Is there any good book on history of the heresy of Modernism? Is there any good book on the history of the heresy of Modernism (=synthesis of all heresies)? I am interested in how modernism came to be and how it survived St. Pius X attack on it. It would be good to have a detailed account.

This is a good introduction to the history and philosophy of Modernism:

Dominique Bourmaud, One Hundred Years of Modernism: A History of Modernism, Aristotle to the Second Vatican Council (Kansas City, Mo.: Angelus Press, 2006).e-book en español: Cien años de Modernismo: Genealogia del Concilio Vaticano II

History

Emile Poulat, Histoire, dogme et critique dans la crise moderniste (Tournai, Belgium: Casterman, 1962).e-book in italiano: Storia, dogma, e critica nella crisi modernista

Romano Amerio, Iota Unum: A Study of Changes in the Catholic Church in the XXth Century (Kansas City, MO: Sarto House, 1996).e-book en español: Iota Unum: Estudio sobre las transformaciones de la Iglesia Católica en el siglo XX

Alexander Roper Vidler, A Variety of Catholic Modernists (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009).

Doctrine

Jean Baptiste Lemius and John Fitzpatrick, Catechism on Modernism According to the Encyclical “Pascendi Dominici Gregis” of His Holiness Pius X (London: R. & T. Washbourne, 1908).Fr. Lemius is the presumed drafter of Pope St. Pius X's encyclical on Modernism, Pascendi.

Thomas Joseph Walshe, The Principles of Catholic Apologetics : A Study of Modernism Based Chiefly on the Lectures of Père Garrigou-Lagrange “De Revelatione per Ecclesiam Catholicam Proposita” Adapted and Re-Arranged (Eugene, Or.: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 2009).

Jürgen Mettepenningen, Nouvelle Théologie - New Theology: Inheritor of Modernism, Precursor of Vatican II (London; New York: T & T Clark, 2010).The "New Theology" is neo-Modernism; Pope Pius XII condemned it in his 1950 encyclical Humani Generis, subtitled: "concerning some false opinions threatening to undermine the foundations of Catholic doctrine." It's drafter is thought to have been Fr. Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P, ∵ he wrote "The structure of the encyclical Humani Generis." Cf. also: Greenstock, David L., T.O.P., "Thomism and the New Theology," The Thomist, 13 (1950), p. 567 & this quote from it re: theological conclusions.

Key Magisterial Documents

Pope St. Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis & Syllabus of Errors, Lamentabili Sane (1907), Oath Against Modernism (1910)
Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis (1950)


What original text is the King James Version (KJV) translation of the Old Testament based on? The wording of the KJV Old Testament seems to follow (in general) that of the Tanakh, so can I conclude that it is specifically a translation of the Hebrew texts rather than a translation of the Greek (LXX)?

Following up on the "comment from depperm," it seems I get to answer my own question; I hope that's not frowned upon because there were some things of interest on Wikipedia, and I was hoping that my summary of these facts (?) could be confirmed?

  From Wikipedia:
  en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Version#Old_Testament –

[Note: This is my summary, my understanding of what I found on Wikipedia, so I've not put it in quotes, but only summarized what I found there, hoping that someone will either confirm that, both, the information is correct, and, that I've understood it correctly? ]

The Masoretic Text was used as the basis for translations of the Old Testament in Protestant Bibles, such as the King James Version (KJV), and American Standard Version, and for some versions of Catholic Bibles (after 1943). However, the text is sometimes adjusted to conform to the Greek LXX in passages where clarification or Christological interpretation was felt necessary. For example, the Septuagint (LXX) reading of Psalm 22:16 “They pierced my hands and my feet” was used instead of the Masoretes’ reading of “like lions my hands and feet.”  The Masoretic Text (MT) has many differences, of both greater and lesser significance when compared to the manuscripts of the Septuagint (LXX), a Greek translation (about 1000 years older than the MT) of the Hebrew Scriptures. The LXX was used in the quotations in the New Testament, especially those by the Apostle Paul.

The Masoretic Text (MT or M) is the authoritative Hebrew and Aramaic text of the Tanakh. It was primarily copied, edited and distributed by a group of Jews known as the Masoretes between the 7th and 10th centuries Common Era (CE). The ben Asher family was largely responsible for the preservation and production of the Masoretic Text, although an alternate Masoretic text of the ben Naphtali Masoretes, which has around 875 differences. The ben Asher family and majority of the Masoretes were Karaites, a Jewish religious movement characterized by the recognition of the Tanakh alone as its supreme authority in the Halakha (the collective body of religious laws derived from the Written and Oral Torah). When interpreting the Tanakh, Karaites strive to adhere to the plain or most obvious meaning or Peshat (not necessarily the literal meaning, but rather the meaning that would have been naturally understood by the ancient Israelites when the books of the Tanakh were first written. By contrast, Rabbinic Judaism relies on the legal rulings of the Sanhedrin as they are codified in the Midrash, Talmud or Oral Torah, and other sources to indicate the authentic meaning of the Torah. Karaites maintain that all of the commandments handed down to Moses were recorded in the written Torah without additional Oral Law or explanation. As a result, Karaite Jews do not accept as binding the written collections of the oral tradition in the Midrash or Talmud.

Bottom line, the answer to my question is ... Yes ...The KJV Old Testament is based on the Hebrew wording found in the TANAKH, rather than that of the Greek wording of the Septuagint (LXX). Please, if I've come to the wrong conclusions, someone, please, respond with the better answer.

So now, with that established, I'd like move on from this basis, and ask another related question (to be posted).

Addendum: Although the question initially concerned "only" the KJV, it was also intended to simply find out more about the LXX and Masoretic Text background. And so, I though it helpful to include this informative summary from the NIV.

The Introduction provided in the 2011 New International Version states:

For the Old Testament the standard Hebrew text, the Masoretic Text as published in the latest edition of Biblia Hebraica, has been used throughout. The Masoretic Text tradition contains marginal notations that offer variant readings. These have sometimes been followed instead of the text itself. Because such instances involve variants within the Masoretic tradition, they have not been indicated in the textual notes. In a few cases, words in the basic consonantal text [the original Hebrew used no vowels] have been divided differently than in the Masoretic Text. Such cases are usually indicated in the textual footnotes. The Dead Sea Scrolls contain biblical texts that represent an earlier stage of the transmission of the Hebrew text. They have been consulted, as have been the Samaritan Pentateuch and the ancient scribal traditions concerning deliberate textual changes. The translators also consulted the more important early versions—the Greek Septuagint, Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion, the Latin Vulgate, the Syriac Peshitta, the Aramaic Targums, and for the Psalms, the Juxta Hebraica of Jerome. Readings from these versions, the Dead Sea Scrolls and the scribal traditions were occasionally followed where the Masoretic Text seemed doubtful and where accepted principles of textual criticism showed that one or more of these textual witnesses appeared to provide the correct reading. In rare cases, the committee has emended the Hebrew text where it appears to have become corrupted at an even earlier stage of its transmission. These departures from the Masoretic Text are also indicated in the textual footnotes. Sometimes the vowel indicators (which are later additions to the basic consonantal text) found in the Masoretic Text did not, in the judgment of the committee, represent the correct vowels for the original text. Accordingly, some words have been read with a different set of vowels. These instances are usually not indicated in the footnotes.


How are Catholic priests chosen and assigned to specific parishes? I know that a certain amount of education is necessary before men can be ordained as a Catholic priest. But are all men that received the necessary education ordained as priests? If not, what is the selection process? And how are they assigned to a specific parish?

Many vocational offices explain this process in detail (the Diocese of Fall River has a good explanation, for example), but I'll try to explain it as best I know.

Before that, there are a few things to keep in mind:

There are two different "tracks": the diocesan track, where you are ordained as part of a diocese, and the religious track, where you are ordained as part of a religious order. You seem to be interested in the former, so this answer mostly answers to that. The processes are similar, it's just a question of where you end up.
Priests are, to put it somewhat bluntly, proxies for the bishop. A bishop cannot perform all the duties required of him for everyone, so the priests act as surrogates, performing many of the functions that are needed to successfully tend to the flock. In many ways, the process is about finding suitable matches for the bishops who need more priests: this is sort of the short answer to your question (the bishop decides).
One way to understand the full Ordination process and how the bishop makes his selection is to think of it like a very long, very structured introspection. Accepting the Sacrament of Holy Orders is a huge deal, one that will shape the rest of a person's life. The time in Seminary Formation and up to the Rite of Ordination into the Priesthood is basically the trial run period to see whether a person really, truly wants to commit to the life of a priest: committing one's life to the Church, taking a vow of celibacy, etc.

Process

The process starts off something like a Ph.D. track education in academia: when you go towards getting your Ph.D., you usually find out that you're interested in it during undergraduate school, then you go through an application process, then a core education (Master's) process, then you move into the meat of actually getting a Ph.D. (doctoral thesis).

Similarly, the path to ordination starts off with talking to a priest or other members of one's parish about being interested Holy Orders. The person will then apply to the diocese office of vocations, usually answering some basic questions about why they want to begin the process (example from the Archdiocese of Portland, PDF).

The vocation director will then make contact to begin the application process. This usually consists of a series of interviews, getting letters of recommendation, background checks, and other vetting processes to make sure the person has a high likelihood of succeeding.

