What does Hebrews 10:26 mean? I thought the knowledge of the truth was knowing that we are shaped in iniquity, sinners through and through, and destined to die that way. However, Jesus death which was the sacrifice that paid for our sins, wiped the slate clean, And now we are no longer slaves to sin and the penalty of death. And that sacrifice is eternal, we just have to accept it, And put our faith in him.

  Hebrews 10:26  For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, KJV

So if we willfully sin after being saved will it be covered by Jesus death and resurrection?

In answer to your question;

(note) all Scripture is quoted from the King James translation.

The key word in:

  Hebrews 10:26  For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,

is the word truth.

  John 14:6  Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

If we break down Hebrews perhaps we can understand it better.

(if we sin willfully.) the first thing we have to know is what sin is Paul referring to. We get our first clue in:

  Hebrews 10:10  By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

Our second clue comes in:

  Hebrews 10:14  For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.

and third:

  Hebrews 10:18  Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.

So this is telling us that once your sins are forgiven by Jesus death and resurrection, it cannot be done a second time.

Now notice that it says * knowledge*.

So the sin referenced here  refers to Knowing Jesus and the willful part has to do with denying that Jesus is the way to Salvation.


What is the origin of the word "Nativity" as a title for Christ's Advent? I am interested in knowing when the term "Nativity" came into popular use for Christ's Advent and what are its origins.

In Catholic culture it comes from the Latin.

  "Festum Nativitatis Domini Nostri Jesu Christi"  (the Feast of the Nativity of Our Lord Jesus Christ) and the shorter form,  "Dies Natalis Domini"  (the Birthday of Our Lord).

  From these Latin names most nations obtained their popular terms for the Christmas feast: "Il Natale" in Italy, "La Navidad" in Spain, "Natal" in Portugal, "Nadal" in southern France, "Nadolig" in Wales (and probably the Gaelic "Nollaig," as well). The Greek "Genethlia" means "Nativity," as do the names for Christmas in Hungarian ("Karacsony") and in most of the Slavic languages: "Boze Narodzenie" (God's Birth) in Polish; "Rozhdestvo Khrista" (Christ's Birth) in Russian and Ukrainian.

  The French word Noel can be explained as either coming from the Latin "natalis" (birthday) or from the word "nowel" which means "news." In an old English Christmas verse the angel says:

  I come from hevin to tell
   The best nowellis that ever befell.

  It is possible that both explanations are right. "Noel" and "nowel" may be words of different origin that have become identical in meaning because they are pronounced the same. -  History & Origin: Feast of the Nativity

The year 336 seems to be the first recorded date of Christmas at Rome.

  The Nativity stories of Matthew and Luke are prominent in the gospels and early Christian writers suggested various dates for the anniversary. The first recorded Christmas celebration was in Rome in 336. - Wikipedia

Etymologically the word nativity came into use in the 12th century:

  nativity (n.) c. 1200, from Old French nativité "birth" (12c.), from Late Latin nativitatem (nominative nativitas) "birth," from Latin nativus "born, native" (see native (adj.)). Late Old English had nativiteð, from earlier Old French nativited.  - Dictionary.com, etymonline.com


How do Trinitarians respond to syllogistic arguments against the divinity of Jesus? In a previous question in which I asked for evidence of early Christians denying the divinity of Jesus, a user posted an answer that, among other things, presents sixteen very interesting syllogistic arguments against the divinity of Jesus. The arguments are very simple and easy to read, so I thought that it would be a good idea to ask a single question introducing the sixteen arguments and let trinitarians respond to them (in a rational manner, of course). Are there any flaws in these arguments that should make us question their validity and/or soundness?
The sixteen arguments are listed below:
Argument #1

The Father is the only true God (John 17:1,3)
Jesus is not the Father (John 17:1,3)
Therefore, Jesus is not the true God

Argument #2

There is no God besides the Father (Isa. 64:8,4)
Jesus is not the Father (borrowed from previous argument, and generally accepted)
Therefore, Jesus is not God

Argument #3

Man is not God (Ezek. 28:2)
Jesus is man (John 8:40)
Therefore, Jesus is not God

Argument #4

God is spirit (John 4:24)
Jesus is not a spirit (Luke 24:39)
Therefore, Jesus is not God

Argument #5

God never wearies (Isa. 40:28)
Jesus was weary (John 4:6)
Therefore, Jesus is not God

Argument #6

God never sleeps (Ps. 121:3-4)
Jesus slept (Matt. 8:24)
Therefore, Jesus is not God

Argument #7

God never dies (I Tim. 1:17)
Jesus died (Mark 15:37)
Therefore, Jesus is not God

Argument #8

God knows everything (I John 3:20)
Jesus does not know everything (Mark 13:26, 32)
Therefore, Jesus is not God

Argument #9

God would not acknowledge another as God (Isa. 46:9)
Jesus acknowledges the Father as God (John 20:17)
Therefore, Jesus is not God

Argument #10

God has natural (inherent) authority (Job 34:13)
Jesus has acquired authority (Matt. 28:18)
Therefore, Jesus is not God

Argument #11

God has natural holiness (Lev. 19:2)
Jesus has acquired holiness (John 10:36)
Therefore, Jesus is not God

Argument #12

God has natural lordship (Ps. 100:3)
Jesus has acquired lordship (Acts 2:36)
Therefore, Jesus is not God

Argument #13

God has natural power (Gen. 17:1)
Jesus has acquired power (Acts 10:38)
Therefore, Jesus is not God

Argument #14

God has natural judgeship (Gen. 18:25)
Jesus has acquired judgeship (Acts 10:42)
Therefore, Jesus is not God

Argument #15

God has natural saviorhood (Isa. 45:21)
Jesus has acquired saviorhood (Acts 5:31)
Therefore, Jesus is not God

Argument #16

God is OVER ALL (I Cor. 15:27-28)
Jesus is UNDER God (I Cor. 15:27-28)
Therefore, Jesus is not God

These are easy to answer, specifically because they depend on logical or linguistic fallacies.
Argument 1
"The Father is the only true God"
"The only true" simply modifies "God," and as such, "God" and "the only true" are interchangable; "You are the only true God" and "Only you are the true God" are not synonymous.
To say the Father is God, or the Son is God, or the Holy Spirit is God does not contradict, but is rather predicted and required by the doctrine on the Trinity.
Argument 2
"There is no God besides the Father"
Isaiah does not say that only the Father is God, or that there is no God besides the Father, but that Yahweh is a father to Israel. Because Yahweh = God, this is consonant with the doctrine of the Trinity, according to which, obviously, the Father is God.
Argument 3
"Man is not God"
Even though I couldn't find the passage you were referring to, the doctrine of the Trinity does not teach that man is God, but that God became man (took a human nature for His Temple), and thus this can't be an objection to the doctrine — that which a doctrine would predict can't contradict the doctrine.
Argument 4
"God is spirit"
Yes, by definition, the uncreated God is spirit, not matter, but this doesn't mean that if God becomes incarnate, that He loses His spiritual nature, because He assumes a physical nature: the Incarnation is not a doctrine about God converting into flesh, but taking flesh for His Temple.
Argument 5-9
"God doesn't do things humans do"
If Jesus is the Son become flesh, then He can become weary, be ignorant, sleep etc. by definition. He can't be truly man, and not weary at once.
Jesus tells John, "I am the First and the Last, who died, and behold I live forever and I have the keys of death and hell." (Revelation 1:17-18). If God can be born of woman, then God can die. Both things pertain to the human nature He took, not the divine nature He has always had.
Argument 9
"God would not acknowledge another as God"
If the Trinity is true, the Father can acknowledge that the Son or Spirit is God. As it is written: "But to the Son [God the Father says]: Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of justice is the sceptre of thy kingdom. ... And [who also said to the Son]: Thou in the beginning, O Lord, didst found the earth: and the works of thy hands are the heavens. " (Hebrews 1:8).
After all, if the Son is God, the Father can call Him such. If He is not, then we aren't speaking about the Trinity.
Argument 10
"That which is given is not inherent"
Because the Son has everything He has because of and from the Father (John 6:57; 16:15; 17:5), He can say, "I have recieved," or "I have heard," or "I have been given." Because the Trinity predicts that everything the Son has He has fromt he Father who begat Him (to use the Scriptural anthropomorphism).
Argument 11
"God is naturally holy"
Not only can holy be meant in two ways (worthy of honor because of being holy, set apart, or simply the fact or quality of being set apart itself), but this objection is answered by the above answer.
Argument 12
"God is naturally lord"
This is true. But the Messiah, a human leader, is also a man, and also has an inherited human authority from His father David.
(The following arguments are just different ways of saying the same thing.)
Argument 16
"God is over all; Jesus is under God"
Even the trinitarian creeds say that Jesus is under God because He is man, and equal to God because He is God. These two are basic facts about the Trinity. Anyone who is man is inferior to God, and anyone who is God made man is both equal to God and inferior to God by definition.
Athanasian Creed (the Trinitarian Creed par excellence):

... Equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead; and inferior to the Father as touching his Manhood. ...

This would seem to be the most fundamental part of grasping the doctrine in the first place, and not an objection.


Without Hell, from what does Jesus save? This question is about the liberal versions of Christianity, the versions which don’t have a conception of Hell. Put simply, without Hell, just what exactly is Jesus saving me from?

Even the most liberal Christians say that sin is inescapable. So Jesus cannot be saving me from sin. Without Hell, he can’t be saving me from God either. Or the Devil.

I really don’t see how a liberal Jesus could be anyone’s personal saviour.

Question inspired by Nathaniel in the comments at Slacktivist.

"Liberal Christianity" is a loosely defined and wide-ranging group, and there can be many approaches to salvation, but let me describe a commonly believed approach.

