Why Jesus died on the cross and not by any other mean? I know why Jesus died for us? But why the cross? Why not by any other mean?

For sins, the Law normally prescribed stoning a transgressor to death.

  Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman [among you who serve foreign gods], which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.
  Deut 17:5

  And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the LORD, shall be put to death.
  Lev 24:16

So, why the tree?

  And if a man have committed a sin worthy of death, and he be to be put to death, and thou hang him on a tree:
  Deut 21:22

The phrase "worthy of death" is found elsewhere in Scripture.

  At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; but at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death.
  Deut 17:6

  But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter:
  Deut 22:26

  No, nor yet Herod: for I sent you to him; and, lo, nothing worthy of death is done unto him [Christ Jesus].
  Luke 23:15

Since "worthy of death" is found elsewhere as the reason for death, what is the point about hanging the "dead" body on the tree?  "Dead" is in quotes because typically they would have stoned the sinner to death and hung the body on the tree.  It became, however, the idea that one was first punished to the point of death, as good as dead, like Isaac climbing the mountain with Abraham, and then dying on the tree/cross itself.  In either event, one was dead on the tree/cross.

The point is the tree/cross was the ultimate symbol of full and complete rejection by both man and God.

  There is one reason here given which has reference to Christ. He that is hanged is accursed of God, that is, it is the highest degree of disgrace and reproach that can be done to a man, and proclaims him under the curse of God as much as any external punishment can. Those that see him thus hang between heaven and earth will conclude him abandoned of both and unworthy of either;
  -Matthew Henry-

Burial in the Jewish culture and indeed burial or cremation throughout the world is the acknowledgement of man's creator by nearly all of ashes to ashes, dust to dust.  But if one is hung on the tree after death where your burial was postponed, then it shows the rejection of God of not returning to your Maker and the agreement by men of that state.  They would have buried Him at night, further symbolizing the vast darkness of separation from friends, family, and God.


Do Calvinists believe that it is possible to be saved without believing the doctrine of predestination? From a Calvinist theological view, is it possible for God to predestine that XYZ be saved, but for XYZ to reject the doctrine of predestination throughout his or her life?

Without any question any person who never believes in predestination can still be considered a saved and regenerate predestined Christian by a Calvinist.  All that is required to be considered 'predestined' in the eyes of men, is that a person believes in Christ for the forgiveness of their sins.  Anyone who truly 'confesses Christ' in this sense will be saved, regardless of how clear, or confused they may be on the surrounding doctrines of their salvation.

  If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved. 11 As Scripture says, “Anyone who believes in him will never be put to shame.” 12 For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile —the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, 13 for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” (NIV Romans 10:9-13)

Knowing how Calvinists leaders have thought through history, I can assure you if someone added a requirement like 'faith in the doctrine of predestination' to be needed in addition to 'faith in Christ' they would have denounced it. It is a 'person' who died for our sin that we must put our faith in, not a textbook statement phrased by church leaders.


Biblical support for why something is a sin? I have heard, seen, and been in religious debates in the past where one of the participants eventually falls back on a line something akin to "it's a sin because the Bible says not to do it" or "it's a sin because God said so". Understandably, this sounds and feels like a cop-out to many people, especially people who have not acknowledged the sovereignty and authority of God. It is not surprising that they want to know the reasoning, to understand the why and not just the what of an imposition.

I am far from an expert on the Bible, having only read it in its entirety the once. However, it is my instinctual estimation that most, if not all, of the sins (and requirements) that the Bible enumerates are given at least some degree of justification, either inline with the admonition or elsewhere in scripture.

I know, however, that this is just an instinct, which is why I'm bringing the topic up here, in hopes of finding either support or reasoned contradiction of the theory. This leaves a few questions:

Can you cite any examples of commands, admonitions, prohibitions, etc. in the Bible where there seems to be no explicit justification?
Is there any scripture that talks about whether God explains His commands or not? For (slightly comical) example, does God ever say "I will not give you commands you do not understand" or conversely "I'm the boss, deal with it"?
If there is a command without scriptural justification, what is the right course of action in defending the command? (I realize this last question is more about apologetics, but I am curious about this, too)

It's like when your kid asks questions.

Kid: "Why do you work?"
Me: "To earn money."
Kid: "Why do you want to earn money?"
Me: "So that I can support you and mommy."
Kid: "Why do you want to support me and mommy?"
Me: "Because I love you and mommy."
Kid: "Why do you love me and mommy?"
Me: "I love you and mommy because Jesus told me to love you and mommy."
Kid: "Why did Jesus tell you to do that?"
Me: "Because he loved us first."
Kid: "Why does he love you?"
Me: "Ummm....."

Ultimately, every question we ask about anything in scripture will ultimately come down to an "Ummm..." at the end of it.  In other words, at some point, we have to accept that some things are true and good, simply because they're true and good, and are based in the character of who God is.  Why he is who he is will always be a matter of "Ummm...".

The issue comes, of course, when a person's own instincts about right and wrong don't agree with the scriptural, Biblical concept of right and wrong.  Of course, this comes down to the person's understanding of who God is.  Our own depravity is our handicap when it comes to determining right from wrong, and also our handicap when it comes to having the humility under God to admit that we might be wrong.  Combine that with our educated society, and you have a culture of people who won't believe anything they can't understand.

Mark Driscoll puts it this way: Our education has surpassed our intelligence.

The problem with your first question, is that any explicit justification that would be given anyways would ultimately come back to the fact that God gave us the command, which would ultimately be based in his character.  Love is defined by God (because God is love), not by us, and the great problem in dealing with explanations of sin, is that these conversations usually have two people who start with different presuppositions.  Given that, we can't properly defend a command, without both parties understanding the nature of God.  Without God as anchor, we're all lost at sea.

So what's the answer, if there's a command without scriptural justification?  Don't try to defend the command, try to change the presupposition.

The only way to change presuppositions is to point people towards Jesus.  Those who don't believe in Jesus have nothing to gain from "cleaning up their act".  They're still fallen, and without Christ.  The best they could hope for is a nice, sanitized, relatively nonviolent life that would still end with their soul in hell.  Pointing the unbeliever to Jesus, and explaining his unconditional love, and his death on the cross is the best way to bring about a realization of what is right and what is wrong in that person's life.  Just as a child doesn't want to disappoint a good father, one who is in Christ will ultimately grow to grieve disappointing his heavenly father.

In short:

Every commandment ultimately, when put up to a depraved mind demanding answers about why, will ultimately fail when presented with any justification regarding any sin.  It's only when we stop demanding justifications that we begin to accept the command as right.  Some people stop when the justification is "so that it doesn't offend someone else", and some people stop when the justification is "so that it doesn't offend God."
I don't know of any scripture that talks about whether God explains his commands or not.  Some he does, some he doesn't.  Sometimes, the best explanation is "For I am your God."
The right course of action is to not defend the command, but to present Christ, and allow the introduction of the Holy Spirit into a person's life defend the command for you.  Those who do not have the Holy Spirit don't need to obey a command, they need Christ.  If the person's refusal to acknowledge the command as right is preventing the person from admitting their own need for Christ, switch to a different command, then use the fact that it is broken to point them again to Christ.  On the other hand, for those who are believers, you should hopefully be able to point towards the Bible, and hopefully that will be enough.

On a practical note, I once knew a guy who believed that some of the Bible was true, and some of it wasn't.  I told him to get a magic marker, find 2 Timothy 3:16, and mark it out, then proceed through reading the Bible, marking out all the parts he disagreed with.

He gave up pretty quickly.  The Bible is meant to be accepted as a whole, and not in part.


For since the creation... men are without excuse 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in
  unrighteousness;
  19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
  20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even
  his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

I had this discussion in small group about how everyone undoubtedly knows who God is through creation (verse 20). But when "they are without excuse" does that imply that those who have not heard the gospel, but know that there is God, through creation, can be saved?

The questions arose amongst the group on whether or not people in this situation can be saved without hearing the gospel? Or are they presented with the gospel in a different way (not ways of spreading the word)? Or is there something wrong/missing?

A friend of mine did quote a passage from the book "Radical" by David Platt that when we ask the question about how people in 3rd world countries can be saved if they were never given the chance to hear about the gospel. Platt tells us that the problems lies within the question itself, that by asking it assumes that these 3rd world country people who have never heard of the gospel are innocent, when we are all sinful in nature.

But going back to my original question, referencing verse 20, are we all "without excuse" even if we have not heard about the gospel? Is there another way the gospel can be presented?

As I'm sure you know, if you continue to read on, you will eventually come to Romans 2:12, which reads: (KJV)

  For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law:
  and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;

and Romans 3:23

  For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

Assuming that this is true, and also that Christ was not a liar when He said

  I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father,
  but by me

and also assuming that Scripture is the inspired, inerrant, infallible Word of God, we must assume that people who have not come to Christ, and know nothing about Old Testament law, much less salvation through Christ are lost.  The only way to reach them is by getting the Gospel to them, and having them understand, repent, and turn to Christ for salvation.

The general thrust of your question has been answered here and here as well.


