Did anyone understand the Holy Spirit to be a person prior to the Council of Constantinople in AD 381? Do we know of any case of the concept of the Holy Spirit being a person existing among Christians before the Constantinople council of 381 A.D.?

The reason I am asking this question is because one Muslim believer that I just had a conversation with told me that this concept was not existing among Christians before that time. It looks like what he meant was that prior to 386 A.D. (not sure exactly why he gave me this date) Christians would only consider the Holy Spirit to be a kind of power rather than a person, and, therefore, all the references in the Bible to the Holy Spirit were taken accordingly.

I think he got the date wrong and meant the year of 381 A.D., that is the Second Economical Council, which is the First Council of Constantinople.

Tertullian
One early, clear indication of the doctrine of the personhood of the Holy Spirit appears in Tertullian's work, Against Praxeas, dated around AD 215,1 saying:

[W]hile the mystery of the dispensation is still guarded, which distributes the Unity into a Trinity, placing in their order the three Persons— the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost: three, however, not in condition, but in degree; not in substance, but in form; not in power, but in aspect; yet of one substance, and of one condition, and of one power, inasmuch as He is one God, from whom these degrees and forms and aspects are reckoned, under the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

Tertullian mentions the personhood of the Holy Spirit several times in this work, but one example is particularly clear, in reference to the use of the plural "we" in the Creation account:

[I]t was because He [that is, the Father] had already His Son close at His side, as a second Person, His own Word, and a third Person also, the Spirit in the Word, that He purposely adopted the plural phrase, "Let us make"; and, "in our image"; and, "become as one of us."

Origen
Origen, writing around the same time as Tertullian, also mentions of the will and personhood of the Holy Spirit numerous times.  Several examples from Book 1 of De Principiis (~AD 215) will suffice:2

the Holy Spirit is an intellectual existence [Ch. 1]
From all which we learn that the person of the Holy Spirit was of such authority and dignity, that saving baptism was not complete except by the authority of the most excellent Trinity of them all [Ch. 3]
the place where we treated, to the best of our ability, of the persons of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. [Ch. 7]

Others
Looking at the Holy Spirit more broadly, it's clear that Christians have recognized the existence of the Holy Spirit since New Testament times, and there's evidence that they considered him equal with/on the same level with God the Father and God the Son, as in early renditions of the Apostles' Creed (AD 200)3 and other writings.
The concept of the Spirit's will and independence may be found in Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho4 (~AD 160), and even the word "person," though his formulation is not as clear as Tertullian's:

And the Holy Spirit, either from the person of His Father, or from His own person, answers them, 'The Lord of hosts, He is this King of glory.'

References and notes:

Dating the work is difficult, but this chronology suggests the ~AD 215 timeframe.
Also available in Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 4
Philip Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, Volume 2, p55.
Dialogue with Trypho in Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 1, pg 213


How do classic Trinitarians answer the implications of Revelation 1:1? Revelation 1:1 (NIV) reads:

  The revelation from Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John.

So this is the image I get: Sometime before an angel sent by Jesus gave John the revelation, Jesus was given the revelation from God. I first wonder when Jesus was given the revelation: before his birth (assuming the validity of the Trinity doctrine), during his life, after his death but before his resurrection, after his resurrection but before his ascension, after his ascension. Then I obviously wonder how Jesus, being God fully, would not know the nature of the things spelled out in Revelation.

So, how do classic Trinitarians answer this question? Why does it appear that Jesus at some time did not know what God knew concerning the little details of the last days?

Actually the answer is very simple. The confusion lays in the meaning of the word "revelation". It can be taken as "disclosure of earlier not known truths" which was to John for sure BUT it can by understood as "portion of facts and doctrines" which God the Father decided to reveal to humanity and passed it on through Jesus to John. In that sense it was NOT revelation for Jesus at all; he knew that (He was with His Father in their glory - John 17:5).

In a similar way Jude is using word "faith" to describe a set of doctrines pertaining salvation of man:
Jud 1:3  Having made all haste to write to you about the common salvation, beloved, I had need to write to you to exhort you to contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints.
I hope it helps. Blessings in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit
Stanislaw Sylwestrowicz MATS, Gdansk, Poland


Was what I was told about Catholics correct? I've been told (admittedly from a denomination with a very anti-Catholic view (e.g. Catholics believe/pray to in saints => they are idol worshippers))the following:

Catholics believe that they have to say something like 5 to 10 of the
lords prayer and possibly a few "Hail Mary"s added to the mix per sin
depending on how "bad" it is.
The pope can say anything (well, almost) he likes, and that is then instantly a part of "proper" Christian dogma, and it doesn't matter if it directly contradicts some part of scripture.

My question is this: Are these things true, and if so why do they believe these things, and if not, why was I told them?

note: I may have exaggerated a bit.

No, that is not correct

Your friends/associates are speaking from ignorance (at best), and possibly out of spite.

Papal Infallibility

Per the Ecumenical Council now referred to as Vatican I (1870), papal infallibility relates to declarations made ex cathedra pertaining to faith and morals. (Catholic Encyclopedia, Infalliblity,  Explanation of papal infallibility)

  The Vatican Council has defined as "a divinely revealed dogma" that
  "the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra — that is, when in the
  exercise of his office as pastor and teacher of all Christians he
  defines, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, a doctrine of
  faith or morals to be held by the whole Church — is, by reason of the
  Divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, possessed of that
  infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer wished His Church to be
  endowed in defining doctrines of faith and morals; and consequently
  that such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of their
  own nature (ex sese) and not by reason of the Church's consent"
  (Denzinger no. 1839 — old no. 1680).

The most recent ex cathedra declaration regards the dogma of the Assumption of Mary (Apostolic Constitution of Pope Pius XII Munificentissimus Deus(AAS 42 [1950], 760-762, 767-769).  Ex cathedra declarations are rare.

About Penance

  Catholics believe that they have to say something like 5 to 10 of the
  lords prayer and possibly a few "Hail Mary"s added to the mix per sin
  depending on how "bad" it is.

That is sheer ignorance.  A wide variety of things can be assigned to the penitent during confession (the sacrament of penance and reconciliation, CCC 1422- 1489) by the confessor(priest) to include actions, apologies, repayment, restitution (and much more) depending upon the sin and circumstances.  Prayer is also usually assigned.  Why?  To turn back toward God and away from sin.  (See Repentance).

Prayer is as an opening of the heart to God.

  CCC 2258 WHAT IS PRAYER?

  For me, prayer is a surge of the heart;  it is a simple look turned
  toward heaven,   it is a cry of recognition and of love,   embracing
  both trial and joy.  ~ St. Therese of Lisieux, Manuscrits
  autobiographiques, C 25r.1

The point of prayer after confession is to head back into the direction of avoiding sin and near occasions of sin.  This may include prayers (Hail Mary, Our Father, Glory Be, others) but just saying these prayers yourself is in no way, shape, or form the approved method of confessing and resolving mortal sin -- that requires seeking absolution through the sacrament of penance and reconciliation(confession).  It may be that for a given confession penance only warrants prayer; in other cases, other penance may be assigned.


What writing materials did the writers of the Gospels use? I am wondering what kind of writing materials the writers of the Gospels used to make the original scrolls.

I know that papyrus and parchment were used widely at the time.

Echoing @djclayworth:

  We do not have any of the original manuscripts of the scriptures, nor any other evidence of what kind of materials were used. Presumably it would be the usual materials.

Looking at other documents from around the same time period we can assume papyri and/or parchment (Dead Sea Scrolls).

2 John 1:12-3 or 3 John 1: 13 mentions that paper and ink were used during the time period by at least one of the apostles.

  Having many things to write unto you, I would not write with paper and ink: but I trust to come unto you, and speak face to face, that our joy may be full.


Is there a Biblical basis for the concept of being allowed to "be angry with God" or "tell him just how we feel" I've heard, on multiple occasions, from my church and others that it's "okay to be angry with God" or that we can tell him how upset we are with him about something, etc.

It may seem silly, but this has always felt a little blasphemous to me... being angry with the God of the universe.  Is there any sort of Biblical basis for this concept?

To clarify (because I understand the question is a bit subtle): I am not looking for Biblical basis of expressing general emotions to God, that we see constantly throughout the Bible (such as the Psalms as a commenter below points out).

What I'm referring to is being angry at God and letting him know it.

The phrase that commonly goes with this is "Let him know, God's big enough to take it."

He obviously is big enough to take it, but that does not make it right.  That's the question at hand: is there biblical basis for it being acceptable (making it clear it is not sinful) to be angry at God and let Him know it.

Job.

Job, who is afflicted by The Accuser, spends most of the book shuttling between anger and faith. He remains steadfast, though he does not shy away from expressing his displeasure at the injustices heaped upon him.

His friends, who express all the typically pious nonsense you still hear today from Christians trying to be helpful, are of no help:

You must have done something bad, or else this wouldn't have happened
to you.
God has a plan for your life.
You need to repent.

All of their babbling misses the point, which is that suffering is inevitable, anger toward God is perfectly reasonable (He can take it), and that - FINALLY - the purposes of God are ultimately mysterious and behind our comprehension.

God reveals Himself to Job toward the end of the book, and delivers the longest divine monologue in the Scriptures - the most God has to say about His own nature anywhere in the Bible. And it's quite the speech: "Gird up your loins like a man, and face me." (Or, as I would have rendered it: Put on your BIG BOY panties, Job - things are getting real up in here.)

One way of looking at God's EPIC rebuke of Job might be that his reaction was blasphemous and he needed to be punished or corrected. But I find this a very immature and incomplete reading of the text, especially considering Job's ultimate vindication.

In my view, the better way of understanding this account is to realize that it is through the midst of Job's own dealing with his anger - honestly - with God, that he finally has a Theophanic (God Revealing) experience.

Job reveals his innermost self to God, and God responds by revealing Himself to Job.

You, too, can come before The Lord in your anger, or fear, or despair. You cannot hide from the almighty, whether you fly up to heaven or make your bed in hell. Only by offering your anger, yourself, to God will you ever be able to let go of it.

