Perseverance of the Saints – Historical Interpretations before Calvin When I read the writings of early Christians I am constantly seeing references to persevering to the end and absolutely nothing resembling this teaching.  It is almost as if everything taught prior to Calvin suggests a different Gospel to the one preached by Calvinism.

When I look at Scripture like Hebrews 10:29, I don't see these passages mentioned in Bible only circles, like GotQuesions.org for example where many pro perseverance  scriptures are mentioned but not this one or the 80 some on other scriptures that speak opposite of this position are left out.

Was the Doctrine of Perseverance of the Saints ever understood by any Christian before John Calvin? Even in the slightest?

To briefly summarize, in Calvinism, the central point of the doctrine of the "perseverance of the saints" is that those whom God has saved can never permanently fall away.  Some implications flow from this idea, such as the view that a Christian can (but might not) have assurance of his or her own salvation.  But the core of the doctrine is that God grants perseverance to those that he saves.
The church father that Calvin relied on the most was Augustine, and as expected, he is the most significant early proponent of a "perseverance of the saints" view similar (but not identical) to Calvin's.  Here are a few quotes from his work, On the Gift of Perseverance:

I assert, therefore, that the perseverance by which we persevere in Christ even to the end is the gift of God; and I call that the end by which is finished that life wherein alone there is peril of falling (1)
When that gift of God is granted to them,—which is sufficiently plainly shown to be God’s gift, since it is asked of Him,—that gift of God, then, being granted to them that they may not be led into temptation, none of the saints fails to keep his perseverance in holiness even to the end. (9)
When, therefore, God’s hand is upon Him, that we depart not from God, assuredly God’s work reaches to us (for this is God’s hand); by which work of God we are caused to be abiding in Christ with God—not, as in Adam, departing from God. For “in Christ we have obtained a lot, being predestinated according to His purpose who worketh all things.” This, therefore, is God’s hand, not ours, that we depart not from God. (14)

Unlike Calvin and the Reformed tradition, however, Augustine didn't hold that a believer could have true assurance of salvation.  The first quote above (chapter one) continues:

Therefore it is uncertain whether any one has received this gift so long as he is still alive. For if he fall before he dies, he is, of course, said not to have persevered; and most truly is it said. How, then, should he be said to have received or to have had perseverance who has not persevered? (1)

Reformed theologian Louis Berkhof summarizes Augustine's position as follows:

He held that the elect could not so fall away as to be finally lost, but at the same time considered it possible that some who were endowed with new life and true faith could fall from grace completely and at last suffer eternal damnation. (Systematic Theology, 4.11.A)

Perhaps a clearer way to say this is that of the many who receive blessings of faith and life, some are elect, and some are not.  The elect have been given the additional gift of perseverance from God.  This is opposed to Calvinism, in which the gifts of election, faith, life, and perseverance are all bound together.
Thus Calvinism diverges from Augustine in at least these two ways.  But the basic principle, that a man's perseverance depends on God's gift, and not his own efforts, can be traced to Augustine.


Was St. John Chrysostom Pelagian? In this answer about Pelagianism (Did Pelagius believe in "faith alone"?) the author makes a sort of apology for Pelagianism and claims that St. John Chrysostom was Pelagian himself. The author says in the comments: "early synergist fathers implicitly believed same that man can be saved without grace ... Chrysostom was a Pelagian". I haven't yet dug into the works of this St. John, but found a good article about the topic:

St John Chrysostom on Grace and Free Will

In which there is the following paragraph:

  Chrysostom then raises as a possible objection the famous statement of St. Paul in Romans, “it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy” (9:16). His reply is that St. Paul here uses the common idiomatic device in which one who is the author of the greater part of a work is said to be its sole cause, as when a house is said to be an architect’s doing even though in fact he only designed it.  Paul’s purpose, he says, is “that we should not be lifted up …Even though you run (he would say), even though you excel, do not consider the well-doing your own; for if you do not obtain the impulse from above, all is to no purpose.”

The footnote cites the source as:

  Chrysostom, Homilies on Hebrews 12.3 (PG 63 100);  tr. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First
  Series (= NPNF) (Grand Rapids:  Eerdmans, 1983 [reprint]), vol. 14. I have modified
  translations from NPNF for the sake of style and to bring out important features of the Greek.

I think the author of the aforementioned post is conflating patristic synergism with Pelagianism and therefore teaching what mainline Christianity has considered heresy since the Pelagian controversies. However, I don't have a larger perspective on the views of St. John Chrysostom. Is the referenced article correct and does St. John Chrysostom indisputably teach synergism and that man cannot be saved without grace?

John Chrysostom was not a Pelagian and the claim that "early synergist fathers implicitly believed same that man can be saved without grace" is patently absurd.
In his initial defense against Pelagius, Augustine took an extreme view that man is saved entirely by grace without any involvement of man's free will whatsoever.  In "On Rebuke and Grace" he wrote:

Will you dare to say that even when Christ prayed that Peter's faith might not fail, it would still have failed if Peter willed it to fail?  As if Peter could in any measure will otherwise than Christ had wished for him to will?1

Several Fathers came out against Augustine's extreme views - which Augustine himself later came to renounce later in life.  Most notably was John Cassian, who wrote in his Conferences:

And so the grace of God always co-operates with our will for its advantage, and in all things assists, protects, and defends it, in such a way as sometimes even to require and look for some efforts of good will from it that it may not appear to confer its gifts on one who is asleep or relaxed in sluggish ease, as it seeks opportunities to show that as the torpor of man’s sluggishness is shaken off its bounty is not unreasonable, when it bestows it on account of some desire and efforts to gain it. And none the less does God’s grace continue to be free grace while in return for some small and trivial efforts it bestows with priceless bounty such glory of immortality, and such gifts of eternal bliss.2

Cassian enumerated a number of Scriptures in support of his opinion in the same Conferences:

Whence human reason cannot easily decide how the Lord gives to those that ask, is found by those that seek, and opens to those that knock, and on the other hand is found by those that sought Him not, appears openly among those who asked not for Him, and all the day long stretches forth His hands to an unbelieving and gainsaying people, calls those who resist and stand afar off, draws men against their will to salvation, takes away from those who want to sin the faculty of carrying out their desire, in His goodness stands in the way of those who are rushing into wickedness. But who can easily see how it is that the completion of our salvation is assigned to our own will, of which it is said: If ye be willing, and hearken unto Me, ye shall eat the good things of the land, (Isaiah 1:19) and how it is not of him that willeth or runneth, but of God that hath mercy? (Romans 9:16) What too is this, that God will render to every man according to his works; (Romans 2:6) and it is God who worketh in you both to will and to do, of His good pleasure; (Philippians 2:13) and this is not of yourselves but it is the gift of God: not of works, that no man may boast? (Ephesians 2:8-9) What is this too which is said: Draw near to the Lord, and He will draw near to you, (James 4:8) and what He says elsewhere: No man cometh unto Me except the Father who sent Me draw Him? (John 6:44) What is it that we find: Make straight paths for your feet and direct your ways, (Proverbs 4:26 LXX) and what is it that we say in our prayers: Direct my way in Thy sight, and establish my goings in Thy paths, that my footsteps be not moved? (Psalm 5:9) What is it again that we are admonished: Make you a new heart and a new spirit, (Ezekiel 18:31) and what is this which is promised to us: I will
give them one heart and will put a new spirit within them: and I will take away the stony heart from their flesh and will give them an heart of flesh that they may walk in Thy statutes and keep My judgments? (Ezekiel 1:19-20) What is it that the Lord commands, where He says: Wash thine heart of iniquity, O Jerusalem, that thou mayest be saved, (Jeremiah 4:14) and what is it that the prophet asks for from the Lord, when he says Create in me a clean heart, O God, and again: Thou shalt wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow? (Psalm 50:12 LXX). What is it that is said to us: Enlighten yourselves with the light of knowledge; (Hosea 10:12 LXX) and this which is said of God: Who teacheth man knowledge; (Psalm 93:10 LXX) and: the Lord enlightens the blind, (Psalm 145:8 LXX) or at any rate this, which we say in our prayers with the prophet: Lighten mine eyes that I sleep not in death, (Psalm 12:4 LXX) unless in all these there is a declaration of the grace of God and the freedom of our will.3

Some have painted Cassian's view of synergy - the cooperation of man's will with God's grace - with a broad brush and called it just Pelagianism, plain and simple.  But belief that man is saved through the cooperation of his free will with God's grace is a far cry from belief that man can be saved through his free will alone.  Even the synergistic view - which John Cassian points out has firm support in Scripture - is derided by some as being "semi-Pelagian".
There is nothing anywhere in the writings of John Chrysostom that suggests he holds Pelagius' views that man can be saved without God's grace.  One need only look to his commentary on 1 Corinthians 15:10 to confirm this:

And His grace in me was not in vain; but I labored more abundantly than they all, and yet not I, but the grace of God with me
Seest thou again another excess of humility? In that the defects he imputes to himself, but of the good deeds nothing; rather he refers all to God. Next, lest he might hereby render his hearer supine, he saith, And His grace which was bestowed upon me was not found vain. And this again with reserve: in that he said not, I have displayed a diligence worthy of His grace, but, it was not found vain.4

1.  In The Place of Blessed Augustine in the  Orthodox Church, p.37.
2. XIII.13
3. Ibid., XIII.9
4.  Homily XXXVIII on First Corinthians


What is the scriptural basis for the conditionalist doctrine of hell? By conditionalist doctrine, I mean the belief that hell is the destruction of those souls that go there, rather than the everlasting torment or eventual purification of said souls.

