Was Augustine opposed to the death penalty? In Henry Chadwick's translation of the Confessions, I find him making a surprising claim:

  Like most of the Church Fathers, Augustine was against capital punishment. (page 21)

The context is Augustine's critique of the orator who uses his skill of persuasion without regard for the outcome:

  A man enjoying a reputation for eloquence takes his positions before a human judge with a crowd of men standing round and attacks his opponent with ferocious animosity.  He is extremely vigilant in precautions against some error in language, but is indifferent to the possibility that the emotional force of his mind may bring about a man's execution.

I see nothing there indicating that Augustine is opposed to capital punishment.  And the City of God, Book 1, Chapter 21, suggests the opposite position:

  The same divine law which forbids the killing of a human being allows certain exceptions, as when God authorizes killing by a general law or when He gives an explicit commission to an individual for a limited time. Since the agent of authority is but a sword in the hand, and is not responsible for the killing, it is in no way contrary to the commandment, “Thou shalt not kill” to wage war at God’s bidding, or for the representatives of the State’s authority to put criminals to death, according to law or the rule of rational justice. [emphasis added]

Henry Chadwick has forgotten more about Augustine than I will ever know, so surely there is some basis for his claim that Augustine was against capital punishment.  So:

Do other writings of Augustine indicate an opposition to capital punishment?
Did his views change over the course of his life?
Did he accept capital punishment in theory, but oppose it in practice?

Henry Chadwick translates the relevant passage:

  A man enjoying a reputation for eloquence takes his position before a human judge with a crowd of men standing round and attacks his opponent with ferocious animosity. He is extremely vigilant in precautions against some error in language, but is indifferent to the possibility that the emotional force of his mind may bring about a man's execution.36

Here, Henry gives the clear impression that Augustine's illustration is alluding to the possibility of a real execution.

However, J.G. Pilkington renders the passage this way:

  When a man seeking for the reputation of eloquence stands before a human judge while a thronging multitude surrounds him, inveighs against his enemy with the most fierce hatred, he takes most vigilant heed that his tongue slips not into grammatical error, but takes no heed lest through the fury of his spirit he cut off a man from his fellow-men.

And Edward Bouverie Pusey renders it:

  In quest of the fame of eloquence, a man standing before a human judge, surrounded by a human throng, declaiming against his enemy with fiercest hatred, will take heed most watchfully, lest, by an error of the tongue, he murder the word "human being"; but takes no heed, lest, through the fury of his spirit, he murder the real human being.

Both of these translators are giving us Augustine's portrayal of a man whose unbridled anger destroys his brother in the same sense Jesus explains in Matthew 5:21-22

Conclusion

Based on Henry Chadwick's likely misunderstanding of an important detail in Augustine's illustration, together with the lack of citation for his claim in the footnote, I wouldn't put a great deal of faith in his having accurately remembered Augustine's position on capital punishment. Perhaps he is inadvertently giving us his own.


According to the Catholic Church, can a tattoo be considered a sacramental? According to the Catholic Church, can a tattoo be considered a sacramental?

I have a friend who is thinking about getting a tattoo on each shoulder, containing the image of the Medal of St. Benedict. There are several different blessings for this medal now. Any priest may bless the Medal of St. Benedict and some blessings have the word image in lieu of the word medal.

If a priest were to bless this image would it be considered a sacrament, according to the Catholic Church.

Although I am bring up the case of the Medal of St. Benedict, any other image in use in this question could hold also.

In the case of lack of official Catholic
Church teachings on this subject could a priest simply bless such holy images? Is there any Church prohibitions against this?

Are priests allowed to bless tattoos? After all there are also blessings for people in the Rituale Romanum!

Here follows the image of the  Medal of St. Benedict that my friend is considering.

St. Benedict Medal

Interestingly, the only time the word medals is mentioned in the ARTICLE 1 - SACRAMENTALS of the CCC is under the Popular Piety section,

(italic is mine)

  Popular piety

  1674 Besides sacramental liturgy and sacramentals, catechesis must
  take into account the forms of piety and popular devotions among the
  faithful. The religious sense of the Christian people has always found
  expression in various forms of piety surrounding the Church's
  sacramental life, such as the veneration of relics, visits to
  sanctuaries, pilgrimages, processions, the stations of the cross,
  religious dances, the rosary, medals, etc.

This paragraph is giving the impression that not even medals can be considered sacramentals!

There is also an etc in the end of the paragraph sufficiently ambiguous.

Better consult the Compendium of the CCC

(italic is mine)

  351. What are the sacramentals?

  1667-1672
  1677-1678

  These are sacred signs instituted by the Church to sanctify different
  circumstances of life. They include a prayer accompanied by the sign
  of the cross and other signs. Among the sacramentals which occupy an
  important place are: blessings, which are the praise of God and a
  prayer to obtain his gifts, the consecration of persons and the
  dedication of things for the worship of God.

Can a tattoo be considered a thing? Don't know.

Better ask a "tattooed millennial priest":

Can tattoos be sacramentals? [Article from the CNA]

  “Sacramentals, used well, keep us close to the grace of Christ given
  to us in the seven sacraments, and receive their graces by the
  authority that Christ gives his bride, the Church, when she asks for
  his help. When the Church asks Christ for graces, He never refuses his
  bride,”

and

  “This means that sacramentals only work when they are done according
  to the rules of the Church. If we want to ask Christ for these graces,
  we need to make sure we do so authentically as the Church, obediently
  accepting the rules she sets down. It's clear in Canon Law that the
  Apostolic See alone has the authority to establish sacramentals and
  define the criteria for their use [c. 1167],”

and

  "However, he added, it is possible that tattoos could be
  “sacramentals” in a broader sense of the word."

which means in a strict sense they are not.

He keeps talking,

  “A permanent image, engraved on the skin, could certainly serve as a
  constant, physical reminder of our new life in Christ. The image of a
  rosary, a cross, or other sacramental on our skin could lead us
  frequently to pray, to desire the seven sacraments more, and to think
  and act in communion with the Church,” he said.

and finally,

  “So, while a tattoo could not fulfill the requirements to be a proper
  sacramental in itself, if used in discernment and good faith it could
  certainly provide similar benefits and be helpful in the pursuit of
  holiness.”

And here we have the confirmation that tattoos can not be considered sacramentals.

I can't confirm a tattoo can be blessed without being considered a sacramental.


Can I say, "Bless You" to our Catholic priest? Our priest does such a great job at our church. I shook his hand after church and said "Bless you".  I meant to say "Bless you for all you do", but was it offensive to bless a priest?

"Bless you!" is short for "[May God] bless you!"
So, you are not blessing a priest, but asking God to.


How should/must Catholics handle, transport, and use holy water? Some shrines, like the Shrine of Padre Pio Chapel in Quezon City, distribute holy water in bottles for Catholics who want some. So far the only guideline I saw in getting holy water from a basin is that to get one, you use a clean pitcher to scoop the water and pour it into the bottle. You do not sink the bottle into the basin of holy water until it gets full. But that is all.

How should/must observant Catholics handle, transport, and use holy water such that it won't get desecrated?

Thanks!

Your question really deals with that of all blessed objects. Holy water is a sacramental of the Catholic Church.

Holy water should be treated like any other blessed sacramental object that is at our disposal!

  As Catholics, we are accustomed to having religious objects “blessed,” which signifies the permanent sanctification and dedication of an object for some sacred purpose. I think every weekend someone asks me as well as the other priests to bless a rosary, a statue, or some other religious object. Once a religious object is blessed and dedicated for divine worship or veneration, it must be treated with reverence and must not be used in either an improper or profane way (cf. Code of Canon Law, #1171).

  What happens when the rosary or statue breaks and is irreparable? Or, when the palm dries out, and the following Palm Sunday provides us with new palm? The basic rule for the disposition of these items is to burn or to bury them.
  - Fr. Joseph Edattu, VC

Personally, I have some holy water in my home and in my car at all times. I am sure that many priests do this also, as it is never known as to when one might have a need for it. I even know of one priest that carries holy water on his person in a holy water sprinkler the size of a pen!


Were there really only twelve apostles? I've been researching about the apostles and found historical documents that show there were more than 12 but 12 + 7, including women. This information was included in non biblical historical documents. In reading the bible, the number twelve is highly important to jewish readers as it represents the twelve tribes of Israel. My question is have the gospel writers focused on the number twelve to keep in line with the hebrew books? Or could there have been more than twelve? It seems logical to not limit his number to twelve, in order to spread the word as far as possible.

Different books of the Bible use the terms apostle and disciple in differing ways. The word disciple means a follower or student of a teacher, while the word apostle means a messenger or ambassador who champions a particular cause.

Initially, the term "apostle" was used to describe the early followers of Jesus. There were specific requirements to be called an apostle, some of which were, the chief of which was that they had to have seen him after his Resurrection. Additionally, the apostles were the foundation of the early church, after Jesus, the chief cornerstone. So the "apostles" were limited in number, but not to only 12 (a disciple, however is a much broader term. A disciple is any follower of Christ, and as such there are millions of disciples today).

However, there is a common convention of a difference between "apostle" and "Apostle", with "Apostle" denoting the those specifically appointed by Jesus as apostles (the twelve, along with Paul). So there were the Twelve, but these were set apart by Jesus as his closest companions during his earthly ministry, and not an artificial distinction posed by the writers of the gospels. So depending on your definition, there might be 12 apostles or several hundred (see 1 Corinthians 15:6)


Did Jesus ever directly say he would die as a voluntary sacrifice? If so, was it double sense? I know evangelical literature like John 3:16:

  For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

says Jesus died to redeem mankind.  However, I suspect these are only later interpretations. Did Jesus himself ever say his death would be a sacrifice?