Once accepted, the Bishop assigns the person to a seminary (with the recommendation of the vocations director) where they begin the process of Seminary Formation: they'll learn everything they need to know to begin the transition into the clergy. Simultaneously (if they don't already have it), they'll be receive the education to get a Master's Degree in Divinity (generally a requirement to receive Holy Orders).

They'll also begin the process of introspection and guidance to determine whether or not this is something really want to do and whether or not God is calling them to Holy Orders. This is done under the guidance of the vocation director who recruited them.1

Towards the end of Seminary Formation, men are ordained to the diaconate2 as a transitional deacon: similar to a permanent deacon, but with the understanding that they will soon be ordained a priest (usually in about 6 months).

It's at this point the bishop assigns them to a parish. This is sort of a "last chance" period to change one's mind and to start helping with the Liturgy in a real-world setting. The person is still in Seminary, but it's something like a "work-study" or "student teacher" program: he'll split his time between completing Seminary and doing the duties of a deacon.

At the end of Seminary, successful candidates undergo the Rite of Ordination into the Priesthood. Amongst other activities, the bishop will ask them a series of questions to make certain they'll ready to undergo the call of Holy Orders, but this is largely a formality: the Seminary Formation process was intended to weed out the candidates who would not make a good fit long before this moment. Think of it like a "swearing in" ceremony: candidates are going to know beforehand the answer is "yes", "I do", or "I will" to every question asked.

After which, the bishop will consecrate the candidates via the Laying on of Hands and ordain them into the Priesthood.

Once Ordained, priests serve under the bishop. The bishop can work with other bishops to transfer priests between dioceses depending on the needs of the Church.

Notes

1 It's important to note here that not everyone who goes through this process becomes a priest: many are never called by the Holy Spirit to receive Holy Orders and withdraw from the process within the first couple of years of Seminary.

2 If you're not familiar with the term, a Deacon is someone who is able to perform many sacraments one usually associates with a Priest: conduct sermons, baptize, and oversee marriages. But they can't do things like confer Holy Orders themselves or consecrate the bread and the wine used in the Eucharist (but they can help administer it).


How do Orthodox Bishops and theologians view the Church Fathers' definition of the word "catholic?" While perusing the Orthodox Church in America (OCA) website I came across this question.

I fully understand what the word catholic by itself means.  Orthodox Christians (like many liturgical Protestant denominations) recite the Creed with the understanding that the phrase "one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church" emphasizes the word catholic with a general meaning, whereas the Catholic Church obviously implies that the word Catholic is more specific.

From the website:

  Orthodox Christians understand the word “catholic” word to mean
  “whole, complete, lacking in nothing.” Hence, when we say “one, holy,
  catholic, and apostolic Church,” we mean that the one, holy, and
  apostolic Church is “whole, complete, and lacking in nothing.” The
  word “catholic” with a small “c” has nothing whatsoever to do with
  Roman “Catholic” with a capital “C”.

This explanation makes sense to me in all aspects except one - the writings of the early Church Fathers.

See CATHOLIC

There are many early writings, both East and West, that are very clear and direct about the Catholic Church being named the Catholic Church with a capital "C."

For example:

  "See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the
  Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also
  reverence the deacons, as those that carry out[through their office]
  the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the
  Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist,
  which is[administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has
  entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the
  multitude[of the people] also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he
  has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the
  multitude[of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is,
  there is the Catholic Church." Ignatius of Antioch,Epistle to the
  Smyrneans, 8:2(A.D. 110),in ANF,I:89

How do Orthodox Bishops and theologians view these specific and direct Patristic quotes in light of the Orthodox definition of the word "catholic?"

Greek manuscripts were written in the Greek uncial script from approximately the 3rd century BCE through the 12th century CE, and Latin manuscripts were written in the Roman majuscule script from the 7th century BCE through the 4th century CE. But even after miniscule script began being used, 'catholic church' was still rarely capitalized in the literature initially, because it likely was not being used as a proper title but rather as a simple adjective. The first use of the combination ἡ καθολικὴ ἐκκλησία ("the Catholic Church") is in the exact reference cited in the question (Ignatius of Antioch's Epistle to the Smyrneans 8:2, written approximately 110 CE. Since capitalization is irrelevant in this time period, it is best to allow context to help us understand the intended meaning. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia:

  The word catholic "was freely used by the earlier Christian writers
  in what we may call its primitive and non-ecclesiastical sense. Thus
  we meet such phrases as the "the catholic resurrection" (Justin
  Martyr), "the catholic goodness of God" (Tertullian), "the four
  catholic winds" (Irenaeus), where we should now speak of "the general
  resurrection", "the absolute or universal goodness of God", "the four
  principal winds", etc. The word seems in this usage to be opposed to
  μερικός (partial) or ἴδιος (particular), and one familiar example of
  this conception still survives in the ancient phrase "Catholic
  Epistles" as applied to those of St. Peter, St. Jude, etc., which were
  so called as being addressed not to particular local communities, but
  to the Church at large.

This Catholic Encyclopedia entry goes on to point out:

  Among the Greeks it was natural that while Catholic served as the
  distinctive description of the one Church, the etymological
  significance of the word was never quite lost sight of. Thus in the
  "Catechetical Discourses" of St. Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 347) he
  insists on the one hand (sect. 26): "And if ever thou art sojourning
  in any city, inquire not simply where the Lord's house is--for the
  sects of the profane also attempt to call their own dens, houses of
  the Lord--nor merely where the church is, but where is the Catholic
  Church. For this is the peculiar name of the holy body the mother of
  us all." On the other hand when discussing the word Catholic, which
  already appears in his form of the baptismal creed, St. Cyril remarks:
  (sect. 23) "Now it [the Church] is called Catholic because it is
  throughout the world, from one end of the earth to the other...."

  There can be no doubt, however, that it was the struggle with the
  Donatists which first drew out the full theological significance of
  the epithet Catholic and passed it on to the schoolmen as an abiding
  possession. When the Donatists claimed to represent the one true
  Church of Christ, and formulated certain marks of the Church, which
  they professed to find in their own body, it could not fail to strike
  their orthodox opponents that the title Catholic, by which the Church
  of Christ was universally known, afforded a far surer test, and that
  this was wholly inapplicable to a sect which was confined to one small
  corner of the world. The Donatists, unlike all previous heretics, had
  not gone wrong upon any Christological question. It was their
  conception of Church discipline and organization which was faulty.
  Hence, in refuting them, a more or less definite theory of the Church
  and its marks was gradually evolved by St. Optatus (c. 370) and St.
  Augustine (c. 400). These doctors particularly insisted upon the note
  of Catholicity, and they pointed out that both the Old and the New
  Testament represented the Church as spread over all the earth. (See
  Turmel, "Histoire de la theologie positive, 1904, I, 162-166, with
  references there given.) Moreover, St. Augustine insists upon the
  consensus of Christians in the use of the name Catholic. "Whether they
  wish or no", he says, "heretics have to call the Catholic Church
  Catholic" ("De vera religione", xii). "Although all heretics wish to
  be styled Catholic, yet if any one ask where is the Catholic place of
  worship none of them would venture to point out his own conventicle"
  (Contra Epistolam quam vocant Fundamenti, iv). Of later exponents of
  this same thesis the most famous Vincent of Lerins (c. 434). His canon
  of Catholicity is "That which has been believed everywhere, always,
  and by all." "This", he adds, "is what is truly and properly Catholic"
  (Commonitorium, I, ii).

I highly recommend you read the entire entry for more information. Of course later in history after the Eastern and Western church split, the bishop of Rome called the Western church the Roman Catholic Church, and the East opted to go with the title 'Orthodox.' It should be noted that the Greek adjective orthodox (ὀρθόδοξος) is dated to the late 3rd or early 4th century, and thus was in common use in the whole church prior to this split as well. It should also be pointed out that this distinction did not develop until much later in history (i.e. after the 11th century). Early on Eastern Christians were merely called "Greeks" and Western Christians "Romans." Phrases such as "the orthodox faith" and "the catholic church" were still applied to Christians both East and West (and still are in many ways).

To answer the question clearly, any speculation about the meaning of the word 'catholic' has nothing to do with capitalization. Only context can guide interpretation, in which case the Eastern Fathers tended to retain both uses: that of a title and as a simple adjective. It should be no surprise that Eastern Orthodox Christians today also retain both meanings, albeit using capitalization as a means of distinction.


What is a historicist’s view of the seven seals in Revelation? Historicism is a method of interpretation in Christian eschatology that associates biblical prophecies with actual historical events (which may also be symbolic of repeated occurrences). This means that many things in Revelation have occurred while other things have not. Also that the symbols in the visions match major historical events in remarkable ways and in a chronology that actually occurs in the annals of history.
Historical interpretation naturally takes much more work than pure symbolic or mere speculative interpretation because one actually has to be familiar with the history of the world as it pertains to the Christian church. To be expected, the outcome of such hard work also leads to large amounts of information to provide as there is so much evidence to weigh. For example, this old classic on Revelation (Horae Apocalypticae; or, A commentary on the Apocalypse, critical and historical; including also an examination of the chief prophecies of Daniel 1862) is around 3000 pages of detailed arguments wrapping history around Revelation in chronological order.
My question:
Under a Protestant historicist view what are typically the seven seals in Revelation referring to?

The details argued by E. B. ELLIOTT are a good example of historic interpretations. He places the seven seals during the period of John’s writing of the Apocalypse until the time of the barbarian invasions of Rome.