What is the "Jews' language" spoken of in Nehemiah 13:24? “And their children spake half in the speech of Ashdod, and could not speak in the Jews’ language, but according to the language of each people.” (Nehemiah 13:24, KJV 1900)

What is this Jews' language mentioned in this verse? Is it the Biblical Hebrew language or the Mishnaic Hebrew language or the Aramaic language?
What is the speech of Ashdod?
What is half speaking? Did they mix both the languages and speak?

A modern translation of the passage in question, Neh 13:23-29, clears up your 3rd question: "half" referred to half of their children, who could only speak the language of their wives, the language spoken in Ashdod, Ammon, or Moab.

Here's verses 23-24, ESV translation:

  23 In those days also I saw the Jews who had married women of Ashdod, Ammon, and Moab. 24 And half of their children spoke the language of Ashdod, and they could not speak the language of Judah, but only the language of each people.

Your first two questions can be answered from the following excerpt from the New International Commentary of the Old Testament: The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah.  In short, "speech of Ashdod" refers to a language very similar to Aramaic spoken by the children, while "Jews' language" refers to the Hebrew language used in the temple.

  23-27 Another continual problem was the marriages to foreigners (cf. Ezra 9–10; Neh. 6:18;
  10:31 [Eng. 30]). On his arrival, Ezra had tackled this problem. Drastic measures were taken and the foreign wives and their children were sent away. But when Nehemiah came, the problem was still not resolved, as we learn from Neh. 6:18. As part of the covenant renewal described in Neh. 10 the marriages are again mentioned. The people solemnly undertook not to marry foreigners. In Neh. 13:1–3 the presence of Ammonites and Moabites in the cultic congregation is strictly forbidden. So after Nehemiah’s departure to the Persian court this problem must have developed again. If we take the view that everything was under control when Nehemiah left Jerusalem, we may deduce from the fact that the children spoke a foreign dialect that quite a time had elapsed between his departure and arrival. Soon after his arrival he discovered that children of foreign wives of Jews spoke Ashdodite, Ammonite, and Moabite. We know from inscriptions that Moabite was closely related to Hebrew.¹ We may presume that Ashdodite and Ammonite were languages very similar to Aramaic.² This is substantiated to a certain extent by the discovery of an ostracon in Nebi Yunus that is written in Aramaic.³

  Ashdodite: for Ashdodites cf. our discussion of 4:7:

  The Ashdodites were the western neighbors. Their territory consisted of the whole area where the Philistines once lived.³ To the north were the Samaritans with their leader Sanballat. From a bird’s-eye view Nehemiah gives the four neighboring provinces of the Persian empire. The plot against Nehemiah was contrived by all his neighbors, a grave situation indeed. Judah was totally isolated, cut off from the caravan routes from South Arabia and from the Mediterranean Sea to the west.

  The language of the Jews (Heb. yehûḏîṯ): this is quite probably Hebrew. If we take all this into consideration, we may presume that there was little linguistic difference between Hebrew and Moabite. The vernacular of the Jews was probably Aramaic, so that some difference between this and Ashdodite and Ammonite would exist. What was then precisely the difference? No doubt dialectal differences were involved as well as the different pronunciation of sounds.⁴ Nehemiah was able to distinguish between the language spoken by children of foreign women and by regular Jewish children. Because Hebrew was the language of the cult, people with such a different language could not be permitted to participate in Jewish religious life. For the religion it was therefore a new and dangerous development. Nehemiah tackled this problem vehemently. He brought in a court case (rîḇ) against his people before the Lord (cf. 5:7; 13:11, 17).

As to whether the Hebrew language was Biblical Hebrew (BH) or Mishanic Hebrew (MH), see quotes from the paper A Linguistic Introduction to the Origins and Characteristics of Early Misnaic Hebrew as it Relates to Biblical Hebrew):

  Mishnaic Hebrew (MH), also referred to as Rabbinic Hebrew (RH), characterizes Hebrew literature produced by rabbinic scholars from approximately 70
  C.E. to 400-500 C.E. (thus, the common phrase leshon hakhamim “the language
  of the sages”).  Within this timeframe, MH can be divided into the earlier language of the tannaim “repeaters” (ca. 70-250 C.E.) and the latter language of
  the amoraim “speakers” (ca. 3rd-5th century C.E.). Tannaitic Hebrew is found in
  the Mishna, Tosefta, Halakhic Midrashim, and Seder Olam Rabbah, while
  Amoraic Hebrew characterizes the Jerusalem Talmud, Haggadic Midrashim,
  and the Babylonian Talmud.

  ...

  The notion that MH existed orally for centuries prior to the Tannaitic
  period is generally accepted, but what was the process by which it became a literary language? Kutscher argues that a Hebrew-Aramaic mix developed after
  the exile and was used throughout Palestine until the 1st century B.C.E. when
  Rome invaded Judea. Instead of MH flowing directly out of BH as Segal
  argued, it is more likely that both BH and MH developed synchronically as
  diglossic dialects. If this was indeed the case, BH would have functioned as a
  “high” but dead literary language and MH the “low” vernacular.

  According to Kutscher, foreign attacks on the Jewish state, their political
  center, and their national identity, served as the impetus to BH phasing out and
  MH replacing it as the standard literary form. MH then became the new “high”
  language with Aramaic and Greek becoming the vulgar tongues.

  ...

  It appears highly probable that MH did exist as a living language in and around Palestine in the Second Temple Period, and in many ways
  developed out of and alongside BH. The features of MH highlighted in this
  study are characteristic of that development and additionally testify to significant Aramaic influence.

Since the process of MH development must barely have started during the time of Nehemiah, the high literary language used in the temple must have been Biblical Hebrew.


When God works 'all things' for the good, is anything excluded in the word 'all'? Assuming these verses in Romans 8 apply to the elect, is anything past, present, or future, in all of creation, circumstance, and world events excluded, or is it literally to be understood as an unlimited 'all'?

  And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified. (NIV Romans 8:28-30)

Note: I take it for granted that  'glorified' means entry into heaven.

I mean this in an extreme sense, like if this was an unlimited 'all' then for example,  'if' it was to my highest good today to win 1 Million dollars, I would, because everything is working out to my highest good -- without exception. On the other hand, maybe their is some theoretical limitation that I can't think of?

Note: Under recommendation from a moderator, here are some facts surrounding the case to contend with as well as a theological framework to use:

-1- All things (πάντα - panta)  can literally means all things such as here, where it is used twice:

  And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church. (NIV Ephesians 1:22)

Or it may be highly restricted by its context, again used twice here:

  What is more, I consider everything a loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them garbage, that I may gain Christ. (Philippians 3:8)

-2- Both unlimited and restricted views have been proposed by various theologians with some key related versus requiring synthesis being, among others, these:

Romans 8:31-39
1 Corinthians 3:21-22
Ephesians 1:11
Phillipians 4:13

-3- It is requested that a theological framework be used which acknowledges God if, not directly predestinating men individually (Calvinistic) at least knows in advance what they will decide (not necessarily Calvinistic) and that he knows all things and has all power, otherwise he would not be able to have a full view of everything and would not be able to proactively work much of anything out to anyone's good.  It must also be accepted that as he is omniscient, he must be able to plan all this working of good things from eternity.

The question still remains is this good work with all things, restricted or unbounded.

Clearly this verse is saying, ‘we know ----‘ because ‘God foreknew, predestined, etc.’ Therefore, from a basic standpoint there is no controversy in this verse at all. It is simply saying that since an infinite powerful God has planned before time to bless us then nothing in this world, or in time, can properly harm us as we are destined to be rich in glory.  Imagine an infinite God with bags of riches determined to hunt you down and give all of it to you. Would you not in some sense say then that those things in your life, good, or bad, are somehow working a final positive result in your eternal status?  Of course you would unless grossly misunderstanding the Bible along many fronts.

All one has to do is look at some sample Bible Commentaries like these, and one will immediately find that most see this involving God’s power, good will, grace and sovereign control over the affairs of this world.

For example from this link, just looking at the first two already set the stage:

Barnes' Notes on the Bible

  All things - All our afflictions and trials; all the persecutions and calamities to which we are exposed. Though they are numerous and long-continued yet they are among the means that are appointed for our welfare.

Clarke's Commentary on the Bible

  God's providence is working, his Spirit is working, and they are working Together with him. And whatever troubles, or afflictions, or persecutions may arise, God presses them into their service; and they make a part of the general working, and are caused to contribute to the general good of the person who now loves God

Now the question is not that God is doing this, but that how far can we say he is doing it, are there any exclusions or limits to this positive view of our own life which faith in God provides.

For here we can simply let the scripture interpret itself. First there is the implicit argument derived from this that whatever dangers we face, they can’t break this love we are are 'clutched by' as nothing can harm us but what God permits and at the sime time protects from destroying us:

  For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord. (NIV Romans 8:38)

Second there is the positive aspect that if God is working everything out to our benefit then in a sense we have been made possessor of everything. What is the rich man but our servant? What is the great teacher but our servant? What is the government, the moon, the starts but things put into place to serve us in our entrance ito great riches and glory?

So then, no more boasting about human leaders! All things are yours, whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or the present or the future —all are yours (NIV 1 Corinthians 3:21-22)

Third this wealth and comfort rest entirely in God as a Lord of the universe disposing all things in such a way as to execute a grand design, all planned before to the minutest detail before we were born.

  In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will (NIV Ephesians 1:11).

