How did the threefold distinction of Deacon, Priest and Bishop come about? I was reading in another question, and I've heard it said before, that in the early church (Apostolic era), there was not a clear-cut distinction between Deacon, Priest and Bishop in the sacrament of Holy Orders. So I suppose that if an apostle laid his hands on you and gave you holy orders, you became equal to the apostle in fundamental power and teaching authority. Priests were considered the equal to bishops and deacons.

Perhaps all of that is just a myth in which case please correct me with sources. If not, I'm wondering when and how (and why) the church evolved it's theology of Holy Orders such that there is the threefold distinction between Deacon, Priest and Bishop.

This is a history question, so anyone is welcome to answer. But if I absolutely must scope it down, then please keep it to the Catholic view only

The first century writing known as the Didache only mentions apostles, or missionaries. However, Paul's use of the Greek term for deacon ('servant') indicates that this office dates from the early years of Christianity. Commentators continue to debate whether the role of priest also arose during the apostolic era. Certainly, the Shepherd of Hermas talks of 'elders' -- priests -- presiding over each of the churches early in the second century, but makes no mention of bishops.

Bishops are mentioned in the Epistles to Timothy and Titus, but almost all New Testament scholars believe that these epistles were written pseudepigraphically early in the second century. The word ἐπισκόποις (overseer) is also found in Philippians 1:1, but many scholars believe that the word was not used in the sense of 'bishop' in this epistle. Philippians 1:1 also mentions Timothy, who is closely associated with the role of bishop in the two epistles that bear his name, so the verse could even have been redacted in later centuries.

Francis A. Sullivan SJ has closely examined a range of first and second century Christian writings and, from these, argues in From Apostles to Bishops that the role of bishop did not arise until the second century. He says (ibid, page 15):

  There exists a broad consensus among scholars, including most Catholic ones, that such churches as those of Alexandria, Philippi, Corinth and Rome most probably continued to be led for some time by a college of presbyters, and that only during the course of the second century did the threefold structure become generally the rule, with a bishop, assisted by presbyters, presiding over each local church.

By the end of the second century, Christian tradition held that the apostles themselves had appointed the first bishops by laying on of hands, and that bishops could only be appointed by existing bishops laying on hands, so that there is a continuous succession all the way back to the apostles themselves.


Psalm 14 and psalm 53 are similar? Psalm 14 and Psalm 53 are almost identical with little differences.

Is there any reason why the same psalm is repeated?

Are these psalms composed by the same author?

Psalm 14 is for the director of music, and is ascribed to David.  Psalm 53 is also for the director of music and is “according to mahalath - a Maschil of David”.  A ‘Maschil’ is a contemplative Psalm.
The Hebrew word ‘mahalath’ comes from a word meaning lyre. https://www.behindthename.com/name/mahalath
Although both psalms contain very similar words, the musical arrangement may have been different.
There is a clear lyrical difference towards the end of each psalm:

Psalm 14:5–6 states, “But there they are, overwhelmed with dread, / for God is present in the company of the righteous. / You evildoers frustrate the plans of the poor, / but the Lord is their refuge.” By contrast, Psalm 53:5 says, “But there they are, overwhelmed with dread, / where there was nothing to dread. / God scattered the bones of those who attacked you; / you put them to shame, for God despised them.”

What is the difference? Psalm 14 focuses more on God’s deliverance of the righteous, while Psalm 53 focuses more on God’s defeat of the wicked. It is possible that one of the songs is an adaptation of the earlier song, and the change in lyrics commemorates a specific event.

The third difference between the two psalms regards the use of God’s name. Psalm 14 uses “the Lord” (Yahweh) in verses 2, 4, 6, and 7. Psalm 53 uses “God” (Elohim) in all seven places where God is mentioned.   Source: https://www.gotquestions.org/Psalms-14-53.html

Although the musical arrangements to both psalms may have been quite different, there is one significant similarity - both psalms are about the salvation of God. Both psalms end with these words: “Oh, that salvation for Israel would come out of Zion! / When the Lord restores his people, / let Jacob rejoice and Israel be glad!” (Psalm 14:7; cf. 53:6).
This article I found looks into the division of the psalms into five books: https://www.gotquestions.org/Psalms-five-books.html


Did the gospels really copy from each other? In school, I learned that the different gospels did copy a lot from each other. This was the explanation for why there are so many overlapping events between the gospels.

Is there substantial evidence to support this besides the bible?

Yes, although not quite the way you put it.

It is agreed by pretty much all Bible scholars that there is some degree of interdependence between the gospels. This is based on the fact that many of the stories in the gospels are told in a very similar way. Exactly what depended on what is the subject of much debate, and more information can be found on Wikipedia and Catholic Answers. This belief is very old, with Augustine laying down one of the most widely believed dependencies.

Some of the beliefs of dependency include:

Augustinian view: Matthew written first; with Mark using Matthew, and Luke using Matthew and Mark
Q source Matthew and Mark used a now lost source called "Q". Luke used both Matthew and Mark
Markan priority Mark was written first, with Matthew using both Mark and an unknown source
Four-source Mark and three unknown sources were written first, which the other gospels drew on.

