Regarding the biblical phrase 'everlasting life', would Catholics, Protestants and Orthodox be able to explain how everlasting life destroys death? In the New Living Translation Study Bible notes for Daniel chapter 12, the topic 'Resurrection' on page 1421 offered this explanation of the phrase, 'everlasting life' in verse 2:

  "God's people will finally be rescued from death, not just from human
  kings, fire, or lions. Everlasting life destroys death."

Please note, I am NOT asking for views as to where everlasting life is believed to be enjoyed, or about views on the doctrine of the resurrection. I simply want biblical exegesis regarding the claim that 'Everlasting Life destroys death' as stated in the NLT Study Bible notes.

Yes, that is a theologically sound phrase, and here's why.  From a Christian perspective, it is worth noting that the only time the expression “everlasting life” appears in the Old Testament is in Daniel 12:2.  The relevant verses are Daniel 12:1-2 and 13, a prophetic vision regarding The Time of the End:

  “At that time Michael, the archangel who stands guard over your nation [Israel], will arise. Then there will be a time of anguish greater than any since nations first came into existence. But at that time every one of your people whose name is written in the book will be rescued.  Many of those whose bodies lie dead and buried will rise up, some to everlasting life and some to shame and everlasting disgrace...  As for you [Daniel], go your way until the end. You will rest, and then at the end of the days, you will rise again to receive the inheritance set aside for you.”

The prophet Isaiah spoke of a future time when the shadow of death that hangs over the earth will be removed, when God will swallow up death forever (Isaiah 25:6-8).  The resurrection promise was known to God’s people before Jesus’ own death and resurrection.  After Jesus’ friend Lazarus died, his sister Martha acknowledged that he would rise at the last day.  Jesus then made this bold declaration:

  “I am the resurrection and the life.  Anyone who believes in me will live, even after dying.” (John 11:24-25).  Outside the tomb, Jesus shouted: “Lazarus, come out!” (John 11:43).

It is one thing to claim to be the resurrection and the life, but Jesus proved it by raising Lazarus, who had been dead for four days.  Death has no dominion over Jesus who is life itself, nor does death have dominion over those who are in him (1 Corinthians 15:54-55). Because he has conquered death believers are assured that death shall be destroyed, and in its place will be eternal life.

1 Corinthians 15:26-27: “For Christ must reign until he humbles all his enemies beneath his feet.  And the last enemy to be destroyed is death."

1 Corinthians 15:54-55: Then, when our dying bodies have been transformed into bodies that will never die, this Scripture will be fulfilled: “Death is swallowed up in victory.  O death, where is your victory?  O death, where is your sting?”  (This quotation is from Isaiah 25:8.)

John 10:15-18 shows how death did not come to Jesus.  He came to it, to destroy it.  Death had no claim on him as he was sinless, so Jesus gave up his spirit at the right time, after he had fulfilled all the scriptures (John 19:24). The only thing left to do to complete the work given to him was to die. John 19:30 shows how Jesus chose his moment of death thereby defeating death:

  “When Jesus had tasted it, he said, “It is finished.” Then he bowed his head and released his spirit.”

Revelation sheds more light on the two groups in Daniel’s prophetic vision who are raised to life.  Those whose names are written in the Book of Life are blessed.  “Blessed and holy are those who share in the first resurrection. For them the second death holds no power...”  (Revelation 20:6)

At the final judgment, books are opened (see Psalm 56:8 and Daniel 7:10) and after the dead are judged, death and the grave are thrown into the lake of fire which is the second death (Revelation 20:14).  This is the moment when all of God’s enemies are defeated and destroyed, including the final enemy – death.  Jesus, who is the resurrection and the life, has defeated death and will finally destroy death.  He said “I am the way, the truth, and the life” (John 14:6).

Because Jesus Christ IS The Life and he triumphed over Death with his resurrection, he enables life everlasting.  Everlasting life, the gift of God to all who come to saving faith in Christ Jesus, destroys death.


What's the basis for saying Jesus went to hell? What Bible verses proves that Jesus went to hell for 3 days? I hear it a lot but don't really see it in scripture. Can someone provide scriptures and elaborate?

Peter, in his testimony on the day of Pentecost, Acts 2:14 ff, speaks of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ and he quotes Psalm 16:10 where David the psalmist prophesies :

  For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. [KJV]

Peter speaks the Greek word hades Strong 86 when quoting the Hebrew word sheol Strong 7585  which David uses, sheol being the place of the dead, either meaning the grave where the body is laid or meaning the place of spirits which are deceased.

Paul makes this clear when he, also, refers to Jesus' death :

  Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth? [Galatians 4:9, KJV] :

the 'lower parts of the earth' bearing the same meaning as sheol in the Hebrew, Peter clearly expressing that after his death and before his resurrection, Jesus - first - 'descended'.

Again, Peter writes of this in his first epistle, I Peter 3:19 :

  For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: by which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison.

[The matter of preaching to the spirits in prison is a considerable subject in itself, Jude 1:6 and I Timothy 3:16 also being included within its scope.]

But there is no hint in scripture of the other Greek word gehenna Strong 1067 which is (in the KJV, at least) also translated 'hell' - being the lake of fire - there is no hint that Jesus could have descended into that since it has not - yet - been kindled.

John makes that clear in his record of the visions given to him, when, after - first -

  I saw the dead, small and great, standing before God, and the books were opened [Rev 20:12] . . .

. . . John records what was revealed to him regarding the end of time and after the resurrection of the dead :

  And the sea gave up the dead who were in it, and death and hell delivered up the dead who were in them. And they were judged, every one according to their works. Then death and hell (hades in the original) were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.[Revelation 20:13-15 KJV]

Here, death and hades are cast into the lake of fire, indicating that they are two different things, and indicating that one precedes the second.

(In the above I am referring to the Received Greek Text and quoting the King James Version throughout.)


Did the Catholics or Orthodox suspend the Lenten fast during times of war? It would make sense for an enemy nation with knowledge of the Catholic or Orthodox systems of fasting to attack during the fasting seasons, when the faithful were not well fed. As a corollary, it would make sense for a Catholic or Orthodox nation to abstain from war during a fasting season.
Are there any recorded instances, or perhaps some Catholic canon law or Orthodox economy, regarding the suspension of Lenten or other fasts during times of war?

1917 Canon 1244 (1983 Canon 1244) says:

  It is only for the supreme ecclesiastical authority to establish, transfer, or abolish feast days and days of abstinence and fast common to the whole Church.

1983 Canon 1245 says:

  Without prejudice to the right of diocesan bishops mentioned in ⇒ can. 87, for a just cause and according to the prescripts of the diocesan bishop, a pastor can grant in individual cases a dispensation from the obligation of observing a feast day or a day of penance or can grant a commutation of the obligation into other pious works. A superior of a religious institute or society of apostolic life, if they are clerical and of pontifical right, can also do this in regard to his own subjects and others living in the house day and night.

Related to this is St. Thomas Aquinas's Summa Theologica II-II q. 40 a. 4 question "Whether it is lawful to fight on holy days?"


Is God the Son's blood divine and infinite or human and finite (Western Catholic) This question is related to Is God the Son's blood divine and infinite or human and finite (Protestant interpretation), but I didn't realize there may be different interpretations.

My question concerns whether God the Son's blood is human or divine.

If human, then I don't understand how it was infinite enough to be an acceptable sacrifice, why he needed to be God, and how this is not an abomination.

If divine, then it must carry the supposed qualities of divinity (infinite, eternal, and unchangable) so that he was not a real human.

According to Western Catholic trinitarianism, when God the Son's blood was shed, was this a shedding of human, finite blood, or was it divine, infinite blood?

Regarding the Blood of Jesus itself
In order to answer the question, we need to define what exactly is meant by “blood.”
If we mean the physical bodily fluid that coursed through the veins and arteries of Jesus, then clearly it is an aspect of Jesus’ human nature, hence human and finite.
However, “blood” can be a symbolic reference to the Passion and Death of Jesus. In that case, although Jesus felt the physical effects of the Passion in his human nature, it was still his Divine Person who underwent it. The capacity of the Passion to redeem us, therefore, is infinite. (Regarding the Passion, see the Catechism of the Catholic Church [CCC], 603-623).
Finally, “blood” can refer to Eucharistic species of the Precious Blood. Although the Precious Blood has the appearance of wine (and thus in that respect resembles Jesus’ physical blood), in reality Jesus in his totality is present in the species of wine; in other words, it is not merely his physical blood. In that sense, the Precious Blood includes both natures: the human (and thus finite) and Divine (and thus infinite). (See CCC 1377.)
Regarding the redemptive value of Jesus’ actions
The broader question regards something called the Hypostatic Union: although the Divine Son remains the Divine Son (indeed, remains unchanged), by the Incarnation, He took on a (finite) human nature. Consequently, the Son was able to do all of the things that a man can do: be born, eat, sleep, laugh, and even die.
Nevertheless, the Person who was born, ate, slept, laughed, and even died, was none other than God Himself. (See CCC 466.)
The consequence of this fact is that all of Jesus’ actions and passions—even those accomplished in his finite human nature—have an infinite value, precisely because a Divine Person is doing them.
That is how Jesus’ finite human nature could be the instrument of something (the Passion) that was of infinite redemptive value.


Is there a book that details what the popes said against reformation leaders? Can anyone recommend a book that have all the declarations, laws, statements, etc of popes during the times of reformers like Tyndale, Luther, etc.?

Denzinger's Sources of Catholic Dogma (Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum) collects most of the major dogmatic definitions; it "traces the development of doctrine and Dogma in the Catholic Church from its earliest times."