Whether Calvinist or Arminian there is no reason to reject the comfort of this truth, however we explain God’s election it is something in conformity with his will which as we are bound under his love by grace can mean nothing but our good. Technically an Arminian can still believe in eternal security from this standpoint as God could simply ensure all who would reject their own faith, die before that happens since God is working out the time of their death to their benefit.

Fouth without such a positive and hopeful view that faith in God alone can bring, how else would we ever begin to practice this verse?:

  Consider it pure joy, my brothers and sisters, whenever you face trials of many kinds (NIV 1 James 2:2)

So we see there are no doubts that all, means all without restriction.  The only reason why the question seemed doubtful is that I added a speculation about how winning a million dollars plays into this formula. However, this can neither be answered in the affirmative, or the negative, because we can’t pretend to fathom God’s sovereign will to such formulistic details. We can only have faith allowing his infinite wisdom to contain the answers on how he rules the world for our benefit and rejoice in that, knowing he is unstoppable, unmovable, unchangeable in his relentless will to bring us into everlasting glory ultimately unharmed by all the malice of the world, devil and sin.

How great is our God! Who can fathom it?


Do Mormons celebrate Christmas on/or around the 25th of December? Being a denomination which prides itself of the restored beliefs of the original church before false doctrine infiltrated the truth, do Mormons celebrate Christmas on/or around the 25th of December? If so on what scriptural basis do they have for that date?

Yes, Mormons generally celebrate the birth of Christ on the traditional day of Christmas, December 25. They never said there was scriptural basis for this date; the specific day of the year is not important to them.


What is the name of this fragment? Where can I find more? According to this article in The Blaze:

  The discovery of a small papyrus fragment containing words from the Book of Mark could end up being the earliest copy of a Christian gospel on record, according to experts. The biblical text, which came from Egypt, was reportedly placed on a sheet of papyrus before the document was recycled and used to create a mummy mask.

The article goes on to state several interesting "facts" about this Gospel of Mark fragment:

It may date to 90AD, which would make it even older than p52 - the oldest known fragment
It is currently unpublished, although it may be published in 2015.
Daniel Wallace has mentioned it

While I'm sure the historians will debate the scientific evidence, I have a much more simple question - what is it being called, and how will i be able to follow updates about its veracity?

And, if I wanted to see a copy of it, where would I go to find it?

You can start with the finder's website and this article from The Gospel Coalition.

As to where to find more, Craig Evans might know.


Why do some traditions recite the Lord's Prayer word for word? Why do some traditions recite the Lord's Prayer word for word?

I know a lot of Christians that do this, but I am having trouble understanding why. Is the Lord's prayer recited by anyone anywhere else in the Bible other than when Jesus first says it to the disciples?

There are two main reasons we recite the Lord's Prayer in worship:

It is a model prayer that Jesus gave us to teach us how to pray. We recite it to remind ourselves what genuine prayer looks like.
We pray it as a group to unify the congregation. When we recite the Lord's Prayer, we are all speaking to God with one voice.


Is it accurate to say Jehovah's Witnesses do not view Jesus as divine? I am fully aware that Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Jehovah and Jesus  are separate beings.

However  their translation of John 1:1 says that "the word (logos) was a god.

Do Jehovah's Witnesses allow that Jesus is indeed rightly called divine though not equal to Almighty God?

Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Jesus is divine, however many people have different ideas about what it means to be divine. As you've noted, JWs don't believe that Jesus is God, so what do they mean when they say that Jesus is divine?
From the context of scriptures which use the term, Jehovah's Witnesses interpret "divine" to mean:

"That which belongs to God or pertains to him, that which is godlike or heavenly."
–Insight, Vol. 1, p. 638

Therefore it is a quality of things which relate in some way to God or gods. In Greek, words which convey the idea of divinity even stem from the word "theos" meaning "god."
Colossians 2:9 is very clear about Jesus being divine/having divinity:

"because it is in him that all the fullness of the divine quality dwells bodily."

And this makes sense, because Jesus is described as a god in several places, such as John 1:18, and also because Jesus is from God, in that he is God's son and was sent by God (Galatians 4:4).
Here are some more examples of things which are divine:

God himself - Acts 17:29
Followers of Christ - 2 Peter 1:4
God's favor and power - Acts 6:8


Are Roman Catholic priests ever addressed as pastor? I found this Christianity Stack question which asks if Lutherans use pastor or priest: Lutheranism: "Pastor" or "Priest"?

However, my question is specifically regarding the Roman Catholic Church and whether priests are ever addressed as pastor. I have an assignment about the Protestant Reformation and the use of the title pastor, and had assumed that in the U.S. the term pastor is only used within Protestant denominations.

That could be a serious error on my part.  So, before I continue with my assignment, I seek clarification on the use of the title pastor, specifically with regard to its use within the Catholic Church.  Are Catholic priests ever addressed as pastor?

Typically, in the United States, the priest to whom the parish is entrusted is referred to as "the pastor". The Latin word is "parochus", which the Code of Canon Law translates as "parish priest". Other priests at the parish may be referred to more formally as parochial vicars or less so as assistant pastors.
In any case, though, the priest is not addressed as "Pastor" (in the US at least), but as "Father". The Office of Public Affairs of the US Congregation of Catholic Bishops carries on its website a glossary of Catholic terms, for the purpose of media coverage of Catholic events. This glossary includes the entry:

pastor. A priest in charge of a Catholic parish or congregation. He is responsible for administering the sacraments, instructing the congregation in the doctrine of the church, and providing other services to the people of the parish. Pastor is not ordinarily used as a title before the name of a Catholic priest: He is Father John Smith or Msgr. [i.e. Monsignor] John Smith or the Rev. John Smith, depending on your publication's style manual.
(source)


Where did the idiom "asking Jesus into your heart" come from? Where did the idea of "asking Jesus into your heart" come from? That figure of speech is not explicitly from the bible or probably even early church history. Can anyone find its first use and maybe why it's become so pervasive?

I'm looking for something like "Pastor John Smith used the saying once at a conference in 1850" or something like that. I can assume that people use the bible to come up with this phrase. I'm wondering more about the historical origin of its usage.

There is a famous painting called "The Light of the World," painted by William Hunt in 1853.  By his own statement, it comes from Revelation 3.20, and represents Jesus knocking at the heart of an obstaninate sinner, on a door with no handles, and which must be opened from the inside.

The image itself has been copied many times, and this is the version I always think of:

While the context of Revelation 3.20 ("Behold I stand at the Door and Knock") is not about salvation, it is often used in services as an altar call, thus identifying it with "opening your heart to Jesus." Here for example, is a church using that call exactly.


Why wouldn't a practicing Catholic joke about the Sacraments and what would happen if they did? Stephen Colbert is a high profile entertainer and an out-an-proud Roman Catholic.

As reported by the Daily Beast, prior to taking on his new role as host of the The Late Show, he sat down in an interview with Father Thomas Rosica, "media attaché to the Holy See Press Office and CEO of Salt and Light Television based in Toronto, Canada", and amongst other things:

  When Rosica asked him about making fun of the church, Colbert said he wouldn’t stop just because he has a bigger platform. “I mean I’ll still make jokes about the church, I’ll make jokes about anything… as long as you’re not being malicious, I don’t think you can leave anything off the table,” Colbert told Rosica, but he would stop short of making jokes about the sacraments. “It wouldn’t feel right for me, it wouldn’t feel good for me, it wouldn’t be obeying my own conscience, I suppose, to make jokes about the sacraments, or specifically the Eucharist… a nacho cheese Eucharist joke… not. I mean, the church is an important part of my life, I would be crazy if I didn’t make jokes about it.”

The first part of this question is not about probing Colbert's (or anyone else's) conscience, but to ask: are there any official teachings of the Catholic Church that would discourage Catholics from making jokes about the sacraments?

Colbert has been including in some of his more recent shows a segment called "Stephen Colbert's Midnight Confessions", which contains a series of running jokes using a mock confessional with Stephen in the role of penitent and the audience in the role of confessor. In show 149, which originally aired May 24th 2016, after Colbert's stint in the confessional, the segment featured a cartoonish representation of God putting himself behind a confessional screen and confessing his own sins to the audience.

Putting aside any issue of whether Colbert has acted against his own conscience in this matter (by making jokes about the sacrament of Penance), is there anything in this behaviour that would be transgressive of Church doctrine? If so, would it just be a matter to be dealt with privately between Colbert (or any other practicing Catholic in the same position) and his priest at his next (real) confession? Or given the public nature of such an offense, would his priest or bishop have grounds to bring discipline in a more proactive manner (eg, by withholding the sacrament of the Eucharist)?

There is no Church teaching that specifically regards making jokes about the Sacraments. In fact, the problem is not really in making jokes as such; the problem lies in speaking disrespectfully about the Sacraments.
The key to understanding the Church’s attitude is recalling that the Church considers the Sacraments gestures that confer grace—in other words, they are capable of making those who receive them holy:

The sacraments are efficacious signs of grace, instituted by Christ and entrusted to the Church, by which divine life [i.e., grace] is dispensed to us (Catechism of the Catholic Church [CCC] 1131).

