Where did the idea of the inerrancy of the King James Bible come from? Many Christians believe that the King James Bible is the only correct translation of the word of God. And they say that all other versions of the Bible are not inerrant.

What is the historical origin of this way of thinking?

Today's "King James-only" movement, and its argument that the KJV is itself inspired, does indeed have historical precedence, though it's debatable if the 20th-century movement can claim a strong link to similar thinkers in previous centuries.
There are two major precedents to today's movement, so we'll look at those first:

Pre-KJV elevations of particular translations (Septuagint, Vulgate, and Luther's Bible)
Nineteenth century elevation of the KJV
Late 20th-century KJV-only movement

Pre-KJV
Before the KJV was completed in 1611, several other translations of the Bible enjoyed particularly high status, with some groups going so far as to identify them as inspired in and of themselves.  Three frequently cited examples are the Septuagint, the Vulgate, and Luther's Bible.
The elevation of the first, the Septuagint, dates back as far as 100 BC, in the Letter of Aristeas.  Much of the letter is rejected as fictitious, but it does describe supernatural guidance in the writing of the Septuagint, and a curse laid on any who dared edit it.  In the early first century, Philo describes how all the translators of the Septuagint independently came to have the exact same text:

They, like men inspired, prophesied, not one saying one thing and another another, but every one of them employed the self-same nouns and verbs, as if some unseen prompter had suggested all their language to them. (Works of Philo Judaeus, III, 82)

Philo's account influenced early church fathers like Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, and they defended the accuracy and even inspiration of the translation.
Much later, in 1546, the Vulgate was similarly recognized by the Council of Trent, which said that "no one is to dare, or presume to reject it under any pretext whatever."  When Erasmus published his own critical Latin text, he was opposed by Martin Dorp and Petrus Sutor (a.k.a. Pierre Cousturier), the latter of which said:

If in one point the Vulgate were in error the entire authority of Holy Scripture would collapse. (Quoted in Preston and Jenkins, Biblical Scholarship and the Church, 27)

And similarly, some advocates of Luther's German translation of the Bible, completed in 1534, considered it inspired:

Some indiscreet friends of the reformer, impressed by the beauty of the translation, imagined they could recognize in it a second inspiration. (History of the Reformation, III, 337)

So we see then a very early tendency to elevate particular translations, and thus it shouldn't surprise us that something similar happens in English.
KJV onlyism in the 19th century
The KJV enjoyed dominance in the English-speaking world for many years after its publication, and was not seriously challenged until the 19th century, when the Revised Version was prepared.  This new translation was not undertaken without major debate, during which the "inspiration" argument was adopted by many opponents of a new translation.  Many authors briefly note the existence of such arguments, such as:

Henry Alford, 1866: "Yet this is the version which some would have us regard as infallible, and receive as the written word of God!" (Commentary on Hebrews)
Around 1840: "Some had gone so far as to pronounce the Bible as translated by the distinguished forty-nine, a perfect work!" (Life of Spencer Houghton Cone, page 355)
Armitage, 1850: Some "hinted" that the KJV "had come down from heaven in about its present shape, printed and bound" (History of the Baptists, I, 901)

Thus the idea of perfection of the KJV itself has existed for a long time, at least as early as the mid-19th century.
KJV onlyism in the 20th century
Roy Beacham and Kevin Bauder, opponents of KJV onlyism, provide more historical details than I have, and conclude that "no traceable connection exists between those of the nineteenth century who held such a view with those of the later part of the twentieth century" (One Bible Only?, 44)  They find the modern movement's origin to a book published in 1930:

That book, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, was written by Seventh-Day Adventist missionary, educator, and theologian Benjamin G. Wilkinson (1872–1968).

Wilkinson opposed the English Revised Version, Beacham and Bauder say, because "it robbed him of several favorite Adventist proof texts," but his book was uninfluential until it was discovered by James Jasper Ray, who published a derivative work, God Wrote Only One Bible, in 1955.  And this work, in turn, inspired David Otis Fuller and Peter Ruckman, two highly influential KJV-only proponents.  Ruckman's The Bible Babel (1964) and Fuller's Which Bible? (1970) both rely on Ray, and in 1978 Fuller founded the Dean Burgon Society to promote KJV onlyism.  Both argue that the KJV is an inspired translation and absolutely authoritative, and Ruckman has bombastically claimed that the KJV has new revelation, above and beyond the original scripture.
According to Beacham and Bauder, all notable KJV-only proponents, like Jack Chick, D. A. Waite, Jack Hyles and Gail Riplinger can be linked "back to Fuller or Ruckman or both," though they admit the existence of at least one scholar loosely associated with the movement, Textus Receptus proponent Edward F. Hills, who was uninfluenced by them.
Conclusion
The history of the modern KJV-only movement can be traced primarily to Benjamin Wilkinson and his 1930 book.  But to do so would ignore a long history of claims of inspiration for the KJV and other translations, stretching back as far as the time of Christ.  As the Oxford Handbook of the Bible in America says:

As an identifiable entity, the King James Only movement is rather young, overwhelmingly Baptist, and thoroughly American.  While its ideological roots stretch back to nineteenth-century Britain and the first calls to revise the KJV, the movement is properly a product of the second half of the twentieth century. (source)


Historically what percentage of the Catholic Church's liturgical function was done in Latin? I have been doing some research and reading about the history of what a church gathering looked like, prior to the Reformation.

One thing I have not been able to find detailed information regarding which languages were employed in church services, for the majority of history up to the beginning of the Reformation.

I understand that religious services were done in Latin, but it seems less clear whether the sermons (homilies), music, prayers and so on were also  spoken in Latin or the vernacular instead.

Specifically:

What percentage of a typical church service was performed in Latin prior to the Protestant Reformation?

Note: I tagged this Catholicism because that was the primary denomination prior to the Reformation and the time period I am interested in

The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass: Dogmatically, Liturgically and Ascetically Explained (1902) by Fr. Nikolaus Gihr writes in the first footnote of §32, "The Language Used in the Celebration of the Holy Mass" (p. 319-328):

  Whether the Apostles celebrated the Holy Sacrifice in the language of each individual nation or only in the Aramean (Syro-Chaldaic), Greek and Latin languages cannot be determined with certainty. In any case, from the first four centuries no liturgy can be shown composed in any other than the three languages of the inscription of the Cross [i.e., Hebrew, Greek, Latin]. In the West, for example, in Italy, in Germany, in Spain, in France, in England, Latin was at all times the liturgical language. Toward the end of the ninth century Pope John VIII. (872-882) permitted the Moravian Slavs, converted by Sts. Cyril and Methodius, to celebrate the liturgy in their (Slavonic or Glagolitic) native language, and that probably in order to prevent their apostasy to the Greek Schism. In the East also the Church later on permitted some schismatics and heretics, who had returned to the unity of the Church (for instance, the Copts, Armenians, Ethiopians), to retain their native language in the liturgy.

Fr. Adrian Fortescue's 1917 The Mass: A Study in the Roman Liturgy says, in §3 "Latin as a Liturgical Language" of the ch. "The Origin of the Roman Rite," that (p. 126-127):

  Latin was apparently first used by Christians in Africa. Pope Victor I (190-202), who was an African, is generally quoted as the first Roman to use it.³ Novatian (c. 251) writes in Latin; since about the third century this becomes the usual and then the only language spoken by Christians at Rome. When it replaced Greek in Church is disputed. Kattenbusch dates it as the liturgical the second half of the third century,⁴ Watterich,⁵ Probst⁶ and Rietschel⁷ think that Greek was used till the end of the fourth century. In any case the process was a gradual one. Both languages must have beenused side by side during a fairly long period of transition. A certain Marius Victorinus Africanus, writin about 360 in Latin, still quotes a liturgical prayer in Greek.¹ The Bible existed only in the Greek Septuagint for some time.² The lessons were read in Greek at Rome, at any rate on some days, till the VIIIth century;³ some psalms were sung in Greek at the same time.⁴ Amalarius of Metz⁵ († c. 857) and Pseudo-Alcuin⁶ still mention Greek forms. The creed at baptism may be said in either Greek or Latin, at the convert's discretion, according to the Gelasian Sacramentary.⁷ But our present Greek fragments⁸ are later interpolations.

By at least the 12th century, the Latin language in the Roman (i.e., Latin) Rite was most widely used, and, as Fr. Gihr writes (p. 319-320), it was attacked by heretics and schismatics:

  The Mass considered in itself could assuredly be celebrated in any language, but by the Providence of God the Latin language has become, and still continues to be of all languages the most widely diffused for divine worship.² The very ancient practice of the Church of celebrating Mass in the West, not in the living language of the country, but in a dead language, that is, in Latin, for the most part a language unintelligible to the people, has since the twelfth century to the present epoch been frequently made the subject of attack.

Between the 12th century and the Council of Trent, there were some oddities or abuses like half-Latin, half-vernacular sequences (cf. Fortescue p. 275), but the Council of Trent curtailed these by saying (Session 22, can. 9):

  Canon IX.—If anyone saith, … that the mass ought to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue only… let him be anathema.

Regarding homilies: These are meant for the instruction of the faithful, and thus they were in the vernacular.

For the most recent scholarship on this topic, see:

Reid, Alcuin. The Organic Development of the Liturgy: The Principles of Liturgical Reform and Their Relation to the Twentieth Century Liturgical Movement prior to the Second Vatican Council (Farnborough, Hants.: St. Michael’s Abbey Press, 2004).

