What is the Biblical basis for "righteous anger"? What would be defined as "righteous anger"?

Ephesians 4:26 (ESV) says:

26 Be angry and do not sin; do not let the sun go down on your anger,

So, is all anger justifiable if you don't sin? Or are there other verses that address this subject? When is anger justified?

This is consistent with other verses like James 1:20.

  because human anger does not produce the righteousness that God desires.

Basically they are saying that you aren't going to do anything good when you are angry. One can be angry but one's actions will tend towards sin in these situations.


What, if any, are some first-millenium mentions of prohibitions or approval of interracial or international marriages? While in the last few centuries there have been particularly American Christians arguing against interracial/intercultural/international marriage (I believe the term is "kinism"), I do not know of this being a historical position of anyone in the church. But I may be ignorant of a long-standing doctrine in some group or from some person who holds to a similar idea.

Are there any doctrinal positions on interracial marriage in, say, the first 1000-1500 years of New Testament church history?

Prohibitions by the Church of the sort you suggest would have appeared in the canons (or "rules") of the Church councils - either of local councils, convened by bishops in specific regions; or Ecumenical Councils, at which bishops from all five ancient Church Sees (Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem) attended.

The Church was more or less united for the first 1,000 years of its existence, with the exception of the Nestorian and Monophysite schisms  in the 5th century.

During the first millennium, the so-called "Chalcedonian" Church on the other side of these schisms held seven Ecumenical councils, from 325 to 787.  In addition, numerous local councils were held within the individual sees (e.g. Council of Carthage in 397).  The canons of all seven Ecumenical Councils and a number of important local councils have been translated from Greek into English as part of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Church Fathers series.

There are almost 200 canons that came out of the Ecumenical Councils and an even greater number that arose from the various local councils.  There are no canons from any of these councils that expressly forbid marriages between a man and a woman of different races or nationalities.


Was the Tabernacle and its furnishings a copy of things in Heaven? Revelation tells us that there is a Temple of God in Heaven, and that in that Temple is the Ark of his testament.

Revelation  11:19  KJV

  And the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament: and there were lightnings, and voices, and thunderings, and an earthquake, and great hail.

God directed Moses twice to make sure that he built the Tabernacle after the pattern God had shown him on the Mountain.

Exodus 25:9  KJV

  According to all that I shew thee, after the pattern of the tabernacle, and the pattern of all the instruments thereof, even so shall ye make it.

Exodus  25:40  KJV

  And look that thou make them after their pattern, which was shewed thee in the Mount.

The word translated here as pattern could have just as easily been translated model.

  H8403 תַּבנִיתּ tabniyth (tab-neeth') n-f.
  1. structure
  2. (by implication) a model, resemblance
  KJV: figure, form, likeness, pattern, similitude.

Are there any theological suppositions about this?

Hebrews 8:4-5 (NIV)

  If he were on earth, he would not be a priest, for there are already
  priests who offer the gifts prescribed by the law. They serve at a
  sanctuary that is a copy and shadow of what is in heaven. This is
  why Moses was warned when he was about to build the tabernacle: “See
  to it that you make everything according to the pattern shown you on
  the mountain.”

  Hebrews 9:19-23 (NIV)

  When Moses had proclaimed every command of the law to all the people,
  he took the blood of calves, together with water, scarlet wool and
  branches of hyssop, and sprinkled the scroll and all the people. He
  said, “This is the blood of the covenant, which God has commanded you
  to keep.” In the same way, he sprinkled with the blood both the
  tabernacle and everything used in its ceremonies. In fact, the law
  requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without
  the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness. It was necessary, then,
  for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these
  sacrifices, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices
  than these. For Christ did not enter a sanctuary made with human
  hands that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven
  itself, now to appear for us in God’s presence. Nor did he enter
  heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest
  enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own.

Moses did not build a Temple with walls and foundations of stone. The tabernacle built by Moses was a movable tent. What the Bible meant by a 'copy' is the design and positioning of the items inside the tabernacle. The tabernacle on earth cannot be equally the same like the one in Heaven but it reflected all the important aspects of the one in Heaven. The design and positioning of the items are same but the material and quality cannot be the same. While the earthly tabernacle was temporary, the heavenly tabernacle is eternal. While the high priest had to offer the blood every year, Jesus offered His eternal blood only once which is for eternity.


What questions raised by ancient Greek philosophy were answered by Christianity? I have heard several Christian philosophers (Robert Koons, Dallas Willard, for example) say that Christianity emphatically answered a lot of questions posed by ancient Greek philosophy. For example, there is the case of the Logos, which according to Greek philosophy was that hypothetical principle which if honored would allow you to fulfill your true purpose. Christianity says that the Logos exists but is not a principle, but a person.

What other questions of the ancient Greeks were answered by Christianity?

I won't give you a list of these questions for I don't know them but I think it is very important to know that Greeks, in their search for truth, somehow realized there should be a God to worship (distinct from the gods they had created in their mythology) so at the time when the apostles came, they had been worshipping a so-called 'Agnostos Theos' (The Unknown/Anonymous God). And apparently, at least, the Christian truth that was preached by Paul was exactly what they had been waiting for!


Was incest allowed by God before? Did God allowed incest before? Did Noah and his family committed incest? If yes when did God start forbidding it and why? If no, how did Noah and his family repopulate the world and how about the risk of genetic diseases caused by the inbreeding?

Sexual relations between close relatives was indeed permitted1 until the time of The Law, given through Moses. You can read about it in detail in Leviticus 18 but it is summarised in verse 6:

  No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. I am the Lord.

Why was it forbidden? Possibly because of genetic problems that occur in offspring of close relations, though that is speculation - that chapter does not give any general reason.

1 As an example, Abraham was married to Sarah, his half-sister.

See also:

Was the marriage between Abraham and Sarah incestuous?
Did Adam and Eve's Progeny Commit Incest?


ESV verse removed? Where are the explanations found? I was wondering where I can find the actual simple online reasons for the removal of the "accepted" verses in the KJV, in the ESV bible version listed on this site, because I have not found them so far, Thanks.

https://www.scionofzion.com/esv_exposed.htm

The alteration, omission and addition of words in the Greek text is being highlighted by that site. They are comparing the Textus Receptus, the 'Received Text' (on which the KJV is based) to the Westcott & Hort/Nestle Aland Greek text (on which the ESV is based).

Scrivener's text of 1881 shows clearly the differences between the two Greek texts.

The main difference between the two is that Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus are given very significant weight in the W&H/NA Greek text.


Why was Jehu considered a "bad" king of Israel? He started off well by killing Jezebel, thereby ridding the country of an evil presence. Where did he go wrong afterward? Did he for instance, adopt her idolatrous practices (or similar ones)?

He went wrong by not turning Israel away from the sins of Jeroboam. These verses sum up Jehu's reign pretty well:

2 Kings 10:30-31 ESV The Lord said to Jehu, “Because you have done well in accomplishing what is right in my eyes and have done to the house of Ahab all I had in mind to do, your descendants will sit on the throne of Israel to the fourth generation.” Yet Jehu was not careful to keep the law of the Lord, the God of Israel, with all his heart. He did not turn away from the sins of Jeroboam, which he had caused Israel to commit.

It's likely Jehu didn't get rid of the remnants of the idols that Jeroboam set up since Jehu "did not turn Israel away from the sins of Jeroboam..." These verses detail what those sins were:

1 Kings 12:28-32 ESV After seeking advice, the king [Jeroboam] made two golden calves. He said to the people, “It is too much for you to go up to Jerusalem. Here are your gods, Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt.” One he set up in Bethel, and the other in Dan. And this thing became a sin; the people came to worship the one at Bethel and went as far as Dan to worship the other. Jeroboam built shrines on high places and appointed priests from all sorts of people, even though they were not Levites.
1 Kings 13:33-34 ESV Even after this, Jeroboam did not change his evil ways, but once more appointed priests for the high places from all sorts of people. Anyone who wanted to become a priest he consecrated for the high places. This was the sin of the house of Jeroboam that led to its downfall and to its destruction from the face of the earth.


The Dead Sea Scrolls and Protestant canon Has the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls had any effect on which Old Testament books should be considered canonical by Protestants?  I didn't know this until yesterday, but the dead sea scrolls contained every book of the Bible in Hebrew, including fragments of Deuterocanonical books (except Esther, although most of that is in the Protestant Bible anyway)

I may be operating under the hazy assumption that Protestants only discount the Septuagint because it has its basis in Greek instead of having its basis in Hebrew so correct me if I'm wrong.

  That Sirach was originally written in Hebrew may be of some significance for the biblical canon. The book was accepted into the canon of the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible by Catholicism and Eastern Orthdoxy but not by Judaism or Protestantism, apparently on the basis that no Hebrew original was thought to exist at the time the Jewish Canon was closed

Wikipedia - Sirach

I just wonder if this is a source of consternation for any Protestant groups or how/if they justify the texts with their own assumptions and scholarship into what the Jews themselves considered scripture at the time of Christ.

I'd hope that an answer would include a scholarly refutation of the idea that the original books (at least Sirach and Tobit), being composed in Greek, lacked canonical authority for that reason and no other reason.

No, the Dead Sea Scrolls have no effect on the Protestant view of Old Testament canon.

Let's take a look at what different books are included:

Old Testament (protocanonical) books

Genesis, Psalms, Isaiah etc.

Deuterocanonical books

Letter of Jeremiah, Wisdom of Sirach etc.

Other writings

Book of Noah
Book of Giants
Testament of Naphtali
Community Rule
War Scroll
Genesis Apocryphon
Cairo Geniza Testament of Levi
Book of Jubilees
Words of Moses
Rule of the Congregation
and many, many more.

