does not actually deny that Pope Francis uttered those words. Because the truth is that nobody actually knows exactly what he said.

  Here is the statement attributed to the Pontiff, in an article that appeared in La Repubblica, regarding the fate of unrepentant sinners:

  They are not punished. Those who repent obtain God’s forgiveness and join the ranks of those souls who contemplate Him. But those who do not repent, and so cannot be forgiven, disappear. There is no hell; there is the disappearance of sinful souls.

  That quotation appeared in a piece by Eugenio Scalfari, who interviewed the Holy Father earlier this week. Following his usual practice, Scalfari did not record the session, nor did he even take notes. The veteran journalist—who, by the way, is nearing his 94th birthday—relied on his memory to reconstruct the conversation. So the words that were in quotation marks in his article may or may not be the words of Pope Francis.

  So today’s Vatican statement is certainly true: “No quotation in the aforementioned article can therefore be considered a faithful transcription of the words of the Holy Father.” - Confusion—now about hell—is the hallmark of this pontificate

After the interview with the Pontiff, Scalfari quoted him as saying: “There is no hell. There is the disappearances of sinful souls,” the Vatican responded.

The Vatican press office quickly issued a statement noting that Scalfari’s quotation cannot be considered “a faithful transcription” of the Pope’s actual words. Scalfari, who has now interviewed Pope Francis several times, does not record the sessions or take notes; he relies on his memory to reconstruct the conversations.


Are these LDS scriptures consistent with LDS doctrine? In an answer to this question Calvin quoted some LDS scripture from this search on the LDS scripture site.

It seems that the word "eternal" might mean continuing forever from some point in time in LDS theology, rather than the forever past until forever future as it does for many Christians. However, some of these specifically say from forever past to forever future. How can these scriptures be consistent with their "eternal progression" doctrine?

  God is same yesterday, today, forever: Morm. 9:9

No change here, so no eternal progression? When this sentence occurs in the Bible, it is usually believed to refer to forever past as well as forever future, however it could be from "sometime past" to "now" to "forever future".

  God knows all things, being from everlasting to everlasting: Moro. 7:22

This definitely refers to eternity past to eternity future.

  God’s course is one eternal round: D&C 3:2

OK, this could be future only, unless round means it's an unbroken cycle.

  God is endless: D&C 19:4, 10

No end in either past or future? Or could it be no end in space?

  God is infinite, eternal, unchangeable, from everlasting to everlasting: D&C 20:17

Past eternity to future eternity, no eternal progression?

  Endless and Eternal is God’s name: Moses 7:35

OK, maybe a beginning is not considered an end, so one-direction eternity might work.

Am I seriously misinterpreting these statements here?

The premise to your question is that "the word eternal might mean continuing forever from some point in time." Just so you know, this is a fairly ambiguous starting point.

There are some contexts and perspectives where the meaning of the word eternal is only no end, but others where eternal means no beginning and no end. And this is not necessarily specific to LDS theology.

For example: from our perspective as mortals, one's eternal life and salvation begins after the resurrection. Thus, eternal life, in a sense, has a beginning. Theologically, you might argue that that "beginning" is in Christ, who is without beginning and without end, and from God's perspective, it has always been that way and will always be that way because it is an absolute truth.

You see, there are many ways to perceive eternity and to try to understand it and learn from the scriptures. For instance, where one scripture says that God is the same forever, and another says that there is eternal progression, are talking about two different things. One way to approach the scriptures is to try to find contradicting passages, and if you find some, then they must not be true. Another way to read scriptures is to believe that they are true and then adjust our learning according to what they say.

Ultimately, eternity is a concept that our mortal minds cannot fathom, so precise and universal definitions are hard to come by. These minutia do not matter too much to Latter-day Saints. The scale of eternity is humbling to consider, and even being able to comprehend that we cannot comprehend it is enough to help us learn about God.

In short, yes, those scriptures are consistent with LDS doctrine.


Which came first, man or animal? Genesis 1:24-27 states that humans were created after the other animals, and the first man and woman were created simultaneously.

  1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
  1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
  1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
  1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

While Genesis 2:18-22 states that man was created first, then the animals and only then the woman from the man's rib.

  2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
  2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
  2:20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
  2:21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
  2:22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

Which one is the correct order of events?

In order to understand the meaning of any text, you must understand it's purpose. If you don't understand why a bit of text was written, you are quite likely to come away with a bad understanding of what it means.

In this case your question assumes a mis-understanding of the purpose of the two texts in question. If you correct that understanding, it becomes apparent that there is actually no contradiction and nothing that needs resolving from an inerrancy standpoint.

The two chapters you quote from in Genesis serve slightly different purposes. It is quite common on ancient Hebrew literature to repeat parts of a story in different ways to draw out different points. In this case one passage tells us something about the Chronology of events, the second goes on to give us another event that happens to be sandwiched inbetween the last steps of the first event that includes some additional commentary.

If you want to know in what order things were created, Genesis 1 should be your guide.

In Genesis 2, we find out that that (presumably about day 6) God was trying to show Adam that his own personal help-mate was going to be a different kind of creature than the animals, so after he makes Adam but before he makes Eve he parades the rest of the created order before Adam and demonstrates that none of them are like he is. The animals are not made on the spot, there is just a bit of commentary that reminds us that they were created out of the ground. In the process, all the animals get names.

But then we go on to the creation of Eve, made not out of the ground but out of Adam's flesh. This second chapter helps us establish some order or rank to creation as well as lay the foundation for its purpose, not re-sequence the events of creation.


What is Jehovah's Witnesses view of Revelation 20:10 since they do not believe in hell? I know that Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe in hellfire but in that case, how do they interpret scriptures such as Revelation 20:10, which says

  And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and
  brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be
  tormented day and night for ever and ever. (KJV)

According to Jehovah's Witnesses, what is this verse a description of?

To find out what the "lake of fire" is, continue reading down to verses 13 and 14 (KJV):

13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

These verses explain what Jehovah's Witnesses believe. The "lake of fire" means "the second death," which is the condition of eternal destruction. (2 Thessalonians 1:9) As you may notice, it's not the same as hell, because hell is thrown into the lake of fire. Death and hell are destroyed forever.
For more information, see:

What Is Hell? Is It a Place of Eternal Torment?
What Is the Lake of Fire? Is It the Same as Hell or Gehenna?


What is the basis for saying that Aquinas accepted the Immaculate Conception? It's commonly said that Thomas Aquinas did not accept the doctrine of the immaculate conception of Mary.  For example, Wikipedia says:

  Saint Thomas Aquinas refused to concede the Immaculate Conception, on the ground that, unless the Blessed Virgin had at one time or other been one of the sinful, she could not justly be said to have been redeemed by Christ.

The article cites the Summa Theologica, III, Q27, A2, which argues that Mary was sanctified after animation, not before:

  And thus, in whatever manner the Blessed Virgin would have been sanctified before animation, she could never have incurred the stain of original sin: and thus she would not have needed redemption and salvation which is by Christ, of whom it is written (Matthew 1:21): "He shall save His people from their sins." But this is unfitting, through implying that Christ is not the "Saviour of all men," as He is called (1 Timothy 4:10). It remains, therefore, that the Blessed Virgin was sanctified after animation.

But recently, @Geremia made me aware that there is good reason to believe that Aquinas actually did support the immaculate conception of Mary in other writings.

What is the basis for saying that Aquinas did, at some point in his life, believe in the immaculate conception?

