What did Jesus mean when He said we must "eat His flesh and drink His blood"? In John 6, Jesus states that unless we eat His flesh and drink His blood, we have no life in us:

  Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of
  the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.  Whoever
  eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise
  him up at the last day.  For my flesh is real food and my blood is
  real drink.  Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me,
  and I in him.  Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of
  the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.  This
  is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna
  and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever.  (John 6:53-58 NIV)

Could this have been a reference to the Passover Lamb of which the Israelites were supposed to eat all of it?  What  is the common Protestant understanding of this?  Do some traditions associate this with Communion?

We often let ourselves get trapped by not searching for other Scriptures which may help to explain what we do not fully understand.

This particular scripture is complicated by the part following which denotes his following lessening, because they did not understand that Jesus was not speaking of literally eating his flesh and drinking his blood. Today after knowing all about his death and resurrection understand that.

Jesus being an eternal being would have seen all of his teachings as if they were one continuous diatribe. Therefore we must consider all of his teaching at once. the following are some of his sayings which give meaning to this particular Scripture.

All Scripture is quoted from the King James translation, unless otherwise noted.

  John 6:35  And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

This Scripture gives meaning to eating his body and drinking his blood, and we need to also remember the reason we eat and drink in the first place. Our reason for eating and drinking is to sustain life. The same is true of our spirit and our eternal life. If we are to remain in consonance with Jesus teachings we need to continue to feed that spirit in order to keep it alive and well.

  John 6:32 and 33 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven. 33  For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.

It is quite obvious that Jesus is not talking about Worldly bread, as the Manna and quail which Moses asked of God; but is referring to Spiritual bread. All of these saying were in direct response to his disciples.

  John 6:28 through 31  Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? 29  Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent. 30  They said therefore unto him, What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? what dost thou work? 31  Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat.

It probably frustrated Jesus that they could not put together his teachings to understand, and it must still frustrate him, that we cannot understand; even today with all of his word condensed into the Gospels. Which is probably why he said:

  John 14:26  But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

For them they had been with him during his teaching, however we did not have that privilege, and must study the Scriptures in order to connect all of his teaching.

It would have been necessary that they completely remember and understand his teachings since they would be tasked with passing them on to posterity, in written form.

Hope this helps


Did John 14:6 apply before the birth of Christ? Possible Duplicate:
  Who saved people before ~33AD?

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. (John 14:6). Did this apply before the birth of Christ? I've heard that Jews, before and after Christ, believe that the sacrificial lamb was taken literally. Essentially, was there any way of entrance to heaven before Jesus?

Enoch (Genesis 5) and Elijah (in 2 Kings 2) were both taken away by God and did not die.  Whether they went to "heaven" or not, they did go to God.

Since Jesus is fully God, and is outside time with God, then even before he was born a man and died on the cross for our sins, he was the way, the truth, and the life.  Why should God be limited by time, part of his creation?


What is an overview of classifications of the Sabbath (Exodus 20:8-11) by denominations who adhere to the tripartite division of the Law? Many denominations believe in the tripartite division of the Old Testament Law into moral, ceremonial and civil (source 1, source 2, source 3, source 4). However, it is not clear to me how each denomination classifies each one of the Law's 613 commandments, and in particular, the Sabbath (Exodus 20:8-11).
By asking this question, I'm looking for an answer that:

provides an overview of how different denominations that adhere to the tripartite division of the Law classify the Sabbath.
provides the biblical basis generally used to support each classification, and
explains the implications of each classification, i.e., does it matter whether the Sabbath is classified as a moral, ceremonial or civil law in terms of how Christians should live their lives today?

I note the following examples of this type of tripartite division of the Torah:

Thomas Aquinas discussed the tripartite law, moral, ceremonial, and judicial, in his “Summa Theologica”, section entitled "Treatise on the Law" and more specifically in questions 99-105.
Luther appears to believe in a bipartite Law, when in The Bondage of the Will, he referred to "the civil or moral law”. (Luther Bondage CXLVI)
Calvin, in book 2 of Institutes of the Christian Religion (2.7, 2.8.31), presented a bipartite view when he discussed the law, its moral and ceremonial aspects.  However, later, in book 4 of the Institutes (4.20.14), when he discussed civil government, he presented a tripartite law when he stated: "the well-known division which distributes the whole law of God, as promulgated by Moses, into the moral, the ceremonial, and the judicial law.”
The Westminster Confession (1646) set out a tripartite law
The Baptist Confession of Faith (1689) almost copies the Westminster Confession in assuming a tripartite law (see Chapter 19).
The Church of England 1662 liturgy for Holy Communion required the minister to read each of the 10 commandments (including the Sabbath commandment) and the congregation would respond, “Lord, have mercy upon us, and incline our hearts to keep this law.”
However, according to the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message, no such division exists.

The problem with all of these is that no such distinction is made in the Torah itself.  The closest we come is the difference we have between:

Israelite Covenant: Exodus 19-24, and expanded in parts of Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy – often called, “The Old Covenant”, or, “Moral Covenant”, or, sometimes incorrectly called, “The Mosaic Covenant”.
Levitical Covenant: – Lev 1-9, 16, 21-27 , Num 3, 4, 8, 18, 25:10-13, Deut 33:8-11, Neh 13:29, Mal 2:4-8. This is an eternal covenant (Num 25:12, 13, Ps 106:30) of salt, Num 18:19.  This is almost the same as what people call the "ceremonial law" (not quite) but goverened all the rules of priests and sanctuary regulations.
Davidic (or Regal, or Royal) Covenant: 2 Sam 7, 23:5, 1 Kings 6:11, 12, 8:25, 1 Chron 17:11-14, 2 Chron 6:14-16, 7:17, 18, 13:5, Ps 89:4, 29, 34, 39, 132:11, 12, Jer 33:21, Eze 37:15-28.  This is an eternal covenant.  This was essentially the civil authority to govern Israel.

None of these have been retracted and Jesus even says so in Matt 5:17-19.  But how the covenants work and which should now be kept is another matter for another question.
When Jesus was asked about the greatest commandment in the law (Matt 22:37-40, Mark 12:29-31) He responded with two commandments about love (Deut 6:5 & Lev 19:18) that are not part of the 10 commandments.  Therefore, even for those who believe that we can separate moral laws from ceremonial laws, the moral laws clearly more than just the 10 commandments.
I know of some groups who say some of the following things:

There is NO law any more - all law has been abandoned, including the 10 commandments - some Baptists and evangelicals say this.
We should keep all the Torah including the annual feasts - this included the United Church of God and some fringe elements of other denominations

None of these are even internally consistent.


Did St. Nicholas punch Arius at the Council of Nicaea? Was Nikolaos of Myra (St. Nicholas) present at the Council of Nicaea and, if so, did he punch (or slap) Arius? This amusing factoid tends to crop up at this time of year and has a well-established place in Byzantine iconography, for example:

This blog post from 2015 and this article from 2016 dispute the historicity of this fact with fairly convincing arguments, including the fact that the first mentions of his presence are more than 500 years after Nicaea and the actual "punching" story is first recorded in the 14th century.

The Teubner critical edition of the various lists of Nicaea attendees, Patrum nicaenorum nomina latine, graece, coptice, syriace, arabice, armeniace, sociata opera seems to conclude that his name was only added to the list by influence of later biographies (such as of Symeon the Metaphrast), but that the earlier, more reliable manuscripts do not include him.

So, what is the evidence that St. Nicholas was at Nicaea and punched Arius?

Did St Nicholas really slap Arius?

Well if the truth be known, St Nicholas never slapped Arius.

  There are some problems with the story, though.

  In the first place, it’s not true. The story has no historical value.

  As the old Catholic Encyclopedia notes, it’s doubtful St. Nicholas was even at Nicea, since the historical lists of bishops that attended that council don’t include him. Instead, Nicholas is linked to the Council by much later hagiographical works written over half a millennium after Nicholas died. Let’s Stop Celebrating St. Nicholas Punching Arius

Here is the excerpt of what the old Catholic Encyclopedia has to say about St Nicholas:

  There is reason to doubt his presence at Nicaea, since his name is not mentioned in any of the old lists of bishops that attended this council. - Catholic Encyclopedia

But how did this legend come about:

  According to Roger Pearse, editor of the Tertullian Project, the account of the violent incident at Nicea apparently shows up first over a thousand years after the Council, in a 14th-century work.

  Even then, it isn’t Arius himself that Nicholas supposedly struck, but only “a certain Arian.” That story wasn’t good enough, though, so a couple of centuries later another writer changed it to Arius himself.

  Note, too, that the medieval accounts have Nicholas slapping — not punching — the heretic. The story describes a medicinal slap or a rebuke, an attempt to “slap him back to his senses” rather than an expression of contempt or a wish to harm, as a punch certainly would be.

  As such, the moment is celebrated in Greek iconography. When I say “Let’s stop celebrating St. Nicholas punching Arius,” I don’t mean to demean this tradition in Greek iconography.

  Be that as it may, in the original story the blow is not celebrated as a high point of the Council. On the contrary, for striking the Arian heretic, Nicholas was reportedly deprived of his mitre and pallium.

  The later story, which changes the heretic to Arius, also ramps up Nicholas’s punishment, having him thrown into jail — and has him vindicated by no less than Our Lord and Our Lady, who appear to Nicholas in prison and, hearing that his has been imprisoned “for loving You,” free him of his fetters and clothe him in an archpriestly vestment, to the astonishment of those who come for him in the morning.

All said and pondered over there is no historical evidence that St Nicholas punched Arius.

  In many places online we can find the statement that St Nicholas of Myra – the basis for Santa Claus – was present at the First Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, where he punched Arius in the mouth.  So … is it true?