Considering that the Dead Sea Scrolls include a very random selection of books, nothing about canonicity can be reliably deducted from them.


Why did God the Father choose suffering for Christ and not the lucrative reigning power of an emperor of this world? My witness to suffering can be elaborated by the following poem written by me. I am attaching this poem because I believe this poem a witness to my long journey with my cross assures me that I am following Christ's wishes but leaves a question unanswered. I have asked that small question at the end of the poem. I hope somebody here can answer that and help me understand God the Father well from a Catholic perspective.

  Adoration at Golgotha

  By mvr950

  Adoration began.

  Adoree before the adored.

  Before the exposed monstrance.

  People cry out to Heaven.

  For a drop of Holy Water.

  The night deludes them.

  To take the route to Satan’s

  quiver and crescendo.

  I deny myself to take that path.

  I reject to take that false pathos.

  Because I have the cross of Christ

  living within me.

  I have taken up a fraction of an

  infinitesimally small fraction

  of His suffering.

  He has given me tiniest but

  impossible to carry a cross.

  I prostrate before Him.

  Genuflect before Him.

  Kneel down on the pew

  so a crowbar cannot lift me up.

  I lay before Him.

  I kiss His bloody feet at Golgotha

  as I am crucified along with Him.

  The rebuke, the mockery, the rebuttal,

  the screams, the cries, the smirks

  all are pointed at Him and me.

  I gave up my last drop of dignity

  only for Christ.

  Only for God the son.

  Only for the son of man.

  In Him, I live.

  He requested me to carry the cross.

  And I give my all

  only for Him.

  I know, in Him I will find

  the truth, life, and the light.

  I believe God will separate

  the harvest from the chaffs.

  Cause He is the Just God.

  Our lust for power

  will find the last meaning

  at the end of the epitaph

  engraved on the tombstone.

  Our sins of the flesh

  will be crushed by the holy stature of God.

  And we will hear those sweet condescending words

  This is the Domus Dei Omnipotentis. Come and join us.

Now God chose Christ to die on the cross. And give suffering meaning. Now my question is Can't God the Father choose Christ to come in reigning power as an emperor of the world to become a savior? Why did God the Father choose suffering for Christ instead?

It must be God the Father. Because Jesus at Gethsemani said, "Abba, Father if it were possible, take this chalice away from me. But not what I will what thou wilt." And on the Cross Jesus said, "Eli Eli Lama Sabachthani". "My God, My God why have you forsaken me?"

Jesus told us the answer when explained three things:

What is God's chief motivation?
What is the greatest expression of that motivation?
Who are the disciples?

First, God's chief motivation is love:

  36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”

  37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and
  with all your soul and with all your mind.’[c] 38 This is the first
  and greatest commandment. (Matthew 22:36-37)

Second, the greatest expression of love is to lay your life down for your friends:

  9 “As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Now remain in my
  love. 10 If you keep my commands, you will remain in my love, just as
  I have kept my Father’s commands and remain in his love. 11 I have
  told you this so that my joy may be in you and that your joy may be
  complete. 12 My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you.
  13 Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for
  one’s friends. (John 15:9-13)

Third, Jesus declares the disciples are his friends:

  14 You are my friends if you do what I command. 15 I no longer
  call you servants, because a servant does not know his master’s
  business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that
  I learned from my Father I have made known to you. 16 You did not
  choose me, but I chose you and appointed you so that you might go and
  bear fruit—fruit that will last—and so that whatever you ask in my
  name the Father will give you. 17 This is my command: Love each other.
  (John 15:14-17)

We know of soldiers, firemen, parents, and police who have laid down their life for people they loved. Are they greater than God? No! Thus if God values love and is the greatest lover in the universe and that love requires giving your life for those you love and you have picked people to call friends, you must do as Jesus did.

As for the false choice, Jesus will return to reign as emperor of the world. However, when he does, the time for mercy will have passed; he will come to judge the living and the dead. It is for the sake of sinners who need time to repent that Jesus delays his return, so that as many may be saved as possible.

However, since you are a poet, a fitting response is found in one of God's greatest poems, Job. As you read this, having heard all the things that Leviathan will NOT do for you, understand that the point of this speech is to declare what God WILL do for you!

41 “Can you pull in Leviathan with a fishhook
    or tie down its tongue with a rope?
2 Can you put a cord through its nose
    or pierce its jaw with a hook?
3 Will it keep begging you for mercy?
    Will it speak to you with gentle words?
4 Will it make an agreement with you
    for you to take it as your slave for life?
5 Can you make a pet of it like a bird
    or put it on a leash for the young women in your house?
6 Will traders barter for it?
    Will they divide it up among the merchants?
7 Can you fill its hide with harpoons
    or its head with fishing spears?
8 If you lay a hand on it,
    you will remember the struggle and never do it again!
9 Any hope of subduing it is false;
    the mere sight of it is overpowering.
10 No one is fierce enough to rouse it.
    Who then is able to stand against me?
11 Who has a claim against me that I must pay?
    Everything under heaven belongs to me.

Jesus was tied up, was pierced, does speak tenderly, does make a covenant to serve us, his garments were bartered away, and his side was thrust through with a spear. On the flip side, Leviathan represents the evil world system (and its head, Satan), an empire of force that dominates the World for evil. That is something God did not want for his Son. Leviathan will be destroyed, and its end is written of in Revelation 13. Jesus' empire will be different, because the master will be the servant of all.


Have Jehovah's Witnesses always been politically neutral? This is a follow-up that I wanted to ask after reading this other question.

When I was looking for information on Jehovah's Witnesses and Christmas, I found this article at wol.jw.org that explains why JWs stopped celebrating Christmas in 1927 (the article has a photo titled "The last time Christmas was celebrated at Brooklyn Bethel, 1926").

The answer to this other question however was mentioning political neutrality, saying that:

  Jehovah's Witnesses do not take part in this world's politics

So based on that they used to celebrate Christmas I wanted to ask if the political neutrality was something that also came later.

Edited to add two more questions:

Have JWs always been politically neutral, or did they in the past
e.g. vote in elections or support one party over another?
Does this political neutrality thing mean that JWs do not
meet with U.S. Presidents or other political leaders to discuss
policies, or have such meetings ever happened?
Does it mean that JWs do not sign national anthems such as "Star
Spangled Banner" as part of their church services?

Have JWs always been politically neutral, or did they in the past e.g. vote in elections or support one party over another?

The majority of history I can find about Jehovah's Witnesses having political neutrality is regarding being conscripted for war. Specific dates are hard to come by, but war neutrality was first widely encouraged in 1904, followed by another refinement in the Sep. 1, 1915 Watchtower, and then finally adopted completely with the landmark article titled "Neutrality" in the Nov. 1, 1939 Watchtower. (Source)

The Bible Students, now known as Jehovah's Witnesses, knew from early on of John 18:36, which discusses how God's Kingdom is not part of this world. I can only speculate, but the consciences of those early Bible Students probably kept them from needlessly involving themselves in politics. Most controversial standpoints at that time were about how to react to compulsive military service.

  Does this political neutrality thing mean that JWs do not meet with U.S. Presidents or other political leaders to discuss policies, or have such meetings ever happened?

Jehovah's Witnesses don't discuss politics with anyone. They're completely neutral for the sake of giving exclusive devotion to God's Kingdom. This is advantageous both for the purposes of ministering to "people of all the nations" (Matthew 28:19) and for the purposes of having unity within the congregation (Psalm 133:1).

JWs do assign much respect to local authorities, and would not refuse meeting with the authorities, but they would not give opinions on politics or promote a political campaign.

  Does it mean that JWs do not sing national anthems such as "Star Spangled Banner" as part of their church services?

Correct. At football games, baseball games, etc. I usually excuse myself during the beginning of the game and go walk around in order to avoid making a scene, but during these ceremonies some JWs will remain seated, others will perhaps stand up but not put their hand on their heart. This isn't meant to be seen as defiance, only as non-participation.

Likewise, in all 13 years I went to public school in the United States, I would just stand respectfully during the Pledge of Allegiance. People very rarely asked me why.


Why are we given details about what the descendants of Cain did? Is there special significance to these details? Genesis 4 discusses the descendants of Cain:

  "Cain knew his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch. When he built a city, he called the name of the city after the name of his son, Enoch. To Enoch was born Irad, and Irad fathered Mehujael, and Mehujael fathered Methushael, and Methushael fathered Lamech. And Lamech took two wives. The name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah. Adah bore Jabal; he was the father of those who dwell in tents and have livestock. His brother's name was Jubal; he was the father of all those who play the lyre and pipe. Zillah also bore Tubal-cain; he was the forger of all instruments of bronze and iron. The sister of Tubal-cain was Naamah." Genesis 4:17-22

Why are we given details about what the descendants of Cain did? Is there some special significance to these details?

To me, it sounds like a recounting of early civilization: domestication of animals, music, metallurgy, city building. A secular anthropologist would tell a story of hominids evolving over millions of years culminating with emergence of homo sapiens in Africa. Then the story shifts into high gear as humans migrated all over the world and culture, technology and cities grew.

The first 11 chapters of the bible explain how we came to be and why we are the way we are. There are lots of similarities between the story the bible tells and what anthropologists think happened.