International Federation Una Voce (FIUV)'s position paper:

PP 7: Latin as Liturgical Language (revised 10/10/12)

FIUV is an international organization promoting the pre-Vatican II Roman Rite Mass in Latin.


Does the Orthodox Church accept the Athanasian Creed? One of the main points of debate between the Eastern and Western churches concerns the words "and the Son" in the Nicene Creed's description of the Holy Spirit.

The so-called Athanasian Creed includes the words "and the Son" when describing the Holy Spirit.

How does the Orthodox Church view the Athanasian Creed?

For the Orthodox, there is precisely one Creed: the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed.

That being said, it depends on what you mean by 'accept'.  The theology of Quicunque Vult / (Pseudo-)Athanasian Creed is definitely Latin in origin, but, generally speaking, it is theologically acceptable to the Orthodox once the filioque is removed. It is occasionally included in Russian psalters without the filioque. For example, see here for a ROCOR view.

However, Quicunque Vult is not considered normative in Orthodoxy. It is a useful historic document of the Church, but it was never endorsed (or to my knowledge, mentioned) by an Ecumenical Council. It is not creed.

Most of this is covered by Wikipedia.


Source of Christian attitudes towards fantasy and role playing games I've heard many stories of people who abandoned their role-playing hobby, or burned their fantasy book collections, on the grounds that these were opposed to their Christian faith.

What is it that causes some Christians to be concerned about fantasy and role-playing? What are the sources** for these concerns?

**Not just Biblical sources, but also the people that promoted the concern within the Christian community.

I have never been heavily involved in fantasy or role playing games, but I've had plenty of friends who were. A couple of them have given it up for one reason or another.

The most applicable of these cases was somebody who was convicted about the usage of their time spent in the gaming world not being productive or glorifying to God. There was no objection on principle to the activities, but they were convinced that there were better things to be doing with their time. Besides ... in light of the grace they received from Christ, they wanted to spend their sharing that grace with others. The real world is hardly a boring place, and the way it comes alive in light of the Gospel is enough to inspire and drive even the most active imagination.

I also have friends (who I respect) that think their time spent in role playing games or fantasy worlds is well balanced and the interaction with people a valuable investment. I don't know enough about the culture of gaming to know how easy/hard/valid/invalid this is, but I have to imagine as a past-time and social activity it doesn't have to be a bad thing.

That being said, the content of what you are participating in needs to be considered. Considering movies as a whole one might conclude that watching films is permissible, but then if all you watch is trash, obviously you've twisted some truth into a lie. If the content of the world you are participating in is not wholesome, as a Christian you would have no business continuing.

I think this might fall under the umbrella of Paul's admonition about meat sacrificed to idols. All things are permissible but not all things are beneficial. That's a judgement call you'll have to make. Is your time spent in gaming or role playing giving the most glory to God that you can give with your life?


How can a theistic evolutionist account for the origin of suffering and death? Young-Earth creationists have an easy answer in Genesis 3: it’s all man’s fault, but this conflicts with the overwhelming consensus in several scientific fields.

Theistic evolutionists can accept that consensus, but they have a problem explaining how suffering and death arose in a world made by a benevolent, omnipotent creator, and pronounced by him to be “very good”, long before man came along to spoil things.

They only attempt I’ve seen is by Michael Lloyd in his ‘Cafe Theology’, where he suggests that, after Satan fell, he caused the problem, long before man came on the scene. But are there any other ideas?

For Christians who completely reject the story of Adam and Eve in any literal sense, the scriptures don't provide any definitive alternative. Thus you are entering into the realm of conjecture. Indeed, even if we were to take all of Genesis at face value, there isn't a lot of detail.

That said, I think I would approach this problem by questioning the axioms of the argument. Namely: is it true that if God is benevolent and omnipotent that there thus cannot be any suffering/death in a perfect world?

I would argue that a certain amount of suffering is actually beneficial to our growth as individuals and, at a more basic level, to our survival. A little cut from a knife teaches you that a knife is dangerous and to be handled with care, for instance.

Additionally, death is necessary for new life. You constantly hear about how we are running out of resources due to our growing populations - imagine if nothing ever died! Thus death enables the possibility for new life. Even if we didn't need to eat, the planet would quickly get overcrowded with life and we'd be miserable.

If we are focused on Theistic Evolutionists, they will further argue that God used evolution as the means through which he created life in all its various manifestations - which requires reproduction and ultimately death (as noted above).

Let us also note that physical death is not the end from a Christian perspective; merely a necessary step in transitioning from our natural bodies to spiritual bodies.

Finally, both God and Christ are believed to have suffered and, in the latter case, even died despite being sinless. So Christianity would appear to reject the notion that perfection = no suffering/pain/death.


Do Jehovah's Witnesses still believe the number of the 144,000 in Revelation is a literal number? Jehovah's Witnesses believe that the number of the 144,000 (those who will rule with Christ from heaven) is a literal number.

  14 Interestingly, Charles T. Russell recognized the 144,000 to be a literal number of individuals making up a spiritual Israel. In The New Creation, Volume VI of his Studies in the Scriptures, published in 1904, he wrote: “We have every reason to believe that the definite, fixed number of the elect [chosen anointed ones] is that several times stated in Revelation (7:4; 14:1); namely, 144,000 ‘redeemed from amongst men.’” In Light, Book One, published in 1930 by the Bible Students, it was likewise stated: “The 144,000 members of the body of Christ are thus in the assembly shown as selected and anointed, or sealed.” Jehovah’s Witnesses have consistently held to the view that literally 144,000 anointed Christians make up spiritual Israel.  Source: https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/pc/r1/lp-e/1200274226/11/0

In 1935 the number of Jehovah’s Witnesses who believed they were part of the anointed 144,000 was 52,465.  Then, in 1938 they were told that the number of the 144,000 had been sealed and from that point, the number of Witnesses partaking of the bread and wine decreased rapidly. I had relatives who became Witnesses in the mid 1930's and they were told they could not be part of the heavenly anointed class. Instead, they were led to believe they would be part of the earthly class.

The lowest number of partakers this century was 8,524 (in 2005) but that number went up to 19,521 (in 2018). However the 2019 Yearbook is not available on the official JW.org website.  Has the number of Witnesses gone up this year?

Has the Governing Body received increased light to suggest that the number of the 144,000 is now perceived as being symbolic rather than literal?

If that is not the case, and the number is still literal, why is that number increasing rather than decreasing?

The number 144,000  is still believed to be a literal number.  The reason for the number of persons claiming to be spirit anointed increasing in recent years can only be explained 2 ways:

1) The number chosen from the earth is going to consist of a larger number of modern day Christians  than previously thought.

2) Many of the persons who are counted as partakers of bread and wine at the annual memorial of Christ’s death are mistaken about being called.

Remember JWs number under 8.5 million worldwide but over 20 million persons attended the memorial. As the number of attendees goes up the number of cases of persons partaking in error goes up too.

The actual number of spirit anointed brothers and sisters on earth today is known only by the King who calls them.

Do we worry about the number ?
See  https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/402016046?p=par#h=23

When does the calling of Christians to a heavenly hope cease?

See https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2007327


Which denominations are considered mainstream in the UK? Wikipedia lists these denominations as "mainline protestant" churches in the United States:

American Baptists
Disciples of Christ
Congregationalists / United Church of Christ
Episcopalians
Lutherans
Methodists
Presbyterians

However in the UK some of those denominations don't exist; I've always understood the British mainstream protestant denominations to be:

Anglican
Baptist
Methodist
United Reformed Church (The Congregationalists and Presbyterians merged a few decades ago to form this denomination).

Does such a definitive list exist anywhere? Is there a way in which some denominations are "officially recognised" in the UK while others aren't?

This 2007 report entitled Churchgoing in the UK has a vast array of demographic data on churchgoers in the UK. It even differentiates between regular churchgoers and those who just state affiliation.

For example, among regular churchgoers surveyed, the denominational breakdown is:

Church of England 31%
Roman Catholic 29%
Church of Scotland/Presbyterian 9%
Methodist 6%
Baptist 4%
Pentecostal/New churches 7%
Other 7%
Non-trinitarian 3%

All these are defined in the report (especially Appendix 1 Figure 10). This should answer mainstream as in "most common." Mainline is defined as a specific doctrinal stance in the Wikipedia article you link, so denominations on that list would be "mainline Protestant" there too. Though some don't exist there, I think there aren't any that exist there that aren't here/in that master list.


If marriage is not a sacrament for reformed churches, how to interpret Ephesians 5:32? As far as I know, Martin Luther in his "Vom ehelichem Leben" indicates that marriage is not a sacrament. Calvin mentioned in the Institutes that it was Gregory I who denoted marriage as a sacrament.

I would like to know how the reformed churches interpret Ephesians 5:32 where marriage is linked to a great mystery (=sacramentum?) between Christ and his church. I will appreciate especially citations from Luther, Calvin or other similar authorities.