Technically, a couple of different terms are being confused in the question.

Conditionalism is the teaching that immortality / eternal life is conditional upon a right standing with God.

Annihilationism is the teaching that anyone who is ultimately unrepentant will cease to exist, usually after a period of torment that accommodates to the amount of evil they have done.

While these are technically separate, they do often go hand-in-hand.

Conditionalism

Most defenses for conditionalism start out with a general summary of their main point: nothing in the bible explicitly says humans are inherently immortal; not their bodies, not their spirits, not their souls.

Specific appeal is made to a selection of texts that seem to illustrate as much. Some key texts include:

Genesis 2-3, since humans require fruit from the tree of life in order to 'live forever', which humans are subsequently forbidden from eating,
1 Timothy 6.16, which says God 'alone has immortality', taken to mean God alone is inherently immortal, while humans are dependent in some way,
Romans 2.7, First Corinthians 15.53-54, Second Timothy 1.10, etc., are understood to indicate that 'immortality' and 'eternal life' are gifts/rewards solely for those who are saved, necessitating a mortality and a temporal life as being the penalty for those who are not saved.

What Is Death?

Because conditionalism and annihilationism are teachings involving 'death', the discussion of course requires defining what 'death' consists of. It is frequently said by advocates of the traditional view ('eternal conscious torment') that 'death' should be defined as 'separation'. Bodily death is separation of the spirit/soul from the body, and spiritual death is separation of the spirit/soul from God. In both cases, the spirit/soul is believed to continue existing consciously in its state of death.

Conditionalists generally criticize this as a redefinition of the word. 'Death', they say, has always been defined as a cessation of life, consisting of a lack of all consciousness, comparable to a dreamless sleep. To support this definition, conditionalists again point to a selection of biblical texts:

Psalm 6.5: For in death there is no remembrance of you; in sheol who will give you praise?
Psalm 115.17: The dead do not praise YHWH, nor do any who go down into silence.
Psalm 146.4: When his breath departs, he returns to the earth; on that very day his thoughts perish.
Ecclesiastes 9.5: For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing, and they have no more reward, for the memory of them is forgotten.

This is in addition to the numerous texts throughout the bible that compare death to 'sleep', no matter who it is being described (e.g. 1 Kings 2.10; First Kings 22.40; John 11.11-14; First Thessalonians 4.13f).

With this altogether, conditionalists believe the bible broadly teaches that humans are not innately immortal, in any way, and that their natural end is to die and cease to exist.

Annihilationism

Where conditionalism defines human immortality as conditional upon a right relationship with God, annihilationism is defined as a direct punishment of death from God. Qualitatively, there is no distinction between 'death' and 'annihilation'; the latter word is used solely to clarify just what it is that 'death' consists of.

Again, on a broader level, annihilationists believe the bible teaches that humans who are ultimately unrepentant will suffer death / cessation of existence. Poetic idioms in the Psalms are said to accurately describe a lack of existence, prophetic metaphors are said to capture the essence of a lack of existence, and the 'plain meaning' of basic words are said to describe a lack of existence directly.

The final fate of the unsaved is:

To vanish like smoke (Psalm 37.20)
Like the snail that melts into slime, like the stillborn child that never sees the sun (Psalm 58.8)
Like smoke that is driven away, like wax melts before a fire (Psalm 68.2)
Like a dream when one awakes (Psalm 73.20)
Destroyed, wiped out all remembrance of them (Isaiah 26.14)
Stubble in a burning oven; leaving them neither root nor branch; ashes under the soles of the righteous' feet (Malachi 4.1-3)
Slaying of body and soul (Matthew 10.28)
Eternal punishment (Matthew 25.46)
Death (Romans 6.23)
Eternal destruction (2 Thessalonians 1.9)
Like Sodom and Gomorrah: turned to ashes, and condemned to extinction (2 Peter 2.6)
The second death (Revelation 2.11ff)

Resources

It is widely agreed, even by critics, that the best, complete treatment in favor of conditionalism and annihilationism is The Fire That Consumes, written by Edward Fudge. While it is difficult to speak on behalf of a broad spectrum of belief, Fudge's book is yet considered the masterwork defense of these two beliefs.


What scriptural arguments for the Trinity were used in the First Council of Nicea? What scriptural arguments for the Trinity were used in the First Council of Nicea?

We do not have any minutes or transcripts from the Council of Nicea. Bishop Theodoret of Cyrrhus, wrote his Ecclesiastical History  about 450 AD, though based on earlier sources.

In Chapter 6 of Book 1 we may read that the Emperor Constantine, in his opening speech to the  Nicene Conference, urged the bishops to seek a solution (to their differences) in the divinely-inspired scriptures.

  ‘For the gospels’ (continued he), ‘the  writings, and the oracles of the ancient prophets, clearly teach us what we ought to believe concerning the divine nature. Let, then, all contentious disputation be discarded; and let us seek in the divinely-inspired word the solution of the questions at issue.’

Chapter 7 quotes Athanasius, who was there, as saying the bishops collected together passages from the Scriptures relating to Christ.

So it seems that the bishops looked to Scripture to ascertain the truth, or at least to argue their positions.   Still, the communique, to use a modern term, did not include  arguments  or scriptural references  justifying  the conclusion.

Athanasius did however describe  some of the  discussions at the Council as follows:

  (some bishops made) the following declarations, which are in accordance with the holy Scriptures; namely, that the Son is by nature only-begotten of God, Word, Power, and sole Wisdom of the Father; that He is, as John said, 'the true God ,' and, as Paul has written, 'the brightness of the glory, and the express image of the person of the Father ,'

and later

  collected from Scripture those passages which say of Christ that He is the glory, the fountain, the stream, and the express image of the person; and they quoted the following words: ' In your light we shall see light ;' and likewise, ' I and the Father are one. '

In Chapter 11 he quotes a letter from Eusebius who was also there

  'We believe in the being and continual existence of each of these; that the Father is in truth the Father; the Son in truth the Son; the Holy Ghost in truth the Holy Ghost; as our Lord, when sending out His disciples to preach the Gospel, said, ' Go forth and teach all nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. '

The following appear to be some of the Scriptures referenced: (The phrases mentioned above are also listed below, but with the scriptures also listed.)

"The Son is by nature only begotten of God"  John 1 18  and John 3 16

    And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

    For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

"Word, Power and sole Wisdom of the Father" John 1 1 Col 1 19 Col 2 9 and 1 Cor 1 24

    In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God

    But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.

"the true God"  1 John 5 20

    And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.

the brightness of the glory and the express image of the person of
the Father  Hebrews 1 3

    Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

"the glory"   John 1 14

    And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

"the fountain, in your light shall we see light" - links Psalm 36 9 with John 4 14 John 8 12

    For with thee is the fountain of life: in thy light shall we see light.

    But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.

    Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.

"I and the Father are One"  John 10 30

    I and my Father are one.

"baptizing them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the
Holy Ghost;  Matthew 28 19Matthew 28 19

    Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:


Can the devil be considered guilty? Not trying to be devil's advocate or anything, but I am curious about what most denominations and Christians believe about how the devil became evil.

To go based off these two assumptions:

The wages of sin is death
Sin is creation not acting/being as God intended

It can be understood easily that humans can be held accountable to sin, because the devil can tempt them to do things that were not intended by God.

But can the same be understood about the devil?  For what would tempt him?
If all sovereign God intended for the devil to be holy and righteous, then something must tempt him for him to not act as he were intended, but there was nothing to tempt him.
However, if God intended for Satan to become who he is now, then that explains how he became evil.  And if he was intended to be evil (if that is how he was created) then is the devil actually in the wrong?

What is an overview of view points of Christians on this topic?

Some people think that "God made me that way." is some sort of excuse.

Consider the parable of the talents (Luke 19, John 25). God gave each different talents, and each was judged by what he did with them. What they did cannot be interpreted in any way but choice.

Even a fatalist has to resort to claiming that the choice was fated. The fact of the choice can't be denied.

And it does no good to claim that the choice was fated, because the choice ends up being made. Avoiding choices is choosing not to do things, which is also a choice.

Yes, a talent was money back then, but the varying amounts is symbolic of the varying gifts He gives each of us.

Satan was given great knowledge, and he was given great self-confidence, apparently. The scripture does not say God commanded or caused Satan to rebel. It says he rebelled. The third of the hosts that followed him are not said to have been commanded or caused to follow him, they are said to have followed him.

Concerning temptation, there are many sources of temptation. Some of those are from within. Paul refers to this when he talks about the natural man. Our natural urges are not always good and appropriate, and we should not blame them on the devil.

But if none of my arguments here persuades you that even the devil is responsible for his own choices, consider this:

Given, for the sake of argument only, a god who would make us without choice and punish us for things we did without choice, that is, if such is your assumption, why would such a god make an exception for Satan?


How do Trinitarians explain verses where Jesus claims to have a God? According to orthodox trinitarian doctrine, the Father is God, Jesus is God, and the Holy Spirit is God.  Jesus is co-eqaul, eternally begotten, not made.