While we often use the word 'salvation' as if it was synonymous with 'rescue', in the original languages it doesn't really mean that in a simple way. The word has connections with both 'healing' and 'wholeness'. It would be as reasonable to say that "Jesus heals us" or "Jesus makes us whole" as to say "Jesus saves us". In fact many 'liberal' Christians are driven by a desire to get away from a 'caricatured' Christianity, in which Jesus' only reason for coming was to make sure that we don't go to Hell when we die, and our only purpose on Earth is to tell other people how they can avoid Hell.

Thoughtful evangelicals will usually admit that Jesus does more than just rescue us from Hell. He restores our relationship with God and with each other; he saves us from the guilt which our sins have brought us; he heals us in body and mind, from broken-ness brought on not just by our own sin, but by others and by the world around us; he restores creation to the state God intended; he gives us "life in abundance". All of those things can be done not just in the future, but here and now, and all fall under the category of 'healing' or 'wholeness', and therefore also of 'salvation'. And he does them personally for each one of us.

Those are the sort of thing you will hear if you talk to a 'liberal' Christian about a Jesus who saves.


Use of "the LORD" in Old Testament names Many traditional Hebrew personal names contain a reference to God in their meaning. For example the name יְהוֹשֻֽׁעַ׃ Joshua means 'Yahwah is salvation'.

But what about Yahwah itself [יְהוָ֨ה] ? Is the tetragrammaton wholly and directly used in any name of a person in the OT?

The only place I know is at Jeremiah 23:6. "In His days Judah will be saved, And Israel will dwell securely; And this is His name by which He will be called, 'The LORD [יְהוָ֨ה] our righteousness.'"

Follow-up questions: is Jeremiah referring to a the name of a person? And is this a reference to the Messiah?

When the monks translated the King James version, they considered the name of God (yehôvâh) to be so Holy that they would not translate יהוה to the word yehôvâh; instead they inserted LORD in its place. They used all capital letters as a form of honoring the Deity.

Later translations which bore heavily on the King James translation also used that capitalized word in place of  Jehovah, YHWH, God, Elohim, YAHWEH as we find in some translations.

Here are some examples:

  (ASV)  And Jehovah God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

  (Darby)  And Jehovah Elohim formed Man, dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and Man became a living soul.

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

  (HRB) And YAHWEH Elohim formed the man from the dust of the ground, and blew into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living soul.

  (ISV)  So the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground, breathed life into his lungs, and the man became a living being.

  (KJV-BRG)  And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

  (LITV)  And Jehovah God formed the man out of dust from the ground, and blew into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

  (MKJV)  And Jehovah God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Other translations, as you can see, used other terms.

The word LORD, then, is a substitute word, which when used in the King James version was not a connotation associated with the Supreme being, as it is now.


What is the general Christian view on fantasy works such as Tolkien's Silmarillion? I've just read Silmarillion for the second time in my life. The last time was 20 years ago. In short, it's basically a "fantasy bible", starting out extremely abstract with how God creates these beings called "Ainor" which produce "music", and one of them, Melkor, makes his own, disharmonic music, and developers from there into the "Lord of Darkness"/Devil.

Interesting to note is that the author, J. R. R. Tolkien, was very much Christian. Apparently. But how does that fit with this fantasy vision of the world? Because, as he says himself in an interview, it is meant to be about the early history of this, our planet/world -- not some kind of distant alien planet or an alternative dimension.

This really got me thinking. After all, one of the commandments is all about how you aren't supposed to "depict other gods", but he very much does so with Silmarillion, which doesn't at all fit with the old or new testaments of the Christian/Jewish/standard bible.

I'm probably going to attempt to read the bible again soon, but I stopped when they got to the point, pretty early on, where they just started listing names for pages upon pages. Silmarillion has a very similar issue; it becomes extremely "heavy" to read due to the numerous names and aliases for everyone and everything.

Another major "problem" (or potential point of conflict) is that, in Tolkien's vision, humans are not the first creatures created after the initial beings/gods (called Ainur/Valar/Maior) -- instead, it's the elves, and only much later do humans appear, and when they do, they are made out to be very easily lured into evil deeds and horribly traitorous acts by Melkor, the Satans of Silmarillion.

This got me thinking a lot: what do Christians in general think of a work such as Silmarillion? Is it "disgusting heresy" or "an interesting fictional alternative history which of course isn't true but nevertheless interesting to read about, much like the other actual religions/beliefs which are obviously false but still have some interesting storytelling"?

Some time after I had read The Lord of the Rings I bought a copy of Tolkien’s The Silmarillion.  I recognised the cover of the book as shown in the Wikipedia article above [1].

Unlike The Lord of the Rings, which I thoroughly enjoyed, I never did get to the end of the Silmarillion.  In fact, I don’t recall reading beyond the first chapter.  Another book I enjoyed was C.S. Lewis’ The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe.  Tolkien was at one time a close friend of C. S. Lewis.  They met while Lewis was teaching at Magdalen College. [2]

Tolkien reputedly said “All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us.”  He also wrote that “the chief purpose of life, for any one of us, is to increase according to our capacity our knowledge of God by all the means we have, and to be moved by it to praise and thanks." [3]

I have taken that advice to heart, and since I became a Christian, I have given up on mythical characters and fantastic plots.  I realise this is the personal opinion of one Christian, but I was quite unable to find any Christian sources that mentioned The Silmarillion – which speaks volumes.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Silmarillion

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._R._R._Tolkien

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._R._R._Tolkien#Religion


Is the Book of Enoch authentic? I grew up reading the Holy Bible which portrays God as a loving Father, full of compassion and goodwill for mankind. However, after reading the Book of Enoch, I am perplexed at the way heaven and God are portrayed. I was filled with fear and I kept asking myself is this the God Christ reflected while on Earth. My question is that is the Book of Enoch canonical?

The Old Testament canon for Christians was formally set for all five ancient Church Sees (Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem) at the 7th Ecumenical Council in 787.  This Council ratified the Old Testament canons of the local councils of Carthage in 397 and Trullo in 692.  The council of Trullo had ratified the canon specified Canon LXXXV of the Apostolic Canons.

In neither these local councils nor in the 7th Ecumenical Council was the Book of Enoch specified as one of the canonical Old Testament books.  The canon that the 7th Ecumenical Council ratified was the combined lists of the two aforementioned local councils:

  Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy
  Joshua, Judges, Ruth
  Four "Books of Kings", namely 1/2 Samuel and 1/2 Kings
  Two "books of Paraleipomena", i.e. 1/2 Chronicles
  Job
  Psalms
  Five "books of Solomon": Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom of Solomon, and Wisdom of Sirach (Ecclesiasticus)
  The books of the 12 Prophets: Hosea, Amos, Micah, Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi
  Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel
  Tobit
  Judith
  Esther
  Two "books of Esdras": Ezra and Nehemiah
  Three books of Maccabees


How do Mormons view events like the Holocaust considering that they view Adam's fall as a move forward? In Christianity in general, a common view of Adam's transgression has been that it was something bad that resulted not just in a loss of something good.

Among the consequences of Adam's transgression is also the current state of affairs among mankind with death, diseases, war and so on. Out of this short list of consequences warfare is the one that has changed most toward worse during the last two centuries.

Mormons however believe that Adam's sin was a necessary step forward.

For example the answer to this other question says that

  Life is an opportunity to learn to choose good over evil. This could
  not happen if there was not good or evil. (See 2 Nephi 2.)

  The sacrifice of the Son of God was planned from "the foundation of
  the world" (Revelation 13:8). So also was the Fall -- which
  necessitated the sacrifice -- known from the beginning. Mormons often
  describe the Fall as a fall downward, but also forward.

In this question I am just focusing on the negative developments after Adam's transgression.

Presumably things like the Holocaust would never had happened if the transgression would not have happened.

However Mormons view the transgression as a necessary part of God's plan without which humankind would not have been able to learn what they needed to learn.

Because of this do they also consider the subsequent events as somehow necessary on the larger scale of things?

Depperm's answer, with the article/answer and Book of Mormon chapter linked therein, is much more complete than mine.  However, I wish to address one part of the OP's question:

Presumably things like the Holocaust would never had happened if the transgression would not have happened.

First, let's reference 2 Nephi 2:22-23:

22 And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end.
23 And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin.

Thus, in the Mormon theology, if Adam and Eve had not fallen they would have never had children.  So yes, if they had not transgressed the Holocaust would not have happened, but also everything else that has happened since they transgressed would not have happened.  Nobody would have been born to the earth, and Adam and Eve would have remained childless forever (or, until they chose to partake of the forbidden fruit).


What are the differences between God and mankind? A lot has been said about man being made in God's image. However, when I once explained this to a Hindu lady, she said "God in man's image or man in God's image, it's all the same", implying that she thought the God of the Bible was just man's projection.

However, I think it would be useful to have some explanation of the "otherness" of God as seen in the Bible. I think that most non-Christians are unaware that the Bible has a particular view of God, that is different from their own. It would be nice to have some discussion on the question of the otherness of God.

The statement that your quoted from the Hindu believer has a Pantheistic notion in it. Contrast this with the way the Christian Holy Bible consistently teaches about God and His plan for humanity.

God is distinctly declared as the Creator of Heaven and Earth and the first human being. The account of the creation of the world starting from Genesis 1:1 would be a good starting point.
The names ascribed to God in the ancient Hebrew traditions (Old Testament) would be another field of study that can profoundly improve our understanding on the observable attributes of God that His chosen people ascribed to Him.
God reveals Himself in three persons, co-equal, co-eternal (the concept of Trinity) in order to carry out the plan of Salvation.
And lastly, and most pertinent when discussing Christianity with people of different faiths, is the fact that the Christian Bible is not a collection of wisdoms, it is not a collection of legends, it is not a collection of legalistic rules and regulations.  Instead, it use all those to weave a coherent blueprint and a model on how to connect ourselves to God, so we can participate in His plan using His strength.  This plan has a definite beginning, and it has a definite end.  It is not an cycle with indefinite number of iterations.