How is the situation of "divorce her quietly" in Matthew 1:19 according to Catholicism? Matthew 1:19

  Because Joseph her husband was faithful to the law, and yet did not
  want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her
  quietly.

In these modern days, in my country, something about "secret/quiet" in a marriage - for example like this :

A. A couple already engaged. Because of something, the man ---after
considering--- finally decided to cancel the marriage. But in order
not to expose the woman to public disgrace, the man still do the
marriage ceremony, living together in a same house, but the "husband"
don't do sex at all with his "wife". It's just a staged marriage
so everyone else think that they are married couple as the normal
husband and wife.
B. A married couple. Because of something, the husband ---after
considering--- finally decided to divorce his wife. But in order not
to expose the wife to public disgrace, they still live together in
the same house, but the husband don't do sex anymore with his wife.
It's just a staged marriage so everyone else think that they are
still a married couple.

The "considering" from the man then indirectly is also about to have sex with the woman or not to have sex with the woman.

So, in general ... a "secret/quite divorce" in my country is also about there is no sex between the couple besides other things. But still to public, the couple is a husband and wife.

Since I don't know the custom in Israel let alone during Joseph & Mary times, that's why I wonder what kind of a situation is a "secret/quite divorce" in those days ?

"Divorce" (in the sense of the Bills of Divorce that Moses permitted; cf. Mt. 5:31, 19:7 & Deut. 24:1,3) in your translation of Mt. 1:19 is not the same thing as "put[ting] her away privately," as the Rheims translation puts it, which is really separation. Issuing a Bill of Divorce would be "publicly to expose her," which "Joseph her husband" was not "willing to" do. Also, St. Joseph did not consider issuing her a Bill of Divorce because he was "a just man."

Here's what the Catholic Haydock Commentary says on Mt. 1:19:

  Ver. 19. And Joseph her husband, knowing her strict virtue, was surprised at this her pregnancy, but "being a just man," and not willing to expose her, by denouncing her, or giving her a bill of divorce, he had a mind to dismiss her privately, committing the whole cause to God. Let us learn from Joseph to be ever tender of our neighbour's reputation, and never to entertain any injurious thoughts, or any suspicions to his prejudice. (Haydock)

In Canon Law, there's a distinction between a ratum et consummatum (ratified and consummated) marriage and a ratum sed non consummatum (ratified but not consummated marriage). Before the birth of Christ, Sts. Joseph's and Mary's marriage was not consummated, so if they were alive today, the Roman Pontiff could technically dissolve their marriage bond (Can. 1142). However, the angel convinced St. Joseph not to dismiss her, saying "that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost." (1:20).


Why are the Jesuits and Society of the Sacred Heart gender specific? Why is it impossible for women to join the Jesuit order but must instead join Society of the Sacred Heart?  Is there something in the initiation ritual that would exclude women?

The Society of Jesus and the Society of the Sacred Heart are both religious orders. All Catholic religious orders are by definition either for men or for women.

As to why this is... Well, historical Catholic understanding gave very different roles to men and women both in normal life and in the sphere of religion. Men, for instance, had priestly roles, preaching roles, roles teaching in universities and the like. Women, by contrast, had roles that mainly consisted of charitable works and, in recent centuries, the education of girls. They were distinctly different roles, and therefore had entirely different orders.


What is the difference, if any, between elders and priests in the LDS church? Inspired by this other question which asks about how there are quite a few priests in the Mormon church.

In my case most (if not all) of the Mormons that I have met all had a lapel that identified them as an "elder" (which, according to this Wikipedia article seems to be a different position than "priest").

Also this other question seems to indicate that an LDS ward (congregation) can also have quite a few elders.

Is "elder" a separate official position from "priest" and if so, how
are they different?
Are these two positions mutually exclusive or can a person be
officially both?

Elder is an official position different from that of a priest. It should be noted that every most elders are also a priest (they are still a priest after becoming an elder). A priest is usually ordained an elder after 1 year or when the priest turns 18, if all gos wells.

The office of priest is an office in the Aaronic Priesthood. The office of elder is an office in the Melchizedek Priesthood (which is an extension of the Aaronic Priesthood).

Here are the duties of a priest (D&C 20:46-52)

  46 The priest’s duty is to preach, teach, expound, exhort, and
  baptize, and administer the sacrament,

  47 And visit the house of each member, and exhort them to pray vocally
  and in secret and attend to all family duties.

  48 And he may also ordain other priests, teachers, and deacons.

  49 And he is to take the lead of meetings when there is no elder
  present;

  50 But when there is an elder present, he is only to preach, teach,
  expound, exhort, and baptize,

  51 And visit the house of each member, exhorting them to pray vocally
  and in secret and attend to all family duties.

  52 In all these duties the priest is to assist the elder if occasion
  requires.

Here are the duties of an elder (D&C 20:38-45)

  38 The duty of the elders, priests, teachers, deacons, and members of
  the church of Christ—An apostle is an elder, and it is his calling to
  baptize;

  39 And to ordain other elders, priests, teachers, and deacons;

  40 And to administer bread and wine—the emblems of the flesh and blood
  of Christ—

  41 And to confirm those who are baptized into the church, by the
  laying on of hands for the baptism of fire and the Holy Ghost,
  according to the scriptures;

  42 And to teach, expound, exhort, baptize, and watch over the church;

  43 And to confirm the church by the laying on of the hands, and the
  giving of the Holy Ghost;

  44 And to take the lead of all meetings.

  45 The elders are to conduct the meetings as they are led by the Holy
  Ghost, according to the commandments and revelations of God.

A worthy priest can baptize, confer the Aaronic priesthood and ordain men to offices in the Aaronic priesthood and participate in any position in the sacrament.

A worthy elder can bestow the gift of the holy ghost (after someone is baptized), confer the Melchizedek priesthood, ordain men to the office of elder in the Melchizedek priesthood, give priesthood blessings and consecrate and/or dedicate oil, graves, and homes, as well as do anything a priest can do.

They are both are bound by the Covenant of the Priesthood. Elders are also bound the oath.

Also certain elders use the term "Elder" as a title (for example, general authorities and missionaries). Most elders do not though, but are still elders.


As a non-Christian, how to have best Christmas Day experience in Rome? I'll be visiting Italy during holidays and will be in Rome with my partner between 20 to 28th December. I'd have already visited monuments, Vatican City and several popular cathedrals.

Being a non-Christian, I want to take care that I don't offend any locals. As most of the places will be closed on December 25th, what would be your recommendation for me to have the best experience of Rome offers with a religious perspective in mind for this day?

Post Script: This question was asked on StackExchange Travel community and people suggested me to ask the question on this site instead.

The best way to celebrate Christmas in Rome is by keeping Christ in Christmas. Most churches and basilicas will have church services on every day that you plan to be in Rome. That would include churches of other denominations other than Catholic (Anglican, Lutheran and Protestant).

Besides going to a church service, which would be open to all, even non-Catholics and non-Christians, you may wish to take advantage of the Urbi et Orbi Blessing of the Pope at Vatican City on Christmas Day. While attending Catholic religious services called the Mass, please keep in mind that only practicing Catholics in the state of grace may receive Holy Communion.

For practicing Catholics, the Urbi et Orbi Blessing is an occasion to obtain a plenary indulgence. For those actually in Rome, those attending the actual ceremony will have the opportunity to see the pope.

  The Urbi et Orbi address and blessing are given each Easter and Christmas from the central loggia of Saint Peter's Basilica in Rome, at noontime, and are broadcast worldwide through the European Broadcasting Union and other linkups. The address concludes with greetings in many languages in relation to the feast celebrated.

  The Roman Catholic Church grants a plenary indulgence by the willful grace and intent of the Pope, on the usual conditions, to those who "devoutly receive" the blessing that the Pope imparts Urbi et Orbi.

  Since 1985, this indulgence is granted not only to the people in Saint Peter's Square, but also to those who though unable to be physically present, "piously follow" it by radio or television. - Urbi et Orbi (Wikipedia)

While in Rome one may chose to visit the Basilica of St. Maria Maggiore  which for those who believe contains a relic of the Holy Crib of Jesus.

  The Holy Crib

  In the crypt under the high altar lies the celebrated relic known as the Holy Crib. A statue of Pope Pius IX kneeling before the ancient wooden pieces of the manger serves as an example to the faithful who come to see the first humble crib of the Savior. Pius IX's devotion to the Holy Crib led him to commission the crypt chapel, and his coat of arms is visible above the altar. The precious crystal urn trimmed in silver, through which the faithful can venerate the relic, was designed by Giuseppe Valadier. The Papal Basilica St. Maria Maggiore


Besides works versus grace and indulgences, what were the external practices of the Catholics that offended so many reformers? My question is not focused on the doctrinal issue, but on the external practices which were contributing to the division. For example, I know there were many 'image breakers' similar to traditional Jewish views, who even took a swing at Luther for having pictures in his Bible, whereas Luther was a little more middle of the road with regards to images and statues. So long as they were not used in anyway that might suggest invocation to Mary, or the Saints, which turned them into proper idols, he did not see a problem.

The question therefore, is NOT should this thing, or that thing, be offensive, but 'historically', what was offensive?

Book IV of Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion deals with many objections to the practices of the Catholic Chruch, frequently with rather harsh language.