This question at first seemed like a non sequitur to me, but it actually comes from an interesting place.
The Eastern Orthodox churches use the Greek word μυστήριον (musterion) to refer to sacraments, but the word actually means 'mystery', and many Orthodox would prefer the term Sacred Mystery over sacrament. Ephesians 5:31-32 says that the joining of a man and woman in marriage so that they become one flesh is a mystery, which is really about Christ and the Church, so it makes sense that it is considered a sacrament to the Eastern Orthodox churches.
The Western churches, including most Protestants, follow the Catholic Church and understand sacrament to mean a sacred symbol. The Catholic catechism says:

The sacraments are efficacious signs of grace, instituted by Christ and entrusted to the Church, by which divine life is dispensed to us. The visible rites by which the sacraments are celebrated signify and make present the graces proper to each sacrament. (1131)

The sense is not that they are mysteries, but that they are symbolic rites which effect God's grace. The Catholic Church considers marriage to be a sacrament, as Ephesians 5:32 does say that it does symbolise the joining of Christ to the Church.
Most Protestants only recognise two sacraments: baptism and communion. While Lutherans still believe that the sacraments are Means of Grace, most other Protestants generally consider them to be almost purely symbolic. The sacraments are limited to the rites which are directly instituted by Jesus himself. The Apology to the Augsburg Confession (Lutheran) says:

If we define the sacraments as rites, which have the command of God and to which the promise of grace has been added, it is easy to determine what the sacraments are, properly speaking. For humanly instituted rites are not sacraments, properly speaking, because human beings do not have the authority to promise grace. Therefore signs instituted without the command of God are not sure signs of grace, even though they perhaps serve to teach or admonish the common folk. (Article XIII)

The 39 Articles (Anglican) say:

Sacraments ordained of Christ be not only badges or tokens of Christian men’s profession, but rather they be certain sure witnesses, and effectual signs of grace, and God’s good will towards us, by the which he doth work invisibly in us, and doth not only quicken, but also strengthen and confirm our Faith in him.
There are two Sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel, that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord.
Those five commonly called Sacraments, that is to say, Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and extreme Unction, are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel, being such as have grown partly of the corrupt following of the Apostles, partly are states of life allowed in the Scriptures; but yet have not like nature of Sacraments with Baptism, and the Lord’s Supper, for that they have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God. (Article XXV)

Even though marriage is a symbol in which even non-Christians unknowingly still demonstrate to a limited extent the joining of Christ and the Church, and even though it is a blessing from God, and even though God did institute it, it is not a particularly Christian rite. Baptism and the passover existed before Jesus came to the earth, but he transformed them when he gave the instruction to baptise in the name of the three persons of the Trinity and to eat the bread and drink the wine to remember his death. The two sacraments recognised by Protestants directly symbolise aspects of the gospel and Christ's death on the cross.
In the gospel passages of the Last Supper and the Great Commission, Jesus institutes the two Christian sacraments of baptism and communion, but there are no similar passages where Jesus institutes marriage, nor does he transform it. Protestants do not consider a Christian marriage to be different in any way from a marriage of non-Christians. So marriage is not thought to be a Christian sacrament.


What is the biblical basis for the belief that people must have children? What is the biblical basis for the belief that people, generally speaking, must have children? I'm not referring to prohibitions on artificial birth control, but rather the idea that married people should attempt to have children.

I have heard many people say this, but I don't know what Bible passages they use to defend the idea that everyone should have children.

What is the biblical basis for the belief that people must have children?

I remember reading in a magazine once years ago that people in poor countries had lots of children because that was their investment in the future, sort of their retirement program. They contrasted this with people in wealthy countries who have few children because the productive years of their children are taxed to support the state. The implication was that there was no incentive to invest the time, money, and toil if you would not reap any reward.

The rise of the nation state and the accumulation of wealth to facilitate this view are only widely available since the industrial revolution. The Bible is written by and to people who only know the more natural way of family and children. In a similar way, there is no biblical basis for saying that we must breathe, it is just a natural process that is taken as a given.

The option of avoiding children is now available using various chemical and mechanical technologies of birth control measures including abortion. To consider the biblical basis for not making use of this technology. We need to derive a doctrine from various verses;

  Psalm 127:3  Lo, children are an heritage of the LORD: and the fruit
  of the womb is his reward.

Here we should consider that if children are from the Lord, then acting to prevent this would seem in opposition to the will of God.

  Genesis 9:1  And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be
  fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.

If God has a general plan for humans to fill the earth, then acting to avoid this may also place us in opposition to the plan of God.

  Psalm 22:10  I was cast upon thee from the womb: thou art my God from
  my mother's belly.

If God gives us life before birth, terminating that life may bring retribution.

  Revelation 18:24  And in her was found the blood of prophets, and of
  saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth.

  Psalm 106:38  And shed innocent blood, even the blood of their sons
  and of their daughters, whom they sacrificed unto the idols of Canaan:
  and the land was polluted with blood.

It may be that one of the oral contraceptive mechanisms (implant failure) actually causes an abortion. However, even if the extinguishing of unborn life is avoided, the problem remains of setting a course in life apart from that God would have us walk.

  Isaiah 53:6  All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every
  one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us
  all.

The Bible describes a final accounting. The Christian will stand before Jesus and may have to explain why he decided that his own plans and purposes were more important to him that what Jesus would have for him.

  1 Corinthians 3:13-15  Every man's work shall be made manifest: for
  the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and
  the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.   If any man's
  work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.
  If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he
  himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.

For the unsaved, their accounting will be according to their works.

  Revelation 20:12  And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before
  God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is
  the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which
  were written in the books, according to their works.

While the Bible does not specifically say the people must have children (which would be difficult for the infertile), The two most intimate relationships we can have (husband / wife, and parent / child) are integral to the process of having children. These relationships are considered so fundamental that the Bible often makes use of these relationships to illustrate other points.

The choice not to have children while often cloaked as being prudent or responsible often is used to allow two people greater personal indulgences. This mind-set is rebuked when it is applied to prayer.

  James 4:3  Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may
  consume it upon your lusts.

One might want to consider if the technology of birth control and abortion can be used as any other technical innovation such as the electric light with little regard to biblical relevance.


How do young earth creationists explain the evidence for ice ages? I am interested to know how those with a "Young Earth" viewpoint (i.e., the earth is approximately 6,000 years old) see the apparent evidence of the ice ages, i.e. that ice sheets formed and eroded the landscapes we see today. Unlike evolution, there is visible evidence of this, and the mountains eroded already contain fossils, i.e., the process could not have taken place before the creation of life.

I have considerable sympathy for an anti-evolution stance, but have not yet found a solution to this one.

Young-Earth Creationists tend to agree that the Ice Age(s*) occurred after the Great Flood, but they have a variety of proposed explanations that seek to reconcile the Biblical record and artifactual evidence.

From Answer in Genesis's article When Was the Ice Age in Biblical History?:

  Editor’s note: Biblical creationists have not reached a consensus on one Ice Age model. This article represents one view. Differences between the models have no major bearing on the overall timescale of a straightforward reading of Scriptures, i.e., the Flood of Genesis 6, which occurred roughly 4300 years ago, brought on one major Ice Age that lasted a few hundred years.

The remainder of this article from Dr Andrew Snelling and Mike Matthews argues for a fairly specific timeline that compresses the entire Pleistocene epoch to the period between the dispersion from Babel and the time of Abraham (190 years). It makes this argument based on: the assumption that the Bible is inerrant; the artifactual data indicating that geographically widespread stone age tool use dates from the beginning of the Ice Age; archeological data indicating that the Ice Age had finished prior to the building of the cities (civilizations) of Abraham's day. The approach of the article is geared towards convincing Biblical Inerrantists of their particular model.

CMI's article What caused the Ice Age?, while likewise (tacitly) based on assumptions of biblical inerrancy, engages with the scientific data and theories regarding glaciation events at a somewhat deeper level. It makes the following germane points:

The science is by no means settled in this area:

  ...the Ice Age is a major challenge for secular scientists. There are over 60 ideas (theories) on the origin of the Ice Age. That is why David Alt, professor of geology at the University of Montana, stated: “Although theories abound, no one really knows what causes ice ages.”

*There was only one Ice Age:

  On land, most areas have evidence consistent with only one ice age. At the edge of the ice sheets, the glacial debris can be complicated, and it is here that they try to claim many ice ages. Yet, it is well known that the edge of an ice sheet advances, retreats, and surges rapidly forward creating complicated glacial sediments. It was admitted by five secular scientists that multiple ice ages are really an assumption. Instead of three or four ice ages in Alberta, Canada, these scientists concluded that there was only one.

Cyclical orbital peturbations are insufficient to explain the widescale glaciation during the Pleistocene era - the primary driver was the  catastrophic events surrounding the Great Flood theorised to include global scale volcanism:

  Can the Ice Age be explained within the biblical worldview?

  Secular scientists really can’t explain how an Ice Age happened, but can creation scientists? Yes, but first it needs to be placed within biblical earth history. The glacial features lie on top of sedimentary rock. This is a good indication that the Ice Age happened after the Flood. The conditions after the Flood were unique. Investigating them can help us find the answer.

  The Flood was a very catastrophic global event that included massive volcanism. So, after the Flood, numerous small volcanic particles were trapped high up in the atmosphere. These particles cooled the earth by reflecting sunlight back to space. But the volcanic particles would slowly settle out over several years. It is well accepted from the physical evidence that during the Ice Age there were many more volcanic eruptions than we have today. These would continually replenish the upper atmosphere with fine particles, probably stretching the cooling to several hundred years. So, the cooler summer requirement for the Ice Age is fulfilled.


Are there any verses showing God being fooled or deceived? Are there any passages in the bible (old or new) that display god as getting tricked by somebody? For example in the Garden of Eden God didn't know (or seemed to not know) about the apple being eaten until he was told. Could they have lied? Are there any examples of something like this happening?

In standard Christian theology, God is described as omniscient, or all-knowing (by major theologians such as St Aquinas).  This is incompatible with being deceived.  Accordingly we would not interpret any passage in the Bible as implying God was deceived, unless we wished to discard this core belief.


Why did God create man with the ability to sin? I've read a highly favored answer here on C.SE that when people get to heaven they are no longer capable of sinning yet they still have free will.