It's worth pointing out that the interdependency has never been seen as in any way invalidating the gospels as sources. Any thorough modern biographer would also make use of other documents about their subject, and the parallel passages can be seen as evidence of the thoroughness and accuracy of the gospel writers. it's worth noting that all the gospels also contain some material found in no other gospel. Clearly none of the gospels was composed simply by copying other gospels. The wording differences are great enough to rule that out. Nor does it rule out the idea that the writers were eyewitnesses of at least some of the events themselves.

In answer to your final point, the only evidence for this is from analysis of the gospels themselves, though that includes the dating of manuscripts of the gospels and fragments of the gospels. None of the hypothesised sources such as Q has been definitively identified.


What role does the New Covenant play in Reformed Theology? After looking at @Affable Geek's answer to an overview question on different understandings of why Jesus had to die, and in particular after his comment on Catholicism in this respect, I went to look at the discussion in the Catechism of the Catholic Church regarding the role of the death of Jesus in salvation. .
One thing that struck me about the Catechism's discussion of "Why did Jesus die?" is the intimate connection the Catechism draws between the offering of Jesus on the Cross and the institution of the New Covenant. This connection is evident in the language of paragraph 610,

On the eve of his Passion, while still free, Jesus transformed this Last Supper with the apostles into the memorial of his voluntary offering to the Father for the salvation of men: "This is my body which is given for you." "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."

and also in the language of the Eucharistic Prayer:

When supper was ended,
he took the chalice1 and, once more giving thanks,
he gave it to his disciples, saying:
Take this, all of you, and drink from it:
for this is the chalice of my Blood,
the Blood of the new and eternal covenant,
which will be poured out for you and for many
for the forgiveness of sins.

That is, rather than specifying a single reason why Jesus had to die (was it as a ransom from sin? an atonement for humanity?), Catholicism appears to focus instead on the New Covenant between God and Man which His death and resurrection created.
I don't see this connection being made in the soteriological approaches discussed in the answer above. How does Reformed Theology in particular connect its view of the purpose behind Jesus' death with the institution of the New Covenant? Or does Reformed Theology not talk much about the New Covenant? What sort of emphasis does it place on any connection between the Covenant and the Sacrifice?

1 There are a number of difficulties I have with the new translation of the Roman Missal; one is the translation of "calix" as "chalice" rather than the simple "cup" of the previous translation.

To my understanding, covenant theology is a lens through which to interpret scripture and understand it. It appears from the answer below that this way of interpreting and understanding scripture encompasses the traditionally understood purpose behind Jesus' death with the institution of the New Covenant [NT].

What is Covenant Theology in Reformed Theology?

  Covenant theology (also known as Covenantalism, Federal theology,
  or Federalism) is a Calvinist conceptual overview and interpretive
  framework for understanding the overall flow of the Bible. It uses the
  theological concept of covenant as an organizing principle for
  Christian theology. The standard description of covenant theology
  views the history of God's dealings with mankind, from Creation to
  Fall to Redemption to Consummation, under the framework of the three
  overarching theological covenants of redemption, works, and
  grace.1

  1. cf. Covenant Theology |
  Wikipedia.

Repeating, the three overarching theological covenants are:

The covenant of works,
The covenant of redemption, and
The covenant of grace.

This is in contrast to the [Catholic] Perspective of the Old Covenant and the New and Everlasting Covenant (Old Testament and New Testament).

The covenant that appears to answer the questions - How does Reformed theology in particular connect its view of the purpose behind Jesus' death with the institution of the New Covenant? Or does Reformed theology talk much about the New Covenant? What sort of emphasis does it place on any connection between the Covenant and the Sacrifice? - is the covenant of grace, the promised eternal blessing for belief in Christ and obedience to God's word. It is seen as the basis for all biblical covenants that God made individually with Noah, Abraham, and David, nationally with O.T. Israel as a people, and universally with man in the New Covenant (sic).2

2. cf. Covenant of Grace | Theopedia.

Thus from my rudimentary understanding, the covenants of works is that pre-Fall agreement between God and Adam in which Adam was promised blessing and life upon obedience to the terms of the covenant and cursing and death should he disobey the terms of the covenant. The covenant of grace as above, and both founded on the covenant of redemption.

Further reading:

What Is Covenant Theology?.
The Doctrine of the Covenant in Reformed Theology by Geerhardus Vos.
Covenant Theology 4: The Covenant of Redemption By Carl Gobelman.


In Proverbs 19:20 whom should one hear, receive from, and accept? God or any wise man? Proverbs 20 Hear counsel, receive instruction, and accept correction, that you may be wise in the time to come. (AMP)

Please help to interpret the above. Whom should one hear, receive from, and accept?

Thanks,

Moral: A Wise Man Listens to Advice, Instruction, and Correction

A straightforward interpretation of this proverb has more to do with who we should be rather than who we should listen to. All throughout the book, and especially the beginning, the writer urges the reader to choose wisdom instead of foolishness. This maxim is in that vein. It is saying that we should be the kind of people who will listen to counsel, instruction, and correction, because those people will become wise (for having done so).

This aphorism isn't attempting to tell us where we should get advice. Rather it is saying that if we want to be wise, we need to be willing to take it. Far too often, we are not even willing to listen to correction, