What does Lewis mean by the things that stifle bitter resentment in elders in A Grief Observed In A Grief Observed on page 7 Lewis writes:

  Our elders submitted and said, 'Thy will be done.' How often had bitter resentment been stifled through sheer terror and an act of love — yes, in every sense, an act — put on to hide the operation?

What is Lewis getting at here? What does he mean by, "stifled through sheer terror," "an act of love," "hide the operation?" Any insights would be appreciated.

Section One deals with Lewis’s initial reaction to the death of his wife.  He asks this about God:

  Why is He so present a commander in our time of prosperity and so very absent a help in time of trouble?  I tried to put some of these thoughts to C. this afternoon.  He reminded me that the same thing seems to have happened to Christ: “Why hast thou forsaken me?”  I know. Does that make it easier to understand?”

Then comes the quote about “our elders” who submitted to God’s will and the question of bitter resentment being stifled, the whole thing “an act – put on to hide the operation” (page 8).

Further on in the book, in Section Two (page 29), Lewis likens grief to fear, suspense or waiting for something to happen.  It is in Section Three (page 45) where Lewis uses the metaphor of an amputation to describe how one never really recovers from the grief of the death of a loved one.

  To say the patient is getting over it after an operation for appendicitis is one thing; after he’s had his leg off it is quite another... Presently he’ll get back his strength and be able to stump about on his wooden leg.  He has ‘got over it’.  But he will probably have recurrent pains in the stump all his life... he will always be a one-legged man.

In Section Four Lewis realises that he is going through a process and likens it to a winding valley where any bend may reveal a totally new landscape.  He then introduces another metaphor to describe the process he is going through:

  Two widely different convictions press more and more on my mind.  One is that the Eternal Vet is even more inexorable and the possible operations even more painful than our severest imaginings can forbode. But the other, that ‘all shall be well, and all shall be well, and all manner of things shall be well’.

Lewis is moving through the process of grief, which is not unlike recovering from an operation.  He likens the death of a beloved to an amputation.

Perhaps now we can understand the reference to “the operation” given on page 8.  It is a metaphor that covers all sorts of suffering, and how Christians who came before, (“the elders”) the biblical saints, who submitted to the will of God and were persecuted and suffered for righteousness’ sake, struggled with internal doubts, resentment and fear.  “Why, God, are you allowing these terrible things to happen to me?”  The “operation” may be a reference to the price they pay for submitting to God’s will, just as Christ Jesus, who paid the ultimate price, suffered in order to do the will of his Father in heaven.

It is human nature to question and challenge what appears to be unfair, or unreasonable, or wrong.  This is where resentment is stifled and it may look to others that the believer who is suffering is simply putting on an act.  Just like grieving after the death of a loved one, all sorts of internal struggles are besetting other believers who did not fully understand why these dreadful things were happening to them (“the operation”) but who, nevertheless, endured.   You may find this article helpful:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Grief_Observed


Where are the tombs of Jesus' original 12 Apostles I would like a list of the twelve Apostles, correlated with their most probable burial location. I understand that many reliquaries containing parts of their bodies were distributed throughout Christendom, but if there is a "primary" burial location for each, I would like to see it.

Additionally, I would like to know the date associated with each burial location, and I understand that it may have been established well after the death of the Apostles in question. I'm not seeking to see if each site is in fact "the" actual location, so much as to understand where I could visit any particular shrine.

(1) Is there any information on the possible tombs, i.e. not the cenotaphs if any, of the Apostles of Jesus Christ? I have seen and visited other tombs of other christian historical figures.
2) how far does this go in time? That is, which known tomb would be the oldest?

I got most of this information by perusing Wikipedia.

Simon Peter (brother of Andrew) - traditionally said to be buried in Rome, under St. Peter's Basilica. The tomb dates between 130 and 300.
James (son of Zebedee and older brother of John) also called "James the Greater" - as the patron saint of Spain, he is said to have been buried in Santiago de Compostela after his remains were carried there when he was beheaded in Jerusalem. The pilgrimage site originated in the 9th century.
John (son of Zebedee and brother of James) - traditionally said to have been buried in Ephesus. The basilica has been there since the 6th century, but his remains are said to have not been found.
Andrew (brother of Simon Peter) - traditionally said to have been buried in Patras, Greece. In 357 the relics were transferred to Constantinople. In 867 the skull was sent back to Patras, and in 1208 those that remained in Constantinope were sent to Amalfi, Italy. In 1908 all relics were returned to Patras.
Philip of Bethsaida - traditions say he was martyred in Hierapolis, and archaeologists claim to have found his tomb in 2011. Santi Apostoli is said to contain his remains now (having been transferred from the tomb to Constantinople and then there before the tomb was discovered). It's unclear to me when the remains are supposed to have been transferred there.
Thomas (Didymus) - there are a number of places associated with his martyrdom and burial, but the most commonly accepted seem to be a martyrdom on St. Thomas' Mount in India and burial nearby where San Thome Basilica was later erected. It's unclear when exactly the site became associated with him, but it appears to have been 1523 at the latest.
Bartholomew (Nathaniel) - said to have been martyred in Albanopolis, Armenia with his remains being shuffled around for a while later until they came to rest in the Basilica of St. Bartholomew in Rome in 1180.
Matthew (Levi son of Alphaeus) of Capernaum - said to be buried in Salerno, Italy, where a cathedral was built in 1076.
James (son of Alphaeus) also called "James the Lesser" - Hippolytus said he was stoned to death in Jerusalem, but Nikephoros said he was crucified in Ostrakine, Egypt. His relics are in Santi Apostoli with Philip. As with Philip, it's unclear to me when the site became associated with him.
Simon the Zealot - relics are in St. Peter's Basilica in the same complex as Peter (so dated between 130 and 300)
Judas Thaddaeus (Lebbaeus), called "Jude of James" (brother or son of someone named James, possibly one of the Jameses in this list) - relics are in St. Peter's Basilica in the same complex as Peter (so dated between 130 and 300)
Judas Iscariot - died in Akeldama and presumably still there, but nobody has been terribly interested in venerating the tomb of a traitor
Matthias - the Greeks claim he's buried in Gonio, Georgia but Catholics have had his relics in St. Matthew's Abbey in Trier, Germany since 1148


What is the "glory of God" in Romans 3:23? In a gospel presentation, we might use Romans 3:23: "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God."
What have sinners fallen from, exactly, with regards to the glory of God?
The verse wasn't meant to be understood as fallen from a high moral state, or fallen short of a good reputation in the community, for example.
I'd like answers from the perspective of those who ascribe to the Apostle's Creed.

Romans 3:23-26 (KJV): For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.
Q – What is the Glory of God?
The Lord God Almighty is the King of Glory, according to Psalm 24:7-10.  He is glory personified.  His whole being is unimaginably glorious. Glory is part of his eternal being, power and majesty.  Psalm 24 pictures the coming of the King of glory in a time of celebration. Given the Hebrew association of the cloud of glory with the Ark of the Covenant, it is quite possible that Psalm 24 was written to commemorate the entrance of the Ark into Jerusalem during David’s time (2 Samuel 6:12–17) or into the temple during Solomon’s time (2 Chronicles 5:7).
Jesus is called “the Lord of Glory” in 1 Corinthians 2:8. The gospel message is God’s secret wisdom, a wisdom that was hidden from the rulers of this age.  Had they understood it, they would not have crucified Christ Jesus, “the Lord of glory”.
Hebrews 9:5 speaks of the Cherubim of Glory. Between the two winged figures made of pure gold, of one piece, the glory of God’s presence appeared over the ark of the Testimony:

There, above the cover between the two cherubim that are over the ark of the Testimony, I will meet with you and give you all my commands for the Israelites. (Exodus 25:17-22)

When Moses entered the Tent of Meeting to speak with the LORD, he heard the voice speaking to him from between the two cherubim above the cover on the ark of the Testimony.  And he spoke with him. (Numbers 78:89)

A – The Glory of God is His holy and sinless Presence
Q – What have sinners fallen from or come short of?
There is no sin in God because it is the very antithesis of His nature. God hates sin because He is holy and holiness is the most exalted of all His attributes (Isaiah 6:3; Revelation 4:8). His holiness totally saturates His being.  His holiness epitomizes His moral perfection and His absolute freedom from blemish of any kind.
God hates sin because it separates us from Him: “But your iniquities have separated you from your God; your sins have hidden His face from you, so that He will not hear” (Isaiah 59:2) It was sin that caused Adam and Eve to run away from God and hide “among the trees of the garden” (Genesis 3:8). Sin always brings separation, and the fact that God hates sin means that He hates being separated from us.  His love demands restoration, which in turn demands holiness.
God hates sin for the same reason that light hates darkness and truth hates a lie.  Sin blinds us to the truth.  Sin lessens our love for God.  Sin enslaves us and will destroy us:  “Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness?” (Romans 6:16)  Sin grieves the Spirit of God: “And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption” (Ephesians 4:30).
A – Sinners fall short of God’s holiness, and it is because of our sinful condition that we have been separated from God and, without faith in the shed blood of Christ Jesus, are utterly unable to enter into the presence of God.
P.S. I can say "Amen" to the "Apostles Creed"


Is there a canon law for what to do if a hostage situation breaks out while consecrating the Eucharist? I was told by a friend that the Roman Catholic Church has canon law for what to do if, while consecrating the Eucharist during mass (say, halfway through reciting the Words of Institution), a hostage situation breaks out within the church. His claim was that with two thousand years of tradition, this was bound to happen at some point and did in fact with some militant Irish Catholics.

I have no idea if there is any truth to this, or if they were just pulling my leg. But it sounds plausible given the extensive canon law that the Church has, so I figure it's worth asking. Is there a canon law for what to do if there is a hostage situation while consecrating the Eucharist? If not canon law, are there other official guidelines for what to do?