The claim that the Roman church is the only church (Chap II.2)
The communion as practiced by Catholics is idolatry: "The foulest sacrilege has been introduced in the place of the Lord's Supper."
Reliance on Church teaching instead of the Bible (Chap II.4): "Paul reminds us that the church was founded not upon men's judgements, not upon priesthoods, but upon the teaching of apostles and prophets [Eph 2:20]."
Elders should be elected (Chap II.15). Reference is made to Acts 14:23, which seems to have a disputed translation, but also to the practices of the early churches.
Bishops should not have ostentation or pomp (Chap IV.7)
Examinations  of church leaders  was not done, or if done was not based on ability to preach. (Chap V.1)
The Church did not reject interference by princes (Chap V.3)
Church titles are conferred without regard to need (Chap V.7)

It goes on like that for hundreds of more pages.


Is there any historical evedence of more apostles being called that were not mentioned in the Bible? In the Bible it mentions the apostles meeting together in prayer to determine who the lord would have them choose to fill the apostolic vacancy left by Judas.

    Acts 1:23 And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.

  24 And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of
  all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen,

  25 That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which
  Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.

  26 And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias;

From this account we see that the lord intended the apostleship to continue however history shows that it did not. How long did the practice of replacing the fallen or deceased apostles continue after this account and why did it stop happening?

An apostle is, per the Greek ἀποστέλλω  (apostollow) - that is, sent out.  It is a job, not necessarily a title.  Jesus, in the Great Commission of Matthew 28, literally apostolt (ie commissioned and sent out) all of his followers by telling them:

  Go ye therefore into all the world...

While Matthew 28:16 says there were only 11 people there (all his disciples), Acts 1 then goes to add Matthias, becaue the 11 disciples themselves thought a 12th should be added to their number, in order to match the 12 tribes.  Later, some have questioned if God had intended to add Paul as the 12th to their number.  Regardless of who was in attendance, however, many, many Christians - indeed just about all with a strong missionary bent - now take Jesus' words as being a "Great Commission" that applies to all his followers, not just the 11 in attendance.

As to the fact that many are called to be apostles, we have Paul's word on the matter:

  Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it. And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, helping, administrating, and various kinds of tongues. (1 Cor 12:27-28)

As such, the answer to your question is a simple Yes - because it is a gift given to all.

The difference, I suspect comes with whether or not there are more big-A "Apostles," by which you mean, did God confer some magical fairy dust and make them special.  The answer to that question is far more nuanced. Protestants will say we are all Saints. Catholics will say that some are more Sainted than others.  But we'll all say, if given a list, that the "12 Apostles" are drawn from Jesus' named disciples, minus Judas.  This is an artifact of history, in the same way that Abraham Lincoln may be a great President, but he's not a Founding Father.  Likewise, I'd argue John Champe is a founding  father, but you've probably never heard of him.

Paul calls himself an apostle many times but is not included in the list of the 12.  One would suspect he would have also called Barnabas an Apostle - but his name does not appear amongst the 12.  The list of 12 comes from the tradition of the disciples being sent out, but the job is more widely dispersed than that.

The list is thus fixed by tradition, and because it is a fixed tradition, is finite and known.  But as to the gift of apostleship - yes, there are many, many more.  And it is the role of the church for those who have been "sent out" to actually act on it.


How do proponents of Sola Scriptura address the ministry of those Apostles who authored no parts of Scripture? My purpose is to find a defense of sola scriptura against one part of the argument put forth in this article:

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/going-beyond

The author of the article uses as one of his pieces of evidence in his argument against sola scriptura the ministry of those Apostles that never wrote a gospel or letter that made it into the Bible. If they were apostles and had apostolic authority to teach doctrine, what are we to do with doctrines that they taught that were communicated via tradition and never incorporated into the Bible?

Or, concerning John, what about teachings that he considered important that he intended to share verbally and never were written down in any of his letters?

Here is the relevant quote from the article:

  And then there’s that small matter of the unity of doctrine among the
  apostles. If Paul had been promulgating sola scriptura in 1
  Corinthians 4 he would have been in conflict with the practice of the
  rest of the apostles. Most of the apostles never wrote a single line
  of Scripture; instead they transmitted the deposit of faith orally.
  Did their oral teachings carry any less weight of authority than the
  written teachings of Paul or Peter or John?

  None of the other apostles taught sola scriptura. In fact, John said,
  “I have much to write to you, but I do not wish to write with pen and
  ink. Instead, I hope to see you soon when we can talk face to face” (3
  John 13). Why would the apostle emphasize his preference for oral
  Tradition over written Tradition (a preference he reiterates in 2 John
  12) if, as proponents of sola scriptura assert, Scripture is superior
  to oral Tradition?

My preference is for a Calvinist argument, but any protestant argument will suffice.

Note: In my research, I have found this article helpful, and it touches on these matters, but the argument could be stronger:
https://www.equip.org/article/a-defense-of-sola-scriptura/

The problem is no one knows exactly what John ever said apart from his writings.  It's the same with Paul.  What Traditions were extant in their time?  Do we really believe they taught, for example, the Immaculate Conception?  How would we know?  It's an argument from silence and it's an argument that led to division not just between Protestant and Catholic, but centuries before between Catholic and Orthodox.

To your question, no one who believes in sola scriptura (the bible is the sole source of authority for all that's necessary for doctrine or practice as regards salvation) believes that the apostles left something salvific out of their writings that were assembled and are called the New Testament.  It is a rejection of so-called Tradition that again frankly we have no way of identifying.  We have no idea what John said to Gaius (3 John).

Irenaeus, as far as I know, was the first to address the question.  How did the apostles work who didn't write anything down?  He answers they all spoke the same message, but only some were chosen to write it down.

  We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.
  AH, Book III, I, 1

So, for the early church, there's not a sense of something missing from the salvation message from apostolic writing that some group might discover centuries later from who knows where.

To be sure, Irenaeus believes that trustworthy men will proclaim the same message, but that is the extent of oral Tradition.  It's not something out there apart from the bible truth, but is a person speaking the bible truth.


Does God lie? And does the devil tell the truth? The Bible quotes God assaying:

  And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, "You may freely eat of every tree of the garden; 17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die."  (Genesis 2:15-17)

The Bible goes on to quote Eve and the serpent talking:

  3 but God said, 'You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.'" 4 But the serpent said to the woman, "You will not die. 5 For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." 6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate; and she also gave some to her husband, and he ate. 7 Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves aprons. (3:3-7)

Now the devil tells Eve that she will not die and that she will gain the knowledge of good and evil. Which happens from what the Bible describes. God also specified that they will die on the day that they touch the tree, which does not happen, so it wasn't truth that God told Eve. Even if God said it as a metaphor, it was a metaphor that neither Adam nor Eve understood, because Eve told the serpent they they will surely die. And God is all-knowing, so he had to know that they will misunderstand him.  So, he deliberately told a metaphor, which he knew was going to be understood literally, and he knew it would be taken as literal interpretation.

In either way God provided Eve with misleading information. (It could be a possibility that something is lost in translation, but if not, it would take interpreting the text completely opposite to what is written in order to come to a different conclusion - and if we do, then why bother taking the rest of the Scripture as it is written?)

Does this mean that we must redefine our definition of lying?
Maybe lying excludes lying to children for example to save them from a greater harm
(like taking drugs for example)

If something is too complicated to explain to a child, maybe the Bible suggests that it's OK to lie to them. I feel like a lot of parents already do that making up stories to keep their children from making noise in church (for example). Telling them that if they misbehave the ghost will get them etc.

Or maybe lying overall means something else in the 10 commandments.
I really wonder about that, because I see situations when it might be good to tell a lie.
I'm Polish, so I always think of the story If I was holding a Jew in my house and Nazis would come in asking if I had any Jews in the house. I know that I couldn't tell the truth.

So I just wonder If God lied?
If so, is lying sometimes ok according to this passage?
If God doesn't lie, then what is the definition of lying?
If God told the truth that they would die, then is devil lying that they will not die?

I'm only interested in the Catholic perspective of this scripture as I was raised Catholic and this question bothered me for most of my life.

This is not necessarily a Catholic perspective, but I suspect the exegesis would pass muster.  (Feel free to ignore if you wish)

Faulty Premise #1: God is lying

God did not lie. In the day she ate of it, she became subject to death. Her body (and Adam's) began to decay, and went from immortality to mortality.

Additionally, she and Adam were, in fact, separated from God which is a type of death.

This question has specifically been asked, here and there is more to the explanation.

In short, most priests would disagree with the premise that God is lying.

Faulty Premise #2: The Devil is incapable of telling the truth

Although the Devil is "the Father of Lies," it does not follow that the Devil is incapable of telling truth (or at least using Truth) when it suits his purposes.  The Devil's aim is to deceive, not to lie.  He deceived Eve by suggesting that God was lying (see above) and that God was withholding something "good" from her.  Neither was the case.

In general, it is often said that every lie contains a truth, if only so that someone will believe it.  If I knew that everything the Devil said was false, for example, I could always discern the truth by negating what he said.  Simple Logic - Everything A becomes !A.  Ergo truth.  Again, not the Devil's problem.  The Devil merely deceives and destroys. If he can use accuracy to get there, he will use it.

I have little doubt that a Priest would agree with me on this.

Faulty Premise #3: Honesty is the supreme value

(Here is where I become a Protestant again), the highest duty of man is to love.  As this question shows, our duty is to love.

When the Nazis were clearing the Ghetto, they might have asked, "Are there any Jews here?"  A Christian could rightly "lie" and say "No," simply by re-framing the question in higher terms - "Are there any Jews here whom we may kill?"  No, you may not kill them, since love bids me to protect them. If I must lie, then that too is a sin - but being unloving is worse.

Again, here, I suspect that most RC Priests would accept this premise, but I defer to Roman Catholics to weigh in on that.

