What are the Presbyterian denominations in England? Except the Evangelical Presbyterian Church in England and Wales and the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster, both of which have a few congregations in England, I am not aware of any other Presbyterian churches in England. I know that the Presbyterian Church of England merged to form the United Reformed Church some years ago, but surely there must be some that did not merge?

I'll describe the denominations you mention, for the purpose of completeness, but you've only left out one small denomination, from what I have found.  The denominations are:

United Reformed Church (founded 1972)

Formed by the merger of the Presbyterian Church of England and the Congregational Church in England and Wales.
Theologically liberal, and no longer exclusively presbyterian.

Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster (1951)

Theologically conservative (Westminster Standards, but permitting credobaptism).  Based in Ireland; only a small minority of its churches are in England.

International Presbyterian Church (1969)

Theologically conservative (Westminster Standards and Three Forms of Unity).  One of its four presbyteries is in the UK, of which several churches are in England

Evangelical Presbyterian Church in England and Wales (1987)

Theologically conservative (Westminster Standards).  About 20 congregations, most of which are in England.


What kind of worship does God look for, for Salvation? Through Gods word the bible, we are given commandments of what we shouldn't do and what we need to do in order to attain salvation.

That last part is really what I'm focusing on. What does the New Testament tell us about what we need to do to be in accordance with God?

How much of the Old Testament still applies?

Sources from anywhere are acceptable, however I am primarily looking for sources from the scriptures. Please include scriptures that come to mind to support your ideas!

For instance I am looking for something along these lines:

Jesus said we need to be doing X or displaying X qualities. Here is the scripture where he said that (Insert scripture here).

I searched for similar questions and didn't find any that articulated what I'm looking for. If this question has been asked, I apologize and will delete this question.

Here are some scriptures that will help:

1 Corinthians 15:1-2  KJV

  Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.

1 Timothy 4:14-16  KJV

  Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery. Meditate upon these things; give thyself wholly to them; that thy profiting may appear to all.  Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.

Ezekiel 33:12-19  KJV

  Therefore, thou son of man, say unto the children of thy people, The righteousness of the righteous shall not deliver him in the day of his transgression: as for the wickedness of the wicked, he shall not fall thereby in the day that he turneth from his wickedness; neither shall the righteous be able to live for his [righteousness] in the day that he sinneth. When I shall say to the righteous, [that] he shall surely live; if he trust to his own righteousness, and commit iniquity, all his righteousnesses shall not be remembered; but for his iniquity that he hath committed, he shall die for it. Again, when I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; if he turn from his sin, and do that which is lawful and right;  [If] the wicked restore the pledge, give again that he had robbed, walk in the statutes of life, without committing iniquity; he shall surely live, he shall not die. None of his sins that he hath committed shall be mentioned unto him: he hath done that which is lawful and right; he shall surely live. Yet the children of thy people say, The way of the Lord is not equal: but as for them, their way is not equal. When the righteous turneth from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, he shall even die thereby. But if the wicked turn from his wickedness, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall live thereby.

This what I use:

John 15:6

  If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast [them] into the fire, and they are burned.

And in order to Abide in Christ I remind myself of what Salvation really is; and how I gained it in the first
place.

1.  By first acknowledging my sin, to that end I remember what Jesus said about that in the Lord's prayer.

   a. Forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors.

        1. So to start I ask god to forgive anyone who has irked me that day and forgive them in my heart. that
         also makes me sleep better at night.

    2.  Only after I have forgiven them do I ask God to forgive me for what I have done wrong.

    3.  I have to  make a concentrated effort each day to act exactly the way Jesus did.

    a. By that I mean try to love others as Jesus did and that means that I just do not expect them to be or do as
    I think they should but accept them as if had.

    b. It seems to me that to be like Jesus means that I should reject the things which are ungodly and support
    those things which are.

     c. This is the big one, I need to do all I can to exhibit Jesus to the world and People around me, and to
     honor God in all my actions.

As far as just what Scriptures will help you to live a life pleasing to God I can only say all of them, and in order to do that I have to study my Bible every day, and ask the Holy Spirit to give me understanding.

Oh and by the way Jesus said that not even a accent mark of the Scripture would eve pass away, so all of the Old Testament is still in effect only that Jesus fulfilled all of the law.


Why do Catholics believe transubstantiated host may still affect the gluten sensitive? I was reading about the Eucharist the other day and read that sometimes in Catholic mass, there is low-gluten bread available for those who are gluten free. The same text said that the bread, once consecrated, ceases to be bread and becomes the body of Christ.

If the bread is no longer bread and indeed the body of Christ, wouldn't it no longer be dangerous to gluten-free people, and if it's no longer dangerous/bread, why cater to the faithful gluten-free? Shouldn't they understand it is no longer bread and instead the body of Christ?

Do I have some sort of misunderstanding of what Catholicism teaches of the Eucharist? I brought this up to my girlfriend who is Catholic, and she said (my interpretation of what she said) that the bread still has its materialistic properties although it has turned into the body of Christ. This didn't really make sense to me at all and I didn't press the issue any further as I felt kind of silly for bringing it up and my lack of knowledge on the subject. Do I have some sort of misunderstanding here or am I looking too deeply into something so "minor"?

Your girlfriend sounds correct. It may sound silly at first, but the doctrine of Transubstantiation is a well developed, detailed explanation of what happens during the consecration of the bread and wine. It is not a minor thing.

The Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation  teaches that the substance of the bread, what the bread really is, becomes the Body of Christ. The accidents of the bread, the characteristics like color, taste, etc, are not changed. These are properties that are not essential to what bread is. Red bread would still be bread. The accidents include everything that you could determine using chemistry.

The human body will still react to the host because the chemical accident/characteristic of containing gluten remains true.

Gluten-free hosts

Several people have commented/suggested edits about gluten-free hosts. It is my understanding that these are not valid for the Eucharist. See this letter  of then Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict XVI)

To answer a comment:

Note that the words essence , substance , and accidents have a specific philosophical meaning with a history and development that stretches back thousands of years. They don't necessarily agree with how we use the words today, especially if one is coming from a modern, rationalist-materialist worldview.

It is tempting to say that the chemistry of the bread or its components is the essence of the bread, but that does not coincide with how the Catholic Church uses the term essence. An overview of that would be a good question to post (if it has not already been asked).


What is the role of the British monarch? What role does the British monarch play as leader of the Church of England? Furthermore, how has this role changed over time?

The role of the monarch in the Church of England, while technically its head, is limited strictly to the selection of bishops.  Even here, involvement is limited, as the Monarch chooses from one of three candidates sent by the Prime Minister, from a list that was created by a synod of bishops.

Article 37 (of the 39 Articles) explicitly defines the role as follows:

  "The King's majesty hath the chief power in this Realm of England, and other of his Dominions, unto whom the chief Government of all Estates of this Realm, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Civil, in all causes doth appertain, and is not, nor ought to be, subject to any foreign jurisdiction ... We give not to our Princes the ministering either of God's Word, or of the Sacraments ... but that only prerogative, which we see to have been given always to all Godly Princes in holy Scriptures by God himself; that is, that they should rule all estates and degrees committed to their charge by God, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Temporal, and restrain with the civil sword the stubborn and evildoer ... The Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this Realm of England."

This makes him specifically not a priest, but as a sovereign with the prerogative of establishing ecclesiastical order, it does give him the power to appoint bishops.

One of the titles of the Queen or King of England is "Defender of the Faith," but Charles has publicly lobbied to change that to "Defender of Faith," so as to remove the last vestigial tie to Christianity. Initially, Henry VIII won this title for his apologetics.  The Pope revoked that Title in the 1530s, but Parliament conferred it on him via its authority.


Did the Romans not breaking Jesus' legs fulfill a prophecy? I seem to remember that Jesus having already died and not needing his legs broken fulfilled an OT prophecy.

Where was this prophecy recorded and what did it say?

Yes, you're absolutely right!  Jesus never broke any bones.  That's a fulfillment of the prophecy from Old Testament and it's written about in John.

  John 19:36 (NIV)
  These things happened so that the scripture would be fulfilled: “Not one of his bones will be broken,"

The prophecy that John refers to is found in Psalms 34:20:

  Psalms 34:19-20 (NIV)
  19 The righteous person may have many troubles,
    but the LORD delivers him from them all;
  20 he protects all his bones,
    not one of them will be broken.

Also related to this is the regulations regarding the passover lamb:

  Exodus 12:46 (NIV)
  It must be eaten inside the house; take none of the meat outside the house. Do not break any of the bones.

Those were the regulations for the lamb that was slain for the passover feast.  There are many passages that relate Jesus to the passover lamb.  This lack of broken bones is one of these connections.  (This regulation can also be seen in Numbers 9:12.)


Do Christians typically switch denominations? This question involves a few intertwined issues, but generally the question is: is it normal for Christians to switch denominations? Or is it considered "flaky"? For example, my parents went to a Baptist Church but when we moved we started going to an Episcopal Church (I think there was no Baptist Church within a reasonable driving distance). It gets more complicated when you are Baptist not by affiliation with a particular group of people but in only that you believe in baptism by choice (believer's baptism); there seem to be, in fact, Episcopal Baptists. That aside, assume my parents went to a church of a denomination clearly distinct from their later choice of Episcopalian. Do most Christian's consider the move "unfaithful" in some way? Or is it normal for Christian's to jump around from one to another at their convenience?

I ask only because I was reviewing a question I asked and I noticed Mr. Stratton say that he "currently belongs to" XYZ Church. I thought it interesting to word it that way; as if one may change their mind from time to time.