  Unfortunately we have almost no historical information at all about any St Nicholas of Myra – our information is entirely based on Saint’s Lives of him, of which the earliest are 9th century, and the latest are modern compilations based on medieval collections.  All these Lives are really closer to folk-tales than to history, and they reflect the accumulations of popular legends.  Some of them do have Nicholas attending the Council of Nicaea; but they do not contain the story of Nicholas punching Arius. - Did St Nicholas of Myra / Santa Claus punch Arius at the Council of Nicaea?


Do saints and church fathers generally make the claim that most people go to a hell of everlasting torment? In the videos of the Catholic YouTube channel / media enterprise "Church Militant", they often make the claim that most people go to hell, and that hell is a place of everlasting unbearable torment. This claim is supported by quotes from a number of saints and apparitions.

Other Catholic sources describe hell very differently, for example, arguing that we can hope that all people are saved and no-one goes to hell, or that hell is a matter of being distant from God, rather than literally burning in a fire and such. "Church Militant" claims that these interpretations are basically heresy and contradict what the church has always taught about hell.

My question focuses on these aspects:

The large majority of people go to hell.
Hell is a place of fire and "physical" torment.
This torment lasts forever with no hope of salvation.

Are there any writings from church fathers or important saints, including prominent apparitions, that contradict any of these aspects? If so, are these a small fringe opinion, or have they had a significant role in Catholic thought and theology? I am particularly interested in pre-modern and pre-Reformation sources.

1) the large majority of people go to hell

See ch. 32 § "The Mystery of This Number" of Life Everlasting: A Theological Treatise on the Four Last Things: Death, Judgment, Heaven, Hell by Fr. Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P. For example, he writes:

  The number of the elect is known only by God. "The Lord knoweth who are His." [II Tim. 2:19.] …

  …

  Many Fathers and theologians incline to the smaller number of the elect, because it is said in Scripture: "Many are called, but few are chosen." [Matt. 20:16; 22:14.] Again: "Enter you in at the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction; and many there are who go in thereat; how narrow is the gate and strait is the way that leadeth to life and few there are that find it." [Ibid., 7:14.] Still, these texts are not absolutely demonstrative.

  …

  The common opinion of the Fathers and ancient theologians is without doubt that those who are saved do not represent the greater number. We may cite in favor of this view the following saints: Basil, John Chrysostom, Gregory Nazianzen, Hilary, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, Leo the Great, Bernard, Thomas Aquinas. Then, nearer to our own times: Molina, St. Robert Bellarmine, Suarez, Vasquez, Lessius, and St. Alphonsus. But they give this view as opinion, not as revealed truth, not as certain conclusion.

  In the last century the contrary opinion, namely, of the greater number of the elect, was defended by Father Faber in England, by Monsignor Bougaud in France, by Father Castelein, S.J., in Belgium.

  To conclude: some insist on the mercy of God, others on the justice of God. Neither one side nor the other gives us certitude. And the reasons of appropriateness which each invokes differ very much from the reasons of appropriateness invoked in favor of a dogma which is already certain by revelation, whereas here we are treating of a truth that is not certain.

-

  2) hell is a place of fire and "physical" torment

Pope Benedict XII defined the following dogma in Benedictus Deus:

  Moreover we define that according to the general disposition of God, the souls of those who die in actual mortal sin go down into hell immediately (mox) after death and there suffer the pain of hell.

The Council of Florence declared (DZ 693):

  the souls of those who depart in actual mortal sin or in original sin only, descend immediately into hell but to undergo punishments of different kinds

-

  3) that torment lasts forever with no hope of salvation.

St. Matthew 25:41, the Athanasian Creed, and Pope Eugene IV's bull Cantate Domino all mention eternal hellfire.

The Athanasian Creed (DZ 40) ends:

  those who have done good, will go into life everlasting, but those who have done evil, into eternal fire. — This is the Catholic faith; unless every one believes this faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.


What does Isaiah 2:22 mean? Stop trusting in mere humans,
  who have but a breath in their nostrils.
  Why hold them in esteem?
  (Isaiah 2:22, NIV)

All humans breathe with nostrils. So, should we distrust all people?

The question is not whether or not to trust people, but whether or not to put your trust in people.  Obviously, people are quite capable of telling the truth.  However, trusting in people to meet your needs is where the problem comes in.  People are mortal and finite with limited power.  Indeed, they have "only a breath in their nostrils".  This may be suggesting that everyone is living breath to breath.  If you put your trust in your parents to provide for you or get you out of trouble, you should be aware that there is no guarantee that they will be alive tomorrow or will have the power to help you.

God, however, is infinite and self-existent.  He will be around tomorrow and has all power to meet your needs whenever and however He chooses.  Thus, it is prudent and wise to look to God and trust Him for your needs and life--not a fellow human being whose life is but a vapor that appears for a little while and then is gone.


Why call men on earth 'father' when Christ forbids it? Jesus forbids his disciples from calling anyone on earth 'father' as they have a Father in heaven.

Why do some organisations encourage their congregations to call their congregational leaders 'father'?

Is it an admission that their organisation does not result in their congregations drawing near to the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ ?

  And call none your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. Matthew 23:9 KJV.

In Matthew 23:1-12 Jesus denounces the Jewish scribes and Pharisees for their hypocrisy in elevating themselves above others.  They wanted the common people to look up to them and address them as teacher and master, as father, as if they were the source of truth.  Jesus, however, taught that the source of all life and truth is God, and that no-one should seek a title that belongs only to God.  God as Father will not share his titles with mere mortals.

In Matthew 23:7-10 Jesus explains why it is wrong to call men “father”:

  7 And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi. 8 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. 9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. 10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ. (Matthew 23 7-10 KJV 1900)

Therefore, for any religious leader to ignore Jesus’ words is to suggest they want their followers to look to them as the source of life and truth, instead of looking to God.  There is but one Father, who is in heaven.  There is but one Master, Christ.

All Christians who have been born again are adopted into God’s family, and all are equal.  They all have one heavenly Father, whom they are privileged to address as “Abba” (Romans 8:15), and they all have one Master, Christ Jesus, who bought them at a price (Acts20:28).

Within the context of Jesus' words, it is clear he is not referring to a physical, earthly, biological father, but to religious leaders who seek to elevate themselves above Christ who is their Master.


Are there disagreements between Reformed Theology and the teachings of A.W. Tozer? Are there any known conflicts between the teachings of A.W. Tozer and those of Reformed Theology?

My concern is sparked by his relation to the Christian "mystics", which sound potentially heretical. This question arose from finding numerous books related to the Holy Spirit written by Tozer when browsing Amazon.

Note this question is NOT "Is A.W. Tozer a Christian?".

Although not a Tozer ‘fan’ per se, I would not label him as a mystic, although he does falsely appear that way a bit, in that he highly emphasised the Spirit and was also a poetic sort. A.W. Tozer is an interesting person to compare with the reformers. On one hand he was more like them than most who claim to be like them and on the other hand he certainly felt in some areas he had a better understanding then them, but so do many in one way or another.

What makes Tozer most different from reformers is simply that he did not believe in the cessation of those highly miraculous gifts of the Spirit, but rather urged that we should pray for them now.  This does not make him a mystic it simply makes him a modern day charismatic.  Among charismatics I would say Dr. Martin Lloyd-Jones and Tozer are among the best. From my memory of some of his audio sermons that fed me spiritually quite a bit as a young believer, I would say Tozer had a very clear sense of the cross and an in-depth knowledge of early church father theology as well as reformed theology and generally preached accordingly. I would say that Tozer was closer to Calvinistic in his view of the atonement rather than anything else.

Where I would criticize Tozer to some degree is where he personally found it most humorous.  I remember him making fun of one of his critics by calling him a ‘spiritual perfectionists’ and as funny as it sounds I think this label fits to some degree. If you ever read Tozer and notice to what degree he expected a Christian to be sanctified and holy, inwardly truly following Christ, it is almost as though the Apostle Peter would have come way to short for him! Paul may have just made it! This is really what Tozer was about he was a unique charismatic holiness preacher. He seemed to be a man of prayer and very serious in his reverence for God’s word. He would have not approved of Christian rock music for example (something I like a lot). In some ways my criticism seems like a compliment and it is, but at some point it just starts to rub the wrong way and I do not think Tozer books on their own create a balanced diet. Tozer is possibly a good supplement to a balanced diet. One needs to put him in perspective during a generation that was influenced by the charismatic movement and holiness movements.

In the end, I still have to say I like Tozer as a person, he was so very genuine and honest. I would not place him among the ‘bad guys’ or ‘mystics’ but let him sit over with ‘the good guys’. I would not recommend his books on the Spirit (if you are Charismatic I would read Lloyd-Jones). I would highly recommend his book on the ‘Attributes of God’ as possibly the best on the subject. This is merely my opinion on having read several Tozer books and much more reformed books.

Maybe the best compliment I can give Tozer in how he was received by those most reformed is, by quoting J.I. Packer, who seems to like Tozer even more than I do:

  “Through all of Tozer’s books and articles there shines a passion for God that puts our shallowness to shame. Reading him is like drinking at an oasis in the desert.” (J.I. Packer)


Was Cain a descendant of the serpent, through Eve? In an article by Ben Heath titled Sex Affair in the Garden of Eden, he claims that the sin for which God expelled Adam and Eve from the garden was sexual intercourse with the serpent.

Heath goes on to say that Cain and his descendants are literally physical descendants of the serpent, who he interprets as Satan. The doctrine seems to hold a central place in his other teachings.

Consider 2 Corinthians 11:2-3:

  For I feel a divine jealousy for you, since I betrothed you to one husband, to present you as a pure virgin to Christ. 3 But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ.

Heath claims that when Paul uses words translated to deceived and beguiled in this and other verses, a better translation is the word seduced, in the sense of tempting to sexual immorality.

