Protestant Interpretation of John 20:23 in Light of Matthew 9:8? How is:

John 20:21-23
Εἶπεν οὖν αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἰησοῦς πάλιν Εἰρήνη ὑμῖν καθὼς ἀπέσταλκέν με ὁ Πατήρ, κἀγὼ πέμπω ὑμᾶς καὶ τοῦτο εἰπὼν ἐνεφύσησεν καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς Λάβετε Πνεῦμα Ἅγιον ἄν τινων ἀφῆτε τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἀφέωνται αὐτοῖς ἄν τινων κρατῆτε κεκράτηνται
Jesus said again to them therefore, Peace to you! As the Father has sent Me, even so I send you. And having said this, He breathed on them, and said to them, Recieve ye the Holy Ghost: if you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you hold bound the sins of any, they are held bound.

In light of:

Matthew 9:2,6,8
καὶ ἰδοὺ προσέφερον αὐτῷ παραλυτικὸν ἐπὶ κλίνης βεβλημένον καὶ ἰδὼν ὁ Ἰησοῦς τὴν πίστιν αὐτῶν εἶπεν τῷ παραλυτικῷ Θάρσει, τέκνον ἀφίενταί σου αἱ ἁμαρτίαι ... ἵνα δὲ εἰδῆτε ὅτι ἐξουσίαν ἔχει ὁ Υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἀφιέναι ἁμαρτίας ... Ἰδόντες δὲ οἱ ὄχλοι ἐφοβήθησαν καὶ ἐδόξασαν τὸν Θεὸν τὸν δόντα ἐξουσίαν τοιαύτην τοῖς ἀνθρώποις
And behold, they brought out to him one paralyzed, lying on a bed. And Jesus, having seen their faith, said to the paralytic, Take courage, son;  thy sins have been forgiven! ... But so that you might know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins. ... And the crowds seeing [this] marveled, and glorified God, Who gave such authority to men.

Not proof that Jesus really did give men (priests) this power to forgive sins with the power and authority of the Holy Ghost, which He expressly imparts to them for this ministry?

Specifically, how isn't an interpretation other than this ridiculous? Seeing as it would either seem to imply there are such things as 'divinely-approved' grudges (John 20:23b), rather than a priest withholding absolution from an unrepentant.. penitent; or a redundant 'when you forgive someone, you have forgiven them,' whereas this seems to clearly bestowing upon them the "authority" to "forgive sins" by the power of the "Holy Ghost", at least in the Catholic view—that when they forgiven the sins of any God has forgiven them?
Thank you in advance!

Jesus says,

  As the Father has sent Me, even so I send you.

so the question to start, How did the father send Jesus?

John 12:49

  For I have not spoken on My own authority; but the Father who sent Me gave Me a command, what I should say and what I should speak.

john 5:19

  19 Then Jesus answered and said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He sees the Father do; for whatever He does, the Son also does in like manner.

So Jesus was not picking for himself who to forgive, who to heal, rather he was doing that which the Father willed.

Now, jesus says that he sends the disciples in the same manner,

So we can understand that its not up to the disciples to "pick and choose" who to forgive and who to hold accountable, but rather to do the will of the father also. just like jesus said,

  who sent Me gave Me a command, what I should say and what I should speak."

In the same way, the disciples had a message entrusted to them.

  And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”

So the core of the Gospel message is the forgiveness of Sins. This is what humanity is in need of.
The bible says we are enemies of God, seperated by our Sins
Collosians 1:21-23

  21 And you, who once were alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now He has reconciled 22 in the body of His flesh through death, to present you holy, and blameless, and above reproach in His sight— 23 if indeed you continue in the faith, grounded and steadfast, and are not moved away from the hope of the gospel which you heard, which was preached to every creature under heaven, of which I, Paul, became a minister.

So this forgiveness of Sins is achieved through faith in the Gospel, the Good News of Christs death on our behalf, his paying the penalty for sin, and Rising again, defeating Death.

The ever famous Ephesians 2:8-9

  8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast.

Peter shows us in the book of Acts that he understood that forgiveness of Sins was offered by God to those who would believe in the Gospel in repentance.

  42 And He commanded us to preach to the people, and to testify that it is He who was ordained by God to be Judge of the living and the dead. 43 To Him all the prophets witness that, through His name, whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins.”

Note Pete says "Whoever believes in him WILL recieve remission of Sins.
He does not say, ask me nicely and i will give you forgiveness of sins. he affirms that God forgives sins, but he has been "commanded" to preach this message of forgiveness

See what Paul says about this
2 Corinthians 5:18-20

  All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; 19 that is, in Christ God was reconciling[b] the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. 20 Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.

So God has made one way for the forgiveness of sins, Faith in the savior Christ, and his work on our behalf. and he has entrusted this "Ministry of reconciliation" or forgiveness of sins, to all his chosen people.

Now to address the second scripture you provided from Matthew,

  And Jesus, having seen their faith, said to the paralytic, Take courage, son; thy sins have been forgiven!

This fits extremely well with what we have said so far, Upon seeing their Faith jesus responds your sins have been forgiven.

So they put their faith in Jesus, and Their sins were forgiven.

Now on to the peoples response,

  And the crowds seeing [this] marveled, and glorified God, Who gave such authority to men.

If we know anything from studying the bible, its that the people around Jesus almost never got anything right. I think we can see it this way here. The crowd is only looking at jesus as a miracle worker. maybe a prophet or a great teacher. Their response specifically emphasizes their understanding of him as a Human, completely missing the fact he is also God, the Christ.

Paul mentions this in 2 Corinthians 5:16

  16 From now on, therefore, we regard no one according to the flesh. Even though we once regarded Christ according to the flesh, we regard him thus no longer.

He says, there was a time when we didnt realize Christ was more than just a man. This is where the crowd is at here in Matthew.

So that is a protestant understanding of the verses in question. Very long winded, but had to cover a lot of ground to really give you a clear answer about it. i hope this helps.


Who adheres to dual-covenant theology? Another question has asked about the Biblical basis for dual-covenant theology, but I'm interested in who holds it. Wikipedia indicates that some "liberal" Christians do, but I'm looking for more specifics. It also appears that "dual-covenant theology" is used pejoratively, rather than being a self-appellation.

Who are some prominent clergy associated with DCT? From what denominations do they hail and how common is it in those denominations?
What term(s) do they use to describe their theological framework other than DCT? Are there major sub-groupings within DCT?

In the comment right above yours in the referenced question, What is the biblical basis for dual-covenant theology? (I'm sorry I can't link because I don't have enough rep and I need to save them for references below), the author answers the first part of your question and his references in that question apply as well.

"Also bear in mind that proponents of DCT rarely refer to it as "dual covenant theology" themselves, it is mostly used as a pejorative by opponents of this school of thought. Another term often used is the German word Sonderweg, so I suggest you also use that as a search term. DCT is the standard position of denominations of traditional Judaism (eg, Conservative, Modern Orthodox, Haredi, Hasidic, etc), and is popular among some segments of Liberal Protestantism and Messianic Jewish movements. – Meir Illumination Aug 15 '15 at 5:34"

I have also noticed some "liberal" Baptist preachers that I mention below.

For the second part as to who specifically in Christian faiths espoused DCT, it seems to be a dirty term because none of the pastors will admit to believing in DCT when asked directly, but the teaching speaks a different story.

Pastor Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and John Hagee are just three prominent names.  Many many more are listedoing in an article here. http://www.jpost.com/Jewish-World/Jewish-News/Falwell-Jews-can-get-to-heaven and here https://healtheland.wordpress.com/2008/02/14/pat-robertson-dual-covenant-theology-heretic/ (again I apologize I can only provide two links because of my low rep so I can't expound much farther without being in danger of making statements without enough reference quotes)


How did Luther explain 1 Cor. 7:14? Luther denied that marriage is a sacrament conferring grace.¹ He said marriage is a “worldly matter” (weltlich geschefft).² But 1 Cor. 7:14 says the husband and wife can mutually sanctify one another:

  For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the believing wife; and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the believing husband…

In view of this verse, how did Luther not think this shows that matrimony confers grace?

1. Reynolds 2016 §17.3 (pp. 742-54)2. ibid. p. 749n102: "Von Ehesachen WA 30.3: 205/12–14. Traubüchlein, WA 30.3:74/2."

The question requires a negative to be proved.

This is always difficult viz 'How did Luther not think ... etc. ? and the question is doubly difficult as we are asked to comment on 'how' Luther 'did not think'.

I'm not sure I can even begin to compose an article on 'how' Luther 'did not think'.

But I did find an extensive article on what Luther did think and, in particular, on what he thought about the text in question :

Posted by Pastor Kurthagen on Daughter Of Zion - WordPress

  Martin Luther offers useful commentary on 1 Cor 7:14, a difficult passage:
  14. For the unbelieving husband is consecrated through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is consecrated through her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.

  This is spoken in the Hebrew way and according to the manner of St. Paul, to the effect that all things are holy to him who is holy. Thus he says in Titus 1:15: “To the pure all things are pure”; or in Romans 8:28: “We know that in everything God works for good with those who love Him,” which is to say: A Christian spouse may not be divorced but can live with a non-Christian mate and even conceive and raise non-Christian children. The reason is this: if the non-Christian spouse does not prevent the Christian mate from leading a Christian life, then faith is such a mighty thing that no hurt will come from living with a non-Christian; it will make no difference whether he associates with religious or irreligious people, for even death, that most terrible thing of all, is still a holy thing for a Christian.

  Faith can use all things for its purpose, whether good or bad, except unbelief and its fruits. For these are directly contrary to faith and do not permit faith to remain; those things that do permit faith to remain are themselves rendered harmless by faith, are made pure, holy, useful, and salutary, so that the believer may live with them and keep them without danger. If this were not so, no Christian could live, for he is forced to live among evil and non-Christian people. But if he does not follow them but puts them to good use, he may live with or among them to the end that they may gain piety and become Christians.