If I were to venture a guess, I'd say that people who go to Church out of convenience or more habit (like my parents) will change their Church whenever it is convenient for them. They just go to Church so they can feel good at night, it's like a weekly community service to them. However, those who go to Church for the experience and atmosphere and actually care about the views of the people will tend to only join Churches which share their views on various topics (abortion, gay marriage, etc.). But maybe there are more factors that I'm not aware of, having not been to Church too many times in my life.

The answer to this will in large part depend on how you'd answer the question of Why should I choose one particular congregation or denomination?

Christians do regularly switch congregations and denominations, but usually only within the branch of Christianity they adhere to. If they have chosen their old church on the basis of their doctrinal position, then to switch branches would mean they have changed their minds on several major doctrines. To switch between denominations within a branch might not require them to change their minds about anything, or if it does, only for small insignificant things.

For this reason it's more likely to occur for protestants, because the non-protestant branches generally only have one denomination. If you believe the Roman Catholic Church is correct, then there's only one denomination for you. I don't know enough about the Orthodox churches to know if their members would be comfortable switching between the churches they are in communion with (say between the Orthodox Church of Alexandria and Antioch) - they may or may not.

But within protestantism there are lots of very similar denominations. If you are Pentecostal there are lots of Pentecostal churches with almost identical beliefs. If you are a Calvinist then the Anglican and Presbyterian churches are almost identical except for whether you should be lead by a single person (a bishop) or a committee (session). If you're a Baptist then there are many denominations you'd be happy in. Protestants may change churches or denominations because of personal situations (such as moving house), or personal problems (not fitting in with the people in your old church.)


Is the Gloria primarily a song of repentance, contrition and forgiveness or of praise? In the Gloria, we sing:

  Glory to God in the highest. And on earth peace to men of good will. We praise You. We bless You. We adore you. We glorify You. We give You thanks for Your great glory. O Lord God, heavenly King, God the Father almighty. O Lord Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten Son.

This is evidently a praise chant. But then it follows:

  O Lord God, Lamb of God, Son of the Father: you Who take away the sins of the world, have mercy on us. You Who take away the sins of the world, receive our prayer. You Who sit at the right hand of the Father, have mercy on us.

This feels more connected with the Kyrie eleison or related part of the penitential act, where we ask God for forgiveness.

Then, the Gloria closes with:

  For you alone are holy. You alone are the Lord. You alone, O Jesus Christ, are most high. Together with the Holy Spirit in the glory of God the Father. Amen.

So, the Gloria still feels part of the penitential act and Kyrie eleison, sandwiched by praise to God. Is thus the Gloria more ritually (and perhaps spiritually) connected with the former, or is it supposed to be a break with the previous part of the liturgy?

The Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani is the document which instructs the pastors and the faithful on the correct way to celebrate the Eucharist. In its paragraph 53, it mentions the Gloria:

  The Gloria

  The Gloria is a very ancient and venerable hymn in which the Church, gathered together in the Holy Spirit, glorifies and entreats God the Father and the Lamb. The text of this hymn may not be replaced by any other text. The Gloria is intoned by the priest or, if appropriate, by a cantor or by the choir; but it is sung either by everyone together, or by the people alternately with the choir, or by the choir alone. If not sung, it is to be recited either by all together or by two parts of the congregation responding one to the other.

  It is sung or said on Sundays outside the Seasons of Advent and Lent, on solemnities and feasts, and at special celebrations of a more solemn character.

Therefore, the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments, which edited this text, makes it explicit here that it is a hymn of glorification and entreating the Father and the Son. This identity as a hymn of primarily praise also explains why it is omitted in Advent and Lent, which are more penitential seasons. Finally, the "proper" name for the Gloria, Major Doxology, points to it being a hymn of saying (λογία logia) glory (δόξα doxa) to God.


Who are the people depicted in Dionisius' famous icon of Christ's descent into hell? The renowned Russian Orthodox icon painter Dionisius produced a famous, and exquisitely beautiful, depiction of Christ's descent into hell. However, I'm having trouble identifying most of the figures depicted therein. More specifically:

Who are the people above the barrier which Christ has broken? Are they newly-liberated souls, or were they - in the logic of the painting - saved before Christ's descent? Whose wrists is Christ clasping, and why?
Who are the figures in the bluish haze which surrounds Christ?
Who are the greyish winged figures below the barrier?
Who is the figure at the very bottom of the icon? Why are the two angels grabbing him?
Who are the white-clad figures in the bottom corners of the icon?

Great question!
First off, although I'm not familiar with this particular icon, Eastern Orthodox icon have a strong continuity of style (sorry, Wikipedia source). This icon is the same as many others depicting the same event, perhaps most famously that at Chora Church. So, while my sources do not address this icon in particular, rest assured that the interpretation is the same.
Anyways:

Who are the people above the barrier which Christ has broken? Are they newly-liberated souls, or were they - in the logic of the painting - saved before Christ's descent? Whose wrists is Christ clasping, and why?

[Christ] grasps the “first man” Adam with his right hand, and “first woman” Eve with his left, pulling them out of their sarcophagus-like prisons.[...]  Various other Old Testament figures are seen to right and left, including [...] Kings David and Solomon and John the Forerunner (Baptist).

Source for quotation above. In the Dionisius icon, David and Solomon are on the left and John the Baptist is on the right. I believe at the top of the group on the right you can also see the the three holy youths who were thrown into the fire in Daniel. (Note what they're wearing on their heads, similar to the linked source, and that they're beardless.)

Who are the figures in the bluish haze which surrounds Christ?

The "bluish haze" is called a mandorla.

The blue shape around Christ is called the Mandorla (which is Italian for almond, which describes its shape).  The Mandorla is the uncreated, eternal light of Christ.

Source for quotation above.

Within the mandorla surrounding Christ, there are numerous angels, each one bearing the name of a virtue.

Source for quotation above.

Who are the greyish winged figures below the barrier?

These angels are shown throwing spears down into hades at demons named after corresponding vices, causing much chaos and anguish among them.

Source for quotation above, same as previous.

Who is the figure at the very bottom of the icon? Why are the two angels grabbing him?

And in the depths of the pit, a skeletal being is sometimes shown, lying prostrate and bound up. This is Hades personified—Death and/or Satan, who has been destroyed and defeated by Christ, illustrating the truth of Hebrews 2:14, that “through death he might destroy him who has the power of death, that is, the devil.”

(Source for quotation, same as cited for the three holy youths.)

Who are the white-clad figures in the bottom corners of the icon?

Yet despite their defeat, the passions are no less terrifying, as shown by the souls in hell – in the bottom corners of the icon – who fearfully look across the chasm toward Jesus. Their hands are held up in prayer and supplication and indeed this is the only way to overcome the passions and be resurrected with Christ.

Source, same as some of the previous ones.


According to Calvin, how can God be loving if he created people to go to hell? I struggle with John Calvin writing that God created people to go to the lake of fire (Institues, Volume 3, Chapter 21, Section 5). How could a loving, merciful, and gracious God create people so that they will burn forever in the lake of fire? It may be a sovereign act but I fail to see the love. I can understand punishment following the crime, but to create with the intention of suffering before the crime is difficult to comprehend.

I found a compilation of John Calvin quotes on the topic of God's love. Here is one that struck me as relevant to your question:

  Sermon #28, Deut. 4.36-38, p. 167, this quote was compiled by Andrew
  Myers.

  It is true that Saint John says generally, that [God] loved the world.
  And why? For Jesus Christ offers Himself generally to all men without
  exception to be their redeemer…

  Thus we see three degrees of the love that God has showed us in our
  Lord Jesus Christ.  The first is in respect of the redemption that was
  purchased in the person of Him that gave Himself to death for us, and
  became accursed to reconcile us to God his Father.  That is the first
  degree of love, which extends to all men, inasmuch as Jesus Christ
  reaches out his arms to call and allure all men both great and small,
  and to win them to Him.

  But there is a special love for those to whom the gospel is preached:
  which is that God testifies unto them that He will make them partakers
  of the benefit that was purchased for them by the death and passion of
  his Son.  And forasmuch as we be of that number, therefore we are
  double bound already to our God: here are two bonds which hold us as
  it were strait tied unto Him.

  Now let us come to the third bond, which depends upon the third love
  that God shows us: which is that He not only causes the gospel to be
  preached unto us, but also makes us to feel the power thereof, so as
  we know Him to be our Father and Savior, not doubting but that our
  sins are forgiven us for our Lord Jesus Christ’s sake, who brings us
  the gift of the Holy Ghost, to reform us after his own image.

The other quotes are here:
https://www.monergism.com/john-calvin-god%E2%80%99s-love

The preceding quote shows

(1) that God loves all people with a first token because Jesus' offer of his life was sufficient to save all mankind,

(2) that God loved a subset of all people by preaching the gospel to them (though none were worthy to hear Him deliver His counsel), a second, more powerful token of his love,

(3) that God loved a subset of those who heard the gospel and made that message powerfully persuasive, converting them to truth and salvation, and ultimately translating them to Heaven.

Thus God loves even those who end up in Hell, and Christ was willing to suffer even for many who wasted His gift of His precious blood, pouring it into the sewer.


Schism leading to present day Christian Churches? I was reading about schisms in Christianity. I could found out a few schisms which has lead to the generation of new churches. But many of those churches were died out after sometime but some of them have grown into churches of varying number of adherents.

I could only identify these many schisms that have lead to a church which is still active in the modern times. I am speaking from a Roman Catholic Church point of view, but I don't anyway hold that the teachings of Roman Catholic Church is superior to the teachings of other churches.