Your question has evolved to include "and let him know it."

Do not forget that God ALREADY KNOWS. Expressing your anger at God is not about informing the All-knowing Master of the Universe of something. It is, rather, about you coming to grips with your own anger in the presence of the Lord.


How to make driving out demons reasonable for non-christians? Recently I invited some colleague students over to an evening called Questions to Christians at my student association. Two of them came (both almost) completely unfamiliar with Christianity/faith/God etc.) and we discussed several topics and read the story about the Good Samaritan. I gave both of them a copy of the New Testament and one said we would read the story of the Good Samaritan with our project group. Today one of them was browsing the bible and read some pages. He found the following sentence in Luke 11:14:

  Jesus was driving out a demon that was mute. [NIV]

He also found some other parts but this one made him laugh really hard. To quote: "Are you serious, you really believe this ****?" After this question I took the bible and imagined how it would be as non-Christian, unaware of a God/Devil/sin and could only come to the same reaction. Now I'm wondering, how can you explain such a text to a non-christian? In this case, how can you make driving out demons reasonable (acceptable) for non-Christians?

Note: This question may seem close to a pastoral advice question, however I'd say this question fits into this description in the FAQ: understanding the Bible from the perspective of a specific viewpoint.

There's a lot of baggage that comes with belief, but it's simple to explain:

God exists and he is pure spirit
God made Angels which are pure spirit

Some Angels are good
Some Angels are bad

God made the world
God made people with a body and a spirit

Humanity's ability to comprehend this ends at "people with a body".  Philosophers can come up with the rest without the assistance of revelation.  But all that is directly observable is that we exist because the rest is supernatural.

As G.K. Chesterton wrote

  The strange truth about the matter is told in the very word "holiday." A bank holiday means presumably a day which bankers regard as holy. A half-holiday means, I suppose, a day on which a schoolboy is only partially holy. It is hard to see at first sight why so human a thing as leisure and larkiness should always have a religious origin. Rationally there appears no reason why we should not sing and give each other presents in honour of anything—the birth of Michael Angelo or the opening of Euston Station. But it does not work. As a fact, men only become greedily and gloriously material about something spiritualistic. Take away the Nicene Creed and similar things, and you do some strange wrong to the sellers of sausages. Take away the strange beauty of the saints, and what has remained to us is the far stranger ugliness of Wandsworth. Take away the supernatural, and what remains is the unnatural.

  G.K. Chesterton - Heretics

So, when someone asks you if you "really believe all that stuff", ask them whether it's more likely that Santa Claus conquers mars or that St. Nicholas is a member of the Church Triumphant gloriously giving his intercession to all those who call upon him in the communion of saints.

Specific to driving out demons.  Consider what it means, the mission of the Church and the Apostles was and is to go into places where people believed in demons, gave homage to them and worshiped them, and drive them out.

  The new kingdom has an eminently spiritual character. To enter it, it is necessary to repent and believe in the Gospel, to be freed from the power of the spirit of darkness, to submit to the power of God's Spirit, which Christ brings to human beings. As Jesus says: "But if it is by the Spirit of God that I drive out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you"

  Pope John Paul II - General Audience 11/4/1987

Whether or not the fellow you're in conversation believes in demons, he or she can certainly believe their absence is a good thing!  Maybe that's a place to start.


Verse that says that he who cannot govern himself cannot govern others? Where in Holy Scriptures does it say that he who cannot govern himself cannot govern others?

Where in Holy Scriptures does it say that he who cannot govern himself cannot govern others?

As @curiousdannii & @NigelJ pointed out, 1 Tim 3:5 is probably the closest NT single-verse match (Douay-Rheims translation):

But if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?

Since you are looking for OT Wisdom literature, another (but less exact) match can be the combination of these 2 Proverbs verses (Pr 25:28 and Pr 16:32), comparing the rule of one's self with the rule of a city (by a king), showing both the defensive and offensive attributes of self-government respectively (ESV translation):
Pr 25:28:

A man without self-control is like a city broken into and left without walls.

Pr 16:32:

Whoever is slow to anger is better than the mighty, and he who rules his spirit than he who takes a city.

Source: bibletools.org topical study on Self Government


What are the benefits of last rites to a mortally injured person in the Catholic belief? If a person is a unbeliever and has been injured in a way that there is no hope of survival and has never accepted Jesus Christ as Savior, does the Catholic Church believe that last rites performed with this person will bring salvation to this person.  I understand that anyone can be saved upon their deathbed but suppose this person was unconscious and never regained consciousness, would last rites still be performed and belief that this would save the person's soul?

Of course this questions is geared towards the Catholic community and Church.

From the Catechism of the Council of Trent:

The Effects of Extreme Unction
The advantages we receive from this Sacrament are also to be
accurately explained, so that if nothing else can allure the faithful
to its reception, they may be induced at least by its utility; for we
are naturally disposed to measure almost all things by our interests.
Pastors, therefore, should teach that by this Sacrament is imparted
grace that remits sins, and especially lighter, or as they are
commonly called, venial sins; for mortal sins are removed by the
Sacrament of Penance. Extreme Unction was not instituted primarily for
the remission of grave offences; only Baptism and Penance accomplish
this directly.
Another advantage of the Sacred Unction is that it liberates the soul
from the languor and infirmity which it contracted from sins, and from
all the other remains of sin. The time most opportune for this cure is
when we are afflicted with severe illness and danger to life impends,
for it has been implanted in man by nature to dread no human
visitation so much as death. This dread is greatly augmented by the
recollection of our past sins, especially if our conscience accuses us
of grave offences; for it is written: They shall come with fear at the
thought of their sins, and their iniquities shall stand against them
to convict them. Another source of vehement anguish is the anxious
thought that we must soon afterwards stand before the judgment seat of
God, who will pass on us a sentence of strictest justice according to
our deserts. It often happens that, struck with this terror, the
faithful feel themselves deeply agitated; and nothing conduces more to
a tranquil death than to banish sadness, await with a joyous mind the
coming of our Lord, and be ready willingly to surrender the deposit
entrusted whenever it shall be His will to demand it back. To free the
minds of the faithful from this solicitude, and fill the soul with
pious and holy joy is, then, an effect of the Sacrament of Extreme
Unction.
From it, moreover, we derive another advantage, which may justly be
deemed the greatest of all. For although the enemy of the human race
never ceases, while we live, to meditate our ruin and destruction, yet
at no time does he more violently use every effort utterly to destroy
us, and, if possible, deprive us of all hope of the divine mercy, than
when he sees the last day of life approach. Therefore arms and
strength are supplied to the faithful in this Sacrament to enable them
to break the violence and impetuosity of the adversary, and to fight
bravely against him; for the soul of the sick is relieved and
encouraged by the hope of the divine goodness, strengthened by which
it bears more lightly ail the burdens of sickness, and eludes with
greater ease the artifice and cunning of the devil who lies in wait
for it.
Finally, the recovery of health, if indeed advantageous, is another
effect of this Sacrament. And if in our days the sick obtain this
effect less frequently, this is to be attributed, not to any defect of
the Sacrament, but rather to the weaker faith of a great part of those
who are anointed with the sacred oil, or by whom it is administered;
for the Evangelist bears witness that the Lord wrought not many
miracles among His own, because of their unbelief.
It may also be truly said at the Christian religion, since it has
struck its roots more deeply in the minds of men, stands now less in
need of the aids of such miracles than it did formerly, at the
commencement of the rising Church. Nevertheless, faith should be
strongly excited in this respect, and whatever it may please God in
His wisdom to do with regard to the health of the body, the faithful
ought to rely on a sure hope of attaining, by virtue of this sacred
oil, health of the soul, and of experiencing, should the hour of their
departure from life be at hand, the fruit of that glorious assurance:
Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord.


How have Christians dealt with "I prayed my way to moral behavior"? I was in discussion with some friends about sin.  I believe that passages like "Be Perfect (Mt 5:48)", as well as many of the other tough sayings from Jesus, inform us that the continuing standard is absolute perfection.  When you realize you are incapable of obedience, then and only then do you seek Christ with your whole heart.  Part of my basis for this belief is from Luther's Heidelberg Disputation:

  The person who believes that he can obtain grace by doing what is in him adds sin to sin so that he becomes doubly guilty.  Nor does speaking in this manner give cause for despair, but for arousing the desire to humble oneself and seek the grace of Christ.   It is certain that man must utterly despair of his own ability before he is prepared to receive the grace of Christ.

I'm also influenced by Tullian Tchividjian's sermon:

  In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus wants to set us free by showing us our need for a rightness we can never attain on our own–an impossible righteousness that’s always out of our reach. The purpose of the Sermon on the Mount is to demolish all notions that we can reach the righteousness required by God–it’s about exterminating all attempts at self-sufficient moral endeavor.

Some of my friends, on the other hand, said if you had any sins, you can pray and God would not only help you overcome them (perhaps in a spiritual sense) but will allow you to become free of your participation in them. If you doubted you could pray your way out of sin, you were doubting the power of prayer. If you said that all Christians were ultimately immersed in some inescapable sins, then you were saying sin, disobedience, and fake contrition were okay.

Q: Is the view I'm describing here, in essence, "Wesleyan perfectionism" (WP)?
Q: Was the "power of prayer" ever invoked in defense of WP?
Q: Do the Bible or church fathers offer any critique of "pray to moral behavior"?

Q1: I understand Wesleyan perfectionism to be rather more amiable than often assumed. The theory is not that a Christian shall attain to an utter and persistent inerrancy. It is that a moment of pure faith in God is possible and in that moment, for as long as it lasts, there is nothing in which that Christian is morally at fault: past sins are forgiven or otherwise remitted (e.g. resolved in themselves by that pure faith) and momentarily the faith precludes sin, since "whatsoever is not of faith is sin" and thus sin could only proceed from a faithlessness of which the Christian in that moment is not guilty. There are forms of perfectionism which hold a view closer to the one I think you are viewing, but I don't take Wesleyan perfectionism to be one of them.

