How is the doctrine of the Trinity substantiated? I have noted that some people do not believe in the doctrine of Trinity, namely "three personas, one nature", but my question is not about whether the doctrine is true! It is about how those, that believe the doctrine to be true, are arguing that it is true. Thus this is not a question of opinion.
This question is also not about what "of the same nature, but different personas" actually means.
That question was asked by me at What does it mean that Jesus, Father, and Holy Spirit are of the same nature but different personas?
However, if you feel that answering, what it means, is required for answering how it is argued for, I am happy for clarification.

In an answer it was said that Jesus never says he is God or 'God the Son' as part of a Trinity (reformatted):

He has a God - the same (creator) God as all humans.

John 5:44 -- the one and only God
2 Cor 1:3, Eph 1:3, Col 1:3, 2 Cor 11:31, Rom 15:6, Rom 1:7 -- the God of our Lord Jesus
1 Pet 1:3 Heb 1:8-9 -- God anointed Jesus
Rev: 1:1, 1:6, 3:12 -- even ascended, Jesus still has the same God of him and of us

Jesus often refers to his Father and God in an equivalent manner:

"You have loved me and have believed that I came from God. I came from the Father and have come into the world." (John 16:27)
I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God. (John 20:17)
a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. (John 8:40)

This got me thinking: What is the logical argumentation for the doctrine of Trinity?
It does not seem to be directly stated in the bible as a doctrine, although it seems - in a way - kind of obvious to me when reading, e.g. the gospel of John in one go. However, "seems obvious" is hardly a good argument.

This is a very good question. And let me say from the onset that I will not "dazzle" you with examples of the Trinity that deals with water, ice, eggs, four leaf clovers sun rays or anything else in like manner.
The definition of the doctrine of the Trinity is not an "assumption." It is the normative systematic theology of God in Christianity and is based on the fact that the Bible is EXPLICIT in telling us that there is, was and forever will be only ONE God AND the fact that the Bible identifies three (and only three) persons as God.
So, how is this "substantiated?" Now, please bear with me on this because it may appear complicated but it is not when you think about it. Also, the Trinity cannot be understood, argued or refuted by appealing to any single passage in the Bible. It is drawn from the whole Bible.
The Bible identifies God by: (1) His names. (2) His titles. (3) His unique attributes. (4) His unique actions. (5) His worship. If you will examine the Bible thoroughly you should be able to quickly discover that there are three and ONLY three "persons" who are identified as God by the 'COMBINATION" of the literary means I listed above.
These persons are each variously...CALLED by the NAMES of God. (YHWH and its variants) either directly or indirectly, usually both.
RECOGNIZED with the TITLES of God. (Lord, king, savior, redeemer etc.) For example God is identified at Isaiah 44:6, "Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel And his Redeemer, the Lord of host; I am the first and I am the last. And there is no God besides Me. At Isaiah 43:11, "I, even I; am the Lord; And there is no SAVIOR besides Me.
Jesus Christ is also described as the "first and the last in the book of Revelation. Jesus Christ is also identified as the "SAVIOR" at Luke 2:11, "for today in the city of David there has been born for you a "SAVIOR, who is Christ the Lord. Are you beginning to see the connection?
As a point of order let me say that when you see the word "God" in the Old Testament you "CANNOT" assume it refers to God the Father all the time. Let me pick another one! His unique actions. That is to say (Creation, origin of God's word, salvation of men etc).
Going back to Isaiah at Isaiah 44:24 the part that says, "I, the Lord am the maker of all things, Stretching out the heavens BY MYSELF, And spreading out the earth ALL ALONE."
And we have at John 1:3, "ALL things came into being by Him, and apart from Him (apart means without Him) nothing came into being that has come into being." Colossians 1:16 backs this up, "For by Him/Jesus Christ ALL things were CREATED, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities ---all things have been created by Him and for Him." God the Father backs this up at Hebrews 1:10.
One more, God's worship. We already know God is worshiped in the Bible. Jesus also receives worship. The highest form of worship to Jesus was by Thomas at John 20:28 when he said literally to Jesus Himself, "The Lord of me and the God of me." At Hebrews 1:6 His Father says, "Let all the angels of God worship Him." The Greek word for worship in this text is "proskuneo" which is the same word used for worshiping the Father.
At this point I'm not going go over His unique attributes/characteristics which are easy to figure out on your own, i.e omnipresence, omnipotence, eternality, etc.
Keep in mind that I am saying that each person of the Trinity receives some COMBINATION of the 5 means of identifying and distinguishing God listed above. Remember, theology is not salvation. It is in Christ that we find God fully and sufficiently manifested to us human beings, AS a human being and for His own glory. And it is only through His Holy Spirit that we can know Him and be saved by His grace.
Finally, at Matthew 16:13 Jesus said, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is? At verse 16 Peter replied, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." Jesus replies to Peter, "Blessed are you Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven."


Was the Old Prophet (1 Kings 13.18) deceived by an 'angel'? Most translations read '(But he was lying to him)'. I always thought the Old Prophet lied to the man of God, but now I'm wondering if the 'angel' lied to the old prophet.

This wondering started when reading Systematic Theology, Wayne Grudem chapter 19 Angels pp. 406-407. 1 Kings 13.18 is used as an example of 'false doctrine or guidance being conveyed by angels ... the clear possibility of satanic deception tempting us to disobey ...'

Having investigated, some translations put 'the old prophet lied' which makes it clear (if they are correct??). Any gentle help appreciated.

Oooor it could have just been the fact that this old prophet plainly lied about seeing an angel just to manipulate the man of God from Judah to disobey God and eat with him. Hospitality was a big thing in Middle Eastern times back then.

But, most importantly, it seems this was a test for the young prophet, not the old prophet, as the former was the focal point of the chapter's story.

Hope these resources help you as well:

https://ebible.com/questions/3718-why-did-the-old-prophet-lie-to-the-man-of-god-causing-his-death
https://www.gotquestions.org/man-of-God-lying-prophet.html
What should the man of God in 1 Kings 13 have done when faced with the old prophet's lie?


Who is an "enemy" in the context of this video? In the video The Mission of CBI Japan and The Gospel Coalition at approximately 1:25, there's a reference to obeying Christ's call to "love your enemies." (Related question)

I'm a bit confused as to what's meant by "enemies."

There's three interpretations I can think of:

One is a reference to World War II and other events. I'm not what nationality the speaker is, but I'm guessing either American or South Korean, both of whom would have regarded Japan as a past enemy. I don't know whether Christians regard the phrase "love your enemies" as being relevant to people from enemy countries - that sounds like a secular rather than a religious matter.
One is a reference to those who persecute Christians. This doesn't seem plausible to me, because although Japan is predominantly non-Christian, that doesn't equate to persecution. I suspect there's more hostility towards Christians in Australia or the United States than in Japan!
Wikipedia mentions an interpretation of all heathens as being "enemies". But this has a [citation needed] after it.

None of the interpretations seem that plausible. What's meant here?

The speaker is Michael Oh, the founder of Christ Bible Institute Japan. He is of Korean heritage but grew up in America.

I found a video (plus transcript) that explains more fully his animosity toward Japan, and the process of forgiveness he underwent. The video is of a talk he gave on night 5 of the Urbana missions conference in 2009. The animosity basically comes from what he calls the "Asian holocaust" and particularly Japan's occupation of Korea, in which his family experienced much cruelty at the hands of the Japanese.

In the video, Oh mentions these general facts about Japanese war crimes:

"According to historian Chalmers Johnson as many as 30 million Filipinos, Vietnamese, Cambodians, Indonesians, Koreans, Chinese, and others were slaughtered in Asia during the years of Japanese aggression leading up to and including World War II."
"Japanese scientists tested various chemical and biological weapons such as bubonic plague and anthrax on human victims."
"Women were impregnated by soldiers and doctors, their bellies sliced open, their babies removed, and then experimented upon," which seems to refer to findings of the Women's International War Crimes Tribunal on Japan's Military Sexual Slavery.
"So cruel were Japanese medical experiments that Nazi scientists who visited the facilities vomited from the horror of what they saw."
"Almost 200,000 Korean women, and girls as young as 12 years old, were subject to rape upwards of 100 times per day."

He also mentions that his father was beaten if he used his Korean name and that his grandfather's sister was married off after his family discovered that the Japanese took unmarried girls as comfort women.

I think you're overthinking the general application of "love your enemies," which was clearly intended for all enemies of all kinds. That is, the Christian is supposed to love all who mistreat him; this is the call that Michael Oh responded to by becoming a missionary to Japan. The command is recorded in Matthew 5 and Luke 6. Luke's version (in the NET) says:

  Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. ... If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. And if you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners do the same. ... But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, because he is kind to ungrateful and evil people. Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.


When were the "three times a year" when one was supposed to receive communion? In E.M. Forster's novel Maurice, the character Durham remarks that he had a row with his mother and explains:

  Why? On account of Christmas. I didn't want to communicate. You're supposed to receive it three times a year —

When were these "three times a year"? Obviously, based on the discussion in the novel, one of them is Christmas, and from the setting, this is an issue of Anglican practice. Unfortunately, the only useful result I have gotten from my Google-fu is a book on Early Modern England, in which there is also a reference to a triannual celebration of the Eucharist.

