If Satan fell because of sin, then was there sin in heaven at that point? Assuming that God cast Satan out of heaven because of his sinful pride and attempt to dethrone God, then doesn't that mean that there was, at that point in time, some sin in heaven? This seems like it would disprove the statement that there can't be any sin in heaven.

If there can, then, then why can't those dwelling in heaven think sinful things, too? It's said in the Bible that you can't be "unsaved", so then I'm guessing that means that He won't throw anyone out of heaven once they're in. What would he do in the event that someone sinned in heaven?

I asked my pastor this once, and he directed me to a passage in Ezra, I think; unfortunately, I don't remember exactly where...

Sin is not in the atmosphere of a place, but in the person who disobeys God. Places don't disobey God, do they, so heaven itself does not have sin. It appears that you are thinking that sin is spread into the atmosphere like germs, and cause people to start thinking sinful things.

Sinners can entice others to sin by their actions and words. In Revelation 12, Satan is thrown out of heaven "and his angels," which implies that other angels have either fallen on their own, or were influenced by Satan.

However, Satan is still under the rule of God and is called back to heaven now and then, as we see in Job 1 and 2. So heaven at times is inhabited by sinning creatures.


Are there any Christian denominations that reject some of the gospels in the New Testament? Are all four gospels in the NT accepted by every Christian denomination (whether trinitarian or non-trinitarian)? For example, you could have a christian denomination that accepts Mark’s gospel but rejects the other gospels. I don’t know for sure. These are just speculations.

I can't find any evidence for whole denominations which reject any of the Gospels, however among scholars the most contestable book tends to be the book of John. In particular the authorship and age of the book of John is a controversial subject - and if you consider this to be an important factor in whether John is a genuine gospel, then this will affect whether or not you accept the book as inspired.

As I say though, this isn't really a denominational issue so much as a scholarly one.

There have been issues with some of the letters on the other hand - for instance Martin Luther originally had issue with the inclusion of Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation. Also Syriac Christian traditions didn't initially accept 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, Jude and Revelation. Both of these traditions ultimately came to accept these though - the main difference remaining is over the Deuterocanonical books which are included by Catholic/Greek Orthodox traditions but only deemed "useful for reading" and removed from the Biblical Canon in the Protestant traditions.


Did John Calvin ever read Thomas Aquinas's Summa Theologica? I've read in a few places online (here, for example), that John Calvin did not have access to Thomas Aquinas's great treatise, Summa Theologica.

This is mind-blowing.  Consider: The last edition of John Calvin's Institutes was published in 1560, four years before his death.  Thomas Aquinas stopped working on Summa Theologica when he died in 1274, almost 300 years prior.  Thomas Aquinas died in Italy, while John Calvin was born in France and died in Switzerland: two countries that share a border with Italy.  How could it take 300 years for a seminal work like this to travel a few hundred miles?

I'm not sure that we can easily attribute this to negligence on the part of Calvin, as he clearly valued interacting with (and often criticizing) his intellectual forebears, as seen in his frequent references to church fathers and the Scholastics (the "schoolmen").

What is the evidence that Calvin read or did not read Summa Theologica? And if he never read it, what prevented him from doing so?

A smoking gun is in the references that John Calvin makes to Thomas Aquinas in his own book, The Institutes of the Christian Religion (II.11.4 and III.22.9).  This is evidence that Calvin at least knew of Aquinas, which suggests that Aquinas' most important work had reached France or Switzerland and that he would probably have read it.

Mark J. Larson says in Calvin's Doctrine of the State, page 27, that Calvin read Aquinas either directly or through intermediate sources (citing Lane and Wendel as his own sources). Larson says that although Calvin did not explicitly connect his teaching on the just war with Aquinas, it could well be the case that he had read his treatment De Bello in Summa Theologica.


How accurate is the movie Prince of Egypt? A few questions about Moses I just watched the movie The Prince of Egypt (1998), and had a bunch of questions about Moses.

Did Moses know he was an Israelite before he killed the Egyptian? When did he know he was an Israelite?

  And it came to pass in those days, when Moses was grown, that he went out unto his brethren, and looked on their burdens: and he spied an Egyptian smiting an Hebrew, one of his brethren. Exo 2:11

When did Moses know his sister Miriam was actually his sister? Was Miriam the sister who watched him float down the Nile and who talked to Pharaoh's daughter?

  And his sister stood afar off, to wit what would be done to him. Exo 2:4

Did the Israelites know that Moses would be the one called to lead them out of Egypt?

Are there scriptures that give an answer? Maybe these questions don't have a scriptural answer, and that's all right. I can take a scriptural blank for an answer. Anything you know that is in the scriptures I'd appreciate a ton!

I read Exodus 1 - 2 . It helped me know why the Israelite children were killed, along with other answers to some other questions I had. This answer helped me know Moses' age at diffrent points. It has been way interesting to find out the details of the story.

Answers to the Biblical Questions about Moses

Question 1

The idea that at any time during his life Moses didn't know that he was a Hebrew by birth has no support in the Bible. Though there is no explicit statement that he did know this during his youth and young adulthood, the story is written as if he knew all along.

Here are the verses that give this impression:

  The daughter of Pharaoh came down to bathe at the river, while her
  attendants walked beside the river. She saw the basket among the reeds
  and sent her maid to bring it. When she opened it, she saw the child.
  He was crying, and she took pity on him. "This must be one of the
  Hebrews' children," she said. (Exodus 2:5-6)

We know, then, that Pharaoh's daughter, who raised him as her own son, knew that he was a Hebrew. Others in the court would likely also know that he was a Hebrew, both because the story of his discovery by Pharaoh's daughter was known to enough people (her attendants, Moses' parents and siblings, at minimum) and because he was of another race--Hebrew rather than Egyptian--so that he would look physically different from the Egyptians.

  Then his sister said to Pharaoh's daughter, "Shall I go and get you a
  nurse from the Hebrew women to nurse the child for you?"

  Pharaoh's daughter said to her, "Yes." So the girl went and called the
  child's mother. Pharaoh's daughter said to her, "Take this child and
  nurse it for me, and I will give you your wages." So the woman took
  the child and nursed it. When the child grew up, she brought him to
  Pharaoh's daughter, and she took him as her son. (Exodus 2:7-10)

In his infancy, Moses was nursed and cared for by his own mother in his own home. These days mothers typically nurse infants for a year or so. But in ancient times, two or three years was common. A three year nursing period is mentioned in 2 Maccabees 7:27. It is likely, then, that Moses had some memory of his Hebrew birth family from when he was a toddler.

Further, it is unlikely that Pharaoh's court would have no idea where a 2 or 3 year old non-Egyptian child suddenly showing up in the court came from. And Moses would have heard the talk about him in the court.

  She named him Moses, "because," she said, "I drew him out of the
  water." (Exodus 2:10)

In the cultures of Bible times, names, their meanings, and their stories were given great significance. Moses, according to the Bible story, was named for his being drawn out of the water. It is highly unlikely that he would have grown up without knowing the meaning of his name and the story behind it.

  One day, after Moses had grown up, he went out to his people and saw
  their forced labor. He saw an Egyptian beating a Hebrew, one of his
  kinsfolk. (Exodus 2:11)

Here the story casually mentions Moses going out to see his own people when he had grown up. There is no mention of his discovering who he was and who his people were. It simply says that he went out to see his people, the Hebrews, as if he already knew who his people were.

All of this suggests that Moses knew that he was of Hebrew birth right from the start--that he grew up knowing this fact about his identity.

Question 2

Since, as mentioned above, Moses may have lived with his birth family up to age three, there is a good chance that he knew his older sister Miriam from the time of his early childhood.

Miriam's age is not given in the Bible. Traditional sources vary on how old she was compared to Moses. Most commonly she is believed to have been five to seven years older, though some sources say she was as much as eleven or even fourteen years older than Moses. (See, for example, the entry on Miriam in the Judaism 101 article, "Moses, Aaron and Miriam"; and the entry for Exodus 7:7 in Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible here.)

Aaron was was three years older than Moses (see Exodus 7:7).

All of this suggests that Moses may very well have had early memories of his two older siblings from the time he was a toddler living with his birth family.

The sister of Moses who watched him from a distance after he was put into the Nile in the ark, and who made the offer to Pharaoh's daughter to find a Hebrew woman to nurse the baby, is not named in the story of Moses' birth and infancy in Exodus 2:1-10.

However, it was almost certainly his sister Miriam, since the only siblings of Moses mentioned in the Bible are Miriam and Aaron.

In the genealogies of Levi, only Moses, Aaron, and Miriam are mentioned as children of Amram and Jochebed:

  Kohath was the forefather of Amram; the name of Amram's wife was Jochebed, a descendant of Levi, who was born to the Levites in Egypt. To Amram she bore Aaron, Moses, and their sister Miriam. (Numbers 26:58-59)

and:

  The children of Amram: Aaron, Moses, and Miriam. (1 Chronicles 6:3)

The three of them are also mentioned together in the story of Miriam and Aaron speaking out against Moses in Numbers 12, and later in a poetic prophecy in Micah:

I brought you up out of Egypt
   and redeemed you from the land of slavery.
I sent Moses to lead you,
   also Aaron and Miriam. (Micah 6:4)

All of this strongly suggests that it was indeed Miriam who watched over Moses when he was put into the Nile in an ark made of bulrushes (or papyrus).