If so, would it have a double meaning in Greek?  In Czech, English and German, one could use the phrase "he died for humans' sins" in sense of "because of" - that is, his death was humanity's fault, the fault of the Romans who crucified him.

(I think I understand the evangelical message so I'm not asking how Christians see it today, so I'm not looking for a "stretch" of a Jesus quote, but rather a quote that is plain in meaning.)

The most obvious answer is Jesus' words to his disciples at the Last Supper, in Matthew's version:

  this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins.

(Matthew 26:28, New American Bible Revised Edition)


Why do LDS use water and leavened bread in communion when the Jews used wine and unleavened bread? I recently read somewhere that in the LDS observance of communion, water and leavened bread is used.  The practice of communion comes from the Jewish Passover ceremony where wine and unleavened bread was used.  Wine is the fruit of the vine and leaven, or yeast, represents sin, so the bread, which represents Christ's body today, was without leaven, or sinless.

Most Christian denominations still follow this pattern today, even though many use grape juice as a non-alcoholic substitute for "the fruit of the vine".  So, I was quite surprised to learn that Mormons do not follow this pattern.

Is it true that LDS Churches use water instead of wine or grape juice and leavened bread instead of unleavened bread?  If so, where does this practice come from and what is the theological basis for it?

The LDS church proscribes wine (or any alcoholic beverage, really), so water is used instead, although it doesn't matter what is used for the symbols of the sacrament, according to Doctrine and Covenants in the LDS canon:

D&C 27:2

  2 For, behold, I say unto you, that it mattereth not what ye shall eat or what ye shall drink when ye partake of the sacrament, if it so be that ye do it with an eye single to my glory—remembering unto the Father my body which was laid down for you, and my blood which was shed for the remission of your sins.

It just so happens that regular bread and water are more available and make for a simpler ceremony, especially considering that it's usually the young men in the church who prepare and administer that ordinance.

There are accounts of Latter-day Saints using alternative emblems for the sacrament. The citation I linked to, about halfway down, mentions French saints making use of potato peelings when that was all they had available.

Note: The Word of Wisdom, which is the revelation forbidding the consumption of alcoholic beverages, was not received until later. It could be that this revelation about the emblems was a precursor, in part, to that more general revelation. (Read D&C 27 in context for more information.)


Why a soul needs to be in a state of grace when receiving the Eucharist? What is the reasoning behind the Catholic Church teaching that only people in the state of grace should be allowed to receive the Holy Eucharist?

Lately, I heard a statement:

  The Eucharist: A prize for the just or medicine for sinners?

  The Eucharist is no gold star on the forehead of “good” Christians,
  but an undeserved gift to strengthen pilgrims who stumble along
  through life with their gaze fixed on heaven.

What is this teaching based on that one needs to be in the state of grace and why?

1 Cor. 11:27:

  whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.

The Catholic Haydock Commentary says on this verse:

  Ver. 27. Or
                             drink. Here erroneous translators corrupted the text, by putting and drink (contrary to the original, e
                             pine ) instead of or drink. --- Guilty of the body, &c. not discerning the body, &c.
                             This demonstrates the real presence of the body and blood of Christ, even to the unworthy communicant; who otherwise could
                             not be guilty of the body and blood of Christ, or justly condemned for not discerning the Lord's body. (Challoner)
                             --- The real presence in the sacrament is also proved by the enormity of the crime, in its profanation. See St. Chrysostom,
                             hom. de non contem. ec. and hom. lx. and lxi. ad pop. Antioch. where he shews that the unworthy receiver imitates the Jews
                             in crucifying Jesus, and trampling under foot his sacred blood. Hence the dreadful punishments we read of in verses 27 and
                             30.


Was there a special Sabbath in addition to Passover when Jesus was crucified? My question is based on John 19:31 which says that on the day Jesus died it was the day of Preparation, and the next day was to be a special Sabbath.  Was this special Sabbath (on which no work could be done) the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread?

If so then Nisan 14 would have been Preparation Day for the Feast of Unleavened Bread and Jesus’ body would have had to be laid in the tomb before sundown on that day – but that would not have been the weekly Sabbath that commenced at sundown on Friday.  It would have been the special Sabbath for the start of the Feast of Unleavened Bread.

Here is what I found, but I can’t source the information or get verification for the claims:

  “Some years before the birth of Jesus the Passover celebration had been changed and in the Lord’s time called for a brief ritual meal of lamb, unleavened bread, and bitter herbs to begin the 14th Nisan followed by a great and leisurely festival meal on the 15th, when the Feast of Unleavened Bread begins. This tradition is still followed today.  The 14th became known as Preparation Day (Mark 15:42, Luke 23:54, John 19:31), because on it they made ready for the great feast day beginning at sundown, after which no work was permitted. Matthew identifies the day after the Crucifixion as the day after Preparation Day (27:62) so all four Gospels agree. Jesus died on Preparation day, the 14th of their month Nisan, which is Passover. He ate the ritual meal with His disciples in the Upper Room, and then was arrested, tried, convicted, and put to death; all on Passover.”

Was the special Sabbath mentioned in John 19:31 and Matthew 27:62 the start of the Feast of Unleavened Bread?  And is there any evidence to support that view?

We in the western world have been raised in a culture dominated by a post-Constantinian Christian worldview of time, rather than one that is biblically Hebrew.

Our days begin and end at midnight, rather than the biblical
breaking point of sunset.
Our days are named after celestial bodies and Norse gods revered in
pagan worship and our work week begins on Monday and ends with a day
of rest on Sunday (the first day of the week), rather than
continuing the biblical pattern that Jesus and His disciples adhered
to of keeping Sabbath on the seventh day.
Our Gregorian calendar years are numbered from the birth of Christ,
rather than from the traditional Hebrew reckoning of the beginning
of creation.
We have replaced the biblically instituted feasts of Pesach
(Passover), Shavuot, Rosh Hashanah, Yom Kippur, and Sukkot
celebrated by the people of Israel with a variety of newly-minted
Christian seasons like Advent and Lent and holy days like Christmas
and Easter, as well as secular and neo-pagan holidays (holy days?)
like New Year’s Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day,
Halloween, and Thanksgiving.

Rediscovering the worldview and timeframe of Christianity's Hebrew heritage allows us to more fully appreciate the activities of Jesus of Nazareth at the time of His earthly ministry, crucifixion, death, and resurrection.

The first month of the Hebrew calendar is the month of Nisan, which starts at the dawn of spring. On Nisan 10 every year, our spiritual forefathers were mandated in Scripture to select a Passover lamb without blemish, observe the lamb for three days for signs of unworthiness, and sacrifice it on the fourth day as a ceremonial beginning to the celebration of the Lord’s Passover and the Exodus of God’s people from slavery in Egypt. Passover has been celebrated for millennia by the house of Israel in a traditional order or Seder on the evening of Nisan 15. In the year He was crucified, Jesus rode into Jerusalem on a donkey on Nisan 10, taught publicly in the Temple for three days before being sacrificed on the cross on Nisan 14, and was placed in the tomb just as the Passover feast was about to begin.

How long did Jesus stay in the “heart of the earth” before He was raised from the dead? Jesus answered our question Himself in Matthew 12.38-40.

How does His prophetic answer match up with the rest of Scripture and our gentile Good Friday, Easter Sunday tradition?
 How did Jesus’ calendar match up with ours?
One attempt to solve this Passover puzzle can be found in the chart linked here “Jesus Fulfills the Promise of Passover,” which places the Last Supper Seder on the Tuesday evening of Preparation Day followed by His crucifixion and burial on Wednesday afternoon just prior to the start of the annual Passover Sabbath celebration that evening.

He then spent three days and nights in the tomb as He promised and rose from the grave after sundown on Saturday evening in time for the tomb to be found empty Sunday morning. What is your solution? Read the Gospel accounts of Jesus final days (Matthew chapters 21-28; Mark 11-16; Luke 19-24; John 12-20) and map out your own timeline.


Meaning of end of chapter 3 of the 2nd Helvetic Confession What is the meaning of the last paragraph of Chapter 3 of the Second Helvetic Confession(?):

  HERESIES. Therefore we condemn the Jews and Mohammedans, and all those who blaspheme that sacred and adorable Trinity. We also condemn all heresies and heretics who teach that the Son and Holy Spirit are God in name only, and also that there is something created and subservient, or subordinate to another in the Trinity, and that their is something unequal in it, a greater or a less, something corporeal or corporeally conceived, something different with respect to character or will, something mixed or solitary, as if the Son and Holy Spirit were the affections and properties of one God the Father, as the Monarchians, Novatians, Praxeas, Patripassians, Sabellius, Paul of Samosata, Aetius, Macedonius, Anthropomorphites, Arius, and such like, have thought.

Particularly, what does it mean with the language about "a greater or a less, something corporeal or corporeally conceived, something different with respect to character or will, something mixed or solitary"....especially, "something mixed or solitary" and "corporeally conceived"...? and why must these things, whatever they are, be condemned as heresies?