This isn't a matter of canon law, which governs the general conduct and culpability of the people of God; this is covered by the instructions for Mass.

The last Latin Missal (the Missale Romanum of 1962) contained the following instructions. I can't find anything similar in the current General Instruction of the Roman Missal.

  DE DEFECTIBUS IN CELEBRATIONE MISSÆ OCCURRENTIBUS

  X - De defectibus in ministerio ipso occurrentibus

  Si, sacerdote celebrante, violetur ecclesia ante Canonem, dimittatur Missa: si post Canonem, non dimittatur. Si timeatur incursus hostium, vel alluvionis, vel ruina loci ubi celebratur, ante Consecrationem dimittatur Missa; post Consecrationem vero sacerdos accelerare poterit sumptionem Sacramenti, omissis omnibus aliis.
  Si sacerdos ante Consecrationem graviter infirmetur,
  vel in syncopen incident aut moriatur,
  praetermittitur Missa. Si post Consecrationem Corporis
  tantum, ante Consecrationem Sanguinis, vel
  utroque consecrato id accidit, Missa per alium
  sacerdotem expleatur ab eo loco ubi ille desiit, et
  in casu necessitatis etiam per non ieiunum. Si
  autem non obierit, sed fuerit infirmus, adeo tamen
  ut possit communicare, et non adsit alia hostia
  consecrata, sacerdos, qui Missam supplet, dividat
  hostiam, et unam partem praebeat infirmo, aliam
  ipse sumat. Si autem semiprolata forma Corporis
  obiit sacerdos, quia non est facta Consecratio, non
  est necesse ut Missa per alium suppleatur. Si vero
  obierit semiprolata forma Sanguinis, tune alter
  prosequatur Missam, et super eundem calicem
  repetat integram formam ab eo loco: Simili modo,
  postquam cenatum est; vel posset super alium
  calicem praeparatum integram formam proferre,
  et hostiam primi sacerdotis, et Sanguinem a se
  consecratum sumere, ac deinde calicem relictum
  semiconsecratum.
  Si quis extra huiusmodi casus necessitatis integra Sacramenta non sumpserit, gravissime peccat.

My Latin isn't great, so the following is open to correction:

  OF DEFECTS OCCURRING IN THE CELEBRATION OF MASS

  X - Of defects occurring in the ministry

  If, while the priest is celebrating Mass, the church is violated before the Canon, the Mass is ended; if after the Canon, it is not to be discontinued. If there is fear of an attack of the enemy, or flood, or the destruction of the place where [Mass] is celebrated: before the consecration, the Mass is ended; after the consecration, the priest can speed up the reception of the Sacrament, neglecting all other things.
  If before the Consecration the priest becomes seriously ill, or faints, or dies, the Mass is left undone. If after the consecration of the body only and before the consecration of the blood, or after both have been consecrated, another priest is to be sent from the place where he left off, and in case of necessity even breaking their fast. If, however, he has not died, but was ill and is still able to receive Communion, and if there is no other consecrated host, the priest who is completing the Mass divides the Host, and offers one part to the sick man, and consumes the other part himself. If the priest has died during confecting the Body, in that there is no consecration, it is not necessary for another [priest] to be supplied for the Mass. If, however, he died during the offering of the Blood, then the other [priest] continues the Mass, repeating the whole form from that place, over the cup: In a similar way, when supper was ended; or the whole formula could be offered over another prepared chalice, and the host of the first priest, and the Blood consecrated by himself, and then the cup left half-consecrated.
  If anyone does not receive the whole Sacrament aside from cases of necessity of this kind, he sins gravely.

Paragraph 2 is probably the most relevant. If the priest has not yet consecrated the sacred species, the Mass is ended and he does not continue. If he has done so, then he can omit as much of the rest of the Mass is necessary in order that the sacrament can be consumed.

Archbishop Oscar Romero was murdered at the altar, but I don't know at what point that was in the Mass or what happened afterwards. I understand that Fr Jacques Hamel consumed the sacrament himself rather than let it be desecrated, before he was killed.


Is there a projection of when Bible translation into all the languages of the world will be complete? The Bible has been translated into more languages than any other book by far.  Wycliffe Bible Translators and others continue to do this in more and more languages.  This is seen by many to be part of the fulfillment of the Great Commission.

So, is there any specific projection of when Bible translation into all the languages of the world (~6,000) will be complete?

According to Wycliffe, this is the state of Bible Translation today:

  The worldwide status of Bible translation (2012):

  6,800+ ...the number of languages spoken in the world today

  Under 2,000...the number of languages without any of the Bible, but with a possible need of a Bible translation to begin

  about 209 million...the number of people who speak the less than 2,000 languages where translation projects have not yet begun

  Over 1,500...the number of translation programs where Wycliffe and its partners are currently at work

  1,275 ...the number of language groups that have access to the New Testament in their heart language

  518...the number of language groups that have access to the entire Bible in the language they understand best

  over 7 billion...the population of the world

  Although Bible translation is progressing at a more rapid rate today than ever before, an overwhelming amount of work has yet to be done.

From Wycliffe's own "2000 languages without a Bible" statistic, one can derive the fact that there is a finite number of languages into which the Bible could be translated.  Between SIL and Wycliffe, the support infrastructure needed to learn, translate, and produce Bibles in every language exists, assuming the necessary resources were available.  Given sufficient resources, there is no particular reason to see these as anything other than an exercise in parallelization, meaning 2000 dedicated individuals, willing to learn a language then translate the Bible into it, and then distribute it.  This could, in theory, be done in a generation.

To this, I also add information from New Tribes Mission - a missionary organization that works primarily amongst indigenous tribes in New Guinea, a place where lots and lots of tribal languages exist. I know, in speaking with missionaries who deal with Wycliffe and SIL, that the typical progression of a mission is as follows.  Note, much of this is shown in the video 'EE-TAOW' which describes the process:

1 - 3 years assimilating into a tribe, in order to understand the language, mores, and stories important to the tribe.  Little evangelization is done at this point
3 - 5 years in, initial converts are made, as the Bible is presented orally - presenting the narrative of Scripture from end to end, culminating in the wonderful news of the Gospel.
5 - 20 years, grooming leaders within the group who can further continue the work of the Gospel, as well as work with the missionary in providing a good, written translation of Scripture, assuming that literacy within the target groups warrants one.

The problem, of course, is that just having a bible in your language does not always mean you have a good Bible in your language - words change, concepts don't always match, etc...  And, it doesn't always mean you can read it.  There are all sorts of reasons why the answer of "20 years and 2000 missionaries" isn't really accurate, but hopefully, this at least brings an order of magnitude to the task.


According to full preterism, who is 'the dragon' and what are the differences between 'the dragon' and 'the beast'? In some passages from the Bible there exists sentences such as: Revelation 12:9

The great dragon was hurled down—that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him.

and Revelation 13:4

People worshiped the dragon because he had given authority to the beast, and they also worshiped the beast and asked, “Who is like the beast? Who can wage war against it?"

Since I am assuming that 'Satan', 'the beast', etc are the same entity then
Who is 'the dragon' and what are the differences between 'the dragon' and 'the beast'?

Revelation 12:9 answers the first part of your question. "the great dragon .... that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan who leads the whole world astray." Most understand that the devil (Satan) also called the deceiver, is in opposition to God.

The beast is a power. See the beasts in Daniel 7 and 8. This beast obtains it's authority from the dragon. They are not one and the same. Both the beast and the dragon in Revelation 13:4 receive worship. This beast in Revelation 13 comes out of the sea with 7 heads and 10 horns (powers) and 10 crowns (symbolic of authority) on the horns. This beast looks like a leopard with bear's feet and has a lion's mouth. It receives it's power from the dragon for 42 months then one of it's heads receives a deadly wound but this is later healed. There is a second beast in Revelation 13:11 that comes up out of the earth where the first beast had come up out of the sea. It has horns like a lamb but speaks like a dragon. It exercises the same authority as the first beast (authority received from the dragon) and causes all on the earth to worship the first beast that had the deadly wound to it's head which is now healed, and causes all on the earth to receive a mark (of worship). The mark of this second beast is a number, vs. 18, 666.

There are other beasts that are mentioned in Daniel. If you read Daniel 7 you find 4 different beasts. The 4th beast is a terrible beast with teeth of iron and interestingly, 10 horns. I believe that the beasts in Daniel and the beasts in Revelation help to explain each other. In Daniel 2 Nebuchadnezzar has a dream of an image. It follows by an interpretation of the dream which foretells the progression of the main ruling powers on the earth starting with Nebuchadnezzar and Babylon. There are 5 of them, head - gold, chest & arms - silver, belly - bronze, legs - iron, and feet with 10 toes - of iron and clay. In Daniel 7 you find another dream, this time of beasts and there are four of them, a lion with eagle's wings, a leopard with 4 wings of a bird and four heads. The third beast as a bear on it's side with 3 ribs in it's mouth. The fourth beast is described Daniel 7:7-10. “After this I saw in the night visions, and behold, a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, exceedingly strong. It had huge iron teeth; it was devouring, breaking in pieces, and trampling the residue with its feet. It was different from all the beasts that were before it, and it had ten horns. 8 I was considering the horns, and there was another horn, a little one, coming up among them, before whom three of the first horns were plucked out by the roots. And there, in this horn, were eyes like the eyes of a man, and a mouth speaking pompous words. Later in Daniel 8 there is another vision of a ram and a goat with the interpretation. This helps to understand the other visions and which kingdoms are to come. The ram with two horns is Medio Persia and the goat is Greece. There is a lot more but this answer is becoming very involved. Blessings on your studies.


According to Trinitarians, why does Jesus glorifying himself amount to nothing? John 8:54-55 has Jesus saying

"“If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. It is my Father who
glorifies me, he of whom you say, ‘He is our God,’ though you do not
know him. But I know him; if I would say that I do not know him, I
would be a liar like you. But I do know him and I keep his word."