Have there perhaps been any changes since then in how often the Eucharist is celebrated?

At the end of the Holy Communion service in the Church of England Book of Common Prayer are 9 rubrics (i.e. rules or notes) the seventh of which begins:

  And note, that every Parishioner shall communicate at the least three times in the year, of which Easter to be one.

Prior to the Reformation, constitution 21 of the Fourth Lateran Council, 1215,  required communion to be received at least once a year, at Easter. This applied to the whole Roman Catholic church, of which the Church of England was then part. Receiving Communion meant eating the bread. It did not refer to simply hearing mass, attending the service, which was expected much more frequently.

Although the Prayer Book rule requires that people communicate three times a year it only specifies Easter as one of them, the other two are not stated.

You slightly misquote from your reference when you refer to "triannual celebration of the Eucharist" - it in fact says triannual reception. It is not a reference to the number of times Holy Communion was celebrated (i.e. occurred) but to the number of times per year each person was required to receive (eat and drink) the bread and wine. In Cathedrals and colleges Communion was held at least weekly but, particularly in Georgian times, only a few times a year in rural parishes.

A fairly common practice in the Church of England was for people to attend and receive communion at Christmas and Whitsun as the other two occasions apart from Easter, and generally in Georgian times these festivals had communion services. The Synod of Dort, in Holland in 1619, in Rule 63 said Holy Communion services should be held every two months and also at Christmas, Easter and Pentecost (a traditional name for Whitsun). This was not in any way binding in England, but illustrates a popular understanding of the three. The Church of Scotland, by contrast, celebrated Communion usually once or twice a year, but did not associate it with  Christmas, Easter, Whitsun, or any other festival.

In the early 20th century most Church of England churches had communion weekly but these services were not, except on special occasions,  well attended in comparison to Matins and Evensong. The three times a year rule could not be enforced and its observance would be by a specific strata on the scale of commitment between those who received more frequently and those who received only at Easter or (the majority of the population) not every year at all. The character Durham, or rather his mother, fell into this strata, at least as regarding minimum expectations of her son.  An additional consideration is that  Christmas is at the end of the year. A person who got to December having communicated only twice in the year, and who  wished to respect the rule, or whose mother wished him to respect it, would have to communicate by the end of the year to make up the three. This is an additional reason for Christmas Communion, which may have applied to the character Durham.

Receiving at Christmas and Whitsun, especially Christmas, was  merely the  customary way of fulfilling the three times a year. Only Easter was, and is, mandated.

Since that time communion has become the main (best attended) service in most Church of England churches, and in many is the only regular service. This change has coincided with a fall in the number of regular churchgoers, but the extent, if any,  to which this may be cause and effect is unclear.


Why was Yeshoua interpreted as Jesus in the new Testament? Inspired by What is the significance of the name "Jesus"? and previous readings about the name, the interpretation of Yeshoua means Joshua in the Old Testament and Jesus in the New Testament.

What brought about this differences in interpretation?

It's not an issue of interpretation, just the representation of the same name in different scripts. You point out correctly that Jesus' name (in Hebrew/Aramaic) was Yeshua. This is the same name of Moses' successor, "Joshua." The difference is that the name "Joshua" (coming from the Hebrew Bible) is a direct transliteration from Hebrew to English (as was pointed about above, the "Y" comes to English as a "J"), whereas the name "Jesus" comes to English from Hebrew through Greek Iesu. The vowels are different, and the "s" at the end is just the Greek case ending.


Can a Catholic priest take Anglican services? I was having a discussion with someone and I said that if a Catholic priest took a Protestant service, it would not be bona fide Protestant service. They replied that Catholic priests can become Anglican members.

Which makes me wonder if I was wrong: can a Catholic priest lead Anglican services; and which services (if any) would not be bona fide Protestant when performed by a Catholic priest?

Please do answer based on whichever Anglican church would say the service really was Protestant.

The churches of the Anglican Communion recognize the validity of Holy orders conferred by the Roman Catholic Church, so that a Bishop, Priest or Deacon who converted from Catholicism to Anglicanism, would remain a Bishop, Priest or Deacon, and could serve in the appropriate roles in the Anglican Church, subject to the relevant canon(s) of the various constituent churches of the Communion. It is also probably true, that a Catholic Bishop, Priest, or Deacon could be permitted to exercise his role in an Anglican church on a one time basis. In either case, though, whether a full conversion or a one time event, this would violate Roman Catholic canon law, and the Catholic Priest, Bishop, or Deacon, would likely be automatically excommunicated by virtue of having performed the act.

As far as going the other way, the Roman Catholic Church recognizes Anglican orders as "absolutely null and utterly void" (Pope Leo XIII's Apostolicae Curae §36), so an Anglican converting to Catholicism would have to be ordained in the Catholic Church. This does, in fact, happen, and there are some number of Anglican clergy who have converted and been ordained and who serve as Priests in Roman Catholic environments, even when those Priests are married.


Are there any surviving hymns from the Valdensian movement? The Valdensians preached and celebrated the Lord's Supper in the native tongue of the people, not in Latin. However, every source I've read about their customs focus on what was spoken, while I also want to know what they sang.

Do we have any sources that describe their songs, when and how they were sung or indeed if they did sing during their worship services at all?

Of course this question is about the oldest era of the Valdensian movement, way before it merged with Calvinistic Protestantism.

I contacted the Valdensian Seminary in Rome and got this reply, from Lothar Vogel, professor of Church History:

  Dear Mr. Gunther,

  I thank you very much for your kind request and for your interest in
  Waldensian history.

  I can tell you that there are no sources concerning medieval
  Waldensian hymns or liturgies linked to Eucharistiv celebrations. At
  the latest from 14th century on the liturgical pratise was factually
  limited to confession, and the Waldensians participated at the
  sacramental practice of the "great church" (baptism, eucharist).

The answer is, thus, "no".


Why are Independent Baptist Fundamentalists labelled Protestants? Something that always bothers me which I witness to Catholics: the well-meaning ones tell me I am a Protestant and say that "we protested the Catholic Church". This isn't true, the Baptist Church was never a part of the "Protestant Reformation" movement, and we don't actively engage in protesting the Catholic Church because we have no roots in it.

Although our theology might sometimes be labelled as "reformed" we call ourselves "fundamentalists" and not "reformers" because unlike Luther there was nothing for us to "reform". Our teaching does not come from any tradition and we teach solely what comes from the Bible. We take the Bible literally and base our theology off of that and not any tradition. For example, we don't have the Nicene creed  a tradition which Lutherans have which can be traced back to Roman Catholicism.

If you disagree please cite an accurate historical reference that says the Independent Baptist Fundamentalists were an active part of the "Protestant Reformation" and can thus be labelled Protestants or Protestant Reformers.

My first answer wasn't very good; I want to take a different angle. I hope this approach helps make this issue more clear.

TL;DR

You don't have to stage a protest to be Protestant. It's a matter of heritage.

Of fallacies and analogies...

Your question commits some basic fallacies that can easily be addressed.

  cite an accurate historical reference that says the Independent Baptist Fundamentalists were an active part of the "Protestant Reformation"

This step is quite unnecessary. Let's look a few analogous examples to understand why:

You didn't fight in the Revolutionary war, but you are an American citizen right? Even if you don't hold the same views as these who picked up muskets to fight for the colonies independence, your very existence has it's roots in that conflict.
By a similar token, I was born in America to third generation American parents. But my last name is Maclennan. Somewhere way back when, I had an ancestor named Lennan and -- whatever my opinion of Scotland may be -- I bear his name and and have my roots in that country.

Speaking of ancestry, let's think about your bloodlines for a minute. I'm a white boy. Nobody looking at me would take me for an Asian or an African. My blood comes from the Anglo-Saxon world. Never mind the fact that I now live in the Middle East, I have roots in a specific world and culture. I may not identify with its values, eat its food or speak its language1 but there is still a sense in which it is valid to identify me as a Westerner.

Now for Theology...

Much like a genealogy, the history of Christian religion may be drawn as a tree. We can start with the NT church2. I think its safe to say we both consider that a true church. For at least some very initial stages, there was not anything quite like what we know of as denominations3. As time went on, deviant theologies cropped up, were countered, and some people stuck with orthodox belief and others wandered. Some of these might be considered fundamentals of faith (such as the Gnostics) others might be considered less fundamental (eventual division between the major traditions we have today).

I covered a lot of similar ground on my answer to a question about what the purpose of the Creeds were. Your question mentions the Nicene Creed, but it is by no means unique to Lutheranism. In fact Catholics use it as well. As a matter of fact, so do many Independent Baptists. The statements of that creed are a very basic outline of some basic facts about our faith derived directly from Scripture. Whether you actively use it or not, your fundamentalist baptist beliefs are probably consistent with it as well.

Basically, the only way for your Baptist church to not be considered Protestant is for you to be a cult. The definition of a cult is pretty simple really. It is a group of people who claim affiliation with a larger established religion but, because their beliefs diverge significantly enough, are rejected as unorthodox by that larger body. This is not the case for most independent baptists4, fundamentalist or otherwise.