Let's start with the end of this sentence—the list of heresies. These can actually be classified under one or another of the descriptions you've highlighted.
A greater or a less
Arianism used the text of John 14:28, "The Father is greater than I", to argue that the Son of God was not truly God, but a lesser being who was begotten after God the Father. His belief was pronounced heretical by the First Council of Constantinople in 381.
Something corporeal or corporeally conceived
In this area go the Anthropomorphites, who appear to have believed based on Genesis 1:27 that God had a literal human form, a physical body. In addition, this group includes some of the Monarchians. Monarchianism generally is the belief that God is one ruler, not three; it is opposed to Trinitarianism. Some Monarchians apparently believed in a variant of Adoptionism, stating that Jesus was born a human being, but was granted divinity later in his life.
Note: "Patripassian" appears to have been a name given to certain Monarchians in virtue of their belief that God is one and not three. Trinitarians argued that by this line of reasoning it was the Father (Latin pater) and not the Son who had suffered (Latin passus) on the cross.
Something different with respect to character or will
One could put Arianism here, believing that the Son was "something different" from the father. In addition, under this head go the followers of Aëtius of Antioch, who believed that the Son is "of similar substance", but not "of the same substance" (in Greek, homoiousios but not homoousios) as the Father. Finally, the followers of Macedonius I of Constantinople appear to have believed that the Holy Spirit was a servant of the Father, created by the Son, but not divine himself.
Something mixed or solitary
The Arians, Macedonians, and Aetians could all be considered as believing that God was "mixed or solitary"—in their case "mixed", in the sense that they all believed that the Son or the Holy Spirit was not "one with", that is "of the same substance as", the Father.
The Monarchians (among whom are included Paul of Samosata, Praxeas and Sabellius), on the other hand, believed that God was "solitary"; that is, that God was One but not Three.
The only ones left are the Novatians. I took a look on Wikipedia, because I hadn't heard of them before. Apparently their primary heretical belief was that Christians who, for fear of persecution by the Romans, had renounced their belief or sacrificed to pagan gods, should not be accepted back into Christianity. I don't see that belief fitting into any of these categories; I'm not certain why they are included in this list.
Summary
Chapter III of the Second Helvetic Confession is intended to declare a belief in God as Unity in Trinity:

the same immense, one and indivisible God is ... distinguished as Father, Son and Holy Spirit so, as the Father has begotten the Son from eternity, the Son is begotten by an ineffable generation, and the holy Spirit truly proceeds from them both, and the same from eternity and is to be worshipped with both. ... there are not three gods, but three persons, cosubstantial [sic], coeternal, and coequal; distinct with respect to hypostases, and with respect to order, the one preceding the other yet without any inequality.

This list of heresies names people and groups who (generally in the second to fourth century, as the Church was refining its teachings on who and what God was) had other ideas later declared heretical; and the list of characteristics you've pointed out simply describes more or less what those ideas were.


Did Jesus have a divine biological Father? I'm LDS.  Our way of looking at Jesus' parentage is that Heavenly Father is his actual biological father, not via intercourse (a virgin shall conceive) but supernaturally via the Holy Ghost implanting the Father's very chromosomes and DNA material into Mary (please forgive clunky biology-speak).

If I understand, evangelicals do not go there.  What exactly is believed about Jesus' biological parentage?  And related, what is it about the Father being biological father that would be offensive or create doctrinal problems?

Edit: the link above doesn't do it for me (as explained in my comment below).  And John 4:24 is no smoking gun.  No one is explaining what unacceptable implications would follow if "Father" were taken literally.  Why can't "Father" mean "Father" as all nature experiences it?  Is it that Father would then have to be considered a created being?  Is it that prevailing trinity ideas would have to be inconveniently reworked?

A tenet of the Christian faith (and I speak from an Evangelical point of view) is that, in the words of Christ,

  "'God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth'" (John 4:24 NASB Updated).

The very suggestion that God somehow possesses in his being DNA with which he could cause the Virgin Mary to conceive, violates this key tenet of Christian faith. God, who out of the fullness of his being created the human race out of one man and one woman, cannot have DNA. He is, rather, the creator of DNA. In other words, DNA was God's idea.

The primary reason for the incredible complexity of the human genome is the infinite creative genius and power of God, who spoke the universe into existence by the word (or Word) of his power (John 1:3). The One who created all things did so when there was literally no thing besides himself (except perhaps the angels, though that is an entirely different matter).

In Psalm 94, the psalmist asks a good question. I'll include the context for the question:

  "Pay heed, you senseless among the people; And when will you understand, stupid ones?   He who planted the ear, does He not hear? He who formed the eye, does He not see? He who chastens the nations, will He not rebuke, Even He who teaches man knowledge? The LORD knows the thoughts of man, That they are a mere breath" (vv.8-11).

The psalmist expressed poetically a profound truth regarding the personhood of God; namely, the God who created the ear can also hear; the God who created the eye can also see. Hearing and seeing originated in the God who hears all and sees all. The senses of hearing and seeing are but metaphors, which originate in the eternal attributes of God. Our human ears and eyes, in other words, tell us metaphorically something about who God is.

Just as language as a platform for human understanding is filled with metaphorical expressions, such as "I see" as an alternate way of saying "I understand," so also in similar fashion the created, material universe is a platform for insight into the being of God, who is the creator and sustainer of all things.

  "For since the creation of the world His [i.e., God's] invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse" (Romans 1:20 NASB).

In conclusion, the point I have been making is simply this: There is a great (infinite?) divide between who God is by nature and what he has created out of the fullness of his creative power and genius. While God is pleased with "man to dwell, Jesus our Emanuel,"
as the Christmas carol puts it, he was and always will be transcendent vis-à-vis his creation.

By the same token, however, God through his Christ is also immanent, since Jesus revealed God in all his fullness in the vehicle, so to speak, of an eternal "flesh and bone" body, the body of the God-Man (see Colossians 1:15-20). Exactly how God invested both divinity and humanity in the person of Jesus is, I believe, quite mysterious. That Jesus was conceived of the Holy Spirit is the reason why Jesus could become the perfect, sinless, and spotless Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world (John 1:29 and 36).


What is the Catholic view of what it meant for Jesus to be "called" Immanuel? Matthew 1:23 (NIV) says:

  “The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel (which means “God with us”). (Matthew 1:23, NIV)

But, nowhere in the Gospels is Jesus addressed as Immanuel—directly or indirectly. It appears to me that that the word with its literal meaning implies more of an attribute than a name. So, what is the Catholic view on Jesus having been given the name Immanuel?

Since this a purely exegetical question (i.e., it doesn’t really affect a fundamental teaching about Jesus), the Church does not have an “official” position on how to interpret Matthew 1:23.

In this passage, Matthew is simply applying the prophecy in Isaiah 7:14 to Jesus:

  Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

In context, Isaiah is prophesying the birth of Hezekiah, the son of Ahaz. (Hezekiah is portrayed in the Old Testament as a holy and prudent king, unlike his father.) However, Matthew sees that the prophesy has a deeper meaning in Jesus Christ, who is, after all “God-with-us” in a much more perfect way than Hezekiah ever was.

It seems that neither Jesus nor any of his disciples ever used Immanuel as an actual title. Hence Matthew is merely applying the prophecy to Jesus, since it describes Jesus’ condition (as God-made-man) very well.

(As a source for these reflections, I used the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible: New Testament, the notes for Matthew 1:23.)


Salvation Army and the brass band I think it is a tradition to have a Brass Band in almost every church in the Salvation Army. I see them performing on many occasions like Easter Sunday and Christmas. Here is a sample image (source):

Another image (source):

What is the importance of Brass Band in the Salvation Army?

Is it compulsory for a Salvation Army church to have a brass band?

The primary purpose is to serve as an instrument to proclaim The Gospel of Jesus Christ. All other goals of the band are considered "Proper" when their ultimate goal is observed.
The brass band may be seen as an evangelical tool to generate a spiritual response by helping to set the mood & enhancing a spiritual message.
Member retention. Many members were introduced through to the Salvation Army through the brass band, & some may have strayed if not for their attachment to the band.
Drawing attention & Publicity for fundraising
Christian fellowship for players

The brass bands also seem to be more popular in the United Kingdom than in the United States.

Here is some more information about the Salvation Army Brass Band :

Some history & information
About the International "Staff" band of the Salvation Army (The top Salvation Army band)
A 1932 "Appreciation" flier (Back than, the band was called "Callender's Band")
The Wikipedia article

I hope this little bit of information was helpful.


Did the Saints commit mortal sin sometimes? Does the Catholic tradition record if some saints committed mortal sin from time to time during their holy life or after conversion?

There are many saints who converted and lived their lives in the state of grace. I'd like to know if they still committed a mortal sin from time to time, went to confession, repented, and got back to their holy way of living?

Saint biographies don't typically mention any kind of an incident that would show their failures, but rather describes how they were always faithful.

It is difficult to know for certain, because most people do not make their mortal sins public. However, it is likely that many of the saints did commit mortals sins even after their “conversion” to a holy way of life.

In causes for canonization, the Church does not look for perfect people (which—except Jesus Christ and the Blessed Virgin Mary—do not exist) to hold up as models, just persons who have shown virtue to a heroic degree (and, evidently, who have persevered to the end in their holiness).

As the Catechism of the Catholic Church puts it,

  By canonizing some of the faithful, i.e., by solemnly proclaiming that they practiced heroic virtue and lived in fidelity to God's grace, the Church recognizes the power of the Spirit of holiness within her and sustains the hope of believers by proposing the saints to them as models and intercessors (no. 828, emphasis added).

The following document shows the steps in the process for canonizing a saint: https://www.ewtn.com/johnpaul2/cause/process.asp.

As can be seen, in the documentary phase, the Postulation (the commission established by the diocese promoting the cause)

  must gather testimony about the life and virtues of the Servant of God. Also, the public and private writings must be collected and examined. This documentary phase … concludes with the judgment of a diocesan tribunal, and the ultimate decision of the bishop, that the heroic virtues of the Servant of God have or have not been demonstrated (op. cit.).

Hence, an occasional lapse—even a grave one—is not necessarily an obstacle to canonization, provided there is sincere repentance and a tendency to virtue and holiness of life.