For unitarians, this makes sense - Jesus is a man, the Father is God, and so what is important about Jesus is that the Father (= God) glorifies Jesus, not that Jesus might glorify himself.
For Trinitarians, why would Jesus, who is God, glorifying himself be 'nothing'?

There is a lack of appreciation for the fine and complex texture depicted of the existential and operational relationships among the three of the Divine Trinity in the activities of the incarnated Son.
Especially in John, there is an almost maddening interplay between the operations of the Son of God and those of the Father and the Spirit.
We are not observing the life of simply a man nor of God become a man in the simple sense of who God is; instead, we are seeing the entire Triune God in operation in the actions of the human life of the incarnated Son of God.
As Jesus is about to die and resurrect for our redemption and justification, the Son asks the Father to glorify Him withthat eternal glory once set aside, and in doing so, to glorify Himself along with the Son.
In so saying, the Son enunciates a principle within the Trinity, that is, that the Son is glorified in the glorification of the Father and the Father is glorified in the glorification of the Son. So in this case, God and man are joined together as one entity, living and working together as one. So, if the Son in His humanity glorify himself, it is nothing and meaningless because all He express is just Himself.
The prime function of the Son’s incarnation was to glorify the Father on earth, and the Son fulfilled this mission by finishing the work the Father had given Him to do (John 17:4). This mutual glorification can hardly be viewed as two separate actions of the Father and the Son, but as one action in which the Father and the Son both act; however, the agency of each has a distinct object —the other— and the agency of each requires the operation of the other. So blended are the actions and operations of the Father and the Son in this mutual glorification that in one breath the Son can speak of Himself being glorified and in the next of the Father being glorified (John 12:23, 28).
Torrance puts this clearly:

It was, of course, not the Godhead or the Being of God as such who
became incarnate, but the Son of God, not the Father or the Spirit,
who came among us, certainly from the Being of the Father and as
completely homoousios with him, yet because in him the fullness of the
Godhead dwells, the whole undivided Trinity must be recognised as
participating in the incarnate Life and Work of Christ. - Thomas F.
Torrance, The Christian Doctrine of God: One Being Three Persons
(London: T&T Clark, 1996), p. 108
Since God’s Being and Activity completely interpenetrate each other,
we must think of his Being and his Activity not separately but as one
Being-in-Activity and one Activity-in- Being. In other words, the
Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit always act together in every
divine operation whether in creation or redemption, yet in such a way
that the distinctive activities of the Father, the Son and the Holy
Spirit, are always maintained, in accordance with the propriety and
otherness of their Persons as the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.
This may be called the ‘perichoretic coactivity of the Holy Trinity’…
The primary distinction was made there, of course, for it was the Son
or Word of God who became incarnate, was born of the Virgin Mary, was
crucified under Pontius Pilate, and rose again from the grave, and not
the Father or the Holy Spirit, although the whole life and activity of
Jesus from his birth to his death and resurrection did not take place
apart from the presence and coactivity of the Father and the Spirit.

Ibid., pp. 197-198

Some other quotes that helps to describe this reality:

Perichoresis means that not only do the three members of the Trinity
interpenetrate one another, but all three are involved in all the
works of God. While certain works are primarily or more centrally the
doing of one of these rather than the others, all participate to some
degree in what is done. Thus, while redemption is obviously the work
of the incarnate Son, the Father and the Spirit are also involved. -
Millard J. Erickson, God in Three Persons: A Contemporary
Interpretation of the Trinity (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1995),
p. 235

When Scripture ascribes certain works specifically to the Father,
others specifically to the Son, and still others specifically to the
Holy Spirit, we are compelled to presuppose a genuine distinction
within the Godhead back of that ascription. On the other hand, the
work ascribed to any of the persons is the work of one absolute
person. - Cornelius Van Til, An Introduction to Systematic Theology
(Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Theological Seminary, 1961), p. 228

When believers complain that they cannot distinguish between the
separate activities in their lives of the Father, the Risen Lord, and
the Holy Spirit, the matter is sometimes phrased in a way that
obscures God’s unity, a fundamental doctrine of both the Old and New
Testament. Every action of any of the persons of the Trinity is an
action of God, although in many actions the persons of the Godhead may
be active in different ways. All authentic spiritual experience is an
experience of the one God. - Carl F. H. Henry, God, Revelation and
Authority, VI:2 (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1983), p. 400


Why is the curse of original sin not specific to humans? From what I learned in church the whole world "fell" after Adam sinned.

Now the typical question is why should everyone have to pay the price and is usually answered by we would have done the same if in Adams shoes.

However,  I have a hard time applying that logic to the rest of the entire world.

Why should everything else in the world have to pay the consequences of humans?

For example why should our pets have to experience sickness and death and suffering?

Or sea creatures or even plants etc.?

Is this fair and just?

This is not a complete answer, but thought it would be good to point out nonetheless.

God had given Adam and Eve the dominion over the earth, the fish, birds...

"And God blessed them. And God said to them, 'Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.'" Gen 1:28 ESV

My understanding of the results of the fall are that man's actions caused a ripple effect down the hierarchy of the earth. God entrusted the earth to Adam & Eve, and when they fell, much was affected.  This would include those things that they have dominion over, from my perspective.


What is the Biblical basis for claiming that Paul upholds and teaches the Torah law? What scriptural support is there to back the idea that Paul not only supported the Torah, but also promoted it?

UPDATE:

For those needing clarification:

"support"

be actively interested in and concerned for the success of
suggest the truth of; corroborate.
give approval, comfort, or encouragement to.

"promote"

further the progress of (something, esp. a cause, venture, or aim); support or actively encourage.

Paul supports the Torah to the extent that he believes it was a valuable and God-given thing in its day. However he very clearly indicates that Christians are not bound by its requirements. Much of the Epistle to the Romans is devoted to this subject, and it gets extensive discussion in other places. I will do no more than quote a couple of important passages. If you are looking for more information on the subject, I recommend any good commentary or Bible dictionary on the subject.

The Law is Good

  What shall we say, then? Is the law sinful? Certainly not! Nevertheless, I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.” But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of coveting. For apart from the law, sin was dead. Once I was alive apart from the law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death. For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death. So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good. Did that which is good, then, become death to me? By no means! Nevertheless, in order that sin might be recognized as sin, it used what is good to bring about my death, so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful. (Romans 7: 7-13)

Christians are not bound by the Law:

  Do you not know, brothers and sisters—for I am speaking to those who know the law—that the law has authority over someone only as long as that person lives? For example, by law a married woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law that binds her to him. So then, if she has sexual relations with another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is released from that law and is not an adulteress if she marries another man. So, my brothers and sisters, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God. For when we were in the realm of the flesh, the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in us, so that we bore fruit for death. But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code. (Romans 7 1-6)


Is there biblical evidence of "cavemen"? Do old earth Christians believe that there were cavemen in early times? This is not to say people who lived in caves but more as what is pictured in early evolution.

I hope I'm wording this correctly and somewhat intelligently. If not, please feel free to ask for details etc.

I think that "is there Biblical evidence" is a completely different question than "do old earth Christians believe".

The Bible gives no mention of human ancestors, and specifically states in the Genesis account that God created Adam and Eve rather than that they evolved from a proto-human ancestor, so the answer to "Is there Biblical Evidence" is "no".

To answer the other question, there are a whole range of beliefs that Christians hold - from Young-Earth Creationism to Old-Earth Creationism, theistic evolution, and full belief in evolution.  Some Christians really just see the Biblical account as allegorical - just a story, but believe in the less "outlandish" things in the Bible.

Given that not all Christians agree on what is to be taken literally, or on the inerrancy of Scripture, there is a wide variety of views on the entire origins debate.  Certainly, some Christians believe in proto-humans.


Do any denominations take "turn the other cheek" as a literal command to be followed? Do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. (Matthew 5:39 NASB)

Do any denominations, historical or current, take this command literally? Which ones?

No denomination simply ignores this verse. No major Christian teachers say to ignore Jesus' teachings. But given the different hermeneutical approaches of different people, there will be different ideas about how to apply his teachings.

John Stott wrote a widely used commentary on the Sermon on the Mount which addresses Matthew 5:39. Stott is highly respected in evangelical circles, and enlists Dietrich Bonhoeffer (an influential Lutheran) and Charles Spurgeon (a 19th century Baptist often called the "prince of preachers") to help make his points. Here's some of what Stott says about Matthew 5:39:

  Let it be said at once, albeit to our great discomfort, that there
  will be occasions when we cannot dodge this command but must obey it
  literally. It may seem fantastic that we should be expected to offer
  our left cheek to someone who has already struck our right, especially
  when we recall that 'the striking on the right cheek, the blow with
  the back of the hand, is still today in the East the insulting blow'
  and that Jesus probably had in mind not an ordinary insult but 'a
  quite specific insulting blow: the blow given to the disciples of
  Jesus as heretics'. Yet this is the standard which Jesus asks, and it
  is the standard which he himself fulfilled. ... Further, before we
  become too eager to evade the challenge of this teaching and behaviour
  as mere unpractical idealism, we need to remember that Jesus called
  his disciples to what Bonhoeffer termed a 'visible participation in
  his cross'. ... In Spurgeon's arresting phrase, we 'are to be as the
  anvil when bad men are the hammers'.

  Yes, but an anvil is one thing, a doormat is another. Jesus'
  illustrations and personal example depict not the weakling who offers
  no resistance. He himself challenged the high priest when questioned
  by him in court. They depict rather the strong man whose control of
  himself and love for others are so powerful that he rejects absolutely
  every conceivable form of retaliation.

  ...