Of course, this doesn't even began to describe how rich the revelation of God in the Scriptures really is. This is just a starting point, a frame of mind to start a discussion.


What is the biblical basis for the idea that the church is a hospital for sinners? Pope Francis, in his recent interview, uses a very common metaphor for the church:

  “I see clearly,” the pope continues, “that the thing the church needs most today is the ability to heal wounds and to warm the hearts of the faithful; it needs nearness, proximity. I see the church as a field hospital after battle. It is useless to ask a seriously injured person if he has high cholesterol and about the level of his blood sugars! You have to heal his wounds. Then we can talk about everything else. Heal the wounds, heal the wounds.... And you have to start from the ground up

I've heard this, and even preached this, but I'm realizing that I don't really know where its Biblical basis comes from.  What is the biblical justification for understanding the church as a place where believers are supposed to be emotionally healed?

And when the scribes and Pharisees saw him eat with publicans and
  sinners, they said unto his disciples, How is it that he eateth and
  drinketh with publicans and sinners?

  When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole have no
  need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the
  righteous, but sinners to repentance.

  Mark 2:16-17

Jesus' ministry was not limited to just the spiritual. He healed the sick, physical healing; he ministered to the brokenhearted, emotional healing; and he taught and preached, spiritual healing.

  And Jesus went about all the cities and villages, teaching in their
  synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every
  sickness and every disease among the people.

  Matthew 9:35

  The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me; because the Lord hath anointed
  me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up
  the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the
  opening of the prison to them that are bound.

  Isaiah 61:1


In what way was the Law of Moses "a good thing whose purpose had now been accomplished"? I came across this quote from NT Wright:

  The Torah [the Law of Moses] is given for a specific period of time,
  and is then set aside—not because it was a bad thing now happily
  abolished, but because it was a good thing whose purpose had now been
  accomplished.

I'd like to see this fleshed out in more detail. In what way is this true, according to Wright or others that hold this view?

The question here really is "what is the purpose of the Torah?" and "what is achieved by God in Christ?" For NT Wright, they are in a sense the same. The key theme, as in much of Wright's work, is that of covenant relationship.

The purpose of the Torah, for Wright, is to mediate the covenant between YHWH and Israel. As Wright writes in Creation and Covenant,

  Torah does in human life what the sun does within creation: it brings the light, power and searching, probing heat of YHWH’s presence into the depths of the human heart. Torah is, of course, the covenant charter of Israel, the Law given to bind Israel to YHWH, to establish the nation as his people. With Torah as its guide, Israel is the unique, chosen people of the one creator God.

So the purpose of the Torah is to bind YHWH and hoods people together, to mark them out as his covenant people. Basically it is to mediate the relationship.

For Wright, one aspect of Jesus' work (perhaps even the central aspect) is again to mediate the relationship between God and his people of the New Covenant. The Torah mediated the Old Covenant, but that purpose has passed away with the coming off Christ into the world, the perfect mediation of the covenant of love between God and his world.


How does leaving a 'gift at the altar' reconcile with reformed views of the need to 'approach the throne of grace' in everything? Jesus said:

  “Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother or sister has something against you, leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to them; then come and offer your gift. (Matthew 5:23-24, NIV)

However, this might make someone infer that while we have any 'big sin' in our life, like hateful anger for a brother, we should reform our life before approaching God. Clearly such a works based concept is absolutely opposed to the gospel. So the question is what is a valid exegesis of Mathew 5:23-24 that does not conflict with our need to approach the throne of grace to enable this 'leaving the gift at the altar' and attempt of reconciliation with a brother?

Is there any sin that we must straighten out before approaching the throne of grace?

Note: I was first tempted to ask this question on BH.SE but I realized although asking for an exegesis, this is actually exploring the entire theological framework of reformed theology because the belief that one may have to take care of any sin first, and then approach God is in direct conflict with a reformed position and so the question is more theological than exegetical.

this is actually exploring the entire theological framework of
  reformed theology using this particular verse only

That's a bad idea from a Reformed or any other perspective.  To take one verse and attempt to understand a full theology based on it is simply not possible.  The surest way to misinterpret Scripture is to take verses out of context.

Taken in context, this is not speaking about straightening out a specific sin prior to going to the altar, it's about the principle of going to the alter to "worship" with a heart that's far from God.  It's a perfect complement to Hosea 6, which speaks of Israel turning to God with an unrepentant heart simply to achieve personal gain - the healing of their land.  God rejects this, and in verses 6-10, we see the underlying principle:

  6 For I desire mercy, not sacrifice,
      and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings. 7 As at Adam,[b] they have broken the covenant;
      they were unfaithful to me there. 8 Gilead is a city of evildoers,
      stained with footprints of blood. 9 As marauders lie in ambush for a victim,
      so do bands of priests; they murder on the road to Shechem,
      carrying out their wicked schemes. 10 I have seen a horrible thing in Israel:
      There Ephraim is given to prostitution,
      Israel is defiled.

This has nothing to do with salvation, predestination, or any other Calvinistic doctrine.  It has to do with the truth of the condition of our hearts.  It speaks to the pointlesness of following religious ritual, and the superiority of a heart that is turned over to God.  Such a heart will understand that love, kindness, and forgiveness are necessary, and will not worship in vain.

From Calvin's commentary:

  It amounts to this, that the precept of the law, which forbids murder,
  (Exodus 20:13,) is obeyed, when we maintain agreement and brotherly
  kindness, with our neighbor. To impress this more strongly upon us,
  Christ declares, that even the duties of religion are displeasing to
  God, and are rejected by him, if we are at variance with each other.
  When he commands those who have injured any of their brethren, to be
  reconciled to him, before they offer their gift, his meaning is, that,
  so long as a difference with our neighbor is kept up by our fault, we
  have no access to God. But if the worship, which men render to God, is
  polluted and corrupted by their resentments, this enables us to
  conclude, in what estimation he holds mutual agreement among
  ourselves.

It's not a legalistic "do this, get that" type of thing.  There is no "specific sin" to be taken care of first.  It is, as Christ is trying to teach in this passage, a matter of hypocrisy vs. true Christian love, which is a result of faith in God and repentance.


A little more about natural law, the rules and punishment within natural law? There are some things about the natural law (in Christian perspective), which I do not understand. If I have understood it right, then the natural law is based on our conscience, like everyone know that killing is wrong.

If natural law is based on conscience we received from God, should not we all act alike? That it's just based on luck? Like if you have a wealthy family that gives you everything you want, then you're just stupid if you steal, but if you on the other hand steal to support you're family, then you perhaps feel like it's you'r only hope?

Charles Rice addresses this question more or less in his 50 questions on the Natural Law.  (See q. 35).

I'll try and synthesize it a bit while my new baby forms his or her conscience about whether or not today is a good day to be born. He mentions three reasons why your conscience is subjectively culpable (and, being subjective, not the same as anyone else's by degrees).

Not all consciences are formed according to the "moral obligation to see the truth".
A conscience should always be followed regardless if it came up with the right conclusion.
A doubtful conscience should never be acted upon, but sometimes is.

So, in all those cases you see people acting in ways that are the opposite of how we objectively should act. Ignorance, pride and cowardice can increase the odds of people acting that way. And, to your question, the love of money increases our vulnerability ignorance, pride and cowardice.

Still, stealing is unjust in any circumstance  and violates the 6th commandment in a pretty obvious way. If a person is incapable of acquiring sustenance then they're actively being oppressed any civilization that does that is doomed (mainly according to the Natural Law principle of solidarity).

Pope John Paul II wrote "it is not wrong to want to live better, what is wrong is a style of life which is presumed to be better when it is directed toward 'having' rather than 'being'".  So we'll never be royalty, oh well.  As my favorite priest said, the best way for a man to make sure he is poor and happy and not greedy is to have a big family, and that is a good that is far more in accord with the natural law than what the average rich man seeks.


What is the basis for saying rock music is sinful? It has been suggested to me that some Christians believe that rock music is inherently immoral, and as a result they believe that Christians would do well to avoid the entire genre.

For example, several older Christians have told me that statements about the immorality of rock were more common back in the 60s and 70s. Apparently, American evangelist Bob Larson was against rock music, and that he was lampooned for these view by Larry Norman, a musician who wrote rock music with a gospel theme. If this perspective is widespread, are there denominations that are opposed to rock music? Is there a cross-denominational movement that objects to rock music on the grounds that the genre is in some way unholy?

I met someone in my previous church who held this view, but I was never able to get a straight answer from her as to why. Was this just a personal perspective, or is this a widespread perspective amongst Christians?

If there is an anti-rock music movement amongst Christians, where did it originate? What is the basis for the belief? Are there particular Bible verses or doctrinal stances that underpin the anti-rock stance?

In answering the question, note that I'm not interested in debating whether or not rock music is actually immoral. I just want to know if / why groups of Christians believe it to be so.

After reading several of the comments, it appears that many are taking the original question, "Is rock music sinful / immoral" and rewriting it in their heads as "If I listen to rock music, does that make me a rank sinner?"

As Paul put it...

  I Corinthians 6:11-13 And such were some of you: but ye are washed,
  but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord
  Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God. All things are lawful unto me,
  but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I
  will not be brought under the power of any. Meats for the belly, and
  the belly for meats: but God shall destroy both it and them. Now the
  body is not for fornication, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the
  body.

Is it expedient to listen to a song that contains lyrics about traveling down the Highway to Hell? As one commenter noted, this song may be theologically accurate, but the lyrics are that "I'm on the highway to hell". No thanks. That's not expedient for me to sing along to.

Jesus admonished us to remember Lot's wife, who was so in love with the things of the world (Sodom) that, as fire fell from heaven, she had to turn back around to get one last look.