What is the Toronto Blessing? Just over a decade ago there was much hype in the media about the Toronto Blessing, a phenomenon that began at Toronto Airport Church and subsequently spread from there. What is it? Is it still happening?

The Toronto Blessing is described as a "Revival". The term "revival" means different things to different denominations, and can even mean the different things within a denomination.

In this case, the term describes an outpouring of the Holy Spirit from a Charismatic point of view.  The Toronto Blessing consisted of signs accepted by Charismatics as evidence of the Holy Spirit's blessing, including:

Falling and resting in the Spirit
Holy Laughter
Shaking and Crying
Crunching (a vomit-like heaving to "cleanse" and "release" negative experiences)
Others

These events drew controversy, of course, centered around the usual arguments over the Charismatic definition of "Gifts of the Spirit" with one side claiming that this was clear evidence of God's hand at work, and others claiming that it's self-centered, emotionalism, demonic, and all of the other charges that Churches that don't believe in these charismatic gifts.

From Wikipedia:

  The Toronto blessing began at the Airport church when pastors John and
  Carol Arnott were inspired by a revival in Argentina led by Claudio
  Freidzen and in South Africa.2 They invited Randy Clark of St.
  Louis, Missouri to minister at the church in January 1994. Randy Clark
  had been influenced by the ministry of Rodney Howard-Browne, a South
  African preacher, founder of the Rodney Howard-Browne Evangelistic
  Association in Louisville, Kentucky, and the earliest known proponent
  of the "holy laughter" revival phenomenon. Clark preached at the
  Airport church for two months starting January 20 and introduced some
  of Howard-Browne's approach into TACF practice.   In that first
  revival service, there were about 120 people in attendance. Arnott
  recalled that most members fell on the floor "laughing, rolling, and
  carrying on".2 During that first year, the church's size tripled to
  1,000 members and meetings were held every night except on Mondays as
  the revival's influence spread. Reports of similar revivals emerged
  from Atlanta, Anaheim, Saint Louis, several Canadian sites, Cambodia,
  and Albania. It was common for visitors to carry the influence of the
  revival back to their home congregations – two notable British cases
  in point being Holy Trinity, Brompton and Holy Trinity, Cheltenham.
  Areas that have become known for Toronto Blessing type revivals
  worldwide include Pensacola, Florida, home of the Brownsville Revival,
  and Bath, England.

The Toronto Airport Christian Fellowship claims that this continues, and  Churches across the globe claim similar events to this day. The Toronto Airport Christian fellowship changed their name, and of course, they have a website (apparently with video of these events), so that you can see it from their perspective.


We will judge angels? But we are lower than the angels Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?  1 Cor 6:3 (KJV)

This verse says that we will judge angels, but this verse

  6 But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man, that thou visitest him?
  7 Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands:
  Heb 2:6-7 (KJV)

says that man is lower than the angels. Will we as humans, who are lower than the angels, in fact judge angels, who are higher than us? The citizen doesn't judge the judge; does the human judge the angel? And if so, when?

The simplest way to reconcile these passages is to dispute the KJV's translation of βραχύ as "a little." This is, in fact, what most other translations have done, including those that have no interest in internal harmonization. The NET renders Heb 2:7 as follows:

  Hebrews 2:6–8a (NET)

  6 Instead someone testified somewhere:

  "What is man that you think of him or the son of man that you care for him?

  7 You made him lower than the angels for a little while.

  You crowned him with glory and honor.

  8a You put all things under his control,"

The NRSV, ESV, NASB, and CEB all translate this verse similarly, as "for a little while" or "for a short time"—a meaning well within the word's semantic range. The NIV is the only major modern translation that interprets βραχύ as a hierarchical rather than a temporal statement.

Here's the full entry from BDAG:

  βραχύς, εῖα, ύ (Pind., Hdt. +) prim. ‘short’.

  ①pert. to having little length, short, of space: βραχύ (so
  Thu. 1, 63, 2; 2 Km 16:1) διαστήσαντες_a little farther on_Ac
  27:28.

  ②pert. to being brief in duration, brief, short, of time: β.
  (τι) for a short time (Ael. Aristid. 13 p. 276 D.) Ac 5:34; Hb
  2:7 (quotes Ps 8:6, which refers to rank; in Is 57:17 β. τι denotes
  time), 9;**μετὰ β. a little laterLk 22:58.**

  ③pert. to being low in quantity, little, small (1 Km 14:29,
  43; Jos., Bell. 1, 597, Ant. 9, 48 ἔλαιον βραχύ): _a small amount_β.
  τι_a little_J 6:7 (cp. Thu. 2, 99, 5). διὰ βραχέων_in a few words,
  briefly_Hb 13:22 (besides the exx. in FBleek ad loc., s. also
  Just., A I, 8, 3; Tat. 41, 3; Ocellus Luc. 35; Ptolem., Apotel. 1, 1,
  3; Lucian, Toxaris 56; Ps.-Lucian, Charid. 22; Ael. Aristid. 13 p. 183
  D.; Achilles Tat. 7, 9, 3; PStras 41, 8 διὰ βραχέων σε διδάξω; EpArist
  128; Jos., Bell. 4, 338). LTrudinger, JTS 23, ’72, 128–30.—1 Pt
  5:12 P72.—B. 883. DELG. M-M.

As you can see, the KJV's translation uses the third definition, but even then it's a bit of a stretch. Based on the information here, βραχύς seems to be more a quantitative than a qualitative term. "A little lower than the angels" implies that we are created with a substance that is intrinsically lower in rank or quality than angels. I don't think the text suggests anything like that.


How do Bible scholars reconcile the differences between Greek and Aramaic in John 21:15-17? John 21:15-17 recounts a powerful conversation between Jesus and Peter, where Jesus asks Peter, three times, if he loves Him. Greek has several words for "love". In Greek, the dialogue goes like this:

Do you love (ἀγαπάω/agape) me?

You know that I love (φιλέω/phileo) you.

Do you love (agape) me?

You know that I love (phileo) you.

Do you love (phileo) me?

You know all things. You know that I love (phileo) you.

Jesus uses the word for God's love the first two times, and Peter responds with brotherly love all three. When Jesus uses "phileo" the third time, Peter seems to break down. It is indeed a very powerful interaction (as discussed elsewhere) ... but it only works in Greek. Aramaic is thought to be the common language between Jesus and His disciples, but Aramaic doesn't have a way to distinguish between these different types of love like Greek does.

How do Bible scholars reconcile the fact that Aramaic does not have the diversity of vocabulary necessary to convey the distinction that is made in the Greek?

There are several explanations for this, but no consensus. These include: 1) He often spoke Greek; 2) He did on this occasion; 3)  agape and phileo are synonymous anyway : 4) the conversation was in Aramaic and two different Aramaic words for love (chav and racham) were used; and 5) the conversation was allegorical  and represented Peter's dawning comprehension of his role.

Jesus and His disciples may, contrary to majority opinion,  often have spoken in Greek.This article propounds that view, arguing that there are other examples of wordplay in the gospels which make sense only in Greek, and  not in Aramaic.   Most though, think Aramaic was the usual language Jesus spoke in.
Even if Aramaic was Jesus's usual language, this particular conversation shows evidence of extraordinary formality. Peter is addressed, not as Peter, but as Simon son of Jonas, and Jesus uses this "full" name not once but three times. This is very formal.   Greek was a more official, or formal, language than Aramaic,  so Jesus may have initiated the conversation in Greek to further emphasise its formality.
Many scholars no longer think there is, in fact, any significance in the difference between agape and phileo. It is not unusual to use synonyms for purely stylistic reasons. This article explores this question and includes the statement:

  More evidence is also deduced from the silence of the Greek speaking Fathers of the Church who do not make mention of this distinction in the verbs for love when they comment on this passage. One would think that had the subtle distinctions been significant they would surely have dwelt upon it.

Neither the King James Version nor the Douay version pick up on the difference. The NIV previously translated agape as "truly love" and phileo  simply as "love",  but the 2011 edition loses the distinction, translating both identically. This reflects a trend in scholarship towards the earlier view that the words agape and phileo are virtually synonymous and interchangeable.

A more detailed exegesis arguing for this view, and briefly describing the rise and decline of the belief  the difference is significant  is here.

If the conversation was in Aramaic then the two  different Aramaic words for love and friendship may have been used. These are Chav (also transliterated in English as hooba) and Racham (or raham). Here are more details on these Aramaic words for love, in St John's Gospel,  though not in this particular context. If the evangelist knew of the conversation in Aramaic, and wished to convey it in Greek, he may have translated chav as agape and racham as phileo. In this way he represented the difference in Aramaic, by using different words in Greek.  The exact nuances of agape versus phileo, and of chav versus racham, may not exactly correspond, and there is no real consensus on the nuances of any of them.
The conversation may never really have happened. That is the view of some who reject the Resurrection as a literal event.   Bishop John Shelby Spong,  in his book Resurrection, Myth or Reality (not free on the web, alas)  supposes it could have been an hallucination brought on by Peter's guilt over the fact that, despite promising that whatever anybody else did,  he would never abandon Jesus; had then done exactly that. Perhaps,  Peter reflected, he had not, when it came down to it, demonstrated his love for Jesus any more than the others had. Perhaps he had not truly loved Him at all; but at any rate he was definitely His friend who cared passionately about Him, and there was great work for him still to do  for Jesus. Peter had to look to the future. Jesus needed Peter,  now more than ever, to shepherd his flock.  On this view the question of what language the imaginary conversation took place in is not relevant.