Baptists are Protestants. By that, we mean that their beliefs fall under the general umbrella of non-Catholic, non-Orthodox and non-Cult Christian tradition.
Your individual denomination may trace it's origin to some recent event, but whatever it split off from, it also inherits many of the attributes of its linage. All the other answers have covered the history of Catholic to Anglican to Anabaptist to Baptist history.

All clear now?

You don't have to actively stage a protest to be one of us. After all you aren't Catholic are you? You aren't Orthodox. Cult?

Welcome to Protestantism, my friend :)

1 Except when it comes to StackExchange, English is not my "daily driver".

2 I have started with the NT church only for purposes of keeping this simple, although I would argue we could draw the tree going back to Adam.

3 This isn't to say there weren't divisions / factions / sub-groups. There were.

4 There are a few possible exceptions here, but you would probably agree on those as well.


Why did God not want man to have the knowledge of good and evil? When God created man, he created him with the fore knowledge that man would eat from the forbidden tree, and even with the knowledge that  man would bring sin into the World; God created the tree in the midst of the garden. God also created the tree of life in the garden, and told man that of every tree of the garden he could freely eat except that when he ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, that he would surely die.
All scriptures are quoted from the King James translation:
Genesis 2:16 and 17

And Jehovah God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

I have often wondered why; if God has the knowledge of good and Evil, why having that knowledge is so abhorrent that it is a death sentence to man.
God knew that man would choose to disobey him and eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and he also knew that man would do so before eating from the tree of life.

Gen 3:22  And Jehovah God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever -
Gen 3:24  So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden the Cherubim, and the flame of a sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

Perhaps there is a difference between the eating of  such evil knowledge and knowing of such evil knowledge.

If two con artists wish to steal the life's savings from the elderly, and one of the two con artists changes his ways and tries to inform the elderly of how they were about to be deceived by the other con artist, it would not be logical for a priest to then do everything he can to prevent the elderly from knowing how they could be deceived, and do so by preventing them from knowing of the evil knowledge of the con artists decetfulness.

A priest would not dive between the informer and the elderly.

Thus it would be the knowing and practicing of such evil knowledge that is of the wrong.


Ghosts Appearing as Children [Latter-day Saint perspective] Elder Mark E. Petersen (1900–1984) of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles explained that the physical body and our spirit are similar in appearance: “Every one of us is a spirit, and our spirit occupies a body of flesh and bone. The spirit is the real person. Our spirit resembles our body, or rather our body was ‘tailored’ to fit our spirit. The spirit bears the image and likeness of God, and the body, if normal, is in the image and likeness of the spirit” (The Way of the Master [1974], 124; see also 1 Nephi 11:11).

From this, the spirits of those who have dies should  look like the individual as they lived; however, it is also taught that our spirits were adults before this life began.

As I understand it, this earth is also the world which is inhabited by those who have died.  Assuming that ghosts are those spirits of those who currently do not have a body (either due to death or as one of Satan's host), why would ghosts ever appear as children?

I don't know if there is a definitive answer out there. In the gospel fundamentals manual it says:

We are the spirit children of our Father in Heaven. While we lived with Him in heaven as
spirits, we did not have physical bodies. It was part of His plan for us to be born on this
earth and for our spirits to receive bodies of flesh and bones. Our spirits are what gives
life to our physical bodies while we live on the earth.

Just as to be born was a part of our Father in Heaven’s plan for us, another part of His
plan is for us to die. When we die, our spirits leave our bodies. Without the spirit, the
body has no life and is placed in a grave.

But our spirits lived before our birth, and they will continue to live after death. When we
die, our spirits will go to the spirit world to wait for the resurrection, while the body
remains in the grave.

In the spirit world our spirits will have the same form as when we lived on the earth with
bodies of flesh and bones. We will look as we do here. We will think the same way and
believe the same things as we did here. Those who are righteous in this life will still be
righteous. Those who were unrighteous will still be unrighteous. We will have the same
desires after we die as we had while on this earth.

From the last two paragraphs, we learn that our spirits lived before our birth, and they will continue to live after death. If our spirits grow at the same rate our bodies do or normally would (or vice versa) then a ghost/spirit could appear as a child if a person died as a child (see also Gospel Doctrines pg 453-454 starting about 3/4 down). Normally just spirits do not appear to man, but it does happen (see Doctrines of Salvation Vol 1 'The True Guardian Angel' or DC 129 or Gospel Doctrines pg 436 about 2/3 down)

Evil spirits, those who followed Satan, are here on the earth to deceive man (DC 50:2,31-32). They can appear in many forms. They appeared as an angel to Korihor (Alma 30:53) and it's probably safe to assume they can take other forms.

Side Note

To determine if a spirit is of God or the devil see DC 129


Do I get a second chance to believe in Jesus after I die? As if some people couldn't get far enough away from them on earth, several verses in the Bible seem to indicate that there will be preachers even in Hell.

  1 Peter 4:6 (ESV)
  For this is why the gospel was preached even to those who are dead, that though judged in the flesh the way people are, they might live in the spirit the way God does.

Does this mean that there will be a chance to repent and believe even after if I do not do so in this life?

Note: This is not a duplicate of Will there be a second chance for salvation after the Rapture? which talk about people who are still living on earth after the rapture (if there is such a thing). I am also not asking about the eternal nature of Hell. Whether it is or not is not the same thing as whether there will be a way to repent and be saved from there, although it does make more sense if Hell is indeed enternal.

John's revelation that he received while on the Isle of Patmos tells us that one day all of the dead that did not receive God while on earth must be judged according to their works.

  REVELATION 20:11-15, KJV 11And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them. 12And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was  opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their
  works. 13And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. 14And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. 15And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

So what about the dead that did receive God while on earth? Jump back up to verse 4 to read that they will not be judged (Christ having already been judged in their stead), but judgment will be given to them.

  REVELATION 20:4, KJV And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and
  judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were
  beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which
  had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received
  his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and
  reigned with Christ a thousand years.

So to answer your question by scripture, no, there are no second chances to believe God. You have one chance to accept grace, and if rejected you must be judged by your works, and not by grace.


What is the mental representation of God during prayer? In the Bible, we find an internal representation of God, who is within us. For example:

  “Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the
  kingdom of God is within you.” (Luke 17:21)

but there is also an external representation of God. For example:

  39 Acknowledge and take to heart this day that the Lord is God in
  heaven above and on the earth below. There is no other. Deuteronomy
  4:39

It appears in today's (western) culture, people pray and "look up to the sky" or have a mental representation of talking with a human form of God (praying to the human Jesus).

In addition, we also believe that God is Omnipresent.

Question:
During prayer, what should the mental representation of God be?

Should it be a representation of God as the spirit within (so we are focusing inside of our-self during prayer - closing out all the external), to the more external ambiguous God "in the sky", to a human form (to Jesus) or to something that is more like a "force field" (omnipresent)?

"Should" is going to be contingent upon your faith. I don't pray to an all powerful mystical being that is ready to cast me in to the pit of brimstone and fire... I pray to a loving Heavenly Father, on my knees and with a bowed head, and in the name of Jesus Christ.

To me, prayer is an act of the the will of the Father and the will of the child converging. I do not pray to bend the will of God, but to understand His will for me.

However you actually do pray and what ever the differences in Faiths are, I think it is important to pray often and develop a relationship with your Heavenly Father.

The Bible teaches how to pray, but I think the O.T. teachings and with animal sacrifices has been replaced by the N.T. teachings after Christ's life.

John 13:14 teachings to Pray in Christ's name, "And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son."

John 16:23-24 also teaches to pray to the Father and in Christ's name, "23 And in that day ye shall ask me nothing. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bask the Father in my name, he will give it you. 24 Hither to have ye asked nothing in my name: ask, and ye shall receive, that your joy may be full"

Luke 18:1 states that we should pray often and that we will be strengthened by it, " 1 And he spake a parable unto them to this end, that men ought always to pray, and not to faint;"

Philip 4:6 teaches that we should give thanks, "Be careful for nothing; but in every thing by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known unto God."

Fist Thessalonians 5:17 teaches to pray very often, "Pray without ceasing."

Mathew 6:5-6 teaches to pray in private and condemn the Pharisees the pray in public for the merit of man, "And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. 6 But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly."

Mathew 6:7 teaches that we should pray from our heart at that moment, not a pre-rehearsed or memorized prayer, "But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking."


Is there a sect of Christians that believe in the divinity of Mary, Mother of Jesus? Is there a sect (dissenting or schismatic) of Christians that believe in the divinity of Mary, Mother of Jesus?

Collyridianism was a movement in the 4th century in Arabia which is said to have taught that Mary was a goddess. We know little about them however, and they are mentioned in only one contemporary source by Epiphanius of Salamis.


Christianity and Fatalism Is believing in the sovereignty of God the same as fatalism?

Fatalism teaches that fate will arrive no matter what you do. And Christians believe that God is in Heaven and does what he wants. Are the two different? How?

The short answer is "no. it's not fatalism" for most Christians. Most traditions believe and teach that God gave us free will. Without free will, there could be no such things as faith.  Without free will, there could be no good or evil.  Without free will, there'd have been no reason for Joshua 24:15, for example.  We'dsimply be programmed, mindless automatons going through the motions of life.  This would be fatalism.