Q2: This question is partially nullified by my answer above. Nonetheless, I question the aim and motive of such an attempt at attaining, you might say, "perfection by prayer". That we might excuse ourselves of our sins by the consolation that we can merely pray ourselves into a moral perfection and thus not really need to develop the character to will with God against those sins? I imagine the Jesus we see in the Gospels would take issue with that! Why would God give us a will, and then go to lengths to ensure that we exercise that will and grow into alignment in that will with his own will, if in the end the solution is a momentary disavowal of that will, after which we never have to make any conscious effort to continue willing God's will? It seems like the daydream of one who desires to abdicate the moral responsibility God explicitly created him to have (God is the one who created our wills -- and called them good). So, so far as I believe I have understood God in my life, his project in me is to get me to continue to grow in trust of him (to have utter faith in him), that I might be freed to will according to his will, instead of being constrained by my fears to oppose his will and affect my own salvation or immortality (whether literally or symbolically).

Q3: If I understand the concept of "pray to moral behavior" as you mean it, it seems so foreign to the view of moral development in the Jewish mind and the emphasis on obedience in the words of Jesus in the Gospels that I question whether the theory could even be taken seriously enough by the Biblical authors to be addressed directly. What I would expect to find in Scripture, then, would be an assumed understanding that such a method of moral development (if it could be called that) could not possibly fit the nature of God, nor the evident nature of humanity.

Having said that, I would make clear that I hold prayer to be one of the fundamentals of Christian life and moral development, for several reasons, not the least of which being that it is an exercise in several essential things: 1) thinking of God personally; 2) trusting God personally; 3) prioritizing one's thinking in light of matters of eternal significance; 4) thinking of and empathizing with other people than ourselves (even if only God); 5) seeing ourselves with a measure of objectivity (that is, from God's perspective); 6) seeking security and truth outside ourselves; 7) admitting we don't have all the answers and are not sufficient for ourselves (that is, humility); 8) patience; 9) reflection and self-assessment; 10) listening (depending on the case) to the Spirit, to reason, and/or to the consciences God gave us and which may be trying to win our attention.

Furthermore, I believe prayer affects God in some way. Jesus certainly seemed to believe so, as did his brother. Now, I think the common apprehension here is due to our limitation: we think of God so one-dimensionally, as if God existed according to the precise same relation to time that we do. It is not clear that our past is the same, conceptually, as God's past. It may indeed be a category error to even posit such a thing as 'God's past' or 'God's future'. Herein lies the possibility for God both to be responsive to our prayers and to be 'the same yesterday, today, and forever': God exists, as nearly as we can express in human language, ever-presently. Our past, our present, and our future are all concurrent to God. It may be that God heard your prayer in your 2004 when he was forming the foundations of the world and simultaneously was speaking as the Lamb before John and passing before Moses and watching a sunrise in the autumn in Maine in days before European settlers reached the Americas. So God's actions, taken as a whole, are responsive to his own creation, from his perspective, but from our perspective it is equally true to say that he always intended, say, to ensure that a certain person didn't die in a certain storm in 1997. So it must be said that God always intended it, but it must also be said that he always intended it because he heard our prayers from before the foundation of the world. Thus God is both changeless (he would never have done otherwise than he has done) and open (God may respond especially, to any -- or, as it may be, every -- choice of humanity, and no doubt every honest prayer).

And lest someone claim that this seems to threaten his sovereignty, I would call to their attention that if indeed God chose sovereignly to give the power of volition to his creatures, then it follows as a matter of course that he sovereignly wills that they will (else why conceive of giving us wills?). Thus the idea that we have wills, and that he may honor those wills to any extent of his pleasing (even fully), does not in itself threaten God's sovereignty. He can, if he wants, give us wills, and give our wills space to will, to some extent, and himself respond to those wills actively.


Why are the offenses against Blessed Virgin Mary are called blasphemies instead of sin? There are five types of offenses and blasphemies committed against the Immaculate Heart of Mary:

  Blasphemies against the Immaculate Conception.
  Blasphemies against Her Perpetual Virginity.
  Blasphemies against Her Divine Maternity, in refusing at the same time to recognize Her as the Mother of men.
  The blasphemies of those who publicly seek to sow in the hearts of children indifference or scorn, or even hatred of this Immaculate Mother.
  The offenses of those who outrage Her directly in Her holy images.

Top 5 Sins Against the Immaculate Heart of Mary

Why are the offenses against Blessed Virgin Mary are called blasphemies instead of sin?

Looking for Catholic Foundational Teaching and explanation on blasphemies against the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Because blasphemy can relate to that which is very sacred to God also, as it is written:

  Revelation 13:6 (DRB) And he opened his mouth unto blasphemies against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven.

Cf. Jude 1:8, 10.


Do Mainline Presbyterians oppose Satisfaction Theory? Is this why "In Christ Alone" was rejected for their Hymnal? Satisfaction Theory is a theory of atonement that, in a nutshell, says that God's justice demands a certain amount of punishment for sin.  In that, God's "wrath" is often used as a metaphor for that need.

Recently, the PCUSA declined to add the hymn "In Christ Alone" in their new hymnal.  That the hymn is exceedingly popular is not in doubt.  The Baptist Hymnal, for example, included it, and even the PCUSA acknowledges that it is one they wanted to include. The hymn itself is replete with many deep theological statements, but this line is called out as being the reason for rejection.

The controversy stems from the following lyrics:

  “Till on that cross as Jesus died/The wrath of God was satisified.

which is a clear indication of satisfaction theory.

The article (linked above) says:

  The PCUSA's hymn committee had a problem with God being portrayed in the song as wrathful, and asked the writers for permission to change the problem stanza to, “Till on that cross as Jesus died/The love of God was magnified.” The author's refused, explaining that they had written the song to present the “whole gospel,” and in their view changing the line would compromise the message.

That said, I don't actually know if Mainline Presbyterians are opposed to satisfaction theory. If they are (say, preferring substitutionary atonement or the Christus Victor model), then I guess this statement makes sense.  But, if there is no such opposition, then I don't understand how one could, as the article explains oppose the concept of "God's wrath".

My question then, is this -

What does the Mainline Presbyterian Church (and specifically the more liberal PCUSA) hold in regards to Satisfaction Theory specifically?  Is this a case of PC "we don't like the idea of God being angry" or is it an actual truck with Satisfaction Theory itself?

If you want to understand why the PCUSA's hymn committee rejected the hymn, then you should read its brief statement of faith. The statement of faith focuses heavily on grace, and satisfaction theology tends to focus on works. The line from the song in question is very much based in satisfaction theology and thus contradicts the statement of faith.


Were any prophets sent to the Canaanites before Jewish immigration? Were any prophets sent to the Canaanites before Jewish immigration? I seem to recall there was a verse stating there were not, but I wasn't able to find it.

Are there any verses in support of or opposition to the premise, "All Gentile nations received prophets pre-Christ, especially those peoples living in the promised land"?

I would be most interested in whether any prophets were sent to the Canaanites before the Jews arrived in the Holy Land. But if there is any evidence of prophets being sent to them before the Incarnation, I would be interested to know that as well.

Were any prophets sent to the Canaanites before Jewish immigration?

Yes* - Abraham was a prophet (cf. Genesis 20:7) and was sent to dwell in Canaan as a "sojourner"; ie, to be present as a witness to the living God among the people there (cf. Hebrews 11:8-16). His son Isaac and grandson Jacob were inheritors of "the same promise" and likewise fulfilled this role.
*Assuming by "Jewish immigration" you mean the conquest of Canaan under Joshua.


Did Adam and Eve end up getting saved? After answering a recent question, it occurred to me to ask: Is there any biblical evidence regarding whether Adam and Eve have been redeemed in some fashion (and are thus going to Heaven/the New Earth)? (Someone to tweak the tags to fit better would be welcome!)

Unfortunately, the Genesis narrative is pretty sketchy about Adam and Eve after they were cast out of Eden, focusing more on their descendants.  We do know, however, that Cain and Abel both offered sacrifices to God.  It's reasonable to suppose that they were taught to do so by their parents, indicating a general attitude of piety.  Whether or not they actually repented and obtained forgiveness is left unclear.

I do remember reading the Apocrypha one time, and one of the books (I can't find it right now, does anyone have the reference?) contains a list of Old Testament characters and commentary on them, and it refers to Adam as "the greatest of all," alongside the great prophets and patriarchs.  While the Apocrypha is not generally considered canonical or authoritative, it's informative at least...


When did a "formal act of correction" of a pope's statement happen in the past? In this article Cardinal Raymond Burke has now indicated the cardinals are contemplating a “formal correction” should the pope fail to address their concerns.

Also, he states:

  Historically, in the rare cases where popes have taught heresy, Burke
  explains, “It is the duty…, and historically it has happened...

I did some research but couldn't find any sources that investigate this issue. My question is when and who did it happen that the bishops had to carry out the "formal correction" in the history of the church?

The Doctor of the Church St. Robert Bellarmine (1542-1621) collected 40 cases—from Pope St. Peter to Pope Innocent VIII (reigned 1484-1492)—of where a pope or anti-pope was said to have erred in faith (i.e., proclaimed heresy) in the work

De Controversiis Fidei Christianæ (Ingolstadt, 1588),

which has been recently translated as:

Robert Bellarmine, Papal Error?: A Defense of Popes Said to Have Erred in Fatih, trans. Ryan Grant (Mediatrix Press, 2015).

The 36th case of Pope John XXII (reigned 1316-1334) is probably the most famous recent one. Ockham (et al.) accused Pope John XXII of heresy for denying a dogma that had not yet been infallibly defined.