Question 3

It is unlikely that the Israelites knew that Moses would lead them out of Egypt before it actually happened.

There is no indication in the Bible story of any such prior knowledge. Even when Moses did come to lead them out of slavery at God's command, he had to not only relate to them what God had said to him, but also do the miracles God had shown him, so that they would believe that he was sent by God (see Exodus 4:29-31).

How Accurate is The Prince of Egypt?

The answer is: "Not very."

A blurb in the opening credits reads:

  The motion picture you are about to see is an adaptation of the Exodus
  story.

  While artistic and historical license has been taken, we
  believe that this film is true to the essence, values and integrity of
  a story that is a cornerstone of faith for millions of people
  worldwide.

  The biblical story of Moses can be found in the book of Exodus.

In other words, when it comes to representing the actual story as it appears in Exodus, this movie falls somewhere between "Based on a true story" and "Inspired by a true story."

It would take too long to list all of the differences between the movie and the Bible story. Best to read the book of Exodus for yourself. But here are a few major differences:

As outlined above, the Bible gives no hint that Moses did not know who he was and where he was from, but strongly suggests the opposite.
The Bible says nothing about a brother-brother relationship between Moses and Rameses, which is a key plot element of this and some other artistic adaptations of the story. The Bible does not even say which Pharaoh was reigning at the time the Exodus took place.
In the Bible, after God commissions Moses to free the Israelites from slavery, Moses is accompanied to Egypt by his brother Aaron, not by his wife Zipporah. Aaron serves as Moses' spokesman in Egypt (see Exodus 4:10-16). And Exodus 18:1-6 makes it clear that Zipporah and their two sons were living with Moses' father-in-law Jethro during the events of the Exodus.

However, as with many movies and novels based on biblical events, The Prince of Egypt does capture something of the emotional power of the story in a way that may not come through with a simple reading of the text.


Not understanding the meaning of the song Resurrecting by Elevation Worship There is a song by Elevation Worship named Resurrecting. As I am not a Christian, I failed to understand some of these lines:

  Our God is alive
  The tomb with soldiers watched in vain
  was borrowed for three days
  HIS body there would not remain
  Our God has robbed the grave

Can anybody explain me these lines? Thanks.

The lyrics are about the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Our God is alive

Our God, Jesus, is not dead, even though he was killed, but is alive because he rose from the dead.

The tomb with soldiers watched in vain

After bring crucified, the body of Jesus was placed in a tomb and soldiers were placed on guard at it. However Jesus did arise, and the soldiers were unable to prevent it.

was borrowed for three days.

Jesus was laid in a tomb, but after three days rose again. The tomb was not needed after that - it was only borrowed, not kept permanently.

His body there would not remain
our God has robbed the grave

God, like a grave robber, has taken the body out of the grave - not by stealing it, but because he has the power to do so. Moreover he does the same for all of us, in that he will resurrect us all in due time - 'cheating' the enemy of the punishment that we deserve for our sins, which is death - the ultimate 'robbing' of the ultimate grave.
It is possible to get into trouble by taking that last line as too literal and exact a theological statement. God is not being deceitful or dishonest in 'robbing' the grave. It's a song lyric, not a doctrinal statement.


Regarding women participation in extraordinary ministry (Roman-Catholic Church) I've seen similar questions like these:

Why doesn't the Catholic Church ordain women to be deacons?
Why does the Roman Catholic church allow girls to serve the altar?

but they do not cover what I want to ask here.

I've recently moved to Ireland from Russia, where I was attending a Catholic Church for some time. So I have never seen women there serving on the altar (I've heard about girls-ministrants who handle
 lights, giving the censer and so on - this is quite traditional, even in the Orthodox Church girls serve on the altar sometimes).

But, to be honest, I was quite shocked by seeing the local Irish Catholic tradition: women here mainly, without any liturgical vestements, are taking Communion on the altar from the Ciborium and then hand out Communion alongside the priests in the Church during mass.

It looks quite shocking and resembles the Protestant church more than something traditional (These women do not have any kind of vestements, but are dressed in regular clothes with make-up and perfume).

I've recently discussed this problem with my Russian Catholic friends and they said that this is some kind of malpractice, that Second Vatican Council wasn't intended to provide such a kind of extraordinary ministry where the use of laymen (here laywomen?) distributing Sacraments becomes regular practice.

What can you tell me about it? Is it really an abuse of Canon?

The women are most likely extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion, in which case there is no problem.

The current liturgical law for the Latin Rite, the General Instruction for the Roman Missal (GIRM) permits laypersons to distribute Communion:

  The priest may be assisted in the distribution of Communion by other priests who happen to be present. If such priests are not present and there is a very large number of communicants, the priest may call upon extraordinary ministers to assist him, i.e., duly instituted acolytes or even other faithful who have been deputed for this purpose. In case of necessity, the priest may depute suitable faithful for this single occasion (GIRM 162).

Moreover, the Code of Canon Law stipulates

  When the need of the Church warrants it and ministers are lacking, lay persons [Latin: laici, which is distinguished from viri laici, that is, lay men; hence laici can be men or women], even if they are not lectors or acolytes, can also supply certain of their duties, namely, to exercise the ministry of the word, to preside offer liturgical prayers, to confer baptism, and to distribute Holy Communion, according to the prescripts of the law (Can. 230 §3).

Therefore, if those lay persons are properly deputed extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion, and there is an authentic need for them (e.g., to prevent the Mass from being excessively long; see Inaestimabile donum no. 10), then it is not a problem for them to distribute Communion.

Liturgical law does specify that there must be a true need for extraordinary ministers. The instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum spells out the criteria:

In a Mass, the priests present should never delegate distribution of the Eucharist entirely to extraordinary ministers (no. 157).
“[T]he extraordinary minister of Holy Communion may administer Communion only when the Priest and Deacon are lacking, when the Priest is prevented by weakness or advanced age or some other genuine reason, or when the number of faithful coming to Communion is so great that the very celebration of Mass would be unduly prolonged” (no. 158).


Do any Christian traditions think that evil desires are not sin? There are several related questions already about this topic on C.SE, such as "What does it mean that Jesus was tempted in every way like us (yet without sin)?" and "What is temptation?".

My question is focusing on the phenomena that some people say that having evil desires isn't sinful in itself, but yielding to them is sinful. Others say that sinful desires are inherently sinful. It seems that there isn't agreement within broader Christianity about this issue, so I'm curious about which particular traditions (if any) teach that having evil desires does not necessarily mean that one is sinning. No doubt the answer to this question is especially related to this question: "Would it have been possible for Jesus to sin?", with particular regard to the question of whether Jesus had evil desires (I don't think he did).

Baptists believe that being tempted is not sinning, for two reason, the first being because of James 1:13-15.

"Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:
14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death. "
James 1:13-15 (KJV)

This verse indicates that sin doesn't occur until  after you are tempted. Another reason is the fact that Jesus was tempted and did not sin. (mark 1:24 says Jesus is the Holy one of God, indicating that Jesus is holy)


Does the Nicene Creed condemn Chiliasm? I've repeatedly seen it asserted that Chiliasm was condemned as a heresy in the fourth century by the Church when it included the phrase "whose Kingdom shall have no end" in the Nicene Creed. However, I have seen much more scholarly sources that assert it was never officially condemned as a heresy.

Other than just restating Luke 1:33, what is the context and meaning of the phrase "whose Kingdom shall have no end" in the Nicene Creed? Does it condemn Chiliasm?

Origin of the phrase

There are actually a number of texts that are labeled the "Nicene Creed".  The text produced by the 325 council does not include information about the kingdom at all.  Eusebius of Caesarea, who attended the council, wrote back to his congregation about the deliberations.  He reports an initial version of the creed that was used as a part of the baptism ceremony and the final version as issued by the council.  None of these versions include the phrase "whose Kingdom shall have no end".

The Nicene Creed received by the Eastern Orthodox Church has traditionally been associated with the Council of Constantinople in 381.  36 representatives of Macedonianism were turned away from the second ecumenical council because they would not affirm the Nicene Creed (presumably the 325 version).  The Council of Ephesus in 431 reaffirmed the faith established in Nicea, but seems to have had the 325 text in mind.  Further, it seems to have put an end to the writing of new creeds.  According to Wikipedia, the creed that included the phrase was not quoted until the fourth ecumenical council at Chalcedon in 451.

Philip Schaff commented on the origin of the phrase:

  This clause had already, so far as the meaning is concerned, been added to the Nicene Creed, years before, in correction of the heresy of Marcellus of Ancyra, of whose heresy a statement will be found in the notes on Canon I. of this Council.  One of the creeds of the Council of Antioch in Encæniis (a.d. 341) reads:  “and he sitteth at the right hand of the Father, and he shall come again to judge both the quick and the dead, and he remaineth God and King to all eternity.”

This may be confirmed by Athanasius (On the Councils of Ariminum and Seleucia, II, 22) and Socrates Scholasticus (Historia Ecclesiastica, II, 10).  For the purposes of this answer, I will assume the phrase dates back to at least the 341 Synod of Antioch.

Does the phrase reject Chiliasm?

The nature of the Second Person of the Trinity was the primary focus of these councils since heresies in question (those of Arius and Nestorius) were related to the meaning of the titles "Son of God" and "Son of Man".  As far as I can tell, these heresies do not require a commitment to a particular eschatological theory.