  To a Christian, therefore, the entire world is holiness, purity, utility, and piety. Contrariwise, to a non-Christian the whole world is unholiness, impurity, uselessness, and destruction—even God with all His goodness, as Ps. 18:26–27 says to God: “With the pure Thou dost show Thyself pure; and with the crooked Thou dost show Thyself perverse.” Why is this? Because the pure, that is, the believers, can use all things in a holy and blessed way to sanctify and purify themselves. But the unholy and the unbelievers sin, profane, and pollute themselves incessantly in all things. For they cannot use anything in a right, godly, and blessed way, so that it might serve their own salvation.

  In the same way children are also holy, even though they are neither baptized nor Christians. They are not holy in themselves (St. Paul is not discussing this holiness here) but are holy to you, so that your own holiness may associate with them and raise them without profaning you, just as though they were holy things. St. Paul also wants to convey this: If a Christian spouse should have grown children with a non-Christian mate (as often happened in those days) and the children should not want to be baptized or become Christians, then, inasmuch as no one should be forced to believe but only willingly be drawn by God through His Gospel, the father and mother should not abandon the children or withdraw or fail in their motherly or fatherly duties, as though they could thereby sin and pollute themselves in unbelieving children; rather they should guide and care bodily for these children as though they were the holiest of Christians. For they are not impure or unholy, Paul says; that is, your faith can demonstrate itself in them and thus remain pure and holy.

  So it should be done now and at all times. Where children do not want to accept the Gospel, one should not therefore leave them or send them away but care for them and support them like the best of all Christians, commending their faith to God, so long as they are obedient and upright in all other things having to do with outward living. For parents can and should resist and punish outward evil acts and works. But nobody can resist and punish unbelief and an inwardly evil nature except God alone. Thus this text of St. Paul’s also concerns us and strengthens us, making all things holy and pure to the believer.


What is this symbol (cross with P loop atop)? I have seen in a church a cross with a loop off the top that makes the vertical look like a P. Does this symbol have a name? What is its meaning? From what does it derive? Can you supply any more interesting information about it? The loop was to my right, and was more flag-like than a P, so drooping a bit.

Actually, this symbol is a "tau-rho," not a "chi-rho." Instead of being a shortened form of the word "Christ" (Χριστος), generally speaking the Tao-Rho is thought to be a shortened form of the words "cross" and "crucify" (σταυρος, σταυροω). Larry Hurtado has speculated that it may also be the first pictoral representation of Jesus on a cross (the loop of the "P" is the head). See Hurtado's The Earliest Christian Artifacts pp. 135ff, he calls it a "staurogram."


Does Dietrich Bonhoeffer fit the requirements to be declared an official martyr? I'm wondering what the Roman Catholic church stance is on this man and whether they will ever declare him a martyr? I'm guessing he is too protestant to ever have any recognition in the Catholic church.

What has the stance of the Catholic church been in regards to other Nazi dissidents?

It is dogma that non-Catholics cannot be martyrs:

  …no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.—Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, decree Cantate Domino

(Martyrs, saints, all those in heaven are saved.)


How does the Orthodox Church view the Roman Catholic Church? How does the Orthodox Church view the Roman Catholic Church?

Specifically

Does she consider RCC herectical? In what matters?
Does she consider RCC priesthood and sacraments as valid?
Does she allow her children to to attend RCC Mass and receive the Eucharist or the Sacrament of Penance?

Yes and no. The Catholic Church was initially considered by the Orthodox Church to be heretical, but as time passed and the term began to have strong negative connotations, the term was changed to heterodox, at least in official discourses. However, hardliners are still using the term heretic. In what matters? Well, the first one would be the filioque controversy. Search for it on this site, it's discussed in numerous threads. Other issues like the Easter date, celibacy of priests, unleavened bread used for the eucharist, withholding the Holy Blood (eucharistical wine) from the laity, using the organ in church music, papal primacy, papal infallibility etc. are considered by the Orthodox Church to have no basis in the Holy Scripture or the Holy Tradition (teachings of the Church Fathers) and thus they are not orthodox, but heterodox.
I come from a catholic family so I was baptized catholic. I converted to orthodox christianity a few years ago, and the conversion did not include a baptism. This is because the catholic baptism is considered valid by the Orthodox Church. Both Churches have apostolic succession (by laying on of hands) so both orthodox and catholic priests received the Gifts of the Holy Spirit on ordination. Baptisms performed by other denominations are not considered valid (especially the ones from the non-trinitarian denominations, because a person has to be baptized in the name of The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit). Eucharisty on the other hand is not considered valid. Furthermore, it is strictly prohibited to give the Holy Communion to non-orthodox people. I'm not 100% sure, but this should be the same in the Catholic Church also.
Attending Mass in other churches is not prohibited. In both Orthodox and Catholic Christianity the reason one calls a priest father is because he is one's spiritual parent, guiding him in his spiritual endeavours. Penance should not be just an enumeration of your sins, but also a desire to not repeat them and asking the priest for guidance, which he provides based on the teachings of the Church. It would be a kind of nonsense to be orthodox and seek guidance from a catholic priest (offering advice based on catholic teachings) or viceversa. If one feels like doing so, for whatever reason, then why not convert?

I'm romanian, and most of the information in this answer I learned from the writings of romanian orthodox monks, priests and theologians (also some greek, russian and Church Fathers writings).


Why didn't Adam and Eve die when they ate the fruit? God gave Adam and Eve the following command, followed by a cause

  Genesis 2:17-  But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou
  shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou
  shalt surely die.  KJV

Even so, they ate and still lived a long life, not dying in the same day

  Genesis 5:5-  And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and
  thirty years: and he died.  KJV

Is it as simple as "day" referring to a different period of time than it refers to today?

And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.” NIV

The NIV does not make this implication. Perhaps you would get better answers on Hermeneutics.

KJV was written in English for the common man ... in the 17th century! English and many of its words have changed much since. It is entirely possible that this has to do with the KJV practically being an ancient manuscript that should be read from the perspective of its intended audience.

Since Adam and Eve did not die on that exact day it is safe to say that the translators did not intend to give that impression in Genesis 2:17. So there must be another explanation of what they meant by it. The most likely, I would say is that the word day at the time or in this context does not necessarily mean between sun up and sun down. What it means exactly in this case I cannot say. That is why I suggest the Hermeneutics site.

Some might argue that die means something other than actual death, but I really don't buy that, but that is strictly my opinion and not really part of your question. If you take one of those perspectives it could easily answer this question for you, though.


Is there any Method in Methodism that people practice? I was going to ask, "Why are Methodists called Methodists", but that's pretty easily googleable.  Apparently it's the same reason the Sioux aren't called Lakota.

But, in the days since the "Holy Club" became known as the "Methodists" has there been any attempt to define what "The Method" actually is?

The Oxford Holy Club, founded by John Wesley, was the first of many Methodist societies that followed a set of general rules developed by Wesley himself:

  It is therefore expected of all who continue therein that they should continue to evidence their desire of salvation,

  By doing no harm, by avoiding evil of every kind, especially that which is most generally practiced
  By doing good; by being in every kind merciful after their power; as they have opportunity, doing good of every possible sort, and, as far as possible, to all men
  By attending upon all the ordinances of God; such are:

  The public worship of God.
  The ministry of the Word, either read or expounded.
  The Supper of the Lord.
  Family and private prayer.
  Searching the Scriptures.
  Fasting or abstinence.

The idea was to help Christians draw closer to God and attain Christian perfection through the process of sanctification*. Basically (my words here) you follow the rules and you build good habits and that helps you be a better Christian.

These three rules have been apart of Methodism since the very beginning and they're still prominent in many Methodist organizations today. There's actually a book based on the Wesley method called The John Wesley Great Experiment. In the 60s, John Wesley UMC in Tallahassee, FL started a study group based on the book called "Wanted: Ten Brave Christians" that still gets used today (I know because I did it last month).

*I can't begin to explain this well enough to do it justice so I suggest you visit the source. CCEL has an amazing collection of John Wesley's writings (among so many others) that are free and in the public domain.


What does John 3:13 mean, NO MAN has ASCENDED to heaven? By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him. (Hebrews 11:5)
And it came to pass, as they still went on, and talked, that, behold, there appeared a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, and parted them both asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven. (2 Kings 2:11)

If Elijah and Enoch (funny they all start with the letter E) where translated what does John 3:13 mean, NO MAN has ASCENDED to heaven?

In the risk of sounding way too much catholic :p here is my answer:

Ascension and Assumption are two different things. Catholics believe that only Jesus came down from heaven and went up to heaven on his own power. This is called Ascension. Others like Enoch, Elijah and of course Bl. Virgin Mary were taken up by God. (i.e., not by their own power) This is called Assumption. Catholics and Orthodox have always explicitly differentiated Ascension and Assumption.

Also it is interesting to note that in 2 Corinthians 12:2, Paul speaks of a man who was caught up to the third heaven (presumably by God) and came back alive.


Why Jeremiah 10:5 was changed from palm trees to scarecrows So, I was interested in reading Jeremiah 10:1-5 as it referred to Christmas trees. I found the comparison is very striking in the King James Version. As I was looking into this, however, I noticed that some other bible translations compared the tree to a scarecrows in a cucumber field, which I found very odd.

When and why was this changed?

My other question is in regards to the first sentence of Jer 10:5. I get the first part, "They are upright as the palm tree, but speak not:", but I don't understand the second part "they must needs be born because they cannot go". What does this mean and how does it relate to a palm tree?