  The only limit to a Christian's generosity will be a limit which love
  itself may impose. For example the apostle Paul once 'resisted' (same
  Greek word) the apostle Peter to his face. Peter's behaviour had been
  wrong, evil. He had withdrawn from fellowship with Gentile brothers
  and so contradicted the gospel. Did Paul give in to him and let him
  get away with it? No. He opposed him, publicly rebuking him and
  denouncing his action. And I think we must defend Paul's conduct as a
  true expression of love. For on the one hand there was no personal
  animosity towards Peter (he did not punch him or insult him or injure
  him), while on the other there was a strong love for the Gentile
  Christians Peter had affronted and for the gospel he had denied. (Gal.
  2:11-14)

  Similarly, Christ's illustrations are not to be taken as the charter
  for any unscrupulous tyrant, ruffian, beggar or thug. His purpose was
  to forbid revenge, not to encourage injustice, dishonesty or vice. ...
  He teaches not the irresponsibility which encourages evil but the
  forbearance which renounces revenge.

  ...

  The command of Jesus not to resist evil should not properly be used to
  justify either temperamental weakness or moral compromise or political
  anarchy or even total pacifism.

In that list is probably some things you had in mind for what it means to take Jesus' command literally (or "seriously" in the original post). So are there major denominations or movements who believe we should apply Jesus' command as "total pacifism"? There sure are. Pacifism is practically a founding principle of the various Anabaptist denominations (Mennonites and Amish) and Quakers. The non-denominational movement of "Red Letter Christians" also espouse pacifism because of Jesus' teachings. Pacifism in general is also pretty common in Christianity.

Christian anarchism is a subset of Christian pacifism. Christian anarchists believe that since the state is a purveyor of violence (via the police and military) it is inherently evil. Therefore Christians are not even to hold office. The Amish even say that joining unions, because of their coercive power, is a violation of Jesus' command. Christian anarchism was pioneered by the 20th century Russian Christian novelist Leo Tolstoy in his books What I Believe and The Kingdom of God is Within You.

Tolstoy was also an advocate of nonresistance (in the sense of not resisting any authorities). One writer explains what that means for modern believers this way:

  The path shown by Jesus is a difficult one that can only be trod by
  true martyrs. A "martyr," etymologically, is he who makes himself a
  witness to his faith. And it is the ultimate testimony to one’s faith
  to be ready to put it to practice even when one’s very life is
  threatened. But the life to be sacrificed, it should be noted, is not
  the enemy’s life, but the martyr’s own life — killing others is not a
  testimony of love, but of anger, fear, or hatred. For Tolstoy,
  therefore, a true martyr to Jesus’ message would neither punish nor
  resist (or at least not use violence to resist), but would strive to
  act from love, however hard, whatever the likelihood of being
  crucified. He would patiently learn to forgive and turn the other
  cheek, even at the risk of death. Such would be the only way to
  eventually win the hearts and minds of the other camp and open up the
  possibilities for reconciliation in the "war on terror."

Some movements, as Wikipedia notes, are "nonresistant" in some instances but more accurately subscribe to "nonviolent resistance" as a philosophy. Martin Luther King, Jr. is quite possibly the most famous advocate of nonviolent resistance, and he based that philosophy on the teachings of Jesus, as you can read in his book Strength to Love, which gets high accolades from Stott. His application of Jesus' principles during the civil rights movement is widely praised by Protestants, Catholics, and even non-Christians.

I don't believe any denominations advocate "temperamental weakness" (being a doormat) or "moral compromise" in response to this Scripture, though it's easy to see why individuals may understand Jesus' words that way on a superficial reading.


How do Cessationists expect people to believe without seeing miracles today? Classical Cessationism asserts that the "sign gifts" such as prophecy, healing and speaking in tongues ceased with the apostles and the finishing of the canon of Scripture. They only served as launching pads for the spreading of the Gospel; as affirmations of God's revelation.

If those people who lived around Christ's time witnessed miracles, and thus believed in God after seeing miracles, how is it that we who are living in the present age are expected to believe in God if we don't see any miracles?

In the present day, why is it that we have to believe the humans, normal people who don't perform miracles, that preach the Gospel, that what they say is true? Isn't it "unfair" that we humans today have to believe on what other people preach without seeing any miracles, but people in Christ's time got to see miracles and thus it was easier to believe in God?

A cessationist belief is best understood by finding out why miracles and wonders were performed:

  We must pay the most careful attention, therefore, to what we have heard, so that we do not drift away. For since the message spoken through angels was binding, and every violation and disobedience received its just punishment, how shall we escape if we ignore so great a salvation? This salvation, which was first announced by the Lord, was confirmed to us by those who heard him. God also testified to it by signs, wonders and various miracles, and by gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will. (Hebrews 2:1-4, NIV)

Here we have the order. Salvation was first announced (i.e. the gospel), then God performed miracles to confirm and testify his approval of this new doctrine that was preached.  More directly God's testimony did not only affirming the truth of what Christ and the Apostles preached, but was a heavenly vindication and seal of approval on their very persons and ministry as infallible guides on establishing the remaining canon of scriptures.  Once these scriptures were completed, they became the final authority in all matters of church practice and Christian living.  In fact the only reason why we believe miracles to have occurred is because the scriptures say so.

Now in the context of Hebrews the author is showing the differences and similarities between the Old Covenant and New Covenant.  Although Jesus is the same, yesterday, today and forever, we find God never continuously performed miracles anywhere in the Bible, but only on occasions as he chose. Especially in the founding of each covenant, did he show many wondrous signs.

Looking back at what God did it seems reasonable.  Miracles do not cause people to believe in God (eg. Pharaoh) but they do allow for mammoth shifts in Salvation history, taking people 'by storm' as it were.  It should not be surprising then to see that God used:

  some divine work to be established amongst men, by virtue of a new and never-before-heard-of revelation of God’s will, or a restoration of the same, when collapsed and corrupted by the sin of men. ... This we may see in Moses and (after Jesus Christ, anointed with the oil of gladness above his fellows to preach the gospel) the apostles. But this may pass, for nothing in such a way shall ever again take place, God having ultimately revealed his mind concerning his worship and our salvation, a curse being denounced to man or angel that shall pretend to revelation for the altering or changing one jot or tittle of the gospel. (John Owen's Works, Vol 13.31)

The facts that the Jews wickedly expected miraculous signs (Matth 16:4, 1 Cor 1:22) as though without which it might be considered 'unfair of God' to expect obedience to his word without them, may have partly been due to the history of miracles that God performed in establishing the Old Covenant. The parable of the rich man in hell talking to Abraham was one way in which Jesus tried to expose foolish human thinking that miracles were needed for faith:

  “He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead. ’” (Luke 16:31, NIV)

A wicked expectation of miracles, is due to a want of belief in the power of scripture and the Holy Spirit's ability to convict men of sin and bring them into salvation thereby.  Clearly this lack of faith and desire for miracles in carnally minded and to be loathed if any fear of God should properly quicken a man's soul from death.

This begs the question, if miracles do not cause faith, but only God's word does when believed, why do miracles 'confirm' God's word then? To answer we need too look at Moses or Christ and see the effects they had.  When considering how difficult it would be for a person without God's power to arrest the attention of a large body of people and introduce to them a whole new practice of worship and doctrine, we can see the miracles helped just that.  Even Pharaoh had to stop and give attention to Moses and question his own beliefs and decisions.  Also in the life of Christ, his popularity helped spread his fame. Miracles simply overwhelm human opposition so that even those who hate God and who would never believe, they are yet arrested even if for a moment to allow God's changing of the course of history and establishing of his kingdom as he sees fit. They never were no ever have been God's regular mode of operation.

This leads us to the last question.  Will God ever perform miracles again, not to bring in a new teaching as various cults demonically attempt and sometimes do, but to reform the church, if ever crushed under a mountain of sin? He did after Moses so why not after Christ? The again the prophets kept prophesying of Christ but after the book of revelations there is no more prophecy in terms of additional scripture. Still what about a possible future time?  Although historical cessation views, such as the views of Luther and Calvin did not absolutely believe this could 'never occur', most have simply stated the facts that it has 'not occurred’. In fact the reformation, when one would have expected it, if it were to happen, did not include any miraculous signs.  Having said this however it is recognized that the antichrist in the last days would pretend to perform miraculous wonders, so what is important for believers is to test anyone who claims to have extra ordinary miraculous gifts.  If God ever does see fit to bring about a ‘restoration ministry’ that including miraculous signs (and we have no basis for assuming he must) both the miracles would be undeniable and the teaching fully biblical and believed throughout history. This has not occurred since the times of the Apostles as a matter of common sense and observation. After all, nobody ever denied Christ's miracles they were easy to believe. That is why they were provided. They did not deny his miracles, they denied him.

  Do not believe me unless I do the works of my Father. But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.” (John 10:37-38, NIV)

Cessationism is more of a practical awareness of the cessation of extra ordinary miraculous gifts, rather than a doctrine that they should have ceased. If they did not cease it would be obvious to all of us.  I think it is equally obvious that some gifts such as discernment, knowledge and wisdom never did cease as various men, endued by the Holy Ghost have continued to proclaim the gospel throughout the centuries with wisdom and power surpassing all human abilities. Finally almost every person in history has come to faith in Christ without ever witnessing a miracle, so why would we ever think miracles were required?


What is the Biblical basis for mankind being morally required to treat animals well? In the modern day, humanity farms animals to such a degree that rampant animal suffering is present across the board. From our egg and milk industry to our meat industry conditions are appalling and animals suffer widely and consistently.

I have heard that the Bible says that humans can do whatever they like with God's creation, but also that other Christians say we have a responsibility to care for it.

Does the Bible discuss the rights of humans verses animals, and in particular does it contain any moral or ethical rules that mankind should follow? Is there biblical basis for mankind being required to treat animals well?