Does an evangelical understanding of the 'laws of nature' make God seem more distant or close? The term 'law of nature' such as gravity, condensation, etc. is rarely if ever described in relation to God in modern schools and Universities. Yet I am wondering what the biblical view of the Laws of nature are?

Specifically I am wondering if the Bible presents God as an absentee creator who wound up the 'clock of the universe' and stood back while it 'ticked' according to its designed laws, or is God portrayed as being more intimately involved in moving and being present in each 'tick'?

Please provide an evangelical supported answer with a referenced quote.

Of course when we see a tree we see God holding together, beneath the subatomic level, all the elements necessary for a tree to be.  If God ever decided no longer to sustain the tree, a flower, a cloud, the Devil, then it would cease to exist.

  The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven. (Hebrews 1:3, NIV)

In fact as God sustains all things by his own power even the sinner lives in Christ, yet not inwardly by faith but by his mere existence he proclaims God as he has life.

  ‘For in him we live and move and have our being. ’ As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are his offspring. ’ (Acts 17:28, NIV)

Now it is impossible to imagine God is distant when our breath comes from him:

  In his hand is the life of every creature and the breath of all mankind. (Job 12:10, NIV)

A. W. Tozer wrote an excellent book on the nature of God.  In it he said:

  This idea that God is an absentee engineer running His universe by remote control is all wrong. He is present in perpetual and continuous eagerness, with all the fervor of rapturous love pressing His holy designs. If you don’t feel that way about it, it’s unbelief that makes you feel otherwise; it’s preoccupation with this world. If you would believe God you would know this to be true.
  The goodness of God means He cannot feel indifferent about anything. People are indifferent, but not God. God either loves with a boundless unremitting energy or He hates with consuming fire. (A.W. Tozer Attributes of God, P44)

The 'laws of nature' simply show that God is fixed in his purposes as his power flows along unchanging rules.


What purpose does the Old Testament have today? I've seen different pastors use the Old Testament to fill gaps and sometimes to override information in the New Testament.  However, the New Testament is supposed to be part of the new deal which is to describe the new covenant post-Jesus.

What purpose does the Old Testament have in Christanity today?  Should it still be part of the Bible?

Well, the Apostle Paul specifically states that the things written in the past were for our instruction, for encouragement, and to give us hope.

  For whatever was written in former days was written for our
  instruction, that through endurance and through the encouragement of
  the Scriptures we might have hope.  Romans 15:14 ESV

Also, the Old Testament is not merely a bunch of rules.  On the contrary, it is filled with stories of God's faithfulness, God's ways, God's purposes, God's power, God's mercy, God's justice, God's plan, and God's heart.

Indeed, even though the ceremonial laws of the temple do not apply directly to us today, the story of the Creation, the Exodus, the Fall, God's grace to Hannah and Rebekah, and many other things all reveal God to us.

We can have confidence that as God has delivered His people in the past, He can do so today.  Since God has answered prayers in the past, He will answer prayers today.  Since God saw the affliction of His people in Egypt, He will see the affliction of His people today.  Since God executed justice in the past, He will certainly do so today.

So, no, Levitical laws do not apply to us today.  We are, indeed, under the New Covenant.  Yet the Old Testament still reveals God to us.

Additionally, it also gives us the promise of the Messiah and the prophecies that were later fulfilled in Jesus, giving us confidence to its truthfulness.

The New Covenant allows us to know God more fully.  The Old Testament help to teach us who He is.


In Catholicism, what are the different kinds of sins? I have heard various persons refer to different 'kinds' of sins on this site and in other places.

I have heard of

mortal sin
grave sin
venial sin

Are there others? What is a basic definition of each? If all sins are bad and have the potential to damn why are they classified?

Let me know if this is too broad

The most authoritative answers can be found in Article 8: Sin of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It is carefully worded and addresses the questions asked. The following is an attempt at a supplement. Other sources include the Catholic Encyclopedia and the Baltimore Catechism.

This is about actual sin (as in "act-ual", from Latin actus) having to do with acts, and not Original Sin. Acts include willful deeds, failures to act (omissions), utterances (speech), desires, and thoughts.

Terminology

The major distinction is between venial and mortal sins: something very serious accompanies every mortal sin, so mortal sins are set apart.

Sin is any act contrary to the eternal law. A sin is a willful act contrary to reason and the moral law inscribed into the conscience of every person.

The object of a sin has to do with the objective (object-ive) elements of the sin, circumstances, etc.

Grave matter is specified by the Ten Commandments. Grave sin is sin whose object is grave matter
Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter (a grave sin), and which is committed with full knowledge (on the part of the intellect) and deliberate consent (on the part of the will).

  1859 Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God's law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.

Venial sin is any sin that is not a mortal sin:

  1862 One commits venial sin when, in a less serious matter, he does not observe the standard prescribed by the moral law, or when he disobeys the moral law in a grave matter, but without full knowledge or without complete consent.

The reason we talk about grave sins is that we cannot know if another person truly committed a moral sin without knowing if they acted with knowledge and consent. But we can know on the basis of certain objective qualities that it was a grave sin, so we are able to call it that. There isn't always a clear distinction between grave and light matter. Objectively, some sins "admit of no lightness of matter", such as blasphemy or hatred of God. Other sins admit lightness. For example, intentional theft is sometimes only venial, such as when one wilfully steals paperclips from the office. It is especially difficult for a person to self-evaluate the gravity of one's own sins, which is why the Church trains priests to recognize the gravity of sins during Confession.

Diagram

                         Grave
    SIN:                Matter
           ┌─ ─ ─ ─ ┴ ─ ─ ─ ─┐
           │          venial │
           ┤        ╔ ═ ═ ═ ═╗
 Knowledge │ venial ║ Mortal ║ ⬅"deliberate
 & Consent └─ ─ ─ ──╚═ ═ ═ ═ ╝   sins"
                        ⬆
                   "Grave sins"

  In other words:knowledge and consent + grave matter = Mortal Sin

Effects

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

  Mortal sin destroys charity in the heart of man by a grave violation of God's law; it turns man away from God, who is his ultimate end and his beatitude, by preferring an inferior good to him. [... Mortal sin] necessitates a new initiative of God's mercy and a conversion of heart which is normally accomplished within the setting of the sacrament of reconciliation. [...] Unrepented, it brings eternal death.

  Venial sin allows charity to subsist, even though it offends and wounds it. [...] Venial sin constitutes a moral disorder that is reparable by charity, which it allows to subsist in us.

From the Baltimore Catechism:

  This sin is called mortal because it deprives us of spiritual life, which is sanctifying grace, and brings everlasting death and damnation on the soul.

  The effects of venial sin are the lessening of the love of God in our heart, the making us less worthy of His help, and the weakening of the power to resist mortal sin.

There are also capital sins (vices), material and formal sins, and internal sins. For example, mortal or venial sins might be internal. But all that's another question. The major distinction is between mortal and venial sins.


According to Catholicism, is the power of exorcism the fruit of the true church? According to Catholicism, is a Catholic priest's power of exorcism acceptable evidence of the Catholic Church's truth and validity of its claim to be the one true church?

Is a Catholic priest's power of exorcism acceptable evidence of the Catholic Church's truth and validity of its claim to be the one true church?

The short answer is no.

The Catholic Church affirms the following, but no more:

  The present rite of exorcism as given in the Roman Ritual fully agrees with patristic teaching and is a proof of the continuity of Catholic tradition in this matter. - Catholic Encyclopedia

Generally speaking, Catholic priests may seem more efficacious in this field, but that may be more due to a combination of Church authority and training of exorcists, as well the spiritual aides that we call the sacraments, especially confession and Communion. But this does not constitute unique proof or fruit of the Catholic Church.

Since the foremost authority on exorcism, Fr. Gabriele Amorth admits that some members of other Christian Churches such as Anglicans, Orthodox and Protestants, all perform real and valid exorcisms, I do not see how one can claim the above statement be in the affirmative. No such statements will be found in the writings of Catholic theologians.

First of all, let us look at what Scripture tells us about this subject.

  9 Then calling together the twelve apostles, he gave them power and authority over all devils, and to cure diseases.
  2 And he sent them to preach the kingdom of God, and to heal the sick.
  3 And he said to them: Take nothing for your journey; neither staff, nor scrip, nor bread, nor money; neither have two coats.
  4 And whatsoever house you shall enter into, abide there, and depart not from thence.
  5 And whosoever will not receive you, when ye go out of that city, shake off even the dust of your feet, for a testimony against them.
  6 And going out, they went about through the towns, preaching the gospel, and healing everywhere. - Luke 9: 1-6

  37 John answered him, saying: Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, who followeth not us, and we forbade him.
  38 But Jesus said: Do not forbid him. For there is no man that doth a miracle in my name, and can soon speak ill of me.
  39 For he that is not against you, is for you. - Mark 9: 37-39

Although Christ affirms that the Apostles have such powers and others though apostolic succession, Scripture do not deny this gift to those who believe, though not in total unity with the Catholic Church. Fr. Gabriele Amorth wrote that many Protestant exorcists consulted him about particular issues at hand.

A priest who performs an a public and solemn exorcism does so in the name of Jesus Christ and his Church.

Historically speaking, some great saints who were not priests were quite well known as exorcist. Most notable were St. Peter the Exorcist, St. Anthony of the Desert and St. Benedict of Nursia. In fact, St. Benedict is the patron saint of exorcists and the now famous Medal of St. Benedict is used in the protection against the demon.

It  seems that the greater the sanctity of an exorcist is, the greater is his ability to liberate souls from the hands of Satan.

In his book An exorcist tells His Story, Fr Gabriele Amorth states the following:

  Who Can Expel Demons?