Since they constitute the very action of God, working through the minister, any sign of disrespect toward them is also disrespectful to God. This is especially true of the Eucharist, for in the Eucharistic species, Jesus Christ himself is present really and substantially. (See CCC 1376). Hence, being disrespectful to the Eucharist is being directly disrespectful to God Himself.
The basis for this attitude can be found in the Scriptures. For example, God clearly commands us to respect Him in the Ten Commandments:

You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain (Ex. 20:70).
You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain, for the LORD will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain (Deut. 5:11).

More specifically, as regards the Holy Eucharist, St. Paul admonishes the faithful in his first letter to the Corinthians:

Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself (1 Cor. 11:27-29).

(Note that St. Paul is talking about the “Lord’s supper” here, which the Catholic Church generally sees as a reference to the Eucharist. This view is supported by the fact that St. Paul recalls the words of Jesus at the Last Supper in verses 23-25.)
Clearly, St. Paul is referring to something different from telling jokes about the Eucharist; he means taking the Bread and the Cup (interpreted, for Catholics, as the Eucharist) while behaving in a way that is incompatible with friendship with God (for instance, by refusing to share with the poor, or by getting drunk—see verse 21). However, it illustrates the principle that the Holy Eucharist is to be respected.
In fact, disrespecting the Sacraments could be considered a kind of blasphemy. The Catechism explains,

Blasphemy is directly opposed to the second commandment. [In the usual Catholic numbering, which follows St. Augustine, that is the Commandment against using the Lord’s name in vain.] It consists in uttering against God—inwardly or outwardly—words of hatred, reproach, or defiance; in speaking ill of God; in failing in respect toward him in one’s speech; in misusing God’s name. … The prohibition of blasphemy extends to language against Christ’s Church, the saints, and sacred things. … Blasphemy is contrary to the respect due God and his holy name. It is in itself a grave sin (No. 2148).

Disrespect for the Sacraments would certainly constitute disrespect for the Church and for sacred things.
As far as sanctions and censures, there is no specific censure for telling (disrespectful) jokes about the Sacraments. In a particularly grave, pubic, and persistent case, the local ordinary* would be justified in imposing a penalty (which could include barring the person from receiving the Sacraments). Such a penalty would derive from Can. 1369 of the Code of Canon Law:

A person is to be punished with a just penalty, who, at a public event or assembly, or in a published writing, or by otherwise using the means of social communication, utters blasphemy, or gravely harms public morals, or rails at or excites hatred of or contempt for religion or the Church.

In practice, however, those who engage in disrespecting the Sacraments are generally not interested in receiving them, and so withholding the Eucharist from them or imposing a sanction is usually neither necessary nor productive. Generally, this sort of thing is best dealt with privately.

* In Catholic lingo, the “ordinary” is the person with immediate (and non-delegated) authority over someone. For example, for laypersons, the “ordinary” is their diocesan bishop, the vicar general, or other persons with similar authority. For members of a religious order, religious congregation, or similar institution, it would be their superior. We say it is a “local” ordinary when we are referring to the ordinary of a territory—hence, the diocesan bishop and the vicar general only. A censure of this kind would generally have to come from a local ordinary or a tribunal appointed by him.


Is there scholarly concensus on the historicity of Foxe's Book of Martyrs? Foxe's Book of Martyrs purports to recount the lives and deaths of many who are regarded as the heroes of the Christian faith, and is revered as a classic within the genre of Christian literature. The author, however, cites few of his sources.

Is there a general agreement among recognized contemporary Christian researchers as to the reliability of the accounts given in Foxe's Book of Martyrs?

No, there is not general agreement as to the exact historical accuracy of John Foxe's work. The majority of events are considered to be historical and widely accepted to be based on good sources such as eyewitness records, however doubt is often cast on the retelling aspect.

The primary accusation brought against Foxe's Book of Martyrs (originally titled Actes and Monuments) is its strong anti-Catholic bias. The doubt cast on the work is almost always the possible "spin" placed in the selection and retelling in order to elevate Protestantism as the true faith at the exclusion of other Christian sects.

It is widely accepted that Foxe's selection process excluded martyrs of any sort whose primary allegiance was to the Catholic church. The standards for what he considered to be a true martyr were heavily influenced by his own doctrinal position. This doesn't mean that the cases he did select to tell about are actually not real cases, but it does keep his work from being considered a broad treatment of the issue of martyrdom in Christianity.
His doctrinal bias comes through quite consistently in smaller details in the individual telling of stories. It is in this that the historicity is most to be questioned: that the events happened is typically not in doubt but the generous amount of fiction added to the narrative and possibly leaving out relevant details that didn't fit the picture he wanted to paint leave the exact accuracy of the work as suspect.

The Wikipedia article, which notes in the summary section the sometimes polemical tone of Foxe's work, has an entire section devoted to his merits as a historian. Here is one excerpt:

  The author's credibility was challenged as soon as the book first appeared. Detractors accused Foxe of dealing falsely with the evidence, of misusing documents, and of telling partial truths. In every case that he could clarify, Foxe corrected errors in the second edition and third and fourth, final version (for him). In the early nineteenth century the charges were taken up again by a number of authors, most importantly Samuel Roffey Maitland.[42] Subsequently Foxe was considered a poor historian, in mainstream reference works. The 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica accused Foxe of "wilful falsification of evidence"; two years later in the Catholic Encyclopedia, Francis Fortescue Urquhart wrote of the value of the documentary content and eyewitness reports, but claimed that Foxe "sometimes dishonestly mutilates his documents and is quite untrustworthy in his treatment of evidence".

The article goes on to cite individual cases of criticism and includes sources identifying the major critics and their works.

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, several contemporary church figures were among the first critics of his work. They also give several sources for additional studies critical of Foxe:

  The most careful examination of his methods is to be found in Maitland, Essays on the Reformation in England (1849), and in Gairdner, History of the English Church from the ascension of Henry VIII to the Death of Mary (1903); Lee in Dict. of Nat. Biog. Gerard, John Foxe and His Book of Martyrs (Catholic Truth Society, London), includes the opinions of a number of Foxe's critics.

To be fair, Foxe's critics themselves are not without their own critics. Since the majority of those who oppose his work do so in defense of the Catholic church (often pointing out exacerbating circumstances in some of the deaths that weren't always purely religious in nature or the fault of the Catholic church) we can in fact conclude that there was also some accuracy to his work. While it might only have shown one side of the story, knowing that the primary point made by the other side was that he left out a whole set of martyrs and cast too much blame in one direction, we can actually conclude that much of what he did write is indeed grounded in history even if his telling of it is polemical.

It seems likely to me based on the extended controversy that some or many of the stories told would not pass muster by any credible historian or journalist standards due to the large number of aspects that are dramatized. This does not, however, mean that the actual events were not historical and possibly just as —if not more— dramatic than the re-tellings.

Whatever the exact circumstances, that the basic events happened is not really in question.


How did God speak in Genesis? In Genesis 1:3 New International Version it is written:

  And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.

Is this a figure of speech or did God actually utter the words "Let there be light" ? I assume since this is during creation no one else was around to hear it. So if it is an exact quote when did God pass on this information to a human so they could even know what God said at the time ?

Translation of the word from the original Greek to Said was only the choice of the translators. The actual word used was:

אָמַר

  'amar (aw-mar') v.
  1. to say (used with great latitude)
  [a primitive root]
  KJV: answer, appoint, avouch, bid, boast self, call, certify, challenge, charge, + (at the, give) command(-ment), commune, consider, declare, demand, X desire, determine, X expressly, X indeed, X intend, name, X plainly, promise, publish, report, require, say, speak (against, of), X still, X suppose, talk, tell, term, X that is, X think, use (speech), utter, X verily, X yet.

It could just as well have been translated into any of the above words, some of which (appoint, bid, desire, determine and so on) are not words indicating physical action. and since the original word used does not necessarily require any physical speech, it seems to me that we should also give it some latitude in translation


What's the difference between pastor, parochial administrator and parochial vicar in the Catholic Church? I was looking through the list of appointments to a nearby parish and noticed that the Bishop is mixing things up, but not really changing much.  Two parishes in a nearby city are linked, with two priests taking care of souls at both of them.  They currently swap masses:

Here's an obfuscated version of the appointment:

Rev. Fr. Zack Nelson, to parochial administrator, Saint Patrick Parish, Zanesville, per canon 539, from
parochial vicar, Saint William Parish and Saint Patrick Parish, Zanesville.
Rev. Fr. Mario VanVleck, from parochial administrator, Saint Patrick Parish, Zanesville, per canon 539,
remaining as pastor, Saint William Parish, Zanesville.

So from what I can surmise they moved both priests from the arrangement where they worked both parishes and gave Fr. Zack a new title.   But, it looks like St. Patrick Parish doesn't have a pastor in this arrangement (it is the smaller of the two parishes).

So what's the difference between the changes in status from parocial vicar to parochial administrator?  And what does it mean that St. Patrick does not have an official pastor?

A pastor is a priest with primary responsibility of the cure of souls over a parish (Canon 519)

A parochial vicar (Canon 545) assists the pastor in carrying out those duties, most often due to the size of the parish, but Canon Law also allows appointing a parochial vicar over a portion of the parish (for example a group within the parish which speaks a different language). A vicar is one who exercises authority on behalf of someone else (in this case, the pastor, which is known in Latin as the parochus).