The interpretation can be summarized as follows:

First Seal – While Horse with bow and crown conquering – Continued expansion of Rome (~ A.D. 96-184). All the symbols match the period as white, the crown and even the bow representative of the line of Emperor’s association with Crete, which was famous for the bow suit to this period of continued Roman conquest.
Second Seal - fiery red and taking peace and killing each other with a large sword – The civil wars that followed the expansion during approximately (~A.D 185 – 248) All the symbols match this period as the large sword indicates too much power given to the military leaders that suppressed the peace of the senate and resulted in killing each other through bloody civil war.
Third Seal - black horse, rider holding a pair of scales in his hand with voice mentioning the official cost of wheat, barley and a desire to protect oil and the wine – this indicates the injustice of the following period where the rich war machine overtaxed the masses resulting in greater inequality between the rich and poor (~A.D 248 - 268) All the symbols match as the scales represented justice and the backwards measuring represents injustice. Scales were also used to extract taxes and even oil and wine were part of the tax revenue.
Fourth Seal - pale horse, which was Death, and Hades killing by sword, famine and plague, and by the wild beasts – A period of initial barbarian invasions, poverty, plagues, natural disasters that made the period a low point (~A.D 268-292). All the symbols naturally match for it was more or less like the Black Death in the middle ages and during such times even wild animals begin to encroach upon the people in their weakness and death.
Fifth Seal - the souls of those who had been slain – the era of the Martyrs centered on the Diocletian persecutions (~A.D. 303). Naturally the symbols match as the fifth seal is about the martyrs.
Sixth Seal – an earthquake, sun turning black, moon turned blood red and stars fell etc.–This is the sudden change in the ‘heavenly powers’ of Rome, when the persecuted now became the powerful and Constantine declared Rome Christian (~A.D. 313). This is immediately followed by the 144,000 sealed, representing God’s election of his true church out from the initial beginnings of the anti-Christian church just established by Constantine through civil power of sword. Doctrinally this same truth was soon developed in revelation to St. Augustine establishing the tradition of the true church within the  anti-Christian power eventually leading to the future reformation along Augustinian lines.
Seventh Seal - silence in heaven for about half an hour – indicates the brief silent prayers of the elect before the first trumpet is to sound triggering the judgment of severe barbaric invasions on Rome, the beginning of judgment for its sins against the previous persecutions of the elect.

Of course not all historicists hold the same timelines but this gives a good example of how closely and logically revelation can be made to record a chronology of history before the events actually occurred. The strength of this method is that this is how most Old Testament prophecies regarding the coming Messiah are understood today. This means 'all biblical prophecy' can use the same uniform exegetical methods and that prophecies already fulfilled become potentially faith building (depending on one's confidence level) rather than just confusing.


What first century Jews were claimed to have risen from the dead? Which first century Jews have been claimed to have been risen from the dead? I know of Jesus, Lazarus, and John the Baptist.

Jesus is found in most of the NT, Lazarus is found in the Gospel of John, and John the Baptist is claimed to have risen by Jews and Herod in the Synoptics.

What other 1st century Jews are claimed to have risen? Sources are not limited to NT canon.

Jesus raised the daughter of Jarius (a synagogue ruler). By the time Jesus got to the house of Jarius, his daughter had died:

  "He took her by the hand and said to her, "Talitha koum!" (which means "Little girl, I say to you, get up!").  Immediately the girl stood up and walked around (she was twelve years old). At this they were completely astonished" (Mark 6:41-42).

Thunderforge mentioned an incident (in Acts 20:7-12) where a young man called Eutychus was listening to Paul preach in an upstairs room late at night:

  Seated in a window was a young man named Eutychus, who was sinkinginto a deep sleep as Paul talked on andon.  When he was sound asleep, he fell to the ground from the third storey and was picked up dead.  Paul went down, threw himself on the young man and put his arms around him. "Don't be alarmed," he said. "He's alive!" Then he went upstairs again... The people took the young man home alive and were greatly comforted."

There is also an incident in Acts 9:36-43 where Peter raised Tabitha, a disciple, from the dead.

I am unaware of any reference in the Bible to John the Baptist being resurrected. Where did that idea come from?

Of course, the difference between the resurrection of Jesus and any other person is that Jesus still lives, whereas Lazarus and the daughter of Jarius died later.  Likewise with the dead who came to life after the resurrection of Jesus (Matthew 27:52-53), as mentioned by D J Clayworth.


In the USA today are there congregations who still follow in the footsteps of J C Philpot? I hope, God willing, to visit the USA sometime and am looking for congregations who follow J C Philpot and J K Popham 'even as they followed Christ' (I Corinthians 11:1). These men denominated themselves 'Gospel Standard Strict Baptists' in the UK during the 19th and 20th centuries.

Are there gatherings in the USA which would be similar?

I am aware of the Wikipedia entry which notes only three affiliated congregations (Montana, Michigan, Wisconsin) but I was also interested in any wider following (as there is in the UK) which is not, necessarily, affiliated as such.

Note : I am specifically mentioning JCP and JKP because the present day 'articles' of that which is denominated have changed considerably since their time.

The closest equivalent to the British Strict Baptists in the US is Primitive Baptists, also called 'Old School Baptists' or 'Hardshell Baptists'. Like the Strict Baptists they practice believer's baptism and closed communion, take the Bible as their only doctrine, and eschew seminary training (they also oppose non-local missions). This theological statement by an Atlanta Primitive Baptists congregation gives more detail.

Related groups include the Missionary Baptists. I've been unable to discover if they have closed communion.

The List of Primitive Baptist churches linked from the Wikipedia page gives a list of around sixty congregations throughout the US. Since the Primitive Baptist movement consists of independent congregations with no control or accountability you may find the congregations very different. You should probably be warned that one of the congregations listed has a bad reputation nationwide for extremist inflammatory hate speech.


From a Fundamentalist standpoint, what does the phrase "Inspired, infallible, inerrant Word of God" mean? Many denominations teach that the Bible is the "inspired, inerrant, infallible Word of God."  Detractors of Christianity, and even some denominations within Christianity, disagree with all or some of those three descriptions.  Quite often, they counter with examples of errors in the Bible, or in various translations that show errors (such as the Wicked Bible's translation of Exodus 20:14).

Various questions and answers on this site have touched on one or all of these three statements, but we've yet to have an answer that describes how all three of these Biblical statements relate to each other, and to the nature of Scriptures.  Granted, there are different understandings, and per the site guidelines, I want to keep this scoped to the classic Fundamentalist understanding of the statement - namely that of the Churches and traditions that hold that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant Word of God.

I want to have this in layman's terms, in order to address the straw-man arguments leveled against the statement.

As noted in the question, these are layman's terms.  However, I am providing links to more official definitions, which have been used as source material.

Definition of the term "Inspired": The doctrine of the inspiration of the Bible means that the Bible in the original documents is God-breathed, that it is a divine product, and, because it is divine, the original documents are inerrant.

"inspired" does not mean "inspired" in the common sense, as in an artist is inspired to produce a great work, or a football team is inspired to perform better than normal due to a very motivational speech. In the doctrine of Divine Inspiration, the term carries the connotation that the words are the actual words of God.
Many cite 2 Timothy 3:16 as the source for the term "inspired".  The term "God Breathed" is translated from the Greek word "Theopneustos", which conveys the idea of God directly filled the writer with the necessary knowledge - the God breathed the knowledge into the writer.
From Clarke's Commentary on the Bible, we get two possible meanings for the idea of how this worked:

That every thought and word were inspired by God, and that the writer did nothing but merely write as the Spirit dictated.
That God gave the whole matter, leaving the inspired writers to their own language; and hence the great variety of style and different modes of expression.  (This is the understanding that is most common in Baptist Churches in particular, and in most Fundamentalist Churches in my admittedly limited experience.)

There are many, many verses in Scripture, other than 2 Timothy 3:16, that claim that the Bible is the direct Word of God, not that of man.  A more full treatment, including lists of such passages can be found at gospelgateway.com:
Note that inspiration and inerrancy are intertwined, but more specifically that they apply to the original documents.  Neither quality is attributed to translations o
and/or the copies of the original documents.
This leaves open the question of whether the translations we have today, all of which are based on copies, have been accurately transmitted through history.  Fortunately, we can answer that with a resounding "Yes, we can be very confident that what we have today is a fair representation of the original manuscripts".
It does mean that the Bible is the Word of God, not that it contains the Word of God.

Definition of "Inerrant": The doctrine of inerrancy stems from  the doctrine of inspiration.  Simply put, if all Scripture is indeed of God, then it cannot be erroneous.  God, being perfect, cannot make mistakes, and He has the power to ensure the original writers wrote down exactly what He intended.  A much fuller and more detailed exposition can be found in the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy.

Again, as with Inspiration, the doctrine of inerrancy applies only to the original autographs, not to copies and translations.
The doctrine of inerrancy does not imply hyper-literalism.  As noted above, in the second possible mechanism for Biblical Inspiration, we believe God allowed the writer's literary style to be used in the writing of Scripture.  Hyperbole (the use of exaggeration as a figure of speech.  Example, "I'm so hungry, I could eat a horse.") is allowed.
It also does not imply that our interpretation (understanding) of Scripture is necessarily without error.  Verses taken out of context, differences in understanding of meaning and original phrases, cultural differences, and misunderstanding of the meaning of certain phrases at the time the original document was written can (and have) led to many disagreements over the meaning of Scripture.