With that in mind, how could Jesus have a God?  For instance, how do Trinitarians explain verses such as the following verses in a way which is consistent with their doctrine?

John 20:17 (KJV)

  Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my
  Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my
  Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

John 17:3 (KJV)

  "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true
  God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent."

Leo the Great wrote for the Council of Chalcedon in 451,

  It does not belong to the same nature to say, "I and the Father are one," and to say, "The Father is greater than I." For although there is in the Lord Jesus Christ a single person who is of God and of man, the insults shared by both have their source in one thing, and the glory that is shared in another. For it is from us that he gets a humanity which is less than the Father; it is from the Father that he gets a divinity which is equal to the Father.

The doctrine of the hypostatic union refers to the idea that in Christ there was both a divine and a human nature, simultaneously. This is essential for the work of Christ in our salvation, reconciling the human and divine in his own person, submitting to death on the cross. (Compare Paul in the second chapter of Philippians, for example.)

Your first quotation, from John 20, comes from after the resurrection: Christ declares that his Father is our Father. When he says "my God" he acknowledges the supremacy of God, but not as something distinct from himself; he presents himself as the link between God and humanity, through which God is made known to us. "My God" is also "your God". John Calvin's commentary on the passage says that the phrase 'my God' is "peculiar to his human nature, but is applied to his whole person, on account of the unity, because he is both God and Man."

Likewise, the quotation from John 17 does not imply separation between God and Jesus, but again positions Christ as essential to our knowledge or experience of God. It is possible to make too much of grammar, but the Greek word kai ("and" here) typically has a "positive" or "constructive" sense. So "A kai B" feels something like "not only A, but indeed also B". The import of the passage isn't that we know God, and also Jesus separately - as a student might say that they were majoring in Chemistry and minoring in Drama - but that how we come to know God is through knowing Jesus.


Does infant baptism determine the child's afterlife, according to practitioners? Among those denominations who practice infant baptism, does baptizing the baby have anything to do with the destination of the infant's soul?

Which denominations, if any, believe that Infant Baptism is a means of securing the afterlife of the baby? Do they believe that they are actually sending the infants to heaven by baptizing them? And if the child dies before knowing good and evil, does the baptized infant go to heaven?

This answer is not meant to replace the other well stated answers, but is meant to supplement/support them by addressing the following question:

  Which denomination(s) believes that infant baptism is a mean of
  securing the afterlife of the baby?

Catholics, Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Methodists, some Nazarenes, the United Church of Christ (UCC), and the Reformed churches all practice infant baptism.

The Catholic Church, as well as the Orthodox churches teach and believe that baptism is sacramentally regenerative. This means that baptism is not only an outward sign, but is also an inward rebirth or regeneration.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states explicitly:

  Holy Baptism is the basis of the whole Christian life, the gateway to
  life in the Spirit (vitae spiritualis ianua), and the door which gives
  access to the other sacraments. Through Baptism we are freed from sin
  and reborn as sons of God; we become members of Christ, are
  incorporated into the Church and made sharers in her mission: "Baptism
  is the sacrament of regeneration through water in the word." (CCC
  1213)

The Catechism continues to explain the sacrament of Baptism within the context of infant regeneration:

  Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children
  also have need of the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power
  of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children
  of God, to which all men are called. The sheer gratuitousness of the
  grace of salvation is particularly manifest in infant Baptism. The
  Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of
  becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after
  birth. (CCC 1250)

The Church also emphasizes that "baptism is a required sacrament of faith."

The writings of the early Church Fathers clearly indicate that the sacrament of baptism has been thought of as necessary for the salvation of infants since the Ante-Nicene period of the Church.

  "And they shall baptise the little children first. And if they can
  answer for themselves, let them answer. But if they cannot, let their
  parents answer or someone from their family." Hippolytus of Rome,
  Apostolic Tradition, 21 (c. A.D. 215).

  "Baptism is given for the remission of sins; and according to the
  usage of the Church, Baptism is given even to infants. And indeed if
  there were nothing in infants which required a remission of sins and
  nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would
  seem superfluous." Origen, Homily on Leviticus, 8:3 (post A.D. 244).

  "But in respect of the case of the infants, which you say ought not to
  be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, and that
  the law of ancient circumcision should be regarded, so that you think
  one who is just born should not be baptized and sanctified within the
  eighth day...And therefore, dearest brother, this was our opinion in
  council, that by us no one ought to be hindered from baptism...we
  think is to be even more observed in respect of infants and newly-born
  persons…" Cyprian, To Fidus, Epistle 58(64):2, 6 (A.D. 251)

See INFANT BAPTISM

During the Reformation period of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the early reformers adopted the doctrine of sola fide (by faith alone). This doctrine teaches that the only way a person can obtain salvation is by an inward assent of faith in the saving  power of the blood of Jesus Christ and the imputation of his righteousness. Sola fide consequently and necessarily rejects baptismal necessity, therefore reducing the act of baptism to an outward symbolic acknowledgment of salvation.

Reformed theology teaches that since infants lack the capacity to place faith in Christ, there can be no inward assent to faith in Christ, rendering the salvific element absent from baptism. It also intended to celebrate the covenantal relationship between the infant and God.

In summary - The Catholic/Orthodox churches have taught since the apostolic era that baptism sacramentally "saves" the infant, whereas most Protestant denominations have taught since the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries that baptism is a sign and seal of God's covenant to that child.


Defense of ancient Enoch authorship According to the Ethiopian and Eritrean Churches, the Book of Enoch was written by Enoch himself around the year 3300 BC.  I have seen statements like, "outside of Ethiopia, no one has defended this position."  Actually, I have not found any attempt to defend it even in Ethiopia.  Assuming someone has actually made a serious attempt to defend the date & authorship, I would like to read it.  Can anyone outline a defense of church's traditional position, or point me to one?

To be clear, I am not interested in the reasons this date is unlikely (which I already know).

There are at least two or three ways to possibly give this question a plausible answer, while at the same time safeguarding the Alexandrian Traditions' position on the subject of the Book of Enoch.

The first point to take into account is the fact that the only complete extant copy of the Book of Enoch is written in the Ge'ez language. This particular point does not answer the question, but merely shows why these Churches of North Africa are so attached to this book. The actual original language is unknown. It may have been Hebrew or Aramaic.

The next point to be made is that, as in the case with most of the different rites that were founded by one of the apostles or their disciples, there are many viable customs and traditions have been handed down to us from Time Immemorial. As such, no proof can truly be found, since it seems to possibly be in the domain of the Ethiopian Church's custom to believe that the Book of Enoch was written by Enoch himself. There are many pious customs and beliefs which cannot be verified one way or another. This one is no exception.

The Book of Enoch was not included in the Christian canon of books in the 4th century and is regarded as Scripture in only the Ethiopian Orthodox Church and the Eritrean Orthodox Church. Why? I think that Tertullian (155-240) holds the key!

  "Regarding the quotation in Jude, most of early Christianity considered it an independent quotation pre-dating the flood. Regarding the Book of Enoch itself Origen, Jerome and Augustin mention it, but as of no authority. Justin, Athenagoras, Irenaeus, Clemens Alexandrinus, Lactantius, and others borrowed an opinion out of this book of Enoch, that the angels had connection with the daughters of men, of whom they had offspring ('the giants of the past'). Tertullian, in several places, speaks of this book with esteem; and would persuade us, that it was preserved by Noah during the deluge." Taken from this Wikipedia link: Enoch (ancestor of Noah).

And Again:

  The Epistle of Barnabas, young Origen, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian all considered 1 Enoch to be Scripture. Tertullian wrote in "Concerning The Genuineness Of 'The Prophecy Of Enoch,' I am aware that the Scripture of Enoch, which has assigned this order (of action) to angels, is not received by some, because it is not admitted into the Jewish canon either…But since Enoch in the same Scripture has preached likewise concerning the Lord, nothing at all must be rejected by us which pertains to us; and we read that 'every Scripture suitable for edification is divinely inspired.'…To these considerations is added the fact that Enoch possesses a testimony in the Apostle Jude." [Tertullian, "On the Apparel of Women,"in The Ante-Nicene Fathers: Fathers of the Third Century: Tertullian, Part Fourth; Minucius Felix; Commodian; Origen, Parts First and Second, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, trans. S. Thelwall, vol. 4 (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 15. Is Enoch Scripture?

Hope this helps.


How does dominion theology affect eschatological views? How do the eschatological doctrines of Charismatic or Pentecostal groups that hold to dominion theology differ from other Charismatic or Pentecostal groups (e.g. Assemblies of God) that do not?

Overall, there is no absolute consensus in eschatological views among Charismatic adherents to dominion theology. If a particular group decides to teach eschatology at all, they often teach all the main threads of doctrine and let people learn on their own. Dominion theology, in effect, could fit in most of the popular eschatological timelines.

To use the Assemblies of God's doctrine as a starting point, though, I will compare with some popular eschatologies in the dominionist camp.

Looking at the AG's site, it is evident that they believe in a pre-tribulation rapture. This is a doctrinal point very often argued against by adherents of dominion theology, because of its tendency to create a defeatist attitude among believers. In the dominionist's view, the Kingdom is always advancing towards its ultimate fulfillment, and there is no need for God to remove us from the earth during the Tribulation. God will be doing great works of which we will be a part, and the Church will never give up on influencing the world. For some dominionists, this would mean a post-tribulation premillenial rapture (see IHOPKC's Omega Course).