I generally agree with another answer and comments that “modern translations are better”, but I will elaborate a bit on how the variant translations came about. The Hebrew of interest:

  כְּתֹ֨מֶר מִקְשָׁ֥ה הֵ֙מָּה֙
  kətōmer miqšâ hēmmâ
  They [the idols] are like a tōmer of a miqšâ

Both tōmer and miqšâ are somewhat obscure. Tōmer appears only here in the OT. The KJV assumed an emendation to tāmār = palm tree (occurs 12 times in the OT), supported by the Vulgate: palmae. The Greek Septuagint doesn’t include this statement at all, so it’s not helpful. However, it is a Greek text that pushed translators in the direction of “scarecrow”. From the Epistle of Jeremiah 69(70):1

  Ὥσπερ γὰρ ἐν σικυηράτῳ προβασκάνιον οὐδὲν φυλάσσον, οὕτως οἱ θεοὶ αὐτῶν εἰσιν ξύλινοι καὶ περίχρυσοι καὶ περιάργυροι.
  Like a scarecrow in a cucumber bed that guards nothing, so are their gods of wood, overlaid with gold and silver.

Προβασκάνιον (probaskanion) is a reasonably well-attested word for "scarecrow". This secures the meaning of tōmer in Jer 10:5 because it coheres with the context: the other term there, miqšâ, means cucumber field.2

  If the object stands in a cucumber field, it has to be a scarecrow.3

Consistent with the sense of the verse, Lundbom goes on to cite evidence from classical writers about statues of gods being used as scarecrows.

As to your second question, the KJV actually says,

  they must needs be borne4  because they can not go

There’s no reason to work with the meaning “palm tree” at this point, but whether it’s a palm tree or a scarecrow, the point is that they are inanimate and therefore lame; they must be carried (“borne”).

Summary
The KJV translators were uncertain the meaning of tōmer in the Masoretic text, so they accepted an emendation of the vocalization toward the reading of the Vulgate, arriving at "palm tree". In light of external evidence, translators now nearly universally accept that the meaning is "scarecrow".

1. Deuterocanonical for Roman Catholics and Orthodox; Apocryphal for Protestants. The earliest manuscripts, from Qumran, and are in Greek. The letter is a harangue against idols that is loosely based on the book of (proto)canonical
Jeremiah.

2. See also Isaiah 1:8, where the KJV agrees. The Greek is σικυήρατον in both Is 1:8 (LXX) and Ep Jer 70(69), from σίκυς (sikus) = cucumber.

3. Jack R. Lundbom, Jeremiah 1-20. (The Anchor Yale Bible; New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974), 586.

4. Not born as in the question. To be borne is the passive form of a somewhat archaic use of the verb “to bear” meaning “to support the weight of”. The Hebrew term is often glossed “to be carried”.


Does God Answer Every Prayer Asked In Jesus' Name? In John 14:13-14, Jesus says the following to his disciples:

  And I will do whatever you ask in My name, so that the Father may be
  glorified in the Son.  You may ask Me for anything in My name, and I
  will do it.

It is my understanding that this passage (see also Matthew 7:7) does not teach that God answers any and all petitions we might ask in the name of Jesus (as if God is merely a cosmic vending machine).  Rather, it indicates that as we nurture our relationship with Him, our petitions will be more and more aligned with His sovereign will, which He will accomplish anyway.  As an example of this, consider Jesus' petition in the garden in Luke 22:42:

  Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will,
  but yours be done.

So it seems clear to me, again based on how I've been taught, that God answers those prayers that align with His sovereign will.  Am I thinking about this correctly?

What does it mean to pray "in Jesus' name"? Is it a magical formula that guarantees that your prayer will be heard? For example:

Dear God, please give me a new bike and a chocolate cake and a magical telephone and an elephant. Also, please kill all the bad people. In Jesus' name, Amen.

Does that prayer make more sense because it has "In Jesus' name" at the end? No, indeed not. This is the "cosmic vending machine" or "God as Santa Claus" way of understanding God, and it's pernicious and false. God doesn't act like that.
Let's consider instead the connotations of the word name. It doesn't just mean the word "Jesus" in the same way that "lonesomeday" refers to me. It's very much bound up with the identity of the individual. Think, for instance, back to the Old Testament. The supreme revelation of God's nature to the people of Israel came in the giving of his name:

But Moses said to God, ‘If I come to the Israelites and say to them, “The God of your ancestors has sent me to you”, and they ask me, “What is his name?” what shall I say to them?’ God said to Moses, ‘I am who I am.’ He said further, ‘Thus you shall say to the Israelites, “I am has sent me to you.” ’ God also said to Moses, ‘Thus you shall say to the Israelites, “The Lord, the God of your ancestors, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you”: This is my name for ever, and this my title for all generations.’ (Exodus 3.13-16, NRSV)

The name of God is who God is. It is so holy, so bound up with his entire identity, that it is never uttered by Jews. It was uttered just once a year by the High Priest in the Holy of Holies on Yom Kippur. It was immensely powerful because it was not just a word but an identity. Similarly, take Psalm 20:

Some take pride in chariots, and some in horses, but our pride is in the name of the Lord our God.

This isn't saying "we're proud that our God is called YHWH", but "our pride comes from who our God is".
This is the sense that "name" is used in the Gospel of John. It's actually used on a whole host of occasions. Here are a few of them to give a suggestion of what it connotates:

But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God (John 1.12)
Those who believe in him are not condemned; but those who do not believe are condemned already, because they have not believed in the name of the only Son of God. (John 3.18)
I have come in my Father's name, and you do not accept me; if another comes in his own name, you will accept him. (John 5.43)
But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything, and remind you of all that I have said to you. (John 14.26)
But they will do all these things to you on account of my name, because they do not know him who sent me. (John 15.21)
"I have made your [i.e. the Father's] name known to those whom you gave me from the world. (John 17.6)
But these are written so that you may come to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that through believing you may have life in his name. (John 20.31)

Beyond this, we might also point to the occasions where Jesus alludes to the name of God in his speech, such as 8.58: ‘Very truly, I tell you, before Abraham was, I am.’
These give, I think, a bit of a picture of what "Jesus' name" is referring to in John. It refers precisely to Jesus' identity and his purpose. "Jesus' name" is who Jesus is. And we know from the prologue to the Gospel that Jesus is "the Word made flesh". He is the one who has "made God known".
So when we pray "in Jesus' name" we are praying "according to who Jesus is", that is to say according to his nature as the revelation of God; the salvation of his people; the way, the truth and the life; the gate of salvation. We are praying according to who Jesus most fundamentally is. To pray in Jesus' name is to conform ourselves to that identity.
What does it mean, then, to ask for something in Jesus' name? I don't know precisely. But it is rooted in our Christian knowledge of who Jesus is. It is connected intimately to the fact of our salvation. It isn't a separate magical formula that gets us a special hearing.

Andrew Lincoln wrote an chapter on this subject, entitled "God's name, Jesus' name, and prayer in the fourth gospel". It can be found in a book entitled Into God's Presence: Prayer in the New Testament. I'm afraid I don't have a copy, but I read it a little while ago and it is excellent.


If justification is an event, when does it happen? Lutherans, Methodists, and Calvinists believe that justification is an event (as opposed to the Roman Catholic church and the Orthodox church who believe it is a process). If justification is an event, when does it happen? Is it at the moment of conversion, at baptism, or at some other time?

According to most independent, fundamentalist Baptists, (and to the best of my knowledge, the groups that you mentioned) justification is a one-time event that happens at the moment of conversion, when a sinner repents on his or her sins and puts their faith in Christ for salvation.

This would be in line with a Calvinist view.  Justification is a result of salvation, and is something granted freely as the gift of salvation, apart from any works of man.

The very same Wikipedia article that you linked to outlines the relationship between Justification and Sola Fide, for those denominations that subscribe to the view that salvation is by faith alone.

This article covers more groups independently, rather than lumping protestants entirely into a group, and may provide more clarity on how different denominations view the topic.


Why did God come down so hard on Job? There is a video/workbook series on prayer by Phillip Yancey  (which I highly recommend) (and based on one of his books) that talks about how we should pray openly about all things.
It even says that we should tell God when we are frustrated with God himself.  After all, (a) God wants to be part of our lives, (b) God already knows what we're going through and (c) if we reach out to him, he may answer our prayers or comfort us to reaffirm that he is our God.
All very valid and very useful points.
To illustrate this, he uses the illustration from Habakkuk.  In chapter 1, Habakkuk prays to God:

Habakkuk 1:2 (NIV)
How long, LORD, must I call for help,
but you do not listen?
Or cry out to you, “Violence!”
but you do not save?

God seems to respond favorably to this prayer:

Habakkuk 1:5 (NIV)
Look at the nations and watch—
and be utterly amazed.
For I am going to do something in your days
that you would not believe,
even if you were told.

There's another example of this type of prayer (praying a complaint about God) in Jeremiah 12.

However, if we look at the book of Job, we see God respond unfavorably to Job's complaining.  Job goes on for 37 chapters to complain while his friends chide him for brining it on himself (when really, as we see in Job 1, God allowed Satan to do this to Job unprovoked).
Finally, in Job 38, God answers:

Job 38:1-3 (NIV)
1 Then the LORD spoke to Job out of the storm. He said:
2 “Who is this that obscures my plans
with words without knowledge?
3 Brace yourself like a man;
I will question you,
and you shall answer me.

God goes on for four more chapters to rebuke Job to show how powerless and foolish Job is.
My question (finally):
How can we reconcile God's angry response to Job's complaining with God's favorable response to Habakkuk and Jeremiah's complaining?  What did Job do that was so wrong to bring on God's anger (in his response)?
Furthermore, how should we pray to avoid committing the sin that Job committed (in order to avoid God's wrath)?  I'm seeking the Protestant viewpoint, excluding the doctrine of reciting prayers.  This is more a question regarding open-ended prayer.  (see doctrine of prayer)

I believe it is because Job's complaining went beyond merely complaining and went into self-justification and questioning God.

Job 40:1-5

  Then the LORD said to Job,
  "Will the faultfinder contend with the Almighty?
  Let him who reproves God answer it.