It's true that the Bible says that man has "dominion" over the animals:

  And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” (Genesis 1:28, ESV)

But there are many, many passages in the Bible regarding the treatment of animals.  Here are some examples from the Old Testament:

Exodus 20:10: Animals are not to work on the Sabbath, just like people
Exodus 23:5: Relieve overburdened animals, even if you hate their owner
Exodus 23:11: Allow animals to graze fallow fields
Deuteronomy 11:15: Some interpret this verse to mean that humans should feed their pets and livestock before they eat themselves, though that's a rather tenuous interpretation.
Deuteronomy 25:4: Allow animals to eat while working
Proverbs 12:10: The righteous have regard for their animals' lives

Some also see significance in the fact that heroes like Jacob (Gen. 29), Moses (Ex. 3), and David (1 Sam. 17) were shepherds, while a hunter like Esau (Gen. 25) is not exactly a model citizen.  Similarly, Rebecca is rewarded for treating animals well (Gen. 24:19).  Abraham is rewarded after he separates his herd from his nephew's to relieve overgrazing (Gen. 13).  We need to be cautious not to take such examples too far, however, because they could be mere coincidence, or reflections of the importance of animals to agrarian economies, rather than indications of God's moral standards.

In the New Testament, Jesus speaks of God's regard for animals, as in Matthew 6:26 (cf. Luke 12:6–7):

  Look at the birds of the air: they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they? [ESV]

Jesus also speaks favorably of rescuing livestock that falls into a pit on the Sabbath (Matthew 12:11).

That said, as the quote above from Jesus makes clear, animals are considered inferior to people in the Bible.  There are many places where God sanctions the eating of meat, for example, and animals are extensively used for ritual sacrifices and labor. But the Bible does not condone reckless abuse of animals, specifically forbidding a number of types of animal mistreatment.


Is there any substantive difference between the verbal reference "second Corinthians" and "two Corinthians"? Paul wrote two letters to the Corinthinians:

The First Epistle to the Corinthians
The Second Epistle to the Corinthians

In my experience, people use all kinds of colloquial language to refer to Chapters and verses inside these. For example:

  "Two Corinthians Three Seventeen"

has the same semantic meaning as

  "The Second Epistle to the Corinthians Chapter three verse seventeen."

It seems to me that the cultural style of reference has no correlation to knowledge of the Bible.

My question is: Is there any substantive difference between the verbal reference "second Corinthians" and "two Corinthians"?

There is absolutely no difference in meaning.

But there are regional conventions. Donald Trump was mocked for saying "Two Corinthians", but in Australia that is not just acceptable, but probably more common than "Second Corinthians". We would also say "One Samuel", "Two Kings", "Two Timothy" and "Three John". In fact, I think think it's almost slightly unnatural to say something like "Second Thessalonians" (it's certainly a mouthful), and I'd bet a lot of other Aussie Christians would too.


Why did God give man an imagination? This is a two-part question.

First: Throughout the Old Testament we read of the “imagination of the heart” and in Genesis 6:5 “imagination of the thoughts of the heart”.

In an earlier question “curiosity” was singled out and I wonder if there are any historical Church teachings that link the imagination of the heart with Holy curiosity?

Secondly: Are their any Christian teachings as to why God gave man an imagination?

A key verse in regard to the imagination is 2 Corinthians 10:5”:

  “Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ”

The imagination allows us to see what is physically unseeable.  The imagination is to be given to truth (Christ) not to the Father of lies (Satan).

  Mark 8:17,18 …have ye your heart yet hardened? Having eyes, see ye not? and having ears, hear ye not? and do ye not remember?

In contrast the imagination has been so overrun with un-truth that we associate the imagination with fiction.  We tell our children “you were just imagining that” and believe an overactive imagination is to blame.  God equipped man with an imagination so that man might be able to see things of eternal substance, in order to comprehend His eternal reality.

The truth in our imaginations are critical to our relationship with God; the problem is our imaginations have become slums neglected and ignored because we have convinced ourselves that it is the residence of superstition.

Most of the soul’s battlefield is within the imagination of the heart.

  1 Chronicles 29:18 “O LORD God of Abraham, Isaac, and of Israel, our fathers, keep this for ever in the imagination of the thoughts of the heart of thy people, and prepare their heart unto thee”


From a Protestant perspective why didn't the Apostles address the problem of deutrocanonical books? The Apostles interacted with Hellenistic Jews (Acts 17:11) who we know historicaly held deutrocanonical books as scripture, why wouldn't St. Paul or any of the other Apostles make it clear that the deutrocanonical books are not inspired?

It would make sense if the Church is to practice sola scriptura (66 books) upon the departure of the apostles.

The church did not practice "66 book sola scriptura" on the deaths of the original apostles. The biblical canon was not established definitively until the 5th century. It would not therefore have been feasible for the 1st century apostles to state the boundaries of the canon. (Or at least, history would have been very different from what it actually was had they done so).


Why did only 4 people write about the Life of Jesus Christ? Judas died and was replaced by Matthias. There were at least eleven intimate disciples of Jesus Christ who could write the genuine life of Christ. But we have only 4 books which record the life of Christ. Moreover, only Matthew and John are of the 12 disciples of Jesus.

Is there any historical reason why the other disciples did not write the Life of Christ?

Are there any other less authentic books which record the Life of Christ?

Way more than four people wrote about the life of Christ.  Literally hundreds of 'gospels' included stories about Jesus of Nazareth—from the Gospel of Thomas to the Epistle of Barnabas to Gospel of Judas to Marcion in his own Gospel.  The only difference is that the early church either didn't trust the veracity of those 'gospels' or else they found them to be not as good as these four.

Additionally, we have external sources such as Flavius Josephus and Tacitus who record stuff about Jesus. But those are strictly 'historical' not even religious in nature.

As such, the early church said that the four Gospels we have are the best ones, not the only ones.


Is apostleship continuing on into the current age? I was watching a video on youtube : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLh8xnf_Qx0 That I didn't have an answer for. He gives the argument that Matthias became the 12th apostle by the casting of Lots. And then he says that Barnabas and Paul were referred to also by the words apostles. So he argues that apostleship continues on into the current age. What is the contest to this?

All he seems to be doing is widening the traditional understanding of the word "apostle" to it's original Greek meaning, which is "messenger".

I don't see a problem with that on an academic level.

That being said, I think his redefinition and reuse of the word in the modern world is unnecessary and argumentative.  Why use the word "apostle" when the word "missionary", "evangelist" or "church planter" is far more widely understood, accepted, and has the same meaning in modern language?

I think he would do well to let go of his insistence, and in humility, repeat with John the Baptist in John 3:30:

  "He must increase, but I must decrease"

Because, to paraphrase Paul in Galatians 2:6:  "What we are makes no difference.  God shows no partiality."


What is the Catholic view of the rapture? What is the Roman Catholic view of the rapture? Does the Catholic church accept the idea that people will be caught up in the air to meet Christ? If not, how do they interpret 1 Thessalonians 4:17?

Catholicism is incompatible with the Rapture because the Church has taught for many centuries before people started envisioning folks disappearing mid-sentence that there would be a Final Judgement where everyone would see their sins and their effects.

I don't think 1 Thessalonians 4:17 speaks to the Final Judgement on account of the fact that St. Paul says "We who are still alive".  If he's dead as his bones attest to then he ought to have said, "those who are still alive".

Now, Catholics don't have any problem with folks being carried off into heaven body and soul, so long as they're free from original sin (Mary and Jesus) or been given a special grace (Enoch and Elijah). The rapture, as it is envisioned in recent popular literature, would be prior to final judgement even if it came at the same hour and doesn't make a lot of sense in the light of Catholic teaching even though it fits the puzzle pieces left in the New Testament pretty well.

If there was a rapture, and the good were taken up, they would have been judged as good and the rest would be... waiting to see if they're good or not?  Well a 7 year span of tribulation doesn't jibe with the Final Judgement as a Last Thing.  The final judgement is Sheeps on this side, Goats on that side and everybody out of the pool.  The dead will have a particular judgement, but at the end of time, as far as I understand the teaching. The final judgement is for the living and the dead.


Did the early church teach the person of God the Word changed in the incarnation? According to early Christianity did the person of God the Word change in the incarnation? Is it considered mutability in the person that change?

Did the early church teaches the person of God the Word changed in the incarnation?

St. Irenaeus and St.Athansius said it clearly and it is also cited in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

  460 The Word became flesh to make us "partakers of the divine nature":78 "For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God."79 "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God."80 "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods."81

  79 St. Irenaeus, Adv. haeres. 3, 19, 1: PG 7/1, 939.

  80 St. Athanasius, De inc. 54, 3: PG 25, 192B.

According to early Christianity did the person of God the Word change in the incarnation?

The Word or Logos the Second Person of the Holy Trinity existed in eternity as a "Spirit", and St.John stated in the gospel what is the changes that occured;

  John 1:14 New American Bible (Revised Edition) (NABRE)

  And the Word became flesh[a]
      and made his dwelling among us,
      and we saw his glory,
      the glory as of the Father’s only Son,
      full of grace and truth.

  Footnotes:
  1:14 Flesh: the whole person, used probably against docetic tendencies (cf. 1 Jn 4:2; 2 Jn 7). Made his dwelling: literally, “pitched his tent/tabernacle.” Cf. the tabernacle or tent of meeting that was the place of God’s presence among his people (Ex 25:8–9). The incarnate Word is the new mode of God’s presence among his people. The Greek verb has the same consonants as the Aramaic word for God’s presence (Shekinah). Glory: God’s visible manifestation of majesty in power, which once filled the tabernacle (Ex 40:34) and the temple (1 Kgs 8:10–11, 27), is now centered in Jesus. Only Son: Greek, monogenēs, but see note on Jn 1:18. Grace and truth: these words may represent two Old Testament terms describing Yahweh in covenant relationship with Israel (cf. Ex 34:6), thus God’s “love” and “fidelity.” The Word shares Yahweh’s covenant qualities.

Is it considered mutability in the person that change?