Infallible has a stronger meaning than inerrant.  Inerrant means the Bible contains no errors.  Infallibility means it cannot contain errors; that is, it would not be possible.  Again, this concept is a direct result of the doctrine of inspiration.  The Bible cannot contain errors because it is wholly the inspired word of God.

Taken together, the statements do not mean we believe that we have a perfect understanding of Scripture.  They do not mean our current Scriptures are perfect, even if we remove our imperfect comprehension and understanding from the equation.

So, what does the phrase "The Bible is the Inspired, Inerrant Word of God" mean to a Fundamentalist?

In simple terms it means God's Word was originally, accurately, and perfectly recorded by the prophets, kings, peasants, fishermen, political leaders, a tax collector, a rabbi, a cupbearer, and ministers that God used.  It was originally perfect, through God's divine power.

Combined with the evidence that we have that it was, for the most part, transmitted accurately through time, and the high degree of confidence we have in the reliability of today's manuscripts, the phrase tells us we can trust the Scripture we have.  It is therefore up to study it, understand it, and weed out erroneous teachings.  As Christians, we have a responsibility to understand correct doctrine because God has provided us with the information we need to do so.  The phrase means God's word is indeed profitable for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

I wanted to include this summary, from the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy but it didn't quite fit in with the above answer, as it's not really "Layman's Terms".  It is clear and concise, however.

  God, who is Himself Truth and speaks truth only, has inspired Holy Scripture in order thereby to reveal Himself to lost mankind through
  Jesus Christ as Creator and Lord, Redeemer and Judge. Holy Scripture
  is God's witness to Himself.

  Holy Scripture, being God's own Word, written by men prepared and superintended by His Spirit, is of infallible divine authority in all
  matters upon which it touches: It is to be believed, as God's
  instruction, in all that it affirms; obeyed, as God's command, in all
  that it requires; embraced, as God's pledge, in all that it promises.
  The Holy Spirit, Scripture's divine Author, both authenticates it to us by His inward witness and opens our minds to understand its
  meaning.
  Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching, no less in what it states about God's acts
  in creation, about the events of world history, and about its own
  literary origins under God, than in its witness to God's saving grace
  in individual lives.
  The authority of Scripture is inescapably impaired if this total divine inerrancy is in any way limited of disregarded, or made
  relative to a view of truth contrary to the Bible's own; and such
  lapses bring serious loss to both the individual and the Church.


Do we know which sea Jesus calmed? Preparing for a service at our church, I was reading Luke 8:22-25 when Jesus was asleep in the boat, is woken by his disciples and calms the storm. The same story is also told in Mark 4:35-41 and Matthew 8:23-27.

I had always assumed that Jesus and the disciples are on the Sea of Galilee, however it never says what sea they are crossing. Although not the greatest source ever, Wikipedia also says it happened on the Sea of Galilee.

My question is, how do we know that it is the Sea of Galilee? And if it isn't, is there other alternatives that it could be?

The next verse, Luke 8:26, places the event:

  They sailed to the region of the Gerasenes, which is across the lake
  from Galilee.

Galilee is on the west side of the Sea of Galilee, which means that the Gerasenes were likely on the east side.


When did guitar led worship music become accepted? When did guitar based worship music become common and accepted in church worship, when organs used to be the standard.

The acoustic (non-electric) guitar is an instrument with a very soft dynamic range relative to most other instruments, such as the organ, or wind instruments, and is not effective in leading large assemblies in worship. The electric guitar was invented in 1931, but the electric signal from the guitar required amplifiers to increase the volume of the sound, s without amplification, the signal from the electric guitar has a low dynamic range, too. Guitars began to be used in church when amplifiers became small enough to be portable, and became inexpensive in the late 1960's. The use of guitars in worship services was also encouraged by the liturgical reform movement that enveloped many denominations in the early 1960's, perhaps partly a consequence of the social consciousness engendered by the folk movement of the late 1950's and 1960's, where such songs as "If I had a hammer", and "We shall overcome" bore witness to a sense of social justice that conformed with Jesus' teaching. The electric guitar came to be used in these settings, in part because by this time it, and the associated amplifiers and speakers were inexpensive, and relatively portable when compared to the organ, and was a close match in volume to an organ for accompanying a group of people.

Most of those building what are today known as mega-churches adopted the guitar, and other non-traditional accompaniment styles, probably in part because they wanted to differentiate themselves from congregations in traditions where the organ was still more or less widely used, because of the inflexibility imposed by the size and immobility of the organ, and I suspect, in part, because of the expense and lead time involved when purchasing an organ.


How do Christians understand the omniscience of God in relation to the Uncertainty Principle? One of the foundations of modern quantum mechanics is the Uncertainty Principle.  This principle is not an assumption, but rather is derived from assumptions made with regard to the structure of nature. The basic statement of the Uncertainty Principle, however, is that it is impossible to know the values of certain characteristics to within an arbitrary accuracy.

If the Uncertainty Principle is a fundamental aspect of the universe, one could argue that God cannot be omniscient. So far, every experiment ever tested on matter has born out the practical implications of this principle and yielded the predicted results.

What does Christianity do with these results and how does their belief in an omniscient God fit into the picture?

To date, every test science has been able to make has been done on the created universe1. It is not possible to run the tests on the person or being of the creator directly. Thus what we know about God we derive from what He reveals to us2. His creation still tells us something about Him, but they are deductions from nature. Nature itself is not God3 and God is not bound to the rules of nature. On the contrary, rather than God existing somewhere inside the created universe and thus being bound to it's rules, the created universe exists IN him and thus is bound to obey the rules that He sets for it4. Likewise all things continue in Him and he upholds those laws as He sees fit, every second5.

  Hebrews 11:3 (ESV) By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.

  Romans 1:20 (ESV) For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

  Romans 1:25 (ESV) ...they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

  Colossians 1:16 (ESV) For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him.

  Colossians 1:17 (ESV) And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.


Are there any of the OT commandments of God that have been cancelled, but not clearly pronounced as cancelled in the NT? Are there some of the Old Testament commandments of God that have been cancelled with the coming of Christ, but not clearly pronounced as cancelled in the New Testament?

New Testament says that some of God-given commandments were abolished or cancelled with the coming, death, resurrection and ascension of Christ. For example, circumcision or keeping the Sabbath.

Some parts of the New Testament clearly state that and point to those particular commandments that had been cancelled, for example:

Circumcision:

  For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision avails any thing, nor
  uncircumcision, but a new creature (Gal. 6:15 AKJV)

Sacrifices:

  7:11"If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under
  it the people received the law,) what further need [was there then]
  that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and
  not be called after the order of Aaron?

  ...

  7:15[yet] there arises another
  Priest,

  7:16who is made not after the law of a carnal commandment, but
  after the power of an endless life

  ...

  7:18For there is verily a
  disannulling of the commandment going before for its weakness and
  unprofitableness.

  7:19For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing
  in of a better hope [did]; by which we draw nigh unto God

  ...

  7:28For the
  law makes men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the
  oath, which was since the law, [makes] the Son, who is consecrated for
  ever

  ...

  8:6[He] has obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also
  He is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon
  better promises.

  8:7For if that first [covenant] had been faultless, then
  should no place have been sought for the second.

  8:8For finding fault
  with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I
  will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house
  of Judah

  ...

  8:13In that he saith, A new [covenant], he hath made the first
  old. Now that which decays and waxes old [is] ready to vanish away

  ...

  10:1For the law having a shadow of good things to come, [and] not the very
  image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they
  offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.

  10:2For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the
  worshipers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.

  10:3But
  in those [sacrifices there is] a remembrance again [made] of sins
  every year.

  10:4For [it is] not possible that the blood of bulls and of
  goats should take away sins

  ...

  10:14by one offering He has perfected
  for ever them that are sanctified"  (Heb. 7:11, 15-16, 18-19, 28,
  8:6-8, 13, 10:1-4, 14 AKJV)

Now, I wonder if there are some of the Old Testament commandments of God that have also been cancelled, but not clearly pronounced as cancelled in the New Testament?

The way I understand these passages, they do not mean that the OT law was canceled.  Rather they refer to the fact that keeping the law cannot save us from Hell. We are saved by Grace alone through faith.  (Ephesians 2:8)

Circumcision was a sign that God gave to the people of Israel to signify that they were His.  It did nothing to save them, but rather it was a physical, external sign that they belonged to Him.

Animal sacrifices, likewise, were a temporary atonement for sins, but they never could save fully until Jesus became the perfect sacrifice.  As the verses you cited state, "it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins."

Other OT laws had to do with cleanliness and hygiene, and were clearly given to protect the people.  (These would be the laws about what to do with an "unclean" person, and include measures such as quarantine.)

As Jesus stated, "not one jot nor tittle of the Law should pass away" (Matthew 5:15).

The major point of Christianity, compared to Judaism, is this:  Judaism is still "under the law".  In other words, they are trying to earn their salvation by keeping the Law.  Christianity states that we cannot keep the law.  Everyone has failed, and none of us are righteous. (Romans 3:10, 23).

The law still stands, but it cannot save us.  We cannot be saved by obedience to the law or "works of righteousness".  Therefore, none of the law was cancelled.  What is good is still good.  What is wrong is still wrong.

The law, as it applies to us now exists to show us what sin is (Romans 7:7), so that we can see that we are lost and cannot save ourselves.

