How should a Christian put a decision in God's hands if there is no logical answer? Lets say a Christian is in a position where he must make a hard decision (assume it has to either be a yes or no by a deadline) and each one has negatives consequences (more negatives than positives). How should a Christian pick one option over another?

Both options can and will affect the future of himself and others, but it is impossible to tell which one will impact the least or which one is a better decision, only time will tell.

Based on Christian teaching, if Jesus specifically was talking to that person, how would he advise, or what are some things he would tell the person to keep in mind?

I am sorry it is not specific but I can't put details to it. So if it helps, the main part of the question is how should a Christian put a decision in God's hands if he really doesn't see a logical answer but has to pick one? (I am also assuming the person was put into making that decision by God?... since he would rather not be in such a situation...)

Proverbs 3:5-6 says

  Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge him and he will make your paths straight.

Elsewhere in Proverbs (16:9 / 20:24), it says

  A man plans his path, but the Lord directs his steps.

The consistent pattern I keep seeing is that if we are faithful to provide the motion, God is faithful to provide direction. Indeed, the case of Jonah, even when Jonah was not faithful, God used Jonah's movement but ultimately steered. (I've been known to say, God will gladly kick the sides to steer, but not the butt to move!)

The point that I'm making (and it would be consistent with Rom 8:28 as well) is that God will ultimately use your faithfulness to accomplish what he desires, regardless of whether or not you made the "right" choice.


Why does Catholicism believe in purgatory? Why does Catholicism believe in purgatory if according to Hebrews we are faced with judgement after we die?

Hebrews 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

Not only the Hebrews quote, but it is defined dogma in the Catholic Church that "immediately (mox) after death and, in the case of those in need of purification, after the purification" in purgatory, one faces his Particular Judgment (Benedict XII's Benedictus Deus).

However, venial sins or temporal punishment for already-forgiven sins might still remain. Once one has suffered and been purified of these, he enters heaven.


Can I pray for the past to change certain aspects of life? (Catholic perspective) I'd like to know if according to the Catholic teaching I can pray for the past events that didn't happen?

For example:

If a woman miscarried a child which means the child wasn't baptized and at that moment woman didn't know it was necessary for the child to be baptized in order to get in heaven. And now after some time she gained the knowledge and ask the angel in a prayer go back in time and perform the prayer of baptism over the baby.

Or when some relative dies and after 5 years I gain the knowledge that the person might be in purgatory and maybe I should pray for the person. Can I offer all of my prayers I've done since and pointed them to the moment when the relative died? Will that be added to that soul to the moment of her death or only to the current moment?

Is this something we can do according to the catholic theology? Or we can only pray for the present situations and is everything bound to the present moment only? I know this can be difficult to research but maybe someone can find something within the tradition.

There is nothing preventing you from praying for anything you'd like, of course; it seems that your question isn't so much "Can we do this?" as "Does it do any good—can it change the past?" And in this case, the standard Catholic answer is "No, unfortunately it can't."
Aquinas addresses the question in the Summa Theologica, First Part, Question 25, Article 4, titled "Whether God can make the past not to have been?" He considers the possibility, for example, that since God certainly had the power in the past to do or to prevent something, it seems that he should retain that power into the present:

What God could do, He can do now, since His power is not lessened. But God could have effected, before Socrates ran, that he should not run. Therefore, when he has run, God could effect that he did not run.
(Objection 2)

The difficulty Aquinas finds with this is essentially that it would make true the statement that "Socrates did run [since God had to do something about it after the fact] and Socrates did not run [since God prevented it after the fact]." But this is a contradiction:

That the past should not have been implies a contradiction. For as it implies a contradiction to say that Socrates is sitting, and is not sitting, so does it to say that he sat, and did not sit. But to say that he did sit is to say that it happened in the past. To say that he did not sit, is to say that it did not happen. Whence, that the past should not have been, does not come under the scope of divine power.

In other words, anything God could have made to not happen in the past would have to have both happened (so that God had something to prevent) and not happened (because God prevented it). Aquinas believes that contradictions like this are impossible: not because it is a limitation on God's power, but simply because logically impossible things are (by that very fact) not something we can reason logically about:

[A logically impossible event] cannot come under the divine omnipotence, not because of any defect in the power of God, but because it has not the nature of a feasible or possible thing. Therefore, everything that does not imply a contradiction in terms, is numbered amongst those possible things, in respect of which God is called omnipotent: whereas whatever implies contradiction does not come within the scope of divine omnipotence, because it cannot have the aspect of possibility.
(First Part, Question 25, Article 3)

Certainly if God cannot be said to be capable of changing the past, we cannot successfully pray to Him to do it.
As far as your examples, if a child has died without baptism, we certainly commend the child to God in the hope that they will be saved in a way unknown to us; but we cannot go back and get the child baptized. This is a sad thing, sadder than the death of the child perhaps; but it does not prevent God from working in the life of the mother, and this may be the best that can be hoped for.
Similarly, if a relative dies and you believe they are in Purgatory, the right and best thing to do for them is to pray for them in the present moment, as you suggest. Pray that they may soon be released from Purgatory—and incidentally, ask them to pray for you that you may not have to go through that.


According to Roman Catholicism, how old will our resurrection bodies be? How is the resurrection of the body supposed to work in Catholicism? For example, if I die at 90, will I resurrect with the body of an old man? What about babies—will they simply resurrect as very young people or will they have a chance to grow into adults?

If there is a definite answer, how was it determined?

St. Augustine said in City of God that we'd all be about 33 (same age as Christ) at that time it was thought that unbaptized babies might go to limbo.

  Then, again, these words, “Predestinate to be conformed to the image of the Son of God,” may be understood of the inner man. So in another place He says to us, “Be not conformed to this world, but be ye transformed in the renewing of your mind.” In so far, then, as we are transformed so as not to be conformed to the world, we are conformed to the Son of God. It may also be understood thus, that as He was conformed to us by assuming mortality, we shall be conformed to Him by immortality; and this indeed is connected with the resurrection of the body. But if we are also taught in these words what form our bodies shall rise in, as the measure we spoke of before, so also this conformity is to be understood not of size, but of age. Accordingly all shall rise in the stature they either had attained or would have attained had they lived to their prime, although it will be no great disadvantage even if the form of the body be infantine or aged, while no infirmity shall remain in the mind nor in the body itself. So that even if any one contends that every person will rise again in the same bodily form in which he died, we need not spend much labor in disputing with him.

The answer is though, we don't know for sure since no public revelation details heaven.


What is the biblical basis for the concept of male headship? The concept of "male headship" is prevalent in various Christian traditions.  What is the essence of and the biblical basis for this concept?

I understand that this is a controversial subject, but this question is seeking a rational answer from the position of those who subscribe to it.

The number one most quoted verse concerning this is from Ephesians 5.

22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

What exactly this means is very debated among the many Christian groups.
However, these verses are surrounded by others about the hierarchical order of the family and the Church.

21 Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.

And also:

25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church— 30 for we are members of his body. 31 “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” 32 This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33 However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.

The Scriptures are not particularly clear about what submission is, but it is clear about love in 1 Corinthians 13. What is almost universally agreed is that the husband is "the spiritual head of the household". He is responsible for the spiritual well being of his entire family. Because of that responsibility he is held to a higher standard: to love his wife as Christ loves the Church and readily gave himself up for her. The wife, then, is to respect and trust her husband's decisions, and support him in the very difficult task of being to her like Christ is to the Church.
Chapter 6 carries on with the same principles concerning children and parents, especially fathers.

1 Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. 2 “Honor your father and mother”—which is the first commandment with a promise— 3 “so that it may go well with you and that you may enjoy long life on the earth.”
4 Fathers, do not exasperate your children; instead, bring them up in the training and instruction of the Lord.

Again, the Father (husband) is given more responsibility and the more difficult task. He is to instruct the children in the ways of the Lord without making them feel demeaned or infuriating them. Anyone who has children knows this is very difficult. Like the wife, children should respect and trust their Fathers' decisions.
Genesis 2 is sometimes quotes as well. After Adam was created, God determined that it was not good for man to be alone so he made Adam a helper: Eve, the woman. The term itself do not necessarily imply a lesser standing, however, it does imply the purpose: the woman is to help the man.
I have heard this said before and I think is sums up the above quite well:

The glory of every husband is that the woman was made for him, but his humility is that he needs her.
The glory of every wife is that the man needs her, but her humility is that she was made for him.


Why do Orthodox Christians baptize infants? I know that Roman Catholics baptize infants, because they believe that infants need to be cleansed of original sin, and that the denial of baptism at infancy by Christian parents is tantamount to the denial of God's grace for the child. So, why do Orthodox Christians baptize infants then? And how come they practice baptism by immersion on infants, as shown in this photograph?

These are related questions.

Because it is Tradition.  Exactly why the Tradition started, I don't know, but here is a present-day explanation for why to do it:

In the Orthodox Church when a child is baptized they are also Chrismated, which I guess is similar to a Catholic Christening.  It is for sealing them to protect against evil spirits and such.  The Baptism / Chrismation is the 2-part process of cleansing a child of anything evil and/or sinful and then sealing it to keep in the good and keep out the bad.  It's like, you wouldn't seal something off before decontaminating it, right?

So then that usually begs the question about whether a child that young can actually be "contaminated".  Well, consider this: if an evil spirit can influence or possess someone, what makes you think they could not do so to an infant?  Who can know if even by the time an infant is baptized, something bad hasn't tried to attach itself already.  And why would you not want to do all that you can to protect your child from evil?