Other popular eschatologies that fit very well with dominionism are postmillenialism and amillenialism (postmillenialism being a literal interpretation of the millenium, and amillenialism being a symbolic unknown time period). In both, the Church is advancing the Kingdom of God and preparing the earth for the second coming of Christ. The "tribulation" here is figuratively interpreted as God's judgements along the way, of which we participate, as the Church takes complete dominion of the earth for God.

See the book Victorious Eschatology for a little more on some of these views.


What is the biblical basis for claims that certain manifestations are not of the Holy Spirit but counterfeits (e.g. Kundalini awakening)? Revivalist movements such as the Toronto Blessing have spurred a wave of controversy around the origin of the manifestations observed in their services. Many Christians believe that these manifestations are caused by counterfeit spirits pretending to be the Holy Spirit. In particular, Andrew Strom published an influential three-part documentary (1, 2, 3) and a book in which he argues that the observed manifestations are suspiciously similar to the symptoms reported by individuals who have undergone the so-called "Kundalini awakening".
Likewise, it's not uncommon to hear of Christians accusing other Christians, particularly Pentecostals and Charismatics, of being influenced by counterfeit spirits. See for example: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.
What is the biblical basis for identifying certain manifestations as counterfeits (e.g. Kundalini awakening) instead of genuine Holy Spirit manifestations?

There is no explicit historical or Biblical basis for this argumentation. The earliest known mention of Kundalini yoga dates to the Vedic collection of writings known as the Upanishads (c. 1000 BCE). The practice of Kundalini thus predates the oldest extant Tanakh manuscripts (the Silver Scrolls c. 650–587 BCE) by several centuries. Clearly, the authors of the Tanakh were unaware of this practice. The same can be said for experiences like samadhi in Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, Sikhism and yogic schools (oldest reference late 1st millennium BCE in the Maitrayaniya Upanishad). Nor the Tanakh, the OT or NT mention any knowledge or understanding of these practices. Virtually every religion - surviving or extinct - includes some form of this kind of experience in their oral or written tradition, including Sumerian, Persian, Chinese, Indian, Egyptian, Greek, and Roman religions.
As for the "Toronto Blessing", this has been investigated by Andrew Newton, who had this to say about it:

the phenomena so closely resembled mass hysteria that most observers –
scientists and laymen alike – deduced that it was indeed a text book
case of mass hysteria. Those who took part in it were all emotionally
very suggestible and there is no doubt that expectancy and wish
fulfillment played a major part in the experience.

He then examines the testimonial of two of the participants.  The first is a man called Mick Brown. He went to Toronto and attended a meeting led by John Arnott, pastor of the Toronto Airport Vineyard. Here is Mick Brown’s testimony:

“A body came falling towards me. I rested it on the ground and moved
on. I found myself beside John Arnott, who was moving through the
crowd, blessing people, who fell like ninepins. I didn’t even see his
hand coming as it arched through the air and touched me gently –
hardly at all – on the forehead. “And bless this one, Lord….” I could
feel a palpable shock running through me, then I was falling
backwards, as if my legs had been kicked away from underneath me. I
hit the floor – I swear this is the truth – laughing like a drain.”

Newton's analysis:

The interesting thing about that testimony is that Mick Brown is not a
Christian. He is an unconverted Daily Telegraph journalist who went to
Toronto to write a report on the Toronto Blessing for the Daily
Telegraph magazine, from which the above quotation is taken. Yet when
Pastor Arnott touched him, Mick Brown experiences exactly the same
phenomena as all the professing believers. He becomes “slain in the
Spirit” and laughs hysterically. Later he told a Christian newspaper
that his experience had made no difference to his unbelief in
Christianity. He was and still is a non-believer. So we are left with
the same physical and emotional experience, the same Toronto Blessing,
the same hysterical reaction but without the religiosity.
This forces us to ask two very important and searching questions:
First, how can this be the Holy Spirit at work? and second, does the
Holy Spirit bestow the same emotional and physical experience on
believer and non-believer alike – ‘slaying in the Spirit,’
uncontrollable laughter, a state of euphoria?
If these things had no spiritual or religious meaning or significance
in the life of atheist Mick Brown, how can precisely the same things
have any authentic spiritual meaning or significance in the lives of
professing Christians? Clearly we are dealing with an experience that
is not truly spiritual in nature, but can be happily shared by
believers and non-believers alike. Obviously it must be up to the
individual to interpret the associated emotions and find meaning… or
not.
Another obvious question is, what is the power that John Arnott has to
induce this experience in a non-Christian who has absolutely no belief
that the Toronto Blessing is a work of God, since he does not even
believe in God? Is it possible that this is nothing more that
hypnotism working on a suggestible mind? Mick Brown had not
participated in any of the warm-up techniques of the worship, and had
no expectation that anything would happen to him. Yet when John Arnott
touched him, quite by accident, down he goes, gibbering away and
laughing hysterically. This seems to point us in the direction of John
Arnott and others like him actually possessing or at least channeling
some kind of supernatural power. Or not…
Stage hypnosis employs the same mental sleight of hand, as do the
industrial scale antics of American TV evangelists, such as the market
leader, Benny Hinn. Once a participant has seen other volunteers
collapsing and falling into what appears to be a trance-like state,
that participant also becomes suggestible. This happens quite
unconsciously and is as reliable as clockwork. One does not have to
take part in the warm up tests and exercises to be affected by it –
merely watching it work with others is enough to increase
suggestibility.

The second testimony is that of Glenda Waddell, a member of staff at Holy Trinity Brompton, the Anglican church in London which acts as the British headquarters of the Toronto Blessing. Here is Ms. Waddell’s testimony of how she first received the Toronto Blessing:

“To my absolute horror I just knew beyond any shadow of doubt my hands
were doing strange things and I was going to roar. I said, “Oh Lord,
I’d do anything but please, please, don’t make me roar. Only the men
roar and the women don’t roar.” But it came and I did roar quite
loudly and I made a lot of awful noise and I was crawling around the
floor doing terrible things and half of me was thinking, ‘This cannot
be me.’ But another part of me knew that it was.”

Newton's analysis:

The disturbing thing about Ms Waddell’s testimony is that it presents
us with a picture of the Holy Spirit supposedly at work. And yet her
experience makes it painfully obvious it was not the Holy Spirit at
work.
By her own account, Ms Waddell was invaded and possessed by a power
which reduced her to bestial behavior, crawling around and roaring
like a wild animal – all against her conscious will. She was simply
taken over, physically and spiritually, by a controlling force. That
is not how the Holy Spirit operates in a believer’s life. He does not
sanctify individuals by possessing them like a demon and forcing them
to do weird, sub-human things. He is supposed to work through the Word
of God, bringing truth to bear upon our minds, enlightening our
understanding. Anyone with any spiritual discernment must see that
this darker force was not the Holy Spirit.
An important thing to understand about mass hysteria is that it can
creep up even on those who are on their guard against it. From the
accounts of the two people in the extract above, it seems to me this
is what happened.


What is the position of Catholic theology on human rights in transhumanism? What is the opinion of Catholic theology on transhumanism, especially on the possibility to create autonomous artificial intelligence that would be granted the same or similar rights as humans?

Whether Artificial Beings should be given Rights

Objection 1 A cloned human being, would be a copy of a human being and therefore have all the faculties of that previous human being.  Whether it be the same soul or a new soul is impossible to tell.  But it must be an immortal soul since an immortal soul is innate to mankind.  An artificial being could potentially be as lifelike and organic as a cloned being ad therefore imbued with an immortal soul; one would never know.

Objection 2 Members of the animal kingdom are given rights (according to their rarity) and privileges (according to their usefulness). Even the Bible command people not mess up birds nests (Dt 22:4, 6) or make your animals work on the Sabbath (Ex 23:12).  God affords these rights and privileges to animals and he gives us dominion over them.

  Then God said: Let us make human beings in our image, after our likeness. Let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, the tame animals, all the wild animals, and all the creatures that crawl on the earth.

  Genesis 1:26 - NABRE

Therefore we could give whatever rights and privileges we want to our creations.

Objection 3 If a machine was said to be "self-aware" then that machine would be said to have an interior life.  An interior life is the thing that separates man from all other creatures.  E.F. Schumacher in Guide for the Perplexed says that the difference between man's order of being and the animals is that self-awareness that thinks about others thinking.  All it would take would be a group of robots starting a book club to make us all believe they have souls.

On the contrary, machines, no matter how carefully designed, can never have an immortal soul.

I answer that their primacy in the order of creation is below that of man (and beast). Therefore it is not fitting for them to be granted the rights in the same domain as man.  Where this Natural Law is contradicted by Human Law, the human law is unjust.  Therefore granting rights equivalent to humans to creatures without immortal souls is gravely immoral.

Reply to Objection 1  It is wrong to put God to the test (lk 4:12).  There is no guarantee that any artificial effort on man's behalf will force God's hand in crafting an immortal soul for man's creation.  Whether or not God gives the clones individual an immortal soul is up to God and not to man. see Judie Brown's response to a question on IVF.  But we can guarantee that God will not re-order creation around creations because "The earth is the LORD's, and everything in it, the world, and all who live in it;" (Ps 24:1).

Reply to Objection 2  Man is to be a good steward of creation because it is creation - not because he created it.