  LUKE 17:32 Remember Lot's wife. Whosoever shall seek to save his life
  shall lose it; and whosoever shall lose his life shall preserve it.

  GENESIS 19:24 Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah
  brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven; And he overthrew those
  cities, and all the plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and
  that which grew upon the ground. But his wife looked back from behind
  him, and she became a pillar of salt.

As Paul said, "but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God." Sanctification brings separation.

I believe true sanctification produces a difference between what you used to be, and what you are today in Christ. The difference between what you used to do, and what you do now, should be so obvious that anyone can see it, and you become a living testimony to all men.

  I Corinthians 3:1-2 Do we begin again to commend ourselves? or need
  we, as some others, epistles of commendation to you, or letters of
  commendation from you? Ye are our epistle written in our hearts, known
  and read of all men:

Summary:
To say that listening to rock music makes you a sinner is legalism. On the other hand, make sure you are washed, sanctified, and set apart, and aren't turning back like Lot's wife.


Does the Lutheran view of pope as AntiChrist stem from doctrine of justification? I've heard popular retellings of the Lutheran view of pope as Antichrist that range from:

a delusion that Pope Leo X was the incarnate figure of prophecy, to
a slur (like calling George Washington a communist), to
a conviction that it's a simple statement of the doctrine of
justification: no one is "ante" (stands before, between Christ and sinner) in the mechanism of salvation

A previous question focused on the role of prophecy in the idea.  But my question is to what extent this concept is not a mere slur but rather a necessary consequence of the doctrine of justification. Both bases may offend, but one is unavoidable consequence of there being two different denominations.   Quotes from Reformers and prominent Lutheran theologians are of interest.

Despite my love for Martin Luther and the doctrine of justification, I believe the answer to your question is (for the most part) yes.

While I don't believe that most modern Lutherans believe that the Pope is the Antichrist, Martin Luther did say it as a criticism of papal supremacy and the sale of indulgences.  So as you put it, a conviction that it's a simple statement of the doctrine of justification: no one is "ante" (stands before, between Christ and sinner) in the mechanism of salvation might be most correct for the original view held by Luther himself.

  "This teaching [of the supremacy of the pope] shows forcefully that the Pope is the very Antichrist, who has exalted himself above, and opposed himself against Christ, because he will not permit Christians to be saved without his power, which, nevertheless, is nothing, and is neither ordained nor commanded by God."
  --Martin Luther

Some Lutherans may still have strong views regarding the Pope, but most do not.  The WELS webpage about this topic may give you additional insights into the view of some Confessional Lutherans, or at least some within WELS.


Premillennialist view of 1 Thessalonians 4:16 I've read books on Premillennialism (including Left Behind) and heard many people preach on the topic but I've never heard an explanation of 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17:

  16 For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever.

That is, I have heard of those who are alive suddenly being Raptured but no mention of the dead going first. That is, in this verse it appears to consist of two separate events: first those who are dead, and then the living.

For that matter, the Rapture is often depicted as a silent affair but here there is a "loud command" and a "trumpet call".

Has any prominent premillennialist discussed this issue?

(On Wikipedia's Rapture page this verse is mentioned but the explanation of the "dead rising first" is not discussed.)

When taken in full context, I believe the answer becomes a little more clear.

"For we believe that Jesus died and rose again, and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him. According to the Lord’s word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever." (1 Thes 4:14-17 NIV)

This states that those who are still alive will be caught up TOGETHER with those who died to meet the Lord.  A simple way of putting the first part is that those that are still alive don't get a head start.  The dead get to rise from the ground first.  Then we're all gathered up in the clouds. God wants to meet all of us at once.  No favorites.

"I declare to you, brothers and sisters, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed— in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality. When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: 'Death has been swallowed up in victory.'” (1 Cor 15:50-54 NIV)

As for this passage, it is speaking of how we shall give up our earthly flesh for new eternal bodies.  We'll all be instantaneously changed "in the twinkling of an eye".  The dead will raise from the ground in their new bodies and those that are living will be changed instantly.

So putting the two together, in context, says that the change will happen followed by us all ascending to be with the Lord together.


What is the origin of the belief that Satan tortures the unsaved in Hell? There's a thought that Satan (the devil) tortures the unsaved in Hell.

For example, a brief search revealed a website wherein a member posted the following:

  I think of Satan more of a psycopath who wants people to follow him not God. He wants to seperate us from God and he will use any method he can to do it. However being a bitter bastard for what he is forced to live in he gets angry and takes out his anger on the populace of hell.

Even growing up, I was under the impression that the unsaved were tortured in Hell by Satan, and Satan himself ruled over Hell. Of course, now I know better, or so I think! Is there any biblical basis for the belief that Satan tortures the unsaved in Hell? If not, what is the origin of that belief?

There is no biblical support for Satan or any of his demons torturing people in Hell. Rather, the adversary, Satan is said to travel around the world (Job 1:7) and even to have access to God's presence (Job 1:6). In the gospel and Acts accounts, we find demonic figures not in Hell but on earth, dwelling in men (Matthew 12:22). Interestingly, in Matthew 12:43-45, Jesus gives us a behind-the-scenes picture of what happens to a spirit when it has been cast out of a man - it remains in this world!

Satan still has access to God's throne. He is seen there as the accuser of the brethren (Revelation 12:7-10) who will be or has been (depending on eschatological chronology) cast down from heaven to earth.

In the end, Satan and his demonic angels will be cast into the Lake of Fire, not to torment others, but to be tormented themselves (Revelation 20:7-10).

It's my unsubstantiated impression that such images of demons torturing people in Hell, especially a pointy-tailed man in a Red Devil suit, were the ideas of early painters who had to illustrate such places, and their imaginations went wild.


Why do Catholics have to go to regular confession to have their sins forgiven if they pray The Lord's Prayer and ask for forgiveness daily? This question is more for Catholics I suppose. The Lord's Prayer is a prayer that should be prayed daily i.e. "Give us this day our daily bread".
Why do Catholics have to go to regular confession to have their sins forgiven if they pray The Lord's Prayer and ask for forgiveness daily i.e. "Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those etc?

The Church teaches by Canon Law that a penitent must go to confession for mortal sins (see 1 Jn 5:16-17).  I have also included the prior canon providing an explanation of the proper disposition and intention of the pentitent.

  Canon 959 In the sacrament of penance the faithful who confess their
  sins to a lawful minister, are sorry for those sins and have a purpose
  of amendment, receive from God, through the absolution given by that
  minister, forgiveness of sins they have committed after baptism, and
  at the same time they are reconciled with the Church, which by sinning
  they wounded.

  Canon 960 Individual and integral confession and absolution constitute
  the sole ordinary means by which a member of the faithful who is
  conscious of grave sin is reconciled with God and with the Church.
  Physical or moral impossibility alone excuses from such confession, in
  which case reconciliation may be attained by other means also.


Is it possible to achieve a life without sin on earth? Based on the biblical doctrines, is it possible to achieve a completely holy life without any sin during our lifetime after salvation?

Only Jesus was perfect. The notion that one has become sinless can only be thought from a heart blinded by wicked pride.

  The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it? (NIV Jeremiah 17:9)

The bible makes the model prayer to be a daily confession of our daily sins. The moment any man thinks they have gone a day without sinning is the moment this prayer becomes insincere hypocrisy of the self-righteous.

  Give us today our daily bread. And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one. ’ (NIV Matthew 6:11-13)

Even the most holy men that have ever lived never thought for a moment were were free from sin but bitterly complained about the sinfulness.

  So I find this law at work: Although I want to do good, evil is right there with me. For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; but I see another law at work in me, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me. (NIV Romans 7:21-23)

Of course John Calvin, Luther and all the reformers understood these verses by Paul was a description of his 'Christian' experience.

Sufficient to say there is no biblical warrant to suppose we can for a moment be without sin. If I ever met a person who loved God with all their heart, which is the greatest command, I would ask them to sign my bible and I would sell everything I have and follow that person.

Of course we know that would not happen as only Jesus was perfect.


Did Jesus/God/Jehovah know that Jesus would die on the cross BEFORE coming to Earth? I have a question, summarized pretty much by the title, did Jesus and/or God (depending on whether you accept the trinity doctrine) know that he would be crucified before being born a mortal man? I would appreciate answers backed up by scripture in order to answer this question.

Upvote for a good question.

I do not agree that an answer to your question involves mere opinion. The answer is yes, and the scriptural basis for that affirmative answer is both broad and deep.

While the assumption that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one in their divine nature is not required in order to understand how the Christ knew "well beforehand" of His ultimate death on a Roman cross in the first third of the first century in the Common Era, it is helpful.

First, we need to take the long (really long) view of things. If God exists outside time and space (both of which are His creations), then perhaps we are helped in our understanding of God's perspective regarding His Son by thinking of eternity as God's realm of existence (i.e., God exists in the eternal present). As such, eternity neither looks forward nor backward. A decision God makes in eternity may seem to finite human beings to be "worked out in time," but from God's perspective that "working out" is in a sense a fait accompli. God's plan for the ages is unalterable, and while it becomes evident to finite human beings in space and time, to God it is as good as accomplished.
(The unalterability of God's plan diminishes neither His creatures' accountability nor their responsibility to do the right thing. Doing the wrong thing, however, cannot change the outcome of God's "big picture," since God has no Plan B, only Plan A. According to His plan, therefore, both God and good will triumph in the end. Handel's Messiah expresses this thought very well: "The kingdom of this world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ; and He shall reign forever and ever"--from Revelation 11:15.)