In summary, God isn't lying, the Devil is still deceiving even when he appears to be telling the truth, and we are under no obligation to answer deception in the terms handed to us.


What measures do Catholic dioceses take at Mass during viral outbreaks? What changes are made at Masses around the world because of outbreaks like the Covid-19/Coronovirus outbreak? For the last two weeks I've noticed a few changes, but we don't do communion in both species on my diocese and I'm not really sure what I should expect when I go to a different diocese.

Are priests expected to announce the differences that they do at each Mass so visitors won't be caught unawares?

What measures do Catholic dioceses take at Mass during viral outbreaks?

First of all it will depend on the severity of a particular outbreak in a particular geographical location or diocese.

For the most part, a particular national conferences of bishops would make up some general guidelines for a particular ecclesiastical region. Nevertheless a local ordinary is always free to impose further measures (within reason) for his own subjects in his own (arch)diocese during certain circumstances.

At the moment there seems to be no official statement of particular measures from the US Conference of Catholic Bishops itself, for the coronavirus outbreak.

For example, I live in the archdiocese of Vancouver and a few years ago, His Grace asked that the ”sign of peace” should be suppressed during a rather nasty flu outbreak that had hit Vancouver and adjoining areas.

Up here, pastors generally announce any changes of the Mass itself (at least for the first time) at a convenient moment at Mass, since most parishioners do not read the weekly bulletins prior to Mass. Most bulletins will have fuller information for the faithful to peruse in their own time at home. This is how we do things here.

As a token of what guidelines are being implemented I am going to refer to what the US dioceses are doing in light of the Covid-19/Coronovirus outbreak. Canada will follow similar protocols.

  Dioceses nationwide are taking precautions to guard against the spread of the coronavirus and reminding parishioners to take commonsense steps related to hygiene in their personal lives.

  Among the most common preventative measures being taken are urging reception of holy Communion in the hand, suspension of distribution of the Communion cup and exchanging the sign of peace without physical contact.

  Diocesan leaders also asked people who are ill to refrain from attending Mass.

  “If you are sick, stay home until you are feeling better,” Bishop David A. Zubik of Pittsburgh said in a March 2 announcement to parishioners.

  In a Feb. 28 letter, Charlotte Bishop Peter J. Jugis urged clergy to remind parishioners to cover coughs and sneezes and throw away used tissues, clean all “high-touch” surfaces daily, avoid shaking hands, wash hands often and not share personal items such as cups and eating utensils.

  Like diocesan officials across the U.S., Jugis encouraged priests not to extend the sign of peace, distribute Communion from the cup or invite people to shake hands in greeting at Mass or other gatherings. Those who distribute holy Communion should wash their hands before Mass and clean their hands again before and after distributing Communion, he said.

  Similar precautions were being implemented in the Archdioceses of Washington and the dioceses of Jackson, Mississippi, and Little Rock, Arkansas.

  Beyond those steps, the Archdiocese of Miami suggested that parishes empty the holy water fonts at church entrances, and it also is allowing extraordinary ministers of holy Communion who feel uncomfortable in carrying out their ministry to temporarily step down.

  Guidelines from the Ohio Department of Health for dealing with contagious illnesses were reviewed in a statement shared with parishes and posted on the Diocese of Cleveland’s website March 2.

  The diocese’s Office for Worship also reminded priests, deacons and extraordinary ministers of holy Communion to continue practicing good hygiene including frequent hand washing.

  Archbishop John C. Wester of Santa Fe, New Mexico, updated liturgical practices introduced in January because of the severity of the flu season in Utah. In a March 3 statement, he mandated that holy Communion be received in the hand.

  “What is important is that we receive our Blessed Lord in holy Communion,” he said. “How we receive, while very personal to the individual communicant, is not crucial. … Receiving Communion in the hand is every bit as respectful as receiving on the tongue.”

  At the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Msgr. J. Brian Bransfield, general secretary, March 3 requested in an email to staff that they “refrain, until further notice, from planning any new international travel.” - U.S. dioceses adopt wide-ranging plans to limit spread of coronavirus

Other countries have taken further measures for Mass and while at Catholic liturgies and customs, as seen by the following:

  Italy has become the center of Europe’s coronavirus outbreak and Catholic bishops there have responded by cancelling Mass and encouraging the faithful to watch services from home. The Vatican has temporarily closed the Italian catacombs.

  The changes to Catholic worship practices are overlapping with the observance of Lent, a 40-day period of reflection and renewal before Easter. Near the end of Lent, many Roman Catholics mark Jesus’ death on Good Friday by kneeling and kissing the cross.

  In the Philippines, bishops have advised parishioners to instead genuflect and bow to the cross on Good Friday. It remains to be seen if U.S. bishops will follow suit. - Catholic Churches Are Emptying Holy Water Fonts Over Coronavirus Concerns


How do Jehovahs Witnesses understand Jesus inheritance of Gods name Hebrews 1:3-4 reads:

  the Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of
  His nature, upholding all things by His powerful word. After He had
  provided purification for sins, He sat down at the right hand of the
  Majesty on high. So He became as far superior to the angels as the
  name He has inherited is excellent beyond theirs.

The last phrase is particularly interesting, it says that the Son (Jesus) inherited a name. Notably this can't simply mean that Jesus was given a name, but that Jesus was given a name that belonged to someone else. This clearly can't be a name of one of the angels - because it specifies that "the name He has inherited is excellent beyond theirs" - and it makes little sense for it to be a human name.

My understanding is that Jehovah's witnesses consider Jehovah, to be the greatest name, and the name of God. In this context the only explanation I can see for Jesus being a given a name more excellent than that belonging to the angels is that he is given this name the name of God. This makes sense because if he is inheriting it, he also has to be receiving the name that belonged to the one that gave it.

This makes sense of several passages. For example in Phillipians 2:9 it is written:

  Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name
  that is above every name,

If from a Jehovah's wittiness perspective, Jehovah is the greatest name, these passages make sense together. Jesus is given the name Jehovah.

Further this explains why the new testament writers put such a significance on the phrase "Jesus is Lord"  (1 Corinthians 12:3; Romans 10:9; Acts 8:16; 19:5 and 1 Cor 6:11) (notably when the bible was translated into greek the divine name, translated by JWs as Jehovah, is rendered kyrios, the word translated as Lord in these passages). When the apostles and bible writers use this phrase they are affirming that this inheritance of the divine name has taken place.

If this isn't the conclusion that JWs reach, how do they understand these passages?

EDIT:
In the early church there was clearly debate about the relationship between the Christ and his Father - clearly within the lifetimes of the apostles some thought that Christ wasn't divine, and people close to the apostles did (Polycarp, Justin the Martyr, and Ignatious). From a JW perspective, why do people think the apostles used this kind of ambiguous language?

Talking about Jesus "inheriting"/being "given" what appears to be the divine name.
Identifying Jesus frequently as kyrios (i.e. the Greek word that YHWH was replaced with when the Septuagint was translated into Greek, commonly translated as Lord in english bibles).

Was it for example, to avoid refuting the early Christians who believed in the divinity of Christ and thus maintain unity in the church?

[the mainstream christian reading of the bible is that YHWH (and its Greek and English circumlocutions kyrios and Lord) is a name/title shared by the Father, Son and Spirit. It's beyond the scope of this question to discuss what this means in the context of Heb 1 but in the is post I am proposing that the most natural reading of the text is that the writer of the book is discussing that sharing via the metaphor of inheritance, much as the author of Philippians discusses that sharing by metaphor of a gift.]

There's a 1984 Watchtower article which comments on this pair of scriptures. The conclusion drawn is that the "name" which Jesus inherited is his position, or reputation, as King. This is the definition of "name" that people refer to when they talk about "making a name for yourself."

True, the apostle Paul wrote to the Hebrews: “He [Jesus] has become
better than the angels, to the extent that he has inherited a name
more excellent than theirs.” (Hebrews 1:4; Philippians 2:9, 10)
However, this describes his situation after his having been here on
earth. He was still the archangel and “the beginning of the creation
by God.” (Revelation 3:14) But he became better than the angels. The
‘more excellent name’ or position is something he did not possess
before coming to earth. (These scriptures contradict the Trinitarian
concept that the Son is and always has been equal in every way to the
Father.)
Hence, the fact that Michael is the archangel, chief of the angels,
the fact that he stands up to rule as King, and the fact that he takes
the lead in casting Satan out of heaven at the time of the birth of
God’s Kingdom all lead us to just one conclusion: ‘Michael the great
prince’ is none other than Jesus Christ himself. —Daniel 12:1.
— w84 12/15 p. 29


Why is blasphemy against Mary, mother of God, bad? Source: Blaspheming Mary no longer crime. (1996). National Catholic Reporter, 33(5), 7.

I searched for "blasphemy" and "Mary" on EbscoHost and found an article from 1996 that stated that the blasphemy of Mary was no longer criminal in Italy. That meant, prior to that time, the blasphemy of Mary was bad and serious.

Why was the blasphemy of Mary and the saints bad? What, for example, was considered blasphemy against Mary, and how might a person prevent it? Were non-Christians excused from blasphemy?

Honestly, I think this is as much a question about Italian culture as it is about any Christian belief. The Italian culture produced laws against blaspheming saints; in the USA there were sin taxes and then the prohibition movement. I'm not sure that the reasons why are directly Christianity-related.

That said, one can point to common beliefs that influenced the practices. In this case Christians believe:

First, it falls generally under the umbrella of obscenities. Here is a previous answer regarding "bad words."