How do Protestants explain the relationship between justification and the works of the servants in the Parable of the Talents? This is not the question 'What does the Parable of the Talents mean according to Protestantism,' but a question specifically regarding the nature of the 'wicked' servant, and how it corresponds to his justification.
Here is the Parable:

Matthew 25:14-30 (DRB)
14 For even as a man going into a far country, called his servants, and delivered to them his goods; 15 And to one he gave five talents, and to another two, and to another one, to every one according to his proper ability: and immediately he took his journey. 16 And he that had received the five talents, went his way, and traded with the same, and gained other five. 17 And in like manner he that had received the two, gained other two. 18 But he that had received the one, going his way digged into the earth, and hid his lord's money. 19 But after a long time the lord of those servants came, and reckoned with them. 20 And he that had received the five talents coming, brought other five talents, saying: Lord, thou didst deliver to me five talents, behold I have gained other five over and above. 21 His lord said to him: Well done, good and faithful servant, because thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will place thee over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord. 22 And he also that had received the two talents came and said: Lord, thou deliveredst two talents to me: behold I have gained other two. 23 His lord said to him: Well done, good and faithful servant: because thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will place thee over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord. 24 But he that had received the one talent, came and said: Lord, I know that thou art a hard man; thou reapest where thou hast not sown, and gatherest where thou hast not strewed. 25 And being afraid I went and hid thy talent in the earth: behold here thou hast that which is thine. 26 And his lord answering, said to him: Wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sow not, and gather where I have not strewed: 27 Thou oughtest therefore to have committed my money to the bankers, and at my coming I should have received my own with usury. 28 Take ye away therefore the talent from him, and give it to him that hath ten talents. 29 For to every one that hath shall be given, and he shall abound: but from him that hath not, that also which he seemeth to have shall be taken away. 30 And the unprofitable servant cast ye out into the exterior darkness. There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

I'm going to assume at least a few things are not disputed:

A talent was an enormous sum of money at that time (cf. NIV, "bag of gold"). According to the Encyclopedia Judaica, a talent was equivalent of 3000 shekels, or $6000.

Entering into the joy of the Lord refers to Heaven.

Entering the exterior darkness where there is wailing and gnashing of teeth is Hell.

Given this background, how do Protestants explain the fact that the Lord entrusted an abundance of his goods, which I'm going to assert is grace (and I don't think Protestants dispute this, but correct me if I'm wrong; cf. Eph 4:7-8; Mt 25:14-15), to his "servant" (not someone 'unsaved'),1 and depending on how he makes good with what is entrusted to him, he is judged to either heaven or hell.
Question
That is, how isn't the justification of Jesus' servants spoken of in this Parable? And if it is about justification (again, which I believe heaven and hell as the respective outcomes necessitate), how, on the basis of negligence can you "receive the grace of God in vain," and go to hell, if justification is not contingent at all upon our works done by Jesus' grace?
Thanks in advance.

1 There are only two categories in this parable: both kinds of servants: those who go to hell for ill conduct, and those go to heaven. The servant who is "assigned" a place in hell was beforehand just a servant, and his conduct seems to determine which kind of servant he is. The word "assigned" necessitates this.

For the sake of brevity, I have placed a single page regarding the parables of the kingdom here on google docs.

A number of the parables of the kingdom, as described in the page, convey that  what is 'likened' to the kingdom is not actually the kingdom. The parable itself reveals that the essence of the kingdom resides within something that is 'like' the kingdom but is not - actually - the kingdom.

For that is what the kingdom of heaven is like. One thinks it is all around one (in the company of whomever) and one discovers, to one's horror, that the reality is not as the appearance.

As the psalmist complains :

  Yea, mine own familiar friend, in whom I trusted, which did eat of my bread, hath lifted up his heel against me. Psalm 41:9 KJV.

The net is cast wide (into the world) by those called 'fishers of men' and they drag the net into the boat. "The kingdom of heaven." But, no, it is not quite. It is only 'like' the kingdom of heaven.

For there is - now - a sifting. And some are cast back into the sea. The bad.
And some are put into vessels. They, as it were, become vessels. Full of the Holy Spirit, are they. The good.

For justification by faith is a matter of a relationship with Jesus Christ - the King of the Kingdom.

Many are there, milling about, busy, important even, sitting - perhaps - in the very chief seats. But what matters is what happens in the last parable - or, rather, in the reality which fulfils all parables - the coming of the Son of man.

If one has had a close relationship with Jesus Christ - the Son of God who loved me and gave himself for me - and if one has been a sheep (my sheep hear my voice and they follow me) then it shall not be said by him :

  Depart from me ye workers of iniquity. I never knew you. Matthew 7:23 KJV.

If one is truly justified by faith, one will - in response to such unutterable love - be glad to serve the Lord and to take whatever talent he gives, be it two or five or ten, and to trade with it, bravely and in faith, to please him who hath called one and saved one.

But the churlish and the mean-spirited and the fearful and the unbelieving (Revelation 21:8) have no real part in the kingdom of heaven.

But they may well sneak in to the 'likeness' of the kingdom.

They may get caught up in the net along with some others. And they may not be long in the boat.

Or they may last a lifetime, sitting in a pew. And be buried in the communal place set aside for believers.

But all will be made plain :

  When the Son of man shall come in his glory. Matthew 25:31 KJV.

========================================================================

As to justification by faith itself, I have again - for brevity's sake - put a single page on google docs here.

Justification by faith does not pertain to legal righteousness, or human righteousness or arbitrary righteousness or assumed righteousness.

Justification by faith is when faith is associated with the Righteousness of God Himself.

Those who truly and genuinely are - by God himself - associated with God's own righteousness, are those of whom it is said :

  Whom he did predestinate, them he also called : and whom he called, then he also justified : and whom he justified, then he also glorified. Romans 8:30 KJV.

And there is nothing whatsoever in the parable of the talents which contradicts Paul's doctrine in that verse.

The parable of the talents simply narrates the fact of the sifting during life as the kingdom progresses towards a finality.

And, in the words of Jesus regarding the parable of the net :

  So shall it be at the end of the world : the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just. Matthew 13:49 KJV.

. . .  or, as one might say - sever the wicked from among the justified.


Why are there so many modern saints? Seems every man and his dog is qualifying for sainthood these days. Pope John Paul II canonised 483 saints, more saints than in the last 500 years.

Is this because

modern science has advanced to the point it is easier to prove miracles
the Catholic Church has lowered the burden of proof required to class an event as a miracle
more people are performing miracles

The catholic church, especially through JPII and Pope Francis, stress that there are many saints, even the "regular" saints. Catholic church recognizes, in this way, only a tiny fraction of the saints.

Saints are witnesses to the faith, to the truth. This world badly needs it, so the answer to this, is to "expose" more of those witnesses of faith.

It is not adding saints to get a higher saint-score, it is recognizing what already is.

It is likely that the better communication and documentation of the modern times, helps identify candidates for sainthood.


Eucharist for Catholic Candidates after Easter Vigil? I realize that the Eucharist is taken for the first time at Easter Vigil, but is it continued for candidates of RCIA through Confirmation, or is it a received for the second time at confirmation?

RCIA candidates who receive the sacraments of Baptism and First Eucharist at the Easter Vigil Mass also receive Confirmation at that time:

  Today in all the rites, Latin and Eastern, the Christian initiation of adults begins with their entry into the catechumenate and reaches its culmination in a single celebration of the three sacraments of initiation: Baptism, Confirmation, and the Eucharist.

(Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1233)

The Code of Canon Law confirms this:

  Unless there is a grave reason to the contrary, an adult who is baptized is to be confirmed immediately after baptism and is to participate in the eucharistic celebration also by receiving communion.

(Canon 866)

In turn, this approach laid out by the Canons and the Catechism is meant to support what appears in the Second Vatican Council's Ad Gentes Decree on the Missionary Activity of the Church:

  Then, when the sacraments of Christian initiation have freed them from the power of darkness (cf. Col. 1:13), having died with Christ been buried with Him and risen together with Him (cf. Rom. 6:4-11; Col. 2:12-13; 1 Peter 3:21-22; Mark 16:16), they receive the Spirit (cf. 1 Thess. 3:5-7; Acts 8:14-17) of adoption of sons and celebrate the remembrance of the Lord's death and resurrection together with the whole People of God.

(Ad Gentes section 14)

Thus, there is no continuance through Confirmation, since there is no delay of Confirmation.


Incense, candles, crystal and exorcism (Roman Catholic perspective) I have read that incense is a bad thing and it can bring demons to your house. However others say it will create a clean house. Rabbi Keduri, some say, did smoke incense, but he did not inhale it, and when asked, said it was supposed to keep the demons away.

What does the RCC say about it? What is so special about smoke, candles and crystals?

Could any RCC experts give me a good source?

Your question has to be divided into two parts: How are Catholic exorcisms actually performed and how is one able to help liberate the possessed through various sacraments and sacramental outside an actual exorcism.

It should be noted that sometimes the liberation of a soul from the grips of the evil one happens after just a few exorcisms, while others take years to be freed from the demon.

The Roman Ritual is where Catholics get its official rules on how to perform the Rite of Exorcism (Ritus Exorcizandi Obsessos A Daemonio).

According to the Roman Ritual, the exorcist is to be donned with a surplice and a purple stole (which at a particular point in time during the exorcism is to be draped over the shoulder of the possessed). The exorcist is to have holy water on hand and the following to items may be present:

  13 He ought to have a crucifix at hand or somewhere in sight. If relics of the saints are available, they are to be applied in a reverent way to breast or head of the possessed (the relics must be properly and securely encased and covered). One will see to it that these sacred objects are not treated improperly or no injury is done to them by the evil spirit. However, one should not hold the Holy Eucharist over the head of the person nor in any way apply It to his body, owing to the danger of desecration. Exorcism Of The Possessed.

Fr. Gabriel Amorth was an Italian Roman Catholic priest and an exorcist of the Diocese of Rome who has written two books on the on the subject of exorcisms: An Exorcist Tells His Story and An Exorcist: More Stories. Although they are not official Roman Catholic documents, they are in fact a very rich source of information of how some priests use various sacraments and sacramentals to help in the liberation of the possessed outside the actual Rite of Exorcism.