  In our time, the Church does not simply state that other creatures are completely subordinated to the good of human beings, as if they have no worth in themselves and can be treated as we wish. The German bishops have taught that, where other creatures are concerned, “we can speak of the priority of being over that of being useful”.

  Pope Francis - Laudatio Si - p. 69

We do not just give these rights and privileges to animals because we can use them, we give them because they exist, generally speaking, independent of our labors. Machines, however, do not exist independent of our labors and therefore we are justified in giving them the most burdensome tasks as well as making them work on Sundays (unless we don't want them to).

Reply to Objection 3  Artificial Intelligence will always be Intelligence as judged by mankind to be of some value.   There might always be faster or slower rates of computation.  So, in a world where we granted rights to a self-aware robot we could either.

Let self-aware robots determine what to do with obsolete self-aware robots
Deprecate self-aware robots ourselves (decommission them or send them to another galaxy)

In the first case, these machines would be judged in their own order (not that of mankind) and would be afforded rights in that domain (not that of mankind). Even the Angels hold to their own orders (Cherubim, Seraphim, etc...) and their souls, while immortal, are not for mankind to grant rights to.

In the second case we would be the higher power and, out of compassion to the works of man (out of a sense of beauty, one would hope), give rights and privileges necessary to lower orders of creation (not that of mankind) because:

  A higher power can do many things that an inferior power cannot do to those which are subject to them.

  Summa Theologica p.1 q.96 a.1 reply to objection 4


What was Martin Luther's perspective on the early Christian church? Was Luther's belief that the church's foundation was faulty to begin with, or that through time it fell into an apostate state and needed to be reformed back?

Luther, like other reformers, regarded the early church highly, but not above scripture.  We see this in two ways – (1) he accepted the earliest councils of the church as faithfully proclaiming the truth of scripture and (2) he respected many of the church fathers and benefited from their insights, though always judging them against scripture.
Councils
Manfred Schulze, in his article "Martin Luther and the Church Fathers," in The Reception of the Church Fathers in the West, I, helpfully reviews Luther's interaction with the fathers.  But he also describes Luther's acceptance of the first four ecumenical councils:

The four "principal Councils" of Nicaea, Constantinople, Ephesus and Chalcedon were (for Luther) all distinguished by the fact that they did not resolve on any new articles of faith, till then unheard-of, but provided genuine instruction from Scripture.  [...] The doctrinal pronouncements of the four principal Councils are really "Holy Scripture" for Luther, because they derived from genuine exegesis of Scripture by the Fathers of Councils. (590)

So it's clear then that Luther felt that in the essentials, the early church got off to a good start, since it faithfully taught the Bible in its first four Councils.
Fathers
Luther's respect for the church fathers is also clear, but again he places them under the authority of scripture.  Brian Litfin writes:

Martin Luther warmly embraced the church fathers whenever their comments dovetailed with scripture.  Luther's biblical commentaries are full of patristic citations.  He tells us he had thoroughly studied the fathers, and even endorsed the ideal of a reformation based upon their writings and the ancient creeds. (Getting to Know the Church Fathers, 27)

That said, Litfin makes Luther's selectivity clear in a footnote:

Luther's approach to the church fathers was always selective.  When he found them to be in harmony with scripture, he accepted them.  When he believed them to be contrary to scripture, he felt the freedom to reject them on that point. (270)

One way Luther compared the relative authority of the Bible and the fathers is by adopting the analogy of St. Bernard, in On the Councils and the Church (1539):

He [St. Bernard] admits that he held the holy fathers in high esteem, but was not by any means an entire convert to their opinions.  He assigns the following cause, and draws this comparison, viz., that he would prefer to drink from the fountain at once than from the streamlet. [...] Thus must the Scriptures hold the rank of master and judge, otherwise should we have too much recourse to the brooks [the church fathers]. (22–23)

Based on all this, we'd expect that Luther appreciated some fathers more than others.  And that is indeed the case.  Perhaps foremost among them was Augustine, who paved the way for Luther's views on sin, but (according to Luther) still didn't fully understand Paul.  Luther also thought that even the doctrine of justification by faith alone could be found in several fathers, though he wished it appeared more clearly.  Manfred Schulze writes:

At the beginning of his great lecture on Genesis Luther reports that because he knew of justification by faith from Scripture he also found it in Augustine, Hilary, Cyril and Ambrose, even if they did not zealously pursue it in practice and at time talked about it only inappropriately.  "But I don't count that as an error on their part" is his conciliatory comment; "it suffices if they say the same thing on the subject; even if they scarcely express it appropriately, their testimony bears me out". (612)

Schulze's article mentions other fathers toward whom Luther was less generous, like Pope Gregory, who "produced nothing good with his teaching" (612), Jerome "does not know what the gospel is and does not understand what the law amounts to" (609), and Origen and Cyprian, neither of whom "preached Christ" (615).  Schulze concludes that the fathers were merely "theological controversialists" for Luther, "no less, but also no more":

Church Fathers are criticized, but are also praised for having assembled much that was correct, e.g. on the Psalter, even if at times their expositions of the meaning of the text diverge widely.  The same as happens to all exegetes is the fate of the Fathers too in their exposition of Scripture—"One makes a mistake here, another there." (615)

Conclusion
Luther certainly believed that there was much of value in the early church – the first four councils, and many of the writings of the fathers.  So it is fair to say that he saw his work as a reform, and not a completely new beginning.  But at the same time, he did not regard those in the early church as authoritative – ultimately he judged everything against the singular authority of the Bible.


Is there any apocryphal gospel where someone else is crucified? In Islam Jesus is not crucified but instead of Him someone else is crucified, and Jesus went directly to heaven.

Moslims told me that Mohammed received his information about Jesus from the angel Gabriel. But in Mohammeds' days he probably knew or heared about gospels telling another story of Jesus like He wasn't crucified. But is there a gospel known where that is the case?

There are various Gnostic Knowledge Gospels where Jesus wasn't crucified - I won't list them all but here are the most popular.

Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter

  He whom you saw on the tree, glad and laughing, this is the living
  Jesus. But this one into whose hands and feet they drive the nails is
  his fleshly part, which is the substitute being put to shame, the one
  who came into being in his likeness. But look at him and me.

The Second Treatise of The Great Seth, 56.6-19 in NHL 332

  It was another...who drank the gall and the vinegar
  (on the cross); it was not I... it was another Simon, who bore the
  cross on his shoulder. It was another upon whom they placed the crown
  of thorns. But I was rejoicing in the height (the hills) over... their
  error. And I was laughing at their ignorance.


Why do the Jews in the OT in Joshua, Kings, Chronicles always list their war spoils after each battle? I have my doubts of the motivations, as we only ever hear of how great it was to fight enemy X and take their women, sheep and gold. Is this a fair statement? Why don't the Hebrews ever attack neighbours just for being evil, but always remember to take some bounty?

Just going for the obvious answer here, but even if you do attack someone just for being evil, and you end up killing them, they've left a lot of stuff behind that they don't have any use for anymore.

Also, particularly in the early years of Israel, these spoils were not used for personal enrichment, but for providing for the Tabernacle and funding the Lord's work, and the Lord took that pretty seriously. See Joshua chapter 7, which takes place immediately after the battle of Jericho, for an example of what happened when someone broke the commandment to bring the spoils to the house of the Lord.


If Lucifer was top perfect creature, how could he fall? [Catholicism] Since God's creation is good/perfect, how could a creature as good/perfect as a top angel actually fall, according to Catholicism? What is the mechanism of corruption that can corrupt a perfect being? Since God is incorruptible, He is then still the absolute perfect, while any other creature with free will cannot be absolutely perfect. But then, what is the guarantee that humans or saint angels will not fall again, being already in heaven?

Angels, incorporeal intellectual beings, cannot become less perfectly angelic (unlike humans, who can become more or less human); also, every angel is its own species. However, there can still be "evil of fault" (malum culpæ) in angels, not in their intellects but in their wills. Angels have freewill.


According to Calvinism, when and what happen during the Lord's Passover in the time of Moses? Exodus 12:11

  This is how you are to eat it: with your cloak tucked into your belt,
  your sandals on your feet and your staff in your hand. Eat it in
  haste; it is the LORD's Passover.

From the verse above, my guess is like this :
on the day the Israel eat the lamb - it is the day of the Lord's Passover.

Exodus 12:6

  Take care of them until the fourteenth day of the month, when all the
  members of the community of Israel must slaughter them at twilight.

From the verse above, my guess is like this :
The lambs are slaughtered on Nissan 14

Leviticus 23:5

  The LORD's Passover begins at twilight on the fourteenth day of the
  first month.

From the verse above, my guess is like this :
The LORD's Passover day is on Nissan 14

My own conclusion for the time being :
The Lord's Passover is on Nissan 14 - within the same day, some things that happen were [slaughter the lamb, smear the lamb's blood on the door, roast the lamb, eat the lamb with unleavened bread, the dead of the firstborn son]

But that's a non-Christian conclusion. That's why I ask here : According to Calvinism, what date and what happen during the Lord's Passover in the time of Moses ?

Thank you.