  "Mutable"adjective

  liable or subject to change or alteration.

  given to changing; constantly changing; fickle or inconstant:

If you refer "mutability" in the Divine Nature or Essence of God the Son, then it is clearly wrong, as God the Son being "co-substantial" with the Father is immutable.

But, if you refer the "mutability" to the created human soul of Christ the Second Person of the Trinity, then the word "mutability" can be relate to the word "assumed human nature", because the Person of Jesus Christ was change from solely "Spirit or Divine" into a "God-Man", fully God and fully man.

  III. TRUE GOD AND TRUE MAN

  464 The unique and altogether singular event of the Incarnation of the Son of God does not mean that Jesus Christ is part God and part man, nor does it imply that he is the result of a confused mixture of the divine and the human. He became truly man while remaining truly God. Jesus Christ is true God and true man.

  During the first centuries, the Church had to defend and clarify this truth of faith against the heresies that falsified it.

  465 The first heresies denied not so much Christ's divinity as his true humanity (Gnostic Docetism). From apostolic times the Christian faith has insisted on the true incarnation of God's Son "come in the flesh".87 But already in the third century, the Church in a council at Antioch had to affirm against Paul of Samosata that Jesus Christ is Son of God by nature and not by adoption. The first ecumenical council of Nicaea in 325 confessed in its Creed that the Son of God is "begotten, not made, of the same substance (homoousios) as the Father", and condemned Arius, who had affirmed that the Son of God "came to be from things that were not" and that he was "from another substance" than that of the Father.88


If the premise for Marcion's Two Principles (Dualism) is correct; which words in the Bible belong to the Demiurge? If the premise for Marcion's Two Principles (Dualism) is correct; how does one decipher which words in the Bible belong to the Demiurge from those of the True God?

Marcion of Sinope (Wikipedia)

Catharism later on also adopted a belief in a form of Dualism and one of their works "Book of Two Principles" outlines the apparent contradictions between the God of the Old and New Testaments; but how did they (like Marcion) discern between the words of the Demiurge from those of the True God?

Cathar Theology (Wikipedia)

Short answer

Both Marcion of Sinope and the Cathars discerned scriptures by examining the words of Jesus and Paul's epistles (the Cathars also used the larger canon that became the New Testament) and searched for apparent contradictions with the Old Testament, especially in terms of the nature of God. It appears that given the number of contradictions, and the fact that the Old Testament was seen as a unified work from one God, they came to the conclusion that the entire Old Testament was the creation of a Creator God that was different than the God that Jesus talked about.

In Marcion of Sinope's case, he also revised the Gospel of Luke to remove Old Testament links to Jesus to further support his view that Jesus was of a different God.

Long Answer

First off, it's worth noting that Marcion of Sinope, despite his heresies, is recognized as one of the first to propose a definitive list of New Testament scriptures. His original testamentum (Latin for "Testament") included ten of Paul's epistles and the Gospel of the Lord, which scholars recognize as the Gospel of Luke, but with edits Marcion made to remove references linking Jesus to the Old Testament God. For instance, he removed the chapters on the Nativity, likely due to the affirmations that Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament prophecies. Marcion also seems to have been the first to make a clear separation between the Jewish Scriptures and the Christian writings, asserting that they were separate entities and not a continuation.

Marcion created a commentary delineating the differences between the Old Testament and the New Testament along with commentary in a work titled Antithesis. That work has been lost to history, but scholar Daniel Mahar has created a rough reconstruction of it based on quotes from Marcion's critics (Mahar emphasizes several times that his version is loose and may not accurately reflect the actual contents of the original).

It appears that the general strategy Marcion used is to consider a New Testament passage, especially the words of Jesus, and find passages of the Old Testament that appear inconsistent with it. For instance, the New Testament passages:

  God is light, and in Him is no darkness at all (1 John 1:5b) God is love (1 John 4:16); [Love] thinketh no evil (1 Corinthians 13:5d).

Contrasting with the Old Testament passages:

  I form light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord Yahweh do all these things (Isaiah 45:7). Do they not err that devise evil? (Proverbs 14:22a)

(Note that not all Bible translations translate passages in this way. For instance, a number of translations of Isaiah 45:7 instead of "evil" have translations like "calamity", "woe", "disaster").

There were three major categories of contradictions that Marcion came to see between the Old Testament and New Testament:

The Creator God and the Supreme God

Of note, Marcion argues that creation is definitely the work of a God, and says that Jesus Christ revealed an "Old God", unknown to this creator God, who is more powerful, thus justifying why this Supreme God is apparently absent in the Old Testament.

The Inconsistencies of the Creator God

The Old Testament mentions God changing his mind (e.g. not destroying Ninevah after telling Jonah he would), and several passages could be interpreted as him having limited knowledge. In the Golden Calf incident, Marcion presents Moses as being better than the Old Testament God in convincing him not to have wrath on the people.

The Two Christs

The Old Testament prophecies suggested a more warlike Christ than what came. Thus the Creator God was promising one type of Christ while the Supreme God sent a different one in the form of Jesus.
Note that in Marcion's Gospel of the Lord, he changed passages to remove the idea that the Old Testament prophets talked about him, or were otherwise in line with his teachings. For instance, Marcion changed Luke 24:25 "O foolish and hard of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken" was changed to "O foolish and hard of heart to believe in all that I have told you".

As far as I can tell, Marcion considered that, since the Creator God seemed to be present in so much of the Old Testament, he was present in all of it, especially given that the Jewish authorities asserted that the entirety of the Old Testament was about the Creator God.

Regarding the similar Catharism movement that came later, surviving works such as The Book of Two Principles indicated that they followed a similar hermeneutic of trying to find differences between the portrayal of God in the Old and New Testament and attributing them to two Gods, a good one of the spiritual realm and an evil one of the material realm, i.e. creation.


What is the evidence that the Angel of the Lord in the old Testament is probably Jesus? In Judges 6:11-12 we read:

  The angel of the Lord came and sat down under the oak in Ophrah that belonged to Joash the Abiezrite, where his son Gideon was threshing wheat in a winepress to keep it from the Midianites. 12 When the angel of the Lord appeared to Gideon, he said, “The Lord is with you, mighty warrior.”

In Judges 6:14 we read:

  14 The Lord turned to him and said, “Go in the strength you have and save Israel out of Midian’s hand. Am I not sending you?”

The Angel of the Lord appears to speak God's mind, and is interchangeable (by the writer) with the Lord himself. He doesn't speak as a messenger (as Gabriel does to Mary).

One might conclude then that the person who knows the mind of God, and who the writer treats as interchangeable with God would be a pre-incarnation of Jesus.

My question is: What is the evidence that the Angel of the Lord in the old Testament is probably Jesus?

Clarification: This is asking generally across the whole old Testament - and is not limited to this passage.

Justin Martyr is probably the strongest early advocate for the view that the "Angel of the Lord" in the OT often refers to Christ.  In his Dialogue with Trypho, he argues that many supernatural appearances in the OT are manifestations of the second member of the Trinity.  One such example is that of the burning bush in Exodus 3:2-4, where reference to the "Angel of the Lord" and "the Lord" appear to switch (in a way similar to the Judges passage you quote).  He says:

  [I]n the vision of Moses, this same One alone who is called an Angel, and who is God, appeared to and communed with Moses. (chapter 60)

In this and other examples Justin equates the angel or mysterious man with God himself.

Justin finds more support from other church fathers when we turn to the mysterious men who are not specifically called "angels" in Scripture, but who appear to be supernatural.  Origen agrees that the mysterious figure in Joshua 5:13-15 is Christ, and bases this argument on the fact that Joshua worships him:

  Joshua recognized not only something from God but that which is God; for certainly he would not have worshiped unless he had recognized God.  For who else is chief of the army of the powers of God except our Lord Jesus Christ? ("Homilies on Joshua 6:2")1

Eusebius of Caesaria suggests that the close parallel in wording between this passage and Exodus 3:4-5 indicates "that this is no other than he who also spoke to Moses," that is, God.1

That said, this text does not refer to this man as an angel, so I don't know if you'd consider it a valid example.  Other fathers and commentators refer to this figure as an angel, do not ascribe deity to him, and explain Joshua's worship as mere "veneration" (John of Damascus).1

A similar episode occurs in Daniel 8:15-17.  I don't have a church father quote, but John Calvin says:

  We ought probably to interpret this passage of Christ, who is now called like a man, as formerly. (Daniel 7:13.) For he had not yet put on our flesh, so as to be properly entitled to the name of a man; but he was here like a man, because he wished to allow the holy fathers a taste from which they might understand his future coming as Mediator, when he should put on human nature as God manifest in flesh. (Commentary on Daniel, Volume II)

Note that Calvin is careful to say that this is not the second person of the Trinity incarnate, but that he is appearing "like a man."

1. Ancient Christian Commentary, page 31


What is the meaning of the parable in Luke 17:7-10? In the first verse of Luke 17:5-10, the disciples ask Jesus to increase their faith. Here is the full passage, in the New King James Version (NKJV):

5 And the apostles said to the Lord, "Increase our faith."
6 So the Lord said, "If you have faith as a mustard seed, you can say to this mulberry tree, 'Be pulled up by the roots and be planted in the sea,' and it would obey you. 7 And which of you, having a servant plowing or tending sheep, will say to him when he has come in from the field, 'Come at once and sit down to eat'? 8 But will he not rather say to him, 'Prepare something for my supper, and gird yourself and serve me till I have eaten and drunk, and afterward you will eat and drink'? 9 Does he thank that servant because he did the things that were commanded him? I think not. 10 So likewise you, when you have done all those things which you are commanded, say, 'We are unprofitable servants. We have done what was our duty to do.'"