Nestorian Schism has lead to a breakup and the Assyrian Church of the East is still considered as a Nestorian Church because they don't accept the teachings of the First Council of Ephesus in AD 431.

Oriental Orthodox Churches were a result of the rejection of the teachings Council of Chalcedon in AD 451.

The great schism lead to the formation of Eastern Orthodox church.

Now, this is my question.

Is there any other church that is still surviving to present day that has formed due to any schism that has happened before the great schism?

There have been several significant schisms or divisions of the Christian church.  Here is a sample:

431 - Council of Ephesus which produced the distinction between the Assyrian Church and the "the rest"; provoked by disputes about the nature of Christ (Nestorianism in this case) among other things.
451 - Council of Chalcedon which produced the Oriental Orthodox Church; provoked by disputes about the nature of Christ among other things.
1054 The "Great Schism" when the Patriarch of Constantinople and the Bishop of Rome excommunicated each other to produce the Roman Catholic Church vs the Eastern Orthodox Church
The "Reformation" of the 16th century produced three or four new branches of Christianity, namely, Lutheranism, Calvinism, Anglicanism, and Anabaptists.  The last two subsequently spawned several more such as Methodism, Pentecostalism.  Calvinism and Lutheranism also spawned new denominations.  All these are collectively known as "protestant" because they protested against the authority of Rome.
1552 saw another schism in the Church of the East dividing it into two factions; one entered full communion with Rome and the other remained separate until the 19th century.

This brief list does not include some very early Church divisions such as Gnosticism, Arianism, Ebionites (whose teachings influenced Mohammad), etc.  All these survive today in various forms.  For an introduction to much more detail, see  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_denomination


In Catholicism, do the teachers more truly constitute the "church" than the hearers? While reading Louis Berkhof's Systematic Theology, I found him claiming that Catholicism makes an important distinction between the teaching church (ecclesia docens) and the hearing church (ecclesia audiens):

  [Roman Catholics] make a distinction between the ecclesia docens and the ecclesia audiens, that is, between the "the Church consisting of those who rule, teach, and edify" and "the Church which is taught, governed, and receives the sacraments." In the strictest sense of the word it is not the ecclesia audiens but the ecclesia docens that constitutes the Church.  The latter shares directly in the glorious attributes of the Church, but the former is adorned with them only indirectly. (5.2.A.1; bold added)

Is this a fair characterization of Catholic ecclesiology?  Does official Catholic teaching indicate that the teaching church more truly constitutes the "Church," and more directly shares in its glorious attributes?

Short answer: no, it's not a fair assessment, particularly in light of what the Church itself professes.

The assertion being made is much like asserting that the Soldiers aren't really the Army, but that the Generals are.  As such, it takes on the character of a false dichotomy and is a flawed premise, since the Church as it exists isn't an either-or proposition.  It is a both proposition.  The two bodies require each other. (I am not sure if symbiosis is the proper term here for the relationship).

Without the leadership, the Church would not be what it is, due
explicitly to the stated Apostolic Succession as a basis of the Roman Catholic Church.  (See the Creed, among other points of doctrine on that score).  The Magisterium, the teaching body, operates in a continuum over time  going back as far as one needs/desires to go.
Without the faithful, there is NO church to lead.  "We are the body
of Christ" is more than a metaphor, from the point of view of the
Church.

Part of what makes the Church as an institution subject to such analysis is that its life lasts far beyond the lifespan of a given believer.  That said, the body of believers remains, in aggregate, even as each believer is born, lives, and then dies.  This has been true since the Church was founded.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, article 752, supports the points above:

  752 In Christian usage, the word "church" designates the liturgical
  assembly141 but also the local community142 or
  the whole universal community of believers.143These three
  meanings are inseparable. "The Church" is the People that God
  gathers in the whole world. She exists in local communities and is
  made real as a liturgical, above all a Eucharistic, assembly. She
  draws her life from the word and the Body of Christ and so herself
  becomes Christ's Body.

Footnotes / citations from the Catechism is as follows:

141 1 Corinthians 11:18; ⇒ 14:19, ⇒ 28, ⇒ 34, ⇒ 35.
142 1 Corinthans 1:2; ⇒ 16:1.
143 1 Corinthians 15:9; ⇒ Galatians 1:13; ⇒ Philippians 3:6.

A recent document (Sensus Fidei in the life of the Church) likewise minimizes any distinction between these two bodies within the Church:

  The importance of the sensus fidei in the life of the Church was strongly emphasised by the Second Vatican Council. Banishing the
  caricature of an active hierarchy and a passive laity, and in
  particular the notion of a strict separation between the teaching
  Church (Ecclesia docens) and the learning Church (Ecclesia discens),
  the council taught that all the baptised participate in their own
  proper way in the three offices of Christ as prophet, priest and king.
  In particular, it taught that Christ fulfills his prophetic office not
  only by means of the hierarchy but also via the laity.

Thanks are due to @MattGutting for raising the point about Sensus Fidei addressing the matter this question refers to.

For an analyst "outside the church" to assert what the church "really is" invites error.  To say that "in practice" only part of the church is "really the church" is an error.  The Church only exists with both.

This statement in particular is at odds with what it means to be In Communion with the rest of the Church:

  but the former is adorned with them only indirectly. (5.2.A.1; bold added)

The Seven Sacraments are available to all of the Faithful, with the notable exception being that for deacons, priests, and bishops their accepting ordination will limit or preclude the Sacrament of Marriage.   The Sacrament of Ordination is a calling to service and sacrifice at the individual level, for the good of the whole; the other Sacrament of Service, Marriage, is (per the church) a calling to service and sacrifice at the individual level for the good of the whole from the family on out.  At this point, I am straying well into another topic / question.

Full Disclosure/Caveat: my experience with the Church is post-Vatican II. This answer relies on writings rooted in Vatican II deliberations.  The conflict between what the Church now professes and the broad sweep of historical Christian thought on the point raised in the cited article in the question means that this answer is limited to current teaching.  The article from which the question is derived covers quite a bit of ground.  The terms in question are terms of art used in Catholic documents: ecclesia docens and ecclesia discerns can be found in John Hardon's Modern Catholic Dictionary, or in The Catholic Encyclopedia.  Interestingly, the term without specification, ecclesia, has the following definition: (Per Hardon)

  ECCLESIA. The unchanged Latin rendering of the Greek ekklesia,
  meaning assembly or community. The Bible uses the term in the
  Septuagint translation of the Hebrew kahal in both a secular and a
  religious sense. In the New Testament the word is used of the whole
  community of the believers in Christ (Matthew 16:18) and of a
  singly community of the faithful (Romans 6:5). The Catechism of
  Trent defines Ecclesia as the Church, which is the faithful of the
  whole world (I, 10,2). (Etymology. Latin ecclesia, universal or an
  individual Church; from Greek ekklesia, assembly of people called
  together.)

It is reasonable to argue that the inherent meaning in both terms remains rooted to the "single community of the faithful" and the modifiers connote roles within the greater body of the faithful aka the universal/catholic church.  At this point I think I hear some angels putting on their ballet slippers ...


Catholics marrying after civil divorce So it is certain that you cannot remarry in Church before getting an annulment as divorce is not recognised.

But what if you never got married in Church to begin with. But instead only did a civil marriage. Then the marriage broke down and you get a divorce.

Now on the new civil marriage certificate it will show as divorcee.

So now, can you get a Church marriage done for the second marriage??

Yes, you can - as in it is possible - but you must consult with your pastor

  So now, can you get a Church marriage done for the second marriage??

In my time in the RCIA ministry, I saw any number of cases similiar to what you describe.

Have you spoken to a pastor yet?

If not, get off the internet and go see the pastor.

Each case must be dealt with on its own merits.  You need to discuss the details with your pastor, and perhaps the chancery at your diocese.

Example: A couple in our church who had a civil marriage only, both raised Catholic, had what was termed a "short form" process ... but their case and yours may not be identical.

You need to see your local pastor about this. The process you are asking for may amount to a convalidation.  (Please review the Q&A at the link, it appears to be related to your question).

The only valid answer to this question is: go and see your pastor.
Details matter.

As Geremia pointed out, confession (the sacrament of penance and reconciliation)  will be a part of the process.


What are the main differences between Reformed Protestant Biblical Theology and Covenant Theology? I have mostly studied theology by people who have their views labeled as Covenant Theology, by the label makers. Recently, I have studied views of some who prefer the label, Biblical Theology.

I have noticed differences between the two but have not attempted to put those differences into words.

My question is, 'What are the main differences between Reformed Protestant Biblical Theology and Covenant Theology?'

I am not asking about Systematic Theology as this label seems to speak more about style rather than content. I am asking about differences in actual belief, not style.

Proponents of Biblical Theology do not break away from Covenant Theology, but try to attempt to preserve Covenant Theology from the dangers they see in a trend away from objective truth into subjective experience based theology. Even systematic theology (where most covenant theology has been deposited) can turn into just a set of dogmatic asserted by people who have lost the skill of honestly following the gradual revelation of and unfolding of scripture. Dispensational Theology, along with the charismatic movement, are often seen as regions where lack of objectivity festers. However, let’s remember we are talking about labels now, so whatever we say will not be true for many under each banner.