So my question is simple, why did he ever create us with capability to sin and then punish us if we do sin? Free will is out of the question now since it was clear that we can have free will without the capability of sinning.

When you say: “when people get to heaven they are no longer capable of sinning” not all Christians would agree with this response.  There is no evidence that any “free will” creature who has been reborn and experienced the wholeness of God’s love, would then rebel against that love.  Can’t and won’t are two different things.

  Romans 4:16 Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed…

So a faith relationship enables a loving relationship.  God created man for a loving relationship, thus man was created with choice.  Faith is a choice, whom will I trust, will I trust the serpent or will I trust the Word of God?

So your question: “why did he ever created us with capability of sin and then punish us if we do sin”?  God desires a loving relationship with mankind and the wholeness of love with some is evidently of more value to God than the rejection and damnation of others.

  2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance

God does not want any to perish!


According to Reformed theology, where is the Scriptural evidence for homoousion? The Westminster Confession of Faith says:

  The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.

According to Reformed Theology, where is homoousion either "expressly set down" or "deduced" from the bible?

This question is related, but it only deals with when and how homoousion was used prior to the Nicene Council.

Before we get into the weeds, here are the main points that I intend to impart:

Reformed theology generally accepts the church fathers' wisdom on the homoousion.
The concept of homoousion, not the term, is what matters most.
The concept of homoousion safeguards the Gospel against Arianism.
There is no single proof-text for the term, but the concept is inseparable from the Biblical witness.

And now we move into the weeds.

Francis Turretin, author of one of the classic reformed systematic theologies, affirmed that the church father Basil was correct to advance the term despite a lack of singular proof-texts:

  Francis Turretin [Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 1:37-39] asked whether Christian doctrine was to be legitimately proved "only by the express word of God" or also from "consequences drawn from Scripture." He observed that "a thing may be said to be in Scripture in two ways: either kata lexin (expressly and in so many words); or kata dianoian (implicitly and as to the sense." It is unnecessarily reductionist to suggest that a doctrine is biblical only if a proof text can be adduced. Turretin drew attention to Basil's response to the Arians in which he argued that their demand for a proof text to establish the homoousion rendered them "syllable-catchers."

  Mark D. Thompson, "The Divine Investment of Truth," in Do Historical Matters Matter to Faith, 75

The church father Athanasius believed that the concept has its origin in the New Testament:

  Athanasius ... rightly recognized that the proper understanding of the homoousion was lodged within the New Testament from the outset. The homoousion may be a word foreign to the New Testament, but it was, ultimately, not a concept foreign to the New Testament, for the New Testament proclamation did not simply give rise to it but actually contained its meaning.

  Thomas Weinandy, Athanasius: A Theological Introduction, 136

For Athanasius, the entire Gospel was at stake in the debate against Arianism:

  It must be stressed that so far as Athanasius was concerned it was not the word homoousios itself that was of central importance, but what the word stood for. There was no substantial change in his position when he came more and more to use homoousios in his writings: it served simply to focus and concentrate the entire debate with Arianism. What it meant for Athanasius was simply this: that the reality of God himself is present with us and for us in Christ. "One ousia" means "one divinity", "one activity", "one presence", "one glory", "one power and energy": all that the Father is, the Son is also, except that the Father is Father, the Son, Son. This was the decisive difference between Athanasius and Arianism; for any assertion of this kind was, in the Arian horizon, strictly incorrect and untrue. For Arius and his followers, however, the point might be expressed, decorated or qualified, the Son is not God as the Father is God; for Athanasius, he is.

  [From Athanasius' perspective,] what was missing in Arius' entire scheme was, quite simply, God himself. True, he was there—after a fashion. He was there, but he was silent, remote in the infinity of his utter transcendence, acting only through the intermediacy of the Son or Word, between whose being and his own, Arius drew such a sharp distinction. The God in whom Arius believed had no direct contact with his creation; he was for ever and by definition insulated and isolated from it in the absolute serenity of an unchanging and unmoving perfection. God himself neither creates nor redeems it; he is involved with it only at second hand. This is on the one hand the corner-stone of Arius' theology, and on the other the point of fundamental contrast with Athanasius. This remote transcendence, Athanasius rightly sees, has nothing to do with the God of the Old and New Testaments, the Father of Christ. When Arius' system is put to question, not simply about its own internal logic, but about its adequacy as a means of interpreting and expressing the Gospel, it is found to be hopelessly inadequate; for the Bible speaks of a God who is present and who does act in and for the world which in his own, and whose presence and activity are uniquely concentrated in the man Jesus who is at the same time Immanuel, God-with-us. For Arius, that cannot really be; for Athanasius, it is the centre around which everything else falls into place.

  Alasdair I.C. Heron, "Homoousios with the Father," in The Incarnation, 68-69

Here's an example of Athanasius' scriptural reasoning at work in the homoousion controversy:

  The bishops ... were again compelled on their part to collect the sense of the Scriptures, and to re-say and re-write what they had said before, more distinctly still, namely, that the Son is 'one in essence' with the Father: by way of signifying, that the Son was from the Father, and not merely like, but the same in likeness, and of showing that the Son's likeness and unalterableness was different from such copy of the same as is ascribed to us, which we acquire from virtue on the ground of observance of the commandments. For bodies which are like each other may be separated and become at distances from each other, as are human sons relatively to their parents (as it is written concerning Adam and Seth, who was begotten of him that he was like him after his own pattern); but since the generation of the Son from the Father is not according to the nature of men, and not only like, but also inseparable from the essence of the Father, and He and the Father are one, as He has said Himself [John 10:30], and the Word is ever in the Father and the Father in the Word [John 10:38], as the radiance stands towards the light (for this the phrase itself indicates), therefore the Council, as understanding this, suitably wrote 'one in essence,' that they might both defeat the perverseness of the heretics, and show that the Word was other than originated things. ... If the Son is Word, Wisdom, Image of the Father, Radiance, He must in all reason be One in essence.

  Athanasius, De Decretis, 20,23

Lastly, observe how reformed theologian Stephen J. Nichols affirms each of the main points listed above while citing additional verses for reference:

  The bishops at Nicea concluded that homoousios alone measured up to the standard of biblical teaching. The Nicene Creed declares that Jesus is "very God of very God, begotten not made, being of one substance with the Father."
  This creed is not uncovering new ground. Rather, it summarizes the massive swath of biblical material regarding the person of Christ. The author of Hebrews begins by declaring, "He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature" (Heb. 1:3). Paul says rather directly that in Jesus "dwells the whole fullness of deity bodily" (Col. 2:9).

  The Nicene Creed is a prime example of systematic theology at its best. Systematic theology seeks to organize and summarize, not add or detract from, the biblical teaching. Systematic theologians then teach this doctrine to the church. These bishops in the early churches were systematic theologians. The creed the bishops constructed at Nicea was their gift to the church.

  Stephen Nichols, "Christology in Context," Tabletalk Magazine (12/1/14)


What do the Catholic officials intend to do for unity with the Orthodox Church? [2017] I have heard that Pope Francis said the Catholic Church would not impose any preconditions for the unity of the Catholic and Orthodox Church.
Is that true? And if so what does it mean for the Church?

Indeed, those words were spoken, and the complete text of Pope Francis' speech is supposedly included in a news bulletin on 2014-11-30 from Vatican Radio. He mentions doctrinal agreement as necessary, so interpretation of his statement may not be clear without further discussion of which doctrines must be agreed to. Among other things, he stated

All of this precedes and always accompanies that other essential aspect of this journey, namely, theological dialogue.
I want to assure each one of you here that, to reach the desired goal of full unity, the Catholic Church does not intend to impose any conditions except that of the shared profession of faith.
The one thing that the Catholic Church desires, and that I seek as Bishop of Rome, “the Church which presides in charity”, is communion with the Orthodox Churches.  Such communion will always be the fruit of that love which “has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us” (cf. Rom 5:5), a fraternal love which expresses the spiritual and transcendent bond which unites us as disciples of the Lord.


Does the Eastern Orthodox Church eat leavened or unleavened bread during the Eucharist? Does the Eastern Orthodox Church eat leavened or unleavened bread during the Eucharist, and if it is indeed leavened bread, what is their basis for this practice?

Yes. The Eastern Orthodox Church uses leavened bread.

  Leavened bread has always been used in the Eastern Church.
  In fact, at one point in time, a great controversy raged over the fact
  that in the Eastern Church leavened bread was used, while in the
  Christian West unleavened bread was the norm. (Orthodox Church in America)

  The Orthodox Church uses leavened bread for, according to the Gospel
  of Saint John, Last Supper and Passion, took place during the evening,
  night and day time of Passover Day, therefore leavened bread was eaten
  in Last Supper. (Orthodox Wiki)

The words used to describe the bread of the Last Supper (and Christ's commandment to do as he had done) are the basis for this.

  If we look at the word for the bread used at the Last Supper is
  artos, the Greek generic term for bread that almost always...though
  not necessarily always referred to every day leavened break. The Greek
  term that specifically means unleavened bread is azymes. This gap is
  cleared up if we look at the earliest Aramaic translations of the
  Gospels (third century or earlier), the word they use to translate
  bread at the Last Supper is not generic, but specifically means
  leavened bread. (Orthodox Christianity, emphases mine)


Did Samson drink wine? Did Samson drink wine?
Nazirite vow restricted one from drinking wine.
Is there evidence in the bible that Samson violated the terms of a Nazirite vow?