St. Thomas's views on the Immaculate Conception went through three phases.cf. also ch. 2, art. 2, § "St. Thomas and the Immaculate Conception" of Mother of the Saviour and Our Interior Life by Fr. Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P.

Phase 1: clear support of it

St. Thomas's clearest support of the Immaculate Conception is in his commentary (1252-6) on Peter Lombard's Sentences (Super Sent., lib. 1 d. 44 q. 1 a. 3 ad 3):

  puritas intenditur per recessum a contrario: et ideo potest aliquid creatum inveniri quo nihil purius esse potest in rebus creatis, si nulla contagione peccati inquinatum sit; et talis fuit puritas beatae virginis, quae a peccato originali et actuali immunis fuit.Purity is increased by withdrawing from its opposite: hence there can be a creature than whom no more pure is possible in creation, if it be free from all contagion of sin: and such was the purity of the Blessed Virgin who was immune from original and actual sin.

Phase 2: grappling with it

Summa Theologica III, written in 1272-3, contains the famous question 27 on the Sanctification of the Blessed Virgin, in which he seems to deny the Immaculate Conception.

Phase 3: return to his original position

Explanation of the Lord's Prayer, petition 5 (Lent 1273):

  …beatae virgini, quae fuit plena gratiae, in qua nullum peccatum fuit.…the Blessed Virgin, who was full of grace, in whom there was no sin.

Commentary on Psalm 18 (1272-3):

  …beata virgine, quae nullam habuit obscuritatem peccati.…the Blessed Virgin, who had no darkness of sin.

He preached in his On the Angelic Salutation (Lent 1273):

  Ipsa (Virgo) omne peccatum vitavit magis quam alius sanctus, praeter Christum. Peccatum enim aut est originale, et de isto fuit mundata in utero; aut mortale aut veniale, et de istis libera fuit. … Sed Christus excellit beatam virginem in hoc quod sine originali conceptus et natus est.
  Beata autem virgo in originali est concepta, sed non nata.For She Herself avoided every sin, more holy than anyone after Christ. For sin is either original, and from this she was cleansed in the womb; or mortal or venial, and from these She was free. … But Christ excelled the Blessed Virgin in this, that He was conceived and born without original (sin). Moreover the the Blessed Virgin was conceived in original (sin), but not born (in it).

The sense of "the Blessed Virgin was conceived in/with original sin (in/cum peccato originali)" is explained by a similar passage of his Compendium Theologiæ cap. 224 ("Sanctification of Christ's Mother") (1272-3), in which he seems to be referring to Sts. Anne's and Joachim's sexual act,* not to the Blessed Virgin's participation in Adam's sin (or lack thereof):*(cf. St. Augustine's theory that the propagation of original sin is due to the concupiscence inherent in the sexual act after the Fall, On Marriage & Concupiscence ch. 27, and this)

  Nec solum a peccato actuali immunis fuit, sed etiam ab originali, speciali privilegio mundata. Oportuit siquidem quod cum peccato originali conciperetur, utpote quae ex utriusque sexus commixtione concepta fuit. Hoc enim privilegium sibi soli servabatur ut virgo conciperet filium Dei. Commixtio autem sexus, quae sine libidine esse non potest post peccatum primi parentis, transmittit peccatum originale in prolem. Similiter etiam quia si cum peccato originali concepta non fuisset, non indigeret per Christum redimi, et sic non esset Christus universalis hominum redemptor, quod derogat dignitati Christi. Est ergo tenendum, quod cum peccato originali concepta fuit, sed ab eo quodam speciali modo purgata fuit.Mary was not only free from actual sin, but she was also, by a special privilege, cleansed from original sin. She had, indeed, to be conceived with original sin, inasmuch as her conception resulted from the commingling of both sexes. For the privilege of conceiving without impairment of virginity was reserved exclusively to her who as a virgin conceived the Son of God. But the commingling of the sexes which, after the sin of our first parent, cannot take place without lust,* transmits original sin to the offspring. Likewise, if Mary had been conceived without original sin, she would not have had to be redeemed by Christ, and so Christ would not be the universal redeemer of men, which detracts from His dignity. Accordingly we must hold that she was conceived with original sin, but was cleansed from it in some special way.

*(cf. Psalm 50:7: "For behold I was conceived in iniquities; and in sins did my mother conceive me.")

See:

Pedro Lumbreras O.P., "Saint Thomas and the Immaculate Conception," Homiletic and Pastoral Review 24, no. 3 (1923): 253-63.    • Book-length response: Hugolinus Storff, O.F.M., The Immaculate Conception: The Teaching of St. Thomas, St. Bonaventure and Bl. J. Duns Scotus on the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary (San Francisco, Calif.: St. Francis Press, 1925).
Norbert del Prado O.P., Divus Thomas et bulla dogmatica "Ineffabilis Deus" (Friburgi Helvetiorum: Ex typis Consociationis sancti Pauli, 1919).


What about all those who just don't know? Romans 10:9

That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

John 14:6

I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

Combining the passages of Romans 10:9 and John 14:6 it can be interpreted that the only way to heaven is by knowing of Christ Jesus, confessing that He is Lord and believing in the Resurrection. If this is indeed the case, what of all those who have never heard of Jesus or simply don't understand who Christ really is? Without first knowing a Christ has indeed lived, died and been resurrected, how can someone make such a confession and believe in something they haven't first heard of or truly understood. I know the year we live in, and I understand how it might, to some, seem unlikely that there are actually people who have never heard anything about Christianity. But there really are people who haven't heard the whole Gospel and some who wouldn't know what the word Gospel meant. What is to be of these people? Some of "these" people rake the neighbors leaves in the fall just to be nice, call you up to watch a game when your dog dies, talk you up when you didn't think you had it in you to meet your future wife etc etc.

Not my personal position, but the Catholic position is "yes, they're OK as long as they behave", recorded in Lumen Gentium (Second Vatican Council, 1964) - emphasis is mine:

  Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things, and as Saviour wills that all men be saved. Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience. Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel.


What is the biblical basis for the belief that Mary is the mother of God? Catholics often refer to Mary, the mother of the Lord Jesus Christ, as “the mother of God.”1 What is the biblical basis for this belief?

1 CCC, §963

Short answer

There is no usage of the title "Mother of God" in the Bible. The title was used for Mary as early as AD 250-280 and was made official church teaching at the Council of Ephesus in 431. Advocates wanted to use that title, as opposed to the alternative "Mother of Christ", to affirm the doctrine of Incarnation (that Jesus Christ is the second person in the Trinity), which has its own biblical basis (e.g. John 1). In other words, the title "Mother of God" is less about Mary and more about Jesus' divinity.

Long answer

Let's start by working backwards from the Catechism of the Catholic Church (which does a decent job of sourcing its theology). All bolded text is my own emphasis.

A few sections after the one you mentioned is an explanation of the devotion of to Mary. CCC §971 explains why she is considered blessed, and why she is given the title "Mother of God"

  CCC §971 "All generations will call me blessed": "The Church's devotion to the Blessed Virgin is intrinsic to Christian worship."515 The Church rightly honors "the Blessed Virgin with special devotion. From the most ancient times the Blessed Virgin has been honored with the title of 'Mother of God,' to whose protection the faithful fly in all their dangers and needs. . . . This very special devotion . . . differs essentially from the adoration which is given to the incarnate Word and equally to the Father and the Holy Spirit, and greatly fosters this adoration."516 The liturgical feasts dedicated to the Mother of God and Marian prayer, such as the rosary, an "epitome of the whole Gospel," express this devotion to the Virgin Mary.517

  515 Lk 1:48; Paul VI, MC 56.
  516 LG 66.
  517 Cf. Paul VI, MC 42; SC 103.

The claim we are interested in is the one that is cited by footnote 516, which cites "LG 66". Looking at the list of abbreviations, we see that this refers to the 66th section of Lumen gentium, promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1964. Section 66 shares much of the reasoning we see in the Catechism.