Secondly, to speak disrespectfully of those to whom one owes respect is wrong. It is, among other things, a violation of the principle of love. The ultimate transgression of this is to speak disrespectfully of God. Another example is to disrespect one's parents. Both of these cases make it into the Ten Commandments. These two cases are given special attention, but the general principle holds.

However, as to the laws themselves, I'd put them down to human nature in the context of a common moral code. Compare with modern attempts to outlaw "hate speech."


What is the "fear" of God? The book of Proverbs, and several other places in the Bible, mention the "fear of the Lord".

  Proverbs 9:10 (ESV)
  The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and the knowledge of the Holy One is insight.

In other contexts, such as when God spoke to Abraham, he said "fear not".

  Genesis 15:1 (ESV)
  After these things the word of the Lord came to Abram in a vision: “Fear not, Abram, I am your shield; your reward shall be very great.”

In yet other contexts, the "fear of the Lord" is praised as a great thing.

  Isaiah 33:6 (ESV)
  and he will be the stability of your times,
  abundance of salvation, wisdom, and knowledge;
  the fear of the Lord is Zion's treasure.

What is the difference in these context and in what sense are Christians supposed to "fear" the Lord?

Proverbs 9:10 and Isaiah 33:6 are referring to the fear of offending the Lord or sinning.

I believe in Genesis 15:1 God is telling Abraham that he does not need to have fear, because he did a good thing by rejecting the king of Sodom's reward in Genesis 14:21-24.

The Catholic Bible states it pretty well when it says, "Lastly, the gift of fear fills us with a sovereign respect for God, and makes us dread, above all things, to offend Him."

This is saying that we should have so much respect for God that we should fear ever offending him.  While the source is Catholic, I don't necessarily take it as a Catholic only stance.

Some say we should fear the Lord's wrath, but I believe the wrath alone should not be why we fear sinning.  It should also be out of love and respect for the Lord.


What is the biblical basis for the prohibition of instruments in worship? I understand that some Protestant churches prohibit the use of musical instruments in their worship services.  What is the specific biblical basis for this practice, or, if there is no specific biblical basis, what is the principle behind this practice?

Is it an issue of mixing musical instruments with vocal music?  Can they have one or the other, but not both?  Which churches follow this teaching?

I'm familiar with a couple different schools of thought on this.  Doubtless there are others as well.

The first comes from Greek Orthodox tradition.  I can't really speak to it directly, but a quick google search turned up a result indicating that it might have more to do with history and wanting to separate themselves from pagan worship. But there's likely a lot more to it.

The other is from the churches of Christ. This side I can speak to at length. To understand this, you need to know something of their history. The churches of Christ descend trough the Restoration movement of the mid-1800s. This was a movement that strove to throw off all of the excess structure that had arisen over the years since the 1st century and restore 1st century-style worship. The primary means of achieving this goal was through a very careful and strict interpretation of scripture.  "Innovations" from known historical patterns of the first century should only be permitted when there is a clear case for them, shown either through direct command, example, or necessary inference.

The reason for the return to 1st century worship was a reaction to all divisions, and a desire to fulfill the Lord's prayer "that they may all be one." It was a drive for unity, and one part of this was to push away anything a true seeker might possibly see as contrary to scripture, and hold up only those things which meet an exceptionally strict criteria for doctrinal purity (the other two parts are congregational independence/freedom and an strong emphasis on individual study). Don't knock the process too hard, as it met with some success... this is one of the few major groups to begin it's history as the result of a merger of a few smaller groups, rather than as a split from a larger group, and was the only group in existence at the time with a strong presence in both the North and the South to make it through the Civil War without dividing over the issue (sadly, this claim is the result of a prior study for which I no longer have a reference link).

There are four pieces that combine to contribute the general (not universal, but nearly so) use of a cappella music among church of Christ congregations.

The first is a very strict interpretation on the silence of scripture. I don't want to go into this at length, but you can read my answer to this question on faith healing to get a vague idea on how it works. The upshot is we lack explicit New Testament instructions or examples on the use of instruments (while singing or otherwise) in congregational worship — scripture is silent here. However, we do have explicit instructions to sing. Because we have an explicit instruction about how to use music in worship, the silence in this case is prohibitive rather than permissive. This by itself is weak, but remember it's only part of the reasoning.

The second reason is participatory. The command to sing praises is interpreted to mean that music in worship should include everyone as a participant... that if the music portion of your service consists mainly of just a few performers or even a choir, while the majority of the congregation is only listening (even if this is the effect rather than the intent), you're doing it wrong. The entire congregation should take part in producing the music. Instruments are seen as counter-productive to this effort, as history shows they have a tendency to take over and dominate the performance to the exclusion, rather than inclusion, of audience participation.

A third reason is practical. Successful use of a cappella music in worship is something that takes a commitment. If you decide to just try out a cappella music one week in service, or just do one a cappella song in each service, you're likely to fail miserably if few of the participants have done this before. Therefore, as a practical matter the choice to use a cappella music came down to an "all or nothing" approach, where those that use a cappella music in worship tend to do so exclusively. If you see a commandment to sing as a congregation as something to take seriously, a commitment to frequent a cappella worship is something to look at seriously.

The final reason is historical. Remember this group comes out of a movement whose goals were to restore 1st century worship styles. We do know from historical documents that the earliest Christians, without exception, did not use instruments in their worship. At all. In fact, it's already the third century before we find examples of any instrumental accompaniment, and some sources place it as late as the sixth century.1 It's possible there were forces other than doctrine driving this, such as: limited funds, fear of persecution if louder instruments give away a secret service, or simply modeling congregational worship after Jewish synagogue worship (which also did not use instruments). However, the fact of the matter is that the historical record indicates a cappella is the way to go.

1 Not my original source, but I recently came across this article that has more info on the historical sources, with lots of research references:  http://www.housetohouse.com/HTHPubPage.aspx?pub=2&issue=663


What is an overview of Christian viewpoints on the accuracy and truthfulness of the Bible? Can anyone provide an overview of major Christian viewpoints regarding the infallibility of the Bible?

Background: I am struggling with accepting that the Bible is 100% correct in all it says.  All the pastors I know hold to the belief that the Bible is right and any view that contradicts it is wrong.  They hold that every part of the bible is God inspired and thus without error.

As an example - but not the point of this question or post:
I have debated with friends about the relationship between works and faith and being saved.  We can all point to scripture that says what we want it to say and seems to imply the other person is wrong.  After 2000 years of Christianity we still have very different interpretations of the Bible and of salvation.

I believe in God, I question whether the Bible is the unspoiled word of God.

I don't believe in arguing over things that are impossible to prove, but I'd like to understand the topic better by reading some well thought out viewpoints.

Thank you for your time.

Without much detail, here is an overview of how different Christians view the Bible. These are major categories, and there is going to be some grey area between all of them.

The Bible is inerrant on all matters it addresses, and should be taken to speak the literal truth unless the Bible itself says otherwise. Also called Biblical Literalism. Adherents to this view believe that Genesis is a literal historical description of the creation of the world, for example.
The Bible is inerrant on all matters it addresses. This is usually called Biblical Inerrancy. It differs from Biblical Literalism in that it admits of the possibility that the Bible may use non-literal descriptions even when that is not explicitly stated. It is the view of many churches (especially but not only Evangelical churches) who do not explicitly hold to the Literalist viewpoint. The Catholic church holds approximately this view, and says ""the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation."
The Bible is inerrant in matters of faith and Christian practice. Also called Limited Inerrancy. This would mean that the descriptions of God, and commands to his people, are infallible, but that the history of early Israel (for example) might not be completely accurate.
The Bible is an accurate enough description of God and his interactions with his people in order for us to know him. Some adherents to this would attach special weight to the Gospels and to the sayings of Jesus.
The Bible is a helpful book.


In the parable of the ten minas, why does the king kill his enemies? The Parable of the Ten Minas

  Luke 19:27 (NIV) But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me.

Now, this is spoken in the 3rd person (of the "man of noble birth"); however, it still seems the intent of the parable is to order open carnage against those who don't follow the Abrahamic faith (see :9 & :10, that lead into this parable).

Interpretation?

This is a parable, so the fact that "a man of noble birth" is third person is rather irrelevant. It's pretty obvious he's symbolizing someone, probably Jesus.
Context. Verse 11 reads:

  As they heard these things, he proceeded to tell a parable, because he was near to Jerusalem, and because they supposed that the kingdom of God was to appear immediately.

I think it's easy to gather from this that:

The parable was being told to show that the kingdom of God would not appear immediately
This parable was about the kingdom of God.

With this in mind, and knowing that the kingdom of God in Jesus's parables often refers to the day of judgement or the end times, we can make a couple of assumptions:

Jesus is the nobleman. He often is, and he goes to "receive for himself a kingdom," something especially reformed scholars says Jesus is doing (receiving a kingdom from his Father).
The followers of Christ are the ten servants.
Those servants that pleased the nobleman with the abundance of minas are those saved by Christ who have lived out their lives "according to their calling."  They have confirmed their faith through works, as James says.
The one who fails to multiply the mina is not one of Christ's followers, but a tag-along; like the seed sown in the rocks.
Point 4 is made more obvious in verse 26, which reads:

  I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away.

Those who multiplied their minas "had" - they had Christ, truly. Alternatively you could say they truly "had" their mina, because then to them more was given. Either way, they had something (salvation) and to them more (eternal life) was given. To the man who hid the mina, he had not (no salvation) and so even everything else he had (life) was taken away (cast into hell).