Technically - In Shoftim (Judges) 13:3-7, we learn the Angel of YHVH (מַלְאַ֨ךְ יְהֹוַ֜ה) and the Wife (הָאִשָּׁ֗ה) of Manoah (מָנ֑וֹחַ) make the Nazirite vow for Manoah's son Samson (Shimeshon , שִׁמְשׁוֹן) to hopefully become a Nezir (נְזִיר) . * Samson never makes a Nazirite (נָּזִ֗יר) vow. Samson prays and makes a request after he is humbled, losing his hair and sight.

Shimshon's Prayer in [Shoftim (Judges) 16:28]:
"And Samson called to the Lord and said, "God YHVH, remember me and strengthen me now, only this once my Lord YHVH, that I may be avenged the vengeance for one of my two eyes from the Philistines."

( וַיִּקְרָ֥א שִׁמְשׁ֛וֹן אֶל־יְהֹוָ֖ה וַיֹּאמַ֑ר אֲדֹנָ֣י יֱהֹוִֹ֡ה זָכְרֵ֣נִי נָא֩ וְחַזְּקֵ֨נִי נָ֜א אַ֣ךְ הַפַּ֚עַם הַזֶּה֙ הָאֱלֹהִ֔ים וְאִנָּקְמָ֧ה נְקַם־אַחַ֛ת מִשְּׁתֵ֥י עֵינַ֖י מִפְּלִשְׁתִּֽים)
Samson never vows to abstain from wine (Yayin, יַ֣יִן), but His mother is told to abstain from Yayin during her pregnancy. * Children do not always become what their parents want them to become. Regarding the Nazirite vow in Bamidbar (Numbers) 6:2-3, a mother cannot make a Nazirite vow for her son. The vow must be made by a Yisraelite man or woman who sets themself apart to become holy for God.


Are prospective Mormons allowed to be baptized during their menstruation periods? A simple Google search turns up conflicting answers. One source says that some temples have no restrictions on menstruating Mormons, require menstruating Mormons to wear tampons, or bar menstruating women from being baptized. Do these restrictions really apply to new converts? Do they vary within individual Mormon temples? What about churches? In individual churches, are Mormon converts who are menstruating on the day of the scheduled baptism barred from baptism, or do they have to pick a different day? Do menstruating Mormons have to wear a tampon? Would a pad suffice?

There is no "official" statement that I know of regarding this.  The Church does not consider those who are menstruating to be unclean. There is no rule against being baptized during that time.

Temples provide tampons for the women who are. As long as they are using one, there isn't a problem. I read what you were referring to from the link you posted. That was the opinion of the temple worker.

In regards to the convert baptisms, I don't know of anything either way. When a woman is baptized they are not asked if they are menstruating, so there is no way to know unless the officiator is told.

Edit
The Church Handbook of Instructions contains nothing concerning this matter. So it is safe to say there is not a big deal. If it was, the handbook would state it.


How are the Catholic church's teaching on plastic surgery and GRS self-consistent? GRS (gender reassignment surgery) is the term given to procedures (several usually being required) which change the appearance of an individual from one sex to the other. My understanding of Catholic church teaching is that it is broadly in line with this post where it appears that the reason is that this form of appearance altering surgery is classified as "despising [one's] bodily life".

As gender reassignment (surgery, hormone replacement therapy etc.) is considered a therapeutic treatment for gender dysphoria I take it that it would be considered a "therapeutic medical reason" for sterilisation (where that is necessary in GRS), to say nothing of permissibility of gender reassignment for individuals who are already sterile (some intersex individuals, post-menopausal women etc.)

So it appears that the reasoning for this is that it is considered hateful to your bodily life.

However, it seems that plastic surgery which is also an artificial way of altering one's appearance is permissible even when not being done for therapeutic reasons? While the same post states that gender reassignment surgery is not permissible? Indeed it is described as "inherently immoral" - is this because it is indicative of hating your bodily life or is there some other reason, of which I am unaware, which makes gender reassignment surgery inherently immoral?

What is the Catholic church's way of explaining this apparent inconsistency?

This post from the National Catholic Bioethics Center explains the problems with gender reassignment pretty well. It explains the Catholic view is that gender is fundamentally a part of a human being's identity, and is bound up with both body and mind, not residing only in one.

  Properly understood, a person cannot change his or her sexual identity. For persons not suffering [from hermaphroditism] a person is either male or female. A person is the unity of soul and body, and ‘soul’ should be understood not as an immaterial self, but as that which makes the body be what it is, namely, a human person. We are either male or female persons, and nothing can change that. A person can mutilate his or her genitals, but cannot change his or her sex. Changing one’s sex is fundamentally impossible; these procedures are fundamentally acts of mutilation.

Because of this rootedness of sexual identity in the whole person one cannot actually change ones sex.

  A person can change what genitalia they have, but not one’s sex. Receiving hormones of the opposite sex and removing genitalia are not sufficient to change one’s sex. Sexual identity is not reducible to hormonal levels or genitalia but is an objective fact rooted in the specific nature of the person.

To accept the validity of a sex change operation one must believe that sexual identity is rooted only in the mind, and not the body. This is at variance with Catholic beliefs.

  Those who hold this position assume a dualism between mind and body. Properly understood, persons are either male or female. The body (of the person) is a fundamental indication of what sex we belong to. It is a physical, empirically verifiable reality that does not change simply because our beliefs or desires do. Once the dualism behind the question is rejected, and one recognizes that our sex is indicated by our bodies, we can see that sexual identity is an objective, readily discernible fact about us.

Finally, if there is no reason for the change driven by sexual identity, then the medical procedure becomes an act of mutilation.

  Changing one’s sex is fundamentally impossible; these procedures are fundamentally acts of mutilation. Mutilation results in a person being rendered impotent or sterile and dependent for the rest of one’s life on a hormonal regimen which makes one appear to be other than what he or she is. There is nothing wrong with the genitalia of persons seeking such operations. But they are removed in order to conform to the person’s subjective belief about who he or she wants to be. Doing violence to one’s body when there is nothing wrong with it is an unjustifiable mutilation.

Finally, to answer the question about whether the Catholic church should accept 'current medical practice' as correct, 'current medical practice' is as often based on philosophy and sociology as it is on science. Medical approaches to homosexuality, abortion and mental illness have all changed very significantly in the last fifty years, and those changes have been driven at least as much by changes in societal beliefs as they are by medical science.

EDIT: The article also goes on to address the issue of whether this stance gives undue weight to the body over the mind. The argument goes that if a person believes in their mind that they are one sex, while their body indicates otherwise, is it not giving undue precedence to the physical to insist that the body's sex is paramount? The response to this is that a person may have false beliefs about themselves in their mind (not just about sex but about other things), whereas the body cannot give a false indication of sex (except in very rare cases, where surgery is permitted).


What is the biblical basis against polygamy in the New Covenant? Assuming the Old Covenant is obsolete and fulfilled (Heb 7:18-19), what is the biblical argument against allowing the practice of polygamy?

God's Standard Should Be Our Standard
The biblical standard regarding marriage, from Genesis to Revelation is

One groom, one bride, what e'er betide.

Or in slightly less old fashioned verbiage:

One husband, one wife, for life.

God never sanctioned polygyny in the Tanakh, nor did Jesus sanction it in the New Covenant. God's design from the beginning was stated in Genesis 2:24-25 and reiterated by Jesus in Matthew 19:3-12 and Mark 10:2-12. I teased the following statements from Genesis, Matthew, and Mark:

Marriage between one woman and one man was instituted by God.

The man and woman who marry are fully equal in the eyes of God, but they are different in significant ways. There are obvious similarities and differences, but the differences, in particular, complement each other.

Marriage involves two families, but it is the basis of a third family in its own right. In other words, there is a leaving and a cleaving and a conceiving (though not always).

God joins together two people, one man and one woman, and the two--not three or four or more--become one flesh.

Jesus sanctioned divorce when adultery violates the oneness of the marital relationship, but by the same token Jesus did not command divorce when either husband and/or wife commits adultery. In other words, he held out for the possibility of confession, forgiveness, and restoration of the relationship. Serial monogamy is not the biblical ideal, though Jesus obviously sanctioned (but did not command) remarriage after the death of one's spouse.

Jesus' emphasis on Moses in his discussion with the Pharisees who came to Jesus to test him with their question is significant. According to Jesus, "Moses permitted divorce" because of the hardness of the Israelis' hearts, neither because God had made provision for it in his original plan nor because it was legislated in the Mosaic law.

Is There Any Wiggle Room?
No.

The levirate spoken of in Deuteronomy 25:5-10 (levirate comes from the Latin word for brother-in-law) may seem like an exception to the "one husband, one wife, for life" rule, but it is not. As Constable noted in his explanation of this passage in the NET Bible "Notes":

"The Israelites were to practice levirate marriage only in cases where the brothers had lived together (v. 5) and the remaining brother was not already married. Living together meant living in the same area, not necessarily residing under the same roof.[286] When another kinsman voluntarily assumed the responsibility of the surviving brother, that brother was apparently under no obligation to marry his sister-in-law (cf. Ruth 4). [my emphasis]
"There were several reasons for this provision. These reasons were the importance of descendants in God’s purposes for Israel, the welfare of the widow, and the demonstration of love for one’s brother (cf. Gen. 38).[287]"

Paul's insistence that a church elder or church deacon must be "the husband of but one
wife," or as some folks interpret it, "a one-woman man," cannot be an argument from silence that it's OK for men who do not aspire to be leaders in the local church to have multiple wives. Furthermore, the decision of the polygynous man either to keep or separate from a second or third, or more wives, would be up to the husband, his wives, and the leadership of the local church, with each case judged and ruled upon based on its merits on a case by case basis (see 1 Timothy 2:1 ff.).