The beginning of Jesus' reply in 17:6 seems to be directly connected. But I am having trouble figuring out what 17:7-10 have to do with what was being said. This heavily implies I am not interpreting it correctly, as the Bible tends to make sense in context.
My interpretation of the parable is that God does not owe us anything because of what we do for Him. I just can't figure out what that has to do with the disciple's request for greater faith. There must be some commonly understood explanation for why Jesus used this parable as part of his reply to the disciples' request, but I have been unable to find any easily web-available commentary that addresses the subject.

Increase our Faith! = Make it Easier! (or Lighten the Burden!)

Just before the parable, Jesus says (paraphrasing, for brevity)

Don't be a stumbling block...or else!
Rebuke and forgive your brothers.
Forgive a brother even if he continually sins against you.

The disciples' response is, "Increase our faith!" (πιστις 4102, "trust" "belief" "conviction")

It sounds like the disciples want some help doing what Jesus is telling them to do, because he is not asking them to do something easy. They ask for faith, perhaps because believing better/trusting more would make it easier to endure the difficulties of the life to which Jesus is calling them.

In regards to doing good things, the disciples were at least occasionally at odds with each other about who was better.
The parable about the servant is a way of saying that if you do all these good things, you are still only doing what Jesus has told you to do.

It's almost as if being a heroic Christian is the bare minimum. Increase my faith!


How could Christ offer His blood to those under the Law, when He was forbidden by heritage? Christ being from the tribe of Judah, could not offer blood as a Levitical priest to those under the Law (Hebrews 7:14)  Christ is the Melchizedekian high priest offering His blood for those who are under the NT covenant.  How could Christ's blood flow to those under the Law?  Hebrews 5:9-10 "And having been made perfect,He became to all those who obey Him the source of eternal salvation, being designated by God as a high priest according to the order of Melchizedek."

Jesus was a rabbi who was adept at the law. The unique thing about Jesus is that he frequently and routinely used the rules of the talmud in order to spar with the pharisees. The way Jesus typically "won" these sparring matches was instead of falling victim to the legalism of the law, he would examine the moral behind the law.

In order to avoid the same traps, we too will need to examine the moral behind the law too. Before we begin to address the authority for offering the sacrifice of Christ's blood and how Jesus was not a high priest in the order of Aaron, we should take a step back and look at the Law's prohibitions against the sacrifice itself. First, in Leviticus, it was forbidden for anyone to consume the blood of any living thing. How then, could Jesus offer his blood to his Disciples, saying "Drink from [this cup,] all of you,  for this is my blood"? Seccondly, there were prohibitions in the law against human sacrifice, so how could Jesus offer himself as a sacrifice?

The answers comes from the explanation of these prohibitions. For example, Leviticus 17:11 notes

  For the life of every living thing is in the blood. So I myself have
  assigned it to you on the altar to make atonement for your lives, for
  the blood makes atonement by means of the life.

Since Jesus is described as the giver of life and living water, this uniquely qualifies Jesus as the only allowable source of drinkable blood. This is because the prohibition on drinking blood was to remind us that we should only be seeking life through God.

Likewise, the reason that God prohibits human sacrifice is that he is seeking to restore us from our fallen broken state. Substitutionary atonement is God's attempt to save us from death. Therefore by sacrificing those which God seeks to save from death, it defeats his purpose. On the other hand, offering Jesus as the sacrifice does nothing but serve God's purpose.

As we can see, keeping righteousness under the law using a wide array of technicalities in order to keep the spirit of the law is an art that Jesus was adept in. This then brings us the the heart of your question. Under the law, Jesus could not officiate his own sacrifice because he was not a Levite Priest. This is why Paul goes to great lengths to explain that Jesus was a priest in the Order of Melchizedek.

In order to understand why this important, we must first understand who Melchizedek was. In Genesis 14, the Bible notes that Melchizedek, King of Salem was a pries of the most high God. What you notice from this passage is that he is making offerings on behalf of Abram. What this means is that there was a priesthood which existed before the 12 tribes of Israel and therefore the tribe of Levi did. Melchizedek is often noted as being the Kind-priest. Paul is trying to make the point that because Jesus is the King of Kings, then he is qualified as a priest in the order of Melchizedek, since he is King of even Melchizedek the king-priest. As such, for yet another reason (according to Paul,) this Makes Jesus not just a priest, but the High Priest because he leads even other priests just as he is King of other kings. And oh, by the way, since Melchizedek wasn't a Levite, Jesus needn't be either. In fact, this qualifies him even more, because he is a priest in the original order of priests , an older order which predate even the Aaronic Priesthood.

(Interestingly, several note that Melchizedek was the basis of the Samaratin's claim to priesthood Authority as well)

And so we see that Jesus is yet again using his expert knowledge of the law and all of its' loopholes in order to save us from our sins.


On what basis was Jesus’ death sufficient for redemption according Non-Trinitarians who maintain that Jesus was not eternal God as God the Father is? To Peter Turner’s point A) Scripture is the source that says blood was necessary and that blood was sufficient, question revolves around why a Non-Trinitarian Jesus has sufficient worth to save mankind from sin of He is not God and therefore not infinitely valuable as God is.

“For by a single offering (blood offering) he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.”
Hebrews 10:14

.

“he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption.”
Hebrews 9:12

To point B) this question is for non Trinitarians, if moderators require a more specific group, to Jehovah Witnesses. (Not for Modalist Non-Trinitarian)
——————
The OT foreshadowed a coming sacrifice through which sin would be purged and expunged

“For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.”
Hebrews 10:4

Animal sacrifices were done in faith anticipating the future redemption of mankind
But why was Jesus’ death/blood sufficient?
If Jesus was merely a coequal to satan or of the same kind any other ‘angel’ as some claim, and NOT God incarnate (as Trinitarians say He is) then why is an angel incarnate a sufficient sacrificial lamb for the sins of mankind?
It is clear that prior to incarnation Jesus existed as a non “Adam” man, two texts, one is His own admission because the conversation was prior to the prepared body

“Consequently, when Christ came into the world, he said, “Sacrifices and offerings you have not desired, but a body have you prepared for me;” “Then I said, ‘Behold, I have come to do your will, O God, as it is written of me in the scroll of the book.’Hebrews 10:5,7
“For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me.”
John 6:38

And secondly
“But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, Too little to be among the clans of Judah, From you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel. His goings forth are from long ago, from eternity.””
Micah 5:2
If He is not God, as God the Father is God, but a created being on what basis is His sacrifice sufficient?

“But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent ( not made with hands, that is, not of this creation) he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption. For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the sprinkling of defiled persons with the ashes of a heifer, sanctify for the purification of the flesh, how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God.”
Hebrews 9:11-14

Why is His blood sufficient if he is not the eternal God?
————

Animals were used in substitution for sin as foreshadowing
One man could die for another man or take the punishment in substitution
Since when can an angel substitute the sins of all mankind?
It would make sense if it were the eternal everlasting God but a created being makes no sense, humans are created, as are angels why is one angel worth all of mankind?

This is from the perspective of Jehovah's Witnesses. A full explanation of Jesus' ransom sacrifice can be found in chapter 5 of the book, "What Can the Bible Teach Us?"

Jesus' death is sufficient for redemption from sin on the basis that Jesus was a perfect man, without sin, just as Adam had been.

When Adam was created, he was perfect, but when he disobeyed God, he became sinful, selling himself and all his children to sin and death. (Romans 5:12; 7:14) In order for Jehovah God to have a legal basis to repurchase mankind, forgive sins, and restore humans to a perfect state with the opportunity to live forever, there must be a corresponding ransom to replace the life that Adam lost, one who lives their whole life without sin, obedient to God. (1 Tim. 2:6; Romans 5:19; 1 Cor. 15:21, 22) No descendent of Adam can serve as this ransom because we are all born sinful, imperfect. (Psalm 49:7, 8)

To provide the ransom, Jehovah miraculously caused one of his perfect spirit sons to come to earth as a human. (1 John 4:9; Luke 1:35) This was Jesus. Jesus remained obedient to God until death. Later, when Jesus returned to his Father in heaven, he presented the value of his perfect human life to Jehovah as the ransom. (Hebrews 9:24) Furthermore, Jesus disproved Satan's accusation that no human would remain obedient to God if that person was severely tested. (Job 1:9-11; Prov. 27:11)


What are the reasons for the Catholic Church's law regarding the Communion fast? We know from scripture that the institution of the Eucharist was during supper with the taking of the cup being after supper. And it appears from St. Paul's first letter to the Corinthians that there was a common meal before the Eucharist where food and drink were to be shared. Yet canon law requires the communicant to fast beforehand:

  Can.  919 §1. A person who is to receive the Most Holy Eucharist
  is to abstain for at least one hour before holy communion from any
  food and drink, except for only water and medicine.

What then is the reason for this law, since to me, there isn't a readily apparent scriptural basis for it?

Fr. William P. Saunders of Catholic Straight Answers gives the following reasons for fasting before Communion:

The most important point regarding this question concerns why we ought to [ever] fast. St. Paul reminds us, "Continually we carry about in our bodies the dying of Jesus, so that in our bodies the life of Jesus may also be revealed" (II Cor 4:10). We, too, are charged to convert our whole lives — body and soul — to the Lord. This conversion process involves doing penance — including bodily mortification like fasting — for our sins and weaknesses, which in turn strengthens and heals us. Pope Paul VI exhorted the faithful in his apostolic constitution "Paenitemini" (1966), "Mortification aims at the 'liberation' of man, who often finds himself, because of concupiscence, almost chained by his own senses. Through 'corporal fasting' man regains strength, and the wound inflicted on the dignity of our nature by intemperance is cured by the medicine of a salutary abstinence."
Moreover, the fast before receiving holy Communion creates a physical hunger and thirst for the Lord, which in turn augments the spiritual hunger and thirst we ought to have. In the Old Testament, fasting prepared individuals to receive the action of God and to be placed in His presence. For instance, Moses (Ex 34:28) fasted 40 days atop Mount Sinai as he received the Ten Commandments, and Elijah (I Kings 19:8) fasted 40 days as he walked to Mount Horeb to encounter God. Similarly, Jesus Himself fasted 40 days as He prepared to begin His public ministry (Mt 4:1ff) and encouraged fasting (Mt 6:16-18). Likewise, this corporal work enhances the spiritual disposition we need to receive Christ in the Blessed Sacrament. In a sense, we fast so as not "to spoil our appetite" but to increase it for the sharing of the paschal banquet. Jesus said in the beatitudes, "Blest are they who hunger and thirst for holiness; they shall have their fill" (Mt 5:6). In all, fasting is an exercise of humility, hope and love — essential virtues in preparing ourselves to receive the holy Eucharist.