Before identifying in what sense Biblical Theology does depart from Covenant Theology, let’s set some definitions of the terms. Unlike Covenant Theology which has various founders in the reformation and puritan age, Biblical Theology is recent and has few founders. Therefore let’s go straight to the horse’s mouth:

Geerhardus Vos (1862-1949) -

  The specific character of Biblical Theology lies in this, that it discusses both the form and contents of revelation from the point of view of the revealing activity of God Himself. In other words, it deals with revelation in the active sense, as an act of God, and tries to understand and trace and describe this act, so far as this is possible to man and does not elude our finite observation. In Biblical Theology both the form and contents of revelation are considered as parts and products of a divine work. In Systematic Theology these same contents of revelation appear, but not under the aspect of the stages of a divine work; rather as the material for a human work of classifying and systematizing according to logical principles. Biblical Theology applies no other method of grouping and arranging these contents than is given in the divine economy of revelation itself.

  The truth of revelation, if it is to retain its divine and -absolute character at all, must be perfect from the beginning. Biblical Theology deals with it as a product of a supernatural divine activity, and is therefore bound by its own principle to maintain the perfection of revealed truth in all its stages. When, nevertheless, Biblical Theology also undertakes to show how the truth has been gradually set forth in greater fullness and clearness, these two facts can be reconciled in no other way than by assuming that the advance in revelation resembles the organic process, through which out of the perfect germ the perfect plant and flower and fruit are successively produced. (The Idea of Biblical Theology as a Science and as a Theological Discipline)

So as a method of exegesis, that is what Biblical Theology is. It is trying to find the constant unfolding truth of the Bible as presenting it in its natural history. It has a high objective aim, with due respect for the surrounding history and stage of development of each part of scripture.  Very well, I can’t imagine one covenant theologian who would not applaud the effort.

The difference cannot be attributed to this aim for this goal is not really new wit Biblical Theology. From this standpoint many covenant theologians in the 15-17 centuries held to the Biblical Theological framework. For example Jonathan Edwards wrote a word on redemption history that would be considered very similar to the proposed methods of Biblical Theology. In this work he starts with Adam and traces the gradual revelation of God’s word ‘unfolding as a flower’ and finally pointing to future prophecies to come.

Yet with someone like Edwards we can see the break. Jonathan Edwards held views about the distinction between Law and Grace that does not appeal to the leaders of Biblical Theology. For some strange reason the break is clearly seen at Princeton’s Theological Seminary, from the transition of Charles Hodge, to Geerhardus Vos, to John Murray.  John Murray, if considered a covenant theologian was near the other side of the spectrum as men like Jonathan Edwards, or Hodge, in terms of his view of the distinction between Law and Grace. Jon Murray studied under Vos as is often quoted by proponents of Biblical Theology.

To proceed with an answer to this question then, I will first very briefly show each person’s view of Law and Grace. Good, or bad, Luther holds the opposite extreme of Biblical Theology. John Owen, Jonathan Edwards and Hodge sit around the middle point. John Murray takes the other extreme.  Then I will show that under these ‘wide range’ of views distinguishing Law and Grace among the covenant theologians, Biblical Theology has sprouted as a shoot from the more ‘pro-law’ extremity of that range.  This partly explains why those who are somewhat hybrids of covenant theology, but influenced by dispensational theology, or the charismatic movement, tend to have an unsettling guttural rejection of ‘something’ in Biblical theology that they can’t define.  On the surface all is the same-same, but underneath there is a significantly different view of the Law versus Grace.

Let’s start with John Murray and works backwards to Luther:

John Murray

  The disposition to construe the demand for obedience in the Mosaic economy as having affinity with works rather than grace arises from failure to recognize that the demand for obedience in the Mosaic covenant is principally identical with the same demand under the gospel. When we re-examine the demand for obedience in the Mosaic covenant (cf. Exodus 19:5, 6; 24:7) in the light of the relations of law and grace in the gospel, we shall discover that the complex of ideas is totally alien to a construction in terms of works as opposed to grace. Obedience belongs here no more ‘to the legal sphere of merit’3 than in the new covenant. The New Testament believer is not without law to God but under law to Christ. (Law and Grace, by John Murray)

John Murray here is not advocating justification by works, he clearly believes that you are not justified under the law. This quote only goes to show how he interprets the law, or what it means to be ‘under law’.  He, in-line with Biblical Theology sees such a strong unity with the Mosaic covenant and the Gospel that there is not as much difference between them as first imagined by earlier reformers and covenant theologians.  His view clearly departs from his predecessor at the very same University, Charles Hodge. Hodge clearly includes the Mosaic covenant to be a at least in part a renewal of the covenant of works as opposed to grace. Biblical Theology tends to limit the covenant of works with Adam see the ‘covenant of grace made’, with Abraham, renewed by Moses in the giving of The Law. Ironically they also stress the different tone of each covenant, but never really explain why because all is the same-same from the original goal of the exegesis.

Hodge –

  The law of Moses was, in the first place, a re-enactment of the
  covenant of works. A covenant is simply a promise suspended upon a condition. The covenant of works, therefore, is nothing more than the promise of life suspended on the condition of perfect obedience. The phrase is used as a concise and convenient expression of the eternal principles of justice on which God deals with rational creatures, and which underlie all dispensations, the Adamic, Abrahamic, Mosaic and Christian. Our Lord said to the lawyer who asked what he should do to
  inherit eternal life, “What is written in the law? How readest thou? And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbor as thyself. And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right, this do and thou shalt live,” Luke 10:26-28. This is the covenant of works. It is an immutable principle that where there is no sin there is no condemnation, and where there is sin there is death. This is all that those who reject the gospel have to fall back upon. It is this principle which is rendered so prominent in the Mosaic economy as to give it its character of law. Viewed under this aspect it is the ministration of condemnation and death. ( Hodge 2 Cor P75)

Notice, ‘in the first place, a re-enactment of the covenant of works’. Such a statement would never be made by a leader in the Biblical Theology framework!

Jonathan Edwards –

  Jonathan Edwards also sees the Mosaic covenant as being different from the gospel as it includes the renewal of the covenant of works that has the ministry of death and cursing, leading sinners to Christ as a harsh schoolmaster.

  As the law was given at Mount Sinai, so Christ delivered his evangelical doctrine, (full of blessings, and not curses,) to a multitude on a mountain. Matt. v.— (Jonathan Edwards History of Redemption, P302)

  I think really that the covenant that God made with the children of Israel was the covenant of works. He still held them under that covenant; that is, what is required in that covenant is to them particularly deciphered, and many additional positive commands which answer to the precept concerning the forbidden fruits and God proposes this covenant to them as the condition of his favor, and gives them to understand that none of those promises he had made could be challenged without perfect obedience: but yet gives them to understand so much of his merciful nature and his inclination to pity them and to accept of a propitiation for them, that they, finding that they could not challenge anything from those promises [on the ground] of obedience, trusted only to the mere undeserved mercy of God and were saved by grace, and expected life only of mere mercy.

  We are indeed now under the covenant of works so, that if we are perfectly righteous we can challenge salvation. But herein is the difference betwixt us and them: to us God has plainly declared the impossibility of obtaining life by that covenant, and lets us know that no mortal can be saved but only of mere grace, and lets us know clearly how we are made partakers of that grace. All ever since the fall were equally under the covenant of grace so far, that they were saved by it all alike, but the difference is in the revelation: the covenant of works was most clearly revealed to the Israelites, to us the covenant of grace. The church, which was then in its infant [state], could not bear a revelation of the covenant of grace in plain terms; and so with them the best way to bring them off from their own righteousness was to propose the covenant of works to them, and to renew the promise of life upon those conditions. God did with them as Christ did with the young man that asked what he should do for eternal life: Christ bids him keep the commandments. And in that sense they were under the covenant of works, that it was proposed to them as the condition of life, that they might try.  To us it is not so. The covenant of grace was indeed insinuated to them and proposed under covert, but 'twas to that they were all forced to fly. The promises seem to be so contrived as to give them to see that they can't challenge anything except they perform a perfect obedience, if God will be strict, but yet that he will of his mere mercy accept them into his favor if they perform a sincere obedience proceeding from the true love and fear of him; so that the fruits of faith are proposed instead of faith itself. But by this, none but such as had faith could hope for life; and by God's contrivance of that dispensation they were led not to depend on these as works, but as a disposition to receive, as so many manifestations of repentance and submission; and they depended on them as such only, for life. (Jonathan Edwards. The "Miscellanies". Page P363-363)

  With reference to what has been before spoken of the covenant [No. 2]. Covenant is taken very variously in Scripture, sometimes for a divine promise, sometimes for a divine promise on conditions. But if we speak of the covenant God has made with man stating the condition of eternal life, God never made but one with man to wit, the covenant of works; which never yet was abrogated, but is a covenant stands in full force to all eternity without the failing of one tittle. The covenant of grace is not another covenant made with man upon the abrogation of this, but a covenant made with Christ to fulfill it. And for this end came Christ into the world, to fulfill the law, or covenant of works, for all that receive him....

  To say that the covenant of works did admit of a mediator, is something improper. The covenant of works mentioned nothing about it; (Jonathan Edwards. The "Miscellanies". Page P217)

John Owen –

As usual John Owen teaches with the utmost clarity on the subject:

  By the sanction of the law, we intend the promises and penalties wherewith by God the observation of it and obedience unto it was enforced. This the apostle hath respect unto in sundry places of this Epistle; the principal whereof are reported in the following dissertation.