The fact that God knows what we will do does not negate the fact that we have a choice.  For example, I know right now that if I tell my kids to go clean their rooms, they will resist.  I can predict with a high degree of accuracy what each will say, and exactly how they will resist.  I'm not making them react a certain way, I just know from experience.

God, of course, knows with 100% accuracy what we will do.  This still doesn't mean we don't choose to do it.

The idea of fatalism suggests that we throw up our hands and just let what happens happen, because it's going to happen anyway.  If this were what God intended, entire swaths of Scripture would have to be removed.  And command to obey, repent, any statement that God loves a humble heart and obedience would be rendered meaningless.

  Joshua 24:15 (KJV)  And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which
  your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the
  gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my
  house, we will serve the LORD.


According to 21st century Catholic critics, what's so great about the Canticle of the Sun? A few years ago, I tried to explain to the 7th-8th graders in my catechism class how awesome St. Francis was.  I told 'em about him giving up all his stuff and rebuilding the Church etc... but, for whatever reason, when I had them read the canticle of the sun it didn't do anything for them.

I reckon that in St. Francis' way, this is a very humble way of looking at creation.  But it more or less fails to resonate with me or my students.  What do 21st century Catholic critics (Pope Francis, for instance) say the Canticle of the Sun says to 21st century Christians?

You don't specify what English translation, interpretation, rendering –whatever word one uses– you read to the children, but you do link to the Wikipedia text, which is more a translation of the original language in which St Francis wrote, and I agree that it is not inspiring or beautiful poetry. But there are other attempts, one of which may be found here. There are certainly others.

But it could be simply that we do not live in a poetic age, and very few people appreciate –or even know– any poetry at all. Children weaned on video games and movies filled with series of explosions are not oriented to poetry nowadays.  As for trying to "explain how awesome St Francis was," you might want to show them the Franco Zeferelli film Brother Sun, Sister Moon which was shot on location in Italy. Children nowadays are accustomed to on-screen learning. And it is a beautiful film.


Was Jesus recorded on the census? I've heard before that Jesus was recorded on the census that is mentioned in Luke 2:1, and that his name was the last name recorded.  I've also heard that Herod would then use this census when he ordered the killing of the children (Mat 2:16.)

Is there any proof that has survived on this, and if it did, are we able to see his name still recorded on the census?

This is actually a curious question. Wikipedia actually suggests the existence of the census is in doubt.

  In Christianity, the Gospel of Luke connects the birth of Jesus to a "worldwide census" in which individuals had to return to their ancestral cities. Jesus' parents, Joseph and Mary, travel from their home in Nazareth, Galilee, to Bethlehem, where Jesus is born. This explains how Jesus, a Galilean, could have been born in Bethlehem in Judea, the city of King David. No other record of such a census exists, and the idea of everyone in the Roman Empire returning to an ancestral city for a census is questioned by scholars.[3][4] The Gospel of Matthew has a different birth narrative, with Jesus' birth taking place during the life of Herod the Great, who died c. 4 BC. Bible scholars have traditionally sought to reconcile these accounts; while most current scholars regard this as an error by the author of the Gospel of Luke,[5] thus casting doubt on the Historical reliability of the Gospels.

Thus there is obviously no physical record of the census documents. Therefore it would be impossible to know if Jesus was counted among them, or was the last one mentioned.


Does the Bible indicate when the Ark of the Covenant officially disappeared? As the title asks, does the Bible indicate when, where, or how the ark of the covenant finally disappeared?

If not, do we have any likely clues?

No, the Bible does not. This is the last mention of the ark in the Old Testament:

2 Chronicles 35:3

  And said unto the Levites that taught all Israel, which were holy unto
  the LORD, Put the holy ark in the house which Solomon the son of David
  king of Israel did build; it shall not be a burden upon your
  shoulders: serve now the LORD your God, and his people Israel,

After that, it fades from sight for the rest of the Bible until the apostle John sees a vision of an ark in Heaven in the last book of the Bible:

Revelation 11:19

  And the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his
  temple the ark of his testament: and there were lightnings, and
  voices, and thunderings, and an earthquake, and great hail.

How it got there, or if it is the same ark, we don't know.


Is there no salvation among any Christ-professing faiths, apart from the restored gospel of the Latter Day Saints? (LDS perspective) In the words of 13th LDS President Ezra Taft Benson,

  “This is not just another Church. This is not just one of a family of Christian churches. This is the Church and kingdom of God, the only true Church upon the face of the earth…” (Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, pp. 164-165).

I will not beleaguer the question. I want it to be as simple, and direct as possible. I would also like to receive answers and comments in the same manner.
No requirement of sources, other than LDS canon, or sentiments of LDS prophets, presidents or original founders, if there is a difference.

Edit:

  Dan 12:1-3  And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.

  (2)  And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

  (3)  And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever.

There is a great divide between those who have everlasting life, and those who receive everlasting shame and contempt; damnation.

  Joh 5:24  Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

Or whatever you interpret these words to mean.

  "Believers in the doctrines of modern Christendom will reap damnation to their souls."

Apostle Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, see pp. 45-46

If there is a way to make it clearer, it eludes me.

  "Behold there are save two churches only; the one is the Church of the Lamb of God and the other is the church of the devil; wherefore whoso belongeth not to the church of the lamb of God belongeth to that great church; which is the mother of abominations; and she is the whore of all the earth." (The Book of Mormon, 1 Nephi 14:10)

Ok now, if there is a way to make it clearer, it eludes me.

“Salvation” and “saved” are used in the scriptures in multiple contexts with several different meanings.
In one context, all of God's children will receive Salvation from Physical Death. Whether they are LDS, of some other Christ-professing faith, or any other faith - including atheists. Every person born to earth has kept their first estate, will be resurrected, and will live on the Earth after it has received it's paradisiacal glory†. We were saved before we were born, our births are a testament of this, we have all been saved from physical death.
In another context, there is Salvation from Sin. To be cleansed from sin through the Savior's Atonement, an individual must exercise faith in Jesus Christ, repent, be baptized, and receive the gift of the Holy Ghost (see Acts 2:37-38). This is only possible through membership in Christ's restored church, which is the Church that bears his name and his priesthood, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Christ revealed to the Prophet Joseph Smith in 1820 that not one Church on earth had the proper priesthood authority to baptize in his name, that the priesthood had been lost during the great apostasy. That authority was restored through Joseph Smith, and the restored Church is the only church through which a man can be baptized and receive Salvation from Sin.

What is meant by "first estate" and "second estate"?
It's the difference between Salvation, and Exaltation.
To be brief, we all lived as spirits in the presence of God as Spirits before the creation of the Earth. We refer to this time as the preexistence. When God presented the plan of salvation there were two who offered to fulfill the role of Saviour on earth. The first was Jesus Christ, the second was Lucifer. They presented their plans for redeeming mankind and The Father chose Christ's plan over Lucifer's. Lucifer was angry, rebelled against God, and led many spirits away when God cast him out of his presence (see Abraham 3:22-28). Those who chose to stay and accept Christ's plan where those who kept their first estate, and would be privileged to be born on earth, receive a physical body, and be resurrected. Those who followed Lucifer (Satan) did not keep their first estate, and shall remain as spirits forever and dwell in eternal darkness after the earth has received it's paradisiacal glory.
Those who have kept their first estate have been born on earth or will be born someday and face the trials of mortality. Those who are baptized and have receive the Holy Ghost through the proper priesthood authority are conditionally saved from sin. In this sense, salvation is conditional, depending on an individual's continuing in faithfulness, or enduring to the end in keeping the commandments of God, also referred to as keeping their second estate. Those who keep their second estate shall receive Exaltation, and be exalted with our Saviour Jesus Christ and our Father in Heaven.

Abraham 3:22-28
22 Now the Lord had shown unto me, Abraham, the intelligences that
were organized before the world was; and among all these there were
many of the noble and great ones;
23 And God saw these souls that they were good, and he stood in the
midst of them, and he said: These I will make my rulers; for he stood
among those that were spirits, and he saw that they were good; and he
said unto me: Abraham, thou art one of them; thou wast chosen before
thou wast born.
24 And there stood one among them that was like unto God, and he said
unto those who were with him: We will go down, for there is space
there, and we will take of these materials, and we will make an earth
whereon these may dwell;
25 And we will prove them herewith, to see if they will do all things
whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them;
26 And they who keep their first estate shall be added upon; and they
who keep not their first estate shall not have glory in the same
kingdom with those who keep their first estate; and they who keep
their second estate shall have glory added upon their heads for ever
and ever.
27 And the Lord said: Whom shall I send? And one answered like unto
the Son of Man: Here am I, send me. And another answered and said:
Here am I, send me. And the Lord said: I will send the first.
28 And the second was angry, and kept not his first estate; and, at
that day, many followed after him.

† There are few exceptions who will not live on earth, but instead will be cast out to dwell in outer darkness with Satan and those other fallen angels. They are those who deny the Holy Spirit, which is not something the average man can do. Very few have been identified as committing the unpardonable sin. One we know of is Cain, who slew Able, another is possibly Judas Iscariot. Both men knew God, walked in his presence, and denied him to his face.