Canon 539 requires the bishop to appoint a parochial administrator when the office of pastor is vacant and outlines the rights/obligations of the administrator (Which are somewhat more restricted than the pastor).

Canon Law on Pastors, Parishes and Parochial Vicars

Looking at the example given, before we have two priests jointly administrating two parishes with Fr. Mario VanVleck as Pastor and Fr. Zack Nelson assisting as parochial vicar. Afterwards, Fr. Mario VanVleck remains as pastor over the one parish but Fr. Zack Nelson becomes administrator over the other. Effectively, this means there are now two parishes separately administered each by one priest. At least for the time being, Fr. Zack Nelson's responsibilities are somewhat restricted and may be intended to be temporary.

It's quite possible that Fr. Zack Nelson was made administrator as a stepping stone to being pastor. He is quite likely a younger/newer priest and so the bishop is ensuring he has sufficient experience and is capable before appointing him as pastor.


War between the ‘inner being’ and the ‘fleshly nature’ When people are saved, what is God’s purpose for not sanctifying the ‘flesh’ when the spirit is reborn to prevent the struggle believers have in obeying Him?  (Evangelical perspective)

The Apostle Paul:
Romans 7:22 (ESV)

  For I delight in the law of God in my inner being, 23 but I see in my
  members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making
  me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members. 24 Wretched
  man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? 25 Thanks
  be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the
  law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.

Galatians 5:17 (ESV):

  For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires
  of the Spirit are against the flesh, for these are opposed to each
  other, to keep you from doing the things you want to do.

Sanctify means to set apart, declare holy, consecrate, purify, and to separate from sin.
1 John 2:15-17,

"15 Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.
16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.
17 And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever."  (KJV)

God wants us to walk in the Spirit, and not the flesh.
Rom. 8:1-5,

"There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit."  (KJV)

So, we are called to seek after Christ, and to walk in the Spirit. Our salvation is conditional, in that we must continue to walk with Him, and abide in His ways.  If we turn our back on Him, and go back to a sinful life, then we will lose our promise of inheritance.  Compare it to a father's will which promises a son will inherit all that His father has with certain stipulations.  Salvation is not unconditional (2 Pet. 1:10-11; John 15:6; Rom. 11:21-22).
Therefore, we have to overcome the fleshly desires.  The flesh does not inherit eternal life.  1 Cor. 15:50,

"Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does corruption inherit incorruption."  (NKJV)

Finishing Romans 7:23-25,

" But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. 24 O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? 25 I thank God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!  So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin."  (NKJV)

We have a constant battle between our selfish desires which benefit the flesh (e.g., power, money, sex, material goods, etc.) and the spiritual recognition of abiding by the law of Christ.
When we are in Christ, we have the promise of remission of sins as we repent of them (Acts 2:38; 10:43; Heb. 6:6).  This promise keeps washing us throughout our lives, and is purifying us from sins as we repent of them.
Christ said in Matt. 22:36 -40,

"“‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’[d] 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’[e] 40 On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.”"  (NKJV)

Many times our selfish desires do not comport with the needs of others, nor with loving YHWH before ourselves.  It is the growing up process, maturing in the spirit from the stage of children who want whatever they see and the mature adult who recognizes that we sacrifice our desires to give to others.
So our fleshly desires and wants must be under control of our mind and heart that is joined in spirit with Christ.  And, if we are in Christ, then He has set us apart for Him, and we are living sacrifices for Him.  He will purify our souls when we ask for forgiveness, if we have repented. The purification is not of the flesh.
When we fall, then we need to repent from our sins, and ask His forgiveness.  We pick ourselves back up and continue to fight that battle between our fleshly desires and the gospel of Christ.
1 Cor. 9:24-27,

"24 Do you not know that those who run in a race all run, but one receives the prize? Run in such a way that you may obtain it. 25 And everyone who competes for the prize is temperate in all things. Now they do it to obtain a perishable crown, but we for an imperishable crown. 26 Therefore I run thus: not with uncertainty. Thus I fight: not as one who beats the air. 27 But I discipline my body and bring it into subjection, lest, when I have preached to others, I myself should become disqualified."  (NKJV)

It is a race against sin, that we live with day in and day out.  If we are able to stay in Christ, to repent and ask for His forgiveness when we fall, to keep running that race, then when we die in the Lord, we will receive the crown.
Our inheritance is in heaven above. So, He does not need to sanctify the flesh as only the spirit inherits eternal life.
1 Cor. 15:53,

" For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. "  (NKJV)


What is the distinction between Justification and Salvation? (Reformed point of view) As a practicing Christian, my only hope is for salvation through Jesus Christ.  I note that scripture addresses salvation from a variety of perspectives and analogies, but also I find that in Paul's letters being justified is proclaimed to be of importance.

If I am to be saved, must I be justified?  I don't think that the two words mean the same thing.

What is the distinction between being saved and being justified?

This question is asking for the Reformed view on the distinction.  Having read some treatment of the topic, I am reaching the point of confusion.

  "Justification by faith was Paul's answer to the question: How is it
  that Gentiles can be equally acceptable to God as Jews?" ~ James D. G.
  Dunn, The nzeology of Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids: William B.
  Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1998), 340. (Cited by Stephen Westerholm in
  his article: Justification by Faith is the Answer: What is the
  Question?)

Put simply, in Reformed theology, salvation is the application or administration of Christ's redemptive work to the elect, while justification is the part of that application in which the sinner is declared righteous.

Salvation

The Reformation Study Bible does a nice job of showing how broad salvation is:

  Salvation delivers the believer from the wrath of God, the dominion of sin, and the power of death.  God liberates sinners from the natural condition of being mastered by the world, the flesh, and the devil.  He frees believers from the fears that a sinful life generates, and from the vicious habits that enslaved them.  Salvation brings not only the promise of spiritual wholeness and peace, but also of physical healing.  Although Christians have already received salvation, they will experience the benefits of salvation in their fullness only when Christ returns at the end of the age.

There's a lot here to unpack, and one of the distinctives of Reformed theology is the ordo salutis, or the "order of salvation," which Berkhof defines:

  The ordo salutis describes the process by which the work of salvation, wrought in Christ, is subjectively realized in the hearts and lives of sinners.  It aims at describing in their logical order, and also in their interrelations, the various movements of the Holy Spirit in the application of the work of redemption.

There is some disagreement among Reformed theologians as to the exact elements and ordering of the ordo salutis, but a common layout is:

Election
The gospel call (or effectual call)
Regeneration
Conversion
Justification
Adoption
Sanctification
Perseverance
Death
Glorification

As you see, justification is one of the aspects within the bigger picture of salvation.

Justification

So what, then, is justification? Broadly speaking, it means "to be declared just or righteous."  Sometimes, such as in James 2:21, it considers the actual righteous condition of someone ("the just is declared just").  More frequently in the NT, it refers to the imputation of one person's righteousness to another.

Thus Berkhof defines it:

  Justification is a judicial act of God, in which He declares, on the basis of the righteousness of Jesus Christ, that all the claims of the law are satisfied with respect to the sinner.

It's important to note that it is a judicial act:

  It is unique in the application of the work of redemption in that it is a judicial act of God, a declaration respecting the sinner, and not an act or process of renewal, such as regeneration, conversion, and sanctification. While it has respect to the sinner, it does not change his inner life. It does not affect his condition, but his state, and in that respect differs from all the other principal parts of the order of salvation. It involves the forgiveness of sins, and restoration to divine favor.

As a judicial act, justification simply removes the guilt of sin, and does not change the inner life of the justified.  It is a single act (not a process) that occurs only once, so a person cannot be "partially justified."

Interactions with other elements of the ordo salutis

Though justification is viewed narrowly by Reformed theologians as compared to some, it is tightly connected with other elements in the ordo salutis.  For example, justification and adoption are inseparable – the removal of guilt in justification corresponds closely with the restoration of a sinner to a right relationship with God.

Similarly, the process or work of sanctification closely follows the act of justification.  Defined in the Westminster Shorter Catechism:

  Sanctification is the work of God's free grace, whereby we are renewed in the whole man after the image of God, and are enabled more and more to die unto sin, and live unto righteousness.

In other words, though justification does not in itself involve a change of heart or behavior, its immediate successor, sanctification, is a process – not an "act" like justification – through which a sinner is freed from sin, renewed in his nature, and enabled to perform good works.

Summary

Within the ordo salutis, as viewed by the Reformed, the act of justification takes a central role – without it, salvation would not be possible.  God imputes Christ's righteousness to the believer's account and declares him guiltless with respect to the demands of the law.

This declaration of righteousness necessarily follows election and regeneration, two other steps in the ordo salutis, and it is necessarily followed by adoption and sanctification, through which the believer comes into a right relationship with God and grows in his Christian walk.

References

Berkhof, Systematic Theology

4.1, Ordo Salutis
4.9, Justification
4.10, Sanctification

Grudem, Systematic Theology, Chapter 32, 670.  The order of salvation included here comes from Grudem.
Reformation Study Bible, 1680
Westminster Shorter Catechism, Answer 35


What were the specific changes to the canonization process introduced in 1983? I understand that in 1983, the canonization process was changed via the document Divinus Perfectionis Magister. I see from Wikipedia that the role of Promoter of the Faith (a.k.a. Devil's Advocate) was reduced and the process was made "less adversarial".