It also serves to stop sinners from justifying themselves.  How many people believe that they're really not a bad person and can get to heaven simply by being "good."  If we look at even the Ten commandments, we can see that we've all broken at least one.  As the bible states in James 2:10 (KJV)

  "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point,
  he is guilty of all."

Therefore, as we look at the perfect Law of God, the law shows us that we're not really "good" at all.  It stops the mouth of those who claim that they are good, and shows them that they are guilty by showing them what sin is. (Romans 3:19-20)

Therefore, the question is based on a false belief that certain laws were abolished.  The laws have never been abolished.  They also never had the power to save anyone by obedience to them.  The laws still exists, but through the redeeming blood of Christ, we are no longer held guilty.

Reading on in Romans, Paul continues in verse 31:

  Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we
  establish the law.

The rest of the book of Romans goes on to explain this far better than I ever could by paraphrasing, so I'll just leave it to yo to go through it.


What is meant by Living God? Why is Lord Jesus the True Living God? I would like to know what is meant by Living God? Are there non-living Gods also? I don’t think so. I partially understand that Living means who is alive. But I don’t know the true meaning. Someone please clarify if you would know.

As @NigelJ commented, the term "Living God" was in common use in the Old Testament, and when Jesus came He was naturally called the "Son of the Living God".

As you indicated, "Living" means alive.  On the other hand, "Non-living God" is usually termed "false god" in the Bible, referring to a god that is a product of human imagination, a corruption of the true God Yahweh, resulting in idol worship.  The prophets seriously warned Israel not to worship those gods because instead of giving life, one of them (Molech) demands child sacrifice! The prophets were relatively silent as to whether there are real demons behind those "gods" but emphatically warned Israel NOT to worship those "gods" because it broke covenant with Yahweh, invited curse and punishment, resulting in death not life.

When Jesus came, Jesus further revealed the true nature of Yahweh, so naturally the NT authors also gave Jesus the adjective "true" and encouraged the believers to beware of false teachers who propagated "false gospels" which corrupted the nature of Jesus and God in the NT period, and similarly broke the new covenant, invited punishment and resulted in death rather than life.

If we look at the range of uses in both OT and NT we can see within the context of those verses several reasons why the Biblical authors attached the adjective "Living":

In the OT:

As the God to be feared (Deuteronomy)
As the God who will win a battle for Israel (Joshua, 1 Samuel)
As the God who will punish foreign nations for their defiance against the God of Israel (2 Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah)
As the God who can save us (Psalm, Daniel, Hosea)

In the NT:

As Jesus's identity (Matthew 16:16)
When demanding someone to swear most seriously (Matt 26:63)
When redirecting worship to the real God (Acts 14:15)
etc.

Here's a good article going over various verbs that God did as a Living God:  speaks, listens, takes initiative, reacts, saving, which then prompts us as believers to naturally want to serve Him.


Is it ok to pray different prayers in conjunction to one another? I would like to know if it's appropriate to pray different prayers in conjunction with another?

For Example:

The Litany of Humility
Rosary
Prayer to a specific Saint
bedtime prayer

Insofar as the Catholic Church is concerned on this matter: there is no problem with praying different prayers in conjunction to one another.  I personally know many religious (Benedictine monks mainly) who do this very style of prayer daily.

Do not have any reservations about this style of prayer. Go ahead and pray the way the Lord inspires you...


What is the Holy See and when is it appropriate to use this term? Is the Pope, himself, ever referred to as the Holy See or is it simply the place where he lives?

Wikipedia says, "Often incorrectly referred to as 'the Vatican', the Holy See is not the same entity as the Vatican City State, which came into existence only in 1929; the Holy See, the episcopal see of Rome, dates back to early Christian times."

So what is it, exactly, and when should this term be used? Please include examples of when you would use the following, so that I might see the difference in selecting the most appropriate term for the right usage.

The Pope...
The Vatican...
The Holy See...

The pope is generally not called the Holy See, he is the bishop of the Holy See. The pope lives in the Papal Apartments located in Vatican City, and has a summer residence in Castel Gandolfo.

The pope is what we call the successor of St Peter: he is the bishop of a very old diocese (or "see", or "seat") called the Holy See. As its bishop, he has jurisdiction over that diocese. But because the pope has "primacy", he also has a certain kind of jurisdiction over the entire universal Church.
Vatican City is a sovereign city-state, established in 1929 and located inside the city of Rome. It is one of only three city-states today; Athens and Sparta are well-known ancient examples. Its ruler is the pope.
The Holy See is the diocese of the pope. It is also called the See of Saint Peter, the Apostolic See, and the Diocese of Rome. Its territory includes both Rome and Vatican City. This is an important diocese because it is the diocese of the pope, assisted by the Roman Curia (the Court of Rome), who together form the main governing body of the Church. The Holy See is a sovereign entity.

The Holy See is a sovereign entity, but is not a nation: it is a diocese that has universal jurisdiction. The territory of any diocese aligns with national/political borders only for practical reasons. If a church building were able to separate its church grounds from its country, it might become a sovereign state, but it would still be a part of its diocese, under the authority of its bishop.

When someone says "the Vatican" they might be talking about either the Holy See or Vatican City. Note the Catholic Encyclopedia article on the Holy See, part of which says:

  [...] We can thus readily understand how Holy See came be the technical term for the pope, the central ecclesiastical government, and the actual abode of the same.

It is probably best not to copy this potentially confusing practice (see synecdoche).

For more information see the section on jurisdiction in the Hierarchy article, and the article on the Pope.


What are the moral, religious, and promissory obligations of canon lawyers? Where canon lawyers are charged with

advis[ing] people about how to exercise their rights [as Catholics] and to fulfill their obligations in accord with [canon] law

and Canon Law is defined as

operates in service to the Church that has supernatural responsibilities ... [and is] the legal expressions of Christ's will for his Church

and yet, one does not need to be called to holy orders (be a priest) to be a canon lawyer

it is natural to question the moral, religious, and promissory obligations of canon lawyers.

Moral - Must canon lawyers live in accord to canon law to licitly practice? If not, is there a lesser law by which they must live?
Religious - Must canon lawyers be Catholics in good standing?
Promissory - Must canon lawyers make an oath before being licensed? If yes, what does that oath include?

Source of quotes

According to the aims of one [perhaps of only three] canon law schools in North America, Saint Paul University in Ottawa, Canada, the aim of the Faculty of Canon Law is:

  Following the wishes of John Paul II in the Apostolic Constitution
  Sapientia Christiana of April 15, 1979, the Faculty of Canon Law cultivates and promotes the juridical disciplines in the light of
  the law of the Gospel. Instructs its students in these disciplines, so
  as to form researchers, university and seminary teachers, and others
  who will be trained to hold special ecclesiastical offices, such as
  chancery and tribunal positions, and
  to serve as advisers to bishops and religious communities.

Therefore those who obtain the Licentiate in Canon Law (JCL) degree, an ecclesiastical program governed by the Apostolic Constitution Sapientiae christiana and subsequent legislation and norms of the Holy See, may become researchers, university and seminary teachers, and others who will be trained to hold special ecclesiastical offices, such as chancery [the administrative office of a diocese or a department of the Curia Romana now having the responsibility for issuing bulls to establish new dioceses, benefices, etc.] and tribunal positions, and to serve as advisers to bishops and religious communities. And they are to practise their profession in the light of the law of the Gospel.


Do any trinitarian Protestant traditions teach that anyone who denies the Trinity is necessarily unsaved? The traditional understanding of the Trinity, "one God in three Persons," is a widespread belief within Christianity, but there are nonetheless many nontrinitarians who associate themselves with Christianity.

It's my understanding that the Trinity is an important doctrine for most of Protestantism.  My question, however, is if acceptance of it is always considered absolutely necessary to be saved.

Are there any trinitarian Protestant traditions that explicitly teach that anyone who denies the doctrine of the Trinity is necessarily unsaved?

Note that I'm not looking for a tradition that won't let you become a member of their church if you are nontrinitarian.  I'm looking for one that says you are necessarily unsaved if you are nontrinitarian.  If such a tradition exists, which nontrinitarian beliefs (modalism, tritheism, etc.) are damning?

It's easy to find individuals who deny salvation to non-Trinitarians:

    Are Non-Trinitarians saved?

    I always wondered this since they deny the true nature of God. Jehovahs witnesses and Mormons do not have the same Christ as the Bible but only God can judge.

  No.

  Anyone denying The Creator as He has revealed Himself, Triune, will suffer the second death. source

  So how can you be a non-Trinitarian and a Christian? In short, you can't. source

I have also found rhetoric by Unitarians who claim that Trinitarians deny them salvation:

  According to orthodox Trinitarian doctrine, if a person claims to be a Christian but does not believe in the Trinity, he is not saved. source

Christian Research Institute president, Hank Hanegraaff, has made statements to the effect that non-Trinitarians are "non-Christians" (and therefore unsaved):

  It would be inappropriate to argue that Jehovah’s Witnesses or various other groups are non-Christian because they deny the doctrine of the Trinity, but that the United Pentecostal Church can reject the Trinity and still be considered Christian. source

While neither CRI nor Hank Hanegraaff represent any official denomination, they are both very popular among Evangelical Christians (Hank hosts a popular call-in radio program where callers can ask questions about Christianity, and is the author of several popular books).

TLDR I have yet to find an official denominational view that non-Trinitarians are unsaved, but there is clearly deep sentiment among many Christians that non-Trinitarians are unsaved.