A Legitimate Inference Based on Every Example of Polygyny in the Bible
I feel confident in presenting this challenge to any reader of my answer to cite a Scripture passage (not the LDS Scripture, however, as I am not a Mormon) or give me an instance in the Bible in which polygyny was not characterized by familial infighting, deceit, jealousy, strife, violence, resentment, long-standing feuds, favoritism, hurt feelings, spiritual backsliding, or any one of a host of other negative aspects and consequences. There is simply not one instance.
What can we legitimately infer from the overwhelming evidence of negative consequences based on the instances of polygyny in the Bible? The only reasonable answer, at least in my opinion, is that God does not approve of it, and to flaunt God's standards regarding marriage is to court disaster. You can count on it!


What did Jonathan Edwards have to say about the fact that he owned slaves? I recently learned from a John Piper podcast that Jonathan Edwards owned slaves.

Edwards lived in the early and mid 18th century, long before the American Civil War, and passed away decades before Wilberforce would begin his abolitionist work in England.* Nevertheless, many believe that ownership of slaves seemed uncharacteristic of a man like Edwards who, in his preaching and writing, placed such an emphasis on piety and holiness.

What did Edwards have to say about his ownership of slaves? Did he ever address the issue of slavery in any of his published works?

* Of course, that's simply context, and not an excuse.

No, he did not address the issue of slavery in any published works.

We know this because of a recently published paper revealing an unpublished draft letter by Edwards that does deal with slavery. It is described by the paper author thus:

  It is the only known instance of Edwards writing, however abstrusely, about slavery. Also it discloses differing views on slavery at the local level, divided along lay-clerical lines.

Because of Edwards' letter writing process it is very difficult to determine his meaning from his drafts - for example lines through some passage might be deletions, or might indicate that they have been used in the final version. No copy of the sent letter exists.


How does repentance fit into the doctrine of sola fide ("by faith alone")? Sola fide (Latin for "by faith alone") is a defining doctrine of Protestantism. Wikipedia defines it as follows:

  The doctrine of sola fide asserts God's pardon for guilty sinners is granted to and received through faith alone, excluding all "works". All mankind, it is asserted, is fallen and sinful, under the curse of God, and incapable of saving itself from God's wrath and curse. But God, on the basis of the life, death, and resurrection of his Son, Jesus Christ alone (solus Christus), grants sinners judicial pardon, or justification, which is received solely through faith.

How does repentance fit into this doctrine? Is it possible to be unrepentant of sin (whether for some sins or all sins that one has committed) and yet still receive pardon for those sins? Is repentance considered a "work" in that it is ultimately unnecessary for justification?

There are two primary ways that sola fide theologians deal with this issue, and there is ongoing debate between them over it (cf. Lordship salvation controversy).  I'll first address the historical view (sometimes called "Lordship salvation") and the more recent view, called "free grace theology."
Lordship salvation
The name commonly applied to this view emphasizes that following Christ is not merely a matter of intellectual belief, but also accepting him as Lord and therefore turning away from the sin nature.  Thus its adherents see repentance and faith as inherently connected; as Wayne Grudem says, they are "two different sides of the same coin" (ST, 714) Louis Berkhof writes:

True repentance never exists except in conjunction with faith, while, on the other hand, wherever there is true faith, there is also real repentance. The two are but different aspects of the same turning, — a turning away from sin in the direction of God. (ST, 4.7.D.3)

Thus the two cannot be separated.  Where they are distinguished (as in Calvin, Institutes, 3.3.1; see curiousdannii's answer), the one necessarily follows the other, and thus in all cases faith is the only basis for the justification of the sinner.
Berkhof and Grudem are both Reformed theologians, as is John MacArthur, the author of the book The Gospel According to Jesus, which extensively defends this view.  But their analysis is shared by other Protestant traditions.  For example, Arminian John Miley writes:

While faith is the one and only condition of justification, yet a true repentance is always presupposed, because only in such a mental state can the proper faith be exercised. An impenitent soul cannot properly trust in Christ for the forgiveness of sin. (Systematic Theology, II, 323)

Lutheran John Mueller, summarizing Francis Pieper's work, uses the word contrition instead, but sees the two as synonyms in this sense:

The two essential elements in conversion are contrition and faith [...] Contrition belongs to conversion only for the reason that faith cannot find entrance into the proud and secure heart; it is "the indispensable preparation for conversion." (Christian Dogmatics, 338)

Repentance here is not assumed to be perfect or complete repentance, but rather a general turning away from sin.  Continued growth in faith and repentance is an important aspect of the Christian's sanctification, but a failure to perfectly repent of every sin does not lead to a loss of salvation.
Free grace theology
This view's name reflects its adherents' belief that repentance is a "work" that is not required for salvation – thus grace is more "free" than in a scheme were repentance and faith are aspects of conversion.  According to this view, intellectual faith alone, without any turning from sin, is sufficient for salvation.
In recent times the view is most commonly associated with evangelicals influenced by dispensationalism; Wayne Grudem identifies Lewis Sperry Chafer as its originator.  In Major Bible Themes, Chafer writes:

The Scriptures are violated and the whole doctrine of grace confused when salvation is made to depend on anything other than believing. The divine message is not "believe and pray," "believe and confess sin," "believe and confess Christ," "believe and be baptized," "believe and repent," or "believe and make restitution." (Chapter 28)

Bob Wilkin, founder of the Grace Evangelical Society, expounds:

There is no commitment, no decision of the will, no turning from sins, and no works that are part of faith in Christ. If you are convinced or persuaded that what He promised is true, then you believe in Him. Faith is passive. It is simply taking Jesus at His word.
Thus turning from sins, commitment, obedience, and perseverance are not faith and thus aren’t conditions of eternal life. Those are all types of works. Works have their proper place in the Christian life, but only after you have believed in Jesus. (source; emphasis in original)

Thus for the free grace theologian, repentance is distinct from faith and therefore comes after (and not necessarily immediately after) conversion and justification.
Summary
Thus we see two views in the sola fide camp with respect to this question.  Both agree that perfect repentance is not a requirement for salvation, but the majority view holds that in conversion faith and repentance are inseparable, though only faith is the basis of justification.  The "free grace" view holds that faith and repentance are distinct, with the latter being a work that is done after justification is accomplished.


According to Reformed theology, is teaching a false Trinitarian concept considered blasphemy? There are several people that do not understand the trinity. I hear things such as "God is like water. He is liquid, steam, and solid". This analogy actually comes with a longer explanation about how the holy spirit guy is steam and god the son is solid. However, this is modalism, showing three distinct "modes" or "functions" of the triune god.

I also hear the triune god is like an egg. He is shell, white, and yolk, but one egg. Some even go as far as to say each person is "one-third god". This is actually a form of tritheism, in that each person of the triune god is a "part" of the triune god, thus separating the "divine nature".

Some people are confused about the hypostatic union, and they separate the divine and human nature of the second person of the triune god, god the son. Thus, "they deny that Jesus came in flesh", which 1 John 4:3 says "is the spirit of the antichrist".

According to Reformed theology, are the people who share and promote these misunderstandings spreading blasphemous lies?

These are only limited or weak examples of analogy for Trinity. They are not called as heresy by scholars. Trinity is accepted as mystery by vast majority when it comes to rational explanation. We too must not stretch the emphasis on rational explanation as to condemn the imperfect analogies as heresies. The 3 forms of H2O analogy may be misunderstood as Modalism but it can also be taken as same divine nature of the three persons. It does not necessarily imply Modalism.

We should admit that an analogy is only an analogy which only expresses a limited resembles of the doctrine ; and all analogies would come short of completely describing it perfectly.


Why did God banish Adam and Eve for eating fruit? Yes, He told them not to but if you can humour me a little, why should this punishment be regarded as fitting the crime? It’s just fruit, right? Isn’t God testing our patience with such an injunction? Would you respect me if I told you not to touch my really delicious pot of lamb stew because you will be dead if you do, especially if the children are having a really tasty dinner?

You've missed exactly what Adam and Eve missed - the tree of Life. There it was in the midst of the garden.

And there it was - the Word of Life - 'the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou dost not eat of it.'

It isn't food. You can't digest it. Partake of it and you will die.

But another (created) spirit drew near. (For they had not taken of the Tree of Life in the midst of the garden. They had not partaken of the Word of Life which said 'the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou dost not eat of it'.)

And Eve hearkened and ate. And Eve gave to Adam to eat.

And in that very day, they died.

This is about human nature. It is a matter of how humanity is to Live. Adam was made a living soul and he lived and breathed. But there was a Tree of Life in the midst which he needed. And he did not partake of it.

He chose to seek sustenance from another direction. From knowledge. Rather than partake of Life, he chose knowledge. Which assumes his own ability to see aright and to do aright what he sees.

Rather than to partake of Life itself.

He wishes to be independent of the Deity (in whom is Life) who made him.

Chooses to hearken to a created spirit, encouraged by a created woman.

And he dies.

And he is banished from the garden, for he has failed in his humanity to rise to the purpose of the Creator who made humanity for a purpose.

This is profoundly and fundamentally spiritual.

It's not about physical fruit.


Does the Dome of the Rock have any importance to Christianity? The Dome of the Rock is right beside Al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem, Israel.

Is it considered a sacred place in Christianity? If so, in what way?