I've heard people make the argument that a child shouldn't be baptized until they are old enough to repent and understand repentance, because in Acts 2:38 Peter says "Repent and be baptized...".  But in context, he is addressing a group of adults - who at that age should of course repent first...that does not necessarily mean that their children were not also baptized.  In fact the very next verse says the promise of the Holy Spirit is for them and their children.

Note that the Orthodox Church also practices Confession, and children don't give their first confession until a certain age.  So if you are at least that old and have not been baptized, you confess first...if you are too young you get baptized first.


Is there a trend toward not capitalizing the word "Bible"? Just in the past few months, I've been coming across the word bible as a lowercase word. I'm not talking about the word as used in, say, "the fisherman's bible," or such similar uses; rather, the appearance of the word when it clearly refers to the Holy Bible, as in the Judeo-Christian Scriptures.

As a lifelong Christian, I am somewhat concerned (assuming tentatively there is a trend) that the use of the word bible, when referring to the Holy Bible, may be related to a general devaluing of this traditionally sacred book.

My questions, then "Is there a trend toward replacing the capital B in Bible with a lowercase b?"  And are there statistics or facts to support this notion?  (Meaning, is there data that supports the statement that this is a trend that's actually occurring as opposed to my own perception?)

Yes, there is a trend towards not capitalizing the words 'Bible' and 'Koran'. There is an extremely simple reason for this - bad grammar.

Both Bible and Koran (or Quran) are proper names, since they refer to specific books, and as such should be capitalized. This is nothing to do with belief in the validity of either book, or respect for them. The name 'Satan' is capitalized in correct English, just like 'Jesus' and 'Mohammed'.

The word 'bible' sometimes shows up in validly lowercase originally because it can be used as a general term for a holy book, or an authoritative reference book, as in "The Tanakh is the Jewish bible", or "Stroustrup's book is the bible for C++ programmers". The lowercase is correct in those instances. This tends to cause people not to capitalize the word everywhere, even when it refers to the specific book.

TLDR: 'Bible' is often written in lowercase for the same reasons that apostrophes are often used in plurals.


Are there any real statistics on how many people fall away? I recently came across the claim that 80-90% of people who convert to Christianity will eventually revert to their former beliefs/way of life. While I can't speak to the world at large, my experience is that this number is closer to 40%. I was wondering if there were some actual numbers one could look up to confirm this. I was also wondering if there were a way to somehow subtract the number of people marrying into the faith (as that accounts for a number of baptisms/confirmations too).

Short answer:

It would appear that the answer to your question that is reliable, and applicable across the board, is a resounding "no". Within denominational or individual Church/affiliation boundaries, there are plenty, but the numbers vary

Explanation of the short answer:

I've found several sources that give "fall away rates" with varying degrees of source citations.
From http://www.frontlinemin.org/decisionism.asp

(and I'm not sure if these numbers are trustworthy - a number of them are vague and dont' give the Church, Crusade, denomination, at all.  They could easily be fabricated.)

  Charles E. Hackett, the division of home missions national director for the Assemblies of God in the U.S. said, “A soul at the altar does
  not generate much excitement in some circles because we realize
  approximately ninety-five out of every hundred will not become
  integrated into the church. In fact, most of them will not return for
  a second visit.”
  In his book Today’s Evangelism, Ernest C. Reisinger said of one outreach event, “It lasted eight days, and there were sixty-eight
  supposed conversions.” A month later, not one of the “converts” could
  be found.
  In 1991, organizers of a Salt Lake City concert encouraged follow-up. They said, “Less then 5 percent of those who respond to an
  altar call during a public crusade . . . are living a Christian life
  one year later.” In other words, more than 95 percent proved to be
  false converts.
  A pastor in Boulder, Colorado, sent a team to Russia in 1991 and obtained 2,500 decisions. The next year, the team found only thirty
  continuing in their faith. That’s a retention rate of 1.2 percent.
  In November 1970, a number of churches combined for a convention in Fort Worth, Texas, and secured 30,000 decisions. Six months later, the
  follow-up committee could only find thirty continuing in their faith.
  A mass crusade reported 18,000 decisions—yet, according to Church Growth magazine, 94 percent failed to become incorporated into a local
  church.
  In Sacramento, California, a combined crusade yielded more than 2,000 commitments. One church followed up on fifty-two of those
  decisions and couldn’t find one true convert.
  A leading U.S. denomination reported that during 1995 they secured 384,057 decisions but retained only 22,983 in fellowship. They
  couldn’t account for 361,074 supposed conversions. That’s a 94 percent
  fall-away rate.
  In the March/April 1993 issue of American Horizon, the national director of home missions of a major U.S. denomination disclosed that
  in 1991, 11,500 churches had obtained 294,784 decisions for Christ.
  Unfortunately, they could find only 14,337 in fellowship. That means
  that despite the usual intense follow-up, they couldn’t account for
  approximately 280,000 of their “converts.”

But another source gives different statistics, way off from the ones above.

(and still, I wonder where they get their numbers.)

From http://biblicalinsights.net/Book%20Reviews/Falling%20Away.pdf

  In chapter one, Simmons establishes the reality of falling away.
  Reliable surveys have  been done which show an apostasy rate as high
  as 40% among adult American Christians.  Others show a rate as low as
  10-15%. The average apostasy rate is 25% (3). Catholics have a higher
  apostasy rate than Protestants. In the Church of Christ faith
  tradition, the apostasy rate is 50% for individuals 18 to 25 years old
  (3). It is estimated that over 75% of all Mormons will fall away from
  the faith at some point in their lives (3).

As for the anecdotal evidence supplied from the teaching you linked to in your question, Mr. Comfort gives the source for that particular statistic as a copy of American Horizons Magazine, the official magazine of the Church in question. (Coincidentally, the last one in my first bulleted list...)

From http://internet-churches.com/true-false.htm

  I was reading in the American Horizons magazine, which is the official
  magazine of a very large, or a major, denomination of the United
  States which has 11,500 churches throughout the US - in 1991, their
  first year of what they called “the decade of harvest,” they got
  294,000 decisions for Christ. They found that only 14,000 remained in
  fellowship. That is, they couldn’t account for 279,000 of their
  decisions for Jesus. And this is normal modern evangelical statistics
  when it comes to crusades and local churches.

But as for an official, scientific study, or a survey that follows real methods, I find no evidence.  It would appear that the numbers are based on anecdotal evidence, or as Mr. Comfort states. "Church records" - records shared from Pastors at Churches.   Even in the Hell's Best Kept Secret teaching, he states that the number is based on Church records that he has had access to. He never claims that this is a universally applicable statistic.

This is, at least, feasible.  I know that in our Church, we keep records of those who have prayed the sinner's prayer, and we have records of who is still in attendance, and who has left, and for what reason. (Church discipline, asked to be removed from membership, etc.)  I'm sure if I talked to my Pastor, I could come up with a calculation for our own Church's "fall away rate".

But is that indicative of the fall-away rate for Christianity as a whole?  no.

And given the fractured nature of Christianity, and even the difficulty in defining what "falling away" really means, I'd say it's not feasible to get such results. How would you define "falling away"?  No longer attending Church? What about those that don't attend a Church at all, but are active in prayer, evangelism, and just don't want to go to a local Church?  If not based on active Church membership, then what?


Are there Catholic guidelines on naming of children? Catholics in India, for the last few generations, have been following a unique practice of naming  their children. The children are invariably given the baptismal name after a saint; but  once they enter school, many children are given Indian names which hardly have any resemblance to the baptismal name, and which eventually become their official name. Many of such official names owe their origin to names of natural forces like sun, light, wind etc. and of objects like precious stones , flowers etc.   I would like to know whether Catholic Church has issued instructions, at any point of time, on how Catholic couples should name  their children on baptism and thereafter.

Yes: the Catechism provides explicit guidance on this matter, and it's covered in Canon Law.

  The sacrament of Baptism is conferred "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."85 In Baptism, the Lord's name sanctifies man, and the Christian receives his name in the Church. This can be the name of a saint, that is, of a disciple who has lived a life of exemplary fidelity to the Lord. the patron saint provides a model of charity; we are assured of his intercession. the "baptismal name" can also express a Christian mystery or Christian virtue. "Parents, sponsors, and the pastor are to see that a name is not given which is foreign to Christian sentiment."86

  Mt 28:19
  CIC Canon 855

  Parents, sponsors, and the pastor are to take care that a name foreign to Christian sensibility is not given.

The Catechism makes clear that the name given at baptism is the person's Christian name. Neither the Catechism nor Canon Law provide any guidance on common names; in Christian societies (or those with a Christian heritage) the baptismal name is usually the common name. In non-Christian cultures, the common name may be something else. Even in Christian cultures, a person's common name may not be their Christian name ("Junior," for example; or a nickname like "Tiny").

The Catechism continues

  God calls each one by name. Everyone's name is sacred. the name is the icon of the person. It demands respect as a sign of the dignity of the one who bears it.

  The name one receives is a name for eternity. In the kingdom, the mysterious and unique character of each person marked with God's name will shine forth in splendour.

The Christian name is the name used by God, and it will be the name used for the rites of the Church. As the name is sacred, it should not be forgotten in this life — even though it will be used for eternity in the next.


What is this (presumably Catholic) uniform? Yesterday, at a restaurant in Rome, at the table next to mine, there were seated four people: a Catholic priest (in a kind of cassock), two lay people, and the woman in the photo, who apparently wears some kind of religious uniform (as well as a crucifix on a chain) that I couldn't recognise.

Does anyone know which uniform is this?

She could be of the Order of the Camillians, who takes care of the sick and dying, or she could simply be an altar server after a matyr celebration or Palm Sunday (the red belt).


Why does the bible say that David kept all the commands of the Lord when he so clearly didn't? Why does the bible say that David kept all the commands of the Lord when he so clearly didn't?

  1 Kings 15:5 NIV - For David had done what was right in the eyes of the Lord and had not failed to keep any of the Lord’s commands all the days of his life—except in the case of Uriah the Hittite.

Yes, there was the episode with Uriah the Hittite. But there was also the matter of David taking a census of the fighting men of Israel:

  2 Samuel 24:10 NIV - David was conscience-stricken after he had counted the fighting men, and he said to the Lord, “I have sinned greatly in what I have done. Now, Lord, I beg you, take away the guilt of your servant. I have done a very foolish thing.”

And that's just what's written down. Other biblical figures like Isaiah, Jesus, Paul, and even David himself says there is no one who is good, so certainly David would have been guilty of other sins.

This is one place where the NIV translation falls short.  The quoted passage says “[David did not fail] to keep any of the LORD’s commands.”  However the Hebrew word used here is soor, which means to turn aside.  Note that the NIV cross-references Deut. 5:32 and 1Ki 9:4, which both talk about turning away from God’s commands.  This is one passage where other translations give a better picture:

  because David did what was right in the sight of the Lord, and had not turned aside from anything that He commanded him all the days of his life, except in the case of Uriah the Hittite. (1Ki 15:5, NASB)

Or

  because David did what was right in the eyes of the Lord and did not turn aside from anything that he commanded him all the days of his life, except in the matter of Uriah the Hittite. (1Ki 15:5, ESV)

So, where the NIV’s talks about keeping the commands, these other translations talk more about a lifestyle.  David knew of God’s mercies that bring forgiveness for his sins (Ps 25:6-7).  The sacrificial system of the OT provided a means for sinners to come into communion with God (though not as perfectly as the sacrifice of Christ).  From this passage we see that David’s lifestyle, similar to many Christians today, was one where he would sometimes mess up, but he always saw his mistake right away and he came right back to God.

The exception of Uriah was a sin that David did not repent of right away.  First, we know he hid it until at least after Bathsheba announced her pregnancy.  Apparently he had relations right after her period (2Sam 11:4) and if we assume she knew about the pregnancy when her next period was due, that was about one month in between.  Then add the time to kill Uriah, and we have easily have weeks to months of him living in this sin before he repents (2Sam 12:13, Ps 51).  So, while he did eventually repent, this was one point where David was clearly walking outside of God’s laws, vice a quick fall and get back up.


Does the Anglican Church teach that faithful are immediately reunited with loved ones? Watching the days of news coverage following the death of George HW Bush (41st President of the USA) has me asking for the Anglican Church’s view on what happens upon the death of a faithful member.

Many times during the past few days I have been moved by the words of his loved ones who speak of him at last reunited with his beloved wife Barbara and daughter Robin who preceded him in death.

Does the Anglican Church teach that dead loved ones are waiting in heaven to greet family members upon the moment of their death?

If so what is the biblical  basis for this belief?

In the 'before the funeral' section of 'Ministry at the Time of Death'
on the Church of England's website, there is the following paragraph within a prayer which is advised to be prayed with relatives at home, prior to attending the funeral :

May we then go forward eagerly to meet our redeemer
and, after our life on earth,
be reunited with all our brothers and sisters
in that place where every tear is wiped away
and all things are made new;
through Jesus Christ our Saviour.

It is noticeable that the re-uniting is not based on natural, familial relationships but is based on a re-uniting with 'brothers and sisters' in the faith.
This appears to me to be in accord with scripture, both with those texts which deal with regeneration - the new birth of repentance and faith - and with those texts which warn of the ultimate state of the unrepentant and unbelieving after decease.
After cataloguing the faith of many of old who have endured in faithfulness and are now with the Lord, the writer to the Hebrews exhorts :

Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us ...

Hebrews 12:1 KJV 1769
... encouraging those still in the body that they are already 'compassed about' by those of whom he had spoken in the previous chapter.
They are almost in the arms of those who await in heaven, it would seem.
This is clearly shown in the Third Homily on the Fear of Death of the Church of England Homilies :

The faythfull Christian man which considereth all these miseries, perils, and incommodities (whereunto he is subiect so long as he heere liueth vpon earth) and on the other part considereth that blessed and comfortable state of the heauenly life to come, and the sweet condition of them that depart in the Lord, how they are deliuered from the continuall encumbrances of their mortall and sinnefull body, from all the malice, crafts, and deceits of this world, from all the assaults of their Ghostly enemy the Diuell, to liue in peace, rest, and endlesse quietnesse, to liue in the fellowship of innumerable Angels, and with the congregation of perfect iust men, as Patriarches, Prophets, Martyrs, and Confessours, and finally vnto the presence of Almighty GOD, and our Sauiour Iesus Christ.

As Jesus clearly teaches, also, recorded by Luke :

And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;

Luke 16:22 KJV 1769
This, also, is attested in the Third Homily on the Fear of Death :

Of Abraham's bosome, Christs wordes bee so plaine, that a Christian man needeth no more proofe of it. Now then, if this were the state of the holy Fathers and righteous men, before the comming of our Sauiour, and before hee was glorified: how much more then ought all we to haue a stedfast faith, and a sure hope of this blessed state & condition, after our death? seeing that our Sauiour now hath performed the whole worke of our redemption, and is gloriously ascended into heauen, to prepare our dwelling places with him, and said vnto his Father, Father, I will that where I am, my seruants shall bee with mee (John 17.24).

However, Jesus tells us most firmly :

Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

John 3: 5-7 KJV 1769
and therefore the prayer of the Church of England is quite correct, biblically, to focus on relationships within Christ, rather than the natural family.
This is made clear in the Church of England Homilies, yet again, this time in the Homily on Repentance - (the Third Part) :

Whereas if we will repent, and bee earnestly sorry for our sinne, and with a full purpose and amendment of life flee vnto the mercy of our GOD, and taking sure hold thereupon through fayth in our Sauiour Iesus Christ doe bring foorth fruits worthy of repentance: hee will not onely powre his manifold blessings vpon vs heere in this world, but also at the last, after the painefull trauels of this life, reward vs with the inheritance of his children, which is the kingdome of heauen, purchased vnto vs with the death of his sonne Iesu Christ our Lord, to whom with the Father and the holy Ghost, be all praise, glory, and honour, world without end. Amen.

And the Apostle John faithfully warns ...

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 burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

Revelation 21:8 KJV 1769.
Or, in the words of the Homily on Declining from God - the Second Part

let vs make no tarrying to turne vnto the Lord: let vs not put off from day to day, for suddainly shall his wrath come, and in time of vengeance hee will destroy the wicked. Let vs therefore turne betimes, and when wee turne let vs pray to GOD, as Ose teacheth, saying, Forgiue all our sinnes, receiue vs gratiously (Hosea 14.2)

==========================================================================
Article 40 of the 42 Articles (the precursor list to the 39 Articles), quoted by Rev Beckmann states:

40 The soulles of them that departe this life doe neither die with the bodies, nor slepe idlie.
Thei which saie that the soulles of suche as departe hens doe sleepe, being without al sence, fealing, or perceiving, until the daie of judgement, or affirme that the soulles die with the bodies, and at the laste daie shal be raised up with the same, doe utterlie dissent from the right beliefe declared to us in holie Scripture.


According to Catholicism, why was the rabbit declared as unclean for the people of Israel? At Leviticus 11:6, the Lord, while narrating the standards that define animals which are clean or unclean for consumption by the people of Israel, describes the rabbit  as follows: " The rabbit, though it chews the cud, does not have a divided hoof; it is unclean for you." . Now, Zoology does not enlist the rabbit among animals that chew the cud, through it appears to be doing so while eating its food. The Lord would have taken into account  the said appearance of rabbit (of chewing the cud) while describing it as an unclean animal. But, before making any assumption, I would like to know if there are any official teachings from the side of Catholic Church available on the topic on why the rabbit was classified as unclean.

I find no reference to Leviticus 11:6 on the websites of the Vatican or the U.S. Council of Catholic Bishops (USCCB).

The USCCB does maintain on its website the text of the New American Bible (Revised Edition), or NABRE, which is the only translation approved for public liturgical use in the United States. The NABRE translates Leviticus 11:4–6:

  4 But you shall not eat... the rock hyrax, which indeed chews the cud, but does not have hoofs and is therefore unclean for you; the hare, which indeed chews the cud, but does not have hoofs and is therefore unclean for you; ...

and has the following note on Leviticus 11:5–6:

  According to modern zoology, the rock hyrax (Hyrax syriacus) is classified as an ungulate, and the hare as a rodent; neither is a ruminant. They appear to chew their food as the true ruminants do, and it is upon this appearance that the classification in the text is based.

This is far from a doctrinal statement; but it is as close as one is likely to get, having (as the entire NABRE has) the imprimatur, or permission from the bishops to be printed.


How is sin transfered from one to another? Question : How is sin transferred from person to another person? Not through birth?

We can not accuse Adam when we see him that he caused all humanities sin. Why because the word says "we all have sinned and have gone astray". We all sin sometime between our birth and death, yes we are the ones that sin (its our sin not anyone's else sin that made us a sinner). Therefore Jesus came to save the world from sin, yes yours and mine ( the sins we individually sinned).

Through one mans sin we all have sinned, not one righteous (through one mans righteousness we are all righteous ).

Original sin is a lack of infused Grace, with infused Grace being a partaking of the Divine Nature (2 Peter 1:4).

Original sin isn't a thing, it is a lack of a thing. Adam didn't pass anything on, he didn't pass on something he lost.

One of the effects or qualities of this original Grace is it kept the emotional and physical side of man (the flesh, see Gallatians 5) subordinate to the rational and spiritual side (the spirit). When the Grace was lost through sin, it caused the flesh to struggle with the  spirit for control of a man (I want (the flesh) to eat the cake, but I know (the spirit) I shouldn't). When the spirit of man rebelled against God, his flesh rebelled against his spirit.

Jesus came to offer this gift of Grace to us, although it doesn't immediately correct the internal discord within us.

Christi pax,

Lucretius


When did the concept of οὐσία begin to refer to God's nature? In the NT, the Greek word οὐσία means "possession, property (substance)." To simply put, it is a thing or stuff that someone owns.

  And the younger of them said to his father, ‘Father, give me the share
  of property that is coming to me.’ And he divided his property
  (ousia) between them. Luke 15:12 (ESV)

There is no NT passage that relates οὐσία to God's nature. Even writings that predated the NT did not use the term to refer to God's nature.

  He treated his parents-in-law with great respect in their old age, and
  buried them in Ecbatana of Media. He inherited both the property (ousia) of
  Raguel and that of his father Tobit. (Tobit 14:13 NRSV).

Concpetually, I do hold onto the applicability of οὐσία to refer to God's nature since nature is what innately belongs to someone.
I agree that the Greek word homoousios (same substance) faithfully preserve the meaning of Scripture in creedal form (Nicene Creed cf. John 1:1, 18 10:28-33; Hebrews 1:3).

When did the concept of οὐσία begin to refer to God's nature?

Who is the first church writer /church leader that refers to οὐσία as God's nature?
Why is οὐσία employed? What does other Greek words don't have that only οὐσία could give?

The earliest use of οὐσία to mean the substance or essence of a thing is by Aristotle in his Κατηγορίαι, though Aristotle attributes its earlier use to Plato. Justin Martyr comments on Aristotle's description of the nature of the Divine, confirming that Aristotle (along with Plato) uses the word in the manner described as early as the 4th century BC. So it appears that the first use was not within the Church, but within Greek philosophy and that οὐσία was used by the Greek Fathers in this manner following the philosophers. This so-called "Pagan" origin had an effect on the later use of the word within the Church.

Tatian and Justin Martyr use the word as early as the second century to discuss the substance and nature of God in the context of the Logos. Consider the following passage from The Holy Trinity: God for God and God for Us, by Chung-Hyun Baik.

  Both Justyn Martyr and Tatian of Assyria went further to hint that the Logos has the same ousia as God the Father. Justin Martyr stated that the Logos, which is invidisible and inseperable from God the Father, was generated from the Father by the power and will of God the Father,'but not by abcission, as if the ousia of the Father were divided' (Dialogue with Trypho, 128). Justin Martyr provided an analogy of human speech, by which it is meant that, though we beget and utter a word, our power of uttering words would not be diminished. He offered another analogy of a fire kindled from a fire; an enkindled fire is distinct from the original fire, but the original fire remains the same undeiminished fire even after it ignites another. Tatian of Assyria stated that the Logos was in God the Foather and came into being 'by participation, not by abcission' (Address to the Greeks, 5). For him, abcission implies a separation of the Logos from the original ousia of God, while participation presupposes no deficiency of the Logos in the original ousia of God. He illustrated this point by the analogy of a torch. Though one torch lights another fire, nevertheless the light of the first torch is not lessened by lighting another fire (Ibid.)"

It is well known that Justin read Aristotle, and in fact uses οὐσία in his comments on Plato and Aristotle in Horatory Address to the Greeks (Ch. 5),

  "For Plato, with the air of one that has descended from above, and has accurately ascertained and seen all that is in heaven, says that the most high God exists in a fiery οὐσία. But Aristotle, in a book addressed to Alexander of Macedon, giving a compendious explanation of his own philosophy, clearly and manifestly overthrows the opinion of Plato, saying that God does not exist in a fiery οὐσία: but inventing, as a fifth1 οὐσία , some kind of aetherial and unchangeable body, says that God exists in it. Thus, at least, he wrote: 'Not, as some of those who have erred regarding the Deity say, that God exists in a fiery οὐσία."

So, οὐσία was used at least as early as the second century by the Greek Fathers, though the use of the word in the manner in question likely follows from Aristotle and therefore predates the birth of Christ and its use within Christianity.

1. Note this "fifth essence"- the first four being fire, water, air, and earth- is the origin of the English quintessence, as well as the identity of the lapis philosophorum, the "philosopher's stone" about which the alchemists wrote, and whom the Christian alchemists identify with the transfigured body of Christ.


Can anyone provide any sources where earlier English Theologians distinguished between Holy Ghost and holy Spirit? I have heard the claim (and especially here) that English theologians in the Middle Ages made a distinction between the Spirit of Christ as the indwelling Spirit or holy Spirit (holy as an adjective rather than part of the Divine Name/Title) and the Holy Ghost as the third member of the Trinity. I cannot find anything myself that demonstrates that they made this distinction, other than deliberately translating Holy Ghost when referring to the unembodied Third Person of the Trinity, and Spirit (or holy Spirit)(please don't edit this - they lowercase is part of the Translation as an adjective) when referring to the indwelling Spirit of God/Christ in the believer. And this quote from a footnote in the Shepherd of Hermas - Similitude Fifth, Chapter VI.
[If the reader feels that the explanation itself needs to be explained, let him attribute it to the confused and inaccurate state of the text. Grabe says emphatically, that “the created Spirit of Christ as a man and not the Holy Ghost, the third person of the Trinity,” is spoken of in this chapter chiefly. The apparent confusion of words and phrases must be the result of ignorant copying. It is a sufficient answer to certain German critics to cite the providential approval of Athanasius, a fact of the utmost moment. Nobody doubts that Athanasius was sensitive to any discoloration of the Nicene Faith. In the text of Hermas, therefore, as it was in his copy, there could have been nothing heretical, or favouring heresy. That Hermas was an artist, and purposely gave his fiction a very primitive air, is evident. He fears to name the Scriptures he quoted, lest any one should doubt their use, in the days of Clement, in the Western Churches.]
I think the footnote is quoting John Ernest Grabe, but I cannot find his work on the Shepherd of Hermas.
Can anyone direct me to this or some other sources where this distinction seems to be made by earlier English theologians?

The word in the original Greek scripture is pneuma (spirit, or wind or breath) and it is indistinguishable (other than context) whether it means the divine person of the Holy Spirit, the spirit of a person (whether divine or human), or breath or air movement.  While I have yet to find sufficient material to fully answer the question but this was somewhat helpful:
(Wikipedia suggests 93 occasions of 'Ghost' in the KJV) :

The English terms "Holy Ghost" and "Holy Spirit" are complete synonyms: one derives from the Old English gast and the other from the Latin loanword spiritus. Like pneuma, they both refer to the breath, to its animating power, and to the soul.

The Old English term is shared by all other Germanic languages (compare, e.g., the German Geist) and it is older, but the King James Bible used both interchangeably, and 20th-century translations of the Bible overwhelmingly prefer "Holy Spirit", probably because the general English term "ghost" has increasingly come to refer only to the spirit of a dead person.[20][21][22]

[20]  Robin W. Lovin, Foreword to the English translation of Karl Barth's The Holy Spirit and the Christian Life (1993 ISBN 0-664-25325-3), page xvii
[21] Millard J. Erickson, L. Arnold Hustad, Introducing Christian Doctrine (Baker Academic 2001 ISBN 978-0-8010-2250-0), p. 271
[22] "Norfolk schools told Holy Ghost 'too spooky'". The Guardian. London. 2005-04-11. Retrieved 2010-05-04.
Wikipedia - Holy Spirit in Christianity

Additional Edit :
Focusing just on Romans, I have checked on 5:5, 9:1, 14:17, 15:13 and 15:16 (the places which have πνευματος αγιου in the original). The Wycliffe 1382, Tyndale 1534, Coverdale 1535, Matthew;s 1537, Great Bible 1539, Geneva 1560, Bishop's bible 1568, and the Douay Rheims (Challoner) all have 'Holy Ghost'.
Only Young's Literal Translation departs from this, Robert Young consistently using 'holy spirit' throughout, but not using capitals.
It seems to me that no theological point was being made. It was simply an attempt to distinguish those places in scripture where the words 'holy' and 'spirit' were juxtaposed and clearly indicated a reference to the Divine Person.
Reference - Textus Receptus Bibles

Further EDIT from comments :
With regard to Luke 11:13; Eph 1:13; 4:30; 1 Thess 4:8 (where, although pneuma and agion are present they are not juxtaposed, but separated by the article or by other grammar) . . . .
In each of those four places, there is interpolation in the text (between pneuma and agion) separated by article or insertion (promise).
The activity is on the part of the Father, not the initiation and sole agency of the Spirit.
Perhaps it is only when the Holy Spirit is in view independently that the word 'Ghost' is used.


Why did Jesus leave? With ascension day coming up so quickly, I have a question:

According to the Bible, why did Jesus leave? I've read some ideas but few have any actual Biblical backing. Could anyone point me in the direction of this?

The bible is pretty clear.

John 16:7 (NLT)
But in fact, it is best for you that I go away, because if I don't,
the Advocate won't come. If I do go away, then I will send him to you.

Jesus left so that the Holy Spirit would come.


What does the Catholic Church mean when it says In-vitro Fertilization separates the procreative act from procreation? In a Catholic Theology class, we were taught that IVF is wrong for 2 reasons: 1) It separates procreation from the procreative act and 2) Spare embryos are destroyed in the process.

Question 1: I get #2, but I don't really get #1. I don't really see the point of mentioning #1 in this context.

#2 is already sufficient to reject IVF right? I actually find this really annoying. It's actually like this in Wikipedia too. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_vitro_fertilisation#Religious_response

Question 2: Suppose there was a way to separate procreation from the procreative act while embryos were not destroyed in the process. For simplicity, let's say there are no bad side effects to doing such and focus solely on the separation of procreation from the procreative act. What is "wrong" with that?

Oh sorry. I was unclear. Why is procreation without the procreative act wrong if say couples are either a) unable to perform the procreative act, b) unable to procreate while performing the procreative act or c) have a sufficiently long history of not procreating while performing the procreative act? Also, in the first place, why would anyone want to have biological babies without sex? Isn't it usually the other way around? If they would want bb w/o sex, then most probably they CAN'T have bb w/ sex...I think?

Humans are indisputably biological beings, and therefore (like so many biological beings) indisputably sexual beings. God, having created us as sexual beings, "saw that [everything] was  very good" (cf. Genesis 1:31). The Church has always held the official belief (whatever individual bishops, priests, and theologians have said) that sex as an act is not sinful in itself, and that sex between spouses is in fact a good thing. Thomas Aquinas, in the Summa Theologica, discusses the question "Whether no venereal act can be without sin?" (i.e. "Is sex always sinful?") He concludes,

  Just as the preservation of the bodily nature of one individual is a true good, so, too, is the preservation of the nature of the human species a very great good. And just as the use of food is directed to the preservation of life in the individual, so is the use of venereal acts directed to the preservation of the whole human race. Hence Augustine says (De Bono Conjug. xvi): "What food is to a man's well being, such is sexual intercourse to the welfare of the whole human race." Wherefore just as the use of food can be without sin, if it be taken in due manner and order, as required for the welfare of the body, so also the use of venereal acts can be without sin, provided they be performed in due manner and order, in keeping with the end of human procreation.

(Second Part of the Second Part, Question 153 Article 2)

The Catechism of the Catholic Church adds:

  Sexuality is ordered to the conjugal love of man and woman. In marriage the physical intimacy of the spouses becomes a sign and pledge of spiritual communion.

(paragraph 2360)

And it continues:

  Fecundity is a gift, an end of marriage, for conjugal love naturally tends to be fruitful. A child does not come from outside as something added on to the mutual love of the spouses, but springs from the very heart of that mutual giving, as its fruit and fulfillment. So the Church, which is "on the side of life," teaches that "it is necessary that each and every marriage act remain ordered per se to the procreation of human life." "This particular doctrine, expounded on numerous occasions by the Magisterium, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act."

(paragraph 2366—the quotes are taken from the encyclical Humanae Vitae of Pope Paul VI)

The Church thus believes that it is wrong, because it is a rejection of the gift God has given us since the Creation, to do anything that is primarily intended to separate the sexual act itself from the concept of procreation. This includes both activities which are primarily intended to allow sexual activity without the possibility of procreation, and activities which are primarily intended to allow procreation without sexual activity. It is for this reason that the Church states:

  Techniques that entail the dissociation of husband and wife, by the intrusion of a person other than the couple (donation of sperm or ovum, surrogate uterus), are gravely immoral. These techniques (heterologous artificial insemination and fertilization) infringe the child’s right to be born of a father and mother known to him and bound to each other by marriage. They betray the spouses’ "right to become a father and a mother only through each other."

(paragraph 2376—the quotation is from Donum Vitae, a letter of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith)

This does, of course, bring up the question of why these techniques are wrong, but adoption (which could be considered a form of "surrogate uterus") is acceptable. Neither the Catechism nor the Summa directly address this question. However, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops issued a "teaching statement" in November 2009 titled "Life-Giving Love in an Age of Technology". This document directly addresses the issue of surrogate parenting; it states that one of the moral problems with it is that

  in an important sense, the spouses have decided not to be fully the mother and father of their child, because they have delegated part of their role to others.

In adoption, a specific delegation of that sort does not occur. The couple indeed becomes the parent of a child who (in the words of the document) "is not the fruit of the spouses’ commitment to procreate only with and through one another"; however, the conception of the child was not (as surrogate motherhood is) an evasion or deliberate delegation of the natural relationship between husband and wife, between parent and child.


Do Jehovah Witnesses believe it is immoral to pay for blood transfusions through taxation? I’m having a discussion about abortion and taxes, and it was mentioned that Jehovah Witnesses have to pay taxes that fund blood transfusions.
Do Jehovah Witnesses believe it is immoral to pay for blood transfusions through taxation?

I found an article from the Jehovah’s Witness official web site that indirectly answers your question.  It uses the example of governments using income taxes to pay for wars and points out that it is the responsibility of governments to decide how tax payers’ contributions are spent:
Watchtower 1 April 1975 – Are you guided by a sensitive Christian conscience?  Paragraph 4: For example, a person might recognize that Jehovah is not backing the wars of the nations, but that he urges his people to learn the ways of peace. (Isa. 2:4) Knowing that usually the nations support their armies with tax money, would it be balanced and Scriptural for his conscience to lead him to refuse to pay taxes? Or to pay his taxes minus a percentage corresponding to what the government spends on its defense budget? While some persons have taken such a stand, the Bible evidence weighs against a conscience that leads to such a course. Christians are plainly told to pay their taxes, and this was put in the Bible despite the fact that the then-existing Roman government supported a vast army. (Matt. 22:17-21; Rom. 13:1, 7) Thus the Christian can, with a clear conscience balanced by God’s Word, pay his taxes, leaving with the governments the responsibility of how the money is used.  https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1975246#h=4:0-8:330
A Jehovah’s Witness therefore has a clear conscience when it comes to paying taxes – how the government decides to use that income is not the responsibility of the Witness.


Is it ever possible to tell the purpose-driven purpose (in general sense) of a respected distressed disabled person? I believe when a person is born God chooses him or her to carry out an action on this planet. And until that action is carried out they can never retreat from this world.

Paralyzed people fully from head to toe who are like so from birth and those people in life who developed some intense illnesses that they never quite got over with and can't rebuild their lives or help their family, what was that purpose-driven life for them?

I am asking this because I volunteer at an organization where broken people and people in wheelchairs come for help. I talk to them. I hear their distressing everyday life story. I want to know what was that God's chosen action that they have to carry out on this planet when they are so vulnerable themselves and are suffering so much?

I also heard on tv that a pastor saying every person's life has a grand design. So this question.

[Isaiah 43:5-7] Fear not; for I am with thee: I will bring thy seed from the east, and gather thee from the west; I will say to the north, Give up; and to the south, Keep not back; bring my sons from far, and my daughters from the end of the earth; every one that is called by my name, and whom I have created for my glory; I have formed him; yea, I have made him.

The purpose of life is to live for the glory of God. So all things and people, that include man and women, healthy and sick, young and old are created to glorify God, there is no other purpose.

[1 Corinthians 10:31] Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God.
[1 Corinthians 6:20] For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.

Now we can ask, How we can glorify God?

[Romans 3:10-18] as it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one; There is none that understandeth, There is none that seeketh after God; They have all turned aside, they are together become unprofitable; There is none that doeth good, no, not so much as one: Their throat is an open sepulchre; With their tongues they have used deceit: The poison of asps is under their lips: Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: Their feet are swift to shed blood;Destruction and misery are in their ways;And the way of peace have they not known:There is no fear of God before their eyes.

We can't
The only way we can glorify God is through Jesus Christ

[John 14:6] Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, and the truth, and the life: no one cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Now that we are in Christ, this is how

[1 Peter 1:16] because it is written, Ye shall be holy; for I am holy.

Being Holy, that is

[1 Thessalonians 5:14-22] And we exhort you, brethren, admonish the disorderly, encourage the fainthearted, support the weak, be longsuffering toward all. See that none render unto any one evil for evil; but alway follow after that which is good, one toward another, and toward all. Rejoice alway; pray without ceasing; in everything give thanks: for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus to you-ward. Quench not the Spirit; despise not prophesyings; prove all things; hold fast that which is good; abstain from every form of evil.


Why is denial of the primacy of the bishop of Rome considered a Schism, not a Heresy? Why is denial of the primacy of the bishop of Rome considered a Schism, not a Heresy?

Disclaimer: I'm interesting only in authoritative answer according to the Roman Catholic Doctrine.

The Papal primacy is essentially dogma of Roman Catholic Church. So why are those who deny this dogma (say, Orthodox Church officials) not formally considered as heretics?

According to Canon law, it is technically both:

Can. 751 Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him. - Code of Canon Law

However, an arguable effect of JOINT CATHOLIC-ORTHODOX DECLARATION
OF HIS HOLINESS POPE PAUL VI
AND THE ECUMENICAL PATRIARCH ATHENAGORAS I is that it is no longer appropriate to affix the label "heretic" across the schismatic divide:

...in common agreement, declare that:
...
B. They likewise regret and remove both from memory and from the midst of the Church the sentences of excommunication which followed these events, the memory of which has influenced actions up to our day and has hindered closer relations in charity; and they commit these excommunications to oblivion. [emphasis added]


Origin of the (mis)translation "Ten Commandments" The Old Testament speaks of the עשרת הדברים in Deuteronomy 4:13, a phrase which is translated almost without exception to be the "Ten Commandments" (see here).  However, the word הדברים is never else translated as "commandments", and usually translated as "words" (see, for example, Deuteronomy 1:1).  To the best of my knowledge, nowhere in the OT do words that would be accurately translated as "Ten Commandments" appear.

Historically, when was the wording "Ten Commandments" first used?  Does a phrase similar to this (obviously not in English) appear in the New Testament anywhere, or is it of later origin (and if so, when was it coined)?

Thank you!