  66. Placed by the grace of God, as God's Mother, next to her Son, and exalted above all angels and men, Mary intervened in the mysteries of Christ and is justly honored by a special cult in the Church. Clearly from earliest times the Blessed Virgin is honored under the title of Mother of God, under whose protection the faithful took refuge in all their dangers and necessities.(21*) Hence after the Synod of Ephesus the cult of the people of God toward Mary wonderfully increased in veneration and love, in invocation and imitation, according to her own prophetic words: "All generations shall call me blessed, because He that is mighty hath done great things to me".(301) This cult, as it always existed, although it is altogether singular, differs essentially from the cult of adoration which is offered to the Incarnate Word, as well to the Father and the Holy Spirit, and it is most favorable to it. The various forms of piety toward the Mother of God, which the Church within the limits of sound and orthodox doctrine, according to the conditions of time and place, and the nature and ingenuity of the faithful has approved, bring it about that while the Mother is honored, the Son, through whom all things have their being (302) and in whom it has pleased the Father that all fullness should dwell,(303) is rightly known, loved and glorified and that all His commands are observed.

  (21) Sub tuum praesidium
  301 Lk. 1:48.
  302 Cf. Col. 1:15-16.
  303 Col 1:19.

Thus we hit a bit of a dead end as the Catholic Church affirms its usage of the title "Mother of God" not on scripture, but rather the fact that it existed in early works such as Sub tuum praesidium, the oldest surviving hymn to Mary, which has been dated AD 250-280. It was originally written in Greek, with the English text being as follows:

  Beneath your compassion,
  We take refuge, O Mother of God:
  do not despise our petitions in time of trouble:
  but rescue us from dangers,
  only pure, only blessed one.

"Blessed one" in the last line is a reference to Luke 1:48: "For he has looked upon his handmaid’s lowliness; / behold, from now on will all ages call me blessed." This verse was also cited in the CCC and Lumen gentium.

So it's clear from the Catholic Church's lack of scripture on these points in their official doctrines that there is no biblical basis for Mary having the title "Mother of God".

However, we get some insight if we look at when the title "Mother of God" (Greek "Theotokos", alternative translations would be "God-bearer" or "Birth Mother of God") was affirmed at the Council of Ephesus in 431. The principal opponent to this view was Nestorius, who argued that Mary should instead be called "Mother of Christ" (Greek "Christotokos").

Basically, Nestorius rejected the idea that a sinful, human mother could give birth to a sinless, divine Logos (today, the Church teaches the Immaculate Conception of Mary, which solves at least part of his claim). His opponents advocated that Jesus is fully God, the second person of the Trinity (based on scripture like John 1), and advocated the title "Mother of God" to affirm this. To be clear, they mean God the Son, and not all three parts of the Trinity. The council resulted in the decree "Anyone who dares to deny the Holy Virgin the title Theotokos is Anathema!" Nestorius refused to recant and was labeled a heretic.

So to recap:

The title "Mother of God" is not used in scriptures
The Catholic Church recognizes that early Christians used the title, such as in a hymn dated AD 250-280
The Council of Ephesus in 431 declared it anathema to deny Mary the title "Mother of God"
The title was advocated for (as opposed to alternatives like "Mother of Christ") to emphasize the doctrine that Jesus is the second person of the Trinity

So Mary being the "Mother of God" is less about Mary's status and more about Jesus being the second person of the Trinity (and therefore Jesus being God). Thus if Mary is the mother of Jesus, and Jesus is God, then Mary is the Mother of God.


What's a reiki infused rosary? Kind of weird and new agey, but I was looking on etsy.com for handmade rosaries and there are all kinds of ones that are apparently used for new age spiritual purposes.  They look just like regular rosaries (except for the steampunk one), but what is the connection to Catholicism to the sellers of these products.  Are they attempting to subvert devotion to Mary by injecting the powers of darkness or are they a splinter organization from the Catholic Church selling products to their own group members?

P.S. I think I'll be searching for "Catholic Rosary" from now on instead of just "Rosary"!

Bizarre. The user's profile page names the business as FoxRaven Designs. A quick search led me to FoxRaven's website, which claims:

  FoxRaven prayer beads, malas and rosaries are individually hand-crafted and reiki-charged in Connecticut by Maya, a Karuna and Usui Reiki Master.  Maya creates Christian rosaries and prayer beads spanning many faiths, including pagan, islamic, buddhist, yogic and new age spiritualities.

The artist claims to have been "raised in a Roman Catholic/Buddhist environment," (whatever that means) but now professes to be a "Reiki Master and Shamanic Practitioner."

Any connections the artist may have had to the Catholic Church appear to be solely historical.


According to Catholicism, how can a relic help a sick person? I took several holy cards to view and touch relics of the saints.  Now do I keep the relic and pray for someone or give it to the person so that he/she can pray for healing?

How can a relic help a sick person?

From the tone of body of your question, I am presuming that you would like a Catholic response. That is the perspective I am  going to give for you.

Holy Cards touched to the relics of the saint are third class relics.

  The Catholic church divides relics into three classes:

  First-Class Relics: items directly associated with the events of Christ's life (manger, cross, etc.) or the physical remains of a saint (a bone, a hair, skull, a limb, etc.). Traditionally, a martyr's relics are often more prized than the relics of other saints. Parts of the saint that were significant to that saint's life are more prized relics. For instance, King St. Stephen of Hungary's right forearm is especially important because of his status as a ruler. A famous theologian's head may be his most important relic. (The head of St. Thomas Aquinas was removed by the monks at the Cistercian abbey at Fossanova where he died.) If a saint did a lot of traveling, then the bones of his feet may be prized. Catholic teaching prohibits relics to be divided up into small, unrecognizable parts if they are to be used in liturgy (i.e., as in an altar; see the rubrics listed in Rite of Dedication of a Church and an Altar).

  Second-Class Relics: items that the saint owned or frequently used, for example, a crucifix, rosary, book, etc. Again, an item more important in the saint's life is thus a more important relic. Sometimes a second-class relic is a part of an item that the saint wore (a shirt, a glove, etc.) and is known as ex indumentis ("from the clothing").

  Third-Class Relics: any object that is touched to a first- or second-class relic.[38] Most third-class relics are small pieces of cloth, though in the first millennium oil was popular; the Monza ampullae contained oil collected from lamps burning before the major sites of Christ's life, and some reliquaries had holes for oil to be poured in and out again. Many people call the cloth touched to the bones of saints "ex brandea". But ex brandea strictly refers to pieces of clothing that were touched to the body or tombs of the apostles. It is a term that is used only for such; it is not a synonym for a third-class relic.

Many holy cards have a prayer on the back of them invoking the particular saint who's image appears on the front of the holy card. You are quite free to pray this prayer for the intentions for yourself or for the healing (or some other grace) of another person. You are also free to give to someone. If the person you are giving the holy card to is not really into praying, yet freely accepts the holy card from you, it is quite fine that you can do the praying for them. Prayer is never in vain. You could also place the holy card, while praying for a healing on the place of one's suffering. I would suggest that you perhaps try praying a novena to the saint in question at the same time.