In his books, Fr. Amorth states that both the sacraments of Confession and Holy Communion are excellent aids in freeing a person from the possession of the demon.

Fr. Amorth would say Mass in the homes of those tormented by the devil. Other helpful things (outside an actual exorcism), he would encourage is to have the house blessed. He also mentions the use of sacramentals such as holy water, blessed oil, exorcized (blessed) salt, blessed religious medals (especially the now famous St Benedict's Medal) burning of blessed incense in the home and so on. All these sacramentals , as well as many more , have their own particular blessing and/or exorcism listed in the Roman Ritual.

The Book of Tobit has an episode (Tobit 6: 1-7) in which the angel Raphael gets Tobias to burn incense in order to make the demon flee away.

The use of crystal (balls?) is complete nonsense for the use of help in the liberation of the possessed and would, at least in my mind, be a hindrance towards the liberation of a soul, as being something out of New Age or even worse.

.


Did God promise to appoint prophets in each generation? I remember a TV show where one of the characters tells another person that God promised that there would be prophets in each generation. Is there Biblical support for such a view? If this view does exist what are some of the Bible verses that support? I'm interested in the main Catholic and Protestant view on this issue.

Introduction

A prophet is?

  A delegate or mouthpiece of God - cf. PROPHETS AND PROPHECY |  Jewish
  Encyclopedia.

From the said Jewish Encyclopedia above, 'prophecy was not regarded as confined to Israel.'

And from this selected answer | Mi Yodeya

  Once the last prophets -- Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi -- died, the
  prophetic spirit ceased in Israel.

Therefore, at least from this answer, Israel who had Moses, have not had the prophetic spirit in the generations after the last three prophets mentioned above.

In the New Testament St. Paul makes it clear that Jesus gifts his Church with prophets for building up the body of Christ which is the Church

  Eph 4:11-14 (RSVCE) 11 And his gifts were that some should be
  apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers,
  12 for the equipment of the saints, for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, 13 until we all attain to the
  unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature
  manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ;
  14 so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the cunning of men, by
  their craftiness in deceitful wiles.

And the Catholic Church teaches that all the baptized share in the priesthood of Christ, in his prophetic and royal mission

  CCC 1268 The baptized have become "living stones" to be
  "built into a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood."1
  By Baptism they share in the priesthood of Christ, in his prophetic
  and royal mission. They are "a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy
  nation, God's own people, that [they] may declare the wonderful deeds
  of him who called [them] out of darkness into his marvelous
  light."2 Baptism gives a share in the common priesthood of
  all believers.

  1. 1 Pet 2:5.
  2. 1 Pet 2:9.

One can safely conclude that the baptized here on C.SE are prophets (mouthpieces of God) provided their contributions are faithful to the Church's Teaching.


According to Roman Catholic teaching, did people who died in Old Testament times spend time in Purgatory? I understand that the Roman Catholic Church teaches that people today spend time in Purgatory after they die prior to going to heaven.

However, this teaching does not appear to have been taught in the Old Testament or been believed by Israel during that time.

Does the Catholic Church teach that people who died before the atonement of Christ, like Abraham, Moses, Elijah, etc., also spent time in Purgatory before going to Heaven?

In short, No. Purgatory did not exist before Christ rose from the dead. They were in the Limbo of the Fathers (limbus patrum).

I know it is long, but here is the Catholic teaching from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

  632   The frequent New Testament affirmations that Jesus was “raised from the dead” presuppose that the crucified one sojourned in the realm of the dead prior to his resurrection.478 This was the first meaning given in the apostolic preaching to Christ’s descent into hell: that Jesus, like all men, experienced death and in his soul joined the others in the realm of the dead. But he descended there as Savior, proclaiming the Good News to the spirits imprisoned there.479

  633   Scripture calls the abode of the dead, to which the dead Christ went down, “hell” — Sheol in Hebrew or Hades in Greek—because those who are there are deprived of the vision of God.480 Such is the case for all the dead, whether evil or righteous, while they await the redeemer: which does not mean that their lot is identical, as Jesus shows through the parable of the poor man Lazarus who was received into “Abraham’s bosom”:481 “It is precisely these holy souls, who awaited their Savior in Abraham’s bosom, whom Christ the Lord delivered when he descended into hell.”482 Jesus did not descend into hell to deliver the damned, nor to destroy the hell of damnation, but to free the just who had gone before him.483 (1033)

  634   “The gospel was preached even to the dead.”484 The descent into hell brings the Gospel message of salvation to complete fulfillment. This is the last phase of Jesus’ messianic mission, a phase which is condensed in time but vast in its real significance: the spread of Christ’s redemptive work to all men of all times and all places, for all who are saved have been made sharers in the redemption. (605)

  635   Christ went down into the depths of death so that “the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live.”485 Jesus, “the Author of life,” by dying destroyed “him who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and [delivered] all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong bondage.”486 Henceforth the risen Christ holds “the keys of Death and Hades,” so that “at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth.”487

    Today a great silence reigns on earth, a great silence and a great
    stillness. A great silence because the King is asleep. The earth
    trembled and is still because God has fallen asleep in the flesh and
    he has raised up all who have slept ever since the world began.... He
    has gone to search for Adam, our first father, as for a lost sheep.
    Greatly desiring to visit those who live in darkness and in the shadow
    of death, he has gone to free from sorrow Adam in his bonds and Eve,
    captive with him—He who is both their God and the son of Eve....” I am
    your God, who for your sake have become your son.... I order you, O
    sleeper, to awake. I did not create you to be a prisoner in hell. Rise
    from the dead, for I am the life of the dead.”488


Can I project more than 500 verses of Scripture over the course of a year? Or, an entire book of the Bible? In this question What major translations of the Bible are in the Public Domain? we established that most modern translations allow for fair use of a certain amount of Scripture - meaning that specifically you are allowed to reprint their translation without specific copyright provision.

To wit, using the NIV and the United States as an example:

  The NIV text may be quoted in any form (written, visual, electronic or audio),

says that this would include projecting the words on the overhead screen.  No question there.

Question 1. Length:

According to this:

  up to and inclusive of five hundred (500) verses without express written permission of the publisher,

it says 500 verses.  Obviously, it is unlikely that any one sermon is going to need more than 500 verses.  But, does each sermon reset the counter?  In other words, over the course of a year, it would be likely that I would project more than 500 verses.  Where do I know that the counter resets?

Question 2. An entire "book"

It also says:

  providing the verses do not amount to a complete book of the Bible

So, what if I'm preaching on 3 John?  Or Jude?  In those cases, it would seem very likely to just do the whole "book."  Are we breaking the law there?  And if so, how do I rectify the situation?

The length is the length of what you quote in a single document. So yes, a new sermon resets the counter. However, if you then publish all your sermons together in a single book, that single book becomes the reference document and can only contain 500 verses in toto (and of course, the rules on selling the text then come into play).

The terms are quite explicit about not amounting to an entire book of the Bible. So yes, you can't do all 25 verses of Philemon in one go. But then you could simply omit v1, which probably leaves enough to be useful.


Does everything - everything in our heart and every external event- happen according to God's plan? (Catholic) I think everything - everything that takes place in our hearts, and everything that takes place externally - happens so according to God's plan. I don't think my opinion conflicts with our free will.

The catechism teaches that God's plan requires cooperation of his free creations, but it also teaches that "all are laid bare before his eyes, even the things that are yet to come to existence through the free action of his creatures".

I think that God had incorporated all our free actions and decisions (which we are responsible for) into his plan from the very beginning. Like, even Judas' betrayal was a part of God's plan (he clearly foresaw that Judas will betray Jesus from the beginning; and he permitted it to happen in keeping with his plan. It is Judas own downfall and it was his own decision that he will betray Jesus, but God incorporated this Judas' free will into his plan).

If something - however tiny or insignificant it can be - can happen unexpectedly outside of God's plan, how can Church be so sure that our final ultimate end will be achieved?

So my question is:
Is it correct to say that "everything - everything that takes place in our hearts and mind, and everything that takes place in external world - happens according to God's plan"?

Please answer according to Catholicism.

Everything is subject to God's providence, but that does not imply God necessitates everything to happen the way it does.
St. Thomas Aquinas, in his Summa Theologica I q. 22 a. 4 article "Whether providence imposes any necessity on things foreseen?," answers:

Divine providence imposes necessity upon some things; not upon all, as some formerly believed. For to providence it belongs to order things towards an end. Now after the divine goodness, which is an extrinsic end to all things, the principal good in things themselves is the perfection of the universe; which would not be, were not all grades of being found in things. Whence it pertains to divine providence to produce every grade of being. And thus it has prepared for some things necessary causes, so that they happen of necessity; for others contingent causes, that they may happen by contingency, according to the nature of their proximate causes.