  Then Job answered the LORD and said,

  "Behold, I am insignificant; what can I reply to You?
  I lay my hand on my mouth.
  "Once I have spoken, and I will not answer;
  Even twice, and I will add nothing more."

and verse 8:

  Will you really annul My judgment?
  Will you condemn Me that you may be justified?"

and finally, Job's confession of his own wrong-doing in his over-complaining:

  Then Job answered the LORD and said,
  "I know that You can do all things,
  And that no purpose of Yours can be thwarted.
  'Who is this that hides counsel without knowledge?'
  Therefore I have declared that which I did not understand,
  Things too wonderful for me, which I did not know."
  'Hear, now, and I will speak;
  I will ask You, and You instruct me.'
  "I have heard of You by the hearing of the ear;
  But now my eye sees You;
  Therefore I retract,
  And I repent in dust and ashes."

God is also angry at Job's "friends" (sidebar - with friends like those, who needs enemies?). And yes, God does say Job has spoken rightly about him as well - but there's some point beyond the right speaking that Job exceeded, too - as I understand it.


Is it known when and why Christians began to sign themselves and impart blessings with the Cross? Among the Christians who make the sign of the cross [cf. this @fredsbend's answer], is it known when and why Christians began to sign themselves with the Cross?

The best answer will also include when imparting a blessing by tracing the sign of the cross also began and why.

My thinking: Blessing and crossing oneself are two different things. Example: say in an audience with the Pope there are many journalists attending of varied beliefs or of no belief at all. When the Pope imparts his blessing by tracing the sign of the cross, only those who cross themselves and who want to cross themselves will cross themselves. Meaning you can have one and not necessarily the other. My good guess perhaps it goes back to Christ himself or at least the Apostles.

And also there can be a blessing without tracing the sign of the cross.

The Catholic Encyclopedia says:

  The cross was originally traced by Christians with the thumb or finger
  on their own foreheads. This practice is attested by numberless
  allusions in Patristic literature.

It's unclear when it began, but it's true there are "numberless allusions" indicating it was an early and widespread tradition. For example, Tertullian:

  At every forward step and movement, at every going in and out, when we
  put on our clothes and shoes, when we bathe, when we sit at table,
  when we light the lamps, on couch, on seat, in all the ordinary
  actions of daily life, we trace upon the forehead the sign.

It's been associated with Revelation 7:

  Then I saw another angel come up from the East, holding the seal of
  the living God. He cried out in a loud voice to the four angels who
  were given power to damage the land and the sea, “Do not damage the
  land or the sea or the trees until we put the seal on the foreheads of
  the servants of our God.” I heard the number of those who had been
  marked with the seal, one hundred and forty-four thousand marked from
  every tribe of the Israelites.

Catholic commentators associate the seal on the forehead with the sign of the cross. This goes back to Ezekiel 9:4.

  Lord said to him: Pass through the city, through the midst of
  Jerusalem, and mark … the foreheads of those who grieve and lament
  over all the abominations practiced within it.

The mark spoken of here is "tau," a Hebrew letter in the shape of a cross.

The Catholic Encyclopedia also says that it wasn't long before Christians began making the sign of the cross on things other than foreheads:

  Hardly less early in date is the custom of marking a cross on objects
  — already Tertullian speaks of the Christian woman "signing" her bed
  (cum lectulum tuum signas, "Ad uxor.", ii, 5) before retiring to
  rest—and we soon hear also of the sign of the cross being traced on
  the lips (Jerome, "Epitaph. Paulæ") and on the heart (Prudentius,
  "Cathem.", vi, 129). Not unnaturally if the object were more remote,
  the cross which was directed towards it had to be made in the air.
  Thus Epiphanius tells us (Adv. Hær., xxx, 12) of a certain holy man
  Josephus, who imparted to a vessel of water the power of overthrowing
  magical incantations by "making over the vessel with his finger the
  seal of the cross" pronouncing the while a form of prayer. Again half
  a century later Sozomen, the church historian (VII, xxvi), describes
  how Bishop Donatus when attacked by a dragon "made the sign of the
  cross with his finger in the air and spat upon the monster".

As for the purpose, Athanasius quotes Antony as saying:

  When, therefore, [demons] come by night to you and wish to tell the
  future, or say, "we are the angels", give no heed, for they lie. Yea
  even if they praise your discipline and call you blessed, hear them
  not, and have no dealings with them; but rather sign yourselves and
  your houses, and pray, and you shall see them vanish. For they are
  cowards, and greatly fear the sign of the Lord's Cross, since of a
  truth in it the Savior stripped them, and made an example of them. ...
  But we by the mention of Christ crucified put all demons to flight,
  whom you fear as if they were gods. Where the sign of the Cross is,
  magic is weak and witchcraft has no strength.

Conclusion: The sign of the cross originated early, growing out of an interpretive seed found in Revelation and Ezekiel. It's a way of invoking the power of the cross against the enemies of God.


How many apostles are there? Are there 12 apostles? Are there 70 apostles?

When I was growing up and learning about Jesus, I found that he had 12 apostles. I was looking at a page about Mark the Evangelist recently and it says that he was one of 70 disciples. On that same page about the about 70 disciples there is a picture titled "Icon of the Seventy Apostles.".

Are there 12 or 70? Are the 12 somehow separate from the 70 or are they part of the same group?

Is there anything in the Bible I can read that deals with this?

It probably depends on what the specific church calls an apostle, but at least we know that the "seventy disciples" are a distinct group of the twelve (apostles).

From Luke 10:

  And after these things, the Lord did appoint also other seventy, and
  sent them by twos before his face, to every city and place whither he
  himself was about to come, then said he unto them, `The harvest indeed
  [is] abundant, but the workmen few; beseech ye then the Lord of the
  harvest, that He may put forth workmen to His harvest.

The twelve were mostly with him, as far as I remember he was alone with them at the last supper. This shows they were, somehow, special - distinct from the seventy.

LDS view:

In the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, we have a quorum of twelve apostles and quorums of seventies that assist them. I would (We) see the purpose of the original seventy as similar: Assisting the twelve, going out and preaching. Because really, twelve people is not many.


According to those holding that Lazarus was literally raised from the dead, why did Matthew, Mark, and Luke not mention it? John 11 tells the remarkable story of Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead:

  43 When [Jesus] had said these things, he cried out with a loud voice, “Lazarus, come out.” 44 The man who had died came out, his hands and feet bound with linen strips, and his face wrapped with a cloth. Jesus said to them, “Unbind him, and let him go.” [ESV]

John portrays the event as quite public, and a key factor in the decision of the Jewish leaders to plan to arrest and kill him:

  45 Many of the Jews therefore, who had come with Mary and had seen what he did, believed in him, 46 but some of them went to the Pharisees and told them what Jesus had done. [...] 53 So from that day on they made plans to put him to death.

Yet despite the importance of this miracle in John's narrative, none of the other Gospel writers (Matthew, Mark, or Luke) mention Lazarus being raised.  Critics thus often challenge the historicity of this account specifically, as Richard Bauckham writes:

  The raising of Lazarus has always been major evidence for the view that John invents characters and events, not simply because the Synoptics say nothing about this miracle but also because it is so important in John's account of the events that led to Jesus' execution, that it is hard to believe that the Synoptic evangelists did not know of it or, knowing of it, omitted it. (source)

How do those who hold to the literal, historical truth of the account – that a man named Lazarus, the brother of Mary and Martha, was physically raised from the dead by Jesus – explain why the other Gospel writers failed to mention it?  What is an overview of their arguments?

Commentators give a number of explanations for the silence of the Synoptists on the raising of Lazarus:

To protect Lazarus from persecution
Differing source material
Distinct criteria for what to include

The Synoptics narrate other miracles, and saw no need to include this one as well
The geographical and narrative focus of the Synoptics differs from that of John

Protection from persecution

Perhaps the oldest and most common explanation (particularly prior to the 20th century) is that recording the story during Lazarus's life would have exposed him to persecution from the Jews.  The Gospel of John, being written later than the Synoptics, includes the story presumably because Lazarus by that time had already died. This approach is the primary one mentioned by Adam Clarke (following Hugo Grotius):

  [Grotius] thinks that the other three evangelists wrote their histories during the life of Lazarus; and that they did not mention him for fear of exciting the malice of the Jews against him. And indeed we find, from John 12:10, that they sought to put Lazarus to death also, that our Lord might not have one monument of his power and goodness remaining in the land. Probably both Lazarus and his sisters were dead before St. John wrote.

Different sources

For some, possible explanations of the silence of the Synoptics can be found in the source material for the gospels.  For example, a few have argued that the author of the gospel traditionally attributed to John is actually Lazarus himself.  Most conservative scholars reject this idea, and though it would explain the inclusion of the story in the fourth gospel, it does not directly address why the Synoptists failed to mention it.

Perhaps more plausible is that the story of Lazarus was excluded from Mark's gospel due to the absenteeism of his primary source.  If Peter, as tradition holds, assisted Mark in this way, then perhaps the sections in John (6:68–13:6) and other gospels in which Peter is not mentioned indicate that he was not then present.  Leon Morris explains:

  There is nothing in [the Gospel of Mark] against the view that Peter remained behind (in Galilee?) when the others went up to Jerusalem, and that he came up to the capital city only for the week prior to Passover.  If so, the reason he said nothing about the raising of Lazarus was that he did not see it.  It did not belong to his personal reminiscences.

Distinct criteria

Many commentators, particularly more recent ones, argue that the various Gospel writers had unique criteria for what would be included in their respective works.  Coffman presents a general argument:

  The inspired writers were not governed by ordinary rules and were unaffected by considerations which uninspired men would have honored; and this is nowhere more evident, than in the selection of materials for their writings. It is a marvel that the inspired men would have recorded the martyrdom of the apostle James with only seven words (in the Greek) and devoted nine verses to the undisturbed grave-clothes. The Gospels defy the arrogance of men who seek to understand them apart from their inspired origin.

The following are some of the significant attempts to identify these criteria.