What are the details for the Catholic position on the inspiration of Scripture? Catholicism teaches that Scripture is inspired by God and that the bible is free from error "in matters of faith and morals".

I'm wondering what the Church means when it says that the scripture is "inspired by God". Does it mean

Physical Inspiration. The individual physical penstrokes in the original manuscripts were inspired by God. In other words the way in which the molecules of ink were physically arranged on the original manuscripts was determined/inspired by God.
Implications: no one really has a copy of the true "word of God" because only the original manuscripts are the true "word of God". Copies and translations are not "inspired". The best we can get are "uninspired" copies of the inspired originals.
Verbal Plenary Inspiration. The Hebrew/Greek/Aramaic words were directly determined and inspired by God, word for word. Every individual word and it's position in the sentence is important, chosen by God, and can't be ignored.
Implications: Translations of scripture will be inherently inferior to the bible in the original languages because translation always leads to a loss of information and context. There is no perfect translation. Copies of the original manuscripts are considered just as inspired as the originals, however translations of the originals are not considered inspired.
Kerygmatic Inspiration. It's not the original/individual words themselves which are inspired, but the message that the words convey.
Implications: Different translations of the original texts can be considered equally as valid as the original texts so long as they convey the same message (This would seem to legitimise the "Dynamic equivalence" school of translation). In this way an English translation of the bible can be considered equally valid to the original manuscripts, so long as the message they convey is the same. We could also potentially feel free to muck with the original manuscripts (if we had access to them) and change the wording in some places that are unclear and confusing so as to clarify the meaning, or add entirely new words as elaborations (the Comma Johanneum is a historical precedent for this). Translations and copies of the original manuscripts are considered to be just as inspired as the original manuscripts.

What is the Catholic position?

From the Catechism (emphasis mine):

  105  God is the author of Sacred Scripture. "The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit."DV 11

  "For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and the New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and have been handed on as such to the Church herself."

  106 God inspired the human authors of the sacred books. "To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more."

Considering that the human authors are true authors, the Catholic position most closely approaches "Kerygmatic Inspiration". That being said, the Church places an importance in understanding the context of the original authors and how they conceived the word to better understand what they meant in each passage. Quoting Dei Verbum (emphasis, again, mine):

  However, since God speaks in Sacred Scripture through men in human fashion--, the interpreter of Sacred Scripture, in order to see clearly what God wanted to communicate to us, **should carefully investigate what meaning the sacred writers really intended, and what God wanted to manifest by means of their words.

  To search out the intention of the sacred writers, attention should be given, among other things, to "literary forms." For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse. The interpreter must investigate what meaning the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances by using contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture. For the correct understanding of what the sacred author wanted to assert, due attention must be paid to the customary and characteristic styles of feeling, speaking and narrating which prevailed at the time of the sacred writer, and to the patterns men normally employed at that period in their everyday dealings with one another.

In other words, the Inspiration isn't in the particular words used, but there might be Inspiration in the way that the sacred author employs metaphors and similes, which a given translator might miss and leave out of the translated text.

This means that it is often fruitful to study the original languages and compare the Greek and Hebrew versions of Scripture to the modern translations, at least for priests and higher-level scholars. There might be some insight which is more obscure in English or other modern languages, but clear in the Greek — as an example, the difference in verbs when Jesus asks St. Peter "Simon, [son] of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these?" and St. Peter's answer in Jn 21:15–17.

In summary, we do believe that translations can be Inspired and fruitful, but that Inspiration can only be certified through long and continued use, so the Greek and Hebrew originals are still important.


How do we apply Matthew 12:25 "And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand:  And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand? " (Matthew 12:25-26).

Today, there are many "men of God" who perform miracles, including healing. (Healing here means those that have been scientifically and physically proven). Where I come from, women are more fond of these and often demand outright healings and miracles, and they do get what they want from these people who sometimes say and do things that seem questionable from a biblical respective.. Children are also healed of leprosy, blindness, name it.

Others also call themselves as spiritualists (not from God) who also interpret dreams and heal people. Please I know that these are not much heard of in the west although they may exist in different forms.

Question is, how do we apply the quotation above today as these "men of God" healers often cite it to buttress their claims?

In context, the Pharisees are talking about Christ casting out a devil, not a healing.

  Matt 12:22,24 Then was brought unto him one possessed with a devil, blind and dumb: and he healed him, insomuch that the blind and dumb both spake and saw. 24) But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub [Satan] the prince of the devils. (emphisis mine)

So the people at the time understood this man to be blind and dumb because of the devil and he was healed of that by casting out the devil. Hence why Christ talked about a divided house against itself since He was accused of casting the devil out by the power of Satan.

Satan has real power, and can counterfeit the works of Christ, especially when it comes to healing and the like. Which is why the context of being healed by the casting out of the devil is so important here. So just be aware of anyone that claims to heal and watch their fruits. Not just the big public displays like healing. Do they heal to bring people to Christ? Or for financial gain, or fame or something else? Do they preach of Christ and urge all to come unto Him? Do they claim to heal in Christs name or their own? These are some important questions to ask about anyone who claims to have any spiritual gift.


What do Jehovah's Witnesses believe about the activities of the antichrist in these "last days"? The Bible warns against the activities of deceivers and false prophets who arose during the first century, and continues to warn against their activities during the "last days".  Here are a few relevant Bible verses:

But every inspired statement [every spirit] that does not acknowledge [confess] Jesus [is not from God] does not originate with God.  Furthermore, this is the [spirit of the ] antichrist's inspired statement that you have heard was coming, and now it is already in the world (1 John 4:3 Revised New World Translation)
For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those not acknowledging Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh.  This is the deceiver and the antichrist.  (2 John 1:7 (Revised New World Translation)
Let no one seduce you in any manner, because it will not come [the day of Jehovah] unless the apostasy comes first and the man of lawlessness gets revealed, the son of destruction.  He is set in opposition and lifts himself up over everyone who is called "god" or an object of reverence, so that he sits down in the temple of The God, publicly showing himself to be a god. (2 Thessalonians 2:3-4 New World Translation 2006)

Has the man of lawlessness, the son of destruction and the antichrist been revealed yet? What is "the temple of The God" in 2 Thessalonians 2:4?  What activities today identify the antichrist in these, the "last days" leading up to the tribulation prior to "the day of Jehovah"?
What is the official view of Jehovah's Witnesses regarding the antichrist?

From the official web-site of the Watchtower Society, I read the article, “Who is the Antichrist?” as posted by them at http://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/wp20150601/who-is-the-antichrist/    From their own statements in that 1 June 2015 article they say that

  “the antichrist is, not an individual, but a collective term. People
  or organizations making up the antichrist spread lies, deny that Jesus
  is the Christ, or the Messiah, and try to distort the relationship
  between God and His Son, Jesus Christ. Those who make up the
  antichrist claim to be Christ or his representatives, but since “they
  went out from us,” they deviated from true Bible teachings.
  Furthermore, this group was present at the time when John wrote his
  letter, in “the last hour,” presumably the end of the time of the
  apostles.”

They use 2nd John verse 7 to explain that “John understood the antichrist to be all who deliberately spread religious deception about Jesus Christ and Jesus’ teachings.” That is quite general, but do they state anything specific about today? Yes, indeed.

  “What about today? People and organizations making up the antichrist
  still oppose Christ and his teachings. They deliberately spread lies
  and deceptions with the intent of confusing the identity of the
  Father, Jehovah God, and of His Son, Jesus Christ. We have good reason
  to beware of such religious deceptions. Let us look at two examples.
  For centuries, the churches propagated the doctrine of the Trinity,
  claiming that the Father and the Son are part of the same entity. The
  antichrist thus shrouds in mystery the identity of Jehovah God and
  Jesus Christ… The churches add to the confusion by promoting the use
  of Bible translations that omit God’s personal name, Jehovah, from the
  text…"

Those are two examples in that article, which show that Jehovah’s Witnesses teach that all who propagate the doctrine of the Trinity, and churches that promote use of Bible translations not using ‘Jehovah’ in the text, are the antichrist. They should have a read of Young’s Literal Translation of the Bible, for it has ‘Jehovah’ in the Hebrew scriptures thousands of times. The 2004 edition published by Greater Truth Publishers should surely warrant the Watchtower Society clearing them of the charge of ‘antichrist’? Oh, but if those religious publishers uphold the Trinity doctrine, they would fall at that first hurdle. The second hurdle is not promoting the name ‘Jehovah’. Given those two hurdles that have to be cleared to avoid the label of ‘antichrist’ (in the estimation of Jehovah’s Witnesses), it would appear that there can hardly be a Christian religious group today not considered to be antichrist by them.