Fr. John Dietzen makes a similar statement in an editorial in the Catholic Courier, in which he recounts the ways the fasting requirement has loosened through the centuries:

Older Catholics will remember that for centuries total fast from all food and liquids was required from midnight until receiving the Eucharist. ... At the end of the third council session in 1964, Pope Paul VI considerably simplified the eucharistic fast. According to his 1964 decree, people should fast from food and liquids for one hour before receiving Communion. Water does not break the fast and may be taken anytime. The same goes for medications. ... The reason this modified regulation is still on the books is that it can aid in preparing oneself spiritually and mentally for participating in the offering of the Eucharist at Mass and for receiving Communion.

In chapter 6 of Letter 54 (to Januarius) Augustine deals with the question of whether, since Jesus instituted the sacrament during supper, it is proper to make a rule contrary to those circumstances:

It is clear that when the disciples first received the body and blood of the Lord, they had not been fasting. Must we therefore censure the universal Church because the sacrament is everywhere partaken of by persons fasting? Nay, verily, for from that time it pleased the Holy Spirit to appoint, for the honour of so great a sacrament, that the body of the Lord should take the precedence of all other food entering the mouth of a Christian; and it is for this reason that the custom referred to is universally observed. For the fact that the Lord instituted the sacrament after other food had been partaken of, does not prove that brethren should come together to partake of that sacrament after having dined or supped, or imitate those whom the apostle reproved and corrected for not distinguishing between the Lord's Supper and an ordinary meal. The Saviour, indeed, in order to commend the depth of that mystery more affectingly to His disciples, was pleased to impress it on their hearts and memories by making its institution His last act before going from them to His Passion. And therefore He did not prescribe the order in which it was to be observed, reserving this to be done by the apostles, through whom He intended to arrange all things pertaining to the Churches. Had He appointed that the sacrament should be always partaken of after other food, I believe that no one would have departed from that practice.

It is important to note that 1 Corinthians 11 itself deals with abuses stemming from the feasts surrounding Communion. The feasts were not mandated anywhere in Scripture, and were banned by the church at the 363 Council of Laodicea according to Haydock's commentary on verse 21. Continuing on from where we left off, Augustine even conjectures that Paul himself banned the feasts when he visited Corinth:

But when the apostle, speaking of this sacrament, says, "Wherefore, my brethren, when you come together to eat, tarry one for another: and if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that you come not together unto condemnation," he immediately adds, "and the rest will I set in order when I come." (1 Corinthians 11:33-34) Whence we are given to understand that, since it was too much for him to prescribe completely in an epistle the method observed by the universal Church throughout the world, it was one of the things set in order by him in person, for we find its observance uniform amid all the variety of other customs.

I was going to include some quotes from Haydock, but for the most part he just echoes Augustine.


What is the Biblical basis for "God's already forgiven you" teaching? I have recently heard many preachers and teachers, in particular Joel Osteen and Joseph Prince, say things like, "God has already forgiven you. All you have to do is accept God's free gift of salvation." Is there any biblical basis for this kind of teaching? I can only find the opposite:

  If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. 1 John 1:9 (NIV)

From a Calvinist perspective, any teaching which makes God contingent on man in any way negates the supremacy of God.  Put another way, who is man to say anything to God?  Any choice which man makes for God is the result of an election that occurred ante praevisa merita, and is thus a decision man made long before any person "decided" he or she wanted forgiveness.  In such a scheme, to say that God has "already" forgiven you makes logical sense, because God, who exists before and outside of time, would have already made the decision.  Any scripture backing predestination thus applies, such as Ephesians 1:4:

  even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him (ESV)

From an Arminian perspective, of course, free will is paramount, and the above argument would be nonsensical at its core. As such, for Methodists and the like, the timing of God's forgiveness could be a question - but Osteen in particular isn't Methodist. But, a Methodist would state the obvious - if Christ's death isn't sufficient for future sins, what is?  Hebrews is clear that:

  so also Christ died once for all time as a sacrifice to take away the sins of many people. He will come again, not to deal with our sins, but to bring salvation to all who are eagerly waiting for him. (Hebrews 9:28)

As such, even from the polar opposite soteriology, the timing of Christ's forgiveness would predate any individual's decision.

Finally, it should be noted that Joel Osteen has never been to seminary, nor does he profess to be "much of a theologian", so don't expect too strong of a case if you're basing it on him.


Is it true that if we make a good confession and receive the sacrament of Eucharist on the following Sunday of Easter all our sins will be forgiven? Did Jesus Christ promise to St. Faustina that if people make a good confession and receive Holy Communion at mass on the second Sunday of Easter they will have a fresh (forgiveness of sins and the remission of all temporal punishment due to sin) start all over again?

Or if I am wrong what was that promise that Jesus made to St. Faustina about this?

Did Jesus Christ promise to St. Faustina that if people make a good confession and receive Holy Communion at mass on the second Sunday of Easter they will have a fresh start all over again?
The short answer is yes.
There are two things to be considered in this question. What are the promises made by Our Lord to St. Faustina in regards to Divine Mercy Sunday and what are the indulgences that the Church has granted for the Sunday following Easter.

Plenary Indulgence
To ensure that the faithful would observe this day with intense devotion, the Supreme Pontiff himself established that this Sunday be enriched by a plenary indulgence, as will be explained below, so that the faithful might receive in great abundance the gift of the consolation of the Holy Spirit. In this way, they can foster a growing love for God and for their neighbour, and after they have obtained God's pardon, they in turn might be persuaded to show a prompt pardon to their brothers and sisters.
Three conditions for the plenary indulgence
And so the Supreme Pontiff, motivated by an ardent desire to foster in Christians this devotion to Divine Mercy as much as possible in the hope of offering great spiritual fruit to the faithful, in the Audience granted on 13 June 2002, to those Responsible for the Apostolic Penitentiary, granted the following Indulgences:
A plenary indulgence, granted under the usual conditions (sacramental confession, Eucharistic communion and prayer for the intentions of Supreme Pontiff) to the faithful who, on the Second Sunday of Easter or Divine Mercy Sunday, in any church or chapel, in a spirit that is completely detached from the affection for a sin, even a venial sin, take part in the prayers and devotions held in honour of Divine Mercy, or who, in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament exposed or reserved in the tabernacle, recite the Our Father and the Creed, adding a devout prayer to the merciful Lord Jesus (e.g. Merciful Jesus, I trust in you!");
A partial indulgence, granted to the faithful who, at least with a contrite heart, pray to the merciful Lord Jesus a legitimately approved invocation. - Indulgences attached to devotions in honour of Divine Mercy

Here are the other main differences between the "special graces" promised by Jesus for Divine Mercy Sunday, and the plenary indulgence offered by the Church for special devotions to The Divine Mercy on Mercy Sunday:

The special graces that our Lord promised for Mercy Sunday come solely through the reception of Holy Communion on that day, in a state of grace, with trust in The Divine Mercy. Any plenary indulgence granted by the Church, on the other hand, involves the fulfilment of a number of conditions, including prayer for the pope's intentions, confession and Holy Eucharist, and the carrying out of the special indulgenced work (in this case: participating in public devotions to The Divine Mercy on Mercy Sunday itself).

The special graces promised by our Lord for Mercy Sunday can be received by a soul in a state of grace, but with imperfect love for God, and imperfect contrition for sin—as long as the soul merely trusts in the Mercy of God, and clings to Him because of His promised benefits. A plenary indulgence, however, can only be obtained through the performance of an indulgenced work as an expression of pure love for God. If the intentions of one's indulgenced work are not pure (say, the work is done in part out of fear of hell or purgatory, and loathing for oneself — or the desire to impress one's friends and relatives! — rather than purely out of love for God) then the indulgence obtained will be only partial, not plenary.

The special graces that our Lord promised for Mercy Sunday can only be received for oneself, through the devout reception of Holy Communion on Mercy Sunday (as stated in #1 above). A plenary indulgence, however, can be offered for oneself, or for souls suffering in purgatory.

The most special grace promised by our Lord for Mercy Sunday is nothing less than the equivalent of a complete renewal of baptismal grace in the soul: "complete forgiveness (remission) of sins and punishment." Such a measure of grace can only be received otherwise through baptism itself, or through making a sacramental confession as an act of perfect contrition for sin, out of pure love for God.

As you can see, this is no easy topic. However, you can find a more in-depth treatment of this same subject in the John Paul II Institute of Divine Mercy section of this same website, in the document entitled "Understanding Divine Mercy Sunday." - Mercy Sunday's Special Graces, Plenary Indulgence: Are They the Same?

According to St. Faustina, Our Lord promises to those who go to confession and communion on this day, the remission of the guilt and the punishment of sins.

On that day the very depths of My tender mercy are open. I pour out a whole ocean of graces upon those souls who approach the fount of My mercy. The soul that will go to Confession and receive Holy Communion shall obtain complete forgiveness of sins and punishment.  On that day all the divine floodgates through which grace flow are opened. Let no soul fear to draw near to Me, even though its sins be as scarlet. My mercy is so great that no mind, be it of man or of angel, will be able to fathom it throughout all eternity. (Diary of Sr. Faustina, 699) - Mercy Sunday or Feast of Mercy