Basically, Ockham et al. thought that Pope John XXII denied the then-material (i.e., not-yet-infallibly-defined) dogma that the souls of the deceased destined to heaven behold the Beatific Vision immediately after death—a dogma which Pope John XXII's successor, Pope Benedict XII (reigned 1334-1342), infallibly defined in Benedictus Deus (1336). (cf. this and the references therein)

St. Robert, although defending Pope John XXII as a valid pope, writes that even cardinals (the vast majority of them!) opposed the opinion of Pope John XXII:

  The Third lie is that no Cardinal opposed the teaching of John. This is clearly false, because neither Gerson, nor any other says this, and because many thought the contrary, as was clear from the definition which was made by Pope Benedict XII after the death of John from the consensus of all Cardinals which is clear in the epistle of Benedict; nor was there a reason why these, who thought the contrary, should fear to oppose John while he was living. Benedict XII, in his Extravagantes, asserts that Pope John severely commanded the Cardinals and others, all teachers, that they should sincerely give their opinion, that the truth could be discovered. Next, John Villanus, who did live at that time, writes the greater part of the Cardinals opposed the opinion of Pope John while he lived. [Histoiria, lib. 10, cap. ult.]


Did Joseph Smith “translate the Book of Mormon”? In a related thread, the original inquirer asked,

  Why did Joseph Smith translate the Book of Mormon into Jacobean English, not in use in 1830?

When I see the word “translate,” it means to me that a scribe read a manuscript written in one language (e.g., Greek), and interpreted what he read in a different language (e.g., English).

An example of translation:

For example, the King James Version was produced when an assembly of men translated the Greek Textus Receptus (and a few other foreign language manuscripts of the Bible) into English.

In order for Joseph Smith to have “translated the Book of Mormon,” an English version of the Bible, he would have had to translate from a manuscript written in a foreign language, whether it be the Textus Receptus, the Latin Vulgate, etc.

According to the LDS Church, is the Book of Mormon a translation from a foreign language? If so, what foreign language manuscripts did Joseph Smith use to produce the Book of Mormon? If not, in what manner was the Book of Mormon written?

Yes, according to the Latter Day Saints, the Book of Mormon was originally written in 'reformed Egyptian characters' on gold plates by prophets living in the Americas from the fourth century BCE until the fifth century CE. However, Wikipedia says

  Scholarly reference works on languages do not, however, acknowledge the existence of either a "reformed Egyptian" language or "reformed Egyptian" script as it has been described in Mormon belief. No archaeological, linguistic, or other evidence of the use of Egyptian writing in ancient America has been discovered.

The term 'reformed Egyptian' comes from Mormon 9:32:

  And now, behold, we have written this record according to our knowledge, in the characters which are called among us the reformed Egyptian, being handed down and altered by us, according to our manner of speech.

The "Anthon Transcript" is a small piece of paper on which Joseph Smith is said to have transcribed reformed Egyptian characters from the golden plates, providing purported evidence that the alleged 'Reformed Egyptian' is an authentic script.

While the main LDS church continues to teach that the Book of Mormon is an authentic translation, a breakaway group known as the Community of Christ stated at a 2007 World Conference, "While the Church affirms the Book of Mormon as scripture, and makes it available for study and use in various languages, we do not attempt to mandate the degree of belief or use." (my emphasis)


Was James the early church leader? In Acts 15 Paul goes to the Jerusalem council and, although Peter speaks, James has the last word and announces his judgement: "Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God" - Acts 15:19

If Peter was leader of the early church, why did James take what appears to be the role of leader in speaking last and in elucidating his judgement?

It depends who you ask.

If you ask the Catholics, the 2010 catholic.com article Was James the Real Leader of the Early Church? makes the case that despite Acts 15 appearance that James was the leader, if we take into account the number of times Peter's name appear in the whole book (54) compared to James (4) and the prominence of Peter in the Gospels, Acts 15 alone wouldn't be sufficient to establish James as the leader.

The 3 theories of authorities mentioned in the article are:

  1) Peter and the other members of the twelve were concerned with a Christian mission far more extensive than just Jerusalem. They were never really local church leaders, once Jerusalem became big enough to require such caretakers. James was the first leader of the local church at Jerusalem (at least for the Hebrew Christians) and remained there after Peter and the other members of the twelve left the scene, whether through death or on travels. James had authority only in Jerusalem (and its “province”), but his name was known more widely because he was a blood relative of Jesus. Paul’s loyalty was to the “mother church” or community of saints in Jerusalem. His respect for James was a respect for the local leader of that church.

  2) Peter was a local leader at Jerusalem (even though he was known more widely because he had been a close follower of Jesus during the ministry). James took Peter’s place as the local Jerusalem leader (when Peter left Jerusalem or even earlier). Neither of them had a role as leader in the Universal Church, for, in fact, there was no single leader in the Universal Church.

  3) Peter was a universal leader, operating from Jerusalem as the center of Christianity, and was succeeded by James. In other words, the position of universal influence that Peter had at Jerusalem (except his apostleship) was transferred to James when Peter left Jerusalem or even earlier.

  The first theory aligns essentially with the Catholic belief; the second covers a wide range of mainline Protestant perspectives; and the third—the most extreme view—is embraced by more radical, liberal scholars.

The article noted of the "unlikely allies" supporting theory #2: Fundamentalist and Liberal scholars, both have strong anti-authoritarian sentiments and thus rallied against  the Catholic theory #1.

At any rate, the article tries to be even handed by referencing scholarly books supporting each theory so the readers can decide for themselves.


What denominations believe that Jesus Christ has a current physical body? As a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I believe that Christ after his death took up his physical body and that it was this now-perfected body that he showed the disciples, and that he still lives and has a physical form that can eat fish and has wounds.

What other denominations believe that Christ has a physical body at this time?

CAVEAT: I am not familiar with whatever differences might exist between the Chalcedonian
Creed's perspective on Christ's humanity and the CJCLDS's perspective on the same. I'll let my answer stand, however, if only to provide a traditional Protestant (and perhaps Roman Catholic?) perspective in the matter. If I have failed the questioner by not comparing and contrasting the two perspectives (assuming contrasts do exist), perhaps another contributor would care to weigh in and do what I have failed to do.

ORIGINAL POST: I'm confident in saying that most Protestant denominations believe Jesus, the eternal Word of God, became flesh and dwelt among us (John 1:14).  In fact, one of the most important creedal documents within Protestantism is the Chalcedonian Creed, which says, in part:

  "We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable [rational] soul and body; consubstantial [coessential] with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ, as the prophets from the beginning [have declared] concerning him, and the Lord Jesus Christ himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us."

In one of His post-resurrection appearances, however, Jesus referred to His body as "flesh and bone," not flesh and blood.

  "'See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have'" (Luke 24:39 NIV).

That Jesus did not say "flesh and blood" is significant. Evidently the resurrected Christ had what Paul referred to as a "spiritual body" (1 Corinthians 15:44). Moreover, after His resurrection Jesus had the ability to "beam himself" (thanks, Star Trek) wherever and whenever He wanted, suggesting that His post-resurrection body, though still human, was no longer limited in the same way it was prior to His resurrection.

Interestingly (though not in answer to your question!), the truth of Messiah's coming into the world as a flesh-and-blood human being is found throughout the Old Testament, and not just in the sacrificial animals of the cultus (i.e., the Tabernacle and later the temple). In Exodus 21, there is a touching ceremony pictured for us, and it involved a slave who out of love for his master would allow his ear to be pierced with an awl in the sight of God, his master, and a priest, thus signifying he was his master's for life (vv.5-7).

Psalm 40 picks up on the meaning of this ceremony when King David, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit said, in effect, that the offering of oneself to God is dearer to the heart of God than a million animal sacrifices. With this ceremony in mind, David said,

  "My ears you have opened [or pierced or dug]" (v.6) . . . I come . . . I delight to do Your will, O my God" (vv.7,8).

The writer to the Hebrews picks up on this theme and adds a thought to it:

  "Therefore, when He [viz., Jesus] comes into the world, He says:  'SACRIFICE AND OFFERING YOU HAVE NOT DESIRED, BUT A BODY YOU HAVE PREPARED FOR ME. . . . BEHOLD, I HAVE COME (IN THE SCROLL OF THE BOOK IT IS WRITTEN OF ME) TO DO YOUR WILL, O GOD'" (VV.5-7, excerpts, uppercase letters are in the NIV text).

All to say, the flesh-and-blood humanity was required for Jesus to become the Lamb of God who bears away the sin of the world (John 1:29 & 36). More importantly, however, Jesus' self-emptying (Greek, kenosis, as in Philippians 2:7) included His willingness to remain a man forever.

Thus you can see in the imagery of Exodus 21, with a slave's willingness to serve his master for a lifetime, the humiliation, the condescension, and the self-emptying of Messiah Jesus, which He gladly submitted to out of love for His Father and love for his family, which comprises all those who, in a similar fashion, submit their lives to God in an ongoing service of worship (see Romans 12:1).


Why do some Christians believe it is moral to be a homosexual? (Note: I know this may start a firestorm, so I will be careful here.)

I believe that the Bible states that homosexuality is immoral.

I also believe that it does NOT condemn homosexuals to hell (a sin is a sin is a sin). When a person receives Christ in them they are saved and ALL their sins are forgiven.

Some faithful Christians believe that it is not a sin to be homosexual. I would like to know the line of reasoning and/or Scripture passages that they use as their basis.

Also, I would like this to be about homosexuality itself, not about homosexuals or the culture of homosexuality (i.e. stereotypes about homosexuals, etc.).

The question asks "Why do some Christians believe it is moral to be a homosexual?" Because clearly, some do. This is not the place to hold forth on your own beliefs on the matter, this is Stack Exchange, where we answer the question posed.
Potentially Valid Reasons

Many Christians (including the Catholic Church, as recently restated by Pope Francis) believe that "being" homosexual (having homosexual sexual tendencies to some degree - remember bisexuals exist too) is not sinful in and of itself , but that having sex with another same-sex person is a sinful act. So a chaste homosexual is as holy as anyone else who's not sinning. Homosexual (or sexual, in general) acts are simply a sin like any other, from gossip to lying, not in some special "worse" category in any mainstream theology; most of the current firestorm about homosexuality specifically is political and bigotry related, not religion related.

Some Christians believe that the Biblical passages regarding homosexuality are misapplied/badly translated and therefore do not speak against what we would today regard as "otherwise moral" homosexual practice.  For more see What does the bible say about homosexuality? and this Human Rights Campaign article of the same name.