This perspective does not diminish one whit the significance of the great stoop Jesus took in becoming a flesh-and-blood human being (what theologians call His self-emptying, as in the Greek word kenosis, as found in Philippians 2:7), nor does it diminish the significance, not to mention the pain and suffering, of what Jesus accomplished not only through His life of continuous servanthood and obedience to the Father's will, but also through His death on a Roman cross, just outside Jerusalem at a place called Golgotha (Matthew 27:33 NAS; Mark 15:22 NAS; John 19:17 NAS).

A pivotal passage in this regard is 1 Peter 1:17-21, where we read (in excerpts):

  " . . . you were not redeemed [i.e., set free from the penalty of sin, which is death] with perishable things like silver or gold . . . but with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ. For He was foreknown before the foundation of the world, but has appeared in these last times for the sake of you, who through Him are believers in God, who raised Him from the dead . . .."

You see, the lamb (or the Lamb of God, who bears away the sin of the world, as in John 1:29 & 36) was offered up in sacrifice from eternity, according to God's

  " . . . purpose, who works all things after the counsel of His will" (Ephesians 1:11).

In other words, the entrance of God's Son, the Messiah, into space and time, as well as His becoming the perfect sacrifice for sin at the cross, was all planned in the eternal counsels of God, but was revealed to us in the "fullness of time" (i.e., at the time of God's appointment; see Galatians 4:4).

And second, throughout the three-plus years of His public ministry, over and over again Jesus predicted His death. At various times He referred to it as His

  baptism (Mark 10:38 & 39; Luke 12:50)
  cup (ditto, plus Matthew 20:22 & 23; 26:39; Luke 22:42; John 18:11)
  being killed (the implication is that He would be killed by crucifixion; Matthew 17:23; Mark 9:31)
  being lifted up as the Son of Man (John 3:14 & 15)

In conclusion, the crucifixion of Jesus was planned by God in eternity "past," and it will become the song of the ages in eternity "future." In the Revelation of Jesus Christ we read:

  "And they sang the song of Moses, the bond-servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying, " Great and marvelous are Your works, O Lord God, the Almighty; Righteous and true are Your ways, King of the nations! (Revelation 15:3 NAS)

Notice the two songs: Moses' song and the Lamb's song. The former celebrates God's earlier revelation of His will and word through the Law of Moses (or the Law given to Moses by God), and the latter celebrates the eternally efficacious sacrifice of Christ the Lamb, whose work of redemption at the cross was, in the mind of God,

  ". . . finished from the foundation of the world" (Hebrews 4:3).


How has the Catholic Church interpreted the tearing of the temple veil? In this answer to another question, a protestant view is given on what it means that the temple veil was torn. I have started to do some quick research into how the Catholic Church has understood it, but have mostly found the words of modern apologists and don't have time to do extensive research. This given interpretation does not ring true in my heart and obviously does not reflect Catholic teaching so that is the reason for my question.

In order to understand what the Catholic Church teaches about the tearing of the veil, we must have a proper understanding of the Catholic priesthood's relativity to the Temple of the Old Covenant.

The Priesthood

There are three types of priesthood in the Catholic Church: (1) Priesthood of Christ as the High Priest and true Priest, the only mediator between God and men; (2) ministerial (or hierarchical) priesthood comprising bishops and priests and (3) priesthood of all faithful though baptism.

  1544 Everything that the priesthood of the Old Covenant prefigured
  finds its fulfillment in Christ Jesus, the "one mediator between God
  and men." The Christian tradition considers Melchizedek, "priest of
  God Most High," as a prefiguration of the priesthood of Christ, the
  unique "high priest after the order of Melchizedek"; "holy, blameless,
  unstained," "by a single offering he has perfected for all time those
  who are sanctified," that is, by the unique sacrifice of the cross.

  1545 The redemptive sacrifice of Christ is unique, accomplished once
  for all; yet it is made present in the Eucharistic sacrifice of the
  Church. The same is true of the one priesthood of Christ; it is made
  present through the ministerial priesthood without diminishing the
  uniqueness of Christ's priesthood: "Only Christ is the true priest,
  the others being only his ministers."

  Two participations in the one priesthood of Christ

  1546 Christ, high priest and unique mediator, has made of the Church
  "a kingdom, priests for his God and Father." The whole community of
  believers is, as such, priestly. The faithful exercise their baptismal
  priesthood through their participation, each according to his own
  vocation, in Christ's mission as priest, prophet, and king. Through
  the sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation the faithful are
  "consecrated to be . . . a holy priesthood."

  1547 The ministerial or hierarchical priesthood of bishops and
  priests, and the common priesthood of all the faithful participate,
  "each in its own proper way, in the one priesthood of Christ." While
  being "ordered one to another," they differ essentially. In what
  sense? While the common priesthood of the faithful is exercised by the
  unfolding of baptismal grace --a life of faith, hope, and charity, a
  life according to the Spirit--, the ministerial priesthood is at the
  service of the common priesthood. It is directed at the unfolding of
  the baptismal grace of all Christians. The ministerial priesthood is a
  means by which Christ unceasingly builds up and leads his Church. For
  this reason it is transmitted by its own sacrament, the sacrament of
  Holy Orders. (Catechism of the Catholic Church # 1544 to 1547)

While accepting the first and the third ones, Protestant and other post-Reformation churches have rejected the ministerial priesthood for two reasons:

New Testament does not apply the title priest (Greek iereus) to the apostles, bishops (Greekepiskopos) and elders (Greek presbuteros).
The Eucharist or Lord’s Supper or Holy Communion, is only a remembrance of Christ, following his request (Luke 22:19) – it does not have sacrificial nature as believed by Catholics.

  1330 The memorial of the Lord's Passion and Resurrection.

  The Holy Sacrifice, because it makes present the one sacrifice of
  Christ the Savior and includes the Church's offering. The terms holy
  sacrifice of the Mass, "sacrifice of praise," spiritual sacrifice,
  pure and holy sacrifice are also used, since it completes and
  surpasses all the sacrifices of the Old Covenant.

  The Holy and Divine Liturgy, because the Church's whole liturgy finds
  its center and most intense expression in the celebration of this
  sacrament; in the same sense we also call its celebration the Sacred
  Mysteries. We speak of the Most Blessed Sacrament because it is the
  Sacrament of sacraments. The Eucharistic species reserved in the
  tabernacle are designated by this same name. (Catechism of the
  Catholic Church #1330)

Catholics believe the priesthood of the Old Covenant is the one that prefigures that of the New.  First the Priesthood of Christ is prefigured by that of Melchizedek.

  And Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine; now he was a
  priest of God Most High. (Genesis 14:18)

  In the same way, Christ did not take on himself the glory of becoming
  a high priest. But God said to him, “You are my Son; today I have
  become your Father.” And he says in another place, “You are a priest
  forever, in the order of Melchizedek.” During the days of Jesus’ life
  on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with fervent cries and
  tears to the one who could save him from death, and he was heard
  because of his reverent submission. Son though he was, he learned
  obedience from what he suffered and, once made perfect, he became the
  source of eternal salvation for all who obey him and was designated by
  God to be high priest in the order of Melchizedek. (Hebrews 5:5-10)

The priesthood of all the elect in the New Covenant is prefigured by all of God's chosen Israelites of the Old Covenant.

  Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations
  you will be my treasured possession. Although the whole earth is mine,
  you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ These are
  the words you are to speak to the Israelites.” (Exodus 19:5-6)

  As you come to him, the living Stone—rejected by humans but chosen by
  God and precious to him— you also, like living stones, are being built
  into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual
  sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. But you are a
  chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special
  possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out
  of darkness into his wonderful light. (1 Peter 2:4-5, 9)

  To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood, 6and
  has made us to be a kingdom and priests to serve his God and Father—to
  him be glory and power for ever and ever! Amen. (Revelation 1:5-6)

In addition, God chose Aaron and his sons to be His priests, and appointed them and the tribe of Levi (to which Aaron belonged) for liturgical service in the Sanctuary.

  “Have Aaron your brother brought to you from among the Israelites,
  along with his sons Nadab and Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar, so they may
  serve me as priests. Make sacred garments for your brother Aaron to
  give him dignity and honor. Tell all the skilled workers to whom I
  have given wisdom in such matters that they are to make garments for
  Aaron, for his consecration, so he may serve me as priest. (Exodus
  28:1-3)

  The LORD said to Aaron, “You, your sons and your family are to bear
  the responsibility for offenses connected with the sanctuary, and you
  and your sons alone are to bear the responsibility for offenses
  connected with the priesthood. Bring your fellow Levites from your
  ancestral tribe to join you and assist you when you and your sons
  minister before the tent of the covenant law. They are to be
  responsible to you and are to perform all the duties of the tent, but
  they must not go near the furnishings of the sanctuary or the altar.
  Otherwise both they and you will die. They are to join you and be
  responsible for the care of the tent of meeting—all the work at the
  tent—and no one else may come near where you are. (Number 18:1-4)

  These were the divisions of the descendants of Aaron: The sons of
  Aaron were Nadab, Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar. But Nadab and Abihu died
  before their father did, and they had no sons; so Eleazar and Ithamar
  served as the priests. With the help of Zadok a descendant of Eleazar
  and Ahimelek a descendant of Ithamar, David separated them into
  divisions for their appointed order of ministering. 4A larger number
  of leaders were found among Eleazar’s descendants than among
  Ithamar’s, and they were divided accordingly: sixteen heads of
  families from Eleazar’s descendants and eight heads of families from
  Ithamar’s descendants. They divided them impartially by casting lots,
  for there were officials of the sanctuary and officials of God among
  the descendants of both Eleazar and Ithamar. (1 Chronicles 24:1-5)

Thus priests and Levites, whenever these two appear in the Bible refer to these two groups specially chosen by God.