I cannot find the story on the internet, but several years ago I was reading life in French of the Little Flower, St. Therese of Lisieux and how she had offered her last Holy Communion, on August 19, 1897, for Fr. Hyacinthe Loyson who had left the priesthood and eventually got married. Some years later an exorcist placed the holy card with the image of St. Therese of the Little Flower on the head of the possessed and and demon admitted to the particular priest, Fr. Hyacinthe had converted and repented of his sins on his death bed and was saved though the intercession of St. Therese of Lisieux. (If anyone knows of a link about this story please place it in here). As you see holy cards and holy images are to be treasured.


What is the basis for the position that only Paul's writings are applicable to the church today? In mid-Acts dispensationalism (a form of hyperdispensationalism), it is taught that only Paul's writings (from Romans to Philemon) are applicable to the church today and that the other parts of the Bible are informational only.

What, specifically, is the logical basis for this position?

Mid-Acts dispensationalist here, and yes, we do believe only Paul's letters are applicable to the church today. (So when I say "we", I mean mid-acts dispensationalists)

The main verse we use is 2 Timothy 2:15:

  Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

Here we are told to "rightly divide" the word of truth. To put it more simply, all of the bible is for us, but not all of it is to us. In order to determine who the author is writing to, you have to look at who they say they are writing to.

If you were to just open your bible and look at a verse, say Genesis 6:14, you might read: "Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt thou make in the ark, and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch."

So, are Christians supposed to go out and build arks? Of course not. But why? If all the bible is for us then why wouldn't we follow this verse? It is because this verse is not to us. Looking at the previous verse tells us, "And God said unto Noah". Likewise, we should use the same logic for every other verse/book.

I'm sure you've heard of the "interesting" laws in Leviticus, such as: you are not allowed to mix certain fabrics. Do Christians today need to follow this verse? No, because that verse was written to those under the law, specifically, those under the dispensation of the law.

Let's move farther into the book, there is a highly quoted verse in Jeremiah 29:11 "For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, saith the Lord, thoughts of peace, and not of evil, to give you an expected end." You've probably seen it on plaques and sold around town. Again, mid-acts dispensationalists believe this verse is not to us because we search for whom the writer is talking to. If we look at the first verse in this same chapter, we see who this verse is talking to "the residue of the elders which were carried away captives, and to the priests, and to the prophets, and to all the people whom Nebuchadnezzar had carried away captive from Jerusalem to Babylon". That description does not fit any of us today, therefore that verse is not for us today.

As you can see, any book in the "Old Testament" is either written to those under the law, or in the dispensation of the law (or prior when reading Genesis).

Another thing we notice is that there is God's chosen people, Israel, and the rest of the world, Gentiles. Looking at the first 4 books written in the "New Testament" (Matt-John) we see that these describe the teachings of Jesus. When Jesus was teaching, everyone he talked to was still "under the law". We see this when Jesus says, "If ye love me, keep my commandments," when responding to the question from the rich man of "what must I do to inherit eternal life". We are also given a clue to Jesus' audience when he says in Matthew 15:24 "But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel." Jesus' message was to Israel. And his apostles' message was to Israel: "These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Matthew 10:5-6). Why did He only want to deal with Israel? Because salvation was of the Jews:"Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews." (John 4:22)

We, today, are not Jews. We are gentiles. So why would we take mail addressed to Jews and apply it to Gentiles?

When we get to Paul and his letters, we see he is writing to us, the Gentiles. Romans 11:13 "For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office". And Romans 15:15-16 "Nevertheless, brethren, I have written the more boldly unto you in some sort, as putting you in mind, because of the grace that is given to me of God, That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost."

Paul clearly tells us who he is writing to.

Looking at Hebrews - Jude, those books were written to "the little flock" or "12 tribes" who are believers during the 70th week of Daniel (See James 1:1) based on the context clues/verses within the books. What I mean is that there are verses that "contradict" what Paul says. But we believe the bible does not contradict, so those books must be talking to different people during a different dispensation. These books talk about "enduring to the end" and "obeying the law" and "if you sin then God is not with you". These are all signs of the New Testament, as described by Jesus and the prophets from the Old Testament. A time when God will write the law on their hearts.

Revelation describes future events, and isn't really doctrine. So, it's hard to say it "applies" to anyone specifically. It's just telling future events, not ways to be saved that should apply to your daily life.

References to show that this isn't only me:

Why Do You Call It Mid-Acts Pauline Dispensational Right Division? by Justin Johnson
Is All the Bible Written For Us? by Justin Johnson
Shorewood Bible Church (IL) statement of beliefs (see #17)


What is known about the Apostle Paul's family? Did Paul's wife travel with him and then he became a widower? Does Pharisee of Pharisees mean that his family goes back several generations, father, grandfather, etc. of Pharisees? What does Roman by birthright mean?

Any speculation about Paul's wife (or lack thereof) is just that, speculation.  Unless there is some authoritative extra Biblical source, we know only that he is, at the time of his writing of I Corinthians, unmarried and the inference is that he has never been married (But each man has his own gift from God. I Cor. 7:7).  As for 'Pharisee of the Pharisees', it is emphasizing that he is/was the "best of the best" as can be seen in the context.  Paul did not brag but did not exhibit false modesty either.
Finally, pertaining to his Roman citizenship, one could be born a citizen, purchase his citizenship or earn his citizenship through some service to Rome.  Paul was born a citizen because his father was a citizen.  The speculation is that his father performed some service for Rome but that is only speculation.


According to Jacobus Arminius's definition of free will, did Pharaoh have free will? Through the first chapters of Exodus up to the literal exodus, God kept telling Moses that he would harden Pharaoh's heart. Does this mean that Pharaoh didn't have (Jacobus Arminius definition of) free will?

It depends on what one means by “free will.”

If, by free will, one means, a person (in this case, Pharaoh) can make free choices ACCORDING to his nature, then yes, Pharaoh had free will. He had a sinful, fallen nature, so he was able to freely act in accordance with that nature—to sin and practice evil.

All who are born in Adam have a fallen nature, free to be what they are: sinners. But no one has the freedom within that fallen nature to not sin, nor to obey God, because their desire is for sin and their mind is corrupt. It requires a NEW NATURE to be able to obey God, and only God can grant that new nature to a person, according to the good pleasure of His sovereign will, to the praise of His glorious grace.

Man fell (in his nature) when Adam sinned, and this act of rebellion was decreed by God from all eternity, even though Adam was truly free to either obey God or disobey God, as in his original state, he did not have a fallen nature and could do what he wanted without the propensity to sin, unlike ourselves (and Pharaoh).

When it says that God hardened Pharaoh’s heart, it doesn’t mean Pharaoh acted against his will; it means that he acted according to his already fallen nature, which was hardened, and so God carried out His will through Pharaoh, to not free the Hebrews upon Moses’ plea, until such a time that God could display His great power and glory against Egypt, which was a type and shadow of bondage to sin (exactly what the sinful nature is). Ultimately, God is control of all things, and if God had freely chosen to show mercy to Pharaoh, he would have. But His purpose for Pharaoh was different.

Romans 9:17-18

  17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have
  raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name
  might be proclaimed in all the earth."
  18 So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.

1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith - On Free Will 1


How is Freemasonry related to Christianity? My community recently found out that one of our local priests is also a Freemason. I'm not entirely sure of what Freemasonry is about and how it relates to Christianity.

What exactly can outsiders know using publicly available sources about what Freemasonry teaches about the relationship between itself and Christianity? Does it teach that they overlap with, are a subset of, or are unrelated with the Christian faith?