Some Christians believe that the Bible is inerrant in concept but not literally inerrant (see the Wikipedia entry on biblical inerrancy), and that there is a lot of cultural baggage associated with it that has to be sifted out to correctly interpret it. There are a lot of things we do/don't do partially based on this understanding (rejection of slavery, for instance).

Related to the previous point, some Christians believe that just as Jesus obsoleted/fulfilled the Law in favor of the love of God and the Golden Rule, we should look at the "big picture" and not focus on lists of sinful acts. Because, to be honest, the Bible says a lot of things. The OT says to not eat shrimp; that ban is not one most modern Christians recognize. If you love God and your neighbor, then the specifics which were intended to generally point you in that direction are not needed any more. Some Christians would say that the rejection of legalism and embrace of a more direct relationship with God (which is more complex than any set of rules) was the main point Jesus was trying to get across to us during his life and that Paul and other writers then also tried to get across in the other letters and such that became books of the Bible.

The church I'm in has better theologians on staff than I, and they say it's OK. Some denominations officially accept homosexuality in whole or in part.  For a good overview of different Christian teachings on homosexuality, see wikipedia. This includes mainline Christian churches such as various Lutheran, Anglican, and United Churches of Christ denominations.

Mostly Invalid Reasons
There are probably other reasons; those previously listed are the ones I feel have a decent foundation.  The illogical/unfounded reasons one might hear are:

"But they're born that way." It's not known for certain that there is a genetic predisposition to homosexual inclinations, but even if there is one (and I think there probably is), that has no bearing on the morality of the act. Sin is about the choices we make, not our DNA. Whether from original sin, the Fall, or the human condition, we all have tendencies that point us towards sin, and though those tendencies may make it difficult to live moral lives, we are not bound by them, and they are never excuses for sin. This is an odd argument that is applied to no other sin; would anyone say that if they had a genetic disposition against monogamy that they could get a mulligan on adultery? Of course not.

"Oh, who cares what the Bible/church says?"  This of course is a difficult position to hold about anything for a Christian. And if you're of another/no faith, we love you and all, but our worldview is guided by those things you reject, so that opinion is of limited help to someone wrestling with this problem from our worldview. One can argue that the Holy Spirit has guided them to this understanding, which is fine, though in general we are asked to test our perception of the Spirit's guidance by the Scriptures and church to verify it's God speaking and not the product of our own creative minds.

"I know a homosexual and they're not a bad person." This is someone unclear on Christianity's teachings in general, unaware that even good people sin and require repentance. The demonization of homosexuals by the more hateful elements in society actually feed this one; once someone meets a homosexual and sees that they don't have little goat horns and rape babies, they assume they were probably lied to 100% and reject even honest Biblical critique. Understandable, but not logical.

The polarization of society on this topic makes a lot of the usual Scriptural measuring sticks difficult to use. We are encouraged by culture and the media to think of things in terms of "right side/wrong side", so when we try to apply, say, "By their fruits you will know them," we see some homosexuals who clearly favor a licentious and ungodly lifestyle, but others who seem as normal as anyone's parents, just gay. And similarly we see some Christians with balanced views on the topic but plenty who are spouting hate and other clearly unchristian stuff as well. Which "side" is right? That's a false dichotomy that leads to confusion. My one contribution to this discussion is that I think we need to reject what the world is trying to tell us about which faction or football team we're on and, like God does, address it on an individual basis. There's a lot of judging around this topic based on the extreme activities of the exceptionally disturbed on one side or the other.


What are other explanations for Malachi 4:5-6? The LDS church believes the prophecy in Malachi 4:5-6 (KJV) has been fulfilled, and those verses are often cited while explaining why they're so interested in genealogy.

What other explanations exist for this prophecy? What do other denominations think it means that Elijah will "turn the hearts of fathers to their children and the hearts of children to their fathers?"

The Bible teaches that the Spirit of Elijah would be sent to the earth a total of 5 times (5 is the number of grace1). By Spirit of Elijah, I mean God's spirit anointing a man to bring a message, in the same way that the first Elijah was anointed (a straight shooter, hard hitter, come out of the wilderness, etc).

First, Elijah Himself

An examination of Elijah's traits may be beyond the scope of this question. If requested, I can revisit later.

Second - Elisha

  II Kings 2:9 And it came to pass, when they were gone over, that
  Elijah said unto Elisha, Ask what I shall do for thee, before I be
  taken away from thee. And Elisha said, I pray thee, let a double
  portion of thy spirit be upon me.

  II Kings 2:15 And when the sons of the prophets which were to view at
  Jericho saw him, they said, The spirit of Elijah doth rest on Elisha.
  And they came to meet him, and bowed themselves to the ground before
  him.

Third - John the Baptist (Forerunner to Jesus' First Coming)

  Malachi 3:1 Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the
  way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his
  temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in:
  behold, he shall come, saith the LORD of hosts.

  Luke 1:17 And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias,
  to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient
  to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the
  Lord.

  Matthew 7:11-13 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly
  shall first come, and restore all things. But I say unto you, That
  Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him
  whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of
  them. Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist.

Fourth - Forerunner to Jesus' Second Coming

Reading Malachi 3 as referring to John the Baptist's fore-running of Jesus' first coming, Malachi 4 can be read as another fore-runner preparing the way for Jesus' second coming. This man will turn the hearts of the children (the believer's of today) to the original faith preached by the early church apostles (fathers), just as John turned the hearts of the fathers of Israel to the "children" that received his message of the coming Christ. Malachi 4:5 predicts that this messenger will come before the great and dreadful day of the Lord, and if his message is rejected, the earth will be smitten with a curse.

Luke 1:17 specifically states that John would turn the hearts of the fathers to the children (Jesus' first coming), but does not include the Malachi 4:5 reference to turning the hearts of the children to the fathers (Jesus' second coming). This is similar to how Jesus, in the synagogue, began to read from Isaiah 61:1-2, but stopped halfway through verse 2 before he got to "and the day of vengeance of our God". He would fulfill that part of that verse at his second coming, but not his first.

Fifth - One of the Two Witnesses to Israel

  REVELATION 11:3 And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they
  shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in
  sackcloth.

See my response to this related question: Who Are the Two Witnesses?

To briefly summarize that more detailed response, the characteristics of the two witnesses are so similar to Moses and Elijah that we can conclude that the anointing of the two witnesses will be the same that was with Moses and Elijah. This is the fifth and final time that the spirit and power of Elijah will be manifest on earth.

1 See EW Bullinger's Number in Scripture, on the number five.


Who is the son in the Davidic Covenant (2 Samuel 7:14)? 2 Samuel 7:11-16 (ESV)
  11 from the time that I appointed judges over my people Israel. And I will give you rest from all your enemies. Moreover, the LORD declares to you that the LORD will make you a house. 12 When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. 13 He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. 14 I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son. When he commits iniquity, I will discipline him with the rod of men, with the stripes of the sons of men, 15 but my steadfast love will not depart from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away from before you. 16 And your house and your kingdom shall be made sure forever before me. Your throne shall be established forever.'"

It doesn't seem that it can be just Solomon since Solomon's kingdom didn't last forever. It also doesn't seem like it can be a reference to the Messiah/Jesus because this bit doesn't fit with what I know of the Christians believe that Jesus, being God, could not do wrong:

  2 Samuel 7:14 (ESV)
  14 I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son. When he commits iniquity, I will discipline him with the rod of men, with the stripes of the sons of men,

So who is being referred to in this passage?  I'm interested in an overview of what is commonly believed.  Quotes and references from any respected commentators are welcome.

The Matthew Henry commentary says that this passage is referring to the family of David, including Solomon; it also refers to Christ, who Henry says is sometimes called David or Son of David.

The section in which you're questioning the iniquity is not referring to Christ himself; rather, its talking about His spiritual seed (or believers). Believers have weaknesses, which they can expect to be corrected, but know that they won't be cast out because of them.

My answer is paraphrased from these commentary notes.


What were the 45 theologians' theological censures of «Amoris Lætitia»? On June 29, 2016, 45 theologians from all over the world presented a critical study of Amoris Lætitia to the Dean of the College of Cardinals, Cardinal Angelo Sodano. (source)cf. "Filial Correction of Pope Francis for the Propagation of Heresies," issued August 11, 2017, and signed by 40 clerics and academics

What theological censures did they issue against Amoris Lætitia?

The 45 theologians found 12 heretical propositions and 8 propositions falling under lesser censures:
Theological censures of propositions drawn from the Apostolic Exhortation Amoris laetitia

A - HERETICAL PROPOSITIONS

1) AL 83 : ‘The Church ... firmly rejects the death penalty’.
If understood as meaning that the death penalty is always and everywhere unjust in itself and therefore cannot ever be rightly inflicted by the state:

Haeretica, sacrae Scripturae contraria.
Perniciosa.

Gen. 9:63:

Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image.

See also: Lev. 20-1; Deut. 13, 21-22; Matt. 15:4; Mk. 7:10; Jn. 19:11; Rom. 13:4; Heb. 10:28; Innocent I, Letter to Exsuperius, PL 120: 499A-B; Innocent III, Profession of Faith prescribed for the Waldensians, DH 7954; Pius V, Catechism of the Council of Trent, commentary on the 5th commandment; Pope Pius XII, Address to the First International Congress of Histopathology of the Nervous System, AAS 44 (1952): 787; John Paul II, Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2267.
2) AL 156 : 'Every form of sexual submission must be clearly rejected.’
If understood not simply as denying that a wife owes servile obedience to her husband or that the husband has authority over his wife that is the same as parental authority, but as also denying that the husband has any form of authority over his wife, or as denying that the wife has any duty to obey the legitimate commands of her husband in virtue of his authority as husband:

Haeretica, sacrae Scripturae contraria.
Prava, perniciosa.

Eph. 5:24:

As the Church is subject to Christ, so also let wives be to their husbands in all things.

See also: 1 Cor. 11:3; Col. 3:18; Tit. 2:3-5; 1 Pet. 3:1-5; Pius V, Catechism of the Council of Trent, commentary on the sacrament of matrimony; Leo XIII, Arcanum, ASS 12 (1879): 389; Pius XI, Casti connubii, AAS 22 (1930): 549 (DH 3708-09); John XXIII, Ad Petri cathedram, AAS 51 (1959): 509-10.
3) AL 159 : 'Saint Paul recommended virginity because he expected Jesus’ imminent return and he wanted everyone to concentrate only on spreading the Gospel: “the appointed time has grown very short” (1 Cor 7:29). . . . Rather than speak absolutely of the superiority of virginity, it should be enough to point out that the different states of life complement one another, and consequently that some can be more perfect in one way and others in another.'
Understood as denying that a virginal state of life consecrated to Christ is superior considered in itself to the state of Christian marriage:

Haeretica, sacrae Scripturae contraria.
Perniciosa, suspensiva gravis resolutionis.

Council of Trent, Session 24, canon 10:

If anyone says that the married state surpasses that of virginity or celibacy, and that it is not better and more blessed to remain in virginity or celibacy than to be united in matrimony, let him be anathema” (DH 1810).

See also: Mt. 19: 12, 21; 1 Cor. 7:7-8, 38; 2 Thess. 2:1-2; Apoc. 14:4; Council of Florence, Decree for the Jacobites, DH 1353; Pius X, Response of the Biblical Commission, DH 3629; Pius XII Sacra virginitas, AAS 46 (1954): 174; 2nd Vatican Council, Decree Optatam totius, 10.
4) AL 295 : ‘Saint John Paul II proposed the so-called “law of gradualness” in the knowledge that the human being “knows, loves and accomplishes moral good by different stages of growth”. This is not a “gradualness of law” but rather a gradualness in the prudential exercise of free acts on the part of subjects who are not in a position to understand, appreciate, or fully carry out the objective demands of the law.’
5) AL 301: ‘It is [sic] can no longer simply be said that all those in any “irregular” situation are living in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace. More is involved here than mere ignorance of the rule. A subject may know full well the rule, yet have great difficulty in understanding “its inherent values”, or be in a concrete situation which does not allow him or her to act differently and decide otherwise without further sin.’
Understood as meaning that a justified person has not the strength with God’s grace to carry out the objective demands of the divine law, as though any of the commandments of God are impossible for the justified; or as meaning that God’s grace, when it produces justification in an individual, does not invariably and of its nature produce conversion from all serious sin, or is not sufficient for conversion from all serious sin:

Haeretica, sacrae Scripturae contraria.
Impia, blasphema.

Council of Trent, session 6, canon 18:

If anyone says that the commandments of God are impossible to observe even for a man who is justified and established in grace, let him be anathema” (DH 1568).

See also: Gen. 4:7; Deut. 30:11-19; Ecclesiasticus 15: 11-22; Mk. 8:38; Lk. 9:26; Heb. 10:26-29; 1 Jn. 5:17; Zosimus, 15th (or 16th) Synod of Carthage, canon 3 on grace, DH 225; Felix III, 2nd Synod of Orange, DH 397; Council of Trent, Session 5, canon 5; Session 6, canons 18-20, 22, 27 and 29; Pius V, Bull Ex omnibus afflictionibus, On the errors of Michael du Bay, 54, (DH 1954); Innocent X, Constitution Cum occasione, On the errors of Cornelius Jansen, 1 (DH 2001); Clement XI, Constitution Unigenitus, On the errors of Pasquier Quesnel, 71 (DH 2471); John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation Reconciliatio et paenitentia 17: AAS 77 (1985): 222; Veritatis splendor 65-70: AAS 85 (1993): 1185-89 (DH 4964-67).
6) AL 297 : ‘No one can be condemned for ever, because that is not the logic of the Gospel!’
If understood as meaning that no human being can or will be condemned to eternal punishment in hell:

Haeretica, sacrae Scripturae contraria.
Scandalosa, perniciosa.

Matt. 25: 46:

These shall go into everlasting punishment: but the just, into life everlasting”

See also: Mt. 7:22-23; Lk. 16: 26; Jn. 17:12; Apoc. 20:10; 16th Synod of Toledo (DH 574); 4th Lateran Council, DH 801; Benedict XII, Constitution Benedictus Deus, DH 1002; Council of Florence, decree Laetentur caeli, DH 1306; John Paul II, Letter of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Recentiores episcoporum, AAS 71 (1979): 941; Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1033-37.
7) AL 299 : ‘I am in agreement with the many Synod Fathers who observed that “the baptized who are divorced and civilly remarried need to be more fully integrated into Christian communities in the variety of ways possible, while avoiding any occasion of scandal. The logic of integration is the key to their pastoral care, a care which would allow them not only to realize that they belong to the Church as the body of Christ, but also to know that they can have a joyful and fruitful experience in it. They are baptized; they are brothers and sisters; the Holy Spirit pours into their hearts gifts and talents for the good of all. ... Such persons need to feel not as excommunicated members of the Church, but instead as living members, able to live and grow in the Church and experience her as a mother who welcomes them always, who takes care of them with affection and encourages them along the path of life and the Gospel”.’
If understood as meaning that the divorced and civilly remarried who choose their situation with full knowledge and full consent of the will are not in a state of serious sin, and that they can receive sanctifying grace and grow in charity:

Haeretica, sacrae Scripturae contraria.
Scandalosa, prava, perversa.

Mk. 10:11-12:

Whosoever shall put away his wife and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if the wife shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery”.

See also: Ex. 20:14; Mt. 5:32, 19:9; Lk. 16:18; 1 Cor. 7: 10-11; Heb. 10:26-29; Council of Trent, Session 6, canons 19-21, 27 (DH 1569-71, 1577); Session 24, canons 5 and 7 (DH 1805, 1807); Innocent XI, Condemned propositions of the ‘Laxists’, 62-63 (DH 2162-63); Alexander VIII, Decree of the Holy Office on ‘Philosophical Sin’, DH 2291; John Paul II, Veritatis splendor, 65-70: AAS 85 (1993): 1185-89 (DH 4964-67).
8) AL 301 : ‘It is [sic] can no longer simply be said that all those in any “irregular” situation are living in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace. More is involved here than mere ignorance of the rule. A subject may know full well the rule, yet have great difficulty in understanding “its inherent values”, or be in a concrete situation which does not allow him or her to act differently and decide otherwise without further sin.’
Understood as meaning that a Catholic believer can have full knowledge of a divine law and voluntarily choose to break it in a serious matter, but not be in a state of mortal sin as a result of this action:

Haeretica, sacrae Scripturae contraria.
Prava, perversa.

Council of Trent, session 6, canon 20:

If anyone says that a justified man, however perfect he may be, is not bound to observe the commandments of God and of the Church but is bound only to believe, as if the Gospel were merely an absolute promise of eternal life without the condition that the commandments be observed, let him be anathema” (DH 1570).

See also: Mk. 8:38; Lk. 9:26; Heb. 10:26-29; 1 Jn. 5:17; Council of Trent, session 6, canons 19 and 27; Clement XI, Constitution Unigenitus, On the errors of Pasquier Quesnel, 71 (DH 2471); John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation Reconciliatio et paenitentia 17: AAS 77 (1985): 222; Veritatis splendor, 65-70: AAS 85 (1993): 1185-89 (DH 4964-67).
9) AL 301 : ‘It is [sic] can no longer simply be said that all those in any “irregular” situation are living in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace. More is involved here than mere ignorance of the rule. A subject may know full well the rule, yet have great difficulty in understanding its inherent values, or be in a concrete situation which does not allow him or her to act differently and decide otherwise without further sin.’
Understood as saying that a person with full knowledge of a divine law can sin by choosing to obey that law:

Haeretica, sacrae Scripturae contraria.
Prava, perversa.

Ps. 18:8:

The law of the Lord is unspotted, converting souls.”

See also: Ecclesiasticus 15:21; Council of Trent, session 6, canon 20; Clement XI, Constitution Unigenitus, On the errors of Pasquier Quesnel, 71 (DH 2471); Leo XIII, Libertas praestantissimum, ASS 20 (1887-88): 598 (DH 3248); John Paul II, Veritatis splendor, 40: AAS 85 (1993): 1165 (DH 4953).
10) AL 303 : ‘Conscience can do more than recognize that a given situation does not correspond objectively to the overall demands of the Gospel. It can also recognize with sincerity and honesty what for now is the most generous response which can be given to God, and come to see with a certain moral security that it is what God himself is asking amid the concrete complexity of one’s limits, while yet not fully the objective ideal.’
Understood as meaning that conscience can truly judge that actions condemned by the Gospel, and in particular, sexual acts between Catholics who have civilly remarried following divorce, can sometimes be morally right or requested or commanded by God:

Haeretica, sacrae Scripturae contraria.
Scandalosa, prava, perversa, perniciosa, impia, blasphema.

Council of Trent, session 6, canon 21:

If anyone says that Jesus Christ was given by God to men as a redeemer in whom they are to trust but not also as a lawgiver whom they are bound to obey, let him be anathema” (DH 1571).

Council of Trent, session 24, canon 2:

If anyone says that it is lawful for Christians to have several wives at the same time, and that this is not forbidden by any divine law, let him be anathema” (DH 1802).

Council of Trent, session 24, canon 5:

If anyone says that the marriage bond can be dissolved because of heresy or difficulties in cohabitation or because of the wilful absence of one of the spouses, let him be anathema” (DH 1805)

Council of Trent, session 24, canon 7:

If anyone says that the Church is in error for having taught and for still teaching that in accordance with the evangelical and apostolic doctrine, the marriage bond cannot be dissolved because of adultery on the part of one of the spouses and that neither of the two, not even the innocent one who has given no cause for infidelity, can contract another marriage during the lifetime of the other, and that the husband who dismisses an adulterous wife and marries again and the wife who dismisses and adulterous husband and married again are both guilty of adultery, let him be anathema” (DH 1807).

See also: Ps. 5:5; Ps. 18:8-9; Ecclesiasticus 15:21; Heb. 10:26-29; Jas. 1:13; 1 Jn. 3:7; Innocent XI, Condemned propositions of the ‘Laxists’, 62-63 (DH 2162-63); Clement XI, Constitution Unigenitus, On the errors of Pasquier Quesnel, 71 (DH 2471); Leo XIII, encyclical letter Libertas praestantissimum, ASS 20 (1887-88): 598 (DH 3248); Pius XII, Decree of the Holy Office on situation ethics, DH 3918; 2nd Vatican Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et spes, 16; John Paul II, Veritatis splendor, 54: AAS 85 (1993): 1177; Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1786-87.
11) AL 304 : ‘I earnestly ask that we always recall a teaching of Saint Thomas Aquinas and learn to incorporate it in our pastoral discernment: “Although there is necessity in the general principles, the more we descend to matters of detail, the more frequently we encounter defects... In matters of action, truth or practical rectitude is not the same for all, as to matters of detail, but only as to the general principles; and where there is the same rectitude in matters of detail, it is not equally known to all... The principle will be found to fail, according as we descend further into detail”. It is true that general rules set forth a good which can never be disregarded or neglected, but in their formulation they cannot provide absolutely for all particular situations.’
Understood as meaning that moral principles and moral truths contained in divine revelation and in the natural law do not include negative prohibitions that absolutely forbid particular kinds of action under any and all circumstances:

Haeretica, sacrae Scripturae contraria.
Scandalosa, prava, perversa.

John Paul II, Veritatis splendor 115:

Each of us knows how important is the teaching which represents the central theme of this Encyclical and which is today being restated with the authority of the Successor of Peter. Each of us can see the seriousness of what is involved, not only for individuals but also for the whole of society, with the reaffirmation of the universality and immutability of the moral commandments, particularly those which prohibit always and without exception intrinsically evil acts” (DH 4971).

See also: Rom. 3:8; 1 Cor. 6: 9-10; Gal. 5: 19-21; Apoc. 22:15; 4th Lateran Council, chapter 22 (DH 815); Council of Constance, Bull Inter cunctas, 14 (DH 1254); Paul VI, Humanae vitae, 14: AAS 60 (1968) 490-91. John Paul II, Veritatis splendor, 83: AAS 85 (1993): 1199 (DH 4970).
12) AL 308 : ‘I understand those who prefer a more rigorous pastoral care which leaves no room for confusion. But I sincerely believe that Jesus wants a Church attentive to the goodness which the Holy Spirit sows in the midst of human weakness, a Mother who, while clearly expressing her objective teaching, “always does what good she can, even if in the process, her shoes get soiled by the mud of the street”.’
If understood as meaning that Our Lord Jesus Christ wills that the Church abandon her perennial discipline of refusing the Eucharist to the divorced and remarried and of refusing absolution to the divorced and remarried who do not express contrition for their state of life and a firm purpose of amendment with regard to it:

Haeretica, sacrae Scripturae contraria.
Scandalosa, prava, perversa, impia, blasphema.

1 Cor. 11:27:

Whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.”

Familiaris consortio, 84:

Reconciliation in the sacrament of Penance, which would open the way to the Eucharist, can only be granted to those who, repenting of having broken the sign of the Covenant and of fidelity to Christ, are sincerely ready to undertake a way of life that is no longer in contradiction to the indissolubility of marriage. This means, in practice, that when, for serious reasons, such as for example the children's upbringing, a man and a woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate, they ‘take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples’.”

2nd Lateran Council, canon 20:

Because there is one thing that conspicuously causes great disturbance to holy Church, namely false penance, we warn our brothers in the episcopate, and priests, not to allow the souls of the laity to be deceived or dragged off to hell by false penances. It is certain that a penance is false when many sins are disregarded and a penance is performed for one only, or when it is done for one sin in such a way that the penitent does not renounce another” (DH 717).

See also: Mt. 7:6; Mt. 22: 11-13; 1 Cor. 11:28-30; Heb. 13:8; Council of Trent, session 14, Decree on Penance, cap. 4; Council of Trent, session 13, Decree on the most holy Eucharist (DH 164647)); Innocent XI, Condemned propositions of the ‘Laxists’, 60-63 (DH 2160-63); John Paul II, Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1385, 1451, 1490

B) PROPOSITIONS FALLING UNDER LESSSER CENSURES
[…]

Endnotes
1 Cf. Lucien Choupin, Valeur des décisions doctrinales et disciplinaires du Saint-Siège, 2nd ed. (Paris: Beauchesne, 1913), pp. 52-55; and A.-M. Aubry, Obéir ou assentir ? De la « soumission religieuse » au magistère simplement authentique, Paris, DDB, collection « Sed Contra », 2015. .
2 See H. Quilliet, ‘Censures doctrinales’, DTC II, 2101-2113, and the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, ‘Doctrinal commentary on the concluding formula of the Professio fidei’, June 29th, 1998.
3 Scriptural references are taken from the Vulgate or from the neo-Vulgate.
4 All references to Denzinger are taken from the 43rd edition.


True Doctrines Or Heresies? I am a Protestant. I have been trying to trace the church from the time of Jesus to the current day. I have a question.

In the first half a century I see great debates in the defense and development of true doctrine. During this time central truths were developed such as the doctrine of the Trinity and the Incarnation. At least 24 major heresies were withstood, and the New Testament was canonized. If any of this would have failed to happen, Christianity, as we know it today, would not look the same.

Here is my question.

Many of the doctrines of the early church, such as tradition, liturgy, icons and so on were all well established by the third and fourth centuries. They have been rejected by the Protestant faith as false teachings. But these doctrines were developed close to the source where the water is usually the purest. They were developed by men that gave their lives for what they believed and taught. If they were heretical, would the streets have not run with blood, yet it seems there was unity on most doctrines?

In my understanding, Protestantism takes the view that "if not in the [Protestant] Bible, it's human doctrine" (view more formally called sola scriptura). And if human doctrine, it is therefore fallible and should be judged according to their merits and consistency with the rest of the biblical teaching. This is the origin of many Protestant rejections of Catholic and Orthodox doctrines.

Now, you are asking for these other practices that are not in the [Protestant] Bible. Are they true doctrines? Well, this is surely a matter of debate. A Protestant apology of the adoption of some of such doctrines is in this answer. Ultimately, the key issue is to whether there is authority in what the Catholic and Orthodox churches call Tradition, i.e. the rules of faith and practice that were (allegedly) transmitted by the Apostles to their own disciples and churches, and which are not explicitly in the Bible. It is pointless to deny the existence of these traditions. St. Paul himself states:

Corinthians 11:2

  I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the traditions just as I passed them on to you.

2 Thessalonians 2:15

  So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.

The debate is about what exactly does this tradition include and to which extent it is necessary for salvation.

It should be remembered here that not even within Protestantism there is a unified voice about what doctrines and practices are valid or not. For instance, an issue as basic as the Eucharist is very contentious (e.g. see here). Not all hold Sunday as the observance day either. And so on. In effect, here the Catholic Church states that actually, the Bible alone is not enough to define all necessary doctrines of faith and practice. Hence its recourse on Tradition for things like the seven sacraments, and so on.

Finally, notice also that the canon of the Bible is different among denominations. Thus, for instance, things like the purgatory are justified in Catholicism based, among other things, in 2 Maccabees, which is not part of the Protestant canon. Thus, even without recourse to tradition, mere canon differences give rise to doctrinal differences among denominations.


Jehovah's Witnesses Memorial of Christ's Death Why did Jehovah's Witnesses not use the Passover this year to celebrate the memorial, as has been their tradition since Jesus instituted this to celebrate his death ?

The Jehovah's Witnesses have the practice of celebrating the Memorial of Christ's Death on the 14th of Nisan which corresponds with the Jewish Passover.

"Jehovah's Witnesses commemorate Christ's death as a ransom or "propitiatory sacrifice" by observing the Lord's Evening Meal, or Memorial. They celebrate it once per year, noting that it was instituted on the Passover, an annual festival. They observe it on Nisan 14 according to the ancient Jewish luni-solar calendar. Jehovah's Witnesses are taught that this is the only celebration the Bible commands Christians to observe."

The year 2016 poses a unique set of circumstances as to why the Jewish community has decided to defer the celebration of their Pesach to such a late date this year. The Jewish Passover is to be commemorated on April 23 2016 starting  at sundown!

The Jewish calendar follows a lunar cycle calendar, which comprises of some 354/355 days. Since the lunar calendar is about 11 days shorter than a 365-day solar calendar, it is necessary to added an extra month every so many years to realign the two calendars! This is what is happening this year.

The Jehovah's Witnesses have apparently decided to keep the first possibility of celebrating the Commemoration of Christ's Death on the first possibility after the first full moon after the spring equinox (March 20/21), which falls on March 23 this year.

Nevertheless there are some communities that feel that the Jewish community should have chosen another year than 2016 to add the extra month than 2016 to realign their calendar and moving their Pesach to such a late date.


What are biblical arguments for congregationalist church polity? The Orthodox and Roman-Catholic Churches argue that the episcopal church polity is the only valid one, citing first and second Timothy and early church fathers like Ignatius of Antioch.
What are some biblical arguments for congregationalist church polity?

Having grown up within the Plymouth Brethren tradition, I was taught that a local church should be led by a plurality of elders and served by a plurality of deacons. While the definitions, uses, and even connotations of the terms elder, overseer, bishop, and under-shepherd have changed significantly in the years following the Apostolic Age, local churches in the apostles' days were ruled by elders and served by deacons.
From Michael J. Kruger:

The New Testament evidence itself seems to favor a plurality of elders
as the standard model. The book of Acts tells us that as the apostles
planted churches, they appointed “elders” (from the Greek term
πρεσβυτέρος) to oversee them (Acts 11:30; 14:23; 15:2; 20:17). Likewise, Titus is   > told to “appoint elders in every town” (Titus 1:5).