  To represent this distinctly, we may observe that the law falls under threefold consideration; — first, As it was a repetition and expression of the law of nature, and the covenant of works established thereon; secondly, As it had a new end and design put upon the administration of it, to direct the church unto the use and benefit of the promise given of old to Adam, and renewed unto Abraham four hundred and thirty years before; thirdly, As it was the instrument of the rule and government of the church and people of Israel with respect unto the covenant made with them in and about the land of Canaan. And in this threefold respect it had a threefold sanction. (Owens Works, Volume 17, P654)

Martin Luther –

Martin Luther never prances about with constant distinctions around words, pretending to believe something he does not, he just lays it all out there:

  Who would ever believe that these things could be mixed up so easily? There is no one so stupid that he does not recognize how definite this distinction between Law and grace is. Both the facts and the words require this distinction, for everyone understands that these words “Law” and “grace” are different as to both denotation and connotation.62 Therefore it is a monstrosity, when this distinction stands there so clearly, for the papists and the fanatics to fall into the satanic perversity of confusing the Law and grace and of changing Christ into Moses. This is why I often say that so far as the words are concerned, this doctrine of faith is very easy, and everyone can easily understand the distinction between the Law and grace; but so far as practice, life, and application are concerned, it is the most difficult thing there is. (Luther's Works Vol 26, P143-144)

  Now the first sermon, and doctrine, is the law of God. The second is the gospel. These two sermons are not the same. Therefore we must have a good grasp of the matter in order to know how to differentiate between them. We must know what the law is, and what the gospel is. The law commands and requires us to do certain things. The law is thus
  directed solely to our behaviour and consists in making requirements. For God speaks through the law, saying, “Do this, avoid that, this is what I expect of you.” The gospel, however, does not preach what we are to do or to avoid. It sets up no requirements but reverses the approach of the law, does the very opposite, and says, “This is what God has done for you; he has let his Son be made flesh for you, has let him be put to death for your sake.” (Luther's Works Vol 35, P162-164)

Conclusion: Biblical Theology is a good discipline that is not opposed to Covenant Theology, however, its leaders identify with only one extreme side of those accepted under the Covenant Theology label. That bias towards 'unifying law and grace' 'more than' many under Covenant Theology, should not be seen as a result of their 'new technique' but as their internal difference of thought and dogma related to their own more narrow systematic theological framework. Having concluded this I am not criticizing Biblical Theology, it is one of several useful things to understand and appreciate the benefits that can be derived from it.


Is Satan's kingdom here on earth? Reading Matthew 12:26

If Satan drives out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then can his kingdom stand?

I cant seem to pin point where is his kingdom? Evil men dont seem to be united?

Let's take a long look at the Scriptures around your referenced Scripture:
Matthew 12:25 through 28 KJV

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

and see if Jesus was actually saying that Satan had a Kingdom to begin with. What Jesus was retorting to was the verse preceding this retort (Matthew 12:24):
But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils.
Jesus was incensed by their claim that he was getting his power to do these miracles from Satan, and his angry retort was meant to marginalize them.
In verses 26 and 27 He is belittling them by:

saying that If Satan is ruining his own plans, If He had a Kingdom by fighting against himself he would be destroying his own Kingdom.

Jesus is saying and if as you say I am getting my power from Satan, where are your people getting their power from?

The last stone he casts is in verse 28 where he tells them knowing what I have just told you my power must come from another source. and if my source is God then you have just seen the Kingdom of God.
Here are some other Scriptures concerning Satan's supposed power which you may find will help you in understanding Satan. Please remember that Jesus himself said that Satan was a liar and the father of lies.
Matthew 4:1-11  KJV

Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.

Mark 3:22-26  KJV

And the scribes which came down from Jerusalem said, He hath Beelzebub, and by the prince of the devils casteth he out devils. And he called them [unto him], and said unto them in parables, How can Satan cast out Satan? And if a kingdom be divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand. And if Satan rise up against himself, and be divided, he cannot stand, but hath an end.

In This Scripture what Jesus is pointing to is that if what they were claiming were true then Satan does not have the power of God since he could not do what they claimed and be eternal.
Revelation 2:13  KJV

I know thy works, and where thou dwellest, [even] where Satan's seat [is]: and thou holdest fast my name, and hast not denied my faith, even in those days wherein Antipas [was] my faithful martyr, who was slain among you, where Satan dwelleth.

Revelation 12:9-12  KJV

Therefore rejoice, [ye] heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time.

Revelation 3:9  KJV

Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.

Revelation 12:9-12  KJV

Therefore rejoice, [ye] heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time.


How are the Communion wafers handled? I'd like to understand the logistics of the Communion in the Roman Catholic Church.
Let's suppose there's a Mass with around 100 people attending Eucharist. Does this mean that the priest has a stack of around 100 Communion wafers, and the entirety of this stack is somewhere on the altar and undergoes transubstantiation? During elevation, is the priest holding only one piece and stores the remaining part somewhere else? Is there a fixed location in a church used to store (unconsecrated) bread?

I'll describe what I've seen at (traditional) Catholic masses. At some masses, the priest will consecrate a large number of hosts, more than would be needed at that mass.  These are in a ciborium on the altar (See: Wikipedia for pictures of some ciboria), which is uncovered at the time of the consecration. They are consecrated along with the host that the priest will consume at that mass. Those that are left after communion are kept in the ciborium (covered) in the tabernacle on the altar, and they are available for distribution at later masses. I'm not aware of any particular rules about when additional hosts can be consecrated, and I would guess it's just whenever the priest notices that the supply in the tabernacle is getting low.
The preceding paragraph describes what I've seen in typical churches. In places where there is no church and the mass is celebrated in rented halls, there is no tabernacle in which hosts can be stored for the weeks (or more) that can elapse between masses. (Actually, hosts should not be stored for that long anyway, because they shouldn't be allowed to get moldy.) In such a situation, I've seen them count (before mass) the number of people planning to receive communion, so that the priest can consecrate the right number of hosts (maybe a few more than the count, in case of latecomers). If any hosts remained after mass, the priest would consume them.
If, for some reason, there are not enough hosts, the priest can break them and give each communicant half (or a smaller fraction) of a host. Any small part of a consecrated host is still Christ's whole body, blood, soul, and divinity (as long as the part still has the accidents of bread --- not just a molecule or two).
To answer your other questions: At the elevation, the priest elevates only the host that he will consume. The rest remain in the ciborium. The ciborium is covered except during the consecration and the distribution of communion.
Consecrated hosts are kept in the tabernacle, except during a special ceremony from Holy Thursday to Good Friday.  Unconsecrated hosts are, I believe, stored in the sacristy, the room where the priest puts on his vestments and generally prepares for mass.


Why is Good Friday not called Black Friday? It make more sense to me that Black Friday should be Good Friday`s name,it would indicate the darkness that over took the earth BETTER!

In the past Good Friday has been called Black Friday in some regions because of the black vestments that were once employed by the clergy on this day.

Wikipedia has this to say about Good Friday:

  Good Friday is a Christian holiday commemorating the crucifixion of Jesus Christ and his death at Calvary. It is observed during Holy Week as part of the Paschal Triduum on the Friday preceding Easter Sunday, and may coincide with the Jewish observance of Passover. It is also known as Holy Friday, Great Friday, Black Friday.


If the Ten Commandments say “thou shalt not kill” how can a Christian fight in a war? Exodus holds the 10 commandments.  Specifically, we see:

  Exodus 20:13 (KJV)
  Thou shalt not kill.

Since the Ten Commandments say “thou shalt not kill” why do many Christians fight in a war?

Note this question is not aimed at pacifist denominations, but at those who do support war (at least in some situations).

This misinterpretation is due to a language shift since the days of King James, when that version of the Ten Commandments was set forth.  The term "kill" back then meant what "murder" means today, and I think that everyone would agree that that's a good thing to prohibit in strong, absolute terms.

If you look through the King James Version of the Bible, you don't see the word "kill" used very often, and when it's used it invariably refers to murder.  For a non-murderous cause of death, the word is "slay".  This is what soldiers do to each other, and if I recall correctly it's also what the priests did to the sacrificial animals.


Why did Huldrych Zwingli oppose music in the worship service? Three of the most influential reformers, Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Huldrych Zwingli, took very different approaches to music in corporate worship. Of the three, Zwingli was the most accomplished musician, but he was also the most negative about music in worship – he apparently rejected it completely.  Not even Calvin's unaccompanied psalm-singing was sufficient for him.

Jeremy S. Begbie writes:

  Zwingli was ruthlessly consistent—the intricacies of Latin polyphony, the sounds of the organ, the chanting of the Psalms, the setting of the Mass, even the unaccompanied unison singing of the Psalms in the vernacular (as Calvin allowed) must all go. (Resounding Truth, 115)

Zwingli's recommendations were apparently put into effect in Zurich: organs were silenced and then destroyed, and in 1525 "the city council enacted the ban on singing in worship."

I'd like to explore the reasons for this view.  Begbie provides some insight – the regulative principle of worship played a role, for example, whereas a fear of the worldliness of music did not.  But I'd like to see more detail, particularly from the writings of Zwingli himself.  For example:

How did Zwingli deal with the apparent commands to sing in Colossians 3:16 and Ephesians 5:19?
Why isn't the use of instruments in the Old Testament precedent for their use today?
Did he see a difference between a corporately recited prayer and a corporately sung psalm or hymn?
Why not at least unaccompanied exclusive psalmody, like Calvin?

There were several reasons that Zwingli would oppose the use of instruments and singing in worship. One was that Zwingli was against was the RCC's view that tradition was higher than Scripture. Zwingli was a Reformer and was just as much a proponent of sola scriptura as Calvin and Luther would have been. However, Zwingli would take it a step further than both of them to say, in an attempt to distance the Reformed Church from the Catholic Church, that any form of worship that wasn't directed or commanded for the church to perform should not be performed within the bounds of directed church service. He wasn't making that statement that worship could never be performed with instruments or that it was somehow sinful to do so (as the modern RP movement would say), just that it cannot be commanded by the church if it was not commanded by Scripture.