Note: Since one of our local priests is one, there must be others who profess Christianity and practice Freemasonry. How do they view the practice in relation to their faith? Where do ultimate allegiances lie for practitioners of both?

How is Freemasonry related to Christianity?

Freemasonry is promotes indifferentism. Indifferentism is the heretical belief that all religions are equally legitimate attempts to explain the truth about God which, but for the truth of His existence, are unexplainable. Such a view makes all truths relative and holds that God can be equally pleased with truth and error.

Freemasonry's teachings and practices also result in syncretism which is the blending of different religious beliefs into a unified whole. This is evidenced most especially by Masonry's religious rituals which gather men of all faiths around a common altar, and place all religious writings along side the Bible on the Masonic altar.


Catholicism - Consequences of not believing in all dogmas What are the consequences according to the Catholic Church for members of the Catholic Church in case of not believing in all dogmas?

For example

Rejecting the notion of the bodily ascension or assumption into heaven (alive) as introduced in 1950
Not believing in Transubstantiation during Eucharist but understanding it as a symbolic act like the Lutherans do

All other teachings and dogmas would be believed.

This is an interesting question. Many people are not particularly clear on what dogmas really are and why they are important. The Catechism of the Catholic Church says:

The dogmas of the faith
88 The Church's Magisterium exercises the authority it holds from Christ to the fullest extent when it defines dogmas, that is, when it proposes, in a form obliging the Christian people to an irrevocable adherence of faith, truths contained in divine Revelation or also when it proposes, in a definitive way, truths having a necessary connection with these.

Therefore, dogmas are those propositions which Christians are obliged (that is, they must) to believe irrevocably. They are truths which, if not believed, bring down the whole edifice of the Faith and make it empty.
The Code of Canon Law further states:

Can. 749 §1. By virtue of his office, the Supreme Pontiff possesses infallibility in teaching when as the supreme pastor and teacher of all the Christian faithful, who strengthens his brothers and sisters in the faith, he proclaims by definitive act that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held.
§2. The college of bishops also possesses infallibility in teaching when the bishops gathered together in an ecumenical council exercise the magisterium as teachers and judges of faith and morals who declare for the universal Church that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held definitively; or when dispersed throughout the world but preserving the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter and teaching authentically together with the Roman Pontiff matters of faith or morals, they agree that a particular proposition is to be held definitively.
§3. No doctrine is understood as defined infallibly unless this is manifestly evident.
Can. 750 §1. A person must believe with divine and Catholic faith all those things contained in the word of God, written or handed on, that is, in the one deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn magisterium of the Church or by its ordinary and universal magisterium which is manifested by the common adherence of the Christian faithful under the leadership of the sacred magisterium; therefore all are bound to avoid any doctrines whatsoever contrary to them.
§2. Each and every thing which is proposed definitively by the magisterium of the Church concerning the doctrine of faith and morals, that is, each and every thing which is required to safeguard reverently and to expound faithfully the same deposit of faith, is also to be firmly embraced and retained; therefore, one who rejects those propositions which are to be held definitively is opposed to the doctrine of the Catholic Church.
Can. 751 Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.

That is to say, the Supreme Pontiff may "proclaim by definitive act" or an Ecumenical Council may "declare (...) that a doctrine (...) is to be held definitely," or else all bishops may "agree" that a doctrine "is to be held definitely"; and such a "definite" doctrine must, by force of Canon 750, be believed by all, since they are required to safeguard and expound on the Deposit of the Faith — otherwise they would not be declared definitely.
Finally, Canon 751 defines heresy as a baptised Christian refusing to believe those definite teachings, which are to be believe "with divine and Catholic faith." In particular, refusing to believe in the Real Presence (as the Reformed do, but not the Lutherans, who believe in Consubstantiation rather than Transubstantiation) means denying the Sacramental and saving power of Holy Communion, which is a very grave matter to Catholics as a whole.
As for the Assumption of Our Lady (the one defined in 1950 by the Apostolic Constitution Munificentissimus Deus), it was the result of the consensus of all Bishops, even though it was defined by the Holy Father. Here is the relevant passage:

And, since we were dealing with a matter of such great moment and of such importance, we considered it opportune to ask all our venerable brethren in the episcopate directly and authoritatively that each of them should make known to us his mind in a formal statement. Hence, on May 1, 1946, we gave them our letter "Deiparae Virginis Mariae," a letter in which these words are contained: "Do you, venerable brethren, in your outstanding wisdom and prudence, judge that the bodily Assumption of the Blessed Virgin can be proposed and defined as a dogma of faith? Do you, with your clergy and people, desire it?"

But those whom "the Holy Spirit has placed as bishops to rule the Church of God"(4) gave an almost unanimous affirmative response to both these questions. This "outstanding agreement of the Catholic prelates and the faithful,"(5) affirming that the bodily Assumption of God's Mother into heaven can be defined as a dogma of faith, since it shows us the concordant teaching of the Church's ordinary doctrinal authority and the concordant faith of the Christian people which the same doctrinal authority sustains and directs, thus by itself and in an entirely certain and infallible way, manifests this privilege as a truth revealed by God and contained in that divine deposit which Christ has delivered to his Spouse to be guarded faithfully and to be taught infallibly.(6)

That is to say, the definition of the Dogma of the Assumption showcases the agreement of the Church, which by Christ's promise, has been protected from error through the action of the Holy Spirit; and denying this dogma implies necessarily that the Church can and does err and is thus not protected from error, falsifying the Christ's words in Mt 16:18, and putting in check all other doctrines which the Church holds, from the Trinity to the Resurrection to the remission of sins and salvation.


Were Christians in the Roman Empire known to rescue abandoned babies? I've read in a Christian publication that one of the things that distinguished early Christian groups in the Roman empire was that they would rescue babies that had been abandoned by their parents.

In Rome, it was considered acceptable to abandon a newborn to the elements if the family (specifically the father) decided not to raise it. Allegedly, Christians would collect these infants and raise them in their community.

What are the sources for this claim, if any?

The Encyclopedia of Ancient Christianity says, in its entry on "Child":

  Christians took in these exposed children to save them, though often they could do nothing more than bury them, as the tombs of many children and inscriptions in the catacombs attest (Diehl II, 142–143); in some cases consecrated virgins (Aug., Ep. 98) or benevolent wealthy families educated them.

The first reference is to E. Diehl's Inscriptiones Latinae Christianae Veteres, a highly regarded collection of ancient Christian inscriptions in Latin.  The second is to Augustine's Epistle to Boniface, of which the relevant section reads:

  Again, sometimes foundlings which heartless parents have exposed in order to their being cared for by any passer-by, are picked up by holy virgins, and are presented for baptism by these persons, who neither have nor desire to have children of their own (§6)

Care for abandoned children by Christians continued into the Middle Ages.  The Encyclopedia continues:

  After Constantine, laws began to protect these abandoned children, defending them as free persons (CJ VIII, 52,3–4). Later it was largely monasteries
  that assumed the burden of educating these children, establishing conditions for their admission to a convent; orphans were accepted unconditionally (Basil, Reg. Maior, 15). [...]

  At the beginning of the Middle Ages the most common way of educating exposed or abandoned children was begun: in 787 Dateus, archpresbyter of Milan, donated
  a house near the church of S. Salvatore to protect them: the first brephotrophium.


According to Catholicism, were animals created in the image of anything? Humans are made in the image of God, but what about the animals?

What are the animals in the image of?

Is there any Roman Catholic doctrine on such a question?