However, I'm having a hard time understanding what specifically was changed (e.g. how was the Promoter of the Faith's role changed, what rules involving miracles changed, etc). Wikipedia has an article about the 1914 canonization process that was previously in effect, but it's not immediately clear what things are the same between the 1914 and 1983 process and what things have changed.

So what were the specific changes to the canonization process introduced in 1983?

Blessed Pope John Paul II of happy memory changed the process of beatification and canonization dramatically.

  Pope John Paul II changed this process dramatically. First, he put the responsibility for gathering evidence into the sole hands of the local bishop. More importantly, he abolished the entire legal system that had grown up around the canonization process and in its place made critical biographies his primary method for determining sainthood. The news shocked the Catholic hierarchy—lawyers lost their jobs and ecclesiastical historians gained new status. - John Paul II's "Canonization Cannon

More information on the various changes can be seen in this article:  Canonization: Old vs. New Comparison

  It is often noted by those skeptical of modern canonizations that the procedures by which the Church raises saints to her altars have been "changed" since the Second Vatican Council. What were these changes? Pope Paul VI began the process in 1969. His decree Sacra Ritua Congregatio split the Congregation of Rites into two congregations: the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Congregation for the Causes of Saints. The latter congregation was sub-divided into three offices, which led in turn to a restructuring of the canonization process. Between 1969 and 1983, the process in a sort of flux. In 1983, St. John Paul II's Divinis Perfectionis Magister further streamlined the procedure, eliminating much of the back-and-forth that characterized the pre-1969 procedure, as well as famously downgrading the office of Promotor Fidei ("Devil's Advocate") to make the office less adversarial.

  But in what other ways do the pre-1969 and post-1983 procedures differ? How much has really changed in this process?

  To help answer this question, we have prepared a side by side comparison of the pre-1969 procedure (which had remained relatively unchanged since 1588) with the post-1983 restructuring. Please note, because the years between 1969 and 1983 were a kind of interim period where the process was in flux, it is not included here, although a study of the changes in procedure during this period would be very illuminating. We present merely the pre-Paul IV system contrasted with the revisions made by John Paul II in 1983, revisions which characterize the current procedure followed in beatifications and canonizations.

  Essentially, while the modern canonization procedure maintains the nuts-n'-bolts of the pre-1969 system, the aspect of "checks and balances" that characterized the pre-1969 procedure is weakened. The rigid oversight is missing in the contemporary system. We will not review this entire argument, but recommend the reader consult our lengthy article "History of the Devil's Advocate"  for more on how the character of canonization has changed.


Should we put God to test? No –

  Luke 4:12 ... Do not put the Lord your God to the test.

Yes –

  Judges 6:39 “Allow me one more test with the fleece, but this time
  make the fleece dry and let the ground be covered with dew.”

No -

  Matthew 12:39 A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous
  sign!

Yes -

  2 Kings 20:8 Meanwhile, Hezekiah had said to Isaiah, "What sign will
  the LORD give to prove that he will heal me and that I will go to the
  Temple of the LORD three days from now?"

No –

  Deuteronomy 6:16  You shall not test the LORD your God, as you tested
  him in Massah.

Yes –

  Genesis 15:8  But Abram said, "O Sovereign LORD, how can I know that I
  will gain possession of it?

The answer is simple and these fragments all support it:

No - we shouldn't test God. We shouldn't demand revelations, we shouldn't demand signs and miracles, as it is stated in the fragments you are citing.

Yes - we should test revelations. As Saint John the Teologian states:

  Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God (1 John, 4, 1)

All these people you see in Bible "testing God" received some revelation, but were not sure if it is from God, or if they are in some kind of delusion. They don't doubt there is God. They doubt if the revelation is genuine. That's why they put it to the test.


How is it significant that Jesus rose on the 3rd day? Christianity teaches that Jesus died on the cross and on the Third day rose from the dead. His resurection is significant for all sorts of reasons which I don't want to go into in this question. What I'm interested in is why did he rise THREE days later? Why not 4 days, or 2 days?

The only thing I could find is that Jonah was in the fish for 3 days, however this just moves the question to why was Jonah in the fish for 3 days (instead of 2 or 4 or any other number).

Is there any significance to Jesus being dead for three days?

The significance lies in that Jesus prophesied that He will rise from the dead on the third day.

Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days." John 2 : 19
But the temple he had spoken of was his body. John 2 : 21

The false witnesses misquoted Jesus at His trial, not for the days but on who will destroy the 'temple'.

But they did not find any, though many false witnesses came forward. Finally two came forward and declared, "This fellow said, 'I am able to destroy the temple of God and rebuild it in three days.'" Matthew 26: 60 - 61


Is the Eastern Orthodox doctrine of "the Monarchy of the Father" consistent with the Athanasian creed? Background: this particular question arose from considering the implied ground of the following question: Does the Holy Spirit's procession from the Father and Son infringe on the co-equality of the Trinity? The author of the question assumes a Trinitarian position that is consistent with the 'Athanasian creed'*, with a view to ascertaining the legitimacy of Eastern Orthodox (doctrinal) objections to the 'filioque clause'.

My question is: How (if at all) is the Eastern Orthodox understanding of the Trinity – which includes the doctrine of 'the Monarchy of the Father' – consistent with the Athanasian creed?  Particularly the following parts:

  So likewise the Father is Lord; the Son Lord; and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not three Lords; but one Lord. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity; to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord; So are we forbidden by the catholic religion; to say, There are three Gods, or three Lords.

and

  And in this Trinity none is before, or after another; none is greater, or less than another. But the whole three Persons are coeternal, and coequal.

I'm most interested in an Eastern Orthodox perspective, but would also welcome an explanation of how 'co-equality' is reconcilable to other views of the Trinity that include 'economic subordinationism' or 'relational surbodinationism'.

*Also known as Quicumque vult – I realise that it is not technically a creed (in the sense of being approved by an ecumenical council) and is almost certainly not authored by Athanasius of Alexandria, but it has come to be widely known by this moniker as it is judged to be wholely consistent with his Trinitarian-championing views to the extant of its being regarded – at least in the West – as a touchstone of Trinitarian doctrine.

The official Orthodox answer to this question can be seen most clearly in the answers to two questions in the Revised Catechism:

  094 What difference is there between the Persons of the Holy Trinity?

  God the Father is neither begotten nor proceeds from any other Person, he is the cause, source and principle. This is called the Monarchy of the Father.

  etc.

and

  095 Are the three Hypostases or Persons of the Most Holy Trinity all of equal majesty? Why then does Jesus say “the Father is greater than I?”

  The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit share equal majesty as being the eternal, uncreated Savior and Lord. The Father is true God, the Son equally true God, and the Holy Spirit true God. This ontological or essential equality was expressed by the Church by the expression “homoousion” (of the same essence) to condemn Arianism and affirm that the Son is co-eternal and co-uncreated with the Father. This does not negate different roles or functions:

  Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things, and hold firm to the traditions as I delivered them to you. But I desire you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of the woman is the man, and the head of Christ is God. (1 Corinthians 11:2-3)

  ‘For God has put all things in subjection under his feet.’ But when it says, ‘All things are put in subjection under him,’ it is obvious that this excludes the one who put all things under him. When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things under him, that God may be everything to every one (1 Corinthians 15:27-28).

  When the Son says that the “Father is greater than I am,”
  (John 14:28) he is referring to the fact that the Father is the
  cause and origin, as the Holy Fathers interpret this text:

  The Son does not say, “My Father is better than I,” lest we should conceive him to be foreign to his nature, but “greater,” not indeed in greatness nor in time, but because of his generation from the Father himself. (St Athanasius, Orations against the Arians, 1.58)
  Since the Son’s origin (arche) is from the Father, in this respect the Father is greater, as cause and origin. This is why the Lord says, “My Father is greater than I.” Indeed, what else does the word Father signify unless being the cause and origin of that which is begotten of Him? (St Basil, Against Eunomius, 1.25)
  Superior greatness belongs to the cause, equality to the nature.... To say that [the Father] is greater than [the Son] in his humanity is certainly true, but it is not the point here, since it is no wonder that God is greater than man... (St Gregory of Nazianzus, Oration, 30.7)
  If anyones say that the Father is greater in so far as He is the cause of the Son, we will not dispute this. But this, however, does not make the Son to be of a different essence. (St John Chrysostom, Homily, 70)

In summary, the Orthodox position explains the Monarchy of the Father in terms of his superior greatness as 'cause, source and principle', while simultaneously maintaining co-equality amongst the Persons of the Trinity due to their being of the same essence. This, is maintained not to be contradictory to the 'Athanasian creed' which (although not used liturgically in the Orthodox churches) is recognised as sound doctrine (source).


Are there any well-known Christian nihilists? I have been studying Nietzsche, and I find his ideas thought-provoking. Doing a wider search of the literature on the subject of nihilism, I note that very nearly all of the content that espouses nihilism is irreligious, and all of the religious sources attempt to refute nihilism.

There must be some dissenters in this regard -- it's a big world, and there are many forms of nihilism. Ecclesiastes, for instance, sure sounds nihilist.

  “Meaningless! Meaningless!”
  says the Teacher. “Utterly meaningless!
  Everything is meaningless.”