As to verse 27, notice that the nobleman is still talking within the parable; Jesus is not talking directly. So we're still within the parable, which is happening later (point 2.1). The nobleman (Jesus) will, on the last day, cast into Hell those who did not want him to rule over him, just as he "took away" from the man who failed to multiply his mina. (There might be a difference between what happens to these two groups, maybe, maybe not. Regardless, those rebelled against Christ are being punished).
So no, Christ isn't "ordering open carnage against those who didn't follow the Abrahamic faith", he's sounding a warning that on the last day those who rebelled against him will perish.

N.B This answer, like many, is quite speculative. I've tried to stick to what I've heard preached and the typical Evangelical interpretation of the passage. The beauty of the votes is that they (should, anyways) show if I'm well representing that position.


What biblical reasons are there for using the Lord's Prayer as a pattern for prayer rather than a prayer to repeat verbatim? In Matthew 6:9-13, Jesus gave the disciples what we refer to as "the Lord's Prayer," (though Jesus Himself would never have prayed this, having no sin to confess).

Some traditions use this prayer as something we should pray verbatim, while other traditions see this only as a pattern to follow.

What are the biblical reasons against using it as a prayer that should be repeated verbatim  and for using it only as a pattern?

Let's look at the immediate context:

“And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites. For they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you.
“And when you pray, do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do, for they think that they will be heard for their many words. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him. Pray then like this:
“Our Father in heaven,
hallowed be your name...—Matthew 6:5-9 (ESV)

This is the Sermon on the Mount, which might be summarized as calling Jesus' disciples to go beyond the normal or surface understanding of obedience.  The first paragraph I quoted above, for instance, calls us not just to pray, but to pray in secret when it produced no earthly benefit.  We aren't supposed to make a show of prayer, but to pray intimately with our Father.
Similarly, Jesus prefaces the actual text of the "Lord's Prayer" with the warning not to use empty phrases.  Don't approach prayer as a spaghetti test.  Our words must be meaningful and not merely repetition of a formula.
Although we now think of the "Lord's Prayer" as a very standard way to approach God, it was probably as strange to the first audience's ears as the rest of Jesus' teaching.  The NET Bible notes:

Pray this way. What follows, although traditionally known as the Lord’s prayer, is really the disciples’ prayer. It represents how they are to approach God, by acknowledging his uniqueness and their need for his provision and protection.

and:

God is addressed in terms of intimacy (Father). The original Semitic term here was probably Abba. The term is a little unusual in a personal prayer, especially as it lacks qualification. It is not the exact equivalent of “daddy” (as is sometimes popularly suggested), but it does suggest a close, familial relationship.

So it seems natural that Jesus was calling us to something beyond mere obedience to pray these particular words.  Rather, He was calling us to pray with a particular attitude.  Rather than obey a distant deity who has no particular reason to listen, Jesus suggests we treat God as a close relative who cares for us.

Personally, I find the prayer very carefully structured and well suited to be a guide.  I sometimes pray one phrase at a time and pause to meditate on what I personally wish to communicate along those lines to my God.  As long as the Christian is thinking about the meaning and not merely repeating the sounds, there's nothing wrong with reciting the prayer word for word, however.


(Jehovah's Witnesses view) Jesus statement about Great Tribulation and the situation due to which "no flesh will be saved" This question is about Jehovah's Witnesses understanding of Jesus words in Matthew 24:21-22:

  for then there will be great tribulation such as has not occurred
  since the world’s beginning until now, no, nor will occur again. In
  fact, unless those days were cut short, no flesh would be saved; but
  on account of the chosen ones those days will be cut short.

My question is particularly about the part "unless those days were cut short, no flesh would be saved".

It looks to me like Jesus was saying that the situation would be such that no flesh or life would survive, unless those days are cut short. Like as if he is referring to some severe threat to all life on earth. Unless I am misunderstanding the word "saved".

I checked the articles I found about the Great Tribulation at jw.org (such as this article titled "What Is the Great Tribulation?" and this article) but did not find an explanation as to why "no flesh would be saved".

Questions:

Do Jehovah's Witnesses have an opinion on whether this passage
refers to a situation in which all life on earth is threatened? (Or
does the word "saved" here refer to no humans somehow being "worthy"
to be saved?)
If if refers to a situation in which the survival of all life is
threatened, what is the cause of this threat? For example is it
because of some action by mankind such as World War 3 or something
like that?

Jehovah's Witnesses believe the prophecy at Matthew 24:15-22 has a double fulfillment.

The first fulfillment came about when the Roman army surrounded Jerusalem in 66 C.E., but then the attack was cut short when the Roman army suddenly withdrew. The faithful disciples in Jerusalem and Judea recognized this as their chance to escape, while the rest of the city thought it was a victory. The Roman army then returned and destroyed the city in 70 C.E.

In parallel, the second fulfillment will come about in the Great Tribulation. At that time, there will be an initial attack on religion by the "disgusting thing ... standing in a holy place," which is the United Nations. The attack will be cut short to spare the true religion from being destroyed also.

Here's an infographic from the 2013 Watchtower article, "Tell Us, When Will These Things Be?"

In summary:

The attack is against religions and their adherents.
The attack is caused by the world's governments by means of the United Nations.

For a much more detailed analysis of the events leading up to Armageddon, see the book God's Kingdom Rules, chapter 21: "God's Kingdom Removes Its Enemies."

P.S. I'm impressed by how in-depth this question is. There are a lot more research tools that can help you find answers quicker in the future. One of the most useful ones is the Publications Index, where you can find publications by Scripture or by topic. (It's what I used to find information for this answer.) You can also use the search feature on https://wol.jw.org for a broader range of articles than are available on just the main site.


What does Paul mean when he says that we are no longer under the law but under grace? Romans 6:14:15

14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.
15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.

What does Paul mean when he says we are no longer under the law but under grace?

The traditional understanding is that, whereas in under the Old Covenant actions were sinful because they contravened the law, under the New Covenant they are sinful because they contravene grace and love as shown to us in Jesus Christ.

This is explained, for instance, in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

  The New Law is called a law of love because it makes us act out of the love infused by the Holy Spirit, rather than from fear; a law of grace, because it confers the strength of grace to act, by means of faith and the sacraments; a law of freedom, because it sets us free from the ritual and juridical observances of the Old Law, inclines us to act spontaneously by the prompting of charity and, finally, lets us pass from the condition of a servant who “does not know what his master is doing” to that of a friend of Christ — “For all that I have heard from my Father I have made known to you”—or even to the status of son and heir. (CCC 1972)

Under the law, actions were regulated. Under grace, transformation is required of the whole being of the person. We are commanded not to sin not because it contravenes a set of laws but because it contravenes the grace given to us in Jesus Christ.


Examples of people who fell from grace and earned it back? In the bible, it reads (forgive me as I don't have the exact passage) that the Holy Spirit will be given to those who are righteous.

My question is, are there any examples of people who were favored by God, sinned, and then found favor with God again?

The closest thing to a real concise example is the parable of the prodigal son.

The story is found in Luke 15:11-32

The story starts with the son demanding his share of the inheritance, so, unfortunately, it is a difficult case to make that he found favor with his father in the first place.

The son then leaves his father's house and squanders the inheritance and eventually ends up poor and eating pig slop. While finishing up a big bowl of the stuff he remembers that his father's servants eat better than this, so he decides to go back, ask for forgiveness, and offer to work as lower servant for his father.

  But while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and was filled with compassion for him; he ran to his son, threw his arms around him and kissed him.

Upon seeing him, the father immediately favored his son once more, or rather, never ceases favoring him in the first place.

The father's great cause for celebration is reveled in the last sentence:

  We had to celebrate and be glad, because [my son] was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.

A great cause for joy, indeed.


How do indulgences remit temporal punishment? "An indulgence is a remission before God of the temporal punishment
  due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven, which the faithful
  Christian who is duly disposed gains under certain prescribed
  conditions through the action of the Church which, as the minister of
  redemption, dispenses and applies with authority the treasury of the
  satisfactions of Christ and the saints." (CCC 1471)

Please correct me if I'm wrong but as I understand it, temporal punishment is the consequence of one's sin. However, it is said that indulgence can remit temporal punishment.How does indulgence remit temporal punishment?

I'll give two scenarios to work on the question:

Scenario # 1

David was forgiven his adultery with Bathsheba, but still he had to endure the pain of seeing the child die.

It is clear that David payed the penalty of temporal punishment. There is no indulgence in this case.

Scenario # 2

Nicolas was forgiven of his promiscuous behavior, but still he had to endure the consequence of his sin which is HIV.

In this scenario, how does indulgence remit the temporal punishment?

How do indulgences remit temporal punishment?
Sin has consequences!

"Sin has two consequences, or punishments (CCC 1472). The first is eternal punishment, in which the soul loses heaven and is confined to an eternity in hell. This punishment is remitted through the forgiveness of sins. The second is temporal punishment, in which a person must expiate, or make reparation for his sins. This temporal punishment remains even after sin is forgiven."
"How does one expiate his sins? The Catholic Church has traditionally identified three major ways–prayer, fasting, and almsgiving. Any good work or sacrifice expiates sin, as well as patiently bearing our sufferings and offering them up in satisfaction for our sins (CCC 1459-1460)."
"What happens if one has not fully expiated his sins before dying? Such a person, before going to heaven, would have to expiate his sins in purgatory (CCC 1030), where love for God is perfected through our sufferings there. Traditionally, the sufferings of purgatory have been compared to a "consuming fire" (1 Cor. 3:11-15). Because certain sins can be forgiven "in the age to come" (Matt. 12:32), Catholics have always prayed for the dead–for the relief of their souls, or their speedy deliverance, if they are in purgatory, for "it is a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from their sins" (2 Macc. 12:46)." - Temporal Punishment and Sin.