  "The Holy Spirit, with divine freedom, gives his charismas however and to whomever he pleases. These are not given to be the glory or benefit of the receiver but as a service to his brothers. Among these charismas is the power to liberate from evil spirits and to heal from illness. These gifts can be given to individuals and also to communities." (Page 155)

Fr Gabriele Amorth was exorcist for the Diocese of Rome prior to his death  in 2016. He equally states that Christians of other denominations do expel demons during their prayers for liberation of a person from the grippes of Satan and his Legions. This admission is not limited to the Orthodox Churches, but also encompasses mainstream Protestant denominations. He does admit however that he was occasionally consulted by "exorcists" of other churches of particularly hard cases to liberate.

As Catholics, we have more available aides in combatting evil than our Protestant brethren.

  In his book An Exorcist Tells His Story, Fr. Amorth lists the following prayers to help combat evil; however, Fr. Amorth and many other priests have stressed that the number one protection from evil is the Sacrament of Confession and the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist. Often times people want esoteric rituals to deliver them from evil, when in reality what they need is to become right with God. Along with regular Confession and reception of the Holy Eucharist, these prayers should be coupled with Our Lord’s Prayer and the Prayer to St. Michael the Archangel. - 5 Prayers Recommended by an Exorcist to Combat Evil

The fact that within the Roman Catholic Rite only an authorized priest with the local bishop's permission may perform an exorcism (while using the Rituale Romanum) is a question of Canon Law and church disciple. Rome can change this rule at any moment if the need were serious enough. Some Eastern Orthodox exorcists are married deacons or subdeacons. The Orthodox have valid sacraments and priesthood!

  The practice of exorcism was not confined to clerics in the early ages, as is clear from Tertullian (Apology 23; cf. On Idolatry 11) and Origen (Against Celsus VII.4). The latter expressly states that even the simplest and rudest of the faithful sometimes cast out demons, by a mere prayer or adjuration (Mark 15:17), and urges the fact as a proof of the power of Christ's grace, and the inability of demons to resist it.

  Thus the Apostolic Constitutions (VIII.26) say expressly that "the exorcist is not ordained", i.e. for the special office of exorcist, but that if anyone possess the charismatic power, he is to be recognized, and if need be, ordained deacon or subdeacon. This is the practice which has survived in the Eastern Orthodox Church. - Catholic Encyclopedia

And just a final thought on this whole issue is that Origen, a Church Father, credits Jews with a special talent for exorcising demons (Against Celsus, book 4).

Addendum: Even within in the Church, some exorcisms are not successful in liberating souls from a diabolical possession by a Catholic priests who fulfill the necessary requirements for performing them. If exorcisms are the “fruit” of the true Church, then this fact begs the question as to why some cases of possession do not succeed, even if they are extremely rare.
One such case can be read here, although more do exist, this is the most well known.


How were the blood globules of Lanciano weighed? A long time ago, an RCC priest had addressed my doubts about the reality of presence of Christ in Host with the "numerous examples of Eucharistic miracles". The miracles had been:

Five globules of dried blood found in the Host from time to time, which all five weight as much as any one of them

I have recently read a book about such miracles and it seems he has been referring to the miracle of Lanciano, where:

Each individual globule weighed the same as the other individual ones (although different in size) or as all five together or as any other combination

The feature has been reported twice: just after the miracle and in 1574. No further reports of the feature are known despite further testing of the globules.
All sources I have read so far are vague about the method used for weighting the globules. The most they say is:

The archbishop sent a scale for the weighing of the globules

As there is a comparison of one to all five I guess they were not weighted simultaneously on opposite arms of the scale. Rather there were weights used (it seems spring scales were unknown at the time).
This leads me to serious doubts about reliability of that feature - and thus of the whole miracle.
Are there any sources describing the weighting procedure?

The most thorough study occurred in 1970-71. Pope Paul VI permitted a series of scientific studies on the precious relics to verify their nature. Dr. Odoardo Linoli, professor of anatomy and pathological histology, chemistry and clinical microscopy, and head physician of the hospital of Arezzo, conducted the study. He was assisted by Dr. Ruggero Bertelli, professor emeritus of human anatomy at the University of Siena. The analyses were performed in accord with scientific standards and documented, and Dr. Bertelli independently corroborated Dr. Linolis findings. In 1981, using more advanced medical technology, Dr. Linoli conducted a second histological study.

The Flesh, yellow-brown in color, has the structure of the myocardium (heart wall) and the endocardium, the membrane of fibrous-elastic tissue lining all the cardiac cavities. These have the same appearance as in the human heart. No traces of preservatives were found in the elements.

The blood was also of human origin with the type AB. Proteins in the clotted Blood were normally fractioned with the same percentage ratio as those found in the sero-proteic make-up of normal, fresh human blood. The blood contained these minerals: chlorides, phosphorus, magnesium, potassium, sodium, and calcium.


Is the date of final compilation of the books of the Old Testament an integral feature of the Wellhausen Documentary Hypothesis? So, using the Wellhausen Documentary Hypothesis scholars argue the books of the OT are finally compiled much later than the "Traditional" view.  Are the dates for the final edition critical to the theory?

I accept this is a difficult question because for the last 40 or 50 years proponents of the Hypothesis have splintered into various groupings with differing variations to the theory.  I am not familiar with these splinterings, various alternative models, so maybe someone could summarise the variations as well.

It would be good to see what are the majority opinions about the date of the final redaction/compilation of all the OT books, in the various main modern offshoots of the Documentary Hypothesis.

Before we dive into the various hypothesis models, it it useful to list the points that all these models (and the wider academic historical circle) are in agreement on:

the Torah/Pentateuch is not a unified work from a single author, but is made up of sources combined over many centuries by many hands.
the Pentateuch was not dictated to Mozes
it is the product of a long evolutionary process
redaction/compilation was done by several individuals over a long period of time

The disagreement over the models is solely focused on:

the dating of the redaction and compilation moments, and
the number of sources involved in redaction and compilation

The main models with varying sources are usually illustrated by this combined diagram:

And for most of these components we have fairly accurate dates:

J: Yahwist (10th–9th century BCE)
E: Elohist (9th century BCE)
Dtr1: early (7th century BCE) Deuteronomist historian
Dtr2: later (6th century BCE) Deuteronomist historian
P*: Priestly (6th–5th century BCE)
D†: Deuteronomist
R: redactor
DH: Deuteronomistic history (books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings)

So if your question is "when was the most recent redaction/compilation done?" it could not have been earlier than the dates for the used components. So, for example, if you follow the D† argumentation, the last redaction could not have been before the 5th century BCE.

Modern scholars generally see the completed Torah as a product of the time of the Persian Achaemenid Empire (probably 450–350 BCE), although some would place its production in the Hellenistic period (333–164 BCE), after the conquests of Alexander the Great.

Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative
By Adele Berlin

Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map


According to Preterism has Jesus already delivered the kingdom to God? 1 Corinthians 15:22-25 (ESV)
  For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ. Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet.

I assume this refers to when Christ destroyed death, the last enemy, which is in the past.

So do Preterists say that after 70AD "the end" came and Jesus ceased to reign so that God might be all in all?

Preterism is the view that the Biblical prophecies concerning the end times have already been fulfilled. I understand they get this conclusion from such verses as Heb 2v14 where the Devil is destroyed. Here we might say that the contract is signed but the resulting possession not fully entered into. Also, "this generation" Mat 24v34 could be the people who see these things.
When "you" [Jews] see these things [some time in the future], the generation who sees these things, will not pass away until all these things take place.
"These things" may take  place 2000+ years hence, but when they do take place they will occur with such rapidity that one generation will witness them all.


Why are there differences in events within the Gospels? Why does the gospel of Matthew claim that it was Mary Magdalene who annointed Jesus's feet with oil and Luke claim it was an unnamed woman?

In the Luke account of Jesus being anointed, a woman is recorded as being 'a sinner' and she is unnamed. In the Matthew account of Jesus being anointed, a woman is identified as Mary, the sister of Martha and Lazarus.

Examination of these two accounts shows that it is impossible to prove that they are the same incident. The details are so worded that one cannot say, categorically, that these are not two accounts of different events.

Thus the unnamed 'sinner' cannot be identified. Whoever she is or is not, it cannot be proven.

All we know of this unidentified woman is that she anointed Jesus prior to his sufferings, death and burial.

In so doing, she was successful, anointing Jesus beforehand, for the women who went to the tomb with spices, after his decease, were not able to administer them, for Jesus was risen from the dead by the time they got there.

The four gospels are clearly demonstrating different aspects of Jesus Christ and his ministry on earth. The details supplied in the four aspect-accounts are selected with an overall purpose in mind. Different events, sometimes not in consecutive order of occurrence, are gathered together and presented in juxtaposition in order to convey a particular aspect of the Person and Ministry of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.


What is significant about the torn curtain? What about Jesus' death impressed the centurion at the cross? When Jesus died, the curtain in the temple was torn from top to bottom:

Mark 15:38-39 (NIV)

  38 The curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. 39
  And when the centurion, who stood there in front of Jesus, saw how he
  died, he said, “Surely this man was the Son of God!”

What made the centurion say that? What is the significance of the torn curtain - does it have doctrinal significance?

Two things are significant. The first is that the curtain symbolically divided the Holy of Holies, the most revered place in the temple where God was believed to dwell and only priests were allowed to enter, from the rest of the temple where ordinary people were allowed. Removing that division was a symbol that there was now no barrier between ordinary people and God; we no longer needed specially appointed people to intercede for us.

The second is that the curtain was torn from top to bottom, as opposed to from bottom to top. This indicates that the curtain was not ripped by man but by God.


What does CS Lewis mean by True Myth? I've heard the phrase and even used it before, in potentially dangerous and unintelligent ways.  But what did CS Lewis mean when he came to the realization that Christianity was not just Myth, but True Myth. And furthermore, was he talking about the Bible in its entirety or just the Gospel?

The word myth, in its academic definition, means a story with deep power and symbolic meaning. When studied in the academic sense, it's that meaning that is important, not whether the story actually happened or not. Thus ancient 'myths' like the founding of Rome, or the stories of Hercules were important (to their societies) for what they said and the effect they had on those societies rather than because of their historicity.

Many of those myths turn out not to be actually true (like Hercules). That doesn't necessarily rob them of their power. The existence of the story can still shape a nation and a culture. But given that they mostly aren't historical, the word 'myth' in common parlance has come to mean 'something that isn't true' (giving rise to 'Mythbusters' for example). But that's not the sense that Lewis, as an academic, intended it.

So Lewis' point in calling the Christian story a 'true myth' is that it is a story that is powerful, and capable of changing lives and shaping cultures. It also happens to be historically true.


Romans 16:1 vs 1 Corinthians 14:34 - Position of Women in Congregation? 1 Corinthians 14:34,35

  Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to
  speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If they want to
  inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home;
  for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

Romans 16:1

  I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon of the church in
  Cenchreae.

One verse states the role of a woman in the church is passive, submissive. The second states phoebe is a "deacon".

1 Timothy 3 implies a deacon is a male (with reference to the fact that he must have one wife).

What do these three verses say about the position of Women in the congregation?

Other references welcome. Biblical answers only, please.

What do these three verses say about the position of Women in the congregation?

  Romans 16:1  I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a servant
  of the church which is at Cenchrea:

servant = diakonos = one who does errands or serves.

  1 Timothy 3:12  Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling
  their children and their own houses well.

In context I see the "diakonos" (servants) as the other leaders in the church under the biscopos or overseer. Here diakonos is used in a way that associates it with leadership as opposed to anyone who serves someone else.

The reference to Phoebe as a servant or deacon I see not as the occupant of a organizational position but as a description of the work she does ministering to others.

  1 Corinthians 14:34-34  Let your women keep silence in the churches:
  for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to
  be under obedience, as also saith the law.   And if they will learn
  any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for
  women to speak in the church.

The context of 1 Corinthians chapter fourteen is one of chaos in the church. Specifically spiritual gifts were being used carelessly and were in need of correction. Paul uses this subject at the end of the chapter to also address the disruption caused by women speaking in church.

Most people today see red when they hear these verses. However, there are a number of points that can be missed if we focus only on feminist outrage.

Today these verses sound strange not only for political reasons, but that today not only women, but everyone is silent in the church. One might make a case that in the early church teaching was by question and answer instead of the more common lecture format of today.

Women were required to ask their husbands at home not only to reduce the commotion in the church, but to stop the husbands from sloughing off their responsibility to be teachers in the home. This is more of an admonition against men than women.


Has God created anything since he rested on the 7th day? Genesis 2 indicates that on the 7th day after creation God rested.

  Genesis 2:1-3 NIV

  1 Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast
  array.

  2 By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so
  on the seventh day he rested from all his work. 3 Then God blessed the
  seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the
  work of creating that he had done.

Is there any indication that he has created anything since then?  Will he create again?

Yes, He will create a New Heaven and a New Earth. He will recreate everything!

Revelation 21:1-5 emphasis mine
Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Now the dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.”
He who was seated on the throne said, “I am making everything new!” Then he said, “Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true.”


How does the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints reconcile 3 Nephi 15:23 with Jesus visiting Joseph Smith? In 3 Nephi 15:23, Jesus says to the Book of Mormon peoples:

...and they understood me not that the Gentiles should not at any time hear my voice-that I should not manifest myself unto them save it were by the Holy Ghost.

Joseph Smith was a Gentile, so every time I read this part of this verse the title question always comes to mind.
I've always reconciled it by interpreting this statement as Jesus meaning that "I shouldn't have to manifest myself to the Gentiles" - but that He ended up needing to do that. I don't like that interpretation, but it's the best I can think of, and I've never been able to find a better alternative in Google searches.
An answer should include official references from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I'm interested in explanations from unofficial sources too, because I usually find those to be valuable - on their own though I wouldn't accept them as an answer.

If you look at the Bible Dictionary for Gentile:

The word Gentiles means “the nations” and eventually came to be used to mean all those not of the house of Israel. It is first used in Genesis with reference to the descendants of Japheth (Gen. 10:2–5). As used throughout the scriptures it has a dual meaning, sometimes to designate peoples of non-Israelite lineage and other times to designate nations that are without the gospel, even though there may be some Israelite blood therein. This latter usage is especially characteristic of the word as used in the Book of Mormon. ...

So there are 2 cases:

Joseph Smith was a descendant of House of Israel (Not a Gentile, scripture doesn't apply):

In Of the House of Israel it says

President Young identified Joseph Smith as a “pure Ephraimite” in the above quotation, so far as the Prophet’s family or blood lines were concerned, Brigham Young and others have recognized that (1) Joseph Smith was from a Gentile nation and (2) some of Joseph Smith’s progenitors may have come from bloodlines other than that of Ephraim. (See Journal of Discourses, 2:268.)

As this may bring up other potential contradictions about Joseph Smith not being a Gentile please continue reading said article

Thus, Joseph Smith was of the house of Israel so far as his family or blood lines were concerned, but he came from a Gentile nation and thus might also be considered a Gentile in the political or geographical sense.

2. Joseph Smith was/wasn't a descendant of the House of Israel AND was missing the gospel (Gentile-scripture applies)
Expanding the scripture 3 Nephi 15:23-24

23 And they understood me not that I said they shall hear my voice; and they understood me not that the Gentiles should not at any time hear my voice—that I should not manifest myself unto them save it were by the Holy Ghost.

24 But behold, ye have both heard my voice, and seen me; and ye are my sheep, and ye are numbered among those whom the Father hath given me.

I will now offer some speculation or alternate interpretations as I can't find anything by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints specifically about this verse and how it ties to Joseph Smith.
Jesus is saying he will not speak directly to those who haven't been converted or felt the Holy Ghost first. If they have been converted(touched by the Holy Ghost) then Jesus can speak to them. From JSH 1:12 one can see Joseph Smith was moved by the Holy Ghost after reading James 1:5

12 Never did any passage of scripture come with more power to the heart of man than this did at this time to mine. It seemed to enter with great force into every feeling of my heart....

and after his prayer Heavenly Father and Jesus appeared and spoke to him, proving that Joseph Smith (if initially a Gentile) was no longer considered one because he had faith and acted on prompting of the Holy Ghost (so Jesus could appear to him).
In 3 Nephi a similar situation can be seen, some of the survivors before Christ appeared were not faithful followers of Christ (see 3 Nephi 9:24-25), but Jesus appears and teaches the people because they repented.


Accuracy of History Channel's The Bible I am very interested in learning about Christianity and would like to purchase History Channel's The Bible.

How close is this to the actual scriptures? Is this series a good introduction to Christianity to non-Christians?

How closely the movie is to Scripture depends on which Translation and which Denomination you are asking about.

The producers of the film are a Catholic couple and the movie compares quite closely to the Doughy Rheims translation. There are some striking differences between the Bible canons of Catholicism and Protestantism, but as far as the story of Jesus death and resurrection there are very minor disagreements.

I have made a dedicated study of the Scriptures of the Holy Bible for more than a decade, and I found no major complaints about the depictions in the Movie.

It must be considered that to take words on a page and turn that into something visual is going to be flavored by the imagination of the person making the depiction, and their concept may vary widely from other conceptions. Just take for instance the background, what you may have pictured is a semi desert scene while I may have imagined a wooded area.

The story lines are as far as I can tell very close to the scriptures. I personally feel that it is an excellent movie for someone wanting to learn about the Bible, and particularly the story of the Gospel. The portrayal of the Gospel is closer to the Book of Mark than the books of the other three Gospels.

You also might explore some of the Biblical movies presented on You tube. There are some excellent presentations available there and they can be downloaded free so that you can watch them at your leisure.


How do Mormons interpret Daniel 2:44? This is about two questions to Mormons about Daniel 2:44. This passage records Daniel explaining the conclusion of a sequence of events in the then distant future to King Nebuchadnezzar, as follows:

  And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a
  kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be
  left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all
  these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.

(This passage is according to KJV taken from here)

The questions are:

Do Mormons believe that this describes an actual physical event,
such as the end of the world (Armageddon)?
If it describes an actual physical event, will USA also be among those
destroyed by God's Kingdom?

The LDS Church's "Old Testament Student Manual" has a good, if small, compilation of statements on this subject with some commentary.  Search for the question "How Is It That the Kingdom Set Up by God Will Consume the Other Kingdoms?" on this site.

A short answer to your question before diving in: Mormon teachings, as far as I have been able to find, do not indicate a specific event leading to the destruction of nations.  That the kingdom of God will have real political power after Christ's coming is found in Mormon teachings, though the exact process by which this political power is gained is not specified to my knowledge, though it is associated with the great growth of the kingdom of God as it rolls to fill the whole earth.

There are two relevant quotes found in the manual.  From Elder Bruce R. McConkie:

  During the millennium the kingdom of God will continue on earth, but in that day it will be both an ecclesiastical and a political kingdom. That is, the Church (which is the kingdom) will have the rule and government of the world given to it. (Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p. 416.)