  They brought up the ark of the LORD and the tent of meeting and all
  the holy utensils, which were in the tent, and the priests and the
  Levites brought them up. (1 Kings 8:4)

  Then Hezekiah questioned the priests and the Levites concerning the
  heaps. (2 Chronicles 31:9)

  For the priests and the Levites had purified themselves together; all
  of them were pure. Then they slaughtered the Passover lamb for all the
  exiles, both for their brothers the priests and for themselves. (Ezra
  6:20)

  Likewise we cast lots for the supply of wood among the priests, the
  Levites and the people so that they might bring it to the house of our
  God, according to our fathers' households, at fixed times annually, to
  burn on the altar of the LORD our God, as it is written in the law;
  (Nehemiah 10:34)

  This is the testimony of John, when the Jews sent to him priests and
  Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, "Who are you?" (John 1:19)

The Sanctuary

The Sanctuary is the place where God was present with Israelites.

  "Let them construct a sanctuary for Me, that I may dwell among them.
  (Exodus 25:8)

We read how God instructed Moses to build a tent to function as the Sanctuary in the book of Exodus chapters 25-27.

Later God chose Solomon to build the first Temple in Jerusalem to house the Sanctuary.

  In the four hundred and eightieth year after the Israelites came out
  of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon’s reign over Israel, in the
  month of Ziv, the second month, he began to build the temple of the
  LORD. (1 Kings 6:1)

  "Consider now, for the LORD has chosen you to build a house for the
  sanctuary; be courageous and act." (1 Chronicles 28:10)

The Sanctuary consisted of 2 parts separated by a veil the (outer) Holy Place and the (inner) Holy of Holies.

  “Make a curtain of blue, purple and scarlet yarn and finely twisted
  linen, with cherubim woven into it by a skilled worker. Hang it with
  gold hooks on four posts of acacia wood overlaid with gold and
  standing on four silver bases. Hang the curtain from the clasps and
  place the ark of the covenant law behind the curtain. The curtain will
  separate the Holy Place from the Most Holy Place. (Exodus 26:31-33)

  A tabernacle was set up. In its first room were the lampstand and the
  table with its consecrated bread; this was called the Holy Place.
  Behind the second curtain was a room called the Most Holy Place, which
  had the golden altar of incense and the gold-covered ark of the
  covenant. This ark contained the gold jar of manna, Aaron’s staff that
  had budded, and the stone tablets of the covenant. Above the ark were
  the cherubim of the Glory, overshadowing the atonement cover.
  (Hebrews 9:2-5)

Only priests were allowed to offer sacrifice in the (outer) Holy Place.  One of the priests will be appointed as High Priest and only he can enter the (inner) Holy of Holies and only once every year to offer blood atonement

  "Aaron shall make atonement on its horns once a year; he shall make
  atonement on it with the blood of the sin offering of atonement once a
  year throughout your generations. It is most holy to the LORD."
  (Exodus 30:10)

  When everything had been arranged like this, the priests entered
  regularly into the outer room to carry on their ministry. But only the
  high priest entered the inner room, and that only once a year, and
  never without blood, which he offered for himself and for the sins the
  people had committed in ignorance. (Hebrews 9:6-7)

Catholics believe that the priesthood of Melchizedek prefigures that of Christ, while the priesthood of Aaron and his sons prefigures that of bishops, institution of seventy elders prefigures that of priests (the English word priest is derived from Greek presbuteros), the Levites prefigures the deacons while priesthood of all Israelites prefigures the common priesthood of all faithful.

  1540 Instituted to proclaim the Word of God and to restore communion
  with God by sacrifices and prayer, this priesthood nevertheless
  remains powerless to bring about salvation, needing to repeat its
  sacrifices ceaselessly and being unable to achieve a definitive
  sanctification, which only the sacrifice of Christ would accomplish.

  1544 Everything that the priesthood of the Old Covenant prefigured
  finds its fulfillment in Christ Jesus, the "one mediator between God
  and men." The Christian tradition considers Melchizedek, "priest of
  God Most High," as a prefiguration of the priesthood of Christ, the
  unique "high priest after the order of Melchizedek"; "holy, blameless,
  unstained," "by a single offering he has perfected for all time those
  who are sanctified," that is, by the unique sacrifice of the cross.
  (Catechism of the Catholic Church #1540, 1544)

Most, if not all, Protestants and “Bible only” Christians will argue that priesthood of Aaron or Levitical priesthood is abolished in New Testament.  Yet Scripture prophesies that the Levitical priesthood shall never lack a man in God’s presence to offer burnt offerings, to burn cereal offerings, and to make sacrifice forever.

  For this is what the LORD says: ‘David will never fail to have a man
  to sit on the throne of Israel, nor will the Levitical priests ever
  fail to have a man to stand before me continually to offer burnt
  offerings, to burn grain offerings and to present sacrifices.’ ”
  (Jeremiah 33:18)

The Veil Is Torn

Christ established the New Covenant (Matthew 26:28, Luke 22:20, 1 Corinthians 11:25) on the night he was betrayed.  The old covenant refers to the one God made with Moses, and it is to be replaced with the new and better covenant of Christ (Hebrews 8:6), prophesied in Jeremiah 31:33-34 (Hebrews 8:8-12, 10:16-17). The Sanctuary of the New Covenant is heavenly and not man-made - it is heaven itself (Hebrews 8:5, 9:11, 24).

In the Old Covenant priests offered sacrifice in the outer Sanctuary. The Veil separated it from the inner Sanctuary into which only the High Priest  could enter (prefigured Christ).  The torn veil as testified in Matthew 27:51 shows that in the New Covenant there is no longer separation between the sacrifice offered by priests and Christ, the High Priest.

All Catholics receive their common priesthood through Sacrament of Baptism and Confirmation.

  1546 Christ, high priest and unique mediator, has made of the Church
  "a kingdom, priests for his God and Father." The whole community of
  believers is, as such, priestly. The faithful exercise their baptismal
  priesthood through their participation, each according to his own
  vocation, in Christ's mission as priest, prophet, and king. Through
  the sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation the faithful are
  "consecrated to be . . . a holy priesthood."  (Catechism of the
  Catholic Church # 1546)

Christ, being the the only mediator between God and men (1 Timothy 2:5), is the only true Priest. Both ministerial and common priesthood participate in this one priesthood of Christ.

  1547 The ministerial or hierarchical priesthood of bishops and
  priests, and the common priesthood of all the faithful participate,
  "each in its own proper way, in the one priesthood of Christ." While
  being "ordered one to another," they differ essentially. In what
  sense? While the common priesthood of the faithful is exercised by the
  unfolding of baptismal grace --a life of faith, hope, and charity, a
  life according to the Spirit--, the ministerial priesthood is at the
  service of the common priesthood. It is directed at the unfolding of
  the baptismal grace of all Christians. The ministerial priesthood is a
  means by which Christ unceasingly builds up and leads his Church. For
  this reason it is transmitted by its own sacrament, the sacrament of
  Holy Orders.  (Catechism of the Catholic Church # 1546-1547)

The New American Bible, Revised Edition presents an orthodox summary of Matthew’s account of the tearing of the veil:

  Luke puts this
  event immediately before the death of Jesus. There were two veils in
  the Mosaic tabernacle on the model of which the temple was
  constructed, the outer one before the entrance of the Holy Place and
  the inner one before the Holy of Holies (see Ex 26:31–36). Only the
  high priest could pass through the latter and that only on the Day of
  Atonement (see Lv 16:1–18). Probably the torn veil of the gospels is
  the inner one. The meaning of the scene may be that now, because of
  Jesus’ death, all people have access to the presence of God, or that
  the temple, its holiest part standing exposed, is now profaned and
  will soon be destroyed. The earth quaked…appeared to many: peculiar to
  Matthew. The earthquake, the splitting of the rocks, and especially
  the resurrection of the dead saints indicate the coming of the final
  age. In the Old Testament the coming of God is frequently portrayed
  with the imagery of an earthquake (see Ps 68:9; 77:19), and Jesus
  speaks of the earthquakes that will accompany the “labor pains” that
  signify the beginning of the dissolution of the old world (Mt 24:7–8).
  For the expectation of the resurrection of the dead at the coming of
  the new and final age, see Dn 12:1–3. Matthew knows that the end of
  the old age has not yet come (Mt 28:20), but the new age has broken in
  with the death (and resurrection; cf. the earthquake in Mt 28:2) of
  Jesus; see note on Mt 16:28. After his resurrection: this
  qualification seems to be due to Matthew’s wish to assert the primacy
  of Jesus’ resurrection even though he has placed the resurrection of
  the dead saints immediately after Jesus’ death.  (USCCB)


Are there any trinitarian Christian denominations that believe one should only pray to the Father, not to Jesus? Are there any trinitarian Christian denominations that believe one should only pray to the Father, not to Jesus?

If so, what are they and what is there scriptural basis for believing so?

After hours of research, I have found only one Trinitarian denomination where SOME members believe it is wrong to pray to Jesus.  It is the Churches of Christ, not to be confused with the International Churches of Christ.  Here is an extract from a relevant article which also shows why the majority of Churches of Christ members don’t have a problem in praying to Jesus:

"Here are the facts—God is God, Jesus is God, and the Spirit is God. The Scriptures affirm this. I’ll not give any Scripture on the fact that the Father is God because that’s a foregone conclusion to most. However, let’s first look to Jesus as God—“Thomas answered [Jesus], ‘My Lord and my God!” (John 20:28). If Jesus isn’t God, then why did Thomas say what he said? Therefore, if Jesus is God, He should be afforded all glory and praise just as the Father. Jesus said that He deserved the same honor as His Father (John 5:23) and even received worship (John 9:35–38).
Some believe it wrong to pray to Jesus, and they reason thus, “When Christ prayed to God, He prayed to the Father and not Himself. Just look at the Lord’s Prayer.” That’s true, but in the Lord’s Prayer, Jesus didn’t pray for the sick, and yet I’m sure that most of our prayers are limited to praying for the sick. At least, most of our bulletin prayer lists are limited to such. The Lord’s Prayer doesn’t cover all that can be prayed for, and, therefore, to whom we may pray.
If Jesus is God who deserves the same honor as the Father, then why can’t He be addressed in prayer? Stephen prayed to Jesus (Acts 7:59). Paul prayed to Jesus (2 Corinthians 12:8). The Corinthians called on the name of Jesus (1 Corinthians 1:2). Those who called on His name were bound by Saul of Tarsus (Acts 9:14). Prayers were presented to Jesus, the slain Lamb, in heaven by the twenty-four elders (Revelation 5:8). Time and again, Jesus received prayer. The idea that Christ is anything less than God defies clear passages stating such. “For in [Christ] the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily” (Colossians 2:9). Just read all of Colossians to see just how much of God Jesus is. And John too." (1)

Trinitarian denominations that uphold the Nicene creed have no problem in praying to Jesus since he is part of the One Being of God.  When Trinitarians pray to God, they are praying to all three members of the Godhead.