In addition, this website offers an apology of the doctrine, which it calls the serpent seed doctrine, saying:

  You see, those who denounce the Serpent seed teaching as heresy not only deny the teachings of our Lord Jesus Christ, but they also miss out on the first prophecy of the entire Bible.

According to mainstream Evangelical Protestant denominations like the Southern Baptist Convention, the United Methodist Church, the Assemblies of God, the Presbyterian Church, and the Episcopalian Church, is the serpent seed doctrine a valid interpretation of Genesis 3 and subsequent verses in the New Testament about Eve and the serpent?

I don't have enough information to speak about the Southern Baptist Convention, where each congregation is a separate entity, and some could accept what the OP cites as the "serpent seed" doctrine, nor can I address the issues of the Assemblies of God.

I do have some familiarity with the beliefs of the Methodist and Presbyterian Churches, and am a practicing Episcopalian, and I can say that these groups most emphatically reject this doctrine. Particularly as it directly contradicts Genesis 4:1, which specifically states

  "Adam knew Eve and she conceived and bore Cain."

And given this verse, the serpent seed doctrine is going to be rejected by the Eastern Orthodox, and Roman Catholic churches, too.


Is there a significance of the "Christian name"? The Unitarian Universalist church is living proof that there is some sort of naming component in the child dedication/baptism ceremony in traditional Christian churches. How is the Christian name assigned? By the priest or the child's family? What is the difference between the "Christian name" and the "baptismal name" and the "confirmation name"? And what is the significance of each name?

In some cultures, notably the UK but also others, the term 'Christian name' simply means (or used to mean) someone's first name. So David Cameron's Christian name is 'David'. The logic behind this is that babies were typically 'named' at their baptism, which typically occurred shortly after their birth. Going back thirty or forty years you would find official forms that referred to a person's 'Christian name' and 'surname', and the first name might be referred to like that even if the person had not actually been baptised. Nowadays the term has dropped out of favour as it becomes less and less likely that a person will be even nominally Christian. Someone who was baptized as an infant can still reasonably call their first name their 'Christian name'.

At Confirmation, Catholics and Anglicans may select a new 'Christian' name to go with their baptismal names, and adult converts are encouraged to do so. This is sometimes described as a 'Christian name'. It is not normally part of someone's official or legal name unless they explicitly change it.


Who was the 12th Apostle - Matthias or Paul? First off, a distinction between disciple and apostle - a disciple is a student, and the 12 disciples were Jesus' students.  An Apostle is one who was "sent out." Eleven of Jesus' disciples were sent out to preach the good news. Judas, of course, had committed suicide before being sent out.

The Disciples, recognizing the "need" for a 12th, cast lots and chose Matthias in Acts 1.  On the choice of Matthais, I've heard things similar to this:

  Also, we wonder if Luke was pointing out that casting lots, used all through the Old Testament, was a poor substitute for the guidance of the Holy Spirit, who became the source of wisdom and discernment for such decisions after Pentecost.

As Lloyd Ogilive says:

  What happened to Matthias? We are not told. He never is mentioned again. Did he defect or drop out? Probably not. I believe we would have been told if that happened, and Luke’s thoroughness would have included that data. What we do know is that the position was filled by Paul. There is no need to be down on Matthias. He responded to a call. He was ready with his knowledge of Christ and an open mind and heart to receive His Spirit. He was there at Pentecost—that’s all that matters. Whether his ministry afterward received the recognition of history is unimportant. The same is true for us. Once we have experienced what Christ said and did for us in His death and Resurrection and then returned to continue to do, titles, or history’s recognition, or even the accolades of people today become unimportant.

The question is thus this - Did the Holy Spirit actually intend for Paul to be the real 12th Apostle, or was Matthias not just an accidental, rash act on the part of the Eleven?

Or, put more poetically (as well suggested by Flimzy, when it comes to apostleship, should we put our trust in God or men?)

There is one problem with the argument - "Matthias was never sent by Christ to do anything, therefore he cannot be an apostle". The problem is that Barnabus (of whom we have no evidence that he was sent by Christ) is also called an "apostle" in Acts 14:14.

We know that Judas was an apostle and his "office" (Acts 1:20) was taken over by Matthias. And it is not as though this was done through some rash thinking on the part of the Peter, for he, along with the other apostles had in fact already received the Holy Spirit before Pentecost (John 20:22).

Moreover, with the inclusion of Matthias, the phrase "Peter and the eleven" is used in Acts 2:14, which strongly suggests that Matthias was indeed the 12th apostle.


What is the origin of the term Prima Scriptura and the background against which it was defined? Prima Scriptura is the doctrine that

  canonized scripture is "first" or "above all" other sources of divine revelation. Implicitly, this view acknowledges that, besides canonical scripture, there are other guides for what a believer should believe and how he should live, such as the created order, traditions, charismatic gifts, mystical insight, angelic visitations, conscience, common sense, the views of experts, the spirit of the times or something else. Prima scriptura suggests that ways of knowing or understanding God and his will that do not originate from canonized scripture are perhaps helpful in interpreting that scripture, but testable by the canon and correctable by it, if they seem to contradict the scriptures. (Wikipedia)

It is said to be in contrast to Sola Scriptura, but it has the same meaning as all the explanations of Sola Scriptura I've ever heard (see this question for a brief summary), so I'm not sure why it's portrayed as being in contrast. It also seems to be used both by Methodists and Catholics.

What is the origin of Prima Scriptura? Who first developed it: Methodists, Catholics, or someone else? Was it defined in contrast to Sola Scriptura, and if so, how was Sola Scriptura understood by those who defined Prima Scriptura? Or was it coined as a clearer alternative to Sola Scriptura in the hope it would be misunderstood less (like Definite Atonement instead of Limited Atonement), and only afterwards came to be thought of as different to Sola Scriptura?

The term Trinity is not in the Bible but the doctrine is clearly supported by the New Testament.  Similarly, the wikipedia article shows how the concept of "the primacy of scripture" has been in use implicitly (although implemented differently) by different Christian groups throughout history.  Before Reformation the concept was used in contrast with the concept of Tradition, and after Reformation it was used in contrast with both Sola Scriptura and Tradition

What is the origin of the term?

In both Trinity and Prima Scriptura, I argue that: usage came first, then the term came later, then different groups use the term differently to name what needs to be communicated.  But putting on my amateur etymologist hat and armed with Google Books search I was able to find a 1997 paper Sola Scriptura, Inerrantist Fundamentalism, and the Wesleyan Quadrilateral: Is "No Creed But the Bible" A Workable Solution? by Woodrow W. Whidden from Andrews University.  In his paper in which he used the term "Prima Scriptura" he credited Albert Outler in the footnote as follows:

  14As to the background for my use of the term prima scriptura, I am consciously indebted to the introductory comments of Albert Outler in his classic introductory anthology of Wesley's writings, John Wesley (New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1964), 28.

The book "John Wesley" edited by Albert C. Outler is in Google Books and the following is the relevant quote from page 28 (part of the chapter "Introduction"):

  The great Protestant watchwords of sola fide and sola Scriptura were also fundamentals in Wesley's doctrine of authority.  But early and late, he interpreted solus to mean "primarily" rather than "solely" or "exclusively."101  Faith is the primary reality in Christian experience but not its totality.  It is, Wesley urged, a means -- a necessary means -- to a still higher end: "Faith ... is only the handmaid of love. ..."102 The goal of the Christian life is holiness, "the fullness of faith."  This means the consecration of the whole self to God and to the neighbor in love.  This, in turn, involves a process of corporate discipline and effort, guided by the motives of "devotion," by which he meant the delivering up of one's whole life to God.  The outcome to be expected in this endeavor is the renewal of the imago Dei, mutilated by sin and ruined by waywardness.  But our aspiration to holiness is as truly a function of faith as justification itself is.  The faith that justifies bears its fruits in the faith that works by love.

And in fact it was Albert C. Outler also who coined the term "Wesleyan Quadrilateral" according to wikipedia referencing the same book.

Since Albert Outler himself didn't use the term Prima Scriptura it looks like the term was coined by Woodrow W. Whidden in his 1997 paper, borrowing the concept from Albert Outler's book John Wesley published in 1964.  This is the earliest reference I can find on Google.

I also found a 2017 Master's thesis The Hermeneutical Frameworks of Fernando Canale and Fritz Guy: Sola and Prima Scriptura and the Science-Theology Relationship in which not only Woodrow Whidden's paper was cited, but he was in the advising committee.  Looks like a typical case of a professor transmitting his key ideas to his "academic descendants".

Thesis abstract:

  This thesis presents research on the hermeneutical frameworks of sola and prima Scriptura and how they affect the science-theology relationship. It specifically focuses on the writings of Fernando Canale and Fritz Guy who hold opposing views on both sola and prima Scriptura and the relationship between science and theology. Canale argues for a sola Scriptura framework with science governed by theology, whereas Guy argues for a prima Scriptura framework with science and theology working independently of each other.

  This thesis begins with a brief historical overview of the issues and then moves into describing Canale’s and Guy’s views. It ends with an evaluation of their positions and some suggestions for a more comprehensive framework that can incorporate valuable aspects of each scholar’s proposals.

  The research concludes that what is needed is a hermeneutical framework that combines sola and prima Scriptura principles (as indicated but not fully developed by Canale). Currently, Canale’s and Guy’s frameworks, viewed separately, do not take into account important aspects of the science-theology relationship. A combination sola-prima framework is helpful for clarifying the relations between science and theology and for guiding the influence of other sources/resources on theology.