Usually, I hear this explained away (e.g. -- "Yes, meaningless without God!"), and that may be the correct response, but surely there must be someone with an interpretation of Ecclesiastes that takes Solomon's words at face value.

Are there any well-known Christian nihilists whose literature I can examine? Where can I find discussions on this topic that do not take an anti-nihilist view?

Just to clarify, I am not asking someone to explain whether or why Christianity and nihilism are (in)compatible. I'm trying to get a sense of what's out there on pro-nihilism Christianity.

Yes, there is school of theological nihilism influenced by Nietzsche, known as the "Death of God" movement. Probably the most famous individual associated with it is Paul Tillich. This work explores the idea that the traditional concept of God has "died", and the extent to which faith (or reason, or ethics, etc.) can still exist in such a world. We can argue about whether this sort of thing is nihilist, or existentialist, or both, or not really either; but in any case it comes out of that general area of thought.

It should be distinguished from the older and more "respectable" pursuit of apophatic theology. This is an approach to God founded on describing God in "negative" terms (he is not evil, he is not limited, etc.). Typically, this theology is mystical rather than rational, and Eastern rather than Western. A standard idea in apophatic theology is that God does not exist, meaning that the mode of his "existence" transcends the way in which ordinary everyday stuff is said to "exist". Contemplation of paradoxes associated with the divine is also part of apophatic practice - without necessarily trying to solve them in the manner of rationalist theology. Apophatic theology has influenced nihilistic theology but they are not identical.

Another relevant writer is Kierkegaard for his exploration of paradox and despair in a Christian context. He is not a nihilist but there is a good deal of later work which responds to him. I would suggest Fear and Trembling as a good starting point (because out of the two books I've read by him, it was the one I liked the best). In it, he works through the story of the Binding of Isaac with an emphasis on the supposed moral of the story, Abraham's greatness through faith; this is contrasted with the anxiety and subjectivity of Abraham's personal experience, in the context of an apparently immoral command to murder his son.


Why is God the Father referred to as "Eternal Father" in LDS writings when He is not believed to be eternal? I was recently reading some LDS material and noticed something that did not make sense to me.  As I understand LDS teaching, God the Father was once a man on another planet who attained godhood through how he lived.  Prior to that, He was the spiritual offspring of the god of that world.  Thus, He had a beginning and is not eternal.
However, LDS scripture refers to Him as Eternal Father in many different places, including the following:

O God, the Eternal Father, we ask thee in the name of thy Son, Jesus Christ, to bless and sanctify this wine to the souls of all those who drink of it, that they may do it in remembrance of the blood of thy Son, which was shed for them; that they may witness unto thee, O God, the Eternal Father, that they do always remember him, that they may have his Spirit to be with them. Amen  D&C 20:79
O God, the Eternal Father, we ask thee in the name of thy Son, Jesus Christ, to bless and sanctify this bread to the souls of all those who partake of it; that they may eat in remembrance of the body of thy Son, and witness unto thee, O God, the Eternal Father, that they are willing to take upon them the name of thy Son, and always remember him, and keep his commandments which he hath given them, that they may always have his Spirit to be with them. Amen.  Moroni 4:3
We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost. Articles of Faith 1:1

So, my question is why the term "Eternal Father" is used of a being who is not in any way eternal.  What is meant by the world "eternal"?
(For these references, I just searched the lds.org site for "eternal father".)

This is relatively straightforward.

From the LDS article on Eternal Life:

  Eternal life is the phrase used in scripture to define the quality of
  life that our Eternal Father lives. The Lord declared, “This is my
  work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of
  man” (Moses 1:39). Immortality is to live forever as a resurrected
  being.

Think for a moment of a ray and a line.  A ray goes on forever in one direction.  A line goes on forever in both directions. Each has infinite length.

Mainstream Christianity teaches that God is eternal in that He has always existed and will always exist, and LDS theology teaches that he is eternal because he will always exist.

It's a different definition of the term, but not one that's not reasonable from their point of view.  After all, we are promised eternal life as Christians, are we not?


What are the differences between most Christian Bibles and Jehovah’s Witnesses Bible? Are most Christian bibles and Jehovah’s Witnesses Bible the same ? If not what are some important differences in them?

The main difference between the New World Translation (NWT) and other Bibles is that the NWT has attempted to eliminate almost all references to the divinity of Jesus in the New Testament.  Another obvious difference is the introduction of the name ‘Jehovah’ into the New Testament.  This is also an attempt to deny that Jesus is God.
The King James Version text is based on the ‘Textus Receptus’ which is not used by the New World Translation, the New International Version, the New Living Translation or the English Standard Version.  The NWT Christian Greek Scriptures (New Testament) is mainly taken from the Westcott and Hort translation, but has been altered and changed to support the views of Jehovah's Witnesses that the pre-mortal Jesus was created by Jehovah and that Jesus is not part of the One Being of God.
It is true that Jehovah’s Witnesses do not believe in the Trinity and they do not believe that Jesus is God.  See Section IV, V, and VI in the following article by Dr. Bruce M. Metzger, who was professor of New Testament at Princeton University.  The article also looks into the history and background of the New World Translation:   http://www.bible-researcher.com/metzger.jw.html
Here is a partial quote from an article that examines the background to the translators and the editing of the New World Translation and provides examples of the NWT anti-Trinitarian bias:

“New Testament, 1950. Frederick W. Franz, ed., New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures Rendered from the Original Language by the New World Translation Committee. Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1950.
Bible, 1961. Frederick W. Franz, ed., The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, rendered from the Original Languages by the New World Bible Translation Committee. Revised A.D. 1961. Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, 1961. The Old Testament was originally published in parts from 1953 to 1960. The whole was revised for the one-volume edition in 1961, and subsequently revised in 1970 and 1984.
The publisher of this version has never made public the names of the translators. But former members of the Governing Body of the Jehovah's Witnesses organization have identified the members of the committee as Nathan H. Knorr (President of the organization), Frederick W. Franz (Vice-President), George D. Gangas, and Albert D. Schroeder. According to Raymond V. Franz, the "principal translator of the Society's New World Translation" was Frederick W. Franz. (1) According to M. James Penton, "to all intents and purposes the New World Translation is the work of one man, Frederick Franz." (2) Franz afterwards became the President of the organization, from 1977 to 1992, and was responsible for the revisions.
The Forward to the first edition of the New Testament (1950) explained the need for the version, and also indicated the reason for its name: "It befits the significant time of transition from the old world to the righteous new world that translations of the Scriptures today should as far as possible eliminate the misleading influence of religious traditions which have their roots in paganism." (p.7, emphasis added.)
The New Testament adheres to the text of Westcott & Hort. It is a fairly literal translation, for the most part, but it does have some peculiar non-literal renderings. These are the result of the committee's efforts to conform the version to the doctrines of the Jehovah's Witnesses. "Jehovah" is given as a translation for kurios (Lord) in the New Testament whenever the Father is meant, but not when it refers to Christ, the Son. "Torture stake" is put instead of "cross" because the Jehovah's Witnesses believe that the cross is an idolatrous symbol introduced by the Roman Catholic Church. And because this sect teaches that Jesus Christ was merely an angel, the version shows an anti-trinitarian bias in several places.”

Examples of Anti-Trinitarian bias then follow.   http://www.bible-researcher.com/new-world.html
Here is a short extract from the article ‘The New World Translation - What the Scholars Really Said’:

“The Watchtower and Jehovah's Witness apologists have often cited scholars in support of the New World Translation in general, and particularly its rendering of John 1:1c ("and the Word was a god").  Scholarly citation is a form of an "argument from authority."  Such an argument cannot establish the truth or falsity of a given assertion; it can merely lend credence or cast doubt.  Sound arguments from authority will consist of an accurate quotation from the scholar in question, which entails insuring that the context of the authority's statements are consistent with the argument being presented, and that contrary statements in the same passage are not removed with creative use of ellipses ("...").  Further, the scholar must be a recognized authority in a field that pertains directly to the assertion being made.
When Jehovah's Witnesses produce scholars that support the NWT, we must first establish that the scholar is, indeed, a recognized expert in the field of Biblical Languages, and that he or she has been quoted accurately.  When given careful consideration, many of the scholars used by Jehovah's Witnesses do not actually constitute a sound argument from authority.  I'm not suggesting that no scholars may be found in support of the NWT or its translation of John 1:1, but these are in the minority and often are not as qualified in their field as the scores of scholars who advocate the traditional translation.”

The chart that follows examines how some scholars have been used in defense of the NWT and whether they actually support the Watchtower translation as claimed: http://www.forananswer.org/Top_JW/Scholars%20and%20NWT.htm
Readers are at liberty to study the articles referenced and to draw their own conclusions.


Can non-Catholic Christian souls participate in Intercession? Let us say a Catholic person has a good Protestant Christian friend who has died a year ago. The Catholic person believes in the intercession of saints and prays to them to intercede for him on many things. He also believes that his friend has already ascended to Heaven. So he prays for his friend as he had prayed with his favorite saints.

His dead friend has not undergone any formal beatification or canonization process.

From a Roman Catholic doctrine standpoint, can the Protestant Christian intercede for his Catholic friend?