If the phrase were added in response to Marcellus of Ancyra, who was accused of Sabellianism, the purpose would be to emphasize that Jesus would not return the Kingdom to the Father.  In particular, "[Jesus] remains God and King to all eternity" would contradict dynamic monarchianism, which holds that God transferred his kingly authority to Jesus only for a time.  Again, this view does not by necessity hold to a 1000-year reign; rather, it holds that God temporarily took on the persona of Jesus.

So the heresies the creeds were designed to contradict were not particularly millenarian.  In addition, the phrase ought not particularly bother the believer in chiliasm.  That's because unending Kingdom of Christ is said to come after the final judgement, which is not controversial.  Revelation 20-22 describes a millenium in which the martyrs of the Church reign with Christ followed by the final judgment followed by the new Jerusalem where the servants of the Lamb with reign with Him forever.  So the literal reading of Revelation meshes well with the phrase in the creed; the creed just leaves out some of the detail.

Did the fourth century church condemn Chiliasm?

The early church fathers are fairly well split on the issue:

Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Tertullian held views similar to the Jewish messianism of 1 Enoch, 2 Esdras, and 2 Baruch.
Origen, Dionysius of Alexandria, Eusebius, Jerome and Augustine preferred allegorical interpretations of apocalyptic literature.

However, the trend was from a more literal reading of the 1,000 years to a metaphorical reading.  Perhaps there was no need to condemn chiliasm as a heresy since there were few proponents of the idea by the time the councils had solidified the Trinitarian position.

I did find an odd text while researching the question.  During the 6th session, the Council of Chalcedon addressed the Emperor:

  May God save your kingdom.  [You] have put down the heretics, [you] have kept the faith.  May hatred be far removed from your empire, and may your kingdom endure for ever!

Summary

It seems likely that the phrase "whose Kingdom shall have no end" addresses concerns over the nature of Christ and the incarnation, just as most of the other phrases that accumulated in the creeds.  Chiliasm was losing favour by the 4th century, so it seems unlikely to have been targeted specifically by the creeds or councils.


Why does Jesus refer to himself as the "Son of Man"? Why does Jesus refer to himself as the "Son of Man"?  This is similar to Why does Jesus speak of himself in the third person?, but I am specifically looking for an explanation of the "Son of Man" references.

From "The Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels"

Thus: “When E. Hiyya ben Adda died … R. Levi received his valuables. This was because his teacher used to say: ‘The disciple of bar nāšâ is as dear to him as his son.’ ” Here the expression plainly refers to the group of teachers
It is suggested that the idiom was used as a form of self-reference in cases where the speaker wished to show modesty or to speak of matters (such as his own death) which were distasteful—in any case in sayings where he wished to avoid speaking directly in the first person.
--Green, J. B., McKnight, S., & Marshall, I. H. (1992). Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels (779). Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press.

There are several theories about what Jesus was alluding to in calling himself son of Man (literally son of 'a-dam'):

A re-affimation of his authority to forgive sin (which entered via Adam).
An allusion to the suffering that he will undergo
A kindredness that will be evident at his return, in which he will come not just as a conqueror, but as a redeemer who is coming (back) to his own.
An allusion to his Messianic role, since the Messiah would be "the Son of Man"
A reference to the inheritor of the world, per Daniel 7.  The last beast to have authority was "like a Son of Man"

With any of these motives, by speaking of himself in the third person, he is making an audacious claim (the power!) but couching it in the most humble terms he can.


What is an overview of methods used by Christian churches to discipline their members? The term discipline conjures up a huge range of actions in most people's minds. A parent disciplining a child could mean time-outs in the corner or a swat on the rear, not getting to hang out with friends, or any number of other things.

Introducing the modifier 'church' probably doesn't do much to clarify. I can imagine the range of things brought to mind by the term church discipline could range from being made to wear a dunce cap during service to 40 lashes.

I have asked about the purpose and Scriptural basis of discipline, but what is an overview of how it is implemented? Is there a common definition for what consequences make up the 'discipline'? What is an overview of methods employed by different traditions?

Across denominational lines, the range of practical actions to discipline members can include:

Confrontation. To some people, simply pointing out that they are doing something wrong is received as a form of discipline - it can certainly be humbling when this happens. This may be done by a peer or even one in a subordinate relationship, but is more typically done by those who have some form of pastoral duty-of-care.
(The act of) Penance. Although penance is not exclusively a Catholic term, the particulars of imposed discipline post-confession as part of the wider Catholic sacrament of penance can be a little unique and vary from saying a certain number of prayers, to reading a portion of scripture, or practicing a particular form of self-denial, or performing a particular act of service or kindness to someone (source).
(Mandated) Counselling. Although most churches will have avenues for their members to voluntarily receive counsel geared towards assisting them to overcome various problems; if their "problem" is one that affects a wider group, they may be "strongly encouraged" (ie do this or face alternative consequences) or even formally required to receive counselling regarding the issue.
(Temporary) Suspension from serving official and/or volunteer ministry duties.
Public Admonition. Rarely used, a significant escalation over private confrontation.
Withholding the Sacrament (of the Eucharist / Communion).
Demotion (loss of title) or dismissal (from a particular role).
Excommunication / disfellowshipping.


1 John 3:20 what does it mean "He knows everything" according to Calvinist Single Predestination? This question as a continuation of my question here, because the question before is not "tight".

  1 John 3:20

  For God is greater than our hearts, and He knows everything.

Trying to put my point of view in Calvinist style, I have the verse sentence something like this : He knows everything before the Creation

Now the question is, before the Creation - He knows everything :

X. after He planned all things which absolutely are going to happen
absolutely from A to Z? or
Y. before He planned all things which absolutely are going to happen
from A to Z?

When I myself have X as an answer, then to be honest I can't see something wow! about "God knows everything", as to me this is more about God Omnipotent.

But the worse is that I can't see that "God knows everything", because the conclusion then "before He plan, He doesn't know yet". This leads me to disregard option X, and try to look option Y.

But option Y to me is absurd because if He knows everything which absolutely are going to happen from A to Z (He knows that He create Adam - He also knows that Adam is --for example-- in heaven) - then there is no option to make a plan, there is no option to have "If ... Then I ..." or "If I ... Then ... " rule.

And the worse is then God is not Omnipotent as He is unable to change all things which He knows absolutely are going to happen from A to Z. At the time of Creation and after it, God only follow what is "already written" ("already written" = all things which He knows absolutely are going to happen).

I ask to the Calvinist Single Predestination, because option X to me is more "fit" with Double Predestination although it leads me to conclude that "God doesn't know everything" before He plans it.

So disregarding X and Y, I would like to know first what does it mean "He knows everything" according to the Calvinist Single Predestination ?

The traditional Calvinistic understanding of the relationship between God's knowledge and God's decree relies on an important distinction, which I'll briefly explain, then present to you how Historically Reformed Confessions articulate the relationship.

When we are talking about "time" before creation, we must understand that "time" in any traditional understanding doesn't make much sense. We cannot say that God went from a state of not knowing all things to a state of knowing all things, nor can we say that there is any meaningful sense in which God had not yet decreed all things, then went on to decree all things.

So when we talk about things happening "in eternity" we must do away with chronological distinctions, and rather talk in term of "logical priority". Which is logically necessary for the other?

Now for the historically Reformed understanding, as presented in the 1689 London Baptist Confession of faith (it's the same in Westminster):

  3.2 Although God knoweth whatsoever may or can come to pass, upon all
  supposed conditions, yet hath he not decreed anything,
  because he foresaw it as future, or as that
  which would come to pass upon such conditions.

Let's break this down. In 3.1, the confession says God decreed all things, then here the confession explains that relationship. While it affirms that God knows all things, the confession unequivocally argues that God's decree is not dependent upon that knowledge. God did not decree anything on account of his divine foreknowledge.

Therefore, we would say this "God's decree is logically prior to God's foreknowledge", or alternatively, "God knows all things because he decreed all things."

So this answer is something of a framing challenge, I do not believe you are asking the right question. Whether, as a Calvinist, you affirm Single or Double Predestination, this ought to be your view on this relationship, and it is the view shared by historical Single and Double proponents alike.


Genesis 1:3; 1:5 and 1:16 This is a simple question but it's making me confused.

In Genesis 1:3 God created light.

In Genesis 1:5 "And the evening and the morning were the first day."

In 1:16 "Genesis 1:16: And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: [he made] the stars also."
What I'm confused about is that, in 1:5 evenings were already happening. But only in 1:16 He created the Sun and the Moon. Was God regulating by Himself the light on Earth, then left us with the Sun and the Moon?

Can someone explain?, sorry if the question it's silly.
God bless us all :-)

This question is about confusion in reading the creation account in Genesis 1:1-2:4a, and the confusion arises because you are trying to see the creation story as a literal account. The existence of daylight and evening before the creation of the sun and moon is only the most superficial issue in understanding the creation story. Contrary to science, a literal reading would also mean that the earth was a cold and lonely rock floating through the emptiness of space until the sun, moon and stars were created on day three. Yet there was liquid water at the beginning of creation, and plants grew before the sun was there to warm them.

Faced by the apparent contradictions in Genesis, it is more reasonable to see the creation account as allegorical, just as many early Church Fathers did. For example, Origen (De Principiis, Book 4.1.16):

  ... as even these do not contain throughout a pure history of events, which are interwoven indeed according to the letter, but which did not actually occur. Nor even do the law and the commandments wholly convey what is agreeable to reason. For who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars? and that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky? And who is so foolish as to suppose that God, after the manner of a husbandman, planted a paradise in Eden, towards the east, and placed in it a tree of life, visible and palpable, so that one tasting of the fruit by the bodily teeth obtained life? and again, that one was a partaker of good and evil by masticating what was taken from the tree? And if God is said to walk in the paradise in the evening, and Adam to hide himself under a tree, I do not suppose that any one doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance, and not literally...