Indulgences are a remission of temporal punishments due to sin which have been sacramentally confessed and then absolved, thus making our purification in purgatory shorter. Indulgences do not affect consequences of sin, like gaining HIV from fornication!
Here are some general guidelines for gaining indulgences from the Apostolic Penitentiary of the Vatican.

General Remarks On Indulgences

This is how an indulgence is defined in the Code of Canon Law (can. 992) and in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (n. 1471): "An indulgence is a remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven, which the faithful Christian who is duly disposed gains under certain prescribed conditions through the action of the Church which, as the minister of redemption, dispenses and applies with authority the treasury of the satisfactions of Christ and the saints".

In general, the gaining of indulgences requires certain prescribed conditions (below, nn. 3, 4), and the performance of certain prescribed works (nn. 8, 9, 10 indicate those specific to the Holy Year).

To gain indulgences, whether plenary or partial, it is necessary that the faithful be in the state of grace at least at the time the indulgenced work is completed.

A plenary indulgence can be gained only once a day. In order to obtain it, the faithful must, in addition to being in the state of grace:

have the interior disposition of complete detachment from sin, even venial sin;

have sacramentally confessed their sins;

receive the Holy Eucharist (it is certainly better to receive it while participating in Holy Mass, but for the indulgence only Holy Communion is required);

pray for the intentions of the Supreme Pontiff.

It is appropriate, but not necessary, that the sacramental Confession and especially Holy Communion and the prayer for the Pope's intentions take place on the same day that the indulgenced work is performed; but it is sufficient that these sacred rites and prayers be carried out within several days (about 20) before or after the indulgenced act. Prayer for the Pope's intentions is left to the choice of the faithful, but an "Our Father" and a "Hail Mary" are suggested. One sacramental Confession suffices for several plenary indulgences, but a separate Holy Communion and a separate prayer for the Holy Father's intentions are required for each plenary indulgence.

For the sake of those legitimately impeded, confessors can commute both the work prescribed and the conditions required (except, obviously, detachment from even venial sin).

Indulgences can always be applied either to oneself or to the souls of the deceased, but they cannot be applied to other persons living on earth.


According to Roman Catholicism, in what way do wives need to submit to their husbands? What is the Catholic teaching on the way a wife needs to obey her husband?

In Ephesians 5:22, we read:

  Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. (NIV)

I'd like to know if it's in a spiritual direction, moral direction or maybe intellectual direction? Or this doesn't relate to every-day life but more to a general decisions the couple make. I.e., a man make a final decision on whatever they are trying to decide.

So things like man saying: don't go to that gas station because it's out of way but woman still go there and then she is late and wonder why (that is not the case? wouldn't that be intellectual?)

In the epistle of the Ephesians Paul starts out by setting an example which all things fallowing must embrace

  Ephesians 5:21  “Submit your yourselves to one another out of reverence for Christ”.

This statement of mutual self offering reflects the love which is the Trinity.  The Fathers self gift to the Son and the Sons self gift to the father.

The Marriage of Christ to the Church is reflected in the marital union of a Man and his spouse.  One gives all to the other and each has a role.

Now, customs and language of the first century do not translate well to the modern western reader.  The driving factor behind Paul’s words are however still valid in any society even if modern culture seems to disagree with it.   Concerning the submissive nature or subjugation of the wife to the husband I offer the fallowing:

There is an encyclical from Pope Pius XI Casti Connubii

  This subjection, however, does not deny or take away the liberty which fully belongs to the woman both in view of her dignity as a human person, and in view of her most noble office as wife and mother and companion; nor does it bid her obey her husband's every request if not in harmony with right reason or with the dignity due to wife; nor, in fine, does it imply that the wife should be put on a level with those persons who in law are called minors, to whom it is not customary to allow free exercise of their rights on account of their lack of mature judgment, or of their ignorance of human affairs. But it forbids that exaggerated liberty which cares not for the good of the family; it forbids that in this body which is the family, the heart be separated from the head to the great detriment of the whole body and the proximate danger of ruin. For if the man is the head, the woman is the heart, and as he occupies the chief place in ruling, so she may and ought to claim for herself the chief place in love.

Children will learn to lead from their fathers but learn to submit by their mothers.

The role of the family of God (his Church) including the father is the role of Submission, the role of Mary “Behold I am the handmaid of the Lord, Let it be done to me according to your word” This is an image of femininity and of being the bride of Christ.  And how the Church is submissive to Christ. In marriage as Pope Pius 11 writes about, in the family, the mother is the icon of this role.

Now the role of Christ, which the Husband represents in the family, is the image of Headship or or being first in the family.  As Christ says, let him who wishes to be first, be the servant of all.  “the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve others and to give his life as a ransom for many."

Do not forget the Context mentioned in the beginning of the two being subject to one another.  The Man Being the Head, and the Women Being the heart, which is greater?  Neither, both are necessary and both have honor and dignity.

Gender roles are factor, who do the children go to when they need comfort, who rushes into a burning building to save the children, who teaches and who punishes.  It is important to understand that the two halves of a marriage are one and the same working together.


What's the Biblical basis for calling God by the name of Jesus in prayers? I am looking for a Biblical basis for this practice. Can the answerers also state which denomination they are answering from?

Jesus himself taught to pray to "Our Father who is in Heaven". But I see many Christians basically using the word "Jesus" as the name of God. "I pray to you Jesus", "save me Jesus" and so forth.

My question is -- why do many Christians prefer to pray to the person of the Godhead who is Jesus? I do not find such a teaching in the Bible, and I wonder what purpose it accomplishes. Is this what Jesus meant when he said to ask "in his name"? It seems to me that the "in his name" might mean as if you are asking for something in someone else's name, or it could be some ancient expression from those times to mean to pray to the name "Jesus" in the Godhead. In any case, the real name was "Yeshua" wasn't it?

Lastly, is there anything that a person loses by always praying to God the Father?

<<>>

One specific Biblical reference comes to mind in the martyrdom of Stephen.

When Stephen lifts up his eyes to Heaven, just before he dies he prays (cries out) Acts 7:59 "While they were stoning him, Stephen prayed, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” 60 Then he fell on his knees and cried out, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them.” When he had said this, he fell asleep.

But agreed, it is more the common practice of the Church through the ages (and the Biblical norm) to pray to the Father, through the Son, in the Spirit.

(I come from a Presbyterian background (Westminster Confession of Faith)


Who assigned the gospel authors originally? According to the theory of the originally anonymous gospels, the titles of the most ancient surviving manuscripts were added later on.

I would like to know:

For each gospel, how many different, distinct, "assigners" were there? When did they do the assignment and where were they? I am not asking about the authorship of the gospels, but supposing there were no titles, who assigned them.

For example:

The gospel according to Matthew was assigned by:

1) X1 person or group, in the Y century in the Z region.

2) X2 person or group, ...""

If much of this is not possible at least list the number of the different assigners and whether they may have assigned these texts independently of one another.

The gospel according to Luke... ""

Please give sources, thank you!

One of the earliest "assignees" so-called of the same names of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John to their respective gospel accounts is Irenaeus of Lyons (~130-202 AD) who was a well-known, respected, apologetic writer about Classic Christianity.

Here is his account of the 4 gospels and his reasonings.

  It is not possible that the Gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are. For, since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds, while the Church is scattered throughout all the world, and the "pillar and ground" of the Church is the Gospel and the spirit of life; it is fitting that she should have four pillars, breathing out immortality on every side, and vivifying men afresh. From which fact, it is evident that the Word, the Artificer of all, He that sitteth upon the cherubim, and contains all things, He who was manifested to men, has given us the Gospel under four aspects, but bound together by one Spirit. As also David says, when entreating His manifestation, "Thou that sittest between the cherubim, shine forth." For the cherubim, too, were four-faced, and their faces were images of the dispensation of the Son of God. For, [as the Scripture] says, "The first living creature was like a lion," symbolizing His effectual working, His leadership, and royal power; the second [living creature] was like a calf, signifying [His] sacrificial and sacerdotal order; but "the third had, as it were, the face as of a man,"-an evident description of His advent as a human being; "the fourth was like a flying eagle," pointing out the gift of the Spirit hovering with His wings over the Church. And therefore the Gospels are in accord with these things, among which Christ Jesus is seated. For that according to John relates His original, effectual, and glorious generation from the Father, thus declaring, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Also, "all things were made by Him, and without Him was nothing made." For this reason, too, is that Gospel full of all confidence, for such is His person. But that according to Luke, taking up [His] priestly character, commenced with Zacharias the priest offering sacrifice to God. For now was made ready the fatted calf, about to be immolated for the finding again of the younger son. Matthew, again, relates His generation as a man, saying, "The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham; " and also, "The birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise." This, then, is the Gospel of His humanity; for which reason it is, too, that [the character of] a humble and meek man is kept up through the whole Gospel. Mark, on the other hand, commences with [a reference to] the prophetical spirit coming down from on high to men, saying, "The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as it is written in Esaias the prophet,"-pointing to the winged aspect of the Gospel; and on this account he made a compendious and cursory narrative, for such is the prophetical character. And the Word of God Himself used to converse with the ante-Mosaic patriarchs, in accordance with His divinity and glory; but for those under the law he instituted a sacerdotal and liturgical service.
  -AH III XI 8-

In addition from this, the same gospel names have survived to this day.