And if I may add my own observation: Among Evangelicals who would not take a hard-line stance that non-Trinitarians are not saved, likely a significant number would at least say that non-Trinitarians are unlikely to be saved. That is to say, that in theory, a non-Trinitarian could be saved, but any honest non-Trinitarian who is saved would soon realize the "truth" and become a Trinitarian.


In consideration of Numbers 23:19, can God be a human? (Catholic perspective) In the King James Version of the Bible, it is mentioned in Num. 23:19 that God is not a human:

  19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good? KJV, 1769

Now we know that Jesus was a man, being the son of Mary. So, based on Num. 23:19, how can he also be God? I am requesting a Catholic perspective.

Numbers 23:19 doesn't say Yahweh cannot become a human, only that he isn't like humans, who do lie or fail to keep promises. Yahweh is essentially saying he can be trusted. A Catholic perspective teaches that Jesus is fully divine and fully human, and that these two natures are in hypostatic union.

The sinful state would lead humans to sin, but Jesus' humanity can be thought of as Adam's before he disobeyed Yahweh. Thus, being the incarnation of the divine word, Jesus obeyed perfectly even up to his time of death.


Has the US Catholic Church given an imprimatur to any English Bible translations intended for children? There are several Bible translations that have an imprimatur in the Catholic Church, such as the New Jerusalem Bible. This Wikipedia article lists other translations with an imprimatur, but as best I can tell, they are all intended for adults.

Has the Catholic Church within the United States given an imprimatur to any English Bible translations intended for children? By a Bible translation intended for children, I mean the likes of the International Children's Bible or the New International Reader's Version.

The US Conference of Catholic Bishops has published a partial list of approved translations, which contains

  Translation for Early Youth, A Translation of the New Testament for Children, Contemporary English Version, American Bible Society

However, this version is only approved for private use and study. It would appear that the only version approved for public use in the United States is the New American Bible Revised Edition (NABRE).


What is the significance of the donkey Jesus rode on Palm Sunday? I'm working on different symbols of Palm Sunday. Has anyone done work on the significance of the donkey Jesus rode on?

Yair Zakovitch, as cited by Bruce Feiler in Abraham, page 89, has considered the significance of the donkey. He explains:

  Look, the Gospels are a very good piece of Jewish literature, and they understand that one cannot have a messianic leader who is not Davidic.  If you want to convince the Jews that Jesus is the one, he has to be linked with David.  He has to fulfill the prophecies.  A messiah king has to be born in Bethlehem, he has to come to Jerusalem.  Sure enough, when Jesus enters Jerusalem he enters on a donkey, because that's what we read in Zechariah 9.


Did Jesus have a physical body before his incarnation? According to the doctrine of the trinity the Son is eternal.  Is this in reference to his divine nature only or the physical and divine?  If it is both physical and divine, then did the body shrink down into Mary?

The doctrine of the Trinity is only about the nature of the divinity of Jesus, whether it's less than or equal to God the Father.  So you are right that the Son is eternal like God the Father.  The council of Nicaea went even further into defining that there is no time when God the Father existed but Jesus did not.

The human nature of Jesus, on the other hand, was a completely different problem called the hypostatic union.  It has to do whether Jesus was 100 percent human & 100 percent God, less than 100 percent human & 100 percent God, whether Jesus truly suffered as a human, whether the union of human and God was mere appearance, etc.  A convenient list of other options of solving the problem can be found here, but the majority of mainstream Christianity have settled on a definition agreed at the Council of Chalcedon since 451 AD.

You can read the details and the development into the final agreement in the wikipedia article, but what was NOT an issue to the Church Fathers was the nature of the birth.  Jesus was in Mary's womb for the usual 9 months just like a normal baby, but it was just the conception that was special (i.e. not through sexual intercourse), but (pardon me for a little colloquial) it's like the Holy Spirit inseminated Virgin Mary's egg in a miracle.

"Shrinkage" was not necessary because before conception Jesus was in heaven with the Father, responsible for the creation of the universe John 1:1. As to Jesus's form in heaven before coming down to earth, we don't know.  But many Christians believe that being conceived as a baby within Mary's womb wasn't the Son of God's "first trip" to earth, and that he had appeared to Abraham (Gen 18) and possibly several others in the Old Testament, although at that time those who saw him thought of him as an angel in bodily form.

At any rate, I agree with curiousdannii's comment that the theology of pre-incarnate Christ's visitations on earth is far less established than the Incarnation itself, and may I add, it's far less critical to be believed as well.  Even if Jesus appeared prior to the virgin birth, as curiousdannii reminded us, the form may not be fully human either, so maybe it's safe to say that probably the answer to your question is a hard NO.  I'm including this wikipedia article on 'Christophany' to round off the answer.

In response to MegaAwp's follow up question on the definite starting point of the physical form of Jesus, I think most Christian theologians agree that God reveals only what is necessary for salvation and for our hope after the second coming, i.e. how we can pass the day of judgment and how we obtain eternal life in a resurrected body, just like Jesus.

So one of the main purposes of Jesus's assuming human form (besides to fulfill prophecies about the suffering servant, and to become the righteous second Adam who reverses the curse of the fall) was to provide a preview / deposit of hope so we are not too attached to the earthly bodily life, since in the era of the restored heaven and earth, we will have a resurrected body that is BETTER than what we have now.

In my opinion, the starting point is less important than the ending point.  That is probably why God didn't reveal to us in what form Jesus existed in heaven prior to His incarnation, except to assure us that Jesus is 100 percent God in heaven and earth (doctrine of Trinity), and 100 percent human and 100 percent divine, during his sojourn on earth (doctrine of hypostatic union).


What is Typology in the context of Christianity, and how does it help understand doctrinal matters? What is Typology in the context of Christianity, and how does it help understand, or enhance our understanding of doctrinal matters?

Also, is this something that the Church has always believed historically, or is it something that was introduced at a later time?

Note: I know this is several sub-questions, but I believe that all sub-questions would be needed for a complete answer anyway.  I'm looking for an introduction to the subject for anyone unfamiliar with the term and concept.

From Theopedia:

  Typology is a method of biblical interpretation whereby an element
  found in the Old Testament is seen to prefigure one found in the New
  Testament. The initial one is called the type and the fulfillment is
  designated the antitype. Either type or antitype may be a person,
  thing, or event, but often the type is messianic and frequently
  related to the idea of salvation. The use of Biblical typology enjoyed
  greater popularity in previous centuries, although even now it is by
  no means ignored as a hermeneutic.

  Typological interpretation is specifically the interpretation of the
  Old Testament based on the fundamental theological unity of the two
  Testaments whereby something in the Old shadows, prefigures,
  adumbrates something in the New. Hence, what is interpreted in the Old
  is not foreign or peculiar or hidden, but arises naturally out of the
  text due to the relationship of the two Testaments.

The use of Typology is useful in several applications.

An understanding of typology demonstrates the harmony between the Old and New Testament, as in the phrase "The New is in the Old Concealed, the Old is in the New Revealed"

Typology is also helpful helping us to gain a deeper understanding of important principles.
Typology helps us to understand who Christ was, and bring deeper meaning of Him by understanding the types that prefigured Him.
It is also used in attempts to understand prophetic works.   Again, from the Theopedia article:

  For instance, the promise of Genesis 3:15 is cast in terms of the
  struggle between men and serpents, and yet it contains the Gospel, as
  the Seed of the woman crushes the head of the Serpent once and for all
  on the Cross; it is for this reason that this verse is called the
  Protevangelium.

While Typology is commonly used within Catholic, Orthodox, and many Protestant denominations, it is discounted by many more liberal scholars:

  Lampe argues that, historically speaking, typology was traditionally
  understood as the real meaning of the Old Testament - a meaning read
  into it by the Holy Spirit, even though no one in the OT could have
  understood it. He concludes that not only is this old fashioned and
  out-dated, but typology is no longer to be pursued.

  Gerhard von Rad, who writes from a rather Neo-orthodox perspective,
  understands typology as just more or less analogical thinking.

For those that do not discount typology, many see it as a validation of the doctrinal concepts of Inspiration of Scripture, and infallibility.  To proponents, the clearly visible types and antitypes revealed in the Old and New Testament show God's handiwork throughout Scripture.  The perfect unity and harmony in books written many years apart from each other, by many different authors, with very different backgrounds, yet in agreement in so many points, with prophetic events is seen as nothing short of impossible if we were to try to imagine such things arising without divine influence.

  Typology represents a vital part of early Christian hermeneutics built
  upon the belief that God is in control and has unified His Word and
  the events in redemptive history.^[6]^ It is questioned whether
  typology is prospective (the OT type as a divinely ordained
  prediction) or retrospective (the NT antitype as analogously related
  but not prefigured in the type). It is likely that the solution lies
  in the middle. The OT authors and participants did not necessarily
  recognize any typological force in the original, but in the divine
  plan the early event did anticipate the later reality. Thus David's
  coronation (e.g., Psa. 2, 72, 110) did indeed foreshadow Jesus'
  enthronement as the royal Messiah, though it was not a direct
  prediction.

Whether it is valid or not as an approach toe eschatology or hermeneutics appears to be, controversial at best, it can be safely said that it is an approach to understanding Scripture that dates back to the earliest days of the Church.  This is no "new idea" that was snuck into Christianity, or was added to it later. The use of typology is as old as the Church itself.