Does the holiness of a person grow over time? Does the holiness of a person grow over time?
If not, does the acts of charity/love of a person made in their youth matter if they lose their faith later in life?
The only way to get to heaven is based on how much of a supernatural love we have in us.

(CCC2000) Sanctifying grace is an habitual gift, a stable and
supernatural disposition that perfects the soul itself to enable it to
live with God, to act by his love.

Does this love fluctuate when we gain or lose it? Or is it chronological in the sense that there is always some element of it in us when we gain it?
I'd like to know the catholic view.

Holiness is how godlike one is. God is charity (1 Jn. 4:8). Since charity can increase (Summa Theologica II-II q. 29 a. 4) or decrease (a. 10),* so can holiness increase or decrease.
*cf. On Love and Charity: Readings from the Commentary [of St. Thomas Aquinas] on the Sentences of Peter Lombard pp. 31-55, 66-80


Is the term 'word of God' in the New Testament equal in authority to the designation 'scripture'? I have noticed there are some that distinguish between the designation 'scripture' as only referring to the Old Testament and 'word of God' as some or all of the New Testament. This seems strange to me but in any case regardless of the possible distinctions between 'the word of God' and the designation 'scripture' is there any difference in the authority of each term?

I assume 'if they have equal authority' then any minor differences that may be implied in the 'terms' are inconsequential as they only denote aspects of the same thing. Here we find Paul taking about his message as 'the word of God':

  And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as a human word, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is indeed at work in you who believe. (1 Thessalonians 2:13, NIV)

Is the 'word of God' in the New Testament equal in authority to the designation 'scripture'?

Warning: Catholic Answer in which I reinterpret what you say about "Word of God" as "things asserted by the Holy Spirit", I think these are equivalent but you may not. This disclaimer might actually be the whole answer to the question, but read on if you dare.

One of awesome and useful documents from 2nd Vatican Council stated:

Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation. Therefore "all Scripture is divinely inspired and has its use for teaching the truth and refuting error, for reformation of manners and discipline in right living, so that the man who belongs to God may be efficient and equipped for good work of every kind"
Dei Verbum Ch 3. Paragraph 11

I bolded the word asserted because that's a really, terribly important point.  It's not every participle that is the truth that men live on when bread is found to be insufficient.  It's the things that the Holy Spirit is trying to tell us through scripture that are the inspired parts.  Like, when people to Jesus or Job and told them that a man or his parents must have done something wrong to put him in the place he is.  That's not "asserted" by the Holy Spirit in any way.
Furthermore, the Holy Spirit also is the Interpreter of the Sacred Scripture

Read the Scripture within "the living Tradition of the whole Church". According to a saying of the Fathers, Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church's heart rather than in documents and records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God's Word, and it is the Holy Spirit who gives her the spiritual interpretation of the Scripture (". . . according to the spiritual meaning which the Spirit grants to the Church").
CCC 113

It might be fair to call "the Word of God" as subset of Sacred Scripture because only the good stuff is what is "asserted". But it also might be fair to call Sacred Scripture a subset of the Word of God.  Because the good stuff contained in scripture is infinitely deep;  It's like Chesterton's porch with an unbelievably gigantic living room or Lewis's tiny gate that keeps on taking you further up and further in.


Are God, Son (Jesus) and The Holy Spirit Same? I wonder whether God the Father, the Son (Jesus), and the Holy Spirit are actually the same?

If the answer is "yes", why we can't we have our spiritual communication only with Jesus Christ?

It's three Persons in one Divine Nature, all separate in their personhood, all equal in their divinity.  An image pulled from an old catechism diagrams the relationship like this:

The legendary analogy that Saint Patrick used when educating the Irish was the shamrock: three distinct leaves in one plant.  Obviously, any image we make is going to be an imperfect representation of what the Trinity is, but the essence is that the three distinct persons are united in their shared Divine nature.


Is God the Son's divine nature human? According to the hypostatic union, God the Son assumed a human nature, so that he is both fully divine and fully human. The two natures, although distinct, are not separated.

Does this mean god the son's divine nature is fully human?

If not, what does "without division, without separation" mean?

No, according to the doctrine of the Hypostatic Union, the divine nature did not become fully human, or even partially human.

From the Formula of Chalcedon:

  one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence

The divine nature is united with the human nature in person of Jesus Christ, but it is unchanged by this union.

Much of the confusion around the HU is placing the two natures in the same category with the person. The person is fully human and fully divine, but the two natures are unchanged.

You ask

  What does "without division, without separation" mean?

It means that the two natures can not be separated from each other when discussing the person Jesus. We can not divide the properties of Jesus between the two natures. We all agree that the person Jesus was born of Mary. Under the HU, we can not separate the two natures and say that the man (only) Jesus was born of Mary. We must always say as well that God was born of Mary.

The two natures are united in the person of Jesus but are not changed by the union. The union is so ' stong' that we can not find any separation or division in Jesus.


"God desires all men to be saved" from a Calvinist perspective? If I understand correctly, Calvinists believe that God selects certain people for salvation based solely on His will... that is, the selection has nothing to do with the people themselves.
My question is about the following passages:

This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.  1 Timothy 2:3-4
The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.  2 Peter 3:9
Again, when a wicked man turns away from his wickedness which he has committed and practices justice and righteousness, he will save his life. Because he considered and turned away from all his transgressions which he had committed, he shall surely live; he shall not die. . . . For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone who dies,” declares the Lord God. “Therefore, repent and live.” Ezekiel 18:27-32

It seems ... like God wants everyone to be saved and "live", and does not want people to die and go to Hell.  If this is the will of God, and God decides who will be saved based solely on His will ... then why isn't everyone going to be saved?

To be fair to Calvin, why not go straight to the horses mouth. Calvin did not believe this kind of verse (1 Tim 2:3) implied God's desire to save every man. Here is where we discover limited atonement as proposed by Calvin and is various different ways supported by the most eminent Calvinists that have ever lived, including in my mind one of the greatest theologians ever, John Owen. (I disagree with these men that I admire but have some support in Luther, so the balance is even).

  In short, as the calling is a proof of the secret election, so they whom God makes partakers of his gospel are admitted by him to possess salvation; because the gospel reveals to us the righteousness of God, which is a sure entrance into life. Hence we see the childish folly of those who represent this passage to be opposed to predestination. "If God" say they, "wishes all men indiscriminately to be saved, it is false that some are predestined by his eternal purpose to salvation, and others to perdition." They might have had some ground for saying this, if Paul were speaking here about individual men; although even then we should not have wanted the means of replying to their argument; for, although the: will of God ought not to be judged from his secret decrees, when he reveals them to us by outward signs, yet it does not therefore follow that he has not determined with himself what he intends to do as to every individual man. But I say nothing on that subject, because it has nothing to do with this passage; for the Apostle simply means, that there is no people and no rank in the world that is excluded from salvation; because God wishes that the gospel should be proclaimed to all without exception. Now the preaching of the gospel gives life; and hence he justly concludes that God invites all equally to partake salvation. But the present discourse relates to classes of men, and not to individual persons; for his sole object is, to include in this number princes and foreign nations. (John Calvin's Commentary 1 Timothy)

Even Luther took this approach before Calvin regarding this specific verse:

  “God desires all men to be saved” (1 Tim. 2:4), and He gave His Son for us men and created man for eternal life. Likewise: All things exist for man, and he himself exists for God that he may enjoy Him, etc.39 These points and others like them can be refuted as easily as the first one. For these verses must always be understood as pertaining to the elect only, as the apostle says in 2 Tim. 2:10 “everything for the sake of the elect.” For in an absolute sense Christ did not die for all, because He says: “This is My blood which is poured out for you” and “for many”—He does not say: for all—“for the forgiveness of sins” (Mark 14:24, Matt 26:28)
  (Luther's Works Volume 25.376)

As a 90-95% Calvinist (If I was a 100% anything this might constitute idolatry!) I am persuaded to agree with Luther and Calvin with respect to these particular verses but at the same time believe that God does love all men beyond the elect and that how this pertains to free will is not as cut and dry as Calvin thought. Luther also used  1 Tim 2:4 to argue about God's general care for all mankind in a separate Volume.

See this post arguing against limited atonement

What is the Biblical argument against Limited Atonement?

I also do not think it was so cut and dry in Luther's mind, see here an argument for God even loving those 'predestined to damnation'.

Does God hate unborn children?

Strictly speaking as a Calvinists I depart from Calvin on this one point. I consider it Calvin's point of weakness and failure. So do many others who deeply identify with Calvinistic theology and who are comfortable being called by that label.


How did Oneness Pentecostalism spread and grow during the 20th century? Oneness Pentecostalism is a movement within the broader Pentecostal movement which rejects the Trinity and is essentially a revival of Modalism. Oneness Pentecostalism arose shortly after Pentecostalism itself. In the USA in 1916 the newly formed Assemblies of God fellowship officially affirmed the Trinity, and "a third of the fellowship's ministers left to form Oneness fellowships".