Thus, God's knowing Judas would betray Him in no way necessitated him to betray Him. Judas's acts of his freewill are contingent causes, not necessary ones.
cf. also Thomist theologian Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P.'s ProvidenceBut perhaps your question is more: "Does God will/want everything to occur as it actually does?" St. Thomas Aquinas answers this in his Summa Theologica I q. 19 a. 6 question "Whether the will of God is always fulfilled?":

The will of God must needs always be fulfilled. In proof of which we must consider that since an effect is conformed to the agent according to its form, the rule is the same with agent causes as with formal causes. The rule in forms is this: that although a thing may fall short of any particular form, it cannot fall short of the universal form. For though a thing may fail to be, for example, a man or a living being, yet it cannot fail to be a being. Hence the same must happen in agent causes. Something may fall outside the order of any particular agent cause, but not outside the order of the universal cause; under which all particular causes are included: and if any particular cause fails of its effect, this is because of the hindrance of some other particular cause, which is included in the order of the universal cause. Therefore an effect cannot possibly escape the order of the universal cause. Even in corporeal things this is clearly seen. For it may happen that a star is hindered from producing its effects; yet whatever effect does result, in corporeal things, from this hindrance of a corporeal cause, must be referred through intermediate causes to the universal influence of the first heaven*. Since, then, the will of God is the universal cause of all things, it is impossible that the divine will should not produce its effect. Hence that which seems to depart from the divine will in one order, returns into it in another order; as does the sinner, who by sin falls away from the divine will as much as lies in him, yet falls back into the order of that will, when by its justice he is punished.
*primi caeli or the primum mobile, the first thing God moves

Also, in ibid. ad 2, he states that "everything, in so far as it is good, is willed by God."


What did the Centurion mean by ' the word '? In Luke 7: 6-7 (ESV), we read about "the word" in the faith of the Centurion story:

  "And Jesus went with them. When he was not far from the house, the centurion sent friends, saying to him, “Lord, do not trouble yourself, for I am not worthy to have you come under my roof. 7 Therefore I did not presume to come to you. But say the word, and let my servant be healed."

The submission of the Centurion , with some changes, is used in the form of a prayer heralding the administration of  Holy Communion in the Catholic Church (Latin rite). I am however, curious to know what the Centurion meant by "the word."

Did he mean  a single word in Hebrew, Greek , Latin or Aramaic  which could be translated as "let him be healed," or did he use the term  in a larger connotation?

What is the Catholic Church's perspective on the meaning of "the word?"

From St. Thomas Aquinas's Catena Aurea (Golden Chain) on Mt. 8:8:

St. Jerome: The thoughtfulness of the centurion appears herein, that he saw the Divinity hidden beneath the covering of body; wherefore he adds, "But speak the word only, and my servant will be healed."
St. Hilary: Also he therefore says that it needed only a word to heal his son, because all the salvation of the Gentiles is of faith, and the life of them all is in the precepts of the Lord. Therefore he continues saying, "For I am a man set under authority, having soldiers under me; and I say to this man, Go, and he goeth; to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it."

St. Jerome uses verbum in his translation. The Greek uses λόγος.


What education requirements are imposed on ordination candidates in the Anglican church? What does the Anglican church require from potential ordination candidates as far as education and background? In particular, how would they handle a candidate from a different Protestant background who came along seeking to be ordained? Obviously I would expect the candidate is expected to agree with some statement of faith covering key doctrinal distinctions, but would they also be required to undergo education in an Anglican institution? Are there set timelines for such proceedings?

Funny you should ask.

I was ordained in the Baptist church, but I've really come to believe that I personally needed to Bette connected to an ancient church, so within the last month, I have begun that process.

Here in the Diocese of Virginia (TEC), ordination candidates with an M. Div. are required to take approx. 1 years addtl training before being made a deacon, then usually a few more months before being made a priest.

If you're going straight in, the process is:

undergo a discernment process with the bishop and your sending church.
start a 4 yr M. Div.
in your 3d year, begin a 2yr field work in another parish.
at the end of the this year, a review board will give you an interview, and make recommendations about whether or not to proceed with deaconal ordination
at the end of your 4th year, interview with a church. If they call you, essentially you will be ordained.


What's Moses up to nowadays? I'm teaching tomorrow on the general judgment and need an answer about folks in heaven.  I know Mary and Jesus are there body and soul.  I think (although my teachers manual doesn't mention it in this chapter) that the Church teaches Enoch and Elijah are there (body and soul as well) owing to the biblical accounts of their departure. But Moses according to Jude via the Book of Enoch (Which is apocryphal not deuterocanonical) had his body fought over and won by St. Michael and he appeared before Sts. Peter James and John on Mt Tabor with Elijah.

So, if the prince of the heavenly host has his body and he's appearing with a known occupant of Heaven (Body and soul) and notwithstanding the evidence is found through an obscure reference by an obscure apostle in the same book as another known occupant of heaven (why that would be a coincidence is baffling).  If all these things are true, then is it likely that Moses is in heaven body and soul, or is he still waiting for the end of the world with the rest of us?

Orthodox Catholic or catholic Orthodox answers only please.

This question is so speculative it would make St Michael flinch.

First of all we know that Moses died at Mt. Nebo (Jordan) and that he was not permitted to enter the Promised Land because he failed to trust in God when he struck the rock twice  instead of speaking to it in order to bring forth water (Numbers 20: 8-12).
Now in the List of Burial Places of Biblical Figures we can see that the burial place of Moses is somewhere near Mt. Nebo, but not Enoch or Elijah. The exact place where Moses is buried remains unknown in order to prevent idolatry.

Now if St Michael and the Devil argued  over the body of Moses, it was because the Evil One believed he had some sort of rights over it.  If the body of Moses were in heaven, this debate would be futile for the Devil and would make no sense.

We know that both Enoch and Elijah were taken out of this world and did not taste death. Moses died, that is sure.

The Vicariate of St James (Israel) celebrates the Feast of Moses the Lawgiver on September 4 each year. The same Vicariate, along with the Carmelite Order, celebrate the Feast of St Elijah on July 20. In the Extraordinary Form of the Mass the rubrics for the Mass permitted the Carmelites to celebrate this feast with red vestments. Both the Armenian Orthodox Church and the Armenian Catholic Church commemorate the Patriarch Enoch on July 30.

As for the Transfiguration of the Lord, it was a vision and as such is not  proof that Moses is in heaven, body and soul.  There are simply too many examples of saints appearing to people in visions to prove this. St Catherine appearing to Joan of Arc is just a single example.

Thus I conclude that Moses is in heaven and his body remains in an unknown location.


Is God one but multi-instantiated? I am stalled at the notion that there is but a single way 'up the mountain'.  "No one gets there but by me."  However, it seems as though 'me' could be 'any of me.'  In the sense that Jesus was (a manifestation of) God, could not also, for example, Buddha, Lao Tzu, et al, also be (manifestations of) God?

I am not a Biblical scholar (obviously), but if Jesus is the only way, then those who have not been informed are at a serious loss.  There are (methinks) passages that indicate that we all have a primordial (a priori?) sense of God and so that there is no excuse, but without the Jesus specifics, it wouldn't be enough.

Christianity holds that Jesus is unique in being the incarnation of God; there is no other occasion on which God himself became fully human, lived, died, and rose again in order to save us. (This is not to deny that there have been other occasions before and since when God has revealed himself to humans in some way.) This is clear from the New Testament witness, which uniformly presents Jesus as the one, not one of many. It is also consistent with the historical understanding of the church, as expressed in the great creeds and the surviving writings of significant early figures.
Let's suppose, however, regarding the problem of "what about those who have never heard of Jesus", that there are several historical figures who are as good as Jesus. But then we still have a problem: what about the people who've never heard of Jesus or Buddha or Lao Tzu? In order to achieve total coverage, we would have to posit a large number of divine manifestations, in every time period and every geographic area. The observed spatiotemporal distribution of Great Moral Teachers doesn't seem to match the theory. And even so, we have to answer "what about very young children?", "what about people with severe mental disabilities?", and so on.
The larger problem is clarity about just what these multiple instantiations of God are for - what are they there to do? The selection of Buddha and Lao Tzu as candidates suggests that some kind of moral instruction is the answer. However, Christian ideas about salvation are linked to the person and work of Jesus - not only his teaching, but his life, death, and resurrection. These events do not need to be repeated:

"For Christ did not enter a sanctuary made by human hands, a mere copy of the true one, but he entered into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf. Nor was it to offer himself again and again, as the high priest enters the Holy Place year after year with blood that is not his own; for then he would have had to suffer again and again since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the age to remove sin by the sacrifice of himself." (Hebrews 9:24-26, NRSV)
"We know that Christ, being raised from the dead, will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him. The death he died, he died to sin, once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God." (Romans 6:9-10, NRSV)
"Christ also suffered for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, in order to bring you to God." (1 Peter 3:18, NRSV)

Moral behaviour is part of the story, but it is not the whole story. It is certainly not sufficient, on its own, to reconcile us to God and one another. It is God who redeems us.
Many people have had the idea that even though nobody comes to God except through Jesus, this may happen even when those people do not know about Jesus. Some related answers from this site:

What happens to people who have never heard about Jesus?
What happens to non-believers or believers of other religions after death?
Can an atheist go to heaven?
Is an intellectual comprehension of the gospel by the earthly mind required for salvation?
What does the Roman Catholic church teach about those who die having never heard of Christ?


Relevance of the word 'ICTHUS' I would like to know the meaning and the importance of the word 'ICTHUS' among Christians. I have learned that this is some sort of symbol. Can anyone help me on this?

ΙΧΘΥΣ means fish in an old form of Greek. It now primarily refers to a particular Christian fish symbol. From Wikipedia:

  Ichthys (also Ichthus or Ikhthus /ˈɪkθəs/), from the Koine Greek word for fish: ἰχθύς, (capitalized ΙΧΘΥΣ or ΙΧΘΥϹ) is a symbol consisting of two intersecting arcs, the ends of the right side extending beyond the meeting point so as to resemble the profile of a fish, used by early Christians as a secret Christian symbol and now known colloquially as the "sign of the fish" or the "Jesus fish."

The word itself has symbolic meaning, though. Saint Augustine gives the following symbolic explanation in City of God:

  But if you join the initial letters of these five Greek words, ᾽Ιησοῦς Χριστος Θεοῦ υἰὸς σωτήρ, which mean, “Jesus Christ the Son of God, the Saviour,” they will make the word ἰχδὺς, that is, “fish,” in which word Christ is mystically understood, because He was able to live, that is, to exist, without sin in the abyss of this mortality as in the depth of waters.