Paul himself found it useful in illistrating certain concepts.  For example:

  1 Corinthians 15:45  (KJV) And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening
  spirit.

In the above passage, we have a Scriptural use of typology - a standard type that is still preached today - Adam as a type of Christ.


1 Kings 18 Obadiah and Elijah I am writing a short story based on 1 Kings 18, and I was wondering if the servant mention in verses 43 and onwards is Obadiah or not.

In verse 9, Obadiah refers to himself as Elijah's servant.

  9 ‘What have I done wrong,’ asked Obadiah, ‘that you are handing your servant over to Ahab to be put to death?

The servant that Elijah is with later on, however, wasn't named.

  43 ‘Go and look toward the sea,’ he told his servant.

Are they one and the same, or two different people?

I agree with gwofatlanta's conclusion and would put it in even stronger terms - it is highly unlikely that the servant in 1 Kings 18 refers to Obadiah.

Firstly, "your servant" was a common polite form of address in biblical times, and it is extremely common for it to be used in this non-literal sense.
Secondly Obadiah is specifically described as a palace administrator (18:3), so technically,if anyone's, he would have been regarded as King Ahab's "servant", and he would have been using the phrase "your servant" non-literally.
In order for him to have become the literal servant referred to later in chapter 18 and in chapter 19, verse 3, he would have to either: have been dismissed; have resigned; or have abandoned his previous position, and there is no mention of any of those things happening whatsoever.
Finally as gwofatlanta has already argued after being mentioned by name in chapter 18, it is unlikely he would not continue to be identified by name in the later episodes of the narrative.


Did Jesus' parables have different meanings to the different Gospel writer's congregations? My parish priest uses the example of Matthew 13:18-23 to explain that this one explanation of the parable of the sower was the one that Matthew, wanted to put in his Gospel to drive home some particular point, but Jesus Himself, did not explain His parables when preaching - so there are many interpretations that the listeners (and us) would go home with.

So, does it fall within the scope of a valid understanding of the Bible, that Jesus' parables have different meanings according to ones station in life?

I'd like a Catholic answer, but any decent answer that doesn't start out by negating the premise of the question (which I don't totally understand and therefore cannot defend)  would be acceptable.

In perfect Catholic form, the Catechism of the Catholic Church speaks pretty directly, but somewhat ambiguously if not paradoxically, on interpreting scripture and the Gospels in particular.

Firstly, scripture is still "open" for various and new understanding.

  Still, the Christian faith is not a “religion of the book.”
  Christianity is the religion of the “Word” of God, a word which is
  “not a written and mute word, but the Word which is incarnate and
  living.” If the Scriptures are not to remain a dead letter,
  Christ, the eternal Word of the living God, must, through the Holy
  Spirit, “open [our] minds to understand the Scriptures.” (CCC
  108)

This doesn't grant us freedom to read into scripture whatever we wish. Our interpretation must fit within the existing framework and beliefs of the Church. But, it does support the idea that various truths can be extracted from the parables within reasonable bounds.

With specific regard to the Gospels, we're fed two slightly contradictory messages:

  We can distinguish three stages in the formation of the Gospels:

  The life and teaching of Jesus. The Church holds firmly that the four Gospels, “whose historicity she unhesitatingly affirms,
  faithfully hand on what Jesus, the Son of God, while he lived among
  men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation, until the day
  when he was taken up.”
  The oral tradition. “For, after the ascension of the Lord, the apostles handed on to their hearers what he had said and done, but
  with that fuller understanding which they, instructed by the glorious
  events of Christ and enlightened by the Spirit of truth, now enjoyed.”
  The written Gospels. “The sacred authors, in writing the four Gospels, selected certain of the many elements which had been handed
  on, either orally or already in written form; others they synthesized
  or explained with an eye to the situation of the churches, while
  sustaining the form of preaching, but always in such a fashion that
  they have told us the honest truth about Jesus.”

  (CCC 126)

Furthermore (actually stated earlier):

  In Sacred Scripture, God speaks to man in a human way. To interpret
  Scripture correctly, the reader must be attentive to what the human
  authors truly wanted to affirm and to what God wanted to reveal to us
  by their words. (CCC 109)

On the one hand, we're told that the Gospels are true to the actual events. On the other hand, we're told that details were included and possibly fabricated to aid in our understanding. That in mind, I think the most reasonable understanding is that the events actually occurred, that Christ clarified things for his disciples, but that all truths revealed by the parables were not necessarily written in the Gospels.

What the CCC has to say with specific regard to the parables supports this notion:

  Jesus’ invitation to enter his kingdom comes in the form of parables,
  a characteristic feature of his teaching. Through his parables he
  invites people to the feast of the kingdom, but he also asks for a
  radical choice: to gain the kingdom, one must give everything. Words
  are not enough; deeds are required. The parables are like mirrors for
  man: will he be hard soil or good earth for the word? What use has he
  made of the talents he has received? Jesus and the presence of the
  kingdom in this world are secretly at the heart of the parables. One
  must enter the kingdom, that is, become a disciple of Christ, in order
  to “know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven.” For those who stay
  “outside,” everything remains enigmatic. (CCC
  546)

Those who wish to enter the kingdom, the disciples of Christ, will given the secrets of heaven. It's not at all a stretch to assume, then, that those closest to Christ were given specific explanation -- as the Gospel says.

TLDR: My best understanding is that Christ clarified the parables in the greatest detail necessary to the faithfully seeking disciples; but that each Gospel author recorded only those explicitly revealed interpretations He was aware of (obviously) and which were relevant to the community he wrote to.

And for what it's worth, I do not suspect the the Gospel writers "synthesized" Christ's actual words; more likely for synthesis are the number of loaves and fish fed to an edited number of people on a hill.


Why were none of the Apostolic fathers' writings included in the last canon accepted in the Ecumenical Councils? Why is it so that none of the Apostolic fathers' writings was included in the last canon accepted during the time of the Seven Ecumenical Councils?

By the "last canon" I mean the one that we have until today.

From the wikipedia article on the Development of the New Testament Canon I learned that Irenaeus of Lyons considered the letter to the Corinthians, known now as 1st Clement, and the Polycarp's Epistle to be of great worth.

Clement of Alexandria had a similar attitude to the 1st Clement.

And in the book "The Apostolic Constitutions", in the chapter named "The Canons of the Apostles", both of Clement's epistles are listed among the "sacred books of the New Testament" as it says there, and the list of books is attributed to the Twelve Apostles themselves:

  Let the following books be esteemed venerable and holy by you, both of
  the clergy and laity. Of the Old Covenant: the five books of
  Moses—Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy; one of
  Joshua the son of Nun, one of the Judges, one of Ruth, four of the
  Kings, two of the Chronicles, two of Ezra, one of Esther, one of
  Judith, three of the Maccabees, one of Job, one hundred and fifty
  psalms; three books of Solomon—Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of
  Songs; sixteen prophets. And besides these, take care that your young
  persons learn the Wisdom of the very learned Sirach. But our sacred
  books, that is, those of the New Covenant, are these: the four Gospels
  of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; the fourteen Epistles of Paul; two
  Epistles of Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude; two
  Epistles of Clement; and the Constitutions dedicated to you the
  bishops by me Clement, in eight books; which it is not fit to publish
  before all, because of the mysteries contained in them; and the Acts
  of us the Apostles

Not many direct statements about the lack of canonization of those books were made during the specified time. But a few statements were made.

The canon list in the Muratorian Fragment, dating to about 170, mentions the Shepherd of Hermas, saying that it "cannot be read publicly to the people in church" because "it is after [the apostles'] time":

  Hermas wrote The Shepherd very recently, in our times, in the city of Rome, while bishop Pius, his brother, was occupying the chair of the church of the city of Rome. And therefore it ought indeed to be read; but it cannot be read publicly to the people in church either among the Prophets, whose number is complete, nor among the Apostles, for it is after their time.

That's the only statement I could find that mentions a specific book of the Apostolic Fathers and gives a specific reason for its exclusion from the canon. But I'm not going to end the answer there.

Eusebius, the fourth-century church historian, has four categories of books:

"recognized," which seems to mean that there is a consensus that they belong in the canon
"disputed," which seems to mean that a majority recognize them but some dispute their canonical status
"spurious," which seems to mean that most don't count them as canonical
"heretical," which means that nobody in the church has ever regarded them as trustworthy

About the heretical books he says:

  To none of these has any who belonged to the succession of ecclesiastical writers ever thought it right to refer in his writings. Moreover, the character of the style also is far removed from apostolic usage, and the thought and purport of their contents are completely out of harmony with true orthodoxy and clearly show themselves that they are the forgeries of heretics. For this reason they ought not to be reckoned among the spurious books, but are to be cast aside as altogether absurd and impious.

From this we can infer that Eusebius' criteria for considering a book canonical is that it 1) is accepted by the church, 2) is orthodox, and 3) is from the time of the apostles. He regards Barnabas, the Didache, and the Shepherd of Hermas as "spurious," but doesn't mention any other of the Apostolic Fathers.

Athanasius seems to have a threefold categorization:

Canonical. "These are fountains of salvation, that they who thirst may be satisfied with the living words they contain. In these alone is proclaimed the doctrine of godliness. Let no man add to these, neither let him take ought from these."
Good non-canonical books. "Not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness."
Apocrypha. "They are an invention of heretics, who write them when they choose, bestowing upon them their approbation, and assigning to them a date, that so, using them as ancient writings, they may find occasion to lead astray the simple."