Other miracles related instead

Though the raising of Lazarus is not mentioned in the Synoptics, other significant miracles are, including raisings from the dead.  Leon Morris writes:

  It must be borne in mind that the Synoptists do speak of Jesus as claiming to raise the dead (Matt. 11:5; Luke 7:22), and they give two specific examples, the daughter of Jairus (Matt. 9:18ff.; Mark 5:22ff.; Luke 8:41ff.) and the son of the widow of Nain (Luke 7:1ff.).  It is possible that they saw no need to add to these.

Daniel Whedon suggests that the Synoptists may not have seen the raising of Lazarus as spectacularly noteworthy as modern readers do:

  It does not, in fact, seem that the other Evangelists viewed the raising of the dead as so pre-eminent a miracle as it is esteemed by modern thinkers or by the Jewish populace. The raising of the widow’s son of Nain is narrated by Luke alone, and in as brief and ordinary a way as any other miracle. And pictorially as John spreads out this narrative, it fills no wider space than that of the restoration of the blind-born in chap. 9. The Evangelists, doubtless, presuppose that either of these miracles require a whole omnipotence, and neither requires more.

Different geographical and narrative focus

Commentators frequently note the distinct approach taken in John, compared to the Synoptics, with respect to geography.  Leon Morris explains:

  We must also remember that the miracles in Jerusalem form no part of the Synoptic tradition.  Not only this one, but those concerning the lame man at Bethesda and the blind man at Siloam are not mentioned in the Synoptists.  For whatever reason they deal only with the last week at Jerusalem and omit all that goes before.

Craig L. Blomberg argues that "a major emphasis for John is to present Jesus as the true fulfilment of the meaning of the major Jewish festivals and institutions," whereas Matthew and Mark "follow primarily topical outlines" prior to Christ's passion, and Luke uses a "geographical progression" to structure his gospel.  So, unlike the Synoptics, only John relates multiple trips to Jerusalem and the accompanying miracles:

  Thus the resurrection of Lazarus does not appear in the Synoptics because it takes place in Judea prior to the last of Christ's trips to Jerusalem, of which the Synoptics wish to record only one.

Conclusion

Commentators holding that a man named Lazarus was physically raised from the dead by Jesus have argued that Matthew, Mark, and Luke had good reason to not include it – to protect Lazarus; because they limited themselves to particular sources; or because it did not fit into their narratives for theological or literary reasons.  These arguments, alongside the internal evidence of the John narrative, defend its historicity.  But ultimately, as D. A. Carson summarizes, presuppositions will play a major role in the evaluation of the evidence:

  For those who think that supernatural intervention by a personal/transcendent God is impossible, profitable discussion must begin elsewhere than at this narrative.  Those (like the present writer) who believe in the incarnation (an invasion of the personal/transcendent Word into history) and resurrection of Jesus find it rather useless to swallow a camel and strain out a gnat.

References:

Barnes, Albert, Notes
Blomberg, Craig L. The Historical Reliability of John's Gospel, 55.
Carson, D. A. The Gospel According to John, III.A.
Clarke, Adam, Commentary
Coffman, James Burton. Commentary
Morris, Leon.  The Gospel According to John, III.R.
Whedon, Daniel. Commentary


To where was Satan cast out? In Revelation 12, John sees Satan cast out of the Father's presence and down to earth:

7 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,
8 And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven.
9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

Does this mean the Earth was created by the time Satan was cast out? Then were he and his angels present for the Creation? If not, to where was he cast out, maybe in the interim, until the earth was created?

The angels were created before the earth. When God is speaking to Job we see that he refers to the angels or sons of God celebrating over the creation of the earth. Job 38:1-7:

  Then Jehovah answered Job out of the windstorm:
   2 “Who is this who is obscuring my counsel
  And speaking without knowledge?
   3 Brace yourself, please, like a man;
  I will question you, and you inform me.
   4 Where were you when I founded the earth?
  Tell me, if you think you understand.
   5 Who set its measurements, in case you know,
  Or who stretched a measuring line across it?
   6 Into what were its pedestals sunk,
  Or who laid its cornerstone,
   7 When the morning stars joyfully cried out together,
  And all the sons of God began shouting in applause?

Satan was present with the other angels during the creation of the earth. It wasn't until God created man that Satan began to rebel against God. Genesis 3:3-5

  But God has said about the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the garden: ‘You must not eat from it, no, you must not touch it; otherwise you will die.’” 4 At this the serpent said to the woman: “You certainly will not die. 5 For God knows that in the very day you eat from it, your eyes will be opened and you will be like God, knowing good and bad.”

Satan was then calling God a liar and inferred that God was keeping good things from man.

Isaiah 14:13-14

  You said in your heart, ‘I will ascend to the heavens.
  Above the stars of God I will lift up my throne,
  And I will sit down on the mountain of meeting,
  In the remotest parts of the north.
  14 I will go up above the tops of the clouds;
  I will make myself resemble the Most High.

Satan wanted the glory of God's position. He also wanted humans to worship him as God.

At the time Revelation was written Satan had not yet been thrown down to earth. That was prophecy that would occur at a later date. Acts 2:32-35

  God resurrected this Jesus, and of this we are all witnesses. Therefore, because he was exalted to the right hand of God and received the promised holy spirit from the Father, he has poured out what you see and hear. For David did not ascend to the heavens, but he himself says, ‘Jehovah said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet.”’

Satan and his angels would have been thrown down from heaven when Jesus became the ruler of the kingdom. We don't know what time that happened or will happen, although different denominations will have different answers for this.

We know that Satan had not yet been thrown out of heaven because he was able to talk to God in the book of Job. Job 1:6-7

  Now the day came when the sons of the true God entered to take their station before Jehovah, and Satan also entered among them.
  7  Then Jehovah said to Satan: “Where have you come from?” Satan answered Jehovah: “From roving about on the earth and from walking about in it.

We see that Satan did enter heaven to take his station before God. We know that can't have been on earth because Satan had just come from the earth. Satan cannot have been thrown out of heaven before this account then.

A plausible time-frame for that happening would have been some time after Jesus's resurrection.


What is the "city of seven hills" in St. Malachy's Popes Prophecy? Reading through St. Malachy's Popes Prophecy, I couldn't understand a particular phrase:

  Peter the Roman, who will nourish the sheep in many tribulations; when
  they are finished, the city of seven hills will be destroyed, and the
  dreadful judge will judge his people

I have been searching the internet for some time now but I have not found any clue. What does the city of seven hills refer to?

The Latin phrase civitas septicollis, or "seven-hilled city," is an allusion to Rome. According to Joseph Lomas Towers in his Elucidiations of Prophecy, Ch. XIII, p. 199,

  Rome was as well known by its situation on seven hills or montes, as by the name of Rome itself; Urbs septicollis was never mistaken for any other city, Roman authors have so fully determined the sense of it.

The seven hills are:

Aventine Hill (Latin, Aventinus; Italian, Aventino)
Caelian Hill (Caelius, Celio)
Capitoline Hill (Capitolium, Campidoglio)
Esquiline Hill (Esquilinus, Esquilino)
Palatine Hill (Palatinus, Palatino)
Quirinal Hill (Quirinalis, Quirinale)
Viminal Hill (Viminalis, Viminale)

According to Wikipedia,

  "The Seven Hills of Rome (Italian: Sette colli di Roma) east of the river Tiber form the geographical heart of Rome, within the walls of the ancient city."

In his Carmen Sæculare, the Roman poet Horace wrote,

  When Sybilline verses have issued their warning
  To innocent boys, and the virgins we’ve chosen,
  To sing out their song to the gods, who have shown their
  Love for the Seven Hills (septem...colles).
  O kindly Sun, in your shining chariot, who
  Herald the day, then hide it, to be born again
  New yet the same, you will never know anything
  Mightier than Rome!

Christopher Wordsworth, in his Union with Rome, Ch. I, pp. 3-4, also lists several other Roman authors who refer to Rome in a similar manner.

On another note, I was examining the Latin which states,

  Petrus Romanus, qui pascet oves in multis tribulationibus:
  quibus transactis civitas septicollis diruetur,
  & Iudex tremẽdus iudicabit po pulum suum. Finis.

While the verb pascet, a conjugation of pasco, can mean to feed an animal (like sheep; cp. Vulgate of John 21:16), it can also mean "to lay waste, ravage" (cp. Vulgate of Mic. 5:6; Lewis & Short, I. II. 2.).

Therefore, this Peter the Roman may not be the one "feeding" or nourishing the sheep, but the one persecuting the sheep. Just something to consider.


What is significant about the swaddling clothes with which Jesus was wrapped as a baby? Luke gives the account of Jesus' birth and mentions that Mary wrapped Him in "swaddling cloths".

  And she gave birth to her firstborn son and wrapped him in swaddling
  cloths and laid him in a manger, because there was no place for them
  in the inn.  Luke 2:7 ESV

What is particular significant about this?  Is there any historical material on whether this was a common practice for newborns or whether it was unique to this birth?

I don't want to plagiarize, but there is a very good Catholic article on this here.

In summary, the significance of swaddling clothes lies both in the fact that it is humble, common, ordinary, and also that it ties to Solomon - specifically the Wisdom of Solomon 7, 3-6.

  7:3 And when I was born, I drew in the common air, and fell upon the
  earth, which is of like nature, and the first voice which I uttered
  was crying, as all others do. 7:4 I was nursed in swaddling clothes,
  and that with cares. 7:5 For there is no king that had any other
  beginning of birth. 7:6 For all men have one entrance into life, and
  the like going out.

Per the author of the article, this tie is a reinforcement of Christ's place in the Davidic line, and his rightful place as heir to the Throne of David.

This may or may not be agreed upon by all denominations,  (The Wisdom of Solomon isn't in the Protestant Bible) or even all Catholics.  The idea of it signifying humble beginnings for the King of Kings does seem to be more universal.

Another article at http://living4jesus.net/dynamic/in.swaddling.htm tells that swaddling cloth used in Scripture is not swaddling clothes that a normal infant would be buried in, but rather the strips of cloth used in burial rites.

  Have you ever wondered about "swaddling clothes"?