Is there a link between Socinianism and Sir Isaac Newton's conclusion to his Principia Mathematica (1687) where he attacks the Trinity doctrine? This linked question What was Isaac Newton's view of the Trinity? was useful with the answer giving one quote from John Byl's article 'Newton and the Trinity' where Newton said that the great apostasy was not Romanism, but trinitarianism, "the false infernal religion".
However, the claim was made that "Newton's published works do not contain clear statements of this nature". Yet in this link, it appears that Newton did make some statements of this nature at the end of his Principia Mathematica: https://isaac-newton.org/articles/
Under the heading "Theology of General Scholium" it says,

"This essay, published in Osiris in 2001, reveals that the most famous
book in the history of science (Newton’s Principia) concludes with an
account of biblical monotheism and an attack on the doctrine of the
Trinity."

However, I cannot get the link to open up the actual essay. This is why I am asking this question, to see if anyone can help establish that this published work shows disagreement with the Trinity doctrine, and - further - to see if his anti-trinitarianism shows any links to the Socinianism that predated his Principia Mathematica by at least 80 years.
I have this about Socinianism and The Polish Brethren, with which Stephen David Snobelen identifies Newton in the above link.  The quote below is from E.H. Broadbent in The Pilgrim Church, pp224-5:

“One form of prevalent error which Calvin hoped to suppress by his
strict rule [in Geneva] was Unitarian in character.  It was of ancient
origin, resembling Arianism in some respects, but at this time began
to be described as Socinianism on account of the association with it
of Lelio (1525-62) and Faustus (1539-1604) Sozini, uncle and nephew,
natives of Siena in Italy.  The latter lived much in Poland, since
there as in Transylvania, Unitarian teaching was permitted and was
wide-spread.  He united the divided sections of Unitarians in Poland;
they were called “Polish Brethren” and the “Racovian” Catechism
expressed their views.  Socinianism spread from them as a centre.  It
early affected some in the Protestant churches...”

So, my question is, Does Newton end his Principia Mathematica with anti-trinitarian claims as suggested in Snobelen's web-page, and is Newton's anti-trinitarianism a form of Socinianism?

It seems to me that Newton is 'sitting on the fence' and acting as a spectator to the arguments regarding the Person and the Deity of Christ. He writes that he can observe in the early Church (due to the presence of what he calls 'Nazarenes') that two camps existed and accepted one another's presence in the early Church, so he maintains :

The Nazarenes, as Newton explains in this manuscript, did not believe
Christ existed before his birth in Bethlehem. Although Newton crossed
it out and chose a passive verb instead, his original words “I do not” are
revealing. He goes on to point out that those “who believed that Jesus
took his beginning from the Virgin Mary” and those “who believed that
Jesus was before the world began … conversed together as brethren &
communicated with one another as members of the Church catholick
till the days of Justin Martyr, without falling out about their different
opinions.”

Isaac Newton - Socinianism and the One True God p281
This is a common argument in many matters of division, to suggest that the argument, does not, in fact, matter and that whichever side of the division one may wish to choose makes no difference to one's spiritual state.
This attitude gives the impression of being 'charitable' - avoiding conflict by argument - but the apostle James discounts this view by making it clear that one is to 'earnestly contend for the faith once delivered to the saints'.
All heresies can be excused if one can argue that both sides of a division were allowed in the early Church and both parties had mutual fellowship and communion.
Further, the article goes on to state that Newton uses an argument which is also used by Socinians, regarding the terms 'God' and 'Lord' expressed in the Old Testament writings.

But this is not all. In the third (1726) edition of the Principia, Newton
added a note on the word “God” that expands his meaning:

Dr. Pocock derives the Latin word Deus from the Arabic du (in the oblique
case di,) which signifies Lord. And in this sense Princes are called Gods,
Psal. lxxxii. ver. 6; and John x. ver. 35. And Moses is called a God to his
brother Aaron, and a God to Pharaoh (Exod. iv. ver. 16; and vii. ver. 1 [sic;
8]). And in the same sense the souls of dead princes were formerly, by the
Heathens, called gods, but falsely, because of their want of dominion.182
In equating the term “God” with “Lord” (a word that straightforwardly
refers to dominion), Newton once again stresses that the chief characteristic of “God” or “gods” is dominion. This attempt to present the
terms “God” and “Lord” as equivalent mirrors the already-quoted lines
from the Racovian Catechism on the God of dominion. The position
that persons other than the True God can be termed “God” is a also
standard Socinian position and it is expressed in the very same chapter
of Crell’s De Deo specified in 1714 by John Edwards.

For both Newton and the Socinians, this conception of dominion also explained how
the Son of God could be called God and not be “very God” in the
Nicene formulation. Three out of the four biblical passages used by
Newton in this note are also utilised by Crell for the same purpose in
the same chapter of De Deo.
184 Additionally, the point about false and
imaginary Gods can be located in similar form in Crell’s Concerning One
God the Father.
185 Finally, the argument on the communicability of the
term “God”, along with the scriptural references used by Newton in
the note on God, can be found commonly elsewhere in the Socinian
corpus.

From my reading of this article, I am left with the distinct impression that Isaac Newton believed both Trinitarians and Socinians fellowshipped together in the early Church and that Isaac Newton appears to regard Deity as monotheistic, yet he does not explicitly say so.
It seems from the article that Isaac Newton did not regard himself under any obligation nor did he have any personal motivation in, himself, declaring his own faith regarding Jesus Christ.
He appears to be stating, that it does not matter and therefore he is not going to reveal what he, himself, believes.


Why is Saint Paul considered gnostic? (by some) I read that these verses (over other texts that are clearly gnostic but not attributed as such) are considered gnostic:

ST. PAUL TO THE EPHESIANS - Third letter

  For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood; but against
  principalities and power, against the rulers of the world of this
  darkness

ST. PAUL TO THE CORINTHIANS (2, 6 - 8)

  Yet we do speak wisdom among those who are mature; a wisdom, however,
  not of this age nor of the rulers of this age, who are passing away;
  but we speak God's wisdom in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God
  predestined before the ages to our glory;  the wisdom which none of
  the rulers of this age has understood; for if they had understood it
  they would not have crucified the Lord of glory;

My question: Why is Saint Paul considered gnostic?

Consider these various examples of people forwarding or confronting the idea:

The Gnostic Paul - Book by Elaine Pagels
Was the Apostle Paul a Gnostic?
The Gnostic Paul - Random Blog post
Paul the Gnostic Opponent of Peter Not an Apostle of Historic Christianity (PDF)

It seems as though many that assert the possibility are either looking at why the Gnostics believed that Paul was a member of such, as Pagels, they are not Christian, as Massey, or are either mysticism or on the periphery of accepted or mainstream Christianity.

Pseudo-Apocrypha like The Apocalypse of Paul  and other Gnostic documents from Nag Hammadi seem to sway non-conventional or liberal leaning theologies to consider the possibility of Pauls Gnosticism.

  What Muhammad 'All discovered at Nag Hammadi is, apparently, a library of writings, almost all of them gnostic. Although they claim to offer secret teaching, many of these texts refer to the Scriptures of the Old Testament, and others to the letters of Paul and the New Testament gospels. Many of them include the same  dramatic personae as the New Testament--Jesus and his disciples. Yet the differences are striking.

  Orthodox Jews and Christians insist that a chasm separates humanity from Its creator: God is wholly other. But some of the gnostics who wrote these gospels contradict this: self-knowledge is knowledge of God; the self and the divine are identical.
  - Pagels

In the Tekton article you listed Pagel even declines to declare if Paul is or is not gnostic.

  Was Paul actually a Gnostic? The idea is taken seriously by no one in NT scholarship today; even Elaine Pagels, the Gnostic-promoter premier, declines in her book The Gnostic Paul to say yea or nay to whether Paul was actually a Gnostic, instead concentrating on how the Gnostics interpreted Paul's letters.
  - Tekton Apologetics

I would struggle to take Freke & Gandy, authors of 'The Jesus Mysteries: Was The Original Jesus A Pagan God?' as serious Christian theologians and would classify them more toward mysticism.

As for the Apocalypse of Paul, Augustine considered it bunk.

  St. Augustine laughs at the folly of some who had forged an Apocalypse of Paul, full of fables, and pretending to contain the unutterable things which the apostle had heard. This is, I doubt not, our book.
  - (Aug. on John, Tract 98.)

The 'Nazirene'  seems to be in the fringe and misrepresents Origins "Gospel  of God" as support for Paul's 'mysteries, of God.  Origen in fact fought against the gnostic heresies.

Massey, I believe I could say is not a Christian because he believes it is a myth and our gospels as a product of Gnosticism.

  It has been shown in previous lectures that the matter of our Canonical Gospels is, to a large extent, mythical, and that the Gnosis of Ancient Egypt was carried into other lands by the underground passage of the Mysteries, to emerge at last as the literalised legend of Historic Christianity.
  - Massey

So, as far as the scripture verses you listed above, personally I don't see a gnostic connection with the Ephesians verse.  The 1 Corinthians verse and others, if taken in context with all of Paul's writing and the totality of all of scripture, would not justify a gnostic connection either.

The answer to your question would be then that the reason 'some' believe Paul was a Gnostic is due to using non-canonical writings, non credible resources, or taking Pauls words out of context.  When theologians such as Augustine, Tertullian, Origin, etc. discredit inferences of any Gnostic bent of the Apostle Paul I've yet to see credible commentary on the contrary.  If I read some commentary from credible, even critical sources I may alter my answer.