The background against which it was defined

As rje's answer and my own answer for another question indicated, one way to solve the restriction of sola scriptura and to delineate the evolution of the usage is to identify 4 different ways that Scripture is used in conjunction with Tradition.  This is what Dr. Keith Mathison did, building on Heiko Oberman's work as described in the wikipedia article on Dr. Mathison's book The Shape of Sola Scriptura, by identifying 4 different interactions named Tradition 0, Tradition I, Tradition II, and Tradition III.  Therefore, in my view, Prima Scriptura as a term is simply another way to name what is conceptually similar to Tradition I.

But of course the devil is in the detail, and as philologists and exegetes struggle with this task on a daily basis, the meaning of the term has a life of its own, to be potentially chronicled and defined and published as a journal article if the community so desires.  In addition to the above 2 papers about Prima Scriptura there is a 2011 book titled Prima Scriptura: An Introduction to New Testament Interpretation which is also available through Scribd by N. Clayton Croy author and tutor at the University of Oxford.

The book itself did not offer a history of the term, but simply uses it as a book title and as a concept to differentiate against sola scriptura in the author's own usage.  The book is a textbook of exegetical method that of course includes heavy discussion of the shade of sola scriptura it is advocating.  Published in 2011, it naturally includes Dr. Mathison's book in its bibliography as you can see in the quote below as "Mathison, 2001".  The book also references Whidden's paper above as "Whidden, 1997" and uses it to support reason #2 in the second quote below, but doesn't credit Whidden for the term prima scriptura, maybe by 2011 the book author thought it was already common currency.

There are only 2 places within the book where he mentions prima scriptura, (I did text search in Scribd):

Quote when he summarizes chapter 3 "Evaluating and Contemporizing the Text" under A Preview of the Method in This Book:

  Evaluating and contemporizing the text (hermeneutics). The third stage is
  distinguished from exegesis not so much by differentiating “what the text meant”
  from “what the text means” (cf. Stendahl, 1962: 419–20), but rather by taking the
  textual meaning and simply asking, What does the contemporary Christian
  community do with this? How do we receive the meaning of the text? Can we
  receive it? What is its significance for us in the twenty-first century? Needless to
  say, this hermeneutical stage is one of the most crucial in the interpretive process.
  Sharp disagreements between Christians nowadays, especially on divisive matters
  of ethics and public policy, often hinge on how one adjudicates the results of the
  exegetical phase. At this point, other criteria are brought in, what one might call
  “hermeneutical adjuncts.” For although the Bible is an authoritative source for the
  faith and practice of Christians, its authority does not operate in a vacuum. If it did
  do so, we could adopt the Reformation motto sola scriptura in the most absolute
  sense and largely do away with this third step. But in fact, nearly all Christian
  traditions employ one or more additional criteria such as tradition, reason, and
  experience. A more realistic motto, then, would be prima scriptura: Scripture as the primary authority, but in conjunction with and mediated by other authorities. Both
  revelation and reason are gifts from God; indeed, they are interrelated gifts, since
  one cannot grasp a written, historical revelation without the use of reason. From
  this stage a contemporary interpretation of the text emerges.

Quote toward beginning of chapter 3, within pages 130-34:

  Sola Scriptura or Prima Scriptura?

  The title of this book, Prima Scriptura, is a fairly transparent play on the
  Reformation slogan sola scriptura (Scripture alone). The slogan implies that the
  Reformers made a sharp distinction between Scripture and tradition and then drew
  solely upon the former. But several historians and theologians point out that in
  practice sola scriptura did not exclude other sources. David Steinmetz clarifies:
  “While it is true that the reformers were at first optimistic that it would be possible
  to teach and preach a theology that was wholly biblical, they rarely intended to
  exclude theological sources that were non-biblical. Sola scriptura generally meant
  prima scriptura, Scripture as the final source and norm by which all theological
  sources and arguments were to be judged, not Scripture as the sole source of
  theological wisdom” (2002: 129; see also Whidden, 1997: 216–23; Mathison, 2001; Charles, 2002: 143n58; Olson, 2003: 53; and M. M. Thompson, 2008: 13). Sola
  scriptura was meant to exclude “only what is contrary to Scripture, not everything
  except what is explicitly written in Scripture” (Hinlicky, 1999: 395).

  So the thoroughgoing, exclusivist notion of sola scriptura was not actually what
  the mainstream Reformers practiced. Luther and Calvin frequently appealed to the
  church fathers and the creeds, for example, as authentic expressions of the
  apostolic faith (McGrath, 1999: 153). It is true that some of the more radical
  proponents of the Reformation rejected tradition outright, but their movement
  quickly degenerated into ideological chaos precisely because their theology, lacking
  the moorings that tradition could provide, spun off in a multitude of directions.
  Alister McGrath distinguishes these “radical Reformers” from the “magisterial
  Reformers,” noting that the latter “had a very positive understanding of tradition”
  (McGrath, 1999: 154). They were “painfully aware of the threat of individualism,
  and attempted to avoid this threat by stressing the church’s traditional
  interpretation of Scripture where this traditional interpretation was regarded as
  correct” (McGrath, 1999: 155). Tradition was rejected only when it contradicted or
  went far beyond Scripture.

  An exclusive appeal to Scripture was untenable for a number of reasons. First,
  tradition (in the sense of the theology and practices of the church in the first few
  centuries) was directly involved in the creation and delimitation of Scripture. [... skipped ...]

  Second, Scripture does not function in a vacuum (Hays, 1996: 209). As we saw
  in chapter 1, everyone reads from a certain location, through certain lenses, and in
  the light of a particular tradition and life experiences. Though objectivity is always
  the goal, we cannot transport ourselves back to the first century and read the New
  Testament as if the intervening millennia had not occurred. We are steeped in
  tradition, whether consciously or unconsciously. This is true even for those who
  say they have “no creed but the Bible.” All Christians, whether they belong to the
  Catholic tradition going back two millennia or to a denomination of much more
  recent vintage, have “historic and contemporary figures who have exercised
  powerful, formative influences over their interpretation of Scripture” (Whidden, 1997: 213). These mentors are part of the reason for the theological pluralism that
  exists in Christianity. Indeed, even “among groups that strenuously profess
  fidelity to the Bible as their sole authority,” there is a “bewildering array of
  doctrinal options” (Whidden, 1997: 214). An exclusivist notion of sola scriptura
  does not produce theological uniformity precisely because the influence of
  tradition is everywhere at work. The point is forcefully made by Whidden: “No
  Bible-believer is strictly sola Scriptura in any arena of theological discourse—and
  this includes the most stridently fundamentalistic persons in the most
  conservative traditions of independent, Bible-oriented American churches” (1997:
  220). Tradition shapes us all.

  Finally, the scholarly dimension of the Christian tradition is what makes it
  possible for us to read the Scriptures today. [... skipped ...]

  It therefore is incoherent to reject the role of ecclesiastical tradition in the
  interpretation of Scripture (Hinlicky, 1999: 395). One could even argue that the
  long-term effect of an exclusivist version of sola scriptura was harmful because it
  removed biblical interpretation from its natural context: the church. The final result
  of divorcing Scripture from its ecclesial context was “the complete secularization
  of Scripture itself” (Hinlicky, 1999: 395). This is especially apparent in public
  universities in the United States, but its effects are also seen in some private and
  even church-related institutions. [... skipped ...]

  Some scholars seem prepared to write the obituary of sola scriptura. It would be
  preferable, however, to rehabilitate and clarify the principle along the lines of prima
  scriptura. Even some who would retain the traditional language recognize the need
  to correct distorted versions of the concept. Lutheran theologian Carl Braaten, for
  example, argues for the continuing affirmation of sola scriptura, but “not as a
  battle-cry against the church and its tradition. Rather, ‘sola scriptura’ means that
  everything essential in the original apostolic preaching which founded the church
  is written down in Scripture, and that no later tradition can negate or supersede it” (1981: 194, with original emphasis). Later traditions sometimes reinforce the
  gospel and sometimes undermine the gospel. The criterion that the church must
  use to judge these traditions is Scripture.

  If we adopt prima scriptura in lieu of sola scriptura, we should not think that
  Scripture has thereby been demoted or devalued. Scripture is still the primary
  authority for Christian faith and life. If ever there is a conflict between Scripture and
  tradition, Scripture must have priority (Charles, 2002: 143). As one theologian put
  it, “In matters of theological development and debate, tradition should get a vote
  but never a veto” (Olson, 2003: 54). The classical statement of this quality of
  Scripture is norma normans non normata (apparently all classical statements must
  be in Latin): Scripture is “the norm or standard that regulates [all else, but is itself]
  not regulated [by any].” Scripture is what constitutes Christian identity and shapes
  Christian faith and practice. It has pride of place in Christian moral and theological
  deliberation.

  It is an encouraging sign that Christians of different stripes are beginning to
  recognize the need for both Scripture and tradition, while usually understanding the
  latter as serving the former.  [... skipped...]

  So the role of Scripture and its relationship to tradition are better captured by the
  phrase prima scriptura than sola scriptura. Scripture is the primary authority, but its
  authority does not operate alone. I also remind the reader of a point made earlier:
  Scripture’s authority is derived rather than inherent. It is derived from God, who
  alone is the supreme authority over life and creation. “As important as canonical
  Scripture is in the Church, it is not its ultimate authority. That capacity belongs to
  the Word, the person of Jesus Christ, who is more than a text” (Work, 2002: 258).
  So Scripture derives its authority from God, and among the means commonly
  employed by Christians to discern the will and ways of God, Scripture is primary.
  But the word “primary” implies other means of discernment with a secondary or
  supportive role. So what are they?

  Quadrilaterals, Trapezoids, and Triangles

  [... this is the part where the book discussed AT LENGTH the Wesleyan Quadrilateral... ]


Can we be united in prayer? Are there any of the large groups of believers in Jesus that would object to praying with other denominations, non-denominations or sections of Christianity?