Throughout the twentieth century Pentecostalism spread quickly throughout the world, so that there are now close to 300 million Pentecostal Christians, 13% of all Christians, and 4% of the world population. Oneness Pentecostalism is much smaller, with only an estimated 24 million adherents, but there are still a lot of Oneness denominations: based on stats from Barrett, Kurian, Johnson's World Christian Encyclopedia there are at least 414 Oneness Pentecostal denominations.1

What is an overview of how Oneness Pentecostalism spread and grew during the twentieth century? What sort of mission strategies did the movement have? Did the American Oneness churches start foreign mission efforts immediately, or only after some time? Were there united mission agencies, or did each American denomination work independently from the others? Did they generally focus on evangelising to non-Christians, or did they also aim to convert Trinitarian Christians to the Oneness doctrine?

1. Their methodology counts each counts each country's denominations separately, so that there are 242 Catholic "denominations" and 168 Anglican "denominations", so all such denomination numbers may seem much larger than expected.

I found an article that gives an overview of how the United Pentecostal Church emerged in 1945, although it does not comment on any sort of mission strategy that might or might not have been employed.  However, some information may be better than no information, and perhaps others may be able to provide specific information to your very specific questions.

The United Pentecostal Church is a Oneness Pentecostal denomination that was formed in 1945 when the Pentecostal Church Incorporated and the Pentecostal Assemblies of Jesus Christ merged. Their website says that they “grew from 521 churches in 1945” to “4,243 churches and daughter works in 2010.” The United Pentecostal Church claims to be “among the fastest growing church organizations since it was formed in 1945.” Because United Pentecostal Churches are normally congregational in government, there can be some differences among individual churches. As a self-governing church body, each congregation elects its own pastors and leaders. The denomination’s headquarters is in Hazelwood, Missouri.
The roots of the United Pentecostal Church and what is known as “Oneness Pentecostalism” can be traced back to the early days of the Pentecostal Movement, which began in the early 1900s in Topeka, Kansas, based on the teachings of Charles Parham. In 1906 the Pentecostal Movement gained popularity during the Azuza Street Revival led by William Seymour. While it was rejected by mainline Christian denominations, the movement continued to grow and its followers began to form their own Pentecostal organizations or denominations. One of the first was the Assemblies of God, which was formed around 1914.
The teaching that became the basis for Oneness Pentecostalism can be traced back to a Pentecostal camp meeting held in Arroyo Seco, California, either in late 1913 or early 1914. While at the meeting, a Pentecostal pastor named John Scheppe had what he believed was a divine revelation from God. As he meditated that night, he believed God revealed to him that baptism must be done in the “name of Jesus only” and not in the name of “the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.” Like most cult leaders, his revelation and “new doctrine” did not come as the result of the careful study of Scripture but instead was based on a subjective revelation he believed to be from God. Soon after, several other Assembly of God pastors began teaching this “new revelation” that would become the basis for Oneness Pentecostalism and “Jesus name only baptism.”
As the new “movement” gained followers, it caused a division in the newly formed Assembly of God organization. Recognizing the unbiblical nature of this teaching, the Assemblies of God rejected this unbiblical doctrine and affirmed the biblical doctrine of the Trinity at its Fourth General Council in October 1916. This led to the Assembly of God banning approximately 150 pastors from the denomination, those who had been teaching this unbiblical doctrine. A few months later several Oneness Pentecostal pastors met in Eureka Springs, Arkansas, and started their own organization known as the General Assembly of the Apostolic Assemblies. That was the beginning of the Oneness Pentecostal movement and eventually in 1945 two of the many Oneness Pentecostal organizations merged to form the United Pentecostal Church. https://www.gotquestions.org/United-Pentecostal-Church.html

As for the Assemblies of God denomination, here is a partial quote from another article:

The Assemblies of God is one of the largest Pentecostal denominations, with 57 million adherents worldwide. It was organized in 1914 to promote unity and doctrinal stability among groups that had been influenced by the Pentecostal revivals of the early 1900s, revivals which were the result of a desire to see an increase in God's power in churches and individuals. Many people spent long hours in prayer, seeking a fresh infusion of the Spirit. Following the teachings of Charles Parham, these people were expecting speaking in tongues as an evidence of the Holy Spirit's baptism. The first popularly acknowledged revival was at Azusa Street in Los Angeles, 1906-1909. From that movement, several churches were formed, and in April 1914, meetings were held in Hot Springs, Arkansas, which led to the formation of the Assemblies of God. Eudorus Bell, formerly a Southern Baptist preacher, was appointed as the first chairman of the denomination.   https://www.gotquestions.org/Assemblies-of-God.html

I have no information on how the Oneness Pentecostal movement goes about evangelising except to comment on earlier revivals that received a lot of publicity, some of it negative.


Who changed the Fatima prayer? From the Fatima prayer we read where Mary says:

  I want you to continue saying the Rosary every day. And after each one
  of the mysteries, my children, I want you to pray in this way: O my
  Jesus, forgive us our sins, save us from the fire of hell. Take all
  souls to heaven, especially those who are most in need.

Now that part in Rosary has changed to:

  O my Jesus, forgive us our sins. Save us from the fires of hell. Lead
  all souls into heaven, especially those in most need of thy mercy.
  Amen.

What is the history of the added: of thy mercy. This was also added in other languages not just English.

Who changed the Fatima prayer?

I can vividly recall reading the fact that
Bishop José Alves Correia da Silva of Fatima (1920- 1957) wrote the first official Fatima Prayer in Latin. Delivered by Our Lady during the Third Apparition of Our Lady of Fatima to the three shepherd children on July 13, 1917. It is traditionally prayed after the 'Glory Be' for each decade of the Rosary. (Will add a source if I can locate one).

  O Jésu mi, ignósce nóbis, libera nos ab ígne inférni, ad caélum tráhe ómnes ánimas, praesáertim máxime indigéntes.  Amen. - Oratio Fatimae

Here is the original in English:

  O my Jesus, forgive us our sins, save us from the fire of hell. Take all souls to heaven, especially those who are most in need. - On July 13, 1917, Our Lady of Fatima Showed a Vision of Hell and Taught Us How to Avoid It

Here is how the June 13 (1917) vision is explained:

  On June 13, 1917, the children slipped away for their second meeting with the Virgin Mary at the Cova da Iria. The feast of St. Anthony fell on that date, and the townspeople were celebrating at the church. To their surprise, a few people who had heard their story had already beaten the children to the spot near the holmoak. The Virgin Mary appeared once again, and told the children, I want you to come here on the thirteenth of next month. I want you to continue saying the Rosary every day. And after each one of the mysteries, my children, I want you to pray in this way: O my Jesus, forgive us our sins, save us from the fire of hell. **Take all souls to heaven, especially those who are most in need**. I want you to learn to read and write, and later I will tell you what else I want of you. The Virgin Mary also revealed to Lucia that Jacinta and Francisco would be taken to heaven soon, but Lucia was to remain on Earth longer. The Virgin Mary told Lucia not to be sad, as She would always be with her. The crowd saw a flash of lightning, and some said they saw a hazy cloud near the tree, but none of them actually saw the Virgin Mary as the children did. Some were convinced that the story was true. Others, such as Father Ferreira, were not convinced. - Fatima - The Apparitions

I do not believe that any individual is actually responsible for the additional words used in the Fatima Prayer. Local devotions, customs and translations simply brought this about.

Some websites still have the original Oratio Fatimae on them, but at the same time have a little addition at the end of it, in the English translation:

  Oratio Fatimae  [The Fatima Prayer]

  Domine Iesu, dimitte nobis debita nostra, salva nos ab igne inferiori, perduc in caelum omnes animas, praesertim eas, quae misericordiae tuae maxime indigent.

  [O my Jesus, forgive us our sins, save us from the fires of Hell, lead all souls to heaven, especially those in most need of Thy mercy.] - Latin Prayers

Personally, I pray the older Latin version, but I can see the merit in praying the newer version in Latin also. It does not take away from the original prayer but adds to it.

  Oh mi Jesu, dimitte nobis debita nostra, libera nos ab igne inferni, conduc in caelum omnes animas, praesertim illas quae maxime indigent misericordia tua. Amen. - Modern Oratio Fatimae

The following article may help shed some light on this subject:

  The True Fatima Prayer

  "O my Jesus, forgive us and save us from the fire of Hell, lead all poor
   souls toward Heaven, especially those who are most in need."

  In English this prayer is commonly called, "The Fatima Prayer"; in
   Portuguese, "O meu Jesus" prayer.

  The Portuguese Text is sometimes given as:

  O meu Jesus, perdoai-nos e livrai-nos do fogo do inferno. Levai as almas
   todas para o Ceu, e socorrei principalmente aquelas que mais precisarem.

  But the actual words of Our Lady, according to Sr. Lucia are:

  O meu Jesus, perdoai-nos e livrai-nos do fogo do inferno, levai as alminhas todas para o Ceu, principalmente aquelas que mais precisarem".

  Even if you have not studied Portuguese, you can examine both versions and
   find the textual differences.

  In English we commonly use the translation of the first version of the
   text, cited just above, which is:

  O my Jesus, forgive us our sins, save us from the fires of Hell. Lead all
   souls to Heaven, especially those most in need of Thy mercy.

  The more accurate version would be the translation of Our Lady's actual
   words, as Sr. Lucia reports them:

  "O my Jesus, forgive us and save us from the fire of Hell, lead all poor
   souls toward Heaven, especially those who are most in need."