A very similar word, ἐπι,σκoπος (“bishop” or “overseer”), is used in
other contexts to describe what appears to be the same ruling office
(Phil 1:1; 1 Tim 3:1-7
The overlap between these two terms is evident in Acts 20:28
when Paul, while addressing the Ephesian “elders” (πρεσβυτέρους), declares that“The > Holy Spirit has made you overseers
(ἐπισκόπους).” Thus, the New Testament writings indicate that the
office of elder/bishop is functionally one and the same.

As for church polity, each local church (or possibly numerous local churches in a given locality, such as in the province of Galatia in the apostle Paul's day) likely had its own elders and deacons. I am not suggesting, however, that local churches were hermetically sealed off from one another. When a collection was being made for the poor saints in Jerusalem, for example, many local churches participated in that generous good deed.
I suggest that in the intervening centuries, local, independent congregations participated in various projects together for the common good, for evangelistic purposes, and ultimately for the glory of their common Lord and Savior.
In the Plymouth Brethren movement in the 19th and 20th centuries, many local congregations, though independent (and interestingly, supposedly "non-denominational"!), collaborated in financing the building of new church structures, supporting missionaries in dozens of countries around the world, and pooling resources to launch various ministries, including evangelistic efforts, such as a city-wide crusade.
Even beyond the "tri-state" area in my neck of the woods in the 1950s, at least a dozen independent Plymouth Brethren (hereafter, PB) churches banded together in founding a Christian summer camp for boys and girls, where kids had loads of fun, of course, but also received instruction from God's word, sang Christian choruses together, had "testimony time" at evening campfires, ate together in a lodge in which each cabin of similarly aged boys or girls dined together, listened to announcements, and participated in the "cleanest cabin" competition, with the camp nurse as chief inspector!
Volunteers from New York State, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and several cities in Ontario Province, Canada, converged on the campgrounds located in the Southern Tier of New York State. They volunteered their labor to build the camp from the ground up, but they also labored each year in the spring to get the camp ready to open in late June for the first of many camp sessions for children, young adults, and later, for entire families.
The board of directors for the camp is composed of members from the various churches that support the mission of the camp. They meet regularly at the camp to manage its finances, to plan expansion and maintenance projects, and to assign tasks--including camp-session directorships--to men and women who are vetted by their home churches.
My dad, an elder in one of the two--at that time--PB assemblies in Rochester, New York, was the first Spiritual director of the camp. I could not count the number of times that my family made the three-and-a-half-hour trip to camp for Saturday workdays to prepare the camp for summer. My dad served as camp director for at least one two-week session for elementary-age children each year, and my mom served as chief cook and bottle washer during the same two-week session, cooking for almost 200 campers and staff volunteers.
I could go on and on about the spiritual fruit that came about because of that summer camp. Children and young adults were won to the Lord, young people who were once campers became volunteer staff workers, counselors, lifeguards, craft instructors, ropes-course instructors, and teachers of skills such as knot tying, fire making, compass reading, canoeing, archery, riflery, swimming and lifesaving, horseback riding, and much more.
In short, a congregational church polity seems to work best when individual congregations are free to administer their day to day affairs, including church discipline, and are at the same time free to unite with other like-minded Christians of similarly independent congregations to collaborate in doing the work of ministry for the glory of God.


Is the name "Ahmed" found in scripture? Some say that name "Ahmed" (the Muslims' prophet who is also known as "Mohamed") is mentioned in scripture, and it is foretold that he would be a prophet, but his name was censored years after Jesus.

Does modern Christianity accept this? Are there any references?

I know that Mohamed was born many years after Jesus, but I'm looking for something in the way of a divination or a enunciation.

You might want to look at this question, which is virtually identical. To summarize:

It is a simple matter to search the entire contents of the Bible. Doing so will reveal no occurrences of the words Muhammad or Ahmad or any of their spelling variants. Manuscripts of the New Testament have been found going back to the first few decades after Jesus, and in none of these manuscripts does the name Muhammad or Ahmad appear.

Claims like this, made by Muslims, are usually referring to the Gospel of Barnabas. The Gospel of Barnabas  has never been part of the Christian Bible. It contradicts all of the early Christian documents in many ways, follows a remarkably Islamic point of view, and includes a passage in which Jesus predicts Muhammad. No manuscripts of this gospel, or any description of it, exist from before the 16th Century. (There are mentions of a Gospel of Barnabas from the 6th Century - still much later then the canonical gospels -  but we have no way of knowing if this is the same document.)

To directly address the 'censored' question: No, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever of the name having been removed from any biblical documents. There are no manuscripts of biblical documents that contain his name; there are no letters referring to such documents; there are no letters discussing such censorship. Also the canon of scripture was established before Mohammed, and we have many copies of the documents that predate Mohammed, so no: this did not happen.


What do red garments represent for leaders in the Catholic church? Why do leaders in the Roman Catholic Church wear red garments? I understand that the color red can mean a variety of things (Holy Spirit, Pentecost, presence of God, blood of martyrs, etc.), but what specific meaning(s) does the Catholic church place on this color of garment, and who is permitted and/or required to wear red, and under what circumstances?

Vestment Color Indicating Liturgical Season

With respect to vestment color, the appropriate document for the Catholic Church is the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, which has quite a long section on the color of vestments as part of Chapter VI, "The Requisites For The Celebration Of Mass".

With respect to colors of vestments in general, paragraph 345 states:

  Diversity of color in the sacred vestments has as its purpose to give more effective expression even outwardly whether to the specific character of the mysteries of faith to be celebrated or to a sense of Christian life’s passage through the course of the liturgical year.

As far as wearing red in particular, paragraph 346 gives us:

  As regards the color of sacred vestments, traditional usage should be observed, namely:
  ...
      b. The color red is used on Palm Sunday of the Lord’s Passion and on Friday of Holy Week (Good Friday), on Pentecost Sunday, on celebrations of the Lord’s Passion, on the “birthday” feast days of Apostles and Evangelists, and on celebrations of Martyr Saints.

I can't find what I consider an authoritative description (clearly attributable to Church hierarchy or to official Church teaching) of why red is chosen for those days specifically, although (as you point out) red can indicate the presence of the Holy Spirit through fire (as on Pentecost), or can indicate blood (as in the celebration of Good Friday or of the feasts of martyrs).

The mere fact that red can or could be used to indicate other things does not mean that it is in fact used to mean those things in the Catholic Church, and certainly not that the use of red is thereby any less appropriate.

Cardinals Wearing Red Vestments

I did find a reference in a story from EWTN, which cites a formula the Pope uses when he gives a new cardinal their red biretta (their hat):

  The Pope places the biretta on the cardinal's head and pronounces a formula which includes the following words: "(This is) red as a sign of the dignity of the office of a cardinal, signifying that you are ready to act with fortitude, even to the point of spilling your blood for the increase of the Christian faith, for peace and harmony among the people of God, for freedom and the spread of the Holy Roman Catholic Church".

Again, then, we're back to red as a representation of the (potential, at least hypothetical) spilling of (one's own) blood for the Church.

This is part of the new rite for the creation of cardinals, which was promulgated by Pope John Paul II in 1991. It is reasonable, however, to believe that this interpretation of the color symbolism dates back considerably further than that time - indeed it appears that the word cardinal with the meaning of "a particular shade of bright red", and indeed the name of the bird called "the cardinal", is due to the red vestments used by the cardinals.


Could Angels and Demons die? We know that Angels were created before Man. Trinity is uncreated and eternal i.e: sempiternal.

Could Angels and Demons be killed or die or lose their life according to Orthodox Christianity i.e: Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant?

I mean by death complete loss of both consciousness and memory. I mean by a life being both conscious and has a memory. This memory may be even one minute.

First of all, you must know what death means.

According with the above definition (courtesy of St. Gregory Palamas), you will see that there are two deaths.

Perhaps we must stress here, before answering, that both Angels and Demons in your text are ...Angels, because Devil is not a definition of species but a definition of behavior.

Because angels (good and bad) are incorporeal they are not subject of the first death.

So, since devils are good by nature but evil in intention, they are the only ones from the angels which suffer the second death.

Bonus point #1: Any intelligent entity (angel, human soul) is eternal by God's grace. It will not cease to exist.

Bonus point #2: Humans are the only ones which are subjects to the first death (all of us) and, possibly, subjects of the second death (God forbid!).


Where did Roman Catholicism connect modern heresies with the Reformation? Protestant theologian R. C. Sproul, in his series Contemporary Theology, comments on Rome's view of the connection between the Reformation and modern heresies:

  In the latter part of the 19th century, growing out of Vatican I, in the Roman Catholic Church the charge was made that all modern heresies (humanism, pragmatism, existentialism were listed and cited specifically) have their roots in the Protestant Reformation.  That was the Roman Catholic Church's judgment at the end of the 19th century about the chaos in Christendom. ("Background to Contemporary Theology," 5:30)

This certainly sounds like something that Roman Catholicism (and many impartial observers) would accept.  However, I looked in two documents of Vatican I (Dei Filius and Pastor aeternus) and didn't see anything like this.  So:

Did an official outlet of the Roman Catholic Church actually make such a statement in the late 19th century?  Were heresies like humanism and existentialism specifically mentioned as being the result of the Reformation?  Or are such statements only found in the writings of Catholic theologians and not the church itself?

Pope St. Pius X mentions Protestantism in §13, §25, and §§38-39 of Pascendi Dominici gregis,* his 1907 encyclical condemning Modernism, "the synthesis of all heresies" (§39). For example, at the end of §39, "Modernism and All the Heresies," he writes:

  …by how many roads Modernism leads to the annihilation of all religion. The first step in this direction was taken by Protestantism; the second is made by Modernism; the next will plunge headlong into atheism.

The idea of "steps" from modernism to atheism is illustrated, albeit in a Fundamentalist Protestant context, in "The Descent of the Modernists" by E. J. Pace, Christian Cartoons, 1922:

*Here is some audio of Fr. Thwaites, SJ, reading Pascendi: part 1, part 2, part 3