"The Nicene Creed, accepted and used in the whole church since the 4th century, says of the Spirit: “who with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified.” This means that all three members of the Trinity were prayed to.
Prayers to Jesus were very frequent, even typical, in the early apocryphal Christian writings, including public/liturgical prayers, though they were not commonly used by the second century apologists. Prayers to Jesus became more frequent in certain areas of Christianity after the 4th century.
Clement of Alexandria (c.150 – c. 215) included a rare prayer to Jesus toward the end of his The Instructor. This prayer appeals to Jesus to perfect believers that they would give thanks and praise to “the unique Father and Son, Son and Father . . . with the Holy Spirit, all in One.” (2)

The only denominations who refuse to pray to Jesus are anti-Trinitarian.
(1) https://start2finish.org/churches-christ-trinitarian/
(2) https://answersingenesis.org/who-is-god/the-trinity/prayer-and-trinity/


How do Calvinists explain Luke 19:41-44 How do Calvinists explain Luke 19:41-44:

  41 And when he drew near and saw the city, he wept over it, 42
  saying, “Would that you, even you, had known on this day the things
  that make for peace! But now they are hidden from your eyes. 43 For
  the days will come upon you, when your enemies will set up a barricade
  around you and surround you and hem you in on every side 44 and tear
  you down to the ground, you and your children within you. And they
  will not leave one stone upon another in you, because you did not know
  the time of your visitation.”

Why would Jesus weep for non-elect people if He Himself willfully passed over them when He elected people unto salvation before the foundation of the world?

John Piper passionately argues in his 2003 sermon Palm Sunday Tears of Sovereign Mercy that this doesn't contradict the doctrine of foreordination:

There is something not quite right about this objection to Jesus’ sovereignty. He can make praise come from rocks. And so he could do the same from rock-hard hearts in Jerusalem. What’s more, all this rejection and persecution and killing of Jesus is not the failure of Jesus’ plan, but the fulfilment of it.
...
The betrayal, the mockery, the shame, the spit, the flogging, the murder – and so much more – was planned. In other words, the resistance, the rejection, the unbelief and hostility were not a surprise to Jesus. They were, in fact, part of the plan. He says so. This is probably why it says at the end of verse 42, "But now they are hidden from your eyes." Remember what Jesus said about his parables back in Luke 8:10: "To you [disciples] it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of God, but for others they are in parables, so that ‘seeing they may not see, and hearing they may not understand.’" God was handing them over to hardness. It was judgment.
We have seen all this in Romans 9. The mercy of God is a sovereign mercy. "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion" (Romans 9:15). But here is the point I want you to see today: This sovereign Christ weeps over heard-hearted, perishing Jerusalem as they fulfilled his plan. It is unbiblical and wrong to make the tears of mercy a contradiction to the serenity of sovereignty. Jesus was serene in sorrow, and sorrowful in sovereignty. Jesus’ tears are the tears of sovereign mercy.
And therefore his sovereign power is the more admirable and the more beautiful. It’s the harmony of things that seem in tension that makes him glorious: "Merciful and Mighty," as we sing. We admire power more when it is merciful power. And we admire mercy more when it is mighty mercy. And, as I said, my prayer is that as you see his mercy and admire his mercy, you will become like him in his mercy.

But still, why would he be moved to tears over things that he divinely foresaw, and even ordained? It's a valid question. Reformed writers have explained it a few ways.
He wept because he was human
John Calvin's commentary says:

As to those who think it strange that Christ should bewail an evil which he had it in his power to remedy, this difficulty is quickly removed. For as he came down from heaven, that, clothed in human flesh, he might be the witness and minister of the salvation which comes from God, so he actually took upon him human feelings, as far as the office which he had undertaken allowed. ... He was God, I acknowledge; but on all occasions when it was necessary that he should perform the office of teacher, his divinity rested, and was in a manner concealed, that it might not hinder what belonged to him as Mediator. By this weeping he proved not only that he loved, like a brother, those for whose sake he became man, but also that God made to flow into human nature the Spirit of fatherly love.

John Gill says:

and wept over it; touched with a tender concern for it, his natural passions moved, and tears fell plentifully from his eyes. This must be understood of Christ merely as man, and is a proof of the truth of his human nature, which had all the natural properties, and even the infirmities of it; and as affected with the temporal ruin of Jerusalem, and as concerned for its temporal welfare; and is not to be improved either against his proper deity, or the doctrines of distinguishing grace, relating to the spiritual and eternal salvation of God's elect; things that are foreign from the sense of this passage.

Bruce Buchanan, an OPC pastor, says:

We need to appreciate Jesus as the Mediatorial Prophet, Priest, and King of his church. It is not fitting to read every statement of Jesus (who is God the Son) during his humiliation, as if he always speaks in his full capacity as the Ascended Lord, according to all his combined powers in hypostatic union, the God-Man. Frequently he speaks as the King of visible-Israel. He has come for the good of this collective portion especially; and they (the leaders, and their followers) are in process of repudiating him who is given them for a blessing. Is this not truly and objectively sad?
The Man, Christ Jesus, is fully capable of appreciating how that rebellion and sin had blinded the eyes and hearts of so many pitiful people, who above all the rest of the people on earth had one of the most extraordinary opportunities to repent and believe in God's saving Promise, and yet refused to do so, and prevented others from doing so; Mt.23:37, "...and ye would not." I cannot think why such an epic tragedy should not wring tears of grief, of sorrow, of frustration, of rage from the heart of One who had a clearer understanding of how this all must eventuate than anyone around him.
Here is One perfectly aware of how the wrath of God will be earned by this "city," by her leadership and by those who persist in identifying with them. He also knows that their blindness is willful, self-chosen. Just because one man's participation is ordained by God and certain, does not mean that he does not also choose and embrace his destiny. This is just that difference between predestination and fatalism. The latter presumes a foiled free-will whose better aims were deflected, and whose better hopes were dashed.
If we only allow a Jesus who always sublimates his ordinary human feeling into a perfect expression of resignation and repose in the ultimate aims of the godhead, then we actually have a less-than-human Christ. We have no explanation for Jesus in Gethsemane. We do not have a sympathetic High-Priest, because his temptations were meaningless. We do not have One who weeps at the door of a tomb from which he intends to summon a dead man to life in mere minutes.

He wept to teach us to weep
Matthew Henry says:

That Jesus Christ wept in the midst of his triumphs, wept when all about him were rejoicing, to show how little he was elevated with the applause and acclamation of the people. Thus he would teach us to rejoice with trembling, and as though we rejoiced not. If Providence do not stain the beauty of our triumphs, we may ourselves see cause to sully it with our sorrows.

Piper, in the sermon quoted earlier, says:

First, Jesus’ mercy is tenderly moved. He feels the sorrow of the situation. This doesn’t mean his sovereign plan has wrecked on the rocks of human autonomy. It means that Jesus is more emotionally complex than we think he is. He really feels the sorrow of a situation. No doubt there is a deep inner peace that God is in control and that God’s wise purposes will come to pass. But that doesn’t mean you can’t cry. ...  Jesus felt enough compassion for Jerusalem to weep. If you haven’t shed any tears for somebody’s losses but your own, it probably means you’re pretty wrapped up in yourself. So let’s repent of our hardness and ask God to give us a heart that is tenderly moved.

He wept so that later he might rejoice
Alan Strange, an OPC pastor, says:

Jerusalem was a mixed multitude containing both reprobate and elect, although many of the elect had not then come to Christ and would do so only at and after Pentecost. ... Given that many Jews will be gathered in, there is no small sense in which our Lord's compassion expressed here will have Jerusalem's deliverance in some sense as its fruition.

Similarly, Gill's commentary, quoted earlier, refers to Isaiah 66:10:

Rejoice with Jerusalem and be glad for her, all you who love her; rejoice greatly with her, all you who mourn over her.


What is the "homogenous unit principle" of church growth? Fred Clark wrote in his blog entry Suburban is not the same as theologically conservative (17 July 2012):

  The suburbanization of American Christianity has altered our theology in other fundamental ways. Consider, for example, the church-growth movement and its focus on the archetypally suburban idea of the “homogenous unit principle.” Could there be a more radical rejection of Pentecost than that?

What is the homogeneous unit principle and how does it relate to the traditional geographic idea of the parish? How did the principle come about?

Dr. Donald McGavran's definition of a homogeneous unit is "a section of society in which all members have some characteristic in common."

In plainer terms, a homogeneous unit is a group of people that have ethnic, linguistic, social, educational, or vocational similarities.

In terms of a church congregation, ethnic, social, and educational commonalities are the most important.

People feel more comfortable when they feel they are part of a group.  I suspect that people are comfortable in a church where they don't have to cross racial, linguistic or class barriers.  In my county in the United States, there are white United Methodist Churches and there are black United Methodist Churches.  I attend a white church.  I've visited a couple of the black churches as a lay leader, but I'm more comfortable worshiping in a white church.