  Everyone knows that Jesus was born in a manger, and the 2nd chapter of
  the gospel of Luke says that he was wrapped in "swaddling clothes" and
  laid in a manger. In fact, even hospitals today use a cloth that they
  call a "swaddling" cloth. Unfortunately, it's a misnomer that will
  soon be over 2,000 years old, because "swaddling clothes" have nothing
  to do with a child being born!

  In the Middle East, people traveling long distances were often met
  with many hardships and trials on their journeys. In the event of a
  death in travel, the body could not continue to be transported for
  many days. For that reason, travelers wrapped a thin, gauzelike cloth
  around their waist many times. If someone died on the journey, the
  others would use this cloth, referred to as "swaddling clothes" to
  wrap the corpse in before burying them.

  When Jesus was born, there was no room in the Inn, and so Mary and
  Joseph used a nearby stable for Jesus' birth. With no other cloth to
  use, Jesus was wrapped in Joseph's "swaddling clothes" - the cloth
  normally reserved for a person's death.

  The King of Kings and Lord of Lords came into this world in a lowly
  manger and was wrapped with burial clothes - in truth, He was born to
  die. To die for the sins of all mankind.

Clearly, there can be many deeper meanings read into the significance of Swaddling Clothes.  Whether all are accurate, or simply a part of our tendency to romanticize and look for deeper meaning, I'm not sure, but I thought that each of these was worth sharing.


Are there any Christian Restorationist denominations that believe their establishment was the fulfillment of Biblical prophecy? Are there any Christian Restorationist denominations that believe their establishment was the fulfillment of Biblical prophecy?

If so, which denominations and which prophecies?

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or Mormons, believe their establishment was a fulfillment of Biblical prophecy. Some of the prophecies and their fulfillments:

Isaiah 11:1,10-12

  rod out of the stem of Jesse...And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek...

D&C 113:1-6 - Q&A of those verses

  Joseph Smith fulfills this prophecy of the “root” in two ways. First, the Lord told Joseph that the priesthood rightly belonged to him by lineage (See D&C 86:8-10). Second, Joseph was given the “keys of the kingdom” by a succession of heavenly messengers (See D&C 13:1; D&C 27:5; D&C 110:11–13, 16; D&C 128:20–21). 1

Isaiah 29:11-14 - learned man can't read sealed book, but unlearned man can

JSH 1:19 - When Joseph Smith went to inquire of the Lord to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join, God and Jesus appeared unto him and answered they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.
JSH 1:63-65 - Martin Harris brings a fragment of characters and their translation to Dr Charles Anthon who first authenticates the translation then after learning that the translation was by the power of God says I cannot read a sealed book.

Isaiah 40:3-5 - voice crieth in the wilderness

  Here, “the voice of him that crieth” does not refer to John the Baptist in the meridian of time; the context of the chapter deals with happenings that will occur just prior to the Second Coming and the Millennium. Therefore, it is likely that Joseph Smith is “the voice of him that crieth.” 1

Ezekiel 37:16-17 - two 'sticks', stick of Judah and stick of Ephraim, joined into one. The LDS believe the stick of Judah is the Holy Bible and the stick of Ephraim is the Book of Mormon

President Boyd K Packer:

  The stick or record of Judah … and the stick or record of Ephraim … are now woven together in such a way that as you pore over one you are drawn to the other; as you learn from one you are enlightened by the other. They are indeed one in our hands. Ezekiel’s prophecy now stands fulfilled.2

Malachi 3:1-3 - prophesy of a forerunner of Christ. See footnote 1, on how this doesn't just apply to Christ's 1st coming, specifically verse 2:

  Who may abide the day of his coming? and who shall stand when he appeareth? for he is like a refiner’s fire, and like fullers’ soap

Daniel 2:44 - God will set up a kingdom that shall never be destroyed and that will stand forever

  The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was restored in 1830 after numerous revelations from the divine source; and this is the kingdom, set up by the God of heaven, that would never be destroyed nor superseded, and the stone cut out of the mountain without hands that would become a great mountain and would fill the whole earth. 3

Matt 24:14 - gospel preached in all the world before the end comes

  Both Laub’s and Richards’s accounts seem to indicate that Joseph taught he was this witness “chosen for the last dispensation or Seventh Dispensation” 1

Revelation 14:6-7 - angel flying in the midst of heaven preaching the everlasting gospel

  There is little doubt that John’s vision of “another angel fly[ing] in the midst of heaven” points to the latter days.1, 4

Isaiah 2:2 - mountain of the Lord's house shall be established in the tops of the mountains

  This prophecy was fulfilled and further confirmed by Brigham Young, who, when entering the [Salt Lake] valley, rose from his sick bed in Wilford Woodruff’s carriage and said, “This is the right place!”6

Note on Joseph Smith:

  If a person thinks the name of Joseph Smith ought to be found in the Bible spelled out in so many letters, he will search in vain.5

1 https://www.lds.org/ensign/1989/01/prophecies-in-the-bible-about-joseph-smith?lang=eng

2 https://www.lds.org/ensign/1982/11/scriptures.p1?lang=eng

3 https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1976/04/the-stone-cut-without-hands.p111,112,129,130?lang=eng

4 https://archive.org/details/TheWordsOfJosephSmith pg 367

5 Answers to Gospel Questions, 3:6, by Joseph Fielding Smith

6 https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1974/04/that-the-scriptures-might-be-fulfilled?lang=eng


Do any conservative Baptist churches recognize infant baptisms despite not performing them? This may seem like an odd question on its face since Baptists are defined by their insistence upon only baptizing people upon profession of faith, but there is a meaningful distinction to be made.

Baptists affirm that infants should not be baptized, but it seems theoretically possible that some Baptists might disagree on what the right course of action would be for people who become Baptists later in life after being baptized as an infant. Most commonly, Baptists will require a new baptism upon profession of faith since they do not recognize the original as a true baptism, but it seems plausible that some Baptists might still recognize the infant baptism as a valid, or true, baptism incorrectly performed.

Is there any significant Baptist body, confessional statement, polity statement, etc. that recognizes infant baptism as incorrect but still "counting" for the sake of baptism?

I think you would be hard-pressed to find any Baptists who "recognize" paedobaptism if by recognize you mean that they believe it is a valid and biblical practice. However, there are many denominations who distinguish between "essential" and "non-essential" doctrines. The essential doctrines are those that are essential to the faith so that to deny them is to deny Christ and they would not allow a person into church membership who did so. Non-essential doctrines, on the other hand, are doctrines on which Christians may disagree in good faith and still remain in fellowship and membership in the same church. There can be great variation in what a given denomination or individual church would define as essential, although virtually all conservative, orthodox or evangelical churches would consider doctrines such as the Trinity, the two natures of Christ, the Atonement, and the physical resurrection of Jesus essential.

When it comes to Baptism, things get more complicated. There are some who consider Baptism essential while others do not. This tends to come down to two factors. First, what role do they believe that Baptism plays in Salvation? Some Denominations see Believer's Baptism as necessary to salvation (Church of Christ for) or teach Baptismal Regeneration (some Lutherans), while others see Baptism as an obedient action or parental sacrament. The greater the role one believes Baptism plays in salvation, the more likely they are to consider it essential

The other factor is denominational. There are some denominations that consider Baptism essential. A church that is a part of a denomination that does this is much more likely to consider it essential as well. There are other denominations, however, that not only do not view it as essential, they do not have an official position on Baptism (Evangelical Free and CCCC, where I'm a member, are some examples). In these denominations each church (or pastor) is free to determine their own view of baptism. In order to maintain denominational fellowship, those who adopt a Baptist view must still be open to fellowship with other pastors and churches who do not and are, therefore, much more likely to accept those who disagree into membership. But even some denominations that are specifically Baptist view it as important, but not essential. For example, many Reformed Baptist churches hold this view and have many members from Presbyterian or Dutch Reformed backgrounds who are welcomed to join the church without being re-baptized. But even in the SBC (in which I grew up) you will find some churches that allow a person into membership who holds a paetobaptist view. Since the SBC believes in the autonomy of the local church (http://www.sbc.net/faqs.asp), there is no requirement that Baptism be a part of membership standards and any SBC church that views Baptism as a non-essential doctrine is free to admit members who were only baptized as infants.


In the Catholic Church, what makes something illicit vs. invalid? From this question, Why can't the laity preach a homily, and can a lay person ever preach?, in the Catholic Church, what determines the licitness vs. the validity of something.

Please give examples.

The illicitness and the validity of Sacraments are canonical terms used to describe the effectiveness of the sacrament.

Illicit means, roughly, “illegal”.  In the case of a Sacrament, it means performed in a way that is not permitted by the rules or laws of the Church. (But the sacrament did happen). The term Illicit can also be used to refer to actions not done in accordance with the established norms.

Invalid means the Sacrament didn’t happen at all. There is some defect in matter, form or intention. Question of validity occurs only for a Sacrament.

In the example you have pointed out, in giving a homily, there is no question of validity as there is no Sacrament. But it is illicit because it is against the established norms of the Church.

Examples:

Licit and valid: Mass performed by a priest in Good standing with the diocese.

Illicit but valid: Mass performed by an excommunicated priest Or priestly ordination of men without papal approval.

Invalid: Mass performed without proper form, matter or intention. Or an attempt at priestly ordination of women. Please note that all invalid sacraments are Illicit.

More generic example: If you steal money from a bank the money is illicit. If you print your own money the money is invalid.

In a different perspective, in an invalid sacrament Jesus is not present. But in a illicit (but valid) sacrament Jesus is present, but he is not happy about that.


According to Catholics, was faith in the assertions made in the Creed of St. Athanasius required of those in the first 3 centuries? If the person that penned the Creed of St. Athanasius that was identified by St. Thomas Aquinas as being St. Athanasius based on "style" had not published his opus and had it declared Truth until the Fourth (4th) Century AD; and

One must believe every word of it or burn in Hell forever; and

No one before St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) had heard of this information.

Should we understand there to have been no Christians prior to the fourth (4th) century AD?