Calvin's view of the 14th or 15th of Nisan observance is inferred, rather than explicit, but there's no reason not to conclude that Calvin thought Christ died on the 15th of Nisan a Passover Friday.
He believes that Christ ate the Passover on Thursday night with that night being the start of the 15th with Friday day the 15th until sunset being the day of crucifixion.  The Jews, he thought, would postpone their Passover by one day to the 16th a weekly Sabbath.  This is so such that they would not observe two non-working days (Sabbaths) in a row.  This view assumes (infers) that the first day of Unleavened Bread, the 15th, was considered a feast Sabbath.
As well, Calvin explicitly believes that Christ never violated the Law.  This too infers that Calvin thought the initial Mosaic observance of Passover occurred on the 15th.
So, in Calvin's view Friday the 15th Passover was a Sabbath and on which Christ died.  It was followed by the 16th weekly Sabbath when the others observed Passover.
From Calvin's Harmony of the Gospels

But hence arises a more difficult question. How did Christ observe that ceremony on the day before the whole nation celebrated the public passover? For John plainly affirms that the day on which Christ was crucified was, among the Jews, the preparation, not of the Sabbath, but of the passover....
First, it is beyond a doubt that Christ was put to death on the day before the Sabbath; for he was hastily buried before sunset in a sepulcher which was at hand, (John 19:42,) because it was necessary to abstain from work after the commencement of the evening. Now it is universally admitted that, by an ancient custom, when the passover and other festivals happened on Friday, they were delayed till the following day, because the people would have reckoned it hard to abstain from work on two successive days....
Even the Jews themselves unquestionably will not deny that, whenever the Sabbath immediately followed the passover, it was on one day, instead of both, that they abstained from work, and that this was enjoined by the Rabbins. Hence it follows that Christ, in departing from the ordinary custom, attempted nothing contrary to the Law.

This view incidentally that Friday was the 15th of Nisan is traceable through the Roman Catholic Church back to about 100-200 years before Christ's time, though not all the way back to the first in Exodus.  So, it is not accurate to state that the alternate view that Christ died on Passover proper the 14th is not Christian.  There are historically numerous Christians (Polycarp, Polycrates, Clement of Alexandria, etc) who taught this accurate understanding of the day and date of Christ's death and burial.
As to answering how the first Passover was observed in the time of Moses, the commandment was to slay the Passover at sunset between the evenings as the 13th ended and the 14th began.  They would eat it on the 14th at night.  The death angel would come through at midnight of the 14th.  In the 14th at day, they gathered at Ramses.  They left Egypt at night on the 15th the morrow of the Passover (Num. 33:3).


Was adelphopoiesis a plural rite? Was the rite of "brother-making" exclusive to two individuals, or could a man make more than one other man his brother? Is there any part of the rite that requires you to be nonunited previously?

Adelphopoiesis, or Ordo ad Fratres Faciendum as it may have been known in the Western Church, was used to unite two men as brothers in spirit. Some sources that I have read have described this rite as a method of establishing familial bonds where they did not previously exist, for the legal purpose of extending an inheritance to a close friend for example, much like adoption, but an adoption of a sibling instead of a child.

The customs apparently differed in different areas and locations. But generally the rite existed wherever sworn kinship was practised, and may have also been practiced as a pact between soldiers or "brothers-of-arms".

Modern interpretations have tried to illustrate the rite as a union of homosexual couples, but there are cases where individuals were both heterosexually married and united to a brother. There are also many arguments that distinguish the rite from marriage, even though the ceremony has many aspects that are similar to a marriage ceremony.

My question is: Can you have more than just one brother by this rite?

Related: What is the case in favour of adelphopoiesis as a relationship akin to marriage?

Yes adelphopoiesis could be used to join multiple persons as siblings. It was also used for children who were ether orphaned or needed to be sent abroad due to war or economic calamtities (or whatever). They would have a blessing to make them siblings and have each others backs.

The most famous case is that of Photius Kasavales Fisk, who was a U.S. Navy chaplain in the 1870's. At 15 years old he was orphaned from the Greco-Turkish War of 1821, and a Protestant missionary (Pliny Fisk) found him living amongst relatives in Malta. He secured Photius an education in America, where the local Greek priest, after examination of Pliny Fisk's intent, also sent his 11 year old son Anastasius together with Photius for a better life. It was agreed that the boys would not be separated upon arrival in America, and the priest performed the rite uniting the boys as brothers.

You can read about it from Photius Fisk biography, written in 1891. Note this blessing has nothing to do with marriage or sexual unions (that's an invention of the last few decades). It is more akin to an adoption ceremony.  Read Photius Fisk: A Biography, by Lyman F. Hodge pages 23-26.


Why does the NIV have 16 verses missing from the Bible? Why does the NIV have 16 missing verses from the Bible?

Matthew 17:21
Matthew 18:11
Matthew 23:14

Mark 7:16
Mark 9:44
Mark 9:46.
Mark 11:26.
Mark 15:28

Luke 17:36.

John 5:4

Acts 8:37.
Acts 15:34.
Acts 24:7.
Acts 28:29

Romans 16:24.

1John 5:7

I read from the KJV & I did a side by side to see if what I was told is true. Well, it is. I just want to know why?

It is NIV (not NLV); and all modern Bible versions contain those differences with the KJV. The reason is that the modern versions are made from more reliable manuscripts than the KJV, which was made from 10th century codex. Here is a whole series of lecture on Bible translations by Dan Wallace, that answers this.


What theological statement would be made if the Creeds preceded the homily? In both the Anglican and Catholic Mass, the Liturgy of the Word (aka reading the lessons), begins with Scripture, includes a Homily, and then concludes with the recitation of one of the Creeds.  Following the Liturgy of the Word, the Prayers of the People begin. This seems fairly consistent across many of the liturgical traditions.  This order also helps to de-emphasize the sermon, emphasizing instead the Eucharist as the highlight of the service.

But, as a old-Baptist, I have to admit, this kind of annoys me. :)

In a Baptist liturgy, the sermon does take a more central place.  Furthermore, the crux of the service - the emphasized highlight so to speak - is typically that sequence in which the sermon concludes forcefully, the preacher gives an altar call, and then everybody sings a song while someone "comes forward" after having made "a decision."  (Okay, number of times someone has actually come down the aisle after making a spontaneous decision - Negilible - but that's the theory at least.)

Anyways, what I've always liked about the Baptist model is that the "altar call & song" provides a space in which the congregation can meditate on the message, internalizing and applying what was said.  Something about singing an old hymn that you know by heart (you don't introduce a new song in that slot!) somehow seems to provide more of a space for reflection to me than saying a creed.

Now, the prayers of the people can also also afford that space (since the LEM is reading) - but there's still that Creed that sticks out like a sore thumb to me.  So naturally, I wonder, why not say the Creed before we read the Word.

It would seem to me that saying the Creed before the Lessons and the Homily would signal an agreement of some kind - that we believe this Truth, and are therefore ready to be instructed in the Word of the Lord.

The question is, am I opening up a theological can of worms in altering the order of the mass?  Is there an unintentional theological statement that would be made in changing this?  Would such a thing be allowed in a Catholic service? (Episcopalians wouldn't care, so I ask about the Catholics).  In short - what effect would altering this order have on the theological construct of the order of worship?

am I opening up a theological can of worms in altering the order of the mass?

Yes. It's not just the change you're talking about, but any change at all. The Mass is the way it is for a reason (tradition). Here's a part of tradition that makes the teaching of Scripture the foundation for the central Eucharistic Celebration. Jesus meets two disciples on the Road to Emmaus. He interprets all the prophets, and they invite Him to stay with them:

  Luke 24:29-31
  29 But they urged him, “Stay with us, for it is nearly evening and the day is almost over.” So he went in to stay with them.
  30 And it happened that, while he was with them at table, he took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them.
  31 With that their eyes were opened and they recognized him, but he vanished from their sight.

Their eyes are not opened during the teaching, but as soon as Jesus says "the blessing" and they take the Eucharist, they recognize Him. The recognition of Jesus is central, not the teaching. If it helps, as a Catholic, it kind of annoys me that a sermon would ever be emphasized more than the Eucharist. Annoyance aside, the Mass for Catholics goes back a long way, so changes are pretty serious. Priests have to follow the rubrics, so no, they wouldn't be allowed to change it.

  why not say the Creed before we read the Word ... what effect would altering this order have on the theological construct of the order of worship?

The Creed is a profession of Faith and a rejection of heresy. It was put in order after the Gospel because the Faith is based on the Gospel. The Creed is a response to what has been said, like a very detailed "Amen". Agreement isn't what you need before you hear something, it comes after. We are made "ready to be instructed" in part by the other Bible readings, because the words of the prophets make us ready for the words of Jesus.

In the Catholic liturgy, there's already a moment to meditate and internalize. After saying the Homily, the priest pauses and sits in silence (video). There is no singing of an old hymn (do you mean a psalm, or a contemporary song based on a psalm?). After this, Catholics, who would know these by heart, say the 1,632 year old Nicene Creed or the Apostles' Creed.


Can dogma ever be modified, and how does this relate to papal infallibility? I have two questions related to the concept of dogma in the Catholic church. I appreciate any guidance. Also, references would be helpful.

Is there any point in the history of the Roman Catholic Church where the actions of the Pope and or the magisterium undermine the dogma of papal infallibility (i.e. instances which contradict the teaching of the papal infallibility)?
Can a dogma develop? That is, can a certain dogma be established, and be modified afterwards? If so, has this happened before in the Roman Catholic Church?