You have to remember that in that time, the RCC would say that whatever the Church (or Pope) commanded, even if it is nor supported by Scripture, was the rule of law.

  A series of important events mark the relevant crucial points. In 1520 the city council decided that preaching should be in accord with scripture— undoubtedly a victory for Zwingli. In 1522 the ‘affair of the sausages’ took place. A group of printers broke the lenten fast by eating sausages. Zwingli was present but refused to eat the forbidden meat. The authorities moved to punish this flagrant breaking of lenten rules and Zwingli responded by preaching on the freedom of the Christian to observe or not observe the fast according to the dictates of conscience. He made the point that scripture nowhere commands a lenten fast and argued that scripture should take priority over the tradition and practices of the Church. In tandem with his support for the printers, Zwingli petitioned the bishop and the Swiss authorities, arguing for the free preaching of the gospel, an end to clerical celibacy and began to question such matters as the intercession of the saints. At the same time Zwingli secretly married Anna Reinhart Meyer, a widow, although the marriage did not become public until 1524. McEnhill, Peter, and George Newlands. Fifty Key Christian Thinkers, Taylor & Francis Group, 2004.

I think that Zwingli actually would have actually leaned away from the modern RP movement because just as he was against the church commanding a style of worship that wasn't Scripturally supported, likewise we would have been against saying that one could not worship at all in a way that Scripture doesn't command against. In other words, the modern RP movement goes so far to claim that worship with instruments was tied to sacrificial practices thus sinful today since Christ was the final sacrifice. Some others have claimed that any worship with instruments would actually be rejected by God as displeasing to Him. However, if we apply Zwingli's perspective on lent that one does not have to participate given that lent appears nowhere in the Bible, there are no commands against worship with instruments in the Bible.

In essence, Zwingli's first priority was to distance the sola scriptura based Reformed Church from the tradition first RCC. It was less about what is pleasing to God and more about how far can/should the church command a certain style of worship or certain traditions. Precedent from the OT meant little because the emulation of those styles would have still equated to tradition and not command. Even using the psalter was not commanded but recognized as mere material for liturgy and devotion but nowhere was it commanded to be used.

The second major reason that Zwingli was against singing and instruments in worship was that he felt that worship was an inward action, a reflection and could be a distraction from true spiritual worship.

  The opposition of inward and outward was an element in Zwingli's opposition to outward forms in religion. It helps explain why someone as musical as Zwingli could banish music and singing from church. Singing could distract from true spiritual worship, just as images inside church could, though not necessarily those outside. In worship as in the whole of life the glory and honor of God was fundamental. Zwingli, Huldrych (1484-1531), An Introduction to." In Literature Criticism from 1400 to 1800, edited by Jelena O. Krstovic. Vol. 37. Detroit, MI: Gale, 1997. p. 392

Zwingli led a reformation to remove anything from inside the church that could distract from true worship, but he wasn't so naive to claim that Christians couldn't use other things as reminders or helps for more efficacy, they just needed to remain outside the church.


A paradox that arises from Christian duty as "ambassador" Consider the question "Is the Sabbath made for man or man for the Sabbath?" A rhetorical question, because Jesus said that it was the Sabbath that was made for man. But this is not a question directly about the Sabbath; that was just an analogy. Rather, here's a question on "Christian compassion".

Consider this logical exercise, with premises which might be wrong, but it's just a thought experiment:

No sinner ever repents apart from knowing the love of God.
The love of God is often conveyed, mostly, through the kindness of invidual human Christians. (2 Corinthians 5:20 speaks of this. God begs the sinner through Christians.)
Since a sinner, most of the time, is living without the love of God, he or she understandably holds to a "non-Christian way of thinking".
Non-Christian ways of thinking inevitably lead to non-Christian modes of behaviour or speech. This might involve the publishing of a book, such as those of the renowned biologist Richard Dawkins.
These non-Christian modes of behaviour, such as the books published by Dawkins, inevitably offend many Christians.
By (1) and (2), the only possibility, in this or a parallel universe for a sinner to repent, is that God begs the sinner to repent through a Christian person.
From (5). But offended people don't beg those whom they feel offended them; rather they chastise them.
Therefore, (6) and (7) lead to a contradiction.
It's actually worse than (8), because usually the more in need of God's love the sinner is, the more likely he/she is to perform (5) in a more offensive way.

Question: How does one resolve this paradox?

Here's my take, but I'd like to hear other views: To me the late David Wilkerson epitomizes best what the solution to this paradox is. In "The Cross and The Switchblade", he wrote of his words to Nicky Cruz “You could kill me Nicky. You could cut me in a thousand pieces and lay them out on the street. But every piece would cry out, Jesus loves you. And..............you’ll never be able to run from that.” And the empirical evidence showed that David Wilkerson was right.

Are there other ways to resolve this paradox that don't involve such drastic exercises of compassion from Christians?

The problem with the paradox, as I see it, is with one of your premises:

  5) These non-Christian modes of behaviour, such as the books published by Dawkins, inevitably offend many Christians.

While Christians may be offended by Dawkins, they should not love him any less.

Clearly this is not always the reality.  Many Christians do take offense at those who disagree with them, often violently, as seen throughout history.  But to the extent that Christians respond out of hatred rather than out of love, they are not behaving as Christians ought.

Matthew 5:43-45, NIV (emphasis added):

  43“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor[a] and hate your enemy.’44But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.

From this verse, we see that a Christian's response to one like Dawkins (who "persecutes" Christians--at least intellectually, I don't think he's ever physically persecuted them), is to pray for him.

A Christian who prays for Dawkins is not likely to have an ugly confrontation with him, should they ever meet. Instead, he will share God's love with him (your point #2), whether Dawkins ever accepts Christ or not.


What were people supposed to do with an incomplete or nonexistent Bible? If god wants everybody to be Christian and the Bible is the central text of Christianity, what were people supposed to do before it was completed, much less started?

Also, is there anything on record speaking to reasons why the particular era that the Bible was written was chosen (specifically OT)? It was a gradual roll-out, so were there parts that weren't needed until they came up, or did they perhaps correlate to certain events?

The entire old testament was available and written before Jesus' time.  The new testament, as we have it is the collected writings of the apostles.  Before all the writings were complete, the apostles taught directly.  After their death, their immediate successors taught what they had learned and during that time the writings were collected, copied and distributed.

Creeds and hymns formed a big part of conveying biblical doctrine before a printed bible was widely available to all, as did the church teaching and structure.  The documents themselves were available to clergy from very early times, soon after the apostolic day.

So at first, there was the testimony of direct witnesses.  Then there was teaching from those taught by the apostles and the apostles written records.  Finally those records were compiled into the bible, and between the mid 300s and late 600s AD the canon of authoritative scripture was considered closed by most traditions, although the Catholic church did not formally declare the bible canons closed until the council of Trent in 1546 with the only disagreement with other traditions being the OT deuterocanonical books (and bear in mind, too, that the Catholic church (and perhaps others), holds to a continued revelation through the church's magisterial office and authority).


What Bible verses suggest that humans can become angels? There a number of biblical passages (such as 1 Corinthians 4:9) that are worded as such indicating angels were created separately from and and are different from humans.

  For it seems to me that God has put us apostles on display at the end of the procession, like those condemned to die in the arena. We have been made a spectacle to the whole universe, to angels as well as to human beings. (1 Corinthians 4:9, NIV)

From time to time I hear someone talking about their deceased love-one being an angel in heaven. I see this in works of fiction on TV and the like too.

Is there anything in the Bible that suggests humans can become angels?

No.

The general accounts of men, angels and the interaction between the two makes a pretty clear distinction that they are different KINDS of beings. Both are created by God but each has a different purpose and different destiny. We understand some things they do not. They are not bound by some of the physical limitations we are.

One interesting note is that angels were never offered salvation. The 1/3 of the angels that sided with Satan in his rebellion were cast out of Heaven and every indication is made that they will never see it again.


If Jesus was resurrected as a man how can Paul say his apostleship was not through a man but it was through Jesus at Galatians 1:1? Catholics, Protestants, and Eastern Orthodox Christians agree that Jesus was both God and man as described in the Chalcedon Definition in 451. However at Galatians 1:1 Paul says that the source of his apostleship was not from or through men or "a man" ("any human being", Catholic NJB)

  Gal 1:1: Paul, an apostle sent not from men, nor by a man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him [a man?] from the dead), (NIV)

Paul says that his assignment as an apostle was not from (Greek από) or through (δια)  a man.   But it was through Jesus.  See the excursus for how the word Άνθρωπος is used in scripture.

Those who adhere to Chalcedon also teach that a human body was raised and Paul says God the Father raised Jesus.

If Jesus was resurrected as a man how can Paul say his apostleship was not through a man but it was through Jesus at Galatians 1:1?

Excursus: Does Άνθρωπος mean a man or human nature?

άνθρωπος does not mean "human" in contrast to ανήρ or αρσην with the meaning "man."

At Eph 5:31 and 1 Co 7:1 it obviously and contextually means "a male person, man". (BDAG)

In contrast, when  preceded by κατά and in the accusative case as in Gal 1:11, it refers to "status" and is rendered "human."   (Cp. 1 Co 9:8, Ro 3:15, Ga 3:15).   The contrast between Ga 1:1 and 1:11 shows how Paul represents άνθρωπος as "human."   This idiom is not found at Ga 1:1.

When contrasted with God it is seen as inferior  to God and has a "focus on limitations and weakness, a human being."    This definition applies to all human beings when compared to God.  This is the case at Galatians 1:1.

St. Paul is saying that Jesus is not "man" in the sense he here refers to: "a mere man." Rather, Jesus, "who, being in the form of God, deemed not equality with God robbery, but humbled himself, taking the form of a servant: being made in the likeness of men, and in habit also found as man." (Phil. 2:6-7)

From (apo) means "apostle sent from" and by (dia) means "made an apostle by the authority of."

  John 20:27-28 (DRB) Then he saith to Thomas: Put in thy finger hither, and see my hands; and bring hither thy hand, and put it into my side; and be not faithless, but believing. Thomas answered, and said to him: My Lord, and my God.


Reading the scripture in common worship Do all Christian Churches/Denominations have a common set of readings they read throughout the year and repeat on a 2-3 year cycle?

If not, how do pastors in churches without a common set of readings decide what they're going to talk about in any given week?

No, certainly not. There are lots of available resources. Some denominations have guidelines and some reference materials exist for those who do not (such as the Revised Common Lectionary), but by no means do all traditions have set or repeated liturgies.

When it falls to me, I build each weeks liturgy based on passages that have some bearing on the sermon topic. Often these are passages that have a history of being used in liturgies, but that isn't a requirement. Each week takes time in research and prayer to decide what these will be. As church elders we settled on a general format of for the liturgy and the kind of readings to include, but each week varies some to accommodate the main passage. The sermon material follows an exegetical path through whatever book we happen to be working through. We do use fixed readings for confessions and Lord Supper, but improvise to work those readings into the overall flow of the service.


What is the name of this painting of Mary and the infant Jesus? Since there exists no "Arts" site on Stack Exchange, I was inclined to come here to ask about this Christian work of art.

It is a copy or replica of a painting by Roberto Ferruzzi called "Madonnina" (commonly known as the "Madonna of the Streets").

The original has slightly different colours, different facial features, and it is in more of an impressionistic style, with thick visible brush strokes.

I think the painting in the question is probably this following one, because the facial expressions are the same. However note that the cloak in this version is slightly different from the one in the question, and the door frame (?) on the right isn't clearly defined, so it may be yet another reproduction. This one is confusingly shown on the Wikipedia page for Ferruzzi (instead of the original), but it doesn't have any details of who made it. The actual version posted above has been retouched as neither Ferruzi's original nor this copy have a halo.


According to Protestant trinitarians, what is the significance of the father-son relationship between God and Christ? What is the significance of the father-son relationship between God and Christ in the Trinity? Non-trinitarians believe that Christ is literally the son of God, but that doesn't quite work with the Trinity. Why is Christ called the Son if he isn't God's son but is God himself?

The doctrinal and biblical basis for the Trinity has been discussed here and here. I'm not looking for biblical support of the Trinity itself. This question carries with it the basic premise that the doctrine of the Trinity is true.

I think the logical place is to start with John 8:42, and I picked this translation: King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.), because they use the term proceeded.  In others Jesus stated that he was sent.

  Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I
  proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he
  sent me.

So, Jesus states that he proceeded from God, which is why God is referred to as the Father, as he is the principle (the first one) and the Holy Spirit and the Son proceeded from him, in eternity, not proceeded in terms of time, since all three exist before and outside of time.

So, Thomas Aquinas covers this well, in these links: Procession of the divine persons.

How the three relate to each other: http: The divine relations.

And this one actually covers the Father being called the Father and the Son also: The person of the Father.

We also have the Lord's Prayer where Jesus refers to God as "Our Father ...", and in various places He refers to God as His Father.

We also have Psalm 88:27 -

  He shall cry out to me: Thou art my Father.

I am not certain if you actually want to ask about the relationship between The Father and The Son, but Aquinas dealt with that in: Whether the word "person" signifies relation?

In Article 1 in this part: (Whether relation is the same as person) , Aquinas deals with whether relation is the same as person.

I can try to sum up that, in that the three persons of God are in substance God, their relationship is only in how the proceeded from the Father, but each is still fully God, with all the properties of God, so one is not inferior to any other.


Are there any Christian doctrines that cover lucid dreaming? Do any Christian traditions have doctrines that cover the issue of lucid dreaming? In particular, do any of these cover whether we control our minds at all times or if God can/does sometimes control them?

Are there any examples in the Bible of lucid dreaming? If so does doctrine/tradition interpret these as something controlled by divine intervention or by the dreamers own subconscious?

Many religions acknowledge lucid dreaming as a spiritual gateway. I am not a Christian and I am just curious as to what Christianity views there are on this.

To answer the Bible part of your question, the closest Biblical example I could think of was when (apparently) Paul had a dream (or vision) which he says may have been not a dream but a genuine experience. I think that is pretty lucid.

  2 Corinthians 12:2-4

  I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven. Whether it was in the body or out of the body I do not know — God knows. And I know that this man—whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, but God knows — was caught up to paradise. He heard inexpressible things, things that man is not permitted to tell.


Can a third party ask for an annulment if neither married person wants it to happen? Say that a couple was married despite an impediment, which is usually justification for annulment. Some examples of impediments include:

One of them was abducted (raptus, or bride kidnapping) and has been under the kidnapper's control since to the point of developing Stockholm syndrome.
The two are close blood relations and there is an issue of consanguinity.

Now let's say that both married people do not wish to have their marriage annulled. Can a third party, such as their families, ask for an annulment?

Yes, it's possible, but Canon Law provides a specific method:

  The following are qualified to challenge a marriage:

  the spouses;
  the promoter of justice when nullity has already become public, if the convalidation of the marriage is not possible or expedient.

  [CIC]

For a marriage to be challenged, the family must first prove the nullity in public (for example, criminal bigamy, or lack of consent, or prohibted consanguity) which would prove the marriage civilly invalid, and then present the promoter of justice with that evidence for him to petition the Marriage Tribunal for sacramental nullity.

The promoter of justice is "the person appointed in each diocese and in the higher tribunals of the Catholic Church whose responsibility it is to provide for the public good." The relevant tribunal will be able to identify the particular person in its case.


Are there female devils cited in scriptures? I have understood that Satan and other devils are all male entities.

Question: Are there female devils cited in scriptures?

Spiritual beings do not have physical bodies.

  Luke 29:34 (NASB)
  "See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have."

While the spiritual beings mentioned in the Bible are described as "men," they are not exactly "males" in the sense that we use to classify physical organisms. What does it mean for a spirit to be "male" then? (Genatalia? Testosterone? Leave their dirty socks on the floor?)

I assert that these beings were described as males because of the (appointed) dominant position that males have in God's created order. They are not "men" or "male" any more than they are "women" or "female" except that they appear (outwardly) as men so that it is more socially acceptable for them to deal with leaders and other people in those societies.

To answer your question: There are no female (or male) devils mentioned in the Scriptures.


When did Joseph Smith first understand the doctrine of eternal progression? Another question asked why Kolob is not mentioned in the New Testament.  In fact, the only reference is in the Book of Abraham.  Not even the Book of Mormon has any reference to it, as I understand.

This led to me to wonder when exactly Joseph Smith came to understand the doctrine of eternal progression along with identifying that there was a place called Kolob.  The Book of Abraham was purportedly translated in 1835, whereas the Book of Mormon was published in 1830.  So, was the doctrine of eternal progression something Joseph Smith learned from the Book of Abraham or was he already teaching that prior to the Book of Abraham translation?  Did the teaching originate as a revelation to Joseph Smith prior to 1835 or did it come in response to the translation of the Book of Abraham?

This question is difficult to answer because eternal progression is hard to define. Consider this quote from the Encyclopedia of Mormonism:

The principle of eternal progression cannot be precisely defined or comprehended, yet it is fundamental to the LDS worldview. The phrase "eternal progression" first occurs in the discourses of Brigham Young. It embodies many concepts taught by Joseph Smith, especially in his king follett discourse.

If you mean specifically the potential for man to become like God, I can give a fairly specific answer.
A detailed revelation received April 1st, 1832 and recorded in D&C 76 increased Joseph Smith's understanding of the afterlife and man's potential to progress.
LDS Church History states that Joseph Smith and several other men were pondering the significance of John 5:29, which speaks of the resurrection, when he and Sidney Rigdon were shown a vision.
In the original record of the vision, Joseph Smith prefaced the revelation saying how it increased his understanding:

through the power of the spirit our eyes  were opened and our understandings were enlarged

This revelation, among other things, speaks of three degrees of glory that the dead will inherit in the afterlife. Of those who fully follow Christ's gospel, the record says:

58 Wherefore, as it is written, they are gods, even the sons of God—
59 Wherefore, all things are theirs, whether life or death, or things present, or things to come, all are theirs and they are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s.

Interestingly, this references earlier scripture. Possibly Ps. 82:6;  John 10:34; or 1 Cor. 8:6.
In any case, this revelation increased Joseph Smiths understanding of eternal progression more than revelations and scripture prior to April 1832.
More specifically, Joseph Smith stated in his preface:

From sundry revelations which had been received, it was apparent that many important points touching the salvation of man had been taken from the Bible, or lost before it was compiled.

Regarding Kolob, the earliest reference to it in the Joseph Smith Papers project (which intends to publish all documents written by Joseph Smith) is from circa July to December 1835, the time when Joseph Smith began translation of the Book of Abraham.
Therefore, I think the idea of a place called Kolob was probably not known prior to the translation of the Book of Abraham.