Of the Apostolic Fathers, Athanasius only mentions the Didache and the Shepherd of Hermas, both of which he places in the middle group.

Rufinus says that "the ancients" "were willing to have all these read in the churches but not brought forward for the confirmation of doctrine," referring to a handful of books including the Didache and the Shepherd of Hermas, though he doesn't mention any other Apostolic Fathers.

The word they were all using for canon can mean "rule" or "standard" or "measuring stick."

So, although the direct evidence is relatively scant, we can infer the following from the aforementioned facts:

Anything not from the apostles' time was disqualified (which disqualifies most of the Apostolic Fathers, although some of them, like 1 Clement and the Didache, may have been written while John and others were still alive.)
Anything that misrepresented its authorship was out (which probably only disqualifies the Epistle of Barnabas, 2 Clement, and the inauthentic Ignatian epistles.)
The canon was to be the final appealed-to doctrinal word (Athanasius and Rufinus are the clearest expositors of this point, but the word "canon" itself seems to be a clue to this fact.) Jesus, Paul, and John are probably the clearest New Testament examples of speakers/writers who claim to be speaking directly from divine revelation. Perhaps 1 Clement and the Didache, which I mentioned in point 1 as possibly from the apostles' lifetime, were excluded for consciously being doctrinally dependent on the apostolic writings. But that's speculation.
Consensus. Eusebius and Rufinus both seem to believe that the most important canonical criterion is whether "the church" through the ages has accepted the book as fitting the other three criteria. Perhaps the councils were able to make their choices because the consensus had already solidified by that time.


Are Catholic priests allowed by church law to provide professional counseling and referrals to penitents who come to them to confess? Let us say we have a priest, who is a licensed psychiatrist as well. A devout Catholic confesses their sins to said priest. The Catholic person chats with the priest, and priest asks follow-up questions like a doctor would. Priest then determines that the person is suffering from a psychological disorder, in this example, depression.

From a professional/moral standpoint the penitent/"patient" should not be obligated to pay the priest for his profession, since they came to confess, not to seek medical help. But as the priest orders penance, is the priest allowed by Church law to disclose to the penitent his diagnosis, offer counseling, and/or suggest to the latter to at least seek another psychiatrist for a second opinion?

In essence, care should be taken lest the Sacrament of Confession be confused with psychological counseling. A priest with a degree in psychology should be sure not to confuse the spiritual purpose of the Sacrament with the therapeutic purpose of psychology.

Therefore, the proper procedure would be for the priest to instruct the penitent to bring up his psychological issues outside of Confession. In Confession, what is dealt with is sin and grace (see Catechism of the Catholic Church [CCC] 1422); psychological counseling regards the cognitive and emotive faculties.

Naturally, if the priest is acting in the capacity of a licensed professional psychologist (outside of Confession, obviously), then he may seek remuneration like any other. He may not, of course, charge for Confession. (See CCC 2121.)

(I do not believe there is any official legislation regarding this issue, but I suggest reading the overview on the Sacrament of Penance in CCC 1422-1470; you will see that psychological therapy does not really belong to it.)

Aside from the theological issues, confusing Confession and counseling poses practical issues: for example, a priest can never divulge anything he has learned in Confession for any reason. (See Code of Canon Law, 983.) Hence, for example, it would be complicated for him (if not impossible) to consult other psychologists, or refer the “patient” to other psychologists.

The proper procedure, then, would be to counsel the penitent to seek psychological counseling (should that be advisable). If the priest is himself a licensed psychologist, he could even suggest that the penitent seek his help outside of confession.

(I think that most priests in this situation, however, would advise the penitent to go to a different therapist or counselor, since it can be complicated to keep track of what has been said under the seal of Confession and what has not.)


At what level of detail does God lead His children? It seems that some people worry and pray about every aspect of their life, while others only sweat the big stuff. For example, I doubt any believer does not pray about whether they should marry a certain person or not. But for less significant matters, some pray about what God's will is and others just make a decision without prayer.

Should you pray about what career you should choose? About what book you should buy? At what point should you just make a decision?

Does the Bible indicate an answer to this question?

Note: I found a similar question here.

I would argue that ideally the Christian life would be fully marked by the leading of the Spirit.  (Don't get too nervous about this - God isn't a taskmaster - His will is not oppressive, contrary to popular belief.)  Here is the Biblical basis for this argument:

The first is a statement from Jesus, our perfect example, our Rabbi of which we are to be disciples and immitators:

  “I can do nothing on My own initiative. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is just, because I do not seek My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me." -John 5:30

To clarify our calling as Christians, here is Paul's post-ascension teaching on the matter:

  and He died for all, so that they who live might no longer live for themselves, but for Him who died and rose again on their behalf. -2 Corinthians 5:15

In contrast, one of the sins which condemned Saul was not inquiring of the Lord:

  So Saul died for his trespass which he committed against the Lord, because of the word of the Lord which he did not keep; and also because he asked counsel of a medium, making inquiry of it, and did not inquire of the Lord. Therefore He killed him and turned the kingdom to David the son of Jesse. -1 Chronicles 10:13-14

There are many other passages, but this should suffice.  Our mindset needs to be: 100% devotion to the leading of the Spirit, 0% devotion to living for our own purposes.

Now, practically speaking, there are times to rest, times to fellowship, times to have a drink, times to read, times to gaze at the stars, and so on.

At what point should you just make a decision?  Well, technically, at every point.  Everything you do, whether "led by the Spirit" or "led by your flesh" is technically "a decision", so in every case you should "just make a decision" -- with the understanding that in every case you should "be sensitive to the leading of the Spirit", if He is leading, and in every case you should "guard against the lusts of the flesh".


Has Protestant-led public bible study ever been viewed by Roman Catholics as violation of the Magisterium? The Catholic Encyclopedia has this text on the topic of the Magisterium, and the problems of Protestant approaches to scripture:

  In a similar way they show that they cannot dispense with a teaching authority, a Divinely authorized living magistracy for the solution of controversies arising among themselves and of which the Bible itself was often the occasion. Indeed experience proved that each man found in the Bible his own ideas, as was said by one of the earliest reforming sectarians: "Hic liber est in quo quaerit sua dogmata quisque, invenit et pariter dogmata quisque sua." One man found the Real Presence, another a purely symbolic presence, another some sort of efficacious presence. The exercise of free inquiry with regard to Biblical texts led to endless disputes, to doctrinal anarchy, and eventually to the denial of all dogma.

Have there been any cases where Roman Catholics opposed bible study or other ecumenical worship in a public setting (say state-run schools) on the basis of this doctrine?

The Magisterium is not exactly concerned with what you do in your time. If you hang out at the Church of Satan and listen to the preaching, that's just fine with the Magisterium. The question is, do you accept particular tenets that are at odds with Catholic doctrine? So, for instance, going to a Protestant-led bible study is perfectly okay with the Magisterium, as long as you remember and stick to the Catholic position.

Let me give a slightly awkward comparison: going to medical school means you've committed yourself to evidence-based medicine, right? The teaching authority of med school means only certain people are allowed to teach, and they're people who subscribe to those standards of EBM. So you must, in how you act etc., adhere to it. However, you aren't 'banned' or otherwise forbidden from visiting a local faith healer and listen to him about crystals, or something similar (I don't know, I've never been to one of those). The point is that the Magisterium is a quick and easy way to determine who has teaching authority you have to listen to, but it does not determine whom you may listen to.

I am no historian, so I will leave the question of whether there has been Catholic opposition to Bible study open. However, 1) the Catholic Encyclopedia is a bit dated (notably, it's pre-Vatican II), 2) it's not a doctrinal text, 3) the doctrine of the Magisterium primarily concerns who may teach from a Catholic pulpit. So clearly a Catholic school would be opposed to somebody rocking up and teaching not about Protestantism but teaching Protestantism as a doctrine. However, there is nothing wrong with examining other faiths or denominations. The understanding of Canon Law I got says that the Magisterium is primarily concerned with who may speak, not whom one may listen to.


Unexpected sexual incompatibility in marriage The Bible teaches that sex should be limited to married couples. But these days many people in Western societies think that it is wise for a couple to sleep together before getting married so that they will know whether or not they are sexually compatible.

Does the Bible, or any well-known Christian authors, have anything to say about the problem of sexual incompatibility which was unexpected because the couple did not sleep together before getting married?

(This is not really a 'Christian' answer, but then your question isn't really a 'Christian' question.)

If 'sexual chemistry' is a thing, is there any guarantee that it will survive a wedding, or 7, 10, 20 years of married life and child-bearing-induced-body-morphing?

If not, your 'test drive' won't help much. You'll need something other than 'lust' to stay the course.


Are Christians bound to the laws of their country? Clearly not all governments are based on Christian principles. Should Christians be bound to obey the civil laws of their respective countries (states, cities, whatever) even if they disagree with the basis for the laws?

Please answer in general about how Christians fit into civil law and worldly authority structures, but feel free to use specific examples if they help to clarify. For example, do we have to pay fines, obey speed limits or submit to curfews?

As Christians we are first and foremost subject to God's commandments for us. However one of the instructions he gave us for life on this earth is that we be "subject to the governing authorities". In fact we learn that government itself, however secular and/or corrupt, is itself an institution that God places over us.

  Romans 13:1 (ESV)
  Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.

In so far as the civil laws of a country do not cause us to violate the moral and other obligations we have to our maker, we are submit to them. This means: paying your taxes, not running red lights and yes, not breaking copyright law, etc.