"Ten Commandments" is not a mistranslation of עֲשֶׂרֶת הַדְּבָרִים, but is justified based on the Hebrew and Greek Bibles themselves.
The meaning of דָּבָר in the Hebrew Bible
In the Hebrew Bible (the Old Testament), though the word דָּבָר commonly means "a word," it has a wide range of meanings based on its root meaning (on which see the next subheading below). Here are the meanings given for דָּבָר in the Gesenius Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon:
(1) word, often collective: words, speech, discourse
   (a) a promise, something promised
   (b) a precept, an edict
   (c) a saying, a sentence (as of a wise man), especially the word of the Lord, an oracle
   (d) a counsel, proposed plan
   (e) rumor, report
(2) thing, thing done, affair, business
(3) anything, something
(4) a cause, reason
(5) cause (in a forensic sense)

Clearly the text in Exodus 20:1-17 and Deuteronomy 5:6-21 cannot be described literally as "ten words." There are far more than ten words in these passages. At minimum, דָּבָר in this context means a saying of the Lord. But these are more than "sayings." They are, in fact precepts or edicts, in line with definition (1)(b).
This is the basis on which עֲשֶׂרֶת הַדְּבָרִים is commonly translated into English as "the Ten Commandments" where it appears in Exodus 34:28; Deuteronomy 4:13; 10:4. (עֲשֶׂרֶת is a form of the Hebrew word עֶשֶׂר (`eser), "ten.")
Further, this is not the only context in which דָּבָר is translated as "commandment." As seen in its definition in Gesenius linked above, the King James Version translates it as "commandment" twenty times. The search algorithm used at the linked site to identify those occurrences is flawed, giving many more results than it should. Here are the actual verses in which the KJV translates דָּבָר as "commandment":

Exodus 34:28
Deuteronomy 4:13
Deuteronomy 10:4
Joshua 8:8
1 Samuel 15:11
1 Samuel 15:13
2 Samuel 12:9
1 Chronicles 28:21
2 Chronicles 31:5
Esther 1:12
Esther 1:19
Esther 2:8
Esther 3:15
Esther 4:3
Esther 8:14
Esther 8:17
Esther 9:1
Psalm 103:20
Daniel 9:23
Daniel 9:25

The first three are the familiar "Ten Commandments." The instances in Esther refer to commandments of King Ahasuerus. Most of the rest refer to commandments of the Lord. In each case, though דָּבָר could be translated as "words" or "sayings," its most natural and reasonable meaning in context is that of a "commandment" of the Lord or of a powerful human being such as a king. These are "sayings" that are meant to be obeyed. In other words, they are edicts, or in more common English, commandments.
The root meaning of דָּבָר
The word דָּבָר is a noun form coming from the root דָּבַר, whose core meaning is not "word" but rather "setting in a row, ranging in order." As a verb it is used of leading, guiding, ruling, directing, and of course in its most common meaning of "speaking," or "putting words in order."
This derivation of דָּבָר shows that both in its verb form and as a noun it has more force than the more informal (and also very common) Hebrew word אָמַר, referring to common conversation and speech. דָּבָר has more of a sense of directed, purposeful speech intended to arrange things and bring them into order.
In short, based on its root meaning, דָּבָר lends itself to being used of "words" that are edicts, precepts, and commandments.
Support in the Greek Bible
The term "Ten Commandments" or "Ten Words" does not occur in the Greek Bible (the New Testament).
However, in the Gospels Jesus does refer to various of the "sayings" in the Ten Commandments as "commandments":

Then someone came to him and said, "Teacher, what good deed must I do to have eternal life?"
And he said to him, "Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good. If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments."
He said to him, "Which ones?"
And Jesus said, "You shall not murder; You shall not commit adultery; You shall not steal; You shall not bear false witness; Honor your father and mother; also, You shall love your neighbor as yourself." (Matthew 19:16-19, New Revised Standard Version, emphasis added)

Here, when Jesus is asked which commandments are to be followed, he lists five of the Ten Commandments, plus one other commandment from Leviticus 19:18.
See also the parallel passages in Mark 10:17-19 and Luke 18:18-20.
The Greek word for "commandment" used here is ἐντολή, which is a basic Greek word for an order or command.
A similar usage occurs in the Epistles:

Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. (Romans 13:8-9, KJV, emphasis added)

Many newer translations supply "commandment" where the Greek more literally reads "For this" in verse 9. However, "commandment" (ἐντολή) does appear where I have added emphasis, showing that Paul also referred to the "sayings" of the Ten Commandments as commandments.
These examples from the New Testament show that as early as the first century, the "sayings" of the Ten Commandments were referred to as "commandments."
Conclusion
It is not necessary to look to subsequent Christian history to find the basis for translating עֲשֶׂרֶת הַדְּבָרִים as "the Ten Commandments."
The word דָּבָר itself carries that meaning and force based on its root meaning and on its usage in various contexts in the Hebrew Bible.
Further, the directives comprising the Ten Commandments are referred to as "commandments" in the New Testament, suggesting that in the first century this was already a well-established common understanding of עֲשֶׂרֶת הַדְּבָרִים.
Later English translations of עֲשֶׂרֶת הַדְּבָרִים as "the Ten Commandments" are therefore neither mistranslations nor innovations, but draw on a usage long established in the Hebrew and Greek Bibles themselves.


What cautionary advice have evangelists given that address Gandhi's concern about "Rice Christians"? Not too long ago we had a question here that raised the issues of bribery, cultural "destruction," and use of harsh language against nonbelievers during evangelization efforts in developing countries.   There is actually a Wikipedia article on Rice Christians.  It offers a quote from Mahatma Gandhi's autobiography, The Story of My Experiments with Truth:

  Only Christianity was at that time an exception. I developed a sort of dislike for it. And for a reason. In those days Christian missionaries used to stand in a corner near the high school and hold forth, pouring abuse on Hindus and their gods. I could not endure this. I must have stood there to hear them once only, but that was enough to dissuade me from repeating the experiment. About the same time, I heard of a well known Hindu having been converted to Christianity. It was the talk of the town that, when he was baptized, he had to eat beef and drink liquor, that he also had to change his clothes, and that thenceforth he began to go about in European costume including a hat. These things got on my nerves. Surely, thought I, a religion that compelled one to eat beef, drink liquor, and change one's own clothes did not deserve the name. I also heard that the new convert had already begun abusing the religion of his ancestors, their customs and their country. All these things created in me a dislike for Christianity.

From this quote, we see that issues of cultural extinction, harsh language, and use of bribery in evangelization is an ongoing problem, from Gandhi's 100 year old testimony to the prior question of last week.

My question is to what extent have evangelism-training leaders (or great evangelists) already noted these problems, and what words or scriptural references (or church-fathers-quotes) have they given as caution?

Rice Christians. Maybe Gandhi should have said Beef Christians.
I mean, I cried too when Pi killed the fish. [slipped-out]

Unfortunately or fortunately the Word of God is book of human-action,
unlike a calculus math book. Searching for facs/truth...

About "Rice Christians",
1) Christ Jesus healed many people,
which is recorded on the gospels of the new testament.
2) Christ Jesus helped anyone, Matthew 11:28,
"Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest."
3) Not all who were helped said thanks, Luke 17:17
4) Nor all who were helped became Disciples, only about 120 left in Acts 1:15
Basically He came to give hoping the ones he helped would repent, Romans 2:4

About Culture Shock, the problem is Christ Jesus said in Matthew 28:19,
"... make Disciples of all nations". Which can cause kaos like you said.
So, Disciples of Christ Jesus make disciples everywhere like in Asia
and give [rest] to anyone [who is weary]. So I think.

About [pouring abuse on Hindus], well this about what someone/somebody did or say.
However, Romans 2:1-4 helps to point out that passing judgment comes around.

If I ever find a Disciple of Christ Jesus,
I would ask for a bowl of rice or two also :)
Thanks for reading.


How do Christians incorporate present moment everyday faith in light of God's multi-generational nature? From reading the Bible, I have always had questions about how God works slowly over many generations of people and more specifically about those who live in what I call "God's Silent Periods".

For example: The Bible contains many instances where it states to the effect; "..and becuase of this, the Jew's were enslaved in Egypt for 500 years" and then moves on to the next Bible worthy important event - as if 500 years is nothing!

Perhaps to God 500 years is a blink of an eye, as He is the same in the past, present and future - but to these generations who lived during the 500 years (just imagine if you and your generations lived during that period) that is  many life times of a specific experience of who God is. It appears it is God's will that some will live and experience their lives in such periods (perhaps us), to forward his will - on His time line.

For example, during the slave generations, even if one individual had enormous faith in God, it could not change their life predestined in slavery. On the flip side, for the generation of Jews that lived when Moses came, their tested faith now had a new power - the power to directly free them from slavery.

(Please note this is just one example of this what appears to be cyclic nature of God.)

The question is: How do Christians incorporate and harmonize their personal present moment everyday faith, in light of God's nature as explained above from the Bible?

If I understand your question correctly, the answer is "watch and pray". In Luke chapter 21 some of his disciples were remarking about how beautiful the temple was when Jesus told them that "the time will come when not one stone will be left on another; every one of them will be thrown down.”

The disciples then asked "when will these things happen? And what will be the sign that they are about to take place?"

Jesus then tells then what signs to look for and ends his instruction by saying "Be always on the watch, and pray that you may be able to escape all that is about to happen, and that you may be able to stand before the Son of Man.”

Mark 13 also gives an account of this interchange between Jesus and his disciples but concludes a bit differently with the parable about the man who went away, leaving his servants in charge..."It’s like a man going away: He leaves his house and puts his servants in charge, each with their assigned task, and tells the one at the door to keep watch.   Therefore keep watch because you do not know when the owner of the house will come back—whether in the evening, or at midnight, or when the rooster crows, or at dawn. If he comes suddenly, do not let him find you sleeping."

What were they watching for? The signs that Jesus is about to come again. What were they to pray for? To be awake, so as to escape from the coming judgement.

This is especially meaningful in light of your question of the "inter-generational" nature of God's timetable.  God knows it's going to be a while between courses but he's trying to get us to focus our attention, knowing we are very prone to wandering off the path if we see some shiny bauble. It's almost like he's saying "pay attention!"

Jesus asked his disciples to wait for him outside the garden where he went to pray just before he was arrested but rebuked them with "couldn't you wait for one hour with me?" (He probably would have said "Jeez" if he wasn't Jesus). But I think the point is that in our everyday lives, we are waiting for someone, and the exhortation is don't get impatient as it may be a while. Just keep looking every day, and just keep waiting every day, and while you're waiting ask the Father for mercy. I think it keeps us focused in the right direction as it keeps our eyes on Jesus, rather then worrying about the timetable.


How can Protestants authoritatively declare something wrong or heretical under Sola Scriptura? Within Protestantism there is no universal definition of theology or how to understand the Bible: Anglicans have one definition, Lutherans another, Calvinists another, (insert name here), etc.

So upon what basis can Protestants insist that some teaching contradicts the Bible objectively, and not only according to their own personal understanding of the Bible (which most would admit could be wrong)?

And if all you have is your personal interpretation, upon what basis does anyone call anything a heresy, and those who hold it "heretics"? One has to be surer than 'I interpret it this way' in order to start condemning contrary interpretations with any note of seriousness.

I've heard a lot responses things like 'His sheep hear His voice,' which in the first place is able to be claimed by two contradictory sides of a matter and not be falsifiable (it essentially is saying 'well, God knows who's right, and I think it's me!'), and secondly, circularly assumes that 'His sheep hear His voice' is to be interpreted specifically in a way which means that it pertains to the interpretation of the Bible.

Similar are claims of having the 'personal guidance of the Holy Spirit,' which is similar or identical to the argument above. But again, this, while helpful to someone personally, doesn't provide a basis for say, calling others heretics based on that interpretation. Something that the New Testament says is possible.

Worst of all, I've even heard things like 'I don't even interpret the Bible,' ('I skip the stage where I have to account for my interpretation objectively altogether') which is impressive ... in a bad way.

None of these are impressive to me, and they do not withstand the most basic scrutiny.

Can any Protestant provide a sola scriptura epistemology which doesn't rely on such dubious, unfalsifiable arguments?

Speaking as a lifelong Protestant, I would say that in genuine Protestantism, the Head of every man is Christ. There is no hierarchy. None is above another. The greatest is as the least. But it is true that a man's gift will make room for him and spiritual men will appreciate and be voluntarily subject to others more spiritual than themselves.

I have added this edit in answer to the comment made below. It is fundamental to what Protestantism is. Otherwise the question itself becomes invalid as it is not a question that can be asked of Protestantism. (Though it could be asked of other, hierarchical bodies or of hierarchical and individualistic particles of Protestantism).

==================================================================================

The short answer is that if one is utterly meticulous in one's study of the scriptures - in their original language - then there will be no ambiguity, no latitude for personal interpretation, no question of opposing arguments and there will be one, single expression of truth.

It can be seen - and it can be proved by many examples - that the reason for conflicting movements in Protestantism is the untutored, undisciplined, inexact and ignorant expressing of what is advertised as 'biblical' but is in fact not meticulous enough in its expression of the word of God.

These holy scriptures leave me stunned at their accuracy, their careful wording, their staggering revelation and their consistency throughout many volumes by multiple authors over a period of, I would say, just over two thousand years.

It is staggering.

My own, personal, Protestant studies, after twenty five years of tutorage and twenty five more of personal searching, leave me in no doubt that :

  Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. [II Peter 1:21 KJV]

The problem is that unholy men, who are not filled with the Holy Spirit (or even holy men who are, temporarily, swayed by nature and not spirit) speak forth things that they should not.

However even then, their peers ought to be able to correct them, as Paul corrected even the Principal Apostle Peter, to his very face, when he was to be blamed, Galatians 2:11, in a matter of Christian doctrine and resultant Christian practice, and this at a time of crisis when even Barnabas was almost carried away as well, in the dissimulation.

Had this been a Catholic situation Pope Peter would have prevailed and we would all have to be circumcised.

But Paul Protested - and quite rightly so.

For the Lord himself is above all and he says :

  I will build my church [Matthew 16:18 KJV]

and he does so . . . in every generation.


Do Calvinists believe they know whether they are saved? My question is pretty straightforward: Do Calvinists believe they know whether they are saved?

This might seem like a strange question at first glance, so let me explain why I'm asking. From what I understand, Calvinism teaches that the "elect" will persevere, and that it is impossible for the "elect" to fall away, but that only God knows who the "elect" are. The "elect" Christians are truly born-again, while all other Christians are not. So if a Christian "falls away", they were never really saved to begin with, despite their own assertions and the assessments of others who knew the person. In other words, let's say you know a guy who you would swear up and down was saved. You see him doing all the right stuff, saying all the right stuff; he's an integral part of the church; you see God working in his life, leading him, etc. Then he "falls away". The Calvinist position (as I understand it) is that regardless of all that stuff you saw in his life, that person was never really saved to begin with.

It seems to me that this theology leaves the Calvinist uncertain about whether any individual is right with God. You might have an educated guess, but you don't really ever know for sure whether a person is saved (including yourself.) If the person ever "fell away" you'd have to go back and say "I was wrong; they were never really saved to begin with". Is this correct?

PLEASE NOTE! I am looking for answers from the perspective of Calvinism -- not partial Calvinism. By that I mean 5-point Calvinism. Please do not give me your personal opinion as a "partial Calvinist" or "Calminian" or "4-point Calvinist", etc. I'm looking for quotes from guys like John Piper (I'll count him as a 5-point Calvinist for the sake of this question) and others with his devotion to Calvinism.

Calvinists indeed believe they can only make educated guesses about others; if someone you thought was saved falls away, the conclusion is they were never actually saved. But Calvinism teaches that "infallible assurance of faith" is available to believers about themselves.

The Grounds of Assurance

The Westminster Confession of Faith says in chapter 18:

  This certainty is not a bare conjectural and probable persuasion
  grounded upon a fallible hope; but an infallible assurance of faith
  founded upon the divine truth of the promises of salvation, the inward
  evidence of those graces unto which these promises are made, the
  testimony of the Spirit of adoption witnessing with our spirits that
  we are the children of God, which Spirit is the earnest of our
  inheritance, whereby we are sealed to the day of redemption.

Similarly, the Belgic Confession says in article 24:

  So we would always be in doubt, tossed back and forth without any
  certainty, and our poor consciences would be tormented constantly if
  they did not rest on the merit of the suffering and death of our
  Savior.

And the Canons of Dort say in articles 12 and 13 of section 1:

  Assurance of their eternal and unchangeable election to salvation is
  given to the chosen in due time, though by various stages and in
  differing measure. Such assurance comes not by inquisitive searching
  into the hidden and deep things of God, but by noticing within
  themselves, with spiritual joy and holy delight, the unmistakable
  fruits of election pointed out in God’s Word—such as a true faith in
  Christ, a childlike fear of God, a godly sorrow for their sins, a
  hunger and thirst for righteousness, and so on.

  In their awareness and assurance of this election, God’s children
  daily find greater cause to humble themselves before God, to adore the
  fathomless depth of God’s mercies, to cleanse themselves, and to give
  fervent love in return to the One who first so greatly loved them.
  This is far from saying that this teaching concerning election, and
  reflection upon it, make God’s children lax in observing his
  commandments or carnally self-assured. By God’s just judgment this
  does usually happen to those who casually take for granted the grace
  of election or engage in idle and brazen talk about it but are
  unwilling to walk in the ways of the chosen.

So we see several sources of assurance:

Westminster points to "the divine truth of the promises of salvation," and the Belgic Confession specifies "the merit of the suffering and death of our Savior" upon which those promises rest. Westminster cites these Scriptures for support:

  Hebrews 6:11 But we passionately want each of you to demonstrate the
  same eagerness for the fulfillment of your hope until the end. 17 In
  the same way God wanted to demonstrate more clearly to the heirs of
  the promise that his purpose was unchangeable, and so he intervened
  with an oath, 18 so that we who have found refuge in him may find
  strong encouragement to hold fast to the hope set before us through
  two unchangeable things, since it is impossible for God to lie. 19 We
  have this hope as an anchor for the soul, sure and steadfast, which
  reaches inside behind the curtain

Westminster continues, "the inward evidence of those graces unto which these promises are made," specified by Dort as "a true faith in Christ, a childlike fear of God, a godly sorrow for their sins, a hunger and thirst for righteousness, and so on," and Westminster cites:

  2 Peter 1:4 Through these things he has bestowed on us his precious
  and most magnificent promises, so that by means of what was promised
  you may become partakers of the divine nature, after escaping the
  worldly corruption that is produced by evil desire. 5 For this very
  reason, make every effort to add to your faith excellence, to
  excellence, knowledge. 10 Therefore, brothers and sisters, make every
  effort to be sure of your calling and election. For by doing this you
  will never stumble into sin. 11 For thus an entrance into the eternal
  kingdom of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, will be richly provided
  for you.

  1 John 2:3 Now by this we know that we have come to know God: if we
  keep his commandments.

  1 John 3:14 We know that we have crossed over from death to life
  because we love our fellow Christians. The one who does not love
  remains in death.

  2 Corinthians 1:12 For our reason for confidence is this: the
  testimony of our conscience, that with pure motives and sincerity
  which are from God—not by human wisdom but by the grace of God—we
  conducted ourselves in the world, and all the more toward you.

Westminster wraps it up with, "The testimony of the Spirit of adoption witnessing with our spirits that we are the children of God," referring to Romans 8:15-16, "which Spirit is the earnest of our inheritance, whereby we are sealed to the day of redemption," citing these verses:

  Ephesians 1:13 And when you heard the word of truth (the gospel of
  your salvation)—when you believed in Christ—you were marked with the
  seal of the promised Holy Spirit, 14 who is the down payment of our
  inheritance, until the redemption of God’s own possession, to the
  praise of his glory.

  Ephesians 4:30 And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you
  were sealed for the day of redemption.

  2 Corinthians 1:21 But it is God who establishes us together with you
  in Christ and who anointed us, 22 who also sealed us and gave us the
  Spirit in our hearts as a down payment.

Unstable Grounds of Assurance

Unfortunately, people often seek means of assurance that will fail them. One way is by searching deeply into the hidden things of God. Another is by looking primarily to yourself, rather than to Christ.

As you'll recall, the Canons of Dort said, "Assurance comes not by inquisitive searching into the hidden and deep things of God." Many people agonize, "Is my name in the book of life? Did God's decree include me? Am I elect?" In so agonizing, they may never reach any kind of assurance, because they are looking in the wrong place. The Bible and the reformed confessions teach that the "hidden things belong to God" (Deuteronomy 29:29). Theologians of every era caution that believers shouldn't inquire too deeply into God's hidden will, but into his revealed will. God has given promises and he has revealed means of "making your calling sure." He has not given us a copy of the book of life, for us to inquire directly into whether our name or our un-evangelized neighbor's name is there. He's made it more complicated for us by requiring a life of discipleship.

Another false means of assurance is trying to "prove" oneself to God (or to oneself). This slavish adherence to the regulations of Scripture does not produce assurance, but "constantly" torments the conscience, as the Belgic Confession says. Instead, we must put our trust in the only one who could fulfill the law, Jesus Christ. Obviously, the Westminster Confession does say we should look for fruit in ourselves, but Robert Murray M'Cheyne gives a good rule of thumb for avoiding the trap of introspection: "For every look at yourself, take ten looks at Christ."

Another false means of assurance is a fruit of so-called "decision theology" popularized by Charles Finney. It's similar to the previous one mentioned in that it rests in subjectivity. Many people look to the sincerity of their initial confession when they responded to an altar call or prayed a prayer. Such people may end up praying over and over, or responding to countless altar calls, never coming to true assurance of faith. This is because we ourselves are finicky. Again, the true means of assurance come from looking to the one who is alone faithful (and always sincere). Tim Challies says:

  When you seek assurance of your salvation, where do you look? Will you
  take refuge in the sincerity of your prayer? Will you comfort yourself
  by saying, “I meant it with all my heart”? If you take refuge in your
  own sincerity or in the passion you felt years ago when you prayed a
  prayer, you are building your assurance on shakey ground.

The Non-Necessity of Assurance

After establishing the grounds of assurance, the Westminster Confession goes on to say:

  This infallible assurance does not so belong to the essence of faith,
  but that a true believer may wait long, and conflict with many
  difficulties, before he be partaker of it: yet, being enabled by the
  Spirit to know the things which are freely given him of God, he may,
  without extraordinary revelation in the right use of ordinary means,
  attain thereunto. And therefore it is the duty of every one to give
  all diligence to make his calling and election sure, that thereby his
  heart may be enlarged in peace and joy in the Holy Ghost, in love and
  thankfulness to God, and in strength and cheerfulness in the duties of
  obedience, the proper fruits of this assurance; so far is it from
  inclining men to looseness.

In other words, true believers may not have assurance of salvation immediately, and that's okay, just as Dort said: "Assurance of their eternal and unchangeable election to salvation is given to the chosen in due time, though by various stages and in differing measure." But they ought to strive toward it in order to be more joyful in the Holy Spirit and thankful to God. Westminster continues by saying that believers may even lose their assurance but that it's always possible to regain:

  True believers may have the assurance of their salvation divers ways
  shaken, diminished, and intermitted; as, by negligence in preserving
  of it, by falling into some special sin which wounds the conscience
  and grieves the Spirit; by some sudden or vehement temptation, by
  God's withdrawing the light of His countenance, and suffering even
  such as fear Him to walk in darkness and to have no light: yet are
  they never so utterly destitute of that seed of God, and life of
  faith, that love of Christ and the brethren, that sincerity of heart,
  and conscience of duty, out of which, by the operation of the Spirit,
  this assurance may, in due time, be revived; and by the which, in the
  mean time, they are supported from utter despair.

Distinguishing True Assurance from False

The Canons of Dort say that "by God's just judgment" some "who casually take for granted the grace of election or engage in idle and brazen talk about it but are unwilling to walk in the ways of the chosen" become "carnally self-assured" rather than having an actual assurance of faith. So how can an "infallible assurance" (in Westminster's language) and this "carnal self-assurance" be distinguished?

A.A. Hodge's commentary on the Westminster Confession takes a stab at the question.

  True assurance, however, may be distinguished from that which is false
  by the following tests:

  True assurance begets unfeigned humility; false assurance begets spiritual pride. 1 Corinthians 15:10; Galatians 6:14.
  The true leads to increased diligence in the practice of holiness; the false leads to sloth and self-indulgence. Psalm 51:12-13,19.
  The true leads to candid self-examination and to a desire to be searched and corrected by God; the false leads to a disposition to be
  satisfied with appearance and to avoid accurate investigation. Psalm
  139:23-24.
  The true leads to constant aspirations after more intimate fellowship with God. 1 John 3:2-3.

It is common for Calvinists to cite 1 John 2:19 in the case of those who either were falsely assured or who deceived others (knowingly or not) into believing they were saved:

  They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us, because
  if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us. But they
  went out from us to demonstrate that all of them do not belong to us.

Conclusion

Calvinists teach that to be assured of salvation, you must look first to Christ, his merits, and his promises, then to the fruits of faith that he has granted you. It is not found by inquiring into the decree of election, nor by looking chiefly to yourself. It is not necessary to be assured of salvation in order to be saved, but it is a good thing to strive for nonetheless. There are ways of distinguishing it from "carnal self-assurance," and those who have such false assurance are mistaken about their salvation.

John MacArthur, a five-pointer, wrote a whole book about this. From what I remember, it's entirely consistent with the confessions. Also consistent with the confessions: Calvin's views.


Does God control "demons"? It is my understanding that a “demon” (either Greek δαιμόνιον or δαίμων) is an “evil spirit” (Greek πνεῦμα πονηρόν).

In Acts 19:13, it is written,

  Then certain of the vagabond Jews, exorcists, took upon them to call over those who had evil spirits [τὰ πνεύματα τὰ πονηρὰ] the name of the Lord Jesus, saying, “We adjure you by Jesus whom Paul preaches.”

I think most agree that these “evil spirits” are equivalent to “demons.” Furthermore, I did a phrase search on the phrase “evil spirit” in the Old Testament, which produced the following results:

  Jdg. 9:23
  Then God sent an evil spirit between Abimelech and the men of Shechem; and the men of Shechem dealt treacherously with Abimelech:

  1 Sam. 16:14
  But the Spirit of the LORD departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the LORD troubled him.

  1 Sam. 16:15
  And Saul’s servants said unto him, Behold now, an evil spirit from God troubleth thee.

  1 Sam. 16:16
  Let our lord now command thy servants, [which are] before thee, to seek out a man, [who is] a cunning player on an harp: and it shall come to pass, when the evil spirit from God is upon thee, that he shall play with his hand, and thou shalt be well.

  1 Sam. 16:23
  And it came to pass, when the [evil] spirit from God was upon Saul, that David took an harp, and played with his hand: so Saul was refreshed, and was well, and the evil spirit departed from him.

  1 Sam. 18:10
  And it came to pass on the morrow, that the evil spirit from God came upon Saul, and he prophesied in the midst of the house: and David played with his hand, as at other times: and [there was] a javelin in Saul's hand.

  1 Sam. 19:9
  And the evil spirit from the LORD was upon Saul, as he sat in his house with his javelin in his hand: and David played with [his] hand.

Each of those use the same Greek expression in the LXX that is found for “evil spirit” in the NT (πνεῦμα πονηρόν or an inflection thereof). Also, the only other time we see the phrase “evil spirit(s)” is in Luke 7:21, 8:2 and Acts 19:12–13, 19:15–16. If we examine those passages in the Old Testament, most if not all say something to the effect of “evil spirit of/ from Yahveh/God.”

So, does God have control over demons? It seems so in the Old Testament. He is the one said to be sending the evil spirit. If this be the case, does God allow people to become possessed by demons, including those said to be possessed in the New Testament?

If God is omnipotent, then God is ultimately in charge of everyone, even demons. No one does anything apart from the will of God.

Many accept the existence of two wills in God - a hidden will of election (hidden or decretal will), and a revealed will. Following that idea, we could say that demons are obedient to God's hidden will (as indeed, everything perfectly is), while disobedient to God's revealed will. But it is his decretal will that they be disobedient to his revealed will, so it is his will that they disobey his will, and their disobedience is itself thus a form of obedience to God.

My answer is heavily influenced by Reformed theology, although Luther likewise believed in two wills. (I myself am a universalist rather than Reformed, but TULIP is only one step away from universalism - replacing the L with a U.) As I see it, the two wills doctrine is the only way to maintain the omnipotence of God.

I guess the alternative is to embrace metaphysical libertarianism, and maybe the sovereignty of God can be salvaged through middle knowledge. Personally, I find metaphysical libertarianism to be incoherent, and middle knowledge even more so. (I'd also note that both notions are, in my appraisal, alien to the Bible.) But there is no denying this is an alternative possible answer to your question.