Example: Catholicism, Protestant, etc?

The header question is actually a different subject from the body of the question. The body of the question is about 'large groups' and their possible 'objections'.
The head question is a fundamental issue :

Can we be united in prayer ?

I am answering this basic question. I am assuming that the 'we' is persons who confess the name of Jesus Christ among their fellow human beings and that the 'we' is persons who 'depart from iniquity'

That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. [Romans 10:9, KJV]
Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity. [2 Timothy 2:19, KJV]

Jesus Christ, himself, said :

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

It is Jesus Christ who builds the church, in any generation. Humanity on earth does not and cannot do this. How could it be possible ? Shall the Church exist, anywhere and at any time, in the absence of he whose name it bears ?
What on earth would be the point ? And what kind of 'church' would it be ?
So, no, we cannot be united 'in prayer'. It is not prayer that unites. It is the living presence of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who unites. That is to say (in the physical absence of him who rose from the dead and ascended into heaven) the Living presence, in the Person of the Holy Spirit, who (alone) conveys the real presence and the Living Person of the Son of God.
Peter said to Jesus of Nazareth :

Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. [Matthew 16:16, KJV]

and Jesus said to Peter :

... thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church [Matthew 16:18, KJV]

This relationship is what unites Jesus and Peter : a relationship in which each one knows (and names) the other one. They know one another, in a spiritual way. And this unites them in a spiritual union. Which union is as strong and as permanent as rock.
The 'rock' is a relationship with Jesus Christ, a relationship not of flesh and blood (see verse 17) but of Spirit and by faith and by the revelation that Jesus Christ of Nazareth is, as Peter confesses at that very moment of time :

... the Son of the living God.

This is what unites. Not humans gathering together, themselves, and deciding to pray together. That will be a united gathering of disparate human beings. And, especially, it will be a gathering of persons who are deliberately setting aside some very real issues and some very pertinent matters of righteousness.
In other words, a casting away of integrity in order to be 'united'.
But that is not how Jesus Christ builds the church that is really his and the church that truly is worthy of the description : The Body of Christ.
Because what genuinely unites true believers in Christ, one with another, is the real and living and present - Person of Jesus Christ, himself.
And it is He, himself, who gathers them together.


Why did the children of Israel run out of food in the wilderness, causing them to complain? In the wilderness, the children of Israel on more than one occasion ran out of food and/or water to the point that they complained about it to Moses.

They probably had no way to get food or water on their, depending on the land.  They were completely dependent on God to provide for them.

When they ran out, they would complain to Moses.

Why did it go that far?  Why didn't God provide for them, or why didn't Moses ask God to provide for them, before they ran out?

God and Moses seem to be upset that they are complaining about the food.  Should they have asked for food/water?  Or should they have continued to wait without any food/water for it to be provided?

Presumably, Moses drank the same water they did, so he would also be in the same situation of having nothing to drink.

There are several passages that suggest an answer; in particular Deuteronomy 8:2–3:

  2 And you shall remember the whole way that the Lord your God has led you these forty years in the wilderness, that he might humble you, testing you to know what was in your heart, whether you would keep his commandments or not. 3 And he humbled you and let you hunger and fed you with manna, which you did not know, nor did your fathers know, that he might make you know that man does not live by bread alone, but man lives by every word that comes from the mouth of the Lord. [ESV]

This passage reveals two things: first, that God's overall purpose for the wandering in the wilderness was to test the Israelites and humble them, for their own good (cf. Deut. 8:16).  And second, that through hunger specifically they would learn that "man lives by every word that comes from the mouth of the Lord." (cf. Matt. 4:4)

This makes sense given the attitude of the Israelites recorded in Exodus 17 as they have just been fed with manna and now want water.  Despite being led out of Egypt and through the Red Sea, they doubted God:

  And he called the name of the place Massah and Meribah, because of the quarreling of the people of Israel, and because they tested the Lord by saying, “Is the Lord among us or not?” (Ex. 17:7, ESV)

So, based on these passages, we could conclude that God allowed Israel to undergo these trials to promote their spiritual development and teach them to rely on God.  They repeatedly failed these tests: instead of trusting God's provision, the Israelites complained and doubted God.


How many witnesses are there who physically saw and/or touched the golden plates from which the Book of Mormon was reportedly translated? I understand the Book of Mormon has a list of witnesses.  However, I have heard that these witnesses may not have actually ever seen the gold plates that contained the original manuscripts for the Book of Mormon, but were witnesses in a different sort of way.

So, just how many people physically saw and/or touched the gold plates from which Joseph Smith is said to have translated the Book of Mormon?

Note: Martin Harris, one of the witnesses, later explicitly denied seeing the plates with his physical eyes.
See article..

The testimonies of these "lists of witnesses" is included in the introduction to the Book of Mormon, in which they explain what they saw and experienced.

From the testimony of the Three Witnesses:

  And we also testify that we have seen the engravings which are upon
  the plates; and they have been shown unto us by the power of God, and
  not of man. And we declare with words of soberness, that an angel of
  God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes,
  that we beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon; and we
  know that it is by the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus
  Christ, that we beheld and bear record that these things are true. And
  it is marvelous in our eyes. Nevertheless, the voice of the Lord
  commanded us that we should bear record of it; wherefore, to be
  obedient unto the commandments of God, we bear testimony of these
  things.

And from the testimony of the Eight Witnesses:

  Joseph Smith, Jun., the translator of this work, has shown unto us the
  plates of which hath been spoken, which have the appearance of gold;
  and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did
  handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of
  which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship.
  And this we bear record with words of soberness, that the said Smith
  has shown unto us, for we have seen and hefted, and know of a surety
  that the said Smith has got the plates of which we have spoken.

Both groups include a solemn testimony that they did actually see the golden plates that the record was inscribed upon.  The first group (three men) was shown them by an angel, but they do not claim to have touched them, while the second (eight men) was shown them by Joseph Smith, and was allowed to handle them.  So those eight and three, plus Joseph Smith himself, makes a total of twelve who physically witnessed the original record.

Because of the strength of these testimonies, it was common, back when the men in question were still alive, to make claims that they had denied or recanted their testimonies in some way, as a way to attempt to undermine the authenticity of the Book of Mormon.  The linked Wikipedia article contains a few such claims attributed to Martin Harris, one of the Three Witnesses, but it also gives his claim that "No man heard me in any way deny the truth of the Book of Mormon [or] the administration of the angel that showed me the plates."

A discussion of this apparent discrepancy can be found at the FAIR wiki, which assumes that Harris did actually say what was attributed to him.  A simpler explanation, of course, would be deliberate incorrect attribution. Fact checking is hard enough even today with the Internet at our fingertips; in the mid 19th century, such a task was exponentially more difficult, which made it much easier for dishonest people to employ flat-out falsehoods in many different causes.

In any case, the last word on the subject should be Martin Harris's literal last words.  On his deathbed, he once again reaffirmed that:

  The Book of Mormon is no fake. I know what I know. I have seen what I
  have seen and I have heard what I have heard. I have seen the gold
  plates from which the Book of Mormon is written. An angel appeared to
  me and others and testified to the truthfulness of the record, and had
  I been willing to have perjured myself and sworn falsely to the
  testimony I now bear I could have been a rich man, but I could not
  have testified other than I have done and am now doing for these
  things are true.

The other two of the Three Witnesses both gave similar reaffirmations on their own deathbeds.


A set of traits common for all protestant believers What is a set of traits that are common for all protestants (excluding those who call themselves Christians, but don't pray to Christ), yet setting them apart from other Christians (the Catholic, the Eastern Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox)?

This is similar to this response I made to the question, 'Do Evangelical leaders (televangelists, megachurch pastors, etc…) not consider themselves Protestants?'. But, essentially the primary doctrine that set Protestantism apart, and was a primary cause of the reformation to begin with is Justification By Faith: that salvation comes entirely from Christ's atoning work on the cross.

Without turning this into the wikipedia article on protestantism, there are a number of other doctrines that have come to dominate the thinking of most modern protestants including, the priesthood of all believers (which is why protestants call their clerics pastors instead of priests), and the five solas, including sola scriptura ("by Scripture alone").


Which Psalms did Wesley leave out in Sunday Service of the Methodists? and why? John Wesley published a modified Book of Common Prayer under the name Sunday Service of the Methodists, in which he says in the preface:

I believe there is no Liturgy in the world, either in ancient or modern language, which breathes more of a solid, scriptural, rational piety, than the Common Prayer of the Church of England. And though the main of it was compiled considerably more than two hundred years ago, yet is the language of it not only pure, but strong and elegant, in the highest degree.
Little alteration is made in the following edition of it, except in the under-mentioned instances:

Most of the holy-days (so called) are omitted, as at present answering no valuable end.

The service of the LORD's DAY, the length of which has been often complained of, is considerably shortened.

Some sentences in the offices of Baptism, and for the Burial of the Dead, are omitted; and,

4. Many Psalms left out, and many parts of the others, as being highly improper for the mouths of a Christian Congregation.
JOHN WESLEY.
Bristol, Sept. 9, 1784.

Which Psalms did he leave out, and which parts of others for being "highly improper," and why are/were they considered "highly improper for the mouths of a Christian Congregation"? Are these same Psalms and parts of Psalms still avoided by Methodists today in their congregational worship?

Imprecatory Psalms

John Wesley escised 34 Psalms altogether, and removed portions of another 58.

To imprecate means to invoke evil upon, or curse. Imprecatory psalms, also called the cursing psalms, are those psalms that contain prayers for God's judgment on the psalmist's enemies.

Examples:

  "Let death take my enemies by surprise; let them go down alive to the
  grave." Psalm 55:15

  "O God, break the teeth in their mouths."  Psalm 58:6

  "May they be blotted out of the book of life and not be listed with
  the righteous."  Psalm 69:28

  "May his children be fatherless and his wife a widow." Psalm
  109:9

  "How blessed will be the one who seizes your infants and dashes them
  against the rocks."  Psalm 137:9

The complete list:

Psalms 5:10; 6:10; 7:6; 9:19-20; 10:2,15; 17:13; 28:4; 31:17-18; 35:1,4-8,19,24-26; 40:14-15; 41:10; 54:5; 55:9,15; 56:7; 58:6-10; 59:5,11-14; 63:9-10; 68:1-2; 69:22-28; 70:2-3; 71:13; 79:6,10-12; 83:9-18; 94:1-4; 97:7; 104:35; 109:6-19,29; 119:84; 129:5-7; 137:7-9; 139:19-22; 140:8-11; 141:10; 143:12.

John Wesley considered it highly improper for Christians to sing or pray for others to be cursed or to be met with any kind of affliction, partly because it contradicted Christ's teachings to love your enemies.

To this day there are still many Christians that feel these Psalms conflict with Christian ethics, but there are also those that still choose to sing the Psalms of imprecation. Those that do, argue that the Psalms are inspired Scripture and that all inspired Scripture is inspired by God and profitable. They also argue that all the Psalms of imprecation point to our ultimate enemy, Satan, and that one day they will partake in God’s victory over His enemies.


Is there a special significance attached to a Latin Mass? Every so often, one of my Catholic acquaintances will mention that they will be, or have just attended a Latin Mass.  I know pretty much nothing about a Latin Mass, other than (obviously) that it's performed in Latin.

Is there a spiritual, ritual, historical, or special significance about a Latin Mass?  Or is it more something that people attend simply because they enjoy the uniqueness of it, like it's something that's just "neat" or "interesting" to attend rather than something with a deeper meaning?

If there is a deeper meaning, of course, I'd like to know what it is.

"Mass in Latin" vs. "Latin Mass"

It's important to understand that the term Latin Mass is almost always a colloquial and somewhat imprecise reference to the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite.

This is the form of the liturgy that, in its essentials, was used by almost all Western Christians from at least the early Middle Ages until the Reformation, was codified for the great majority of Roman-Rite Catholics in 1570, and has remained fairly fixed up to and including the latest edition, which was published in 1962.

The older form of the mass is relatively rare and hard to find these days (though it is enjoying a gradual resurgence) -- most Catholics instead use the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite, which was first published in 1970 as the initial answer to the Second Vatican Council's call for a reform and revision of the Church's worship.

The official texts of both forms are promulgated in Latin by the Vatican, but the older form must, by law, be celebrated in Latin (with a tiny bit of Greek), whereas the newer form may be celebrated in Latin, but rarely is.

Hence the informal term "Latin Mass", which really signifies the ritual more than the language, but does so by way of the most immediately-obvious distinguishing feature.

Why anyone cares

The two forms are strikingly different. They share the same overall structure and have many elements in common, but also many significant areas of divergence in structural detail, ceremonial rules, vesture, and the particular texts and music prescribed for various parts of the mass and various days of the year. Typically, though not in every single case, these divergences culminate in a strikingly different atmosphere of worship at church on Sunday morning.

This is not perhaps the place to discuss whether one form is better than the other, but it's plain that some people energetically prefer one form to the other.


What does the Bible say about ecology? What does the Bible say about ecology, or how we should relate to nature?

In advance: Neiter the Old nor the New Testament contains consistent statement regarding ecology.

Nevertheless, three interesting passages:*

The dominium terrae in Gen 1:28

The passage in it's context (Gen 1:26-1:28):

  And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
  27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
  28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.29And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
  30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
  31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

The ideal world in the first chapter can be called a "Utopie of Nonviolence"1
The seeds, fruits and green plants are sufficient as a food base and neither a human nor an animal has to kill another creature for food procurement (cf. Gen 1:29). A harmony between human, animal and plant world is possible.

Only in the eary modern period (Francis Bacon, Rene Descartes), the "subdue it" (Vers 28) was interpreted as exploitation of the nature. Note that today's interpretations don't think of it as an invation for violent trampling but rather as a passage, that highlights the aspect of colonization and livestock2: The humans shall make the earth habitable by their work and tame the forces of nature.

The confrontation with the reality in Gen 9:1-7

  And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.
  2 And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered.
  3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.
  4 But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.
  5 And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man' brother will I require the life of man.
  6 Whoso sheddeth man' blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.
  7 And you, be ye fruitful, and multiply; bring forth abundantly in the earth, and multiply therein.

God's blessing is still given. But here breaks through: The actual human experience of imperfection and the possibility of human error – the paradisical state of nonviolence is reduced.

Erich Zenger calls the force by which the man is equipped necessary to keep things in order. In order to prevent that the living space becomes a place of death, the man got the capability to protect threatened lives.3

In conclusion we can say …

… that the humans, as the preservers of life, received the order to deal with that in a responsibile way.

The sufferings of this present world (Rom 8:18-23)

  For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.
  19 For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.
  20 For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,
  21 Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.
  22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.
  23 And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.

In these passage a new eschatological dimension is added.

The eary Christian community was familiar with the thought of the World's imperfection. Paulus names that the suffering which is by the people and in the creation. By the fall of men every human-being and the whole creation is subjected to futility. But by Jesus Christ the humans and the world around is enlightend.

Ofcourse eschatology isn't interesting for ecology at all. But nevertheless this passage is to be noted from an ecological view of point because it states the close relatedness between humans and the creation.

*: Simone Birkle, Zukunft wagen, Ökologisch handeln (2002)
1: Erich Zenger, Du liebst alles was ist (1989), 142
2: Norbert Lohfink, Macht die Erde euch untertan (1974), 138
3: Erich Zenger, Gottes Bogen in den Wolken, 118


Why did the disciples have to be silent about the supernatural event of the Transfiguration? (Catholic perspective) The story of the Transfiguration in Matthew 17:1-9 concludes with these words:

  As they were coming down from the mountain, Jesus charged them, "Do
  not tell the vision to anyone  until the Son of Man has been raised
  from the dead." (Matthew 17:9)

Why did Jesus forbid his disciples to talk about the supernatural event they all experienced? Why weren't they allowed to talk about it before the resurrection? What is the significance of the silence until the resurrection?

St. Thomas Aquinas, in his Commentary on the Gospel of St. Matthew, writes on v. 17:9:

  Afterwards, the command to delay the revelation of this vision is related; hence, he says, And as they came down from the mountain, Jesus charged them, saying: Tell the vision to no man. But what is the reason for this? There are three reasons. The first is that, as Jerome says, it was going to be that Christ would suffer and that the Jews would be scandalized; “Unto the Jews indeed a stumblingblock” (I Cor. 1, 23): wherefore, if they had heard this, they might have been more scandalized: hence, they would have reckoned Christ’s suffering to have been unimportant. Remigius expounds this verse as follows: it was because if He had made this vision known, He would never have accomplished what He desired to happen, and so, He would have thwarted His desire; for it is stated in Luke 22, 15: “With desire I have desired to eat this pasch with you.” Hilary expounds this passage as follows: He commanded silence because it was not fitting that spiritual glory be made known except through spiritual visions; but they were not yet spiritual; “As yet the Spirit was not given” (Jn. 7, 39).

The Catholic Haydock Commentary says:

  Ver. 9. Tell the vision to no man, till the miracle of his resurrection has prepared the minds of men for the belief of this. Expose not an event so wonderful to the rash censure of the envious Pharisees, who calumniate and misrepresent my most evident miracles. Jesus Christ also gave a lesson here to his followers to observe the closest secrecy in all spiritual graces and favors.


What exactly did Yahshua/Jesus do during his 40 day fast after being baptized? It is stated in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke that during the 40 day period Christ was tempted by The Devil/Satan but not many other details are given. In the book of Isaiah (Isaiah 58:1-12), the Prophet Isaiah highlights what a pleasing and acceptable fast is according to The Creator. In order for his fast to be acceptable unto The Creator, what was Yahshua/Jesus doing during that period? Are there any stories, commentaries, articles, and/or resources that highlight or discuss what was going on during his 40 days? Thank you.

The Bible tells us that after Jesus was baptised in the Jordan (Matthew 3:13) he was led by the Holy Spirit into the wilderness and fasted for forty days and nights.  The purpose of this period of total fasting was to prepare him for the ministry that would change the world.
Satan offered Jesus alternatives to God’s plan, compromises that would satisfy His natural desires, and attacks upon His very identity as the Son of God (Matthew 4:3). Jesus used the Word of God, not His own strength, to defeat those temptations and remain victorious over sin.  Jesus demonstrated that fasting can strengthen us spiritually when we use it to draw closer to God.
After Jesus’ fast, the devil left Him and “angels came and attended him” (Matthew 4:11). Luke 4:14 concludes the account of this testing time by saying, “Jesus returned to Galilee in the power of the Spirit.”  He had conquered temptation and was ready to embrace the purpose for which the Father had sent Him.  He would not rely on His humanity to perform miracles, deliver the oppressed, or defeat death.  Fasting was a way to declare mastery over His human nature so that He would live every moment directed by the “power of the Spirit” (Luke 10:21).
Moses and Elijah took part in miraculous, forty-day absolute fasts. When Moses met God on the mountaintop to receive the tablets of stone, he ate no bread and drank no water (Deuteronomy 9:9). And, after Elijah defeated the prophets of Baal on Mt. Carmel, infuriating Queen Jezebel, Elijah fled for his life and spent forty days of fasting in the wilderness (1 Kings 19).
This type of fasting is quite different to the fasting described in Isaiah chapter 58.  The nation of Israel was rebellious and had sinned against the LORD.  Although they cried out for justice their hypocritical actions and injustice made a mockery of their fasting and apparent humility.  That is why Isaiah had to rebuke them.  Not so with Jesus, who was without sin and was the Son of God.
You ask what Jesus did during these 40 days in the wilderness.  He fasted, he prayed and he resisted temptation.  The following commentary (by Matthew Henry) regarding the events in the wilderness is helpful. It is a lengthy and detailed commentary, which concludes:

Christ was thus succoured after the temptation, [1.] For his encouragement to go on in his undertaking, that he might see the powers of heaven siding with him, when he saw the powers of hell set against him. [2.] For our encouragement to trust in him; for as he knew, by experience, what it was to suffer, being tempted, and how hard that was, so he knew what it was to be succoured, being tempted, and how comfortable that was; and therefore we may expect, not only that he will sympathize with his tempted people, but that he will come in with seasonable relief to them; as our great Melchizedec, who met Abraham when he returned from the battle, and as the angels here ministered to him.

Lastly, Christ, having been thus signalized and made great in the invisible world by the voice of the Father, the descent of the Spirit, his victory over devils, and his dominion over angels, was doubtless qualified to appear in the visible world as the Mediator between God and man; for consider how great this man was!

Source: https://www.christianity.com/bible/commentary.php?com=mh&b=40&c=4


What is the difference between "called" and "chosen"? Matthew 22:14:

  For many are called, but few are chosen. [ESV]

What is the difference between “called” and “chosen” here?  Though I believe in predestination, I struggle to see how this verse deals here with irresistible grace.

The general consensus from the commentaries I've seen on this, as well as the teachings of my Church, taking all of Matthew 22 in context is that the invitation for salvation is open to all, yet few actually choose to come to salvation.

How this fits in with irresistible grace, or pre-destination is not clear to me. Our denomination does not believe in irresistible grace. (We hold some Calvinist views, but not all).  It's possible that the reason I'm only finding commentaries that support the idea of resistible grace is because my sources are biased, but the commentaries I've found seem to be united on this verse, with the possible exception of the Barnes' Notes on the Bible. (Second commentary quoted below).

  Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (Emphasis mine)

  Many are called, etc. - This verse is wanting in one of Colbert's
  MSS., marked 33 in Griesbach. See the note on Matthew 20:16. Many are
  called by the preaching of the Gospel into the outward communion of
  the Church of Christ; but few, comparatively, are chosen to dwell with
  God in glory, because they do not come to the master of the feast for
  a marriage garment - for that holiness without which none can see the
  Lord. This is an allusion to the Roman custom of raising their
  militia; all were mustered, but only those were chosen to serve, who
  were found proper. See the note on Matthew 20:16. Reader! examine thy
  soul, and make sure work for eternity!

  Barnes' Notes on the Bible

  Many are called, but few are chosen - Our Saviour often uses this
  expression. It was probably proverbial. The Jews had been called, but
  few of them had been chosen to life. The great mass of the nation was
  wicked, and they showed by their lives that they were not chosen to
  salvation. The Gentiles also were invited to be saved, Isaiah 45:22.
  Nation after nation has been called; but few, few have yet showed that
  they were real Christians, the elect of God. It is also true that many
  who are in the church may prove to be without the wedding garment, and
  show at last that they were not the chosen of God. This remark in the
  14th verse is the inference from the "whole parable," and not of the
  part about the man without the wedding garment. It does not mean,
  therefore, that the great mass in the church are simply called and not
  chosen, or are hypocrites; but the great mass in "the human family,"
  in the time of Christ, who had been "called," had rejected the mercy
  of God.

  Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary

  22:1-14 The provision made for perishing souls in the gospel, is
  represented by a royal feast made by a king, with eastern liberality,
  on the marriage of his son. Our merciful God has not only provided
  food, but a royal feast, for the perishing souls of his rebellious
  creatures. There is enough and to spare, of every thing that can add
  to our present comfort and everlasting happiness, in the salvation of
  his Son Jesus Christ. The guests first invited were the Jews. When the
  prophets of the Old Testament prevailed not, nor John the Baptist, nor
  Christ himself, who told them the kingdom of God was at hand, the
  apostles and ministers of the gospel were sent, after Christ's
  resurrection, to tell them it was come, and to persuade them to accept
  the offer. The reason why sinners come not to Christ and salvation by
  him, is, not because they cannot, but because they will not.

  [snip]

  The FourFold Gospel

  For many are called, but few chosen. Many guests are invited, but few
  are accepted; because some neglect and despise the invitation,
  andothers cast dishonor upon the one who invites, by the self-willed
  andirreverent way in which they accept his invitation. In this parable
  thefirst parties invited represent the Jews; the city of murderers
  isJerusalem; the persons called from the highways are the Gentiles;
  theentrance of the king is the coming of the Lord to final judgment;
  andthe man without the wedding-garment is anyone who will be found in
  thechurch without a suitable character. The character of Christ is
  ourwedding-garment, and all the regenerated must wear it ( John 3:5
  Ephesians 4:24 ; Galatians 3:27 ; Colossians 3:10 ; Revelation 19:8
  Revelation 19:9 ).


When was the last time, if ever, the secular world acknowledged a demonic possession? The gospels seem to be peppered with demonic possessions that are nonchalantly noted by the author. Is there evidence that the ruling secular powers of the day acknowledged these as demonic possessions as well? Has a government acknowledged them afterwards?

Demonism and general belief in a spirit world are all interrelated. Surprisingly in Africa there is still an arguable case to say the secular government still admits the existence of potential demonic possession as it still has laws against witchcraft. In most other places 'secular' recognition of a spirit realm ended around the 1700s. For example in 1745 witchcraft was no longer a crime in England.

Every culture has a history of belief in ghosts and spirits. The outward phenomenon or behavior that would be potentially described by historical Christianity as 'demonic possession' is described by similar terms according to the form of religion the culture has. The question is therefore when did society make legal systems that no longer admitted the existence of a spiritual realm that could interact with the the physical realm. In other words when did governments truly become 'secular' in the modern atheistical, agnostic scientific sense?

The quickest and most accurate way to answer this difficult question is to see when laws against witchcraft ended. In most countries laws against witchcraft have ceased. However as Africa has had arguably the most extensive history of spiritism and apparent demonic possession, it seems that even today the laws are not fully repealed.

The legal system enacted in 1957 with respect to witchcraft is still in force and states:

  The act criminalises a number of actions. The following two crimes, the most serious under the act, attract a fine of up to R400,000 or imprisonment for up to 10 years.[3]
  Imputing to any other person the causing, by supernatural means, of any disease in or injury or damage to any person or thing, or naming or indicating any other person as a wizard

This does not directly answer the question in terms of demonism but I think you can see that when secular governments still believe that spirits can cause disease then they will usually believe is some sort of demonism also. Every culture has since this time people recorded history generally believed in a spirit world and some form of what we would call possession.  Even in the modern secular era many civil servants and lawmakers will,personally have religious private beliefs. So the lack of belief is in some ways imaginary for the sake of separation between church and state. Usually only genuine atheists confidently deny an existence of a spirit world.


Can a diocesan priest become a missionary? Can a diocesan priest become a missionary? Can he demand it? Does he need consent from his bishop (I know he can become a religious without consent)?.

Can a diocesan priest become a missionary?
The short answer is yes.
A diocesan priest actually does not need the bishop’s permission to enter a Religious Order as it is a higher state of perfection. A bishop may however, and reasonably so, delay letting him go, in order to test his vocation.
On the contrary a diocesan priest may become a missionary, but must obtain permission from his own diocesan bishop. This sort of permission is also required when other diocesan bishops request help from other dioceses for priests to help in their diocese. Even Rome needs the permission of the local bishop when it requests priests to work at the Vatican. I have never heard of any bishop refusing the request of a particular priest to help out at the Vatican which is usually a 5 year term and is often renewed once, if the priest in question is comfortable with his work.
Here in the Archdiocese of Vancouver, I have known a number of priests to work in the missions, sometimes at their own request and at other times at the request of Rome.
Fr. Stanley Francis Rother of the Archdiocese of Oklahoma City is an example of a diocesan priest who not only worked as a missionary in Guatemala but is now well on his way to be beatified as a martyr.

Stanley Francis Rother(March 27, 1935 – July 28, 1981) was an American Roman Catholic priest from Oklahoma who was murdered in Guatemala. Ordained as a priest for the Archdiocese of Oklahoma City in 1963, he held several parish assignments there until 1968 when he was assigned as a missionary priest to Guatemala where he was murdered in 1981 in his Guatemalan mission rectory.
Guatemalan pastor
So that Rother could be in closer touch with his congregation, he set out to work to learn Spanish and the Tz’utujil language which was an unwritten and indigenous language that the missionary Ramón Carlín once recorded. He served in Santiago Atitlán from 1968 until his death. He supported a radio station located on the mission property, which transmitted daily lessons in language and mathematics. In 1973 he noted with pride in a letter: "I am now preaching in Tz'utuhil." During that time, in addition to his pastoral duties, he translated the New Testament into Tz'utujil and began the regular celebration of the Mass in Tz'utujil. In the late 1960s, Rother founded in Panabaj a small hospital, dubbed as the "Hospitalito"; Father Carlín served as a collaborator in this project.
By 1975, Rother had become the de facto leader of the Oklahoma-sponsored mission effort in Guatemala as other religious and lay supporters rotated out of the program. He was a highly recognizable figure in the community, owing to his light complexion as well as his habit of smoking tobacco in a pipe. Since there was not a Tz'utujil name equivalent to "Stanley," the people of Rother's mission affectionately called him "Padre Apla's," translated as "Father Francis," a nod to his middle name.