  Literally: "O my Jesus, you pardon us, you exempt us of the fire of the hell; you take little souls all for the Sky, mainly those that more to need. "

  I would point out that this English translation is not exactly correct;
  because the Portuguese does not say "souls", but "little souls", a term of
  endearment among Portuguese Catholics for the souls in Purgatory, equivalent
  to our phrase "poor souls". The context of the phrase refers to the deliverance of all souls from purgatory into heaven; and thus never signified universal salvation.

This whole question reminds me of the following questions:

Has the Catholic Church ever attempted a local substitute for the word: Amen?

How to propose a change in a prayer?


Where did the translators of the New World translation study the Biblical languages? In Crisis of conscience, written by Raymond Franz, the translators of the New World Translation are identified as Nathan Knorr, Frederick Franz, Albert Schroeder, George Gangas, and Milton Henschel.

Where, if at all, did any of these study Biblical Hebrew or Greek?

Frederick Franz studied Biblical Greek at the University of Cincinnati with the intention of becoming a Presbyterian preacher (Penton, M. James (1997). Apocalypse Delayed: The Story of Jehovah's Witnesses (2nd ed.). University of Toronto Press. p. 174. ISBN 0-8020-7973-3.) He was also quite the linguist, speaking about half of the major Western European languages.

Albert Schroeder was a bit of a linguistic genius as well, earning his degree at the University of Michigan (according to his Dutch Wikipedia page, he did this in just one year, although there's no source to back it up - http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_D._Schroeder).

George Gangas lived in Athens, where he learned Greek. Not sure which school he studied at (if at all).

As for Hilton Menschel and Nathan Knorr, I'm not certain. My Dutch colleague who tends to know these kinds of things said he was confident that Knorr had not contributed to the New World Translation, but he couldn't tell me where he knew that from.


What is the significance of priest breaking the bread (Host) in a Catholic mass? In a Catholic mass, just before the distribution of communion to people, the priest breaks the Host in to pieces and people simultaneously acclaim: Lamb of God you take away the sins of the world, Have mercy on us.......

What is the significance of this fraction of bread (Host)?  Does it have any parallel to the act of sacrifice for atonement of sins:  like sacrificing of lambs in OT and then sacrifice of Jesus himself for our sins?

Also the shape of this fractioned Host is different at different times. Are there any laid down norms for this?

The meaning of the fraction of bread is, that Christ is 'distributing himself' to the Faithful. As the prayer in Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom states

  The Lamb of God is broken and distributed; broken but not divided. He is forever eaten yet is never consumed, but He sanctifies those who partake of Him.

Also, dropping the part of the Host into the Chalice is a sign of Resurrection - the reunion of Blood and Body, of Body and Soul.

There is no specific meaning to the shape of breaking in Catholic churches. The priests typically break the host roughly in half and then break a small particle off one of the halves. (In Orthodox churches and Eastern Catholic tradition, the host is a cube, a quarter of which into the chalice).


Why do Cessationists consider recent testimonial evidence for the gifts of the Spirit less reliable than 2000-year-old evidence for the resurrection? Arguments for the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus rely very heavily on testimonial evidence.  Defenders of the historicity of Jesus' resurrection typically argue that the writings of the New Testament are supposedly reliable first- or second-hand eyewitness testimonies in support of the resurrection, despite arguments to the contrary indicating the scientific impossibility of the event (according to contemporary science), the degree of uncertainty introduced by the antiquity of the writings (they were written about 2000 years ago) and the impossibility to interview the primary sources (the alleged eyewitnesses are all dead by now). Simply put, the evidence for Jesus' resurrection consists of (1) the alleged first/second hand eyewitness testimonies compiled in the NT and (2) the willingness of early Christians to die for what they believed to be true. Many find these two pieces of evidence compelling enough to warrant their belief in the resurrection (although many skeptics do not share this opinion).
To the best of my knowledge, cessationists find no problem in accepting the miracle of Jesus' resurrection on the basis of the line of reasoning presented above.
However, when it comes to contemporary testimonial evidence for the gifts of the Spirit, an implicit double standard appears to be at play on the cessationist side. Testimonial evidence for the current availability of the gifts of the Spirit abounds. Thanks to the blessings of the internet era, our generation enjoys a unique privilege to access a plethora of first-hand eyewitness testimony about healing miracles, words of knowledge, discernment of spirits, tongue speaking (in real human languages by the way, e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5), miracles on the mission field, spiritual warfare, demonic deliverances and many other supernatural events taking place today. New testimonies are published all the time, from all parts of the world, and all this information is readily available to anyone, if we only endeavor to search. In many cases we can even talk to the actual eyewitnesses of contemporary miracles and interview them, something that is impossible with the eyewitnesses of the resurrection.
Surprisingly, despite the abundancy, recency and accessibility of contemporary first-hand testimonial evidence for the gifts of the Spirit, cessationists usually disregard this evidence altogether, viewing it as unreliable, while at the same time paradoxically accepting the testimonial evidence for Jesus' resurrection as reliable. Isn't this a case of double standard? What kind of logically consistent epistemology can simultaneously regard (1) limited 2000-year-old testimonial evidence as reliable and (2) abundant, recent and accessible testimonial evidence as unreliable?

There is no reference to tongues/healings/miracles in the pastoral epistles nor the later writings of John. References to Pentecost are about the utterance of foreign, earthly, languages.

Then no mention of such things, generally, until about 1905. Then an explosion of claims during the past hundred years.

This looks like a modern movement with no apostolic basis in sound, doctrinal fact.

It also follows the trend prophesied by Paul and Peter, in the last days, of a departure from sound doctrine and the pursuit of other things.

The evidence stretches across two millenia, not just the last century.

It is a distraction from Jesus Christ : his sufferings, death, resurrection, ascension and return.

It rather draws attention to what is excessive and unbalanced.

Cessationists are looking at all the evidence across two thousand years and are regarding all the evidence in the apostolic documents, the gospels, the early epistles, the pastoral epistles, Peter's epistles, John's epistles and Paul's epistles.
This is weighed against extravagant claims starting at the beginning of the twentieth century.
There is no comparison between the evidence of the apostolic testimony of chosen vessels of Jesus Christ regarding Jesus Christ's resurrection . . . . . and the clams made in very modern times of peculiar, extravagant, unbalanced and unprofitable excesses among a small minority of Christendom.
No comparison whatsoever.


What evidence is there that the genealogies in the early part of Genesis refer to tribes instead of individuals? One method of interpreting the genealogies in the early parts of Genesis is as not referring to actual individuals, but rather to tribes, nations, and groups of people represented by the names of individuals.  What evidence (internal or external) do people who support this interpretation cite?

The evidence that the genealogies in the early part of Genesis refer to tribes instead of individuals is disarmingly simple. It is seen especially clearly in Genesis 10, which is commonly referred to as the Table of Nations. Here is the introductory verse of the chapter:

  This is the account of Shem, Ham, and Japheth, Noah's sons, who themselves had sons after the flood. (Genesis 10:1)

What follows is, in fact, a listing of names of races, nations, and tribes, all organized as a series of three genealogies of Noah's three sons: first of Japheth (Genesis 10:2-5), then of Ham (Genesis 10:6-20), then of Shem (Genesis 10:21-31). The chapter ends with this summary:

  These are the clans of Noah's sons, according to their lines of descent, within their nations. From these the nations spread out over the earth after the flood. (Genesis 10:32)

So although Genesis 10 is in the form of a genealogy of the descendants of Noah's three sons, the names in the genealogy are identified with the nations that repopulated the earth after the Great Flood had destroyed all of humanity except for Noah, his sons, and their wives.

So the basic evidence that the genealogies in the early part of Genesis refer to races, nations, and tribes is that the names in the main organizing genealogy in Genesis 10 are the names of races, nations, and tribes, and are associated with them in the genealogy itself.

Here is a visual representation of the Table of Nations in Genesis 10 in which the various names are placed in their most likely geographical regions on a map of the ancient Biblical world:

As graphically represented on this map:

Japheth represents the races inhabiting Asia Minor (roughly present-day Turkey) and the surrounding areas of Europe and Asia to its west, north, east, and southeast.
Ham represents the races inhabiting northeastern Africa and adjoining parts of Palestine and the Arabian Peninsula.
Shem represents the races inhabiting the northern and eastern parts of the Fertile Crescent, and the bulk of the Arabian Peninsula.

The names in these three genealogies are a catalog of all the major nations and races of the ancient Biblical world within these general racial groups. Some of them figure prominently in the Bible story, such as Egypt and Canaan in the genealogy of Ham, and Ashur (Assyria) and Eber (an ancestor of Abraham) in the genealogy of Shem. Others are mentioned only occasionally elsewhere in the Bible narrative.

The main point is that these names are the names of races, nations, and tribes, arranged in the form of a genealogy showing their origins and interrelationships with one another. This is the basic "evidence" that the genealogies in the early chapters of Genesis refer to races, nations, and tribes. They simply do refer to races, nations, and tribes.

From Genesis 10 we can project the same principles to the earlier chapters of Genesis, making it very likely that the earlier genealogies, such as the one in Genesis 5, also refer to whole races and nations of people that inhabited the earlier, pre-Flood world.

And as Dick Harfield's answer points out, some scholars believe that figures in later genealogies, including the twelve sons of Jacob, also represent tribes rather than individuals.