From Wikipedia:

  The Dome of the Rock is located at the visual center of a platform
  known as the Temple Mount. It was constructed on the site of the
  Second Jewish Temple, which was destroyed during the Roman Siege of
  Jerusalem in 70 CE. In 637 CE, Jerusalem surrendered to the Rashidun
  Caliphate army during the Muslim conquest of Syria.

Christianity,of course, has its roots in Judaism, and as the site of the original Jewish Temple, it would have historical significance, as well as being recognized as a Holy site, reserved for Israel, God's chosen people.

Also, according to some of the end-time scenarios, the Antichrist will make some deal that will allow the temple to be rebuilt, and this will mark the beginning of the Great Tribulation.

The Dome on the Rock itself is not significant to Christianity or Judaism, other than that it's a shrine to another god, from another religion, that exists on the property where the temple should be.


To whom should we pray? To the Father or the son Jesus or the Holy Spirit? While praying how should we pray? Should we praise the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit and to whom should we ask? To the Father or the Son or the Holy Spirit?

  John 14:14 (ESV) says
  If you ask me anything in my name, I will do it.

Does that mean we should ask only to Jesus. Or is that not a matter if we ask any one of them, since they act together?

I afraid we should not bypass any one of them. Or, is just closing the prayer by saying "In the name of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit I ask" fine?

According to Jesus,

  This, then, is how you should pray: "Our Father...

Jesus is clear that we pray to the father.

That said, I am personally convinced that if we get God's name wrong he still hears us. If my son occasionally calls me "mum" when he asks for my help I still help him (and it makes me smile, to be honest). I don't think a heavenly father would do any less.


Why did God speak Hebrew? God wrote the Ten Commandments with His own finger, on tablets of Stone, in Hebrew.

  When He had finished speaking with him upon Mount Sinai, He gave Moses the two tablets of the testimony, tablets of stone, written by the finger of God. -Exodus 31:18

He also frequently spoke to His people in Hebrew.  And of course, we now have Hebrew records of all of these divine words.

My question is: Why Hebrew?  (I am assuming this is not because God speaks Hebrew in Heaven...)

Is it because Hebrew was the ideal language for communicating the truths of the Old Testament?
Is it simply because His people happened to speak that language?
Are there any Old Testament passages which show God speaking (or writing) in a different language?

I would also love it if you could include a comment about whether this teaches us anything about the nature of God.  Thanks.

Oftentimes, the simplest answer is the correct one.  So here's the obvious answer:  He spoke and wrote in Hebrew because he was dealing with Hebrew-speaking people at the moment.  Had God spoken to them in English, Latin, or Chinese, they would not have understood him!

God, being omniscient, knows all human languages.  This means that he has no trouble communicating with the Hebrews in Hebrew, or with you and me in whatever our native tongues may be.  So why make it more difficult than it has to be, especially given people's tendency to get his commandments all wrong even when they're spelled out in perfect plainness?

There's a parallel to be found in the Day of Pentecost, where the Gift of Tongues was dramatically made manifest as the Apostles preached their sermon.  People from a wide variety of nations and regions were present, and all heard the sermon in their own language.  But remember that these were people who had traveled to Jerusalem.  It's not at all unreasonable to assume that most of them knew at least enough Hebrew (or whatever language was commonly in use at Jerusalem at the time) to get by.  And yet, the Lord gave them the message in the language that they were most familiar with, to facilitate effective communication.


Clarification of what sexual immorality is? to my understanding the following is what comprises Sexual immorality.

Male homosexuality, incest, adultery, and bestiality.

I want to know if oral sex is included even if it's done in marriage?

(Note: this answer comes from a reformed, Presbyterian perspective, YMMV)

Sexual immorality is defined pretty clearly by Jesus in Matthew 5:28 (NIV):

  But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

That puts everyone who managed to live through puberty squarely in the guilty category here. So let's start from there. We're all guilty of sexual immorality, that's the fact. That's not to say that instances of sexual immorality are not serious and shouldn't be dealt with seriously. But just to introduce some levity, we're all guilty here.

Now, you assumed that 4 things fall squarely in this category, I don't want to argue that list, but at least 3 are pretty expressly forbidden by scripture and the fourth falls squarely into lust for the most part so we'll accept the list. But the point of the first passages is that sexual immorality is even broader. It's deeply embedded in our hearts and minds.

Then of course you drop the bomb, is oral sex immoral? I'm actually going to take this a step farther and get the question you're really asking. Is it OK for married Christians to have anything but normal intercourse? But let's handle a side issue first.

Positions on sex before marriage and any kind of sexual contact outside of marriage vary. However, in my opinion (and it's one I share with a pretty wide swath of mainstream Christianity) it's both unwise and immoral to engage in sexual contact or sex prior to marriage. This is a well supported argument and it's made elsewhere on this site, so it's really not necessary to delve into it here.

The crux of this question is whether or not things that are believed to be inappropriate outside of a marriage are appropriate inside of one. For normal vaginal sex, the answer is obvious. One of the functions of marriage is to provide a home for children and well to have kids you've gotta have sex (obvious caveats for in vitro, adoption etc). But what about non-procreatory sex acts?

Let me be clear. The Bible contains no clear prohibitions on non-procreatory sex acts (in fact a couple of passages in Song of Songs may refer to oral sex specifically and in a very positive way). Although being intentional about being non-procreatory when you are culturally obligated to may have disastrous effects (see Onan.)

This makes it up to the man and the woman in the relationship to set boundaries and decide what is right and wrong in the context of their marriage. For that the guiding principal has to be Ephesians 5:5 (NIV).

  Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.

This passage in Ephesians is much maligned in modern society, but the crux is that we should faithfully submit to one another. It's hinged on respect. In the case of your question that means that anything that you do that is outside of the boundaries set in your marriage can and should be considered sexual immorality.

This brings us back to the passage I mentioned at the outset. Sexual Immorality is not something that has strict definitions. If even looking at a woman with lust in your heart qualifies, then the definition is far broader than any specific act or set of acts. In the context of marriage this means that you must work and communicate with your partner to set your boundaries and decide what is welcome and what is off limits between the two of you.


Do modern descendants of the Levites need to be ordained with the Aaronic Priesthhood? Literal descendants of Aaron have a legal right to Aaronic priesthood:

  "No man has a legal right to this office, to hold the keys of this
  priesthood, except he be a literal descendant of Aaron." (D&C 107:16)

If a literal descendant of Aaron were to be baptized into the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints–supposing they could trace their lineage–would they need to be ordained with the Aaronic Priesthood, or would the church recognize their legal right to it?

D&C 107:16 is part doctrine, part prophesy.
The administration of the Aaronic Priesthood doesn't operate by lineage now, but it will one day.

Although the Aaronic Priesthood is conferred in the Church today without restriction to the lineage of Aaron, the keys of this priesthood rightly belong to the firstborn of the seed of Aaron, and in the restoration of all things the office of bishop (president of the priests) will once again be conferred on one of that lineage, as it is designated by revelation to the president of the Church (D&C 84:14–21; 107:13–17).
Bible Dictionary, Aaronic Priesthood

This is part of the more general "Restoration of the Gospel", following the apostasy of the Original Church.

And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:
Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.
Acts 3:20-21 (emphasis added)

While this restitution/restoration is often ascribed to events in the 1830s --  like the formation of the LDS Church -- it actually began long before then, and is not yet over.


Do Lutherans and Catholics have the same beliefs regarding the purpose of Confirmation? As a Catholic, I believe that I received a greater outpouring the Holy Spirit at Confirmation.

  Baptism, the Eucharist, and the sacrament of Confirmation together constitute the "sacraments of Christian initiation," whose unity must be safeguarded. It must be explained to the faithful that the reception of the sacrament of Confirmation is necessary for the completion of baptismal grace. For "by the sacrament of Confirmation, [the baptized] are more perfectly bound to the Church and are enriched with a special strength of the Holy Spirit. Hence they are, as true witnesses of Christ, more strictly obliged to spread and defend the faith by word and deed." - Catechism of the Catholic Church

However, my understanding is that for Lutherans, confirmation is a more of an affirmation of baptism.

Do Lutherans and Catholics have the same beliefs regarding the purpose of Confirmation?

In the Lutheran faith confirmation is not a sacrament as it is for Catholics.  According to the book of Concord Article XIII(VII) confirmation does not meet the criteria which make a sacrament as it is not required by Gods direct command nor is there a clear promise of grace associated with it.  I would say the caveat exists that it is at conformation where people first receive communion as it marks that they now have fellowship with other Lutherans of their denomination.


Was Mary given a glorified or "spiritual body" like the resurrected body of Jesus while on earth? In the 4th Dogma of Assumption Mary was assumed "body & soul" into heaven.
Scriptures tells us nothing defiled shall enter the Kingdom of God...(Rev21:27)
And also Gospel of Luke 24:36-ff narrates and describes the "resurrected body" of Jesus.
Jesus Appears to the Disciples

36 While they were still talking about this, Jesus himself stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.”
37 They were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost. 38 He said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds? 39 Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.”
40 When he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet. 41 And while they still did not believe it because of joy and amazement, he asked them, “Do you have anything here to eat?” 42 They gave him a piece of broiled fish, 43 and he took it and ate it in their presence.
44 He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.”

My question is, Did Mary experienced or was given by God a "glorified body" while on earth?
I am looking for Catholic Church teaching or Church Father beliefs on Mary's glorified body that hinted similarity on Jesus resurrected body.

The dogma of the Assumption means that the Virgin Mary now experiences
  in heaven that union of glorified body and soul which her son enjoys.
  She is no disembodied spirit, but a complete human person, body and
  soul, matter and spirit, reigning with Christ.