So, the "rule and government of the world" will be given to the kingdom of God.  Exactly how is not indicated, but we know that when Christ comes again He will reign as the king of kings and lord of lords over the whole earth in both a political and ecclesiastical sense (e.g., Revelation 20 which states that Christ will reign for a thousand years, or the LDS Church's Tenth Article of Faith "Christ will reign personally upon the earth").

President Brigham Young taught:

  The Lord God Almighty has set up a kingdom that will sway the sceptre of power and authority over all the kingdoms of the world, and will never be destroyed, it is the kingdom that Daniel saw and wrote of. It may be considered treason to say that the kingdom which that Prophet foretold is actually set up; that we cannot help, but we know it is so, and call upon the nations to believe our testimony. The kingdom will continue to increase, to grow, to spread and prosper more and more. Every time its enemies undertake to overthrow it, it will become more extensive and powerful; instead of its decreasing, it will continue to increase, it will spread the more, become more wonderful and conspicuous to the nations, until it fills the whole earth.” (In Journal of Discourses, 1:202–3.)

This quote describes the kingdom of God as already possessing political power, and as it grows and becomes "more wonderful and conspicuous to the nations" it will fill the whole earth, at which point one can say that its intrinsic political power has taken over all nations.

As far as whether specifically the United States of America will fall,
President Ezra Taft Benson often taught of the necessity of preserving the United States of America as a place of freedom, and in particular of preserving the United States Constitution.  The following quote, from a talk entitled "This National Shall Endure", indicates that President Benson is sure that the United States will "endure", though he does not indicate a specific timeframe for this endurance.

  May we do all in our power to strengthen and safeguard this base and increase our freedom. This nation will, I feel sure, endure. It is God-ordained for a glorious purpose. We must never forget that the gospel message we bear to the world is to go forth to the world from this nation. And that gospel message can prosper only in an atmosphere of freedom. We must maintain and strengthen our freedom in this blessed land. (Ezra Taft Benson, Brigham Young University Devotional Address, 4 December 1973)

That the LDS Church believe the Constitution is an inspired document can be found throughout President Benson's teachings, as well as the 101st section of the Doctrine and Covenants.  Church leaders (such as President Benson in the talk linked above) often acknowledge the importance of the USA and its freedoms in the establishment of the LDS church, and in this way one can think of the Constitution and the similar documents of other nations (and, more broadly, the nations themselves) as belonging to the kingdom of God in that they are associated with establishing it, even if indirectly.

These quotes unfortunately do not have the specificity to match the specificity of your questions.  However, I do have some thoughts on this subject that have been informed by my lifetime of growing up in the LDS church that, although I don't have specific references to point you to.  I've always been under the impression that after the Second Coming of Christ, those who are left will recognize Christ as their lord, savior, and king.  Some will recognize this immediately, others who are less familiar with Christ's teachings will become convinced of this over time.  At this point, the political authority that existed before Christ will become irrelevant, because everybody will recognize Christ as their ecclesiastical and political head.  In this way the kingdom of God will have broken apart all other kingdoms and filled the whole earth, though through the peaceful conversion of individuals rather than through any sort of hostile takeover or destruction.  This seems very consistent with Brigham Young's statement quoted above.

I also remember watching a video where President Benson stated that when Christ comes again, he was confident that flag of the USA would be flying in the breeze.  However, I have not been able to find that video or text since, so do not take that as fact yet.  I post it here in case someone else is aware of a reference for these words and can share it with me.


Why isn't supralapsarianism's first decree to create? From Wikipedia

  Supralapsarians believe that God chose which individuals to save
  logically prior to the decision to allow the race to fall and that the
  Fall serves as the means of realization of that prior decision to send
  some individuals to hell and others to heaven (that is, it provides
  the grounds of condemnation in the reprobate and the need for
  salvation in the elect).

Also from wikipedia Logical order of God's decree

  Save some and condemn others

  Create the elect and the reprobate

  Authorize the Fall (by which all deserve to be condemned)

  Provide salvation only for the elect

In my understanding - "to save and to condemn" need a preceding logical order (in mind) that there must be something to save and to condemn.

The question : why the logical order in Supralapsarian like 1, 2, 3 above ?
Isn't that the proper logical order is (in the mind) to (1) have something plural (create), and then the next order (2) want/will from those something plural, some are saved and some are condemned, and then (3) choose/elect which names that are saved and which names that are condemned.

Another source from  this link:

  the election of some men to salvation in Christ (and the reprobation of the others)
  the decree to create the world and both kinds of men
  the decree that all men would fall
  the decree to redeem the elect, who are now sinners, by the cross work of Christ
  the decree to apply Christ's redemptive benefits to these elect sinners

Can someone please explain how to elect something when there is nothing to be elected ? Wouldn't it we need number zero (0) in our mind there is Cain Abel Esau Jacob Mary Josef Moses Abraham Judas etc etc etc. Then next thing is (1) I want Cain Esau Judas to be in hell and I want Mary Josef Moses Jacob Abraham to be with me.

Thank you.

Quick note up front, I'm planning to edit this to add further info when I have time to break out my Berkhof and/or other relevant texts. But here's a quick response:

I think part of the problem here is wikipedia. You are getting confused by the wording of wikipedia, which is confusing, and not exactly accurate.

Supralapsarianism teaches, essentially, that God determined to create for himself a people to redeem and a people to judge (if you accept double predestination). Once he had made this decision he then determined how to accomplish this through the creation of a people who would fall and be redeemed by Christ. To use a logic order as you have above, it would be formulated as:

  Supralapsarianism (modified)

the election of some men to salvation in Christ (and the reprobation of the rest of sinful
mankind in order to make known the riches of God's gracious mercy to the elect)
the decree to apply Christ's redemptive benefits to the elect sinners
the decree to redeem the elect sinners by the cross work of Christ
the decree that men should fall
the decree to create the world and men

Infralapsarianim teaches, on the other hand, that God determined to create people, determined that these people would fall and that he would redeem them through his Son. Again, to use the logic order it should be formulated:

  Infralapsarianism

the decree to create the world and (all) men
the decree that (all) men would fall
the election of some fallen men to salvation in Christ (and the reprobation of the others)
the decree to redeem the elect by the cross work of Christ
the decree to apply Christ's redemptive benefits to the elect

Keep in mind that in both views God is proactively determining each step. None are reactionary but rather the will of God in eternity. The debate is purely over the logical order of God's thought and, therefore, necessarily speculative.

Here's a much better source than wikipedia to help clarify these terms:  https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/qna/superinfra.html


What is the scriptural basis for believing that God wants us to know an action is morally, objectively right or wrong? As a Catholic I believe that God wants us to know with certainty if any given action is morally, objectively right or wrong and that He reveals this to us in various ways.

I would like to know what scriptural evidence supports this concept.  Answers should not be concerned with mitigating factors specific to an individual's circumstances.  Only with whether God desires for us to know what is objectively right and wrong with certainty.

I got these two verses that I hope help you out:

James 4:17 ESV So whoever knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin.
Isaiah 5:20 ESV Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for  light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!


Why was Ezra included in the canon? As a Christian, I know we shouldn't have a "canon within the canon", but I'll admit, I just can't get worked up over Ezra.  I love Malachi. I could for a long time on 2 Peter.  I can even find stuff in Leviticus worth reading, but try as might, I just don't see anything interesting in Ezra. Understanding that I really do see theology in really obscure places, can someone help me see what is theological about this book?

You, my friend, have a hard heart if you can't find anything interesting in Ezra.  ;-)

  And when the builders laid the foundation of the temple of the LORD, the priests in their vestments came forward with trumpets, and the Levites, the sons of Asaph, with cymbals, to praise the LORD, according to the directions of David king of Israel. And they sang responsively, praising and giving thanks to the LORD,

  “For he is good,
    for his steadfast love endures forever toward Israel.”

  And all the people shouted with a great shout when they praised the LORD, because the foundation of the house of the LORD was laid. But many of the priests and Levites and heads of fathers' houses, old men who had seen the first house, wept with a loud voice when they saw the foundation of this house being laid, though many shouted aloud for joy, so that the people could not distinguish the sound of the joyful shout from the sound of the people's weeping, for the people shouted with a great shout, and the sound was heard far away.—Ezra 3:10-13 (ESV)

To me, this is a picture of the joy we will have in the Lord when He brings this age to a close and we enter the age that will last forever.

The entire book tells the story of God's influence in world history even in the operation of a worldly empire.  Since the Second Temple was rebuilt, Jesus was able to enter it and, ultimately, bring the Mosiac Covenant to a close.


What does Pentecostalism consider Prophetic Fine Art to be? In many Pentecostal churches, they talk about prophetic art - pictures/paintings with prophetic value. And of course, the Catholic Church is full of art, but do they consider their churches art prophetic?

Is there any scripture on what is prophetic art? Does this make the artist a prophet?

I wouldn't say there's any example of prophetical art specifically but there is a Biblical basis for people being led by God to create art for example the Tabernacle and Temple in the OT (e.g. Exodus 31:1-5). In my mind, if someone is open to the Holy Spirit leading them to do things than it's not hard to imagine that they might create some art that has special significance because God led them to do it.

In terms of prophecy, I don't know of any example where a prophet in the Bible drew a picture though there are examples of prophets acting things, writing on walls, etc. all which are "artistic." To me the question of whether art can be prophetic isn't a big issue because in a sense anything can be prophetic.

Now whether that makes an artist a prophet - assuming you are referring to modern day and that you hold to a Pentecostal view that prophecy still "exists" - then generally the idea is this:

Anyone could create prophetic one time as led by the Spirit but not be a prophet. For someone to be a prophet they would have to regularly create prophetic art and generally people don't claim to be a prophet it's a designation given to them by their local church.