If not, why not?

It seems you're asking about the difference between a material (definable) and formal (defined) dogma.

material (definable) dogma: a truth revealed by God that the Church has not yet proposed one has to believe under pain of mortal sin against faith and excommunication
formal (defined) dogma: "A truth proposed by the Church as revealed by God"*

Before the 4th century, the Athanasian Creed was a material dogma; no Christian is bound, under pain of mortal sin and excommunication, to assent to a material dogma, to a creed that did not yet exist.

The Athanasian Creed's "way of speaking" ("style") is not what makes it formal dogma; that only makes it definable. What makes it "A truth proposed by the Church as revealed by God"* is that "it was accepted by the authority of the Sovereign Pontiff, so as to be considered as a rule of faith" (Summa Theologica II-II q. 1 a. 10 ad 3).

*On the Value of Theological Notes and the Criteria for Discerning Them by Father Sixtus Cartechini S.J. (Rome, 1951)

Your question seems to be about how Christian doctrine develops yet remains always the same. The development of doctrine is analogous to the development of a living organism, which grows yet always remains the same. See the related question "Whether the articles of faith have increased in course of time?" (Summa Theologica II-II q. 1 a. 7) co.:

  The articles of faith stand in the same relation to the doctrine of faith, as self-evident principles to a teaching based on natural reason. Among these principles there is a certain order, so that some are contained implicitly in others; thus all principles are reduced, as to their first principle, to this one: "The same thing cannot be affirmed and denied at the same time," as the Philosopher states (Metaph. iv, text. 9). In like manner all the articles are contained implicitly in certain primary matters of faith, such as God's existence, and His providence over the salvation of man, according to Heb. 11: "He that cometh to God, must believe that He is, and is a rewarder to them that seek Him." For the existence of God includes all that we believe to exist in God eternally, and in these our happiness consists; while belief in His providence includes all those things which God dispenses in time, for man's salvation, and which are the way to that happiness: and in this way, again, some of those articles which follow from these are contained in others: thus faith in the Redemption of mankind includes belief in the Incarnation of Christ, His Passion and so forth.

  Accordingly we must conclude that, as regards the substance of the articles of faith, they have not received any increase as time went on: since whatever those who lived later have believed, was contained, albeit implicitly, in the faith of those Fathers who preceded them. But there was an increase in the number of articles believed explicitly, since to those who lived in later times some were known explicitly which were not known explicitly by those who lived before them. Hence the Lord said to Moses (Ex. 6:2,3): "I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob [*Vulg.: 'I am the Lord that appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob'] . . . and My name Adonai I did not show them": David also said (Ps. 118:100): "I have had understanding above ancients": and the Apostle says (Eph. 3:5) that the mystery of Christ, "in other generations was not known, as it is now revealed to His holy apostles and prophets."


From a Fundamentalist viewpoint, what does it mean to "take the Bible literally"? In my previous answer on this question, while discussing Biblical Inerrancy, I stated:

  The doctrine of inerrancy does not imply hyper-literalism. As noted
  above, in the second possible mechanism for Biblical Inspiration, we
  believe that 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.

This is not necessarily a Fundamentalist belief.  In an article at cathtruth.com (A Catholic site) we read:

  Since at times our data are only what we find in the Bible, we lack
  the necessary information to reconstruct a given incident with all its
  details. Occasionally the Bible embodies hyperboles, allegories,
  parables, etc.

Detractors love to claim that you can't have it both ways – that you can't claim to take the Bible literally, and then decide that parts of it are allegorical.  (I've made the same statement myself in a discussion on creation/evolution.)

The charge leveled both at me and by me was the same:  "You can't just choose which parts of Scripture you want to believe and assume the other parts are allegorical.  that opens it up to claim that anything you don't like in Scripture is allegorical."

So, are there practical, accepted, time-honored guidelines for determining which parts of Scripture to take literally?

Traditionally, what are the hermeneutic rules applied to Biblical Literalism, and how does "Biblical Literalism" relate to Fundamentalist doctrine?

Disclaimer - I'm not saying that you have to be a fundamentalist to be a Christian.  I'm simply explaining the Fundamentalist perspective on this issue.  it's likely to offend someone.  That's not my intent.

Biblical Literalism, from a Fundamentalist perspective dies not mean hyper-literalism. Instead, we tend toward historical-grammatical method of interpretation, which provides guidelines for determining what content is  to be taken literally, and where a non-literal interpretation is warranted.  Teaching the Word Ministries gives a fairly good set of principles and rules behind the historical-grammatical method.  Rather than quoting directly, I'll summarize:

Because the Bible is inspired, it is inerrant, infallible, and authoritative.  No word of fallible man can stand in authority over Scripture.
Scripture is intelligible. God meant for us to understand it.
Because it is infallible, the Bible is internally consistent. it can't contradict itself.
Because God meant to communicate truth, and because Scripture is internally consistent, the words of Scripture have only one meaning in context. There may be multiple legitimate applications of a passage of Scripture, but a passage has only one meaning in context. This is what it means to interpret Scripture according to its literal, or normal, sense.
We are to employ passages in Scripture that are more clear on a particular subject to interpret those that are less clear, never vice-versa.
Remember that the Bible we are using is a translation, and inerrancy is not applicable, except to the extent that it has been transmitted accurately through time.  Therefore, it is important for ministers of the church to examine the words of Scripture in the original languages (Hebrew and Greek) and in their historical and cultural setting in order to accurately understand their meaning in context and to properly translate them into other languages, thus accurately communicating God's truth
Extra-Biblical resources, such as language helps, commentaries, the writings of the so-called church fathers, and archaeological and scientific evidences, can be useful resources in correctly interpreting Scripture. But since they are the words and works of fallible men they are not authoritative.

Dr. David L. Cooper, the founder of The Biblical Research Society out it much more simply.  Dr. Cooper is known for his “Golden Rule of Interpretation” which is as follows:

  When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense,seek no other
  sense;

  Therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal
  meaning unless the facts of the immediate context, studied in the
  light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths
  indicate clearly otherwise.

So, from this quote, from Dr. Cooper's perspective,  we see that we are to take Scripture at face value (literally) unless...

The immediate context makes it clear that the passage is not to be taken literally.
Related passages, the literal sense does not make sense
The literal sense of the passage would contradict axiomatic, fundamental truths.

A shortened version, which I've heard far more often goes like this:

  If the plain sense makes good sense seek no other sense lest it result
  in nonsense.

For Fundamentalists, this is a core doctrine.  It's as central to the Fundamentalist view as the doctrines of Biblical Inerrancy and Infallibility, and Divine Inspiration.

To the fundamentalist, to stray from the rules of sound Scripture interpretation is to stray into pure conjecture, in which we can make up anything we want about God, rather than worshiping Him in Spirit and in truth.  We can make up a god to suit ourselves (which is also known as idolatry.)

We want a God that says it's OK to lie? That's OK.  We can take that as an allegory.  We want a God that allows disobedience to parents?  We want a religion that teaches there are "many ways to Heaven"?  No problem.  Those are just allegorical statements.  God didn't Mean those things...

Man is fallible.  Even those in charge of our Churches are fallible.  Therefore, teachings and traditions can be erroneous, and outright blasphemous.  Only God's Word is infallible.  Put simply, from a Fundamentalist perspective, the disciplined, literal approach to interpretation of Scripture is the only approach that safeguards us from straying into error.


Spectrum of Interpretation on Great Flood The Great Flood of Noah is a classic Bible story - and a contentious one. Many would argue that traditional or literal interpretations cannot be squared with modern scientific thinking - others reject that science.

I'm sure you also have an opinion. I'm primarily interested in knowing what the main streams of interpretation are. How, for example, do the major churches (Catholic, Orthodox, Baptist, Lutheran, etc.) interpret this story — is there an official teaching? Beyond doctrinal arguments, what's the spectrum of belief in interpreting the Flood, and in reconciling it with later NT references and concepts of inerrancy?

There are 4 basic views regarding the interpretation of the great flood. Generally speaking, these connect to the interpretation of Genesis 1-3 as well.

Global Flood

The first camp is from those who take literal reading of Genesis. Despite some scientific drawbacks here, such as the fact that there does not exist enough water in any form (including ice) to cover the continents and mountain tops and most mainstream scientists state that there is no geological evidence for a global flood. In response, many creation scientists will attempt to dispute this and seek to assemble evidence to the contrary, though mainstream scientists will generally dispute and critique these interpretations of the geological record. This can often lead to some allegations of great conspiracies and cover-ups by mainstream scientists. There is, of course no issue with this interpretation in terms of Biblical Inerrancy.

Local Flood

These scientific challenges generally lead to a second camp of those who take a literal reading of Genesis, but simply do not believe the whole earth was flooded and instead believe a portion of the Levant was flooded. This view depends on the idea that instead of the whole earth being flooded, it was only the whole known earth. This view attempts to appeal to world maps of the time which depict only the Levant such as the Imago Mundi.

Since this was the "Whole Earth" as Noah and the writers of Genesis knew it, the argument is that we should simply be better translating "earth" to clarify that this really refers to the Middle-Eastern region.

Similarly, many believe that Noah simply assumed the whole earth was flooded since there was water as Far as Noah could see. Obviously, Noah did not paddle the ark around in a grid search pattern to verify the veracity of this claim before making it and even had he done so, he would have been unable to map the whole earth in the ark in 40 days. As such, these interpreters would say that this is pretty a pretty obvious exaggeration in the text - so obvious that the author of Genesis did not intend this to be understood as the whole earth literally being flooded, but instead this was intended as an obvious hyperbole. The argument here is if this was intended to be obvious hyperbole, then there is no scriptural errancy - the error is in our own understanding and interpretation of the text.

Those with this view might cite the flooding of the Black Sea, the creation of the Medeterranian Sea itself, the formation of the Red Sea, and/or the formation of the Caspian Sea. Still others might suggest the flood event records a tsunami in the Mediterranean Sea or even the idea that a Tsunami/earthquake caused a strait to burst/give way causing the formation of one of the above events.