For the symbolic meaning of fishes and the "fish symbol", you could ask:

Why are fish in general a Christian symbol?
What is the historical significance/origin of the fish symbol called "ΙΧΘΥΣ"?
Why is the fish often used as a symbol of Christ?


Purgatory - is it a place or state? According to Catholicism, does purgatory refer to a place or state? Has it ever been described as a place and then later a state, or vice-versa?

To the best of my knowledge, the details of purgatory have never been set out in an official Vatican document (like a papal bull, council decree, etc.). The magisterium of the church is somewhat vague on this point. (For some well-cited reading on various aspects of purgatory, see New Advent's Catholic Encyclopedia.)

Somewhat recently, however, Pope Benedict tried to shine some light on the matter. In a January 2011 talk about St. Catherine of Genoa, author of a treatise on purgatory, the pope agreed with the saint's conviction that "purgatory was not a place, but a process."

  "'The soul that is aware of the immense love and perfect justice of God consequently suffers for not having responded correctly and perfectly to that love,' the pope said, adding that the suffering is purgatory."


What is the biblical basis for the phrase "God wants the best for us"? "God wants the best for us" is a common phrase by Christians, but I struggle to identify with it. From the scriptures, I learned that what God gives us is good enough. I don't think it needs to be the 'best'. I feel that too many Christians are taking the word best too literally. They believe that there is only one best option that God would provide. Some churches extend the thought and only purchase the most expensive sound equipment or acquire the most expensive buildings because they feel God would give them the best.

So I'm asking for biblical references to support the phrase, "God wants the best for us".

To me, the first consideration in answering your question is to identify exactly what the phrase means. It is easy enough to imagine that the phrase is used to mean that God wants us all to have "Hallmark" (R) moments--"When you care enough to send the very best". When you go to the butcher, God wants you to buy Prime grade instead of choice grade beef, Grade A eggs and dairy, and at the fish market, Grade A jumbo shrimp. Drive an Olds Delta 88 instead of a Chevy Chevette. In other words, God wants us to have the best things. But there is another way to read the sentence. That is, rather than God wanting us to have something which is best on some arbitrary scale, that God wants us to have what is "best for us". Grade A eggs are not best for someone allergic to eggs; Grade A milk is not best for someone who is lactose intolerant; and Grade A shrimp is not best for someone who has a shellfish allergy. And the notion of some kind of objective best is contrary to any number of Jesus' teachings: the lesson from the Sermon on the mount about not being concerned with what to eat, or what to wear (Matthew 7:25-33); the parable of the man who anticipated a large harvest, so he pulled down all his warehouses and built bigger ones (Luke 12:13-21); and the widow who put in a small offering which Jesus held in higher regard than the large offerings of wealthy people (Mark 12:41-44). These passages, and many others like them in Scripture, seem to support the idea that phrase is meant to teach that God wants us to have what is "best for us", not some "best" based on an arbitrary measure.

What, then, is the origin of the phrase? It is not, as far as I can tell, a direct quotation from any the translations of the Scripture with which I am familiar, though I do not claim by any means to be familiar with all of the tens of English translations that have been made. I suspect that this is an example of the somewhat common phenomenon of attempting to quote the Bible without verifying that the passage says exactly what they remember it says. In other words, this is another example like that when people assert that the Bible teaches "Money is the root of all evil". However, the closest the Bible comes to this is 1 Timothy 6:10, where Paul writes "The love of money is the root of all evil." The two sentences are similar, but not identical, and the meaning is significantly different. I take the statement "God wants the best for us" as another example of the same phenomenon, where the phrase is a well-meaning mis-quotation of Romans 8:28a: "We know that in everything God works for good"..., perhaps colored by other teachings of Jesus, e.g. Matthew 7:11, "If you, then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him?"

I would distinguish, too, between things that are meant for our benefit, and things that are meant for the edification of God. So I would set having a really good sound system in the Church so that the Word of God is heard better, or God is worshipped better is a different matter from having the very best sound system at home, so as to better hear a sporting event, or listen to one's own music. The former is an offering to God, and is consistent with the commands to make the items associated with worship of God, that is the vestments described for the High Priest of Israel, and the fixtures for Solomon's temple. The latter, to me, is more like the fellow described in Luke 12 cited above.


According to Catholicism, does the last judgement include a last chance to reconcile? I was reading a Catholic Magazine a few years ago (it might have been Catholic Answers) and I remember reading an article on the last judgement that seemed to suggest that at the end of time there would be a chance for those who weren't certainly in damned to have a final opportunity to reconcile their sins. Possibly I misunderstood, so my question is:

According to the Catholic Church (or writings of a revered saint), does this idea actually have any real ground in catholic teaching?

Note: I could only sorta buy this idea because I could see the Resurrection being a final opportunity where all of humanity is united by being alive at the same time... and have the chance to repent of sins against God an each other. After this, all who are guilty of final and complete impenitence would be damned.

Per current teaching in the Catechism, each person earns a particular judgment:

  CCC 1022 Each man receives his eternal retribution in his immortal soul at the very moment of his death, in a particular judgment that refers his life to Christ: either entrance into the blessedness of heaven-through a purification or immediately, or immediate and everlasting damnation.

As posted here, the non doctrinal term "second judgment" looks like it addresses those who have not yet received particular judgment in the last days.

  (Catholic Answers) At the end of time, when Jesus returns, there will come the general judgment to which the Bible refers, for example, in Matthew 25:31-32: "When the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate them one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats." In this general judgment all our sins will be publicly revealed (Luke 12:2–5).

For those who have been purified, they are in sufficient state of grace to be included in those who are "with God" rather than those who are not.

  III. The Final Purification, or Purgatory

  1030 All who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.

  1031 The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of
  the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the
  damned. The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on Purgatory
  especially at the Councils of Florence and Trent. The tradition of the
  Church, by reference to certain texts of Scripture, speaks of a
  cleansing fire

Note: As I read the text, the Council of Trent revised a previously held dogma from Benedict XII (ca. 1336, Benedictus Deus) on the impact of dying with the stain of mortal sin on one's soul.

With the above considered, it is pretty difficult to get into hell in that it requires a complete unwillingness to "turn towards God" at all. (Repentance has a meaning from the original term in Hebrew that we could read as "turn toward" or "turn again" with a positive connotation).

  1037 God predestines no one to go to hell; for this, a willful turning away from God (a mortal sin) is necessary, and persistence in it until the end.

This indicates that not only is mortal sin a requirement to be consigned to Hell, but also the stubborn refusal to repent/atone for said mortal sin has to be maintained.  That state looks to be a criterion used during particular judgment.


What was Anselm's biblical basis for his theory of atonement by satisfaction? Upon which Bible verses did Anselm base his satisfactory theory of atonement?

Anselm's satisfaction theory of the atonement is developed in his book, Cur Deus Homo, and, as presented, is not "based on the Bible" like we might expect.  Instead, Anselm relies heavily on logic, and largely avoids citing Scripture to make his case.
However, he is forced to rely on it in a few places, and he also tangentially mentions it in others.  For example, he assumes the existence of God, and accepts the historicity of the Fall of Man as described in Genesis 3.  While arguing that sin makes mankind a debtor to God, he mentions several texts (I'm quoting the NABRE here):

Colossians 2:14 obliterating the bond against us, with its legal claims, which was opposed to us, he also removed it from our midst, nailing it to the cross
John 8:34 Jesus answered them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave of sin.
Matthew 6:12 and forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors

Elsewhere, he argues that the God-man (Jesus) had to die voluntarily, and in support of this he cites a few more:

Isaiah 53:7 Though harshly treated, he submitted and did not open his mouth; Like a lamb led to slaughter or a sheep silent before shearers, he did not open his mouth.
John 10:18  No one takes it from me, but I lay it down on my own. I have power to lay it down, and power to take it up again.

For a few other examples, he cites Psalm 51 ("I was born in guilt, in sin my mother conceived me") to demonstrate the sinfulness of man, and uses language reminiscent of Deuteronomy 32:35 ("Vengeance is mine and recompense") to argue for God's superiority to man.
There are several more passages referenced by Anselm, but they are best explained in the context of his entire argument.  A summary of that argument, along with additional Scripture references, follows.