The short answer is that all creatures, even the humblest, bear a certain resemblance to their Creator. However, of all the creatures we are familiar with on earth, only man can be said to be “in God’s own image” (to paraphrase Gen. 1:27).
I will now explain in greater detail.
All creatures bear a resemblance to their Creator
The first thing to keep in mind is that all creatures bear a certain similarity to their Creator. This occurs, because, as St. Thomas Aquinas says, causes always produce effects that are similar to themselves. For example, when the stove causes the water to boil, the stove communicates its own heat to the water. When a mother and father beget a child, they communicate their human nature to that child.*
In a similar way, when God creates any creature whatsoever, even something humble like a stone, at the very least He communicates His being to that creature. (See Catechism of the Catholic Church [CCC] 301.) Because they receive their being from there Creator, all creatures all have a share in the properties of the Creator’s own being: for example, goodness, truth (i.e., intelligibility), and beauty.
(These ideas are probably best expressed in St. Thomas Aquinas’ Summa theologiae [S.Th.]. See, for instance, Ia. q. 44, especially article 1. Regarding the similarity of the effect to the cause, see Summa contra gentiles [SCG], Book 2, Ch. 36, No. 5. Regarding goodness and the properties of being, see Ia. q. 5, especially article 1.)
Animals (nephesh) have sensitive life in common with us
Different creatures, however, participate in the perfections of their Creator in differing degrees. The humblest creatures, such as stones, participate merely in God’s being.
Living creatures participate not only in His being, but also in His life. Animals in particular enjoy a a degree of participation in God’s life that allows them to acquire sensitive knowledge (the kind of knowledge that only requires material senses) and sensitive appetite (the natural attraction that animals feel to things that benefit them). (For a fuller overview of what “life” is, and its different levels, see S.Th. q. 18, a. 3.)
The Bible calls creatures with this kind of life as nephesh (sometimes translated “soul” but better rendered as “living being”). For example, the animals referred to in Genesis 2:19 are nephesh:

Now out of the ground the LORD God had formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature (nephesh), that was its name (ESV).

Being nephesh is something that man has in common with the other animals:

then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature (lenephesh) (Gen 2:7).

Possessing animal (sensitive) life is clearly a more perfect participation in the life of God than that found in plants or nonliving creatures. Genesis does not, however, say that animals are created “in God’s own image;” that privilige is reserved to man alone, as it requires an even more perfect participation in that life.
What it means to be “in God’s own image”: having rational life (ruach)
Man, in addition to animal life (to being nephesh), possesses rational life. As a consequence, he is capable of truly rational knowledge and true acts of love.
Genesis shows the uniqueness of this kind of life through the image of breath or wind (neshamah or ruach):

then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath [the word used derives from neshamah] of life, and the man became a living creature. (Gen. 2:7).

Breath and wind are, however, also images for spirit (that is, for beings that are by nature not dependent on matter for their existence, like men, angels, and God):

And the Spirit [the word is ruach, which can mean “spirit” or “wind”] of God was hovering over the face of the waters (Gen 1:2).

It is only the creatures with rational (that is, spiritual) life that can be said to be “in God’s own image.” That is why Gen. 1:26 only attributes this privilege to man:

Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”

Likewise, in the following verse:

So God created man [understood in the inclusive sense of “mankind”] in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them (Gen. 1:27).

(As a side note, since men and women participate equally in rational life, it follows that we are both equally in the image of God.)
It should be noted that it is not exactly the human intellect alone that causes man to be in the image of God. Rather, we are in His image because we possess rational life and everything that such a life entails. Creatures that possess rational life also possess animal and vegetative life, as well as being. Having rational life simply means that we participate in God’s Divine Life to a much greater degree than sub-human creatures.
As the Catechism puts it,

Endowed with “a spiritual and immortal” soul, the human person is “the only creature on earth that God has willed for its own sake.” From his conception, he is destined for eternal beatitude (No. 1703; the quotations are from Gaudium et spes 14 § 2 and 24 § 3.).

Man is said to be in God’s “image,” because he is capable of actions that make him strikingly similar to his Creator: he can know things as they really are (thanks to his intellect), and he can freely love things (thanks to his will). No sub-human animal, not even an anthropoid ape, has any ability that comes close to this.

* It should be specified that, because human beings are spiritual creatures, it is beyond the capacity of human parents to produce a new human being. The best that they can do is prepare the necessary “matter” that can receive a human soul; it is God, however, Who directly creates each human being as such.


Why did God choose Mary? The Blessed Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, was conceived full of sanctifying grace and free of any stain of original sin. In Catholicism, this is called the Immaculate Conception. She was conceived in this way through the merits of Jesus Christ: by His sacrifice, she was preserved from original sin.

Furthermore, and strictly owing to a special privilege from God, she lived a life entirely free from sin, and it seems that she could not have done so otherwise:

  If any one say that man once justified can during his whole life avoid all sins, even venial ones, as the Church holds that the Blessed Virgin did by special privilege of God, let him be anathema."

First, a minor clarification. By "special privilege", does that quotation mean the very fact that Mary was born without original sin, or is it a separate gift?

I have heard of (or can imagine) some explanations for why Mary merited the reception of her graces, such as:

because of her perfect devotion to the Lord, or because of a natural disposition to be perfectly devoted to the Lord.
because she was chosen by God, and that is merit enough.
because she was Mother of God, and no other woman could have been chosen in her place, since no other woman was Mary.
we do not know, because this was never revealed.

But without the backing of what may be a fair bit of research, all of these options are idle speculation. According to the Catholic Church, why did God choose Mary, from all eternity, to be the Blessed Mother of His Son?

All Nations Call Her Blessed

Mary has been one of the most common names for women throughout the last couple thousand years for good reason: this is the name of the Mother of God. She has been called the God-bearer (Theotokos), the Blessed Virgin/Mother, the Mater Dolorosa, the Second Eve, the Queen of Heaven, the (Black) Madonna, Notre Dame, and the Woman for All Seasons. Her name has been sung on the lips of numerous choirs (Ave Maria), and she has been portrayed in art more than any other woman in history.1 She is a symbol of hope and liberation for many nations. Concerning Hispanic culture, one distinguished commentator has observed that

  ...the Virgin of Guadalupe symbolizes the entire coherence of Mexico,
  body and soul.... [Her] image ... has become the unofficial, the
  private flag of Mexicans.2

Writing c. 305 A.D., St. Methodius extolled her, saying:

  Hail to you for ever, you virgin mother of God, our unceasing joy, for
  unto you do I again return. You are the beginning of our feast; you
  are its middle and end; the pearl of great price that belongest unto
  the kingdom; the fat of every victim, the living altar of the bread of
  life. Hail, you treasure of the love of God. Hail, you fount of the
  Son's love for man. Hail, you overshadowing mount of the Holy Ghost.
  You gleamed, sweet gift-bestowing mother, of the light of the sun; you
  gleamed with the insupportable fires of a most fervent charity,
  bringing forth in the end that which was conceived of you before the
  beginning, making manifest the mystery hidden and unspeakable, the
  invisible Son of the Father— the Prince of Peace, who in a marvellous
  manner showed Himself as less than all littleness. Wherefore, we pray
  you, the most excellent among women, who boastest in the confidence of
  your maternal honours, that you would unceasingly keep us in
  remembrance. O holy mother of God, remember us, I say, who make our
  boast in you, and who in hymns august celebrate the memory, which will
  ever live, and never fade away.3

Kings and queens have looked to her for comfort and guidance. Mary represents "the unbreakable link between Jewish and Christian history, between the First Covenant within which she was born and the Second Covenant to which she gave birth."4 All generations have indeed called her blessed.5

What Makes Mary So Special?