The Table of Nations in Genesis 10, then, provides the key to the identification of the genealogies of Genesis as being genealogies of races, nations, and tribes rather than the genealogies of individual human beings.


Early Christian responses to suicide (source/text identification)? I'm looking for a text I read some time ago where an Early Church writer (one of the Patristic Fathers?) responds to an argument regarding suicide put forth by some opponents. IIRC, it goes something like this: "If Christianity is true and this world is a temporary place of suffering prior to the bliss of heaven, why don't all you Christians just kill yourselves?" (Or something to that effect.) The text is the author's response--but I can't recall the text, the author, their response, or where I read it! Any help would be appreciated.

Justin Martyr (†c.165) is one such Early Church writer. In fact, I suspect he is one of the earliest to respond explicitly to this objection.
From the Second Apology, Chapter 4 (Thomas B. Falls translation):

Lest any one should say to us, 'All of you, go, kill yourselves and thus go immediately to God, and save us the trouble,' I will explain why we do not do that, and why, when interrogated, we boldly acknowledge our faith. We have been taught that God did not create the world without a purpose, but that He did so for the sake of mankind; for we have stated before that God is pleased with those who imitate His perfections, but is displeased with those who choose evil, either in word or in deed. If, then, we should all kill ourselves we would be the cause, as far as it is up to us, why no one would be born and be instructed in the divine doctrines, or even why the human race might crease to exist; if we do act thus, we ourselves will be opposing the will of God.

Emphasis mine. Justin's key reason is that doing so is contrary to God's will: the secondary reason why it is contrary to God's will is that doing so is an impediment to the spread of Christian doctrine.


Are Roman Catholics required at any time to bow down to statues or images? Are Roman Catholics required at any time to bow down or make obeisance to or kiss statues, images, icons, etc. (i.e., inanimate objects)?

If so, is it considered a sin not to?

During Mass, as the occasion warrants, Catholic priests/deacons (not the lay faithful) are required to:
Bow before the tabernacle the first time they cross it.
Kiss and incense the altar and the Gospel book during mass.
Incense the Cross and the tabernacle
Every Catholic as a sign of belief and respect has to bow before the alter, genuflect before the reserved Blessed Sacrament and kneel if the Blessed Sacrament is exposed. This is done every time they cross these when moving from one place to another. Priests are excused from this norm when celebrating Mass.
In some Asian and African countries during mass, the sign of peace is exchanged by bowing to each other because of their culture. (In western countries they shake hands, I am not sure about the universal norm for this. GRIM 82 leaves it to the local Bishops' Conference.)

Ignoring these without a grave reason and on purpose is considered to be Sin (provided other conditions are met). Note that these are just customs, no one is going to accuse a lay person if they don't follow these things; In-fact if you don't do this because you don't believe in what church teaches, then you have greater problems than worrying about these actions. But if you do believe, then as Card. Arinze says,

  "If you believe that Christ is our God and He is present (in the Blessed Sacrament) why don't you kneel? Why don't you crawl? Why not show? Show respect."

Other than this there is no obligation on the part of Catholics to kiss or bow down to anything else (including persons).

It is to be noted that on Good Friday, during the veneration of Cross, the Cross is kissed. This is mandatory for priests. It is strongly recommended for lay faithful. But not obligatory.


Is abortion okay, if the mother's life is at risk, according to Catholicism? Is it okay to abort a baby when the continuation of the pregnancy may result in the death of his or her mother, according to Catholicism?

In Catholic morality, abortion is always wrong.  Another principle is that intention is primary: it's about saving lives.  When in saving the mother's life and reasonable care has been done for the unborn baby but the baby still does not survive, it's not called abortion as it is the unintended side effect.
The article A Dangerous Pregnancy and Abortion goes over the decision making process when there is a dangerous pregnancy that can result in the death of the mother, the unborn baby, or both.
I freely quote from the article above:

Once pregnancy takes place, there are 2 essential facts: mother and child.  Everything must be done to keep both healthy.  Neither is more important than the other, although the mother already has other children dependent on her.
Early delivery option can take place even it poses a certain risk to the child, as long as reasonable care is taken.
Example when both are in jeopardy: In the case of tubal pregnancy, the most common of ectopic pregnancy, if the medically necessary intervention to save the mother's life is to remove the portion of the Fallopian tube that is either ruptured or soon to be ruptured, it is permissible even though this will also remove the human embryo.  But this is not called an abortion since this is not the intention, using "the principle of double effect" (meaning one thing is intended and another is not).  See more discussion on the "principle of double effect" here.

Let us not forget of the reverse scenario where the mother remains free to make a morally licit decision to risk her own health to save her baby's life, as Ken Graham's answer shares the story of St. Gianna Beretta Molla who powerfully showed how an unborn baby's life is as precious as the mother's life, and how her testimony of sacrificial love has inspired many in the world today as an excellent imitation of Christ's sacrifice for us.


What’s so liberal about the NRSV? I recently ran across this comment suggesting that the ESV translation was undertaken because the NRSV was ‘too liberal.’ I’ve often been curious what prompted this split in the KJV-lineage group, and I've heard similar statements from others about doctrinal (or political?) motivations. I’m aware of the Isaiah 7:14 issue,* and I see that the ESV and NRSV diverge frequently in their decisions about gender language. But I’m not familiar with other major discrepancies.

Among those who consider the NRSV ‘too liberal,’ what other decisions or categories of decisions are commonly cited?

*Although that one was actually an RSV decision (reversed in the ESV), not new to the NRSV. I’m also not clear that this should be considered a liberal vs conservative issue, but it’s often cited that way.

The decisions you mention really are the major issues, but one other point has gotten notice as well.
Inclusive Language
The article The NRSV vs the ESV, while critical of both translations, says of the NRSV:

The main change found in the NRSV, and that which has been the most controversial, is its elimination of masculine-oriented language. The NRSV was the first major "inclusive-language" translation.

The article The Gender-Neutral Language Controversy, a survey of the "inclusive language" issue from a conservative standpoint, says:

The first version to use gender-neutral language in a really thorough and systematic way was the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), which appeared in 1990. This version was created under a mandate from the copyright holder, the National Council of Churches, to eliminate “sexist” language. It did not however substitute gender-neutral language in reference to God, and it did not incorporate many of the misinterpretations proposed by feminists, and so it did not satisfy many liberals.

The article concludes:

Gender-neutral Bible versions originated as an attempt by feminists to transform both the language and the beliefs of Christians. They were welcomed in liberal circles, but were met with strong resistance among evangelicals. The creators and defenders of these versions have suffered a loss of reputation among evangelicals, and publishers are not likely to market them successfully among evangelicals in the near future.

It may be worth noting that the ESV uses some inclusive language, but only when the original language was inclusive, as pointed out in this review:

As far as gender is concerned, "anyone" rather than "any man" is used where there is no word corresponding to "man" in the original, and "people" rather than "men" is used where the original refers to both men and women.

Un-Messianic Renderings of the OT
The other major category of issues includes the Isaiah 7:14 issue you mentioned, as described in this review of the NRSV from bible-researcher.com:

The deliberately non-Christian interpretation of the Old Testament which made the RSV unacceptable to many Christians is continued in this revision. The most notorious verse of the RSV, Isaiah 7:14, “a young woman shall conceive,” is revised only to put the verb in the present tense and add the definite article: “the young woman is with child.” In some places the NRSV is worse than the RSV in this respect. For example, in Genesis 1:2 the RSV’s “and the Spirit of God was moving” has been changed to “a wind from God swept.” In Psalm 23 the RSV’s traditional renderings “valley of the shadow of death” and “dwell in the house of the Lord for ever” are changed to “the darkest valley” and “my whole life long.” We do however notice an improvement over the RSV in the NRSV’s translation of נברכו “be blessed” in Genesis 12:3, 18:18, and 28:14; and התברכו “gain blessing for themselves” in Genesis 22:18 and 26:4.

This is in contrast with the ESV, as the same review quoted earlier establishes:

The language and style are basically those of the RSV, but with the elimination of archaisms and a slight updating of vocabulary. In the Preface it is stated that the one hundred member publishing team "shares a common commitment to the truth of God's word and to historic Christian orthodoxy" (p. x), and the conservative stance of the translation is sometimes apparent where OT passages are treated with reference to the NT, e.g. "virgin" (Isa. vii 14; cf. Matt. i 23), "Kiss the Son" (Ps. ii 12) and "offspring" rather than "descendants" (Gen. xii 7; xxii 17; cf. Gal. iii 16).

OT Translational Novelties
Finally, there's an issue where NRSV translators would translate a passage based on conjecture rather than direct textual evidence, as detailed in this article (which also details the other issues quite well):

The RSV generally uses the Masoretic Text (traditional Hebrew). However, it has been widely criticized by conservatives for frequently revamping that text. Since the ancient text used only consonants, by inserting different vowels than the Masoretes wrote in, modern scholars are able to come up with some very striking variant readings—often strictly conjectural. These have often been labeled "Cn" for correction.
However, changes made without this warning have caused many to mistrust the RSV OT text in some places, especially where it impinges on conservative theology (e.g., Christology).
The NRSV follows the RSV in this. It also bases its text on the ancient versions in other languages much more than the NASB, NIV, or NKJV would, for example.
There are many footnotes referring to the Qumran mss. of Samuel (abbreviated "Q MS"). "Four sentences based upon one of the Dead Sea Scrolls have been tacked onto Chapter 10 of 1 Samuel, for instance."3
Many of the footnotes in the RSV are decidedly helpful to those who want to study the Bible in detail, but the liberal presuppositions of the NCC and its translators should be kept in mind by the Bible-believing reader.