Regarding doubt, how do we apply Romans 14 in difficult situations? Rom 14:23  But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because he does not eat from faith; for whatever is not from faith is sin.  (NKJV)

The normal interpretation of this text is that if you’re unsure about the rightness of what you’re doing, you shouldn’t do it. This creates many practical and even ethical difficulties, some of which I’ll give examples for below.

Some people are prone to doubt, some are analytical, and some are both of these things.

Especially if you have both of these traits, you can be led to inaction - which itself can create doubt; after all, we’re told to redeem the time.

1) The text in Romans 14 follows after a definite clarification that certain things are not a sin (v.14-15, 20). Yet, its readers are to abstain from that thing if they have doubt. Thus, is it not talking about doubts that arise from textual interpretations? That seems highly unlikely; I don’t hear of totally non-textual things being doubted, such as whether it’s a sin to turn over a rock during daylight.

2) What about instances where your non-action due to doubt leads to someone else’s suffering? Imagine being a police officer, and then at the final moment being struck with doubt: do I not shoot this perpetrator because I know he’ll probably go to hell? And even though not shooting him means that his victim will die?

3) Consider cases where a person is doing a good deed with righteous motivation behind it. But, there’s some aspect of it that he doubts. An example from my life: I’m an author, and I write Christian poems. But, I may make doctrinal errors in my poems. I can’t be certain I didn’t, so should I not publish them?

4) Practically, a doubting personality can doubt almost anything – and he may even have verse(s) in mind to support his reason for doubting. What this can lead to is a person that becomes totally burned out and depressed, because everything he wants to do is wrong. After all, he’s not redeeming the time. Or, he’s not redeeming it in the most efficient way. Note: both the Sabbath and Ecclesiastes show us that we’re not meant to be driven this hard. And also imagine a person who accepts that fact; now, he may doubt where to draw the line: how long should his break be, and how should he spend it?

5) And perhaps most powerfully: imagine someone that doubts all options. He may believe it’s acceptable to marry, but remain unsure if it’s right for him (1Co 7). He may even doubt that it’s right for him to stay single, due to burning with desire (v. 9). Yet, he may question if that burning rises to the level of justifying the conclusion that he must certainly marry (if able). But, he may interpret his society as one which has a ‘present distress’ (v. 26) that would lead Paul to recommend against marriage. So, among the only options (single vs married) – he doubts. Action (marrying) and inaction (staying single) both cause doubt. He is, as the text says, 'condemned' no matter what he does.

6) As an alternative to the same problem that 5 presented, consider carrying a handgun. He might doubt both options: not carrying means he can't help others, but he believes he should be ready to lay down his life (put himself at risk, in this case) to save another person. On the other hand, it could harm his testimony; in our political climate, many would be offended. My reason for including this second example is to point out that there's no end to the number of things where both action and inaction can be doubted.

How do we interpret the text, in light of the difficulties which the normal interpretation creates? And to do so without making the text to mean nothing at all?

Honestly, I don't see where this interpretation comes from. Looking at the rest of the chapter, it seems easy to see the context. The chapter is largely a discussion of how to regard a neighbor who is more scrupulous in practice of their faith than you. He uses the example of someone who, perhaps due to weak faith, has difficulty with the teaching of the cleanness of all foods:

I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteems anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean.
But if your brother is grieved with your food, you no longer walk in love. Destroy not him with your food, for whom Christ died.
Let not then your good be evil spoken of: For the kingdom of God is not food and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit.
Romans 14:14–17, King James 2000

In other words, if someone has a very restrictive interpretation of Christian teaching, and you doubt that they're correct, you shouldn't let that doubt govern your behavior—at least not in front of them. Instead, you should take account of their weakness, and modify your behavior to adapt to their imperfect understanding

It is good neither to eat meat, nor to drink wine, nor anything by which your brother stumbles, or is offended, or is made weak.

And if your neighbor believes that something is forbidden, and you doubt that, do not act on your doubt in front of them—you will not be acting in love, nor out of your faith, but out of a sense of judgment or of showing off your superior understanding and deeper faith:

And he that doubts is condemned if he eats, because he eats not of faith: for whatever is not of faith is sin.


According to Pentecostalism, was the Pope biblically justified in saying that an unbelieving man is in heaven? Pope Francis consoles a boy who asked if his non-believing father is in Heaven (YouTube)

Here we have a son asking the Pope whether his father would be granted admission in the Kingdom of God. His father is an atheist.

The Pope reasons that since he was a good man, he would not be rejected by God.

However,

  Ephesians 2:8 – For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Looking for answers from a Pentecostal perspective on whether this statement is biblically justified.

To have a crying boy ask that question is certainly a hard situation.

However, the entire New Testament is completely clear that without faith in Christ, proven by the way a person chooses to live their lives (repentance and good works based on faith in Jesus), it is impossible to please God.

I discern that the pope gave the boy, and everyone who heard, false hope. Many people baptize their children in the Catholic church "just in case", but neither believe nor live it themselves.

I have many family members who died without faith and repentance. It was hard to accept, but the Bible is clear they will not be in Heaven.

Lies never give God the glory.

*Someone pointed out I should at least give a few verses. They're right. Here you go:

Revelation 21:7-8 "He that overcomes shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son. 8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone: which is the second death." Comment: the context of "he that overcomes" refers to those who keep their faith in Christ till they die, no matter how hard things get.
John 3:18  "He that believes on him is not condemned: but he that believes not is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God."
John 3:36 "He that believes on the Son has everlasting life: and he that believes not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abides on him."
John 12:48 "He that rejects me, and receives not my words,3  has one that judges him: the word4  that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day."
Romans 1:16 "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believes; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek." (Greek here means everyone else besides Jews).


Why in the Roman Catholic Church does the sixth commandment differ between languages? I noticed that in the Roman Catholic Church, in English, the sixth commandment is "You shall not commit adultery" but in Spanish it is "No cometerás actos impuros" which translates into "You shall not commit impure acts". The Catholic Church as far as I know is the same in English and Spanish so I'm pondering why this difference as my guess is that the same concept should be in all languages, but the concepts of adultery and impure acts are different.

UPDATE: I should have mentioned that "No cometerás actos impuros" also appears in the official Catholic Church catechism here in the Spanish version, towards the end of the page.

The official Catechism in Spanish for the 6th commandment starts in the same way as the version in English:

«No cometerás adulterio» (Ex 20, 14; Dt 5, 17).
«Habéis oído que se dijo: “No cometerás adulterio”. Pues yo os digo: Todo el que mira a una mujer deseándola, ya cometió adulterio con ella en su corazón» (Mt 5, 27-28).

(The version in English):

You shall not commit adultery.
You have heard that it was said, "You shall not commit adultery." But I say to you that every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