The invention of the automobile allowed people to ignore geography (parish) and worship in a church they feel more comfortable in (social, educational).

The principle of homogeneous units describes what almost anyone can observe.  People like to gather as tribes, and feel part of the group (in).  Unfortunately, there are also people outside the tribe (out).  Part of Christ's message was to accept all people into one tribe.  That part of the message is lost on some Christians.

Some of the information in this post came from The Pasadena Consultation - Homogeneous Unit Principle.


What is Poly Scriptura? I'm not sure if this has been asked,

I watched a video on YouTube where the person in the video mentions "Poly Scriptura" at about 17:28, I have tried to look it up just to get the basic information on it and all that comes up in the search results is "Sola Scriptura"

Can someone please tell me what Poly Scriptura is?

Thanks and God bless.

The word "Poly" is a Greek word, meaning 'many'.
"Scriptura" is a Latin word, meaning 'scripture'.
Put these words together and we get the phrase 'many scriptures'. The  phrase "Poly Scriptura" would therefore refer to exactly that; be it all the 66 books in the Bible; the Bible & other books, such as the writings of the early church fathers; or, as in the Youtube video, the many different available Bible translations.

I found the below paragraph on this site. The author is rebutting "King James Onlyism"; that King James is the only acceptable Bible version and "sola-scriptura", and that all other Bible versions are "poly-scriptura".

  Most of the time, but not always, he tends to become agitated when I ask this, because it puts him on the defense. He is attempting to argue for God’s Word being found exclusively in one English translation.  However, it is his burden to demonstrate with reason why I must abandon my favored, non-KJV translation because it doesn’t fit the qualifications of infallible, inerrant, and so forth.  Now, he can chide and mock me by saying I believe in poly-scriptura not sola scriptura or what ever, but he is still in the position of establishing why his view of the biblical text is correct and mine is in error.


When the early church was formalising the canon, what did they understand by the word 'Inspired'? When the early church was formalising the Biblical canon, what specific definition of the word 'inspired' did they have in regard to the biblical literature?

I'm curious about how this relates to the Bible and other non-Biblical texts. I have seen many people say that other writings are not inspired and I'm not sure what they might mean.  Is the ground they are standing on fundamentally characterized as if it isn't in the Bible then it isn't inspired?

  Example: ..., this document is almost certainly reliable, although not divinely-inspired Scripture, not to be included in the Bible canon.

I ran across an interesting piece of text that pointed out (and I don't know if this is true) that the purpose of canonizing the Bible was purely liturgical.   If this is true, then by definition it makes no sense to say what I see some use as an argument if it isn't the Bible then it isn't Inspired.

On a personal note I sense the pitfalls of having an open canon, but I find it very troubling that we have locked future potentially accepted inspired works up in fear of what that might bring.

Further Clarification

The original person who asked the question asked for additional clarification on these two questions:

  1) Are inspired works closed as canon is? 2) Are there potentially other inspired historical works which are not in canon?

The answer to the first question depends on the view one has of the gift of prophecy and its possible continuation.  Those whom God used to produce an inspired text were those who had been given the gift of prophecy.  Those like myself who hold that the gift of prophecy ceased with the death of the last apostle hold that there will no longer be any New Testament books that carry the mark of inspiration.  Here the use of inspired is being used in a very technical sense -- literally a work in which God carried the author along.  That excludes works that we would view as inspiring in the non-technical sense.

There are some sects who hold that the gift of prophecy continues to this day.  Often times those groups will have layers or degrees to which a prophet or prophetess can produce inspired texts.  Most of these groups makes some sort of distinction between the canon of the Bible and the writings of the prophet or prophetess in question.

If the criteria for acceptance into the canon is the original apostolic authority then the canon is closed unless one holds to the idea that the apostolic office continues.

2) Are there potentially other inspired historical works which are not in canon?

The answer to this question depends to a great extent on where one falls on the doctrine of preservation.  For those like myself who hold to the doctrine of preservation (see below) then it would be contrary to the nature of God to inspire a text and then to leave it undiscovered by the church.  If preservation is denied then it is certainly possible that there were writings that were God-breathed that have been lost to history.  There are at least two letters written by Paul (probably more) that are lost to history.  1 Cor. 5:9 indicates that Paul had already written to the church at Corinth prior to his writing 1 Corinthians.  Also the letter to Laodicea that is mentioned in Colossians 4:16 has been lost to history.  Those who hold to the doctrine of preservation see those letters as not having been the product of inspiration and they were then lost to history.  For those who deny this doctrine, they can argue that they were inspired and then later lost.  This implies that once a person was a prophet they were always a prophet.  One difficulty in this is the passage Ephesians 2:20.  It may be that Paul was indicating New Testament prophets as part of the foundation.  Like the missing letters some have argued that there were other writings of the NT prophets who have been lost to history.  I hold that in the early church there was the prophetic gift that was serving the church through oral communication until such time as God had revealed all that we need in the New Testament and then the office of prophet ceased.

Implicit to these questions is the idea -- do we have everything we need in His word?  I think Peter answered this in the affirmative in 2 Peter 1 (one of the last books written in the NT).

  1 Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ: 2 Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord, 3 According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue: 4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

Here was the original answer

The Greek term that is behind the English word inspired is θεόπνευστος.  It is a compound word that literally means "God Breathed."  The process of inspiration resulted in the product -- an inspired word of God.  Theologians define the process as the human author was carried along by God so that what they wrote was both the words of the human author and at the same time the word of God.

Here are some thoughts by F.F. Bruce on inspiration:

  By inspiration in this sense is meant that operation of the Holy Spirit by which the prophets of Israel were enabled to utter the word of God. The vocabulary was theirs; the message was his. Only to certain individuals, and only occasionally to them, was this enablement granted.

F. F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture (Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 1988), 264.

Bruce points out various phrases in the New Testament that imply that the New Testament writers understood they were speaking on behalf of God through their writings:

"the book of this prophecy" Rev. 22:19
"The testimony of Jesus is the Spirit of prophecy" Rev. 19:10
Paul claimed to have the "mind of Christ."
Demonstration of the Spirit"
"in words not taught by human wisdom."

Different denominations view the subject of the canon of Scripture differently.  The Catholic Church has always claimed the power to determine the extent of the canon through the actions of the various Church councils in the fourth century.  Then affirmed in later councils.  Protestants on the other hand have suggested that the source of the canon is set by God and it is up to the Church to discover what books carry the signs of that inspiration.  These groups all hold to a closed canon.
Other groups have claimed that the gift of prophecy has continued and they add different criteria for the notion of the canon.  Those groups would hold to some level of an open canon.  Open in the sense of some new revelation that came after the apostolic age.

In the end it comes down to the criteria a church uses to establish the canon.

As a protestant I would hold that the canon was actually established much earlier than the councils of the Catholic Church.  2 Peter 3:16 declares that the writings of Paul were already considered Scripture just a few years after they were written.  The Church had recognized their authority from a very early stage.

Two excellent books on the subject are The Canon of Scripture by F.F. Bruce and The Question of Canon: Challenging the Status Quo in the New Testament Debate by Kruger.  In Bruce's book he has a chapter on the criteria to determine what is in fact inspired by God:

The book had to have apostolic authority.  The signs and wonders of an apostle were given to substantiate the writings of the New Testament.  This is perhaps the most well known criteria for the mark of inspiration.  It is also why the debate lingered for some books like Hebrews where the question of apostolic authority was somewhat lacking since the author of Hebrews is an open question.  The early Church generally ascribed it to the apostle Paul.  For protestants the office of apostle has ceased and therefore the canon of Scripture has been closed since the death of the apostle John.
Antiquity, this is closely related to the first.  The book had to have been written at a time when it could be authenticated by those who had known the apostle associated with the book.  This criteria would exclude some long lost book that was discovered later and it is also why some books such the Shepherd of Hermes was rejected by the early church.
Since the book was produced by the apostles it had to be in agreement with the apostles doctrine and could not contradict it.  Since God is the co-author of Scripture He would never breathe out His word that would be contrary to His earlier revelations.  This is why the early Gnostic Gospels of the second century were rejected as well as one of the reasons that protestants reject the Old Testament Apocrypha.
The book had to have widespread acceptance by the early church.  No secret books that were only accepted by small groups such as the ones written by Marcion.
The book was used by the Church in their worship of God.

To this I would add one of my own:

Does the book carry the weight of authority to the extent that is fits 2 Tim. 3:16-17, "‘all scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for ...," what follows is a list of criteria that can be used to determine its use.

Most protestant denominations, the Catholic Church, and the Orthodox Church all consider the canon closed for the reasons that were listed above regarding criteria.  The number one of which is the fact that they had to have been written by the apostles.  There are some groups that claim the gift of prophecy has continued (I am not one of those) so I do not have a sense in which there is the potential for some future book of the Bible.  It is also why I would reject any book that was written after the apostolic age.  Even the idea of a long lost book does not fit the criteria that was used in the early Church so I am OK there as well.

Not a part of your Questions directly is the doctrine of preservation.  Did God act in such a way and does He continue to act in such a way to preserve His word for future generations after He had breathed it out?  One way to see this is the shear number of New Testament manuscripts.  There are over 6000 Greek New Testament manuscripts.  No other written literature of the ancient world can claim anything like the New Testament in the number of original attestations.  Even the sacred writings of the other religions come nothing close to the number of ancient copies of the Old and New Testaments. The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls even substantiated the fact that we have the essential Old Testament text, largely unchanged since about 100 BC.  One comparison is the writings of Josephus, there are as many as five very distinct versions with significant and drastic changes between them.  Not so with the Old and New Testaments.  I take that as the providence of God so I am secure in my faith that He has given His word to us and we have everything we would need, so there is no need to worry about the concept of an open canon.