The ability to intercede on behalf of others is a gift given by God, and so He can give it to anyone He pleases. Here is how the Catechism of the Catholic Church describes prayer of intercession:

  Since Abraham, intercession—asking on behalf of another—has been characteristic of a heart attuned to God’s mercy. In the age of the Church, Christian intercession participates in Christ's, as an expression of the communion of saints. In intercession, he who prays looks “not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others,” even to the point of praying for those who do him harm (no. 2635).

All that is required is that God inspire the intercessor to make the prayer. Hence, it is not at all limited to Catholics or even to Christians.

As far as the deceased are concerned, the ability to intercede on behalf of those on earth is not limited to those who have been officially canonized. Anyone who is in friendship with God has this ability, even those who were not in full union with the Church. Hence, if a Protestant or non-Christian died in friendship with God, and hence was saved, then he can intercede, just as any other saved soul can.

(As the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus suggests, presumably, even the condemned could, in theory, intercede for us, if God gave them that power, but St. Augustine suggests that it would be for selfish motives [see no. 17]; e.g., the rich man interceded because the presence of the his brothers would only increase his torment.)

Note that canonization and beatification are done chiefly because the person has lived a life of holiness and heroic virtue; that he intercedes for someone and provides a miracle is only a sign that he is already in Heaven.


What biblical verses have been used to justify or even inspire working women? I was reading this article on How To Be A Good Housewife, and what got my attention was the fact that Mexican women are encouraged to become housewives, because the Bible says so, and Mexico is very Catholic. It also suggests that Proverbs and Song of Songs support the existence of housewives and their important place in the world. Now, if there have been biblical verses that have been used to justify housewives, have there also been biblical verses that have been used to inspire women to work outside the home?

Proverbs 31:10-31 is a famous passage on The Virtuous Woman. In addition to taking care of her family, the passage describes a woman who contributes financially to her household.

Proverbs 31:16-18
She considers a field and buys it;
    out of her earnings she plants a vineyard.
She sets about her work vigorously;
    her arms are strong for her tasks.
She sees that her trading is profitable,
    and her lamp does not go out at night.
Proverbs 31:24
She makes linen garments and sells them,
    and supplies the merchants with sashes.


Does Hell exist according to Catholicism? Does the Roman Catholic Church believe in the existence of Hell?

If YES -

Who will go to Hell and why?
How long will they stay in Hell?
Is there any second chance after they go to Hell?
What should we do to avoid going to Hell?

The Catechism answers the questions (as ever!):

  1035 The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, “eternal fire.”615 The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.

Those who die in a state of mortal sin will go to hell, because of that state.
They will stay in hell for eternity.
There is no second chance: it’s for eternity.
To avoid hell, they should ensure that they do not die in a state of mortal sin.

The difference between mortal and venial sins is also described in the Catechism. The best of way of not dying in sin is not to commit any; but since that is impossible, the Church provides the sacrament of Reconciliation [Confession] so that a penitent soul may be reconciled to God and man. This is the “second chance” which mankind feels is inherently “fair”: you get the second chance before death, while you can do something about your earthly, sacramental, life. Once that life is over you are out of reach of the sacraments.


Percentage of Christians to hold pre- or post-tribulation view of rapture What percentage of all Christians, who believe in pre-millenial Rapture of the Church hold pre-tribulation, respectively post-tribulation view? As far as I know, majority of Christians hold pre-tribulation view. But can anybody tell the percentage?

Many Evangelicals have long suspected that the largest percentage of Christians overall would support a pre-Tribulation view, an idea that was corroborated by the data, as the largest share of pastors—36 percent—reported believing in that Rapture paradigm. The second largest proportion was the 25 percent who agreed that “the concept of the Rapture is not to be taken literally.” Furthermore, 18 percent selected a post-Tribulation paradigm, with smaller proportions for mid-Tribulation (4 percent), pre-wrath (4 percent), preterist ideals (1 percent), and none of the options presented (8 percent).

From the book, The Armageddon Code: One Journalist's Quest for End-Times Answers
by Billy Hallowell, page 171 (2016). A poll was commissioned through LifeWay Research, asking one thousand senior pastors, ministers, and priests—all Protestants who self-identified as either Evangelical, mainline, or “neither”—across America to tell us what they believe.


What is the difference between being filled by the Holy Spirit and being indwelt by the Holy Spirit? The book of Acts talks about people "being filled" with the Holy Spirit at various times.  There is also the concept of being indwelt by the Holy Spirit.  From the perspective that asserts these are, in fact, two different things, what specifically is the biblical distinction (from a biblical literalist perspective)?

Can someone be indwelt by the Holy Spirit but not filled with the Holy Spirit?

We find in Acts:

  Acts 2:2-4 (ESV)
  "And suddenly there came from heaven a sound like a mighty rushing wind,
  and it filled the entire house where they were sitting. And divided
  tongues as of fire appeared to them and rested on each one of them. And
  they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other
  tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance."

In these verses the Holy Spirit (strategically) empowered each of his apostles to speak in other tongues.

From this static experience, we can see 'filling' as a potentially recurring event in a believer's life.  Praying for God to 'fill us with Your Holy Spirit,' can be an everyday prayer.

The indwelling, seems to me, appears later in this same chapter as Peter speaks about the 'gift of the Spirit':

  Acts 2:38
  "And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized every one of you
  in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins,
  and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."

Though the word 'indwelling' is not in this passage, the word 'gift' implies that each person will be receiving the Spirit for the first time - the indwelling of Him.  Indwelling and the opinion of when it occurs varies from denomination to denomination. According to this passage, when a person repents in faith, they are given the Holy Spirit as a gift, the indwelling.

Here is a launching webpage for some differing doctrines and beliefs on Holy Spirit filling and 'baptism': http://christianity.about.com/od/glossary/g/baptismholyspir.htm


Why did God create the Heavens and the Earth? Genesis 1:1

  In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Why ?

Does the Bible state a reason anywhere?

God created the heavens and the earth as an expression of His glory.

  The heavens are telling of the glory of God;
  And their expanse is declaring the work of His hands. (Psalms 19:1 NASB)

and

  The heavens declare His righteousness,
  And all the peoples have seen His glory. (Psalms 97:6 NASB)

I think John Piper explains it nicely in Desiring God, which is available for free online.  Basically, he argues that God's ultimate purpose and joy is in the display of His glory:

  God would be unrighteous (just as we would) if He valued
  anything more than what is supremely valuable. But He Himself is supremely valuable. If He did not take infinite delight in the worth of His own glory, He
  would be unrighteous. For it is right to take delight in a person in proportion to
  the excellence of that person’s glory. (Desiring God, p42-43)

And to that purpose, creation is the expression of His glory:

  In creation, God “went public” with the glory that reverberates joyfully between
  the Father and the Son. There is something about the fullness of God’s joy that
  inclines it to overflow. There is an expansive quality to His joy. It wants to share
  itself. The impulse to create the world was not from weakness, as though God
  were lacking in some perfection that creation could supply. “It is no argument of
  the emptiness or deficiency of a fountain, that it is inclined to overflow.”

  God loves to behold His glory reflected in His works. So the eternal happiness of the triune God spilled over in the work of creation and redemption. And
  since this original happiness was God’s delight in His own glory, therefore the
  happiness that He has in all His works of creation and redemption is nothing
  other than a delight in His own glory. This is why God has done all things, from
  creation to consummation, for the preservation and display of His glory. All His
  works are simply the spillover of His infinite exuberance for His own excellence. (Desiring God, p44)

Aside Note:

To some, this concept might seem to put God in a light in which he seems vain, or like he is "just showing off" (as @MasonWheeler mentioned). I don't believe it does.

Although "showing off" is essentially correct, that phrase carries a negative connotation.  I think that connotation comes from the fact that "showing off" is usually used to describe humans that scramble to draw attention to, and highlight their own perceived glory.  The difference between these people and God is that:

As humans, these people do not actually deserve the attention
These people attempt to detract glory from God, who deserves it
Their intentions are entirely self serving, and seek attention that benefits only themselves

On the other hand:

God very much deserves our attention
God cannot detract glory from Himself
It is in our infinite best interest to perceive and experience God's glory.  That is why we are constantly commanded to praise God, give glory to God, etc.


Missing work of St. Augustine in Latin? I have been trying to look for a work of St. Augustine in Latin but I have had no luck of finding it. Not only that, I don't think it's been translated to English. It's called "La Fe, Dedicada a Pedro o La Regla de La Fe Verdadera" which in English is "On Faith, Dedicated to Peter" or "On the Rule of the True Faith." You can find it here. Any help?

Note: It's not referring to the Apostle St. Peter, in case anyone was wondering.

Though it was historically attributed to Augustine, this letter was actually written by Fulgentius of Ruspe in the early 6th century.  It appears in English in volume 95 of the series The Fathers of the Church, page 59.  The introduction there notes the historical context and briefly discusses the authorship debate.

  In answer to Peter's request [for a basic doctrinal guidebook], Fulgentius discusses the teaching of the Church on the Trinity, the Incarnation, Creation, the Fall, Redemption, the sacraments of Baptism and Penance, and Marriage and Virginity.  While most believe that Fulgentius is the author of the entire work, there have been some who have posited a second author for the second half which constitutes a recapitulation of the first half with each section beginning: "Hold most firmly and never doubt...."

The Latin text is in Migne, Patrologia latina, volume 65, 671ff.