First, some much-needed background. The pope is infallible only when he speaks ex cathedra. Ex cathedra is not a linguistic formula, it is simply a way to recognize those times when the pope gives a teaching that is correct and will remain correct forever. Ecumenical councils are another organ of infallibility, but we can talk about just the pope without missing anything important to this question. The pope does not always speak ex cathedra, so papal infallibility isn't called into question over every statement the pope makes. Only those statements about faith and morals would even qualify.

Some people think that when the pope speaks in this way, he is to be seen as creating something, like an artist adding paint to a canvas. That is not what the pope does. Imagine instead an unchanging mural set into a rock. Parts of it are obscured by debris, and other parts are splashed with paint. Some people are performing restoration. Others try to paint on top of paint. The pope, as pope, does not get involved with any of this. The pope does not paint. Instead, he sits down on a chair that's set apart, and, guided by the Holy Spirit, points to the exposed surface of this mural that is (and remains) immaculate, free of all human machination and accumulated grime. If his hand were covered in blood it would still, by the Holy Spirit, point up to truth. If millions of people surrounded him and raised their hands up in disarray, it would be his hand that Catholics would know to look for. His hand is guided by the Holy Spirit and directed at the Word. He sits upon the seat of Saint Peter. Catholics try to raise our hands to point to the same place.

I hope the above is not too metaphorical, but it is difficult to convey what role the pope and magisterium play in Catholicism by just saying that the pope is never wrong and that doctrines never change.

In case things are still not clear, here are some short answers to your questions:

No pope has ever infallibly proclaimed that he is fallible.
No pope has ever denounced an infallible teaching.
Nor has one infallible statement ever been set against another one.
Nor has any pope ever made a doctrinal error when speaking in this way:

  The broad fact, therefore, remains certain that no ex cathedra definition of any pope has ever been shown to be erroneous. (The Catholic Encyclopedia on Infallibility)

Dogma is not developed and adjusted and fitted over time.
Infallible statements are made when confusion begins to arise on a certain clear matter.
Doctrines cannot be changed:

  No, the Church cannot change its doctrines no matter how badly some theologians may want it to or how loudly they claim it can. The doctrines of the Catholic Church are the deposit of faith revealed by Jesus Christ, taught by the apostles, and handed down in their entirety by the apostles to their successors. Since revealed truth cannot change, and since the deposit of faith is comprised of revealed truth, expressed in Scripture and Sacred Tradition, the deposit of faith cannot change. (From "Catholic Answers")

Of course, a person might disagree with the Pope, or with Ecumenical Councils, or with the Catholic Encyclopedia, or with the idea of papal infallibility, or even with the idea of there being anything to point to. That would be another hand being raised; we can only pray that all our hands will eventually point up to the same place. This site is not set up for argument, though: if you'd like to know if some particular ex cathedra declaration of the pope has been proven incorrect according to some standard, you would need to ask another question about the particular case.


Does divine simplicity imply that God is identical to his attributes? Scope: Philosophy of orthodox Trinitarianism.

Off the top of my head, the Bible says that God is love, God is light, God is truth,
 God is wisdom, and God is Spirit.

Is it a more general conclusion of divine simplicity that God's essence is identical to his attributes? I vaguely remember encountering this argument but cannot remember the source.

Formulated in precisely this way (namely, that God’s essence is identical to His attributes), probably the best source is St. Thomas Aquinas.

For example, in his Summa theologiae, Ia, q. 3, a. 6, in which he asks the question, “Does God have any accidents?” Aquinas answers in the negative, and the first objection regards the Divine Attributes:

  [W]isdom, virtue, and the like, which are accidents in us, are attributes of God. Therefore in God there are accidents. [Note that this is an objection that Aquinas later refutes.]

Aquinas explains in the responsum that God cannot have any accidents for a variety of reasons: first, because the substance-accident composition is an actuality-and-potentiality pair which is impossible in God (who is the First Cause and thus Pure Act); second, because God’s Essence is identical with His Being, and hence unfettered and unlimited, which prevents anything extraneous from being “added” to it; finally, because God cannot not have “properties” that are distinct from Himself, since these would be “part” of Him and yet caused by Him, but there is nothing caused in God.

In response to the objection, he simply observes that wisdom, virtue, and similar attributes are not predicated of God and of man in exactly the same way. Although such attributes would be accidents in man, they are not so in God.

It follows that these attributes are identical with God. (We see this idea confirmed in other parts of the Summa, for example, Ia, q. 13, a. 4.)

This idea, however, was expressed earlier by the Fathers of the Church. For example, St. Augustine affirms it in his De Trinitate, V, 2:

  But other things that are called essences or substances admit of accidents, whereby a change, whether great or small, is produced in them. But there can be no accident of this kind in respect to God; and therefore He who is God is the only unchangeable substance or essence, to whom certainly being itself, whence comes the name of essence, most especially and most truly belongs.

However, this is not Augustine’s invention: it was the universal consensus of the Fathers, including Clement of Alexandria, Basil, Cyril of Alexandria, John Damascene, and Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite.


In what language was the Book of Matthew written? I have heard it taught in several places that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew and its intended audience was the Jews (which would help explain why it seems a bit more vague on key Christian concepts). But recently I have been told that there are no Hebrew manuscripts of this text. I assume at least that the person who told me this meant that there are no Hebrew manuscripts that outdate the Greek ones.

So in what language was Matthew written?

It's hard to know for certain, but there are very good reasons to believe all four gospels were written in Greek. However, according to the earliest Christian tradition, Matthew was written in Hebrew.
Papias, an early second century bishop and a disciple of the Apostle John, is our earliest witness to the tradition that Matthew was the author of this gospel.

Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could.

Irenaeus, writing in the late second century, elaborated on this.

Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church.

All four gospels were originally published anonymously, and it is only through the testimony of these two second century bishops that we attribute this gospel to Matthew. If we take their testimony at face value, then we might say the Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Hebrew.
Parallels between Matthew and Mark
However, the Gospel of Matthew in its current form—that is, the one that appears in every copy of the New Testament going back to the oldest surviving copies—was almost certainly written in Greek.
As Dick Harfield mentions in his answer, we find close parallels between Matthew and Mark in several places. In this example from the Transfiguration (Matthew 17:1-8 || Mark 9:2-8) I have bolded exact parallels and italicized words and expressions that the later writer has modified.

Matthew 17:1-8
Six days later, Jesus took with him Peter and James and his brother John and led them up a high mountain, by themselves. And he was transfigured before them, and his face shone like the sun, and his clothes became dazzling white. Suddenly there appeared to them Moses and Elijah, talking with him. Then Peter said to Jesus, "Lord, it is good for us to be here; if you wish, I will make three dwellings here, one for you, one for Moses, and one for Elijah." While he was still speaking, suddenly a bright cloud overshadowed them, and from the cloud a voice said, "This is my Son, the Beloved; with him I am well pleased; listen to him!" When the disciples heard this, they fell to the ground and were overcome by fear. But Jesus came and touched them, saying, "Get up and do not be afraid." And when they looked up, they saw no one except Jesus himself alone.
Mark 9:2-8
Six days later, Jesus took with him Peter and James and John, and led them up a high mountain apart, by themselves. And he was transfigured before them, and his clothes became dazzling white, such as no one on earth could bleach them. And there appeared to them Elijah with Moses, who were talking with Jesus. Then Peter said to Jesus, "Rabbi, it is good for us to be here; let us make three dwellings, one for you, one for Moses, and one for Elijah." He did not know what to say, for they were terrified. Then a cloud overshadowed them, and from the cloud there came a voice, "This is my Son, the Beloved; listen to him!" Suddenly when they looked around, they saw no one with them any more, but only Jesus.

Although these are not exact copies of each other, the presence of so many exact phrases is a strong indication that one author used the other as a source. There are good reasons to believe that Matthew used Mark as a source, and not the other way around.
Differences between Matthew and Mark
First, there are a number of passages where Matthew elaborates on what is written in Mark. For example, compare their accounts of Jesus' temptation in the wilderness. Again, I have bolded exact parallels and italicized words and expressions that the later writer has modified.

Mark 1:-12-13
And the Spirit immediately drove him out into the wilderness. He was in the wilderness forty days, tempted by Satan; and he was with the wild beasts; and the angels waited on him.
Matthew 4:1-11
Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. He fasted forty days and forty nights, and afterwards he was famished. The tempter came and said to him, "If you are the Son of God, command these stones to become loaves of bread." But he answered, "It is written, "One does not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.' " Then the devil took him to the holy city and placed him on the pinnacle of the temple, saying to him, "If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down; for it is written, "He will command his angels concerning you,' and "On their hands they will bear you up, so that you will not dash your foot against a stone.' " Jesus said to him, "Again it is written, "Do not put the Lord your God to the test.' " Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor; and he said to him, "All these I will give you, if you will fall down and worship me." Jesus said to him, "Away with you, Satan! for it is written, "Worship the Lord your God, and serve only him.' " Then the devil left him, and suddenly angels came and waited on him.