Luke points out in his Gospel that St. Joseph was of the house of David.6 But theologians and scholars have speculated through the centuries why this was of importance to the narrative, since Jesus was conceived without the seed of Joseph. It is agreed that it is important for Jesus to have this lineage in order to fulfill prophecy as the Jewish Messiah (Christ), but does this 'count' if the lineage is reckoned through the human father, when Jews generally consider the Jewish faith to be matri-lineal and Joseph was not involved in the conception? This led some early Fathers and scholars to propose that Mary is also of the house and lineage of David.7

Early Church Fathers also saw Mary foretold in the Old Testament, especially in the woman of the Song of Solomon (which is where the title 'Black Madonna' comes from) and in the woman of virtue/valor in the book of Proverbs.8 St. Jerome even saw the Song of Solomon 4:12-13 as evidence of Mary's perpetual virginity:

  That which is shut up and sealed reminds us of the mother of our Lord
  who was a mother and a Virgin. Hence it was that no one before or
  after our Saviour was laid in his new tomb, hewn in the solid rock.
  And yet she that was ever a Virgin is the mother of many
  virgins.9

But why was she chosen? Pius IX decreed concerning the Blessed Virgin Mary (and was partially quoted earlier),

  All are aware with how much diligence this doctrine of the Immaculate
  Conception of the Mother of God has been handed down, proposed and
  defended by the most outstanding religious orders, by the more
  celebrated theological academies, and by very eminent doctors in the
  sciences of theology. All know, likewise, how eager the bishops have
  been to profess openly and publicly, even in ecclesiastical
  assemblies, that Mary, the most holy Mother of God, by virtue of the
  foreseen merits of Christ, our Lord and Redeemer, was never subject to
  original sin, but was completely preserved from the original taint,
  and hence she was redeemed in a manner more sublime.10

Simply put, God found favor with her and blessed her by His grace.

Further Speculation

To further speculate, we can also look at her parents, Joachim and Anna. Early theologians and scholars have speculated that Mary was born to Joachim and Anna as a result of their fervent prayers in their old age.11

Catholic Christians still say these words in the liturgy on the Nativity of Mary:

  Your nativity, O Virgin, has proclaimed joy to the whole universe. The
  Sun of Righteousness, Christ our God, has shone from you, O Theotokos.
  By annulling the curse he bestowed a blessing. By destroying death he
  has granted us eternal life. (Troparion)

  By your nativity, O most pure virgin, Joachim and Anna are freed from
  barrenness; Adam and Eve from the corruption of death. And we, your
  people, freed from the guilt of sin, celebrate and sing to you: The
  barren woman gives birth to the Theotokos, the Nourisher of our Life.
  (Kontakion)

The Catholic Church has historically taught that Mary was presented to the temple and had made a vow of virginity (which is the reason for her protest to the angel in Luke 1:34).

  As Joachim belonged to the royal family of David, so Anna is supposed
  to have been a descendant of the priestly family of Aaron; thus Christ
  the Eternal King and Priest sprang from both a royal and priestly
  family.12

Conclusion

From a Catholic perspective, if God chose to preserve Mary from original sin prior to her birth, to what in her life can we point as a reason for choosing her? According to Pope Pius IX, "by virtue of the foreseen merits of Christ, our Lord and Redeemer." This is truly the answer given by the Roman Catholic Church.

1 Jaroslav Pelikan. Mary Through the Centuries: Her Place in the History of Culture. (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1998), 2.

2 Richard Rodriguez. Days of Obligation: An Argument With My Mexican Father. (New York: Penguin Books, 1993), 16-20.

3 Methodius, "Oration Concerning Simeon and Anna On the Day that They Met in the Temple", XIV, translated by William R. Clark. From Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 6. Edited by Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1886) Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight. Available on New Advent.

Also cf. Philip Schaff. Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 6: Fathers of the Third Century: Gregory Thaumaturgus, Dionysius the Great, Julius Africanus, Anatolius, and Minor Writers, Methodius, Arn. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1885), XIV, 393. Publicly available on CCEL.

4 Pelikan, 25.

5 cf. Luke 1:48, where Mary sings, "Surely, from now on all generations will call me blessed." Some manuscripts of Luke 1:28 also record the angel Gabriel as saying, "Blessed are you among women" in addition to pointing out that she is "favored" by God and that God is with her.

6 cf. Luke 1:27.

7 Pelikan, 24-25. Specifically, cf. St. Augustine and later in history, Annius of Viterbo, who both made similar propositions concerning the lineage of Heli/Joachim/Eliachim.

8 Ibid., 25. cf. Song of Solomon 1:5, which in the Latin Vulgate is rendered 'Nigra sum sed formosa' ("I am black but comely"). Interestingly, the Hebrew text actually says that she is "black and beautiful" (not but), which is also indicated in the Septuagint ("Μέλαινά εἰμι καὶ καλή"). This has made Mary a powerful symbol for many non-white cultures, especially Hispanics.

Also cf. Proverbs 31:10, which in the Latin Vulgate reads 'Mulierem fortem quis inveniet?' ("The woman of valor, who will find?").

9 Jerome. Against Jovinianus (Book I). Translated by W.H. Fremantle, G. Lewis and W.G. Martley. From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 6. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1893.) Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight, 31. Available on New Advent.

10 Constitution Ineffabilis Deus of December 8, 1854, under section entitled "Testimonies of the Catholic World." Available on New Advent.

11 Specifically St. John Damascene, St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Germanus of Constantinople, and  St. Fulbert of Chartres. "The [apocryphal] Protoevangelium [of James] gives the following account: In Nazareth there lived a rich and pious couple, Joachim and Hannah. They were childless. When on a feast day Joachim presented himself to offer sacrifice in the temple, he was repulsed by a certain Ruben, under the pretext that men without offspring were unworthy to be admitted. Whereupon Joachim, bowed down with grief, did not return home, but went into the mountains to make his plaint to God in solitude. Also Hannah, having learned the reason of the prolonged absence of her husband, cried to the Lord to take away from her the curse of sterility, promising to dedicate her child to the service of God. Their prayers were heard; an angel came to Hannah and said: "Hannah, the Lord has looked upon thy tears; thou shalt conceive and give birth and the fruit of thy womb shall be blessed by all the world". The angel made the same promise to Joachim, who returned to his wife. Hannah gave birth to a daughter whom she called Miriam (Mary)." cf. New Advent article on Anne/Hannah. An astute reader cannot help but see the similarity with the biblical account of the birth of Samuel.

12 cf. Aug., Consens. Evang., l. II, c. 2


Is intercessory prayer valid? Acts 13:48 Good News Bible "and those who had been chosen for eternal life became believers."  If believers are chosen then intercessory prayer for unbelievers would seem to be futile.  What am I missing?

What if your prayer for them is part of the "choosing process"?  If you are prompted (or commanded) to pray, then pray.
What God has foreknown, He has predetermined in the creative act.  Will we be a part of His plan or will we step aside?  Jesus did not do many miracles in Nazareth, the place of His upbringing, because of their little faith.
For example, God has determined that creation and Law declare His glory (Psalm 19).  This is not a request...it is a statement, but if we will not willingly do it then inanimate nature will drown out our voice.  God will be glorified!