In fact, the whole chapter about the sixth commandment is the same in Spanish an in English in terms of content: the same doctrine is taught in Spanish as in English.  It must also be emphasized that the chapter on the sixth commandment includes more prohibitions than the bare and technical act of adultery (a married person voluntarily having sex with someone other than said person's spouse).  The Catholic Church has always held that the lesser crimes against sexual purity are implicitly included in the graver formulation of the commandment, and the entire chapter thus unpacks what is held to be implicitly there.
HOWEVER, more to the point of the question: right before the section on the ten commandments (that is, right before the Section two of the Third Part) there is a triple formulation of the commandments as a list.  The first column shows the formulation of the commandments in Exodus, the second column their formulation in Deuteronomy --- the books in the Bible have different wording for them --- and then "A Cathechetical Formula".  It is in this Cathechetical formulation that the Spanish and the English have the wording discrepancy that the question is asking.  The English has "You shall not commit adultery", whereas the Spanish has "No cometerás actos impuros" (which translates to 'you shall not commit impure acts').
First, it must be pointed out that the difference in wording does not somehow change the underlying prohibitions.  The chatechetical formulation is meant to be a short-hand for the fullness of the commandment, which the Catechism will expound at length in the corresponding chapter for said sixth commandment.
Nonetheless, why the difference?  Why is the Spanish version more broad --- and therefore more descriptive of the fullness of the commandment --- while the English version is much more specific?
A comparison with the wording of the same commandment in the Catechism in other languages will be helpful.  In French the sixth commandment reads "La pureté observeras en tes actes soigneusement" (which translates roughly as 'You will observe purity in your actions conscientiously').  In Portuguese it reads "Guardar castidade nas palavras e nas obras" (which is roughly 'You will guard chastity in your words and in your actions').
So, languages other than English are more broad in their statement of the sixth commandment than English, but all of them have slightly different wording for it.  What gives?
Let's speculate!  A clue is given by a reference in the Spanish & French translations which is not given in the English translation: in the Spanish version to "Catecismo Católico, preparado bajo la dirección del Cardenal Gasparri (Libreria Editrice Vaticana 1933, pp. 23-24)", and the French one to "P. Card. Gasparri, Catechismus Catholicus, Vatican 1933 p. 23".  Obviosly this is a reference to a Catechism prepared by Cardinal Gasparri, published in 1933.  Very likely that catechism was published in Latin, and then was translated into different languages.  And probably the different translations of that catechism served as the template for the wording of the commandments in the translations of the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church (which was officially promulgated in 1992, in Latin).
Why was the wording of the sixth commandment expressed in the way it was in the translations of Cardinal Gasparri's Catechism other languages to begin with?  Probably the translators relied on traditional forms of the commandment that had grown over centuries in the particular languages into which they translated.  After all, it would be somewhat unsettling for some to go to sleep with one version of the commandment and wake up with another version of it.
This still doesn't explain why all of the translations mentioned above expressed the prohibition in broad terms, while the English expressed it in narrow terms.  It seems that the broad expression is more in keeping with the aim to explicitly indicate that the commandment is more general and covers much more than a married person having sex with someone else other than said person's spouse --- as the Catholic Tradition holds.  In other words, why was the English version of the commandment narrow?  It seems that the English version is the one that is the odd one out.
A hint is given by the heading of that third "catechetical formualtion" column in English.  The complete heading is "A Traditional Catechetical Formula".  Where might this traditional catechetical formula have come from, if not from Cardinal Gasparri's translation?  My guess is that the reason for keeping the narrow formulation in English is the same as the reason for the variation of the formulations in other languages: the desire not to cause unease by a possible perception of having changed the commandment.  In other words, the English version of the commandment had always been "You shall not commit adultery", and therefore that version was kept.
Why was the English version of the commandment "you shall not commit adultery"?  Blame the Reformation for that one.  After the death of King Henry VIII --- who took the Anglican Church out of communion with the Catholic Church because he wanted to divorce his wife --- the English government decided to abandon the Liturgy in Latin, and the first ever Book of Common Prayer was published in 1549.  The Book of Common Prayer was revised in 1552 to move the Church in a more Protestant direction.  Of note, in this second edition a recitation of the Ten Commandments was added to the communion service.  And the sixth of those commandments was "Thou shalt not commit adulterie".  Then Queen Elizabeth had the Book of Common Prayer revised once again in 1559 to chart a "middle ground" between the Catholic and Protestant sensibilities of the time, and again the sixth commandment given as part of the communion service reads as "Thou shalt not committe adultery".
The Elizabethan Book of Common Prayer had great influence in the Empire.  It was in force for about 100 years.  And while there might have been earlier published versions of the ten commandments, I think it can be argued that the (enforced) widespread use of the Book of Common Prayer helped cement the formulation of the ten commandments in use in the English language today.  Thus the sixth commandment in English --- by virtue of hundreds and hundreds of years of traditional use --- is "You shall not commit adultery".
Why did the editors of the Book of Common Prayer choose that formulation, instead of a broader one, like the Catholic Church ended up doing?  I bet it had to do with Protestant sensibilities: they were not going to rely on the authority of any "Popish" church (as they might have put it), and instead were going to rely solely on the authority of Holy Scripture.  And since the Bible mentioned the specific form of "You shall not commit adultery", they went with that.

One final note about the different versions of the Ten Commandments in particular --- and about documents issued by the Catholic Church in general.  The note can be motivated by the following question: so, which of the versions of the ten commandments is the "correct" one?  In some respects, it does not matter, because the catechetical lists are merely short-hand expressions for all the implications of the commandment, which the Catechism amply expounds in all languages.  But in case it were to matter for some reason, the answer can be given: the "correct" version of any document (including the Catechism) is in whichever language the official version of the document was  published --- which is usually Latin (but not always so!).
In the case of the Catechism, the official version is in Latin, and the quoted bible passages likely come from The Vulgate (a Latin translation of the Septuagint), or its updated edition, the Nova Vulgata.  Therefore, the official version of the sixth commandment, as articulated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church is "Non moechaberis".  Everything else is translation.


Earliest use of the term triune According to dictionary.com, the origin of the term triune was between:

  1595–1605; tri- + -une < Latin ūnus one

What are some of the earliest uses of the English triune, as well as it's Latin and Greek (if such exist) equivalents?

The OED gives this as the earliest English usage of the term "triune":

  1605   T. Tymme tr. J. Du Chesne Pract. Chymicall & Hermeticall Physicke ii. ii. 108   It hath pleased the omnipotent Creator to..showe himself a Unitrine or Triune.

According to the Index Thomisticus, triunus (or any of its forms) is not found in the works of St. Thomas Aquinas, so the Latin term triunus is probably more recent than the 13th century.


Why do they have same baptismal name? I have seen many of Catholics have their baptismal name same as that of their grandparents. Why they do so? Is it given in bible?

In Italy, it is tradition to be named after your grandparents. Firstborn children are named after their paternal grandparents and second-born children are named after their maternal grandparents. This is more of a cultural tradition than a religious tradition, and may be common in multiple European countries.


Is it possible not to be contented in heaven? Is it possible that after reaching heaven, you find yourself discontented? Like what if the things that make you happy are not there? Like your family, your wife and children. What if the people you love are in hell.

Is it possible to go to hell after deciding you don't like heaven?

Or is it that when we get to heaven we lose our own sense of happiness and become like robots that don't have a choice but to be happy with whatever is happening in there?

Do we still have free will?

What else would we do there if heaven is already perfect then there is nothing to improve.

There are a number of different questions here, and though they are all related, they could probably make multiple good questions. That being said, I'll try to answer them. One thing to note is that we know very little concrete facts about heaven, so most of this is simply inferred from Scripture.

  Is it possible that after reaching heaven, you find yourself discontented? Like what if the things that make you happy are not there?

This is a very popular question (just look at the number of google results), but I would say that the answer is bound up in the answer to the first question of the Westminister Shorter Catechism: What is the chief end of man?

The answer, Man's Chief End is to glorify God and enjoy him forever sums up the answer to your question nicely. If the purpose of our existence is to glorify God and Enjoy him forever (See 1 Cor. 10:31, Psalm 73:24-26), then we need nothing else in Heaven. Indeed, in heaven we will worship God, and as such our chief purpose will be fulfilled, therefore, we will be satisfied. Additionally, you could look at it from the perspective that since discontentment is sin (basis found in the Tenth commandment), and there is no sin in heaven, then there will be no discontentment in heaven. (for the broad answer of "What will we do in heaven", see here).

  Is it possible to go to hell after deciding you don't like heaven?

The Westminster Larger Catechism, question 86 - What is the communion in glory with Christ, which the members of the invisible church enjoy immediately after death?, states:

  The communion in glory with Christ, which the members of the invisible church enjoy immediately after death, is, in that their souls are then made perfect in holiness, and received into the highest heavens, where they behold the face of God in light and glory, waiting for the full redemption of their bodies, which even in death continue united to Christ, and rest in their graves as in their beds, till at the last day they be again united to their souls. Whereas the souls of the wicked are at their death cast into hell, where they remain in torments and utter darkness, and their bodies kept in their graves, as in their prisons, till the resurrection and judgment of the great day.

The key thing to note here is that their souls are then made perfect in holiness. As I note later, if their souls are holy, why would they want to leave the presence of the supremely holy God?

The only people I think that might argue this would be those who argue you can lose your salvation, and I think even most of them would say that once you are in heaven, you are there to stay. But your question was not if you could get kicked out of heaven, rather if you could voluntarily leave. This is tied into your third question:

  Do we still have free will?

That depends on how you define free will. I am from a Calvinist theological background, and so I would say a resounding yes. Here's why, and I'll give an example to explain it:

Many find the concept of free will impossible to reconcile with the concept of predestination. But tied into this is the concept of Irresistible Grace. That is, when God calls you, it is so good you cannot resist the pull. Think of a wonderful chocolate cake (or some other delicious food). When you smell it, when it is sitting right in front of you, in a sense it is irresistible to you in that you will eat it because it is so good. God is so much better, so that when he offers himself to us, we are irresistibly drawn to him because of his infinite goodness. The same applies in heaven. We will have free will, but our eyes are opened to God's goodness, and as such we freely make the choice to worship him. As such, we would not want to leave heaven, and we would be completely content. (if you reject the Calvinistic argument I make, the rest of the argument I believe still holds)


Catholic position about non-truthfully conversion to islam Two people, call them Jones (Catholic) and Fatima (Muslim), want to marry: first civilly and if the bishop gives a dispensation, religiously.

Fatima is from a Muslim country that prohibits Muslim women marrying non-Muslim men, threatening that "crime" with severe punishment. In order for the civil marriage to be approved in Fatima's country, Jones (from a western country) decides to convert to Islam formally, as it is the only way he and his wife can stay in contact with Fatima's (non-devotional) Muslim family in the theocratic country.

What is the Catholic position about the acceptability of Jones' mimicked conversion to Islam while he still considers himself to be Catholic?

According to canon law on mixed marriages (i.e., marriages between a Catholic and non-Catholic),

  1917 Can. 1060 … if there is a danger of perversion to the Catholic spouse and children, that marriage is forbidden even by divine law.

Also—regarding the children, the procreation and education of whom is the primary purpose of marriage—it is required that

  1983 Can.  868 §1. … 2/ there must be a founded hope that the infant will be brought up in the Catholic religion…

Can that be said for a crypto-Catholic, pseudo-Muslim father living in an Islamic theocratic country? Wouldn't this be to tempt God?

The Church's laws on mixed marriages must be respected before attempting a clandestine marriage or a marriage under false pretenses.