  Mary experienced bodily redemption before the rest of the Church.
  Source

From another source:

  Now God has willed that the Blessed Virgin Mary should be exempted
  from this general rule. She, by an entirely unique privilege,
  completely overcame sin by her Immaculate Conception, and as a result,
  she was not subject to the law of remaining in the corruption of the
  grave, and she did not have to wait until the end of time for the
  redemption of her body.
  As he kept you a virgin in childbirth, thus he has kept your body incorrupt in the tomb and has glorified it by his divine act of transferring it from the tomb. Source

So it seems that her body was a normal mortal body but kept incorrupt in the tomb and got glorified during that process at the end of her life.


What is the story behind a monk’s tonsure? As the title asks:  What is the significance of this particular haircut (the tonsure), why is it associated with monks and what is the history behind it?

[...] MONASTIC STYLES
Both men and women traditionally had their hair cut or removed in specific ways when they entered a monastery or convent. These haircuts symbolized religious devotion, group identity, and humility as well as the renunciation of worldly things and personal vanity. The practice may relate to ancient rites in which people in various cultures offered their hair as a religious sacrifice. Monks and nuns also take a vow of celibacy, and hair has historically been associated with eroticism and sexuality and as a means to attract the opposite sex.
   Historians say that monastic hairstyles also may relate to the ancient custom of shaving the heads of male slaves. Some early monks who began shaving their heads voluntarily referred to themselves as "slaves of Christ." Such hairstyles thus would show that a person entering religious life intends to subordinate his own will to the will of God.
   Groups of Christian men began to form organized religious communities during the second and third centuries. These men, who became known as monk, lived apart from other people and developed distinctive modes of dress and appearance. Some monks cut their hair short, while others shaved it off completely or shaved part of their head.
   Partial shaving may have its origins in ancient Egypt, Greece, and other places where men shaved a circular bald spot on top of their heads to honor the sun god. Some orders of monks who left a narrow crown of hair around their heads said that this signified the crown of thorns placed on Christ's head during his crucifixion.
   The distinctive style, which is called the tonsure (from the Latin word tondere—"to shear"), often is associated with Catholic monks. Historians are unsure about the earliest origins of the tonsure, but church officials came to accept it and then required that all Catholic monks adopt this hairstyle. The tonsure is "a sacred rite . . . by which a baptized and confirmed Christian is received into the clerical order by a shearing of his hair" (The Catholic Encyclopedia).
   In Roman Catholic monasteries, novices who had just entered the community had their hair cut short with scissors. When the novice took his vows to become a monk, he received the tonsure. The hair was cut short and then the hair on top of the head was shaved off, leaving a round bald area on the crown. These haircuts were carried out as part of the initiation into the group and were maintained by monastic barbers.
   Three main variations of the tonsure developed among various orders. The eastern style involved shaving the head completely, according to a style attributed to St. Paul, while others shaved just the crown, a style associated with St. Peter and known as the Roman tonsure. A third style, called the Celtic (or transverse tonsure or tonsure of St. John) evolved in the British Isles. Celtic monks shaved the front part of their head from ear to ear but left the hair in the back hanging longer. Some Celtic monks pulled that hair around to form a semi-circle from one ear to the other. [...]

Reference:
Sherrow, Victoria. Encyclopedia of Hair: A Cultural History. Connecticut: Greenwood Publishing Group, Inc., 2006. Print.


What formal methods and criteria could be used to evaluate the message of the bible? My agnostic friend has asked for "formal evidence" of the Bible.

How can one scientifically evaluate statements written over 2,000 years ago?

Besides the historical evaluation of events, how to evaluate the validity of the message and the soundness of its premises?
Are there any formal methods to evaluate the contents and message of the bible, from a scientific or logical perspective?

I used to be in the same position as your friend, and it took me many years to take the claims of the Bible seriously.
At the time, I was doing a degree in Philosophy of Science, which discusses the nature of scientific evidence. One of the key principles is the Duhem-Quine Thesis, which states that it is impossible to test a hypothesis in isolation. That is, you cannot directly test the truth, only the effects of the truth.
As I began to explore the Bible, I found I engaged with it in a similar way. The Bible presents a certain world view, and I needed to ask myself whether the effects of that world view was what I saw around me.
In light of this, I would say the writers of the Bible put forward three pieces of evidence for the truth of the gospel (or, at least, these are the three that helped me).
Historical eye-witness of the ressurection
The Apostle Paul spends the first half of 1 Corinthians 15 providing the historic, eye-witness evidence for the ressurection:

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born. 1 Cortinthians 15:3-8 (NIV)

And at the end of his discussion, stresses the absolute importance of this evidence:

And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 1 Corinthians 15:17 (NIV)

The Apostle John also places great weight on eye-witness testimony:

Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name. John 20:30-31 (NIV)

As does Luke:

With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught. Luke 1:3-4 (NIV)

Jesus also teaches this point in Matthew 16, when the Pharisees demand evidence beyond what has already been given:

The Pharisees and Sadducees came to Jesus and tested him by asking him to show them a sign from heaven. He replied, “When evening comes, you say, ‘It will be fair weather, for the sky is red,’ and in the morning, ‘Today it will be stormy, for the sky is red and overcast.’ You know how to interpret the appearance of the sky, but you cannot interpret the signs of the times Matthew 16:1-3 (NIV)

Jesus discusses this incident with his disciples a moment later:

Do you still not understand? Don’t you remember the five loaves for the five thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered? Or the seven loaves for the four thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered? Matthew 16:9-10 (NIV)

My understanding of this incident is that Jesus is saying the miracles he has already performed, and have been witnessed by large crowds, are enough evidence. The Pharisees shouldn't need to demand more.
Creation
The Apostle Pauls says that

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20 (NIV)

Creation itself ought to speak on God's behalf. This is both physical nature, like beautiful sunrises and incredible music, since it was made by God. But it also include human nature, like our compassion and sense of justice, since we were made in God's image.
Personally, I would add our observation of suffering and sin into this - and this topic was actually the things that brought me to Jesus. The Bible explains the negative parts of human nature as well as the positive parts, and I believe it explains it far better than any other source I've found. The way in which humans are in constant tension between incredible good and incredible evil can only be adequately explained by the Bible. I found Paul's description of himself very compelling:

I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do...For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing...So I find this law at work: Although I want to do good, evil is right there with me. Romans 7:15,18,19,21 (NIV)

The Church
The Apostles barely every stop talking about how the church itself is one the primary pieces of evidence for the truth of the gospel:

If I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth 1 Timothy 15 (NIV)
Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers. 1 Timothy 4:16 (NIV)
In everything set them an example by doing what is good. In your teaching show integrity, seriousness and soundness of speech that cannot be condemned, so that those who oppose you may be ashamed because they have nothing bad to say about us. Titus 2:6-8 (NIV)
...so that in every way they will make the teaching about God our Savior attractive. Titus 2:10 (NIV)
Live such good lives among the pagans that, though they accuse you of doing wrong, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day he visits us. 1 Peter 2:12 (NIV)

There should be something about the way the church treats people, both inside and outside the church, that shows people the Bible's teaching is true.
Of course, as other have pointed out, ultimately this isn't a logical decision, but a spiritual one. We must pray that God chooses to open the eye's of your friend, as he graciously did for me.


Why are wives considered the "weaker partner"? (1 Peter 3:7) In 1 Peter, we read:

  1 Peter 3:7 (NIV)
  Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers.

What exactly does "the weaker partner" mean?  Does the Bible state what ways are they weaker?  How do Protestants interpret this verse?

Also, does this still hold true today?

I do not think the NIV does the original Greek justice in this case. The English Standard Version (a respected relatively new essentially literal translation) renders the verse this way:

  7 Likewise, husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way,
  showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs
  with you of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be
  hindered.
  1 Peter 3:7

In Calvin's commentary on this verse his translation supports this choice in translation as well. A few other resources I checked seem to align with this as well.

That being said, the word weaker is still there. So what does this mean? Commentators seem to agree that in this passage that the use of the word weaker was used to prompt the husband to act in a gentle and gracious manner.

Calvin:

  Moreover, he employs a twofold argument, in order to persuade husbands
  to treat their wives honourably and kindly. The first is derived from
  the weakness of the sex; the other, from the honour with which God
  favours them. These things seem indeed to be in a manner
  contrary,—that honour ought to be given to wives, because they are
  weak, and because they excel; but these things well agree together
  where love exists.

Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible:

  Both husband and wife are vessels in God’s hand, and of God’s making,
  to fulfil His gracious purposes. Both weak, the woman the weaker. The
  sense of his own weakness, and that she, like himself, is God’s vessel
  and fabric, ought to lead him to act with tender and wise
  consideration towards her who is the weaker fabric

Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary:

  Christians ought to do their duty to one another, from a willing mind,
  and in obedience to the command of God. Wives should be subject to
  their husbands, not from dread and amazement, but from desire to do
  well, and please God. The husband’s duty to the wife implies giving
  due respect unto her, and maintaining her authority, protecting her,
  and placing trust in her. They are heirs together of all the blessings
  of this life and that which is to come, and should live peaceably one
  with another. Prayer sweetens their converse.

The argument that "weaker vessel" implies care and gentleness carries a lot of weight in my opinion. If you have a fragile, beautiful vase are you going to knock it around and treat it roughly? Not if you care about it. Taking a good literal translation into account and viewing this as an illustrative analogy will help a lot in interpreting this verse.