As mentioned above, Anselm's purpose in Cur Deus Homo is to provide a rational argument, presupposing as little as possible and not relying on proof texts:

We have made it our aim to discover by reason alone whether [Christ's] coming was essential for the salvation of mankind. (1.20)

Thus, in order to provide a reasonably comprehensive answer the question, it will be necessary to outline Anselm's argument, briefly discussing its logic, and citing the biblical passages that he references along the way.
Anselm presents his ideas through a conversation between himself and an interlocutor named Boso.  Anselm and Boso do not typically cite their sources when quoting from the Bible, and the wording they use doesn't always match modern translations.  Below, the Bible quotes are all directly from the text of Cur Deus Homo, not a "standard" translation of the Bible, but the links point to the NABRE.
Anselm's argument takes the following form:

Human sin dishonours God in such a way that repayment is required
It is unfitting for God to forgive sin without punishment or satisfaction
Humanity cannot make the required satisfaction
God has a purpose for humanity that it is necessary for him to complete
A God-man must be born with the power, obligation, and will to make the satisfaction
The death of the God-man outweighs all sins

Human sin dishonours God and makes mankind his debtor
Anselm defines sin as "nothing else than not to render to God his due" (1.11). Anselm summarizes the consequences of sin:

Therefore, everyone who sins is under an obligation to repay to God the honour which he has violently taken from him, and this is the satisfaction which every sinner is obliged to give to God. (1.11)

Commentators call this understanding "feudal in origin" (xviii), and Anselm provides only indirect biblical basis.  First, Boso, cites Colossians 2:14 ("bond of the decree") and John 8:34 ("slave of sin") as evidence that man is not a slave to the devil, but a slave to God's decree, and, by extension, to God himself (1.7).  Later, in 1.19, Boso and Anselm interact over the implications of "forgive us our debts" in the Lord's Prayer (Matthew 6:12).  In neither case does Anselm attempt to refute Boso, and in 1.20, he too adopts the word "bondslave" to describe man's relationship to God.
God cannot forgive sin without punishment or satisfaction
In 1.12, Anselm argues that God cannot simply overlook this debt that mankind owes him: it would be against his nature to do so. In such a case, sin would "slip by unregulated." Anselm says that "everyone knows" that righteousness is rewarded by God (cf. Deuteronomy 5:33), and on this basis argues if sin is neither paid for nor punished, it is not subject to any law (1.12). Furthermore, he says, "nothing is more intolerable" than sin, and therefore, "nothing [...] is more unjust to tolerate than the most intolerable thing" (1.13).
In challenge, Boso refers to the language of Matthew 6:12 ("forgive us our debts"), and wonders why man must simply forgive without repayment, but God cannot.  Anselm responds:

There is no contradiction in this, because God is giving us the teaching in order that we should not presume to do something which belongs to God alone.  For it belongs to no one to take vengeance, except to him who is Lord of all.

Here Anselm reflects the language of Deuteronomy 32:35 ("Vengeance is mine and recompense"), which is repeated in the New Testament in Romans 12:19 and Hebrews 10:30. (1.19)
Humanity cannot make the required satisfaction
Anselm next addresses the issue of man's attempts to repay God.  Good works cannot repay the debt, because God created man "out of nothing" and is his Master, and a slave's obedience to his master is expected:

In obedience, when truth is told, what are you giving God that you do not owe him, seeing that it is your obligation to give him, at his command, all that you are and all that you have and all that you are capable of?  (1.20)

Boso appeals to Galatians 5:6 ("faith which operates through love") and Ezekiel 18:27 ("if the wicked man turns from his wickedness and does what is right"), that faith is the means of obliterating wicked acts, but Anselm reminds him of the assumptions made so far in the argument: that, so far, Christ and the Christian faith do not exist.
Anselm argues that if given the choice between disobeying God, and allowing the destruction of the universe and everything in it, that the former option is still a sin: and that this gives us an idea of how bad sin is in God's eyes. (1.21)
He also refers to the "insult" that man gave God in the Garden of Eden (Genesis 3), when he "allowed himself to be conquered" by the devil through "persuasion alone," and thereby acted "contrary to the will and honour of God."  In order to repay God for this insult, man must now do the opposite: being weak and mortal, he must "conquer the devil through the difficulty of death, and in so doing to sin in no way."  But there's a problem: man is "born in sin" (cf. Psalm 51) and cannot accomplish this. (1.22)  God recognizes man's incapacity, but since it is self-inflicted, his punishment should be increased, not reduced. (1.24)
It is necessary that God brings to completion his purpose for humanity.
Next, Anselm turns to the necessity of God completing his purpose for mankind.  He argues that God's purpose for mankind includes filling heaven with a predetermined number of angels and men.  The salvation of men, he says, does not depend on the Fall of angels, and there will be more elect men than fallen angels.  He interacts with objections based on the "angels of God" reading found in the Septuagint of Deuteronomy 32:8 ("determined the limits of the peoples according to the number of the angels of God"), and argues that men can be considered "angels of God" in the same way that Judas was called a "devil" in John 6:70. (1.18)
But Anselm doesn't use explicit biblical support to defend what he sees as the overarching purpose of mankind:

Rational nature was created righteous to the end that it might be made happy by rejoicing in the highest good, that is, in God.  Man, being rational by nature, was created righteous to the end that, through rejoicing in God, he might be blessedly happy. (2.1)

When man fell, this purpose was apparently thwarted, leaving God with two options: either dispose of his creation, or "complete what he has begun."  Anselm argues that it is "totally foreign to [God] to allow any rational type of creature to perish utterly," and therefore, God must finish what he started with respect to mankind. (2.4)
A God-man must be born with the power, obligation, and will to make the satisfaction
The problem, Anselm summarizes, is that no one is capable of paying the debt except God, and only mankind has the obligation to pay it.  Thus, a God-man is logically necessary to pay this debt.
Anselm argues that the only one who can pay the debt is "someone who would make a payment to God greater than everything that exists apart from God," who thus, logically, "must himself be superior to everything that exists apart from God." (2.6)  At the same time, the God-man must be of the same race as Adam, because otherwise he is under no obligation to pay the debt. (2.8) To deal with objections based on Psalm 51 ("conceived in sin") and Romans 5:12 ("all have sinned"), which teach that all mankind is inherently sinful, he appeals to the "cleanness" of his virgin mother, which was made possible by his sacrifice. (2.16)
Simultaneously, the God-man must be willing to make the sacrifice.  Anselm cites Isaiah 53:7 ("He was made a sacrifice, because he willed it") and John 10:18 ("power to lay down his life and take it up again") to argue that Jesus did in fact sacrifice himself voluntarily (2.17), and contends that other passages, like Philippians 2:8–9 and Matthew 26:39, do not contradict this understanding (1.9).
The death of the God-man outweighs all sins.
Finally, the satisfaction is achieved by the death of the God-man.  Anselm argues that the God-man's life is worth more than all sins, and that thus his death outweighs them all. (2.14)  Against the challenge that the sin of killing the God-man cannot be outweighed, Anselm responds by citing 1 Corinthians 2:8 ("if they had known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory"), arguing that the killers' lack of knowledge rendered the sin less severe, and thus it too was outweighed by the God-man's death. (2.15)

Citations, including all book/chapter numbers for Cur Deus Homo, refer to Anselm of Canterbury: The Major Works (Oxford World's Classics).
Book/chapter numbers can also be used in reference to public domain translations, such as this one, though there may be translation differences.


What denominations subscribe to or accommodate the Annihiliationist doctrine of hell? I am interested in what denominations allow or require the belief that hell is the annihilation of a conditionally immortal soul rather than the eternal suffering or eventual redemption of such.

From the wikipedia article on Annihilationism (4th paragraph):

  Some Christian denominations which are annihilationist were influenced by the Millerite/Adventist movement of the mid-19th century. These include the Seventh-day Adventists, Bible Students, Christadelphians and the various Advent Christian churches. Additionally, the Church of England's Doctrine Commission reported in 1995 that "[h]ell is not eternal torment", but "non-being". Some Protestant and Anglican writers have also proposed annihilationist doctrines. (emphasis mine)

Later in the article it cites Jehovah's Witnesses (see this question) and the followers of Herbert Armstrong as other examples


If God were going to send another Biblical flood, would He warn us? It goes without saying - Before 'The Flood of Noah', God warned Noah that it was coming.

But I wonder - If most of humanity turned evil again, and God was about to send another Biblical flood, would He warn us? And if so, would He warn us by way of the Pope? Or would he tell a prophet?

Basically I'm wondering if there's anything in the Bible or in any Christian teaching which would give us reason to believe that God would send advance warning of another flood.

The question seems to assume the Genesis account is literal, so I'll answer from the YEC view, which assumes it's literal.

The usual disclaimer - not all denominations assume the Genesis account is actual history, I'm just answering as if it is, since the question seems to be looking for that viewpoint.

From Genesis 9 (KJV)

  And God spake unto Noah, and to his sons with him, saying, And
  I, behold, I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after
  you; and with every living creature that is with you, of the fowl,
  of the cattle, and of every beast of the earth with you; from all that
  go out of the ark, to every beast of the earth. And I will
  establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any
  more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood
  to destroy the earth. And God said, This is the token of the
  covenant which I make between me and you, and every living creature
  that is with you, for perpetual generations: I do set my bow in
  the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and
  the earth. And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over
  the earth, that the  bow shall be seen in the cloud:

In the above passage, God promised to never send another flood.  Therefore, if God cannot lie, there is no chance of Him flooding the earth, so it would be futile to ponder whether He would tell us ahead of time.

However.. God HAS promised that He will judge the earth in the future.

From Revelation 21 (KJV)

  And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the
  first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. And I John
  saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven,
  prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a great
  voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men,
  and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God
  himself shall be with them, and be their God. And God shall wipe away
  all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither
  sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the
  former things are passed away.

2 Peter 3:10 even says how it will happen. It will be with great heat, not water. (Again, KJV)

  But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the
  which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements
  shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are
  therein shall be burned up.

So, we can say that if God were to destroy the earth, He would warn us - because He already has.


What is the biblical basis for the claim that abortion is morally acceptable (when there are no complicating factors)? Several Protestant denominations take an official position on abortion that it can be acceptable under certain circumstances, and that in those circumstances the choice can be made by the woman.

Views on those circumstances differ, but can include cases where the mothers life is in danger, or the baby will be severely deformed, or is the product of rape or incest.

Still, some people who claim to be Christians believe that abortion is acceptable even when it is unnecessary for any reason (when the life of the mother is not at risk, and the baby is completely healthy and there was no rape or incest).

This other question asks for the biblical basis for the immorality of abortion.

What specifically is the biblical basis for the claim that abortion is NOT immoral, as many other Christians claim it to be, when it is purely elective?