I am not aware of any other names assigned to the four gospel accounts besides these four until perhaps circa 1800 as questions from the Tubingen School of Theology arose specifically about why John's gospel supposedly contradicts the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke) account of the days and dates of the death, burial, resurrection of Christ Jesus.  Because of that so-called contradiction, ideas that John's gospel really wasn't written by John arose.


Are there any existent military orders? The Knights Templar (Poor Fellow-Soldiers of Christ and of the Temple of Solomon) are an example of a Christian military order, but were dissolved in the 14th century. Are there any currently existing Christian military orders?

The Knights of Malta also known as the Hospitallers of St. John of Jerusalem is a Military Order that still exists.

  The most important of all the military orders, both for the extent of its area and for its duration. It is said to have existed before the Crusades and is not extinct at the present time. During this long career it has not always borne the same name. Known as Hospitallers of Jerusalem until 1309, the members were called Knights of Rhodes from 1309 till 1522, and have been called Knights of Malta since 1530.

  In times of war, since 1870, the order has been devoted to ambulance service on the field of battle. Catholic Encyclopedia

A short HISTORY OF THE KNIGHTS OF MALTA is an excellent read.

  Fra’ Giacomo Dalla Torre del Tempio di Sanguinetto, elected Lieutenant of the Grand Master of the Sovereign Order of Malta yesterday, has sworn oath today(April 30, 2017) in the Church of Santa Maria in Aventino, before the Council Complete of State (the elective body of the Order of Malta) and Archbishop Angelo Becciu, the Pope’s Special Delegate.


What is the Biblical basis for a resistable enabling (prevenient) grace? I see a few different uses of the term prevenient grace in questions here, so I will define what I meant first: a belief held by traditional Baptists and other non-reformed evangelicals, that though we are all totally depraved and unwilling to come to Christ on our own free will, God gives us a enabling grace that allows us to come to regeneration and faith. But this grace can be resisted and ignored.

What is the Biblical basis for this type of grace?

The doctrine of Prevenient Grace is seen by those who adhere to it as a natural outcome of sound Biblical exegesis.

In one respect it's akin to the doctrine of the Trinity in that it resolves apparent discrepancies.  With the Trinity, we have clear teachings in Scripture that there is only one God, other clear teachings that Jesus is God, and others supporting that the Holy Spirit is fully God.

To answer this fully is going to take a bit of time, so I'm going to break this down into three sections:  Principles that are used when looking at these Scriptures, the supporting Scriptures, and the application of the principles that lead to the conclusion of Prevenient Grace.

Principles

The doctrine of Scripture as the inspired inerrant, infallible Word of God.
Rules for resolving apparent Biblical discrepancies.

To understand how Prevenient Grace is drawn out of the texts, you need to start by bearing in mind that to these groups, there can be no question that the Bible is inspired, inerrant, and infallible.  In other words, it was written by God Himself, using the authors as instruments, and therefore not only does not contain errors, it cannot contain errors. This means that it cannot have contradictions.  Something cannot be logically true and false at the same time.  Two polar opposite views that contradict each other cannot be true.

Next, you need to understand that if the Bible contains apparent contradictions, then either the bible is not inerrant, or there's a way to resolve the apparent discrepancy.

Supporting Scriptures

The supporting Scriptures here are, interestingly enough, the ones that show the apparent discrepancy:

The verses that support the Calvinistic view that man plays no part in his salvation, or choice are already documented in many questions on this site:

What is the Biblical basis for Total Depravity?
What is the Biblical Basis for Irresistible Grace?
What is the Biblical basis for Limited Atonement?
What is the Biblical basis for Unconditional Election?

If you take the time to go through the above questions and the answers, the support for the idea that man has no choice in his salvation, and that God chooses who will be saved is overwhelming.

However, on the other side, there is also overwhelming Scriptural support for the idea that we must choose to accept God's free gift of salvation - in other words, man does play a part.  (Emphasis mine in the following verses)

Matthew 16:24 - Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.
John 3:16 -  For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
John 11:40 - Jesus saith unto her, Said I not unto thee, that, if thou wouldest believe, thou shouldest see the glory of God?
John 7:37 - In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink.
Romans 4:24 - But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;
Matthew 11:28-30 - Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.  For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.
John 6:40 For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.”
Revelation 22:17 - And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.

I'm going to stop there.  A comprehensive list is far too long for an answer here, and that's enough to make the point:  There is Scriptural support for the idea that man does have to choose to follow Christ, and that the choice does exist.  It is real.

Taking one more tiny (well, maybe not so tiny since it's the central point of all Christianity) piece of evidence into account... Since man cannot save himself, God provided the payment for our sins.

In other words, when man is incapable. God provides a way...

Application of the Principles to the Scriptures to draw out the Biblical Concept

Thus far, we've established the following two opposing facts:

Scriptures clearly teach that man is fully depraved and utterly incapable of choosing to follow God.
Scriptures clearly teach that we must choose to follow God, that the choice is ours to make.

Therein lies the conflict.  Do we have a choice or don't we?  Are we capable of choosing or aren't we?

There is one other conflict that ties in here, for which I haven't provided the Scriptural arguments, but which bears on this topic:  Does God want only certain people to be saved, or does God desire that all would come to Him?.

Assuming that God's Word is true and that he desires that all come unto repentance...

Scriptural facts:

God wants us all to be saved
we are totally depraved.
We cannot choose to follow God unless He calls us
We cannot be saved unless we choose to follow God.
God always provides a way

Can be rephrased as...

  God desires that all be saved, and he teaches that it's our choice to do so.  He doesn't force us.  But because we are totally depraved,
  we cannot choose to follow God.  we are utterly incapable.  Since we
  cannot choose to follow Him on our own, but He expects us to choose,
  He provides a way that allows us to choose to follow God.  He calls us
  first and gives us the previnent grace to choose to obey His perfect
  will.

...with no conflicts and no leaps of logic.


How did the Seven Deadly Sins originate and how is it used? The "List enumerating character attributes guaranteeing political success" (Lust, Envy, Covetousness, Anger, Gluttony, Pride, and Sloth) has a long career as "the seven deadly sins."  What I don't see is a list in Scripture that differentiates these sins from any other. Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying it isn't good, I just wonder how it is that these sins came to be almost on the level of the 10 Commandments.

I understand that the list itself was compiled by Evagrius Pontus, but why is it that it became popularized?

So, who put this list together, and what purpose did it serve in the early to modern church?

Is this, for example, the distinction between a venial and grave sin?

Another name for these is the capital sins or vices, meaning that they are the root causes of other sins (from the Latin caput, "head", also meaning "principal"). Gregory the Great wrote in his Commentary on Job (the Magna Moralia) 31:88:

These several sins have each their army against us.
For from vain glory there arise disobedience, boasting, hypocrisy, contentions, obstinacies, discords, and the presumptions of novelties.
From envy there spring hatred, whispering, detraction, exultation at the misfortunes of a neighbour, and affliction at his prosperity.
From anger are produced strifes, swelling of mind, insults, clamour, indignation, blasphemies.
From melancholy there arise malice, rancour, cowardice, despair, slothfulness in fulfilling the commands, and a wandering of the mind on unlawful objects.
From avarice there spring treachery, fraud, deceit, perjury, restlessness, violence, and hardnesses of heart against compassion.
From gluttony are propagated foolish mirth, scurrility, uncleanness, babbling, dulness of sense in understanding.
From lust are generated blindness of mind, inconsiderateness, inconstancy, precipitation, self-love, hatred of God, affection for this present world, but dread or despair of that which is to come.
Because, therefore, seven principal vices produce from themselves so great a multitude of vices, when they reach the heart, they bring, as it were, the bands of an army after them.

Thomas Aquinas agreed (Summa Theologica I-II Q84:3):

A capital vice is one from which other vices arise, chiefly by being their final cause.

He concurred with Gregory's enumeration. He does not link these vices with the venial/mortal scheme; in Q88 of the same part he describes the distinction as "mortal and venial are mutually opposed as reparable and irreparable", although he admits that venial sin can become or lead to mortal sin.
Dorothy L. Sayers, in her introduction to her translation of Dante's Purgatorio, described the vices rather neatly as "the fundamental bad habits of mind recognized and defined by the Church as the well-heads from which all sinful behaviour ultimately springs." She continues, in the manner of Gregory:

In classifying sin under these seven main heads, the Church displays more subtlety and a profounder psychology than is sometimes supposed. It is, for instance, often asked: "Why does the Church not count Cruelty as a Deadly Sin?" The answer is that although cruelty is indeed (in one sense) a sin deadly to the soul that indulges in it, it is not a root-sin. No sane person is cruel for cruelty's sake: there is always, hidden behind the act and habit of cruelty, some other (often unacknowledged and unsuspected) evil motive. [...] It may, in fact, derive from any one of the Capital Sins: from sheer selfish indifference to others' needs and feelings (Pride); from jealousy, resentment, or fear (Envy); from ill-temper, vindictiveness, or violent imagination (Wrath); from laziness, cowardice, lack of imagination, complacency, or irresponsibility (Sloth); from meanness, acquisitiveness, or the determination to get on in life (Avarice); from self-indulgence and the wanton pursuit of pleasure (Gluttony); from perversions of sexual and personal relationships, such as sadism, masochism, or possessiveness (Lust).

In summary, they are quite different from the Ten Commandments, which are about specific categories of action; the seven capital vices are categories of sinful thought which can lead to sinful deeds. As you note, there is no real basis in the Bible for this exact catalogue (there are various sin-lists but not this one). And there's no reason to believe (nor, I think, do the early writers claim) that the list is in any way "complete". I would imagine that it has persisted simply because it has been found pastorally useful, since the seven deadly sins are easy to preach about, and memorable for the congregation.