Protestant Interpretation 1 Peter 1:17 How do Protestants interpret 1 Peter 1:17? It reads:

  1 Peter 1:13-17 (DRB) Wherefore having the loins of your mind girt up, being sober, trust perfectly in the grace which is offered you in the revelation of Jesus Christ, 14 As children of obedience, not fashioned according to the former desires of your ignorance: 15 But according to him that hath called you, who is holy, be you also in all manner of conversation holy: 16 Because it is written: You shall be holy, for I am holy. 17 And if you invoke as Father him who, without respect of persons, judgeth according to every one's work: converse in fear during the time of your sojourning here.

This is something I would expect and take for granted in Catholic theology, where we as servants of Christ have a duty to use our talents, or grace, or we can be assigned in Hell  (cf. Matthew 24), and there is "no respect of persons" (i.e. just because you are Christian). But how does Protestant theology incorporate this verse, which seems to be a rather clear and direct warning to believers to be holy because God will judge by our works, 'not faith only?'

In other words, how isn't there a direct teaching here that our holiness and conduct comes into justification (cf. Hebrews 12:14)? I say justification, because you don't 'conduct yourself in fear' because you won't recieve a perhaps optimal 'reward.' You conduct yourself in fear because your deeds are to be judged: and no one fears a judgement of their deeds wherein no condemnation is brought against them.

Thanks in advance.

As a lifelong Protestant of more than six and a half decades - first by birth and upbringing in Presbyterianism and then by conversion and baptism in my mid-teens - I would say that now, as a mature Christian and an elder, I fear more greatly than ever before in my life and yet I believe more fervently and more intelligently than ever before in my life.

I fear sin. I fear slackness. I fear worldliness. I fear error. I fear heresy.

And I call upon Him who is the God and the Father of Lord Jesus Christ for my every need, spiritually, and for my every provision, materially.

Yes, to the OP, I shall be judged of my works and my words. But I know from bitter experience that the moment I turn to the Law - or any law - to try to perfect myself, in that moment I fail and in that moment I am darkened.

For the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is ever deadly. And will never, ever bring fruit. By the Law is the knowledge of sin, said Paul. And so it is. And that is all that it does. It can never justify - only condemn.

  This is the work of God, that ye believe in Him whom he hath sent.

. . . said Jesus himself. [John 6:29.]

And John tells us :

  This is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment.

I John 3:23.

The works I do are works of faith and of love. Not works of the flesh to earn reward. Nor deeds done in fear of punishment.

The works I do are those which follow on from knowing that God's righteousness was utterly satisfied upon his own Son, Jesus Christ, who bare our sins in his own body on the tree . . . and who, made sin, containing sin, yielded unto death that sin might be - within the containment of his own humanity - utterly destroyed, in his death.

It is in faith of his sufferings and death that I live.

And I live to love. And I live to believe.

And I live in fear that I should wander out of this way, back into a way of works and Law and oppression and darkness. Or that I should be overcome of worldliness and ease and pleasures of this life.

I have bought my burial plot. I have paid off my funeral plan. My grave awaits me just over the garden wall.

And each day I fear.

And each day I follow after Jesus Christ who loved me and who gave himself for me.


Thou shall not kill? God says thou shall not kill as one of the Ten Commandments but he actually instructs his chosen people to kill numerous times throughout the Old Testament. Then there is tons of killing, persecution, and even torture performed under the authority of the Catholic Church under the New Testament. Specifically I would like to sight the story of Saul when he is instructed to kill everyone of the Amalekites men, women, and children. Saul failed to do so and he was actually punished for it and would eventually lose his annionted kingship. So in short my question is:

Why does God condone or order so much killing when it is against the Commandments?

Exodus 20:13 (NIV) “You shall not murder.

  Exodus 20:13 (KJV) Thou shalt not kill.

The meaning* of the Hebrew word for "kill/murder" used in this verse has a wide range of meanings as explained in  this article. The act of killing in a warfare is not what this 6th commandment means.

The commands for the killings in the Old Testament had proper reasons.

  Deuteronomy 20:16-18 (NIV) However, in the cities of the nations the
  Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive
  anything that breathes. Completely destroy them—the Hittites,
  Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the Lord
  your God has commanded you. Otherwise, they will teach you to follow
  all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you
  will sin against the Lord your God.

To annihilate all the inhabitants of Canaan:  God promised the land of Canaan to the people of Israel. It was necessary to annihilate all the inhabitants of Canaan before they could settle there. It is logical that no one will allow a foreigner to occupy his land. Israelites had to fight their way into Canaan in order to rule and possess it. Once the whole promised land was occupied, God never commanded them to extend their territory by attacking their neighboring countries. The whole Canaan was taken under the rule of David, and after him God never commanded them to extend their territory.
To get rid of Idolaters: God did not want the Israelite to mingle with the idolaters in Canaan less they also become like them. God also did allow them to marry idolaters. It was the command of God to annihilate all idol worshipers in Canaan but the Israelites failed to do it which resulted in idolatry in Israel. This idolatry caused the destruction of Israel under Assyria and Judah under Babylon.

Regarding the killings and tortures done by the Catholic Church, it had more to do with politics and ignorance, rather than the commands in the Bible nor from God.

* As Caleb commented, the meaning of the word "kill" could mean "murder" at the time when KJV was written.


What connection does the Jesus movement and the pentecostal/charismatic movement have, if any? What connection does the Jesus movement and the Pentecostal/charismatic movement have, if any?

What I mean is: have people in the Jesus movement influenced the Pentecostal/charismatic movement in any way, like joining some Pentecostal/charismatic church after the Jesus movement ended?

Background:

Firstly, the advent of Pentecostalism significntly preceded both the Charismatic Renewal and the rise of the Jesus Movement - the former arose out of the Holiness movements of the late 19th century and really kicked into gear with the Asuza street and Welsh revivals of the early 20th century, while the latter two, although heavily influenced by the former, were '60s children' (Charismatic renewal starting in early 60s, Jesus movement taking off in the late 60s).

The wikipedia article on the Jesus movement is both a little confused, and a little confusing, this is most likely because that description is true of the movement itself - it was diverse and quite spontaneous in it's rapid and widespread growth from multiple 'ignition points' and what influenced it and what came from it is an extremely tangled network. You can get a good sense of the times from reading Keith Green's autobiography "No Compromise"; brief histories here and here; or the following Charisma magazine article from Larry Tomczak here*; and I personally had my interest piqued in those times by hearing first hand accounts from Winkie Pratney who was a leader in the movement and familiar with many of the key players.

Seminal moments and locations were the opening of 'the Living room' - an evangelical street mission in San Francisco's Haight-Ashbury district (1967); Arthur Blessit's street ministry on Sunset Strip (West Hollywood) (1968); Jack Spark's campus ministry at UC Berkeley; and Linda Meissner's ministry to youth in Seattle.

Contrary to what the Wikipedia article implies, the Calvary Chapel was not a 'product' of the movement, but existed before (founded 1965), and was a key player in fostering the movement on the West Coast of the U.S.A. (starting from 1969). Although the movement was national and ultimately international in its reach, the West Coast of the U.S.A. was probably the 'ground zero' of impact, and the Calvary Chapel movement was both considerably benefited and challenged by the rapid influx of new believers that came as a result of the separate yet relationally linked Jesus movement. What it does get right however, and this is most pertinent to your question, is the strong pentecostal/charismatic 'flavor' of the movement.  It's possible there were pockets of the movement that didn't pursue and experience the sign gifts of the Holy Spirit (for instance, arguably the 1970 Asbury Revival in Wilmore, Kentucky, although links to the wider Jesus Movement are obscure), but they were few and far between.  Chuck Smith (pastor of Calvary Chapel) started out as a pastor for the International Church of the Foursquare (Pentecostal) and under his direction, the Calvary Chapel movement, while backing away from Pentecostalism as a defining characteristic, remained (and continues to be) strongly Charismatic (Evangelical) in character. One of the key leaders in the Jesus Movement was 'power-evangelist' Lonnie Frisbee - a disciple of Chuck Smith and a highly influential and controversial figure in the Jesus Movement. There is no doubt that controversies surrounding Frisbee and others like him in the movement (bearing an uncanny resemblence to the early Corinthian believers as they came out of a sub-culture that more closely resembled that of early Corinth than the 'square' culture of mainstream America) likely resulted in the movements gradual dissipation from the early to mid '70s through to the mid '80s.  As well as the Calvary Chapel movement, The Vineyard movement, Maranatha Campus Ministries, Contemporary Christian music and many other ministries were impacted by the legacy of the Jesus Movement - a large (if not overwhelming) majority of them being Pentecostal or Charismatic in nature.

To provide a generalised summary answer to the first aspect of your question:

  What connection does the Jesus movement and the Pentecostal/charismatic movement have, if any?

To a significant degree, the Jesus movement arose from earlier Pentecostal influences (e.g. Blessit, Meissner, Smith were all from Pentecostal backgrounds), Concurrent with (or slightly after) the wider Charismatic renewal (It is legitimate to see the Jesus Movement embedded within the context of the Charismatic Renewal). It's effects contributed to the origin, diversity and vitality of many Pentecostal, but particularly (non-denominational or new denominational) Charismatic churches and ministries.

In regard to the last aspect of your question:

  Have people in the Jesus movement influenced the Pentecostal/charismatic movement in any way, like joining some Pentecostal/charismatic church after the Jesus movement ended?

Yes, absolutely - Dr. Michael Brown (later associated with the Brownsville revival) is a notable example of exactly this, and he is by no means alone - various influential leaders and people associated with the movement that went on to have impact through subsequent ministries can be found here.

Further resources: here and God's Forever Family: The Jesus People Movement in America, Larry Eskridge - excellently reviewed here.

*The Jesus Movement is a not uncommon theme in Charisma magazine articles