Praying with non-Christians as evangelism? From Christianity Today, 07/02/02:

  Twelve days after the September 11 attacks, David Benke followed Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, and Hindu clerics to the podium of a Yankee Stadium event to honor the missing and the dead. Benke asked attendees to join hands and pray with him "on this field of dreams turned into God's house of prayer." He prayed "in the precious name of Jesus" and sat down.
  That prayer has led to Benke's suspension from the clergy roster of the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod (LCMS). It has also exposed deep divisions in the church.

Arguments I remember for this event at the time ranged from "we were overcome by events" to viewing it as an effective form of evangelism. Pr. Benke intentionally entered an arena with non-Christians and then asked them to close their eyes as he said an authentically Christian prayer.

Q: Do any events in the Bible, early church fathers, tent revivalists, or Billy Graham ,  have essentially the same features? Specifically, initiating a prayer with someone who is (not yet, not necessarily intending to become) a Christian? Perhaps the evangelism of the Apostles in either Jewish temples or public square? Did Billy Graham ever ask for public prayer at the beginning of a Crusade, before an altar call?

Prayer has never been and never will be an act only reserved for Christians. It takes its form in almost every religious belief system on the earth.

While prayer is not unique to a religion or restricted, the problems arise with people misunderstanding prayers on behalf of others. (ie. Pr. Benke) In his specific religious sect he was praying not just for himself but for all the people in the stadium therefore speaking in the name of Christ for people who possibly did not believe.

Theologically and scripturally there is nothing strictly against this specific act, but as we are aware religious sects interpret scripture and meaning differently.

In this case you have people who are most likely looking at prayer as an earned rite for the believers.

For more specifics I would hope someone of that particular sect of christianity may help. But there is not canonical scriptural evidence backing the aforementioned actions in plain understanding of the text.


Is Salvation a State Function? Does the salvation of a believer depend on the present state of her faith or are the different life transitions taken into account?

Suppose a believer leads a life of faith in Christ. At the end of her life she falls away for some reason, say persecution. Is she saved?

There are verses that seem to support both.

Only the end matters –

  Matt 24:13   But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be
  saved.

The life matters –

  Hebrews 6:10 For God is not unrighteous to forget your work and labour
  of love, which ye have shewed toward his name, in that ye have
  ministered to the saints, and do minister.

So is salvation a state function or a path function?

Your question presupposed that salvation is acted out by the believer. Coming at it from a reformed/calvanistic point of view here is out I would answer it.

Salvation starts  by God in eternity past through his election. Here is how Wayne Grudem describe election in is book Systematic Theology chapter 32. (Sorry could not get a direct link to the page)

Then if God calls those who will be save, then the believer receive the gift of salvation. In God eye, the believer is already in heaven. Then salvation is an act of God, and also God is the one responsible for the calling and the keeping on the path of faith.

Here is how Romans present this thought:

  For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified. (Romans 8.29-30) ESV

God chooses, the christian respond in faith and God keeps the believer during all the life of the believer. Salvation is then a state matter.

Although the end matter as well, a Christian is called to perseverance in his faith. If he was to fall he would be sinning, not loosing is salvation. Because God choosed the believer before any good work or any faith on his part. The sinning does not rob salvation, but his joy , his peace and different gifts.

In 1 Jonh one of the test of a true christian is his walk in the light.

  If we say we have fellowship with him while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth. But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin. (1 john 1.6-7) ESV

In a way salvation is a path, but not unto salvation but unto holiness.


is Adam no longer the son of God? Luke 3:38 (KJV) states (emphasis added):

  which was the son of Enos, which was the son of seth, whcih was the son of Adam, which was the son of God" .

The verse uses the past tense. Does that indicate that Adam is no longer a son of God?

When Jesus was speaking to the Sadducees in Mark 12:26 (KJV), emphasis added, He said:

  God spake unto him, saying, I am the God of Abraham....

Which is present tense and shows Abraham is still alive. Since the bible is using Adam "was" the son of God, does this mean Adam is no longer a son of God?

This is an artifact of the translation you are using. There is no verb in the Greek text of the verse. Consider this version:

  the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalalel, the son of Cainan,  the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God. [Luke 3:37-38 NKJV]

Notice that the NKJV (like many other translations)  places the son in italics. This indicates that the words were added to make to text read more like English. Some other translations go further and add something like 'who was'.

The Greek version is more terse, reading something like "... Enosh of Seth of Adam of God"

The passage in no way suggests that Adam is no longer of God.


Why is it not enough for Jesus to be human to be the perfect sacrifice, why must he be God? Regardless of whether Jesus is God or not, why do some stridently hold to, 'Jesus can only cover sin by His own death as God'?
Until Jesus' perfect sacrifice/offering, the law required an animal to remedy the debt of sin each person/Israelite had before God. An animal was killed, blood was spilt to cover the sinner's guilt so they be 'cleansed' and made right with God again.

Your lamb must be an unblemished year-old male, and you may take it from the sheep or the goats. Ex 12:5

Paul explains a lot about Christ's sacrifice being sufficient to cover all sin - by him faithful believers are made free from the debt of sin - past present and future. Naturally, all mankind is covered by this sacrifice except the few that may fall outside for some reason or their own choosing.

For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified Heb 10:14

But now He has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. Heb 9:26

we have confidence to enter the holy place by the blood of Jesus, 20 by a new and living way which He inaugurated for us through the veil, that is, through His flesh 10:19-20

He learned obedience from the things which He suffered. 9 And having been perfected, He became the source of eternal salvation for all those who obey Him Heb 5:8

Jesus is holy and without sin why would this human only sacrifice not be enough?
EDIT:
I thought it would be assumed that Jesus is holy and sinless because his Father is God (as scripture provides). Thus he has no inherited sin, and is not a just a 'good' man. Clearly any man apart from Jesus would not suffice.

God gave detailed instructions on how and when animal sacrifices were to be offered to cover sin.  The underlying principle is that blood has to be shed for the forgiveness of sins:

Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins (Hebrews 9:22).

This was to continue until Christ came to offer the ultimate, perfect sacrifice, which made animal sacrifice no longer necessary.

But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins, because it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins (Hebrews 10:3–4).

Yes, Jesus is holy and without sin, so why would a perfect human sacrifice be insufficient if he was only a man?
One human life, even the life of a perfect man, couldn’t possibly cover the sins of the multitudes who ever existed.  Neither could one finite human life atone for sin against an infinite God.  The only viable sacrifice must be an infinite one, which means only God, manifest in flesh, could atone for the sins of the elect.  Only God, an infinite Being, could pay the penalty owed to Himself.  This is why God became manifest in flesh to dwell among men (John 1:14).  No other sacrifice would suffice.
God the Son sacrificed Himself to God the Father and thereby fulfilled all the requirements of the Law.  Unlike the temporary sacrifices, Jesus’ once-for-all-time sacrifice was followed by His resurrection.  He laid down His life and took it up again, thereby providing eternal life for all who would ever believe in Him and accept His sacrifice for their sins.  He did this out of love for the Father and for all those the Father has given Him (John 6:37–40).
Sin entered the world through Adam, and Adam’s sinful nature has been transferred to every baby born into the world (Romans 5:12)—except for Jesus. Because Jesus did not have a human father, He did not inherit a sin nature. He possessed the divine nature from His Heavenly Father.
Jesus, the Word, became flesh in order to dwell among us (John 1:14). Jesus came (from heaven) to give his life as a ransom for many (Matthew 20:28; Mark 10:45).
Jesus was the final, perfect sacrifice that satisfied forever God’s wrath against sin (Hebrews 10:14). His divine nature made Him fit for the work of Redeemer; His human body allowed Him to shed the blood necessary to redeem.  No human being with a sin nature could pay such a debt.  No one else could meet the requirements to become the sacrifice for the sins of those whom God had chosen, the elect  (Matthew 26:28; 1 John 2:2).  If Jesus were merely a good man as some claim, then He had a sin nature and was not perfect.  In that case, His death and resurrection would have no power to save anyone.
Because Jesus was God manifest in flesh, He could pay the debt we owed to God.


How did the Willow Creek church come to allow and encourage women in leadership? The Willow Creek Community Church has long had a policy of both men and women in leadership roles - which was (and is still) counter to what many other churches teach. From their site:

  We believe churches should be led by men and women with God-given leadership gifts. This includes the concepts of empowerment, servant leadership, strategic focus, and intentionality (Nehemiah 1–2; Romans 12:8; Acts 6:2–5).

I'd really like to know how they came to this view and especially their Biblical basis for this belief (beyond the verses quoted above which, while they are about leadership, do not mention women specifically).

Willow Creek has held an egalitarian stance about women in leadership since their inception. Yesterday Lynne Hybels reposted the chapter in the book mentioned above on her blog. The link is below. I attended Willow for two years in the 1990s and benefitted greatly from the women on the teaching team and the stellar leadership of the mixed-gender elder board. It was a defining time in my personal and spiritual growth.

I would like to point out that while it is true that some churches do not hold this perspective, I believe that is mostly Southern Baptists, fundamentalists, and of course the Catholic church.

There are MANY denominations with a long legacy of fully including women in church leadership: Free Methodist, Wesleyan, Pentecostal, Foursquare, Nazarene, Society of Friends, and of course many mainline churches. Christian organizations like Compassion, World Vision, Intervarsity, as well.

A founding elder at Willow, Dr. Gilbert Bilezekian, wrote the classic book on this subject: Beyond Sex Roles: What the Bible Says about a Woman's Place in Church and Family. I highly recommend it as a good introductory text on egalitarianism. Hope that is helpful.

http://lynnehybels.blogspot.com/2013/11/evangelicals-and-gender-equality.html