What is the Biblical basis for the belief that God cannot be manipulated? What the Biblical basis for the belief that God cannot be manipulated?

My attempts so far:

Job 42, 2
Psalm 115, 3

I am looking for something that indicates that God cannot be manipulated more explicitly, e.g. by no magic practices.

The attribute of God closest to what you describe is probably unchangeability.1  In addition to the verses you cite, we might consider what James writes when he says that in the Father of lights there is no variableness neither shadow of turning (1:17).  Additionally we might consider:

I am the Lord, I change not (Malachi 3:6)
As a vesture shalt thou change them, and they shall be changed: But thou art the same (Psalm 102:26-27)

1.  John of Damascus, Complete Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, I.XIV, "The properties of the divine nature"


Does Christianity have any connections to the Hinduism? Islam and Christianity has same roots and also some names in Bible can also be heard in Quran.

What about Christianity connection with Hinduism?

Because so many pastors claiming that connection exists, but in evil way.

Example: Hindu goddesses are considered as Satans etc.

Christianity is a monotheistic religion. Christians believe and teach that any other gods are false gods set up by and for Satan himself. This is the reason why a pastor may speak against Shiva, Vishnu etc. As such Christianity has no theological ties as Hinduism is polytheistic while Christianity is not.


According to LDS, what is the purpose of the final judgment? I used to think that the purpose of the final judgment was to determine which kingdom of glory we would inherit, and then once that was determined we could be resurrected with a body to match that glory (1 Corinthians 15, D&C 88). But I recently learned that the final judgment is after the resurrection (see also the Guide to the Scriptures) which means the glory of our resurrected body has already been determined and therefore our kingdom of inheritance has also been determined.

If our kingdom of inheritance isn't determined during the final judgment, what is its purpose?

This question strikes at the core of LDS doctrine - Christ's Atonement. Excuse my hyper-compulsive inlining of scripture references in my answer, but this is one of my favorite topics. I hope the reader will read the full text of the chapters I cite, as they explain it way better than I ever could.

The purpose of the final judgment is to be brought back into the presence of our Maker (2 Nephi 2):

  10 And because of the intercession for all, all men come unto God; wherefore, they stand in the presence of him, to be judged of him according to the truth and holiness which is in him.

2 Nephi 9 explains further that everyone must stand before God, even if they are to be cast out:

  15 And it shall come to pass that when all men shall have passed from this first death unto life, insomuch as they have become immortal, they must appear before the judgment-seat of the Holy One of Israel; and then cometh the judgment, and then must they be judged according to the holy judgment of God.

  ...

  22 And he suffereth this that the resurrection might pass upon all men, that all might stand before him at the great and judgment day.

So you might say that the purpose of the resurrection is to enable us to be in the presence of God. And this is very important.

Why? Because with mortality, we are subject to two deaths, physical and spiritual:

  10 O how great the goodness of our God, who prepareth a way for our escape from the grasp of this awful monster; yea, that monster, death and hell, which I call the death of the body, and also the death of the spirit.

Death of the body is physical death, and death of the spirit is separation from God  (rebellion, sin, etc).

The Atonement saves us from both deaths:

  12 And this death of which I have spoken, which is the spiritual death, shall deliver up its dead; which spiritual death is hell; wherefore, death and hell must deliver up their dead, and hell must deliver up its captive spirits, and the grave must deliver up its captive bodies, and the bodies and the spirits of men will be restored one to the other; and it is by the power of the resurrection of the Holy One of Israel.

Thus, the resurrection redeems us from physical death, and the final judgment crowns our salvation from spiritual death:

  15 And it shall come to pass that when all men shall have passed from this first death unto life, insomuch as they have become immortal, they must appear before the judgment-seat of the Holy One of Israel; and then cometh the judgment, and then must they be judged according to the holy judgment of God.

But why a judgment? Couldn't this all happen implicitly with the resurrection? Not really. Remember that there was a law given and it must be fulfilled:

  16 Now, repentance could not come unto men except there were a punishment, which also was eternal as the life of the soul should be, affixed opposite to the plan of happiness, which was as eternal also as the life of the soul.

  17 Now, how could a man repent except he should sin? How could he sin if there was no law? How could there be a law save there was a punishment?

  18 Now, there was a punishment affixed, and a just law given, which brought remorse of conscience unto man.

So the judgment also has a practical purpose. It stirs up our minds and hearts to repentance.

  14 Wherefore, we shall have a perfect knowledge of all our guilt, and our uncleanness, and our nakedness; and the righteous shall have a perfect knowledge of their enjoyment, and their righteousness, being clothed with purity, yea, even with the robe of righteousness.

Finally, the judgment is essential to our salvation, for without it, we could not be saved, even if we were really, really good. Without a judgment, there would be no law, and without the law, there's no standard against which to judge what "really, really good" is. So the law and judgment is a contract as much on our side as it is against us, depending on our choices.

And it would only condemn us if Jesus had not satisfied the demands of justice. But He did, so He can mete out mercy. And that mercy can only be had if there is justice, a law, and a judgment:

  22 But there is a law given, and a punishment affixed, and a repentance granted; which repentance, mercy claimeth; otherwise, justice claimeth the creature and executeth the law, and the law inflicteth the punishment; if not so, the works of justice would be destroyed, and God would cease to be God.

(See also verse 13 of the same chapter.)

The judgment ultimately allows mercy to take effect without destroying justice. It is so much more than merely an event by which we gain salvation or are damned. It is the culmination of the Plan of Salvation, an essential truss in the bridge between justice and mercy for all of mankind. Remove the judgment and the whole Plan of Salvation would fall apart.


How did the tree of life in the Garden of Eden serve its purpose? (Roman Catholic perspective) In Genesis 2:9 (RSVCE) we read:

  And out of the ground the Lord God made to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food, the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

We further read in Genesis 3:2-3:

  And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden;  but God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.’”

My question is: How did the tree of life serve its purpose, if Adam and Eve were forbidden from eating its fruit? Are any teachings from the side of Catholic Church available on the topic?

Adam and Eve were forbidden from eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, not from the tree of life before the Fall (Genesis 2:16-17).  In Genesis 2:9, the sense is that both the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil are in the midst of the Garden; it's the latter tree to which Eve is referring in Genesis 3:2-3.

The tree of life gave life, and it is for this reason that God expelled Adam and Eve from the garden after their sin (the "Fall").  Their sin brought separation among them and between them and God.  So, God prevented them from eating from the tree of life (by casting them out from the garden), lest they live forever alienated from Him and from other people (see Genesis 3:22-23).

However, He promised a Savior who would ultimately undo this alienation by reconciling humanity to God and to each other; this is the promised "seed of the woman" (Genesis 3:15).  This is what Christ accomplished on the cross, and at the resurrection we will again be allowed to eat from the tree of life to live forever.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church talks on this subject in the section about Original Sin at this link: Catechism of the Catholic Church, Paragraph &: The Fall.

  How to read the account of the fall

  CCC 390 ... Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human
  history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first
  parents.
  THE FALL OF THE ANGELS
  391 Behind the disobedient choice of our first parents lurks a seductive voice, opposed to God, which makes them fall into death out of envy.  Scripture and the Church's Tradition see in this being a fallen angel, called "Satan" or the "devil".  (skip a bit)
  392 ...  This "fall" consists in the free choice of these created spirits, who radically and irrevocably rejected God and his reign. We find a reflection of that rebellion in the tempter's words to our first parents: "You will be like God."   The devil "has sinned from the beginning"; he is "a liar and the father of lies".
  393 It is the irrevocable character of their choice, and not a defect in the infinite divine mercy, that makes the angels' sin unforgivable.
  394 Scripture witnesses to the disastrous influence of the one Jesus calls "a murderer from the beginning", who would even try to divert Jesus from the mission received from his Father. "The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil." In its consequences the gravest of these works was the mendacious seduction that led man to disobey God.  (skip a bit)
  III. ORIGINAL SIN
  Freedom put to the test
  396 God created man in his image and established him in his friendship. A spiritual creature, man can live this friendship only in free submission to God. the prohibition against eating "of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" spells this out: "for in the day that you eat of it, you shall die." The "tree of the knowledge of good and evil" symbolically evokes the insurmountable limits that man, being a creature, must freely recognize and respect with trust. Man is dependent on his Creator, and subject to the laws of creation and to the moral norms that govern the use of freedom.

(Full disclosure: I am a Lutheran pastor and not Roman Catholic)


Statements about the doctrine or the future made by current LDS Prophet, and the church view on those I was looking at this mormon.org page that mentions that "The current prophet and President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is Thomas S. Monson."

Does the LDS church assert that doctrinal statements made by the
current Prophet are either "inspired", "infallible", or both?
Has the Prophet made any statements about (near)future events that
Mormons expect to happen?

(I am separating "inspired" and "infallible" because I am not sure how they are interpreted in this context.)

Does the LDS church assert that doctrinal statements made by the current Prophet are either "inspired", "infallible", or both?

Inspired, definitely, but not infallible. Prophets are merely mortal men.

  Has the Prophet made any statements about (near)future events that Mormons expect to happen?

Yes, actually. Just a couple months ago, President Monson announced that four new temples would be built in the near future, and named the cities they will be built in.