As he was drawing near—already on the way down the Mount of Olives—the whole multitude of his disciples began to rejoice and praise God with a loud voice for all the mighty works that they had seen, saying, “Blessed is the King who comes in the name of the Lord! Peace in heaven and glory in the highest!” And some of the Pharisees in the crowd said to him, “Teacher, rebuke your disciples.” He answered, “I tell you, if these were silent, the very stones would cry out.” - Luke 19:37-40

As is well said by Ron Kenoly, "Ain't gonna let no rock out-praise me"
What God has determined to be contingent upon our prayers is contingent upon our prayers.  Such knowledge is too lofty for us, we cannot attain it...obey.


Are any Greek or Roman gods mentioned by name in the Bible? Are any Greek or Roman gods mentioned by name in the Bible?

Also, are any Greek or Roman mythological characters or creatures mentioned in the Bible?

Yes, several different Romans and Greek gods are mentioned.  Artemis, Zeus, and Hermes are all Greek gods and Ashteroth was known as Astarte or Aphrodite to the Greeks.
Artemis was also known to the Romans as Diana and Ashteroth was known to them as Venus.

When they heard this they were enraged and were crying out, “Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!”  Acts 19:28 ESV
Barnabas they called Zeus, and Paul, Hermes, because he was the chief speaker.  Acts 14:12 ESV
After three months we set sail in a ship that had wintered in the island, a ship of Alexandria, with the twin gods as a figurehead.  Acts 28:11 ESV  [This apparently refers to Castor and Pollux.]
For Solomon went after Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians, and after Milcom the abomination of the Ammonites.  1 Kings 11:5 ESV

List of false gods mentioned in the Bible.


When was the first occurrence of Jesus being used as a name? I would suspect that Jesus himself was the first to have the name "Jesus", but was there anyone before him with the same name? In other words, was the name completely unique when the Angel Gabriel told Mary to name her son "Jesus" or had the name been bestowed to someone else before? Today, the name is not rare (especially in some cultures), but was it so back then also?

Well, to be accurate, are you asking about the Greek name Ἰησοῦς (English transliteration: Iēsous), or the actual Anglicized (English) name, "Jesus"? Or, are you referring to his likely Hebrew/ Aramaic name, יֵשׁוּעַ (English transliteration: Yeshu'a)?
I suspect you're probably talking about his Hebrew/ Aramaic name since that was what he would have been named --- and that is the name that actually has relevance to the phrase, "...he shall save his people from their sins."
So, who was the first to be called יֵשׁוּעַ? Well, I can tell you who was the first to be named יֵשׁוּעַ in the Tanakh, but you must understand that the Tanakh does not record the name of every Israelite who has ever been born. So, there may have been people named יֵשׁוּעַ even before the first one to possess that name as recorded in the Tanakh. In any case, the first one to be named יֵשׁוּעַ in the Tanakh (if I am not mistaken) is recorded in Ezra 2:2:

who came with Zerubbabel, Jeshua, Nehemiah, Seraiah, Reelaiah, Mordecai, Bilshan, Mispar, Bigvai, Rehum, Baanah. The number of the men of the people of Israel: (JPS Translation)

There was an early Hebrew variant of the name יֵשׁוּעַ, it being יְהוֹשׁוּעַ (English transliteration: Yehoshu'a). This was the name of the one we known in English as "Joshua son of Nun." Both the names יֵשׁוּעַ and יְהוֹשׁוּעַ were transliterated into the Greek Septuagint by the proper name Ἰησοῦς.
Compare Nehemiah 8:17:

יֵשׁוּעַ בִּן־נוּן
Ἰησοῦ υἱοῦ Ναυη

with 1 Kings 16:34:

יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בִּן-נוּן
Ιησου υἱοῦ Ναυη

For this reason, the KJV translators mistook "Jesus" for "Joshua" in Acts 7:45:

Which also our fathers that came after brought in with Jesus into the possession of the Gentiles, whom God drave out before the face of our fathers, unto the days of David;

The passage is not referring to the Lord Jesus, but rather, Joshua son of Nun (Yehoshu'a bin Nun), the successor of Moshe, who brought the Israelites into the promised land.
As an aside, the Hebrew/ Aramaic names יֵשׁוּעַ and יְהוֹשׁוּעַ are actually quite common in the Jewish culture. For example, you can see many people by those names in the Talmud.


Are there any denominations that give official advice on how to win atheists for Christ who are very strong in philosophy, logic and skepticism? This is intended to be a question of general applicability, but in all honesty, I'm asking inspired by concrete YouTube channels that promote atheism, most notably, CosmicSkeptic and RationalityRules. These are examples of a special category of atheists that stand out for their remarkable understanding of philosophy, logical thinking, and skepticism, as well as their outstanding debating skills, even against renowned Christian apologists. Just to give you an idea, Alex O'Connor, the founder of CosmicSkeptic, has debated William Lane Craig, Frank Turek, Jonathan McLatchie, and several other defenders of the faith.
When it comes to atheists of this caliber, I see no possible way of evangelizing them through purely intellectual/argumentative means. Not even the best apologists have managed to do so. If I were asked my honest opinion, I would say that the only thing that can turn them around would be a supernatural, "road to Damascus" kind of experience. I see no other way.
But leaving my personal opinions aside, I would like to know if there are any denominations that provide official advice on how to evangelize highly intellectual and well-spoken atheists and skeptics. What recommendations do they give to win strong atheists for Christ? Or is this category of atheists simply a lost cause and the only thing that we can do is to throw up our hands, leave them alone and hope for the best?

As Ken Graham says, you are probably going to find much more in specific ministries than official church programs.
Within Catholicism, the Word on Fire ministry has focused to a significant degree on intellectual atheists. You can see here
https://www.wordonfire.org/resources/browse/topic/atheism/
for some resources from them on this topic.
However, when you say "I see no possible way of evangelizing them through purely intellectual/argumentative means." I think this is right. Very rarely, an atheist might change to belief in God through entirely abstract argumentation, but at that point, they still lack the experiential reference points that, IMHO, are more important. You're not really fighting the intellectual beliefs. Yet, I think removing intellectual obstacles to an ongoing relationship with God is usually going to be important, either way.


Is there Scriptural Evidence that Moses had a command that made it Lawful for a Man to Divorce his Wife? From Jesus' answer in this Gospel passage,

  Teaching about Divorce Mark 10:1-3 (RSVCE)
  10 And he left there and went to the region of Judea and beyond the Jordan, and crowds
  gathered to him again; and again, as his custom was, he taught them. 2
  And Pharisees came up and in order to test him asked, “Is it lawful
  for a man to divorce his wife?” 3 He answered them, “What did Moses
  command you?”

is there scriptural evidence to show that Moses had a command that made it Lawful for a Man to Divorce his Wife?

This question was prompted by The seriousness of sin changed?.

If Moses commanded [from God], it would seem that God had made a reversal twice: After establishing marriage in Gan Eden, the reversal with Moses, and a reversal back again with Jesus.

Moses did in fact allow divorce, it was not a law only a permission.

It was permitted here;

  Deuteronomy 24:1-4 KJV  When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give [it] in her hand, and send her out of his house.  And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's [wife]. And [if] the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth [it] in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her [to be] his wife; Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that [is] abomination before the Lord: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the Lord thy God giveth thee [for] an inheritance.

Jesus however said:

  Matthew 5:31 and 32  KJV It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

and:

  Matthew 19:3 through 9  KJV The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

So from this we see that Divorce is a man made law, and not permitted by God.

Many read:

  Matthew 19:9  And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

To say; that it is okay to divorce a spouse for Adultery, while other read it to say; that if a man divorce his wife, unless she has already committed adultery he causes her to commit adultery.

You must make your own decision  as to how that Scripture reads.