I personally disagree with this analysis, but typically, if a biblical basis is given, it is this:

Exodus 21:22 - 23

  22 “If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely[e] but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

The crux of the matter here is verse 23.  The question is, does the "serious injury" in verse 23 refer to the child or the woman.  Pro-choice Christians argue that the "serious injury" only applies to the woman - not to the baby who is born prematurely.  And, the prematurely suggests that the child does not survive in the medical conditions of the day. If this is the way it is supposed to be read, this implies that the unborn child is property (and hence there is restitution) and not a full live human being. If life for life were demanded, it would be far less ambiguous.

That said, in the church where I pastored, I got roundly criticized for "politicizing my pulpit" when I recounted the story of how the Roe in Roe v. Wade eventually came to renounce her views.  My congregation thought this to be a matter of personal conscience, and not a theological one.  (Did I say I was a pastoring a very liberal church?) I suspect most Christians who are "pro-Choice" arrive at the position first, then seek to find Scripture to back up the position.


Where can I find scans of original Biblical manuscripts? I want to study different translations of Bible and compare them to Bible in Hebrew and Greek. Can any one tell me where can I find the pictures of original Biblical manuscripts online?

The original manuscripts are not believed to be in existence any more, and most manuscripts we do have aren't easily accessible. But some important ones can be viewed online:

Aleppo Codex
Codex Sinaiticus
Codex Vaticanus

Because there are so many manuscripts, most scholars rely on critical texts: the editors of these texts choose which variations they think are most likely to be authentic, and then in footnotes list the alternatives and which manuscripts support each. The most widely regarded critical text for the New Testament is the Nestle-Aland, whose text can be read online, but without the critical apparatus (footnotes). It looks like this:


Who believes in Mechanical Inspiration? While the idea of Mechanical Inspiration -- that the very physical action of writing down the scriptures was guided or enacted by God through physical manipulation of the human writers -- is always listed for completeness as one of the ways the inspiration of the Scriptures could have been accomplished, I wonder if anyone actually holds that view.

Do any current groups identifying as Christian believe in this kind of inspiration? If so who and what evidence or reasoning do they cite?

Mechanical Inspiration sees the writing of the Bible as God dictating to the author every word that needed to be inserted in the Bible or that the author was in some sort of trance and did not know what he was doing. God using the author has a puppet.

The view is presented in doctrines classes as a view put forward in history to explain the inerrancy or ineffability. I do not know any evangelicals who hold this position in the current day.

Current evangelicals believed that the Bible was breathed by God, but that the human author was still lucid and that he wrote with his own words, his own style. There is a miracle component to the evangelical position, but it is not mechanical inspiration.


Does traditional Calvinistic monergism include limited synergism in the doctrine of justification? I found an article Regeneration precedes faith by R.C. Sproul that could imply there is no synergism at all in justification. In other words no part of the human will involved in believing? It is potentially confusing in that it puts regeneration before faith. (I can only only assume he actually believes regenerations as: calling, faith, justification and new birth so that he is actually only referring the the effectual call as preceding faith which no Calvinist would find confusing. But he seems to confuse the issue by arguing against 'faith, rebirth, justification' which as far as I know nobody has ever presented in that order from a Calvinist position.)

On the other hand, as opposed to potential confusion of Sproul's statement (which might actually intend the same as this more traditional classical Calvinist) John Owen could imply that justification is synergistic. (Actually, I know Owen puts the 'initial' work of regeneration before faith, justification and sanctification, but by identifying the human 'will' as a 'cause' of salvation according to all 'Protestant divines' he seems to be sending a message with a slightly different spin from the Sproul's terminology.)

  Protestant divines, until of late, have unanimously affirmed faith to be the instrumental cause of our justification.  (John Owen's Works Vol 5, Justification by Faith, Chapter three – “The use of faith in Justification”. p108)

So what's going on here? How much synergism (cooperation between God and man) is involved in the 'monergism' (the work of God without human cooperation) of classical Calvinists' in the doctrine of justification?

I would argue there is no synergism whatsoever in justification. The natural man, the Bible points out, is not sick and needing a doctor. He is dead and needs resurrection. Dead people don't raise themselves. They need to be raised (passive voice very intentional here). Therefore, the Holy Spirit must raise people from the dead and give them a new heart. Otherwise, they will not desire God. God the Holy Spirit, that is, changes peoples' wills so that they want God. Before that, people hate God and do not want Him.

The traditional Reformed ordo salutis is, IIRC, the following:

Predestination, Effectual Calling, Regeneration, Conversion, Justification, Adoption, Sanctification, Glorification. Now the steps of Effectual Calling through Adoption happen nearly instantaneously, so I'm merely writing them out in this way as a logical progression more than as a time progression. Also, all steps up through and including Adoption are completely monergistic. Sanctification is synergistic: 100% God, and 100% man, although even the part that we do is utterly dependent on God's strength.


Does Ecclesiastes give an example of a time to tear and a time to mend? Ecclesiastes chapter 3 lists fourteen pairs of opposites, inluding "a time to tear and a time to mend". I have found one or more examples of most of the pairs elsewhere in the book, but can't find any for tearing or mending. For example, there are references to laughter, to mourning, to being born, to dying, to war and peace. I take chapter 3 as a sort of index into the rest of the book. For some of the words, I have to resort to emotional synonyms; there is no reference to dancing, but there are references to joy, and we dance when we are joyful.

However, I can't find anything that I can match to clothing analogies
 like tearing and mending. Perhaps this is Solomon being silent about a
 touchy subject:

  10 Although he had forbidden Solomon to follow other gods, Solomon did
  not keep the Lord’s command. 11 So the Lord said to Solomon, “Since
  this is your attitude and you have not kept my covenant and my
  decrees, which I commanded you, I will most certainly tear the kingdom
  away from you and give it to one of your subordinates. 12
  Nevertheless, for the sake of David your father, I will not do it
  during your lifetime. I will tear it out of the hand of your son. 13
  Yet I will not tear the whole kingdom from him, but will give him one
  tribe for the sake of David my servant and for the sake of Jerusalem,
  which I have chosen.” (1 Kings 11:10-13)

Solomon makes a point of speaking about how unfair it is to leave your estate to someone who did not build it, and that person might not deserve it:

  18 I hated all the things I had toiled for under the sun, because I
  must leave them to the one who comes after me. 19 And who knows
  whether that person will be wise or foolish? Yet they will have
  control over all the fruit of my toil into which I have poured my
  effort and skill under the sun. This too is meaningless. (Ecclesiastes
  2:18-19)

Given all that, I would expect some additional reference to tearing in Ecclesiastes, but can't find it. Maybe the Hebrew admits some clothing references that the English does not show? Or maybe Solomon is "on the nose" for once and eschews a parable?

There are various ways of tackling the book of Ecclesiastes, with the example you give being a method I had never considered before; taking “chapter 3 as a sort of index into the rest of the book.” I know and appreciate the worth of taking an entire book of the Bible as needing to be read within its own context, detecting the writer’s style and paying attention to his repetitions, but that the rest of the Bible may also speak to the matter, giving further insights (either before that particular book was written, or after). I had never thought to examine chapter three’s 14 pairs of opposites, expecting to find additional reference to tearing (vs. 7) within Ecclesiastes.
Upon examination, the 14 couplets cover every range of human activity, beginning with life and death (vs. 2). Then come three creative and destructive activities (vss. 2-3) followed by human emotions both public and private (vs. 4).  A move is made to friendship and enmity. Apparently, in that era, stones refer to filling up your neighbour’s field with stones or gathering the stones they throw and using them to build something), and a time to say hello and a time to say goodbye (vs. 5). The next two have to do with possessions and our resolutions concerning them (vs. 6). Finally, a return is made to the various creative and destructive activities of man (vss. 7-8). The key point in all such affairs is the element of time – seasons – life’s rhythms. Ignore that and you suffer burn-out. But if we place our times in God’s hands, we will find balance and, at the end, God’s purpose which is detailed in the last chapter.
You referred to 1 Kings 11:10-13 as a possible connection. However, I do not know if God warned Solomon of tearing the kingdom away once it had been given to his son prior to Solomon collating all those wise sayings.
It seems likely that his collection was a life-time’s work with formation into a structured book happening after much consideration. Given how Solomon states the conclusion of the whole matter of the vanity of life in its last chapter 12, showing that it has purpose in obediently fearing God, who alone can break through the brassy heavens above us, I’ve viewed his last chapter as key to unlocking all that went before. And it speaks of the ultimate physical rending: the breakdown of the ageing body as death gets a grip as in 12:6-7:

“Or ever the silver cord be loosed, or the golden bowl be broken, or
the pitcher be broken at the fountain, or the wheel broken at the
cistern. Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was, and the
spirit shall return unto God who gave it.”

That is why 12:5 speaks of the mourners going about the streets. Old age and impending death have a way of focusing our minds, to expose vain thoughts and to seek God’s mind on matters to heal all the damage of a merely physical life.
Back to 3:7. One translation says, "A time to rend, and a time to sew". [Y.L.T.] Rending was a term used in the Bible for showing great grief, when garments would be torn and sack-cloth worn instead, and ashes placed on the head. But the writer of Ecclesiastes, a rich powerful ruler, would never be engaged in sewing (repairing) such rent garments! However, he would be very involved in the showing of grief at times of mourning. Indeed, there would be times of national crisis when he would be expected to lead the nation in public demonstration of rending his fine clothes, to then wear sack-cloth and ashes.
That is why I think chapter 12 is a fitting link to 3:7. The whole chapter points to impending death, and when that time inevitably comes, it would be better for young people reading his wise sayings to have taken to heart its counsel, and to have sought God early. Only those who do that will no longer find the heavens as brass, “under the sun”, but know the satisfaction of living to honour God, before it comes time to die.