Allegorical Interpretation

This view attempts to avoid any scientific problems with the above by simply claiming that the great flood was not intended to be understood as a literal event. This view would appeals to the genre of the text of Genesis to claim that it was always intended to be understood as allegorical. Those in the allegorical school of thought generally would claim that either 1) the entire book of Genesis was intended to be this way, 2) the first 11 chapters of Genesis are allegorical or 3) Only the creation and flood stories are intended to be allegorical. This view would argue that because the text was intended allegorically, it there is no issue with inerrancy.

There are many criticisms of this view including larger theological discussions regarding issues like original sin which debates the need for a literal Adam, and the critique that the flood story is sandwiched between genealogies and historical narratives similar to those of the other patriarchs which do not have the hallmarks of the intent of a non-literal interpretation seen in texts like Psalms, Proverbs, Song of Songs, Lamentations, Ecclesasties, and similar texts. In favor of this view is the idea that Genesis 1 seems to take the form of a hymn, poem, or prologue and factors like the fact that "Adam" means "Man" and "Eve" means "Life" which some argue shows that the authorial intent that these names are meant to be proxies for mankind, not specific, real individuals and similar literary notes.

Framework View

This view, favored by Panbabylonists makes little or no attempt to address scriptural inerrancy. Instead, this view prefers to make comparative studies of Genesis as a literary framework. This view notes the presence of things like the Toldoth forumla which divides Genesis into sections of narrative and seeks to make a Poleic comparison to similar flood narratives by other cultures such as the Epic of Atra-Hasis and the Epic of Gilgamesh. This view may appeal to Documentary Hypothesis to suggest that the flood narrative might be a post-exilic addition added by a later redactor to an earlier version of Genesis - a view supported by scholars like Gordon J. Wenham and others.

Instead of looking for the literal plausibility, most who hold the framework view are unconcerned with inerrancy and instead prefer to assume that the story was intended literally, but also as a corrective to the existing flood narratives. This view then looks for the notable differences between the stories to attempt to determine the theological claims being made (namely the superiority of Yahweh) by examining the polemic comparisons.

Instead of retaining the idea of Biblical inerrancy, some adherents of this view favor infallibility of the text - making a distinction between the two. Instead of being concerned with the duration of the flood (was it 40 days or 41 days?) or how much of the earth was flooded, this view focuses on the larger picture and meaning of the text - that Mankind is sinful, that God is a God is a God of salvation who seeks to restore mankind, etc. and views these larger truths to be infallible. Other adherents of this view may adhere to some or all aspects of the Global, Local, or Allegorical views, or none of the above.

This view largely arises as an attempt to explain archaeological and historical discoveries and as such is the "new kid" on the block and is thus not as widespread as other views. Due to the high academic cost of entry and the need to be well-versed in archaeology and the to be read archaic Sumerian and Babylonian texts, this view is largely relegated to the realm of academia. The complexity and academic background needed for this view has often caused it to be largely dismissed by laity in the mainstream which usually prefer one of the 3 above simpler views.


Which doctrine was formalised first: Infant Baptism or Original Sin? What I mean is something like this :

Case A, Original Sin came first
because all newly born baby are going to hell if they die in their infant age
then let's do Infant Baptism so they don't go to hell if the infant die.
(here, Infant Baptism start to exist after the Original Sin formulated).

Case B, Infant Baptism came first
because the church do Infant Baptism
Then it must be because all newly born baby will go to hell if the infant die.
(here, Original Sin formulated because the church do Infant Baptism).

Here is what I read from this link

  Pelagius promised infants who died unbaptised entry into “eternal
  life” (not, however, into the “Kingdom of God” [Jn 3:5]), reasoning
  that God would not condemn to hell those who were not personally
  guilty of sin

From the same link

  In countering Pelagius, Augustine was led to state that infants who
  die without Baptism are consigned to hell ---//cut--- Liturgical practice confirms the Church's belief that all inherit Adam's sin and must be transferred from the power of darkness into the kingdom of light

From reading those sentences (especially the bold one), my own conclusion is case-B.
So, there is already an Infant Baptism ritual in that time.
Maybe Pelagius say "You don't need to baptize infant. If they die in their infant age, they won't go to hell". On the other hand, Augustine do not agree on what Pelagius say. In the pov of Augustine, Infant Baptism must be performed in order that if the infant die, the infant won't go to hell.

But since I'm not so sure, that's why I ask here.

Was Infant Baptism practiced before the development of the idea of Original Sin?

Ultimately it is not possible to historically know for with  any great amount of surety as the two seem to be based on very little historical documents as well as the interpretation on a few choice passages of Sacred Scripture. It does seem that the two developed at the same time. There is a definite relationship between infant baptism and original sin.

The Catholic Church believes that there is a biblical basis for baptizing infants to cleanse them for original sin.

    And Peter said to them, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him." And he testified with many other words and exhorted them, saying, "Save yourselves from this crooked generation." [Acts 2:38–40]

    We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. [Romans 6:4]

    God's patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. [1 Peter 3:20–21]

  The Catechism holds that infant baptism is "an immemorial tradition", practised from the earliest days of the Church recorded in Acts.

    1252 The practice of infant Baptism is an immemorial tradition of the Church. There is explicit testimony to this practice from the second century on, and it is quite possible that, from the beginning of the apostolic preaching, when whole "households" received baptism, infants may also have been baptized [Cf Acts 16:15, 33; Acts 18:8; 1 Cor 1:16] - What is the Biblical basis for the Catholic teaching that infant baptism cleanses from original sin?

"Seek forgiveness" goes on to add this to this very question.

  Furthermore Paul notes that baptism has replaced circumcision.

    In Col. 2:11: In him you also were circumcised – not, however, with a circumcision performed by human hands, but by the removal of the fleshly body, that is, through the circumcision done by Christ. 2:12 Having been buried with him in baptism, you also have been raised with him through your faith in the power of God who raised him from the dead.

  If Paul meant to exclude infants, he would not have chosen circumcision as a parallel for baptism.

  Augustine also taught that,

    “It is this one Spirit who makes it possible for an infant to be regenerated ... when that infant is brought to baptism; and it is through this one Spirit that the infant so presented is reborn. For it is not written, ‘Unless a man be born again by the will of his parents’ or “ by the faith of those born again of water and the Holy Spirit’[John3:5]. The water, therefore manifesting exteriorly the sacrament of grace, and the Spirit effecting interiorly the benefit of grace, both regenerate in one Christ that man who is generated in Adam”(Letters 98:2)

  Origen also wrote in the third century that 'according to the usage of Church, baptism is given even to infants'(Homilies on Leviticus, 8:3:11,AD 244).

  The council of Carthage, in 253, condemned the opinion that baptism should be withheld from infants until the eight day after birth.

    Later Augustine taught, 'The custom of Mother Church in baptising infants is certainly not to be scorned ....nor is to be believed that its tradition is anything except apostolic' (Literal Interpretation of Genesis 10:23:39, AD 408) - What is the Biblical basis for the Catholic teaching that infant baptism cleanses from original sin?

Original sin in Scripture

  The classical text is Romans 5:12 sqq. In the preceding part the apostle treats of justification by Jesus Christ, and to put in evidence the fact of His being the one Saviour, he contrasts with this Divine Head of mankind the human head who caused its ruin. The question of original sin, therefore, comes in only incidentally. St. Paul supposes the idea that the faithful have of it from his oral instructions, and he speaks of it to make them understand the work of Redemption. This explains the brevity of the development and the obscurity of some verses. Original Sin

Original sin in tradition

  On account of a superficial resemblance between the doctrine of original sin and the Manichaean theory of our nature being evil, the Pelagians accused the Catholics and St. Augustine of Manichaeism. For the accusation and its answer see "Contra duas epist. Pelag.", I, II, 4; V, 10; III, IX, 25; IV, III. In our own times this charge has been reiterated by several critics and historians of dogma who have been influenced by the fact that before his conversion St. Augustine was a Manichaean. They do not identify Manichaeism with the doctrine of original sin, but they say that St. Augustine, with the remains of his former Manichaean prejudices, created the doctrine of original sin unknown before his time.

  It is not true that the doctrine of original sin does not appear in the works of the pre-Augustinian Fathers. On the contrary, their testimony is found in special works on the subject. Nor can it be said, as Harnack maintains, that St. Augustine himself acknowledges the absence of this doctrine in the writings of the Fathers. St. Augustine invokes the testimony of eleven Fathers, Greek as well as Latin (Contra Jul., II, x, 33). Baseless also is the assertion that before St. Augustine this doctrine was unknown to the Jews and to the Christians; as we have already shown, it was taught by St. Paul. It is found in the fourth Book of Esdras, a work written by a Jew in the first century after Christ and widely read by the Christians. This book represents Adam as the author of the fall of the human race (vii, 48), as having transmitted to all his posterity the permanent infirmity, the malignity, the bad seed of sin (iii, 21, 22; iv, 30). Protestants themselves admit the doctrine of original sin in this book and others of the same period (see Sanday, "The International Critical Commentary: Romans", 134, 137; Hastings, "A Dictionary of the Bible", I, 841). It is therefore impossible to make St. Augustine, who is of a much later date, the inventor of original sin.

  That this doctrine existed in Christian tradition before St. Augustine's time is shown by the practice of the Church in the baptism of children. The Pelagians held that baptism was given to children, not to remit their sin, but to make them better, to give them supernatural life, to make them adoptive sons of God, and heirs to the Kingdom of Heaven (see St. Augustine, Of Sin and Merit I.18). The Catholics answered by citing the Nicene Creed, "Confiteor unum baptisma in remissionem peccatorum". - Original Sin

It seems the Early Church probably practiced infant baptism from apostolic times due to concept of original sin as it was understood at the time.

Related Questions:

  Has the term “born again” always been synonymous with baptism with the Christians of the Early Church?

  What is the earliest explicit mention of infant baptism?