It is hard to see why Mark might have left out these details if he had them available. The more likely explanation is that Matthew added them.
In some places, Mark displays an apparent lack of geographical knowledge. In Mark 5:1 Jesus is said to have crossed the sea of Galilee to "the country of the Gerasenes". The parallel in Matthew 8:28 says "the country of the Gadarenes". Gadara (modern Umm Qais) is located by the sea of Galilee, while Gerasa (modern Jerash) is more than 30 miles away.
Following the feeding of the four thousand, Mark 8:10 states that Jesus got in his boat and went to a place called Dalmanutha. This name is not mentioned anywhere else in ancient writings, and no town by that name has ever been uncovered. Matthew 15:39 says Jesus went to Magadan (or Magdala in some manuscripts).
It's hard to imagine why Mark would choose the words "Gerasenes" and "Dalmanutha" if he had a copy of Matthew's gospel in front of him. The more likely explanation is that Matthew corrected what he recognized as errors.
Conclusion
So how do we reconcile the evidence that Matthew used the Greek Gospel of Mark as a source with the tradition that the Gospel of Matthew was written in Hebrew or Aramaic?
One possible explanation is that Papias and Irenaeus are referring to an early gospel written by Mathew in Hebrew, and that the book we know as the Gospel of Matthew drew upon this (or a translation of it) to supplement the information he got from Mark. Since we have no surviving Hebrew manuscript, it's hard to say how likely this is. But in either case, the gospel that made it into the Bible with Matthew's name was composed in Greek.


Who told Eve about the fruit? How could Eve know not to eat from the fruit when there are no lines of verse showing she was ever told? It said "God told the man..." Eve wasn't made until later. I've checked several versions. Is this hinted in the Hebrew? Was it God or Adam that told her?

It may not be clearly represented that God instructed Eve, but it is clear that she knew:

  1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God actually say, 'You shall not eat of any tree in the garden'?"
  2 And the woman said to the serpent, "We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden,
  3 but God said, 'You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.'" - Genesis 3:1-3 ESV

Also, note that Adam was present, as we learn a few verses later:

  So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate. - Genesis 3:6 ESV

Keep in mind that the bible is not like a screenplay, in that not every event or conversation is documented.  But in reading Eve's response to the serpent, she clearly knew that God had forbidden eating from the tree of life.


What is to be understood by Mary being the "mother of the church"? Ever since St. Ambrose of Milan there has been a line of thinking that Mary is the "Mother of the Church" - what is to be understood by this title?

Catechism of the Catholic Church 963 referencing Lumen Gentium 53 says, "She is 'clearly the mother of the members of Christ' . . . since she has by her charity joined in bringing about the birth of believers in the Church, who are members of its head."

  Lumen Gentium 53 The Virgin Mary, who at the message of the
  angel received the Word of God in her heart and in her body and gave
  Life to the world, is acknowledged and honored as being truly the
  Mother of God and Mother of the Redeemer. Redeemed by reason of the
  merits of her Son and united to Him by a close and indissoluble tie,
  she is endowed with the high office and dignity of being the Mother of
  the Son of God, by which account she is also the beloved daughter of
  the Father and the temple of the Holy Spirit. Because of this gift of
  sublime grace she far surpasses all creatures, both in heaven and on
  earth. At the same time, however, because she belongs to the offspring
  of Adam she is one with all those who are to be saved. She is "the
  mother of the members of Christ . . . having cooperated by charity
  that faithful might be born in the Church, who are members of that
  Head."1 Wherefore she is hailed as a pre-eminent and
  singular member of the Church, and as its type and excellent exemplar
  in faith and charity. The Catholic Church, taught by the Holy Spirit,
  honors her with filial affection and piety as a most beloved mother.

  1. cf. Rom 8:29.

cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church 963-970.


How and when was homosexual practice separated from "homosexuality"? Many of the recent denominational statements on the topic of human sexuality make a clear distinction between being aware of having same-sex attractions, and engaging in same-sex erotic activity.  Examples:

The 1980 statement of the American Lutheran Church said,

  We believe it appropriate to distinguish between homosexual orientation and homosexual behavior. Persons who do not practice
  their homosexual erotic preference do not violate our understanding
  of Christian sexual behavior.
  The early draft of the 1993 version of the Catechism of the Catholic
  Church said,
  "Homosexuals do not choose their condition. For most
  of them it is an ordeal."

  In contrast, it is not too hard to find on the web condemnations of "homosexuality". As in condemnations of having the orientation.  The point of contention between the two camps is what is to be said of the celibate homosexual: do they exist? do they need to achieve "orientational conversion"?

So my question, for those who agree that there is a distinction, is how and when did such a distinction come about? Can it be found in treatments of the church fathers?  Or is it a relatively modern distinction, coming about after seeing homosexuals in the community?

In Catholic teaching, I believe the distinction was always there, although I am sure the idea of what sexual orientation actually is has developed along with our understanding of the subject in general

Like the distinction between instinctive lust/desire and indulging in it mentally or physically, so the distinction with homosexual attraction and indulging in it.

The catechism draft you quote (I have no idea how authentic it is, but that's not important) does not really shed any light on this question - A person may not choose to have homosexual attractions, anymore than a person chooses lustful attractions. This does not mean that the sexual orientation is born-in. In fact, from my lay-person-intensive analysis of the literature of the subject, we are pretty certain that sexual orientation, although biology plays a part, is not fully (max 50%) determined by biology.

SIDE NOTE pornography shows us "nicely" how malleable our sexual orientation is. the kind of things that a person can be conditioned to get turned on by, would scare the crap out of them before they get into it.


According to Catholicism must we all suffer in life? In the Catholic Church there is a certain mystic aspect regarding to the suffering of Jesus Christ in which often faithful who go trough sufferings, especially for the faith, see their suffering as somehow joining to that of Christ.
Very often Matthew 16:24-26 is cited here.
Must we all suffer in life?

Sometimes people focus too much on Christ's sufferings and not how much he poured out His love on the cross. Redemption by Christ was not so much achieved by how much He suffered, but how much He loved us (CCC 616). Suffering without love has little to no value, or even be senseless. However, suffering with love for your brethren is what counts. You will be judged by how much you loved in your life (St. John of the Cross). Thus, to answer the OP's question, indeed, we all need to suffer, because nobody will enter the Kingdom of Heaven without having loved.


Does the flesh of the peace offering get offered to women? During the Laws for the sin offering in Lev Chapter 7, which Jesus replaced by his own sacrifice. A limitation for the actual food was given for only the Men to eat of it.

Every male among the priests may eat it. It shall be eaten in a holy place. It is most holy. (Lev 7:6 NKJV)

Now directly after the sin offering, they could offer the sacrifice of peace offerings, this offering I am under the impression is described in 1 Cor 11.

11 ‘This is the law of the sacrifice of peace offerings which he shall offer to the Lord: 12 If he offers it for a thanksgiving, then he shall offer, with the sacrifice of thanksgiving, unleavened cakes mixed with oil, unleavened wafers anointed with oil, or cakes of blended flour mixed with oil. 13 Besides the cakes, as his offering he shall offer leavened bread with the sacrifice of thanksgiving of his peace offering. 14 And from it he shall offer one cake from each offering as a heave offering to the Lord. It shall belong to the priest who sprinkles the blood of the peace offering.
15 ‘The flesh of the sacrifice of his peace offering for thanksgiving shall be eaten the same day it is offered. He shall not leave any of it until morning. 16 But if the sacrifice of his offering is a vow or a voluntary offering, it shall be eaten the same day that he offers his sacrifice; but on the next day the remainder of it also may be eaten; 17 the remainder of the flesh of the sacrifice on the third day must be burned with fire. 18 And if any of the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace offering is eaten at all on the third day, it shall not be accepted, nor shall it be imputed to him; it shall be an abomination to him who offers it, and the person who eats of it shall bear guilt. (Lev 7:11-18 NKJV)

Event-wise I am having trouble separating the two events. Therefore if the sin offering was to only be eaten my the men, is the flesh to be limited to only men?
Note the warnings of partaking of the flesh while being unclean:

‘The flesh that touches any unclean thing shall not be eaten. It shall be burned with fire. And as for the clean flesh, all who are clean may eat of it. 20 But the person who eats the flesh of the sacrifice of the peace offering that belongs to the Lord, while he is unclean, that person shall be cut off from his people. 21 Moreover the person who touches any unclean thing, such as human uncleanness, an unclean animal, or any abominable unclean thing, and who eats the flesh of the sacrifice of the peace offering that belongs to the Lord, that person shall be cut off from his people.’” (Lev 7:19-21 NKJV)

I think it is clear from the text that the eating of the trespass offering in the OT was restricted to males.  Women were generally not allowed to touch sacrifices, not sin and trespass offerings anyway, since they menstruate, as is explained in the Apocrypha, in Baruch 6:29 RSV-CE (Also known as Letter of Jeremiah 1:29 in some others translations) "Sacrifices to [idols] may be touched by women in menstruation or at childbirth. Since you know by these things that they are not gods, do not fear them."   The fact that this offering had to be eaten in the holy place itself would automatically restrict it to males only.  For some of the other offerings, they only had to be eaten in a clean place. Some of the verses about offerings that women could eat:  Leviticus 10:14, Numbers 18:11, 18:19.

I suspect your real question, due to the reference to 1 Cor 11, is why women are allowed to eat the bread in the communion, since Christ's sacrifice was a sin offering?  The simplest answer, from a Protestantish perspective, is that the communion is a memorial of Christ's sacrifice and not the sacrifice itself. Plus the concepts of ritual purity/impurity from the Old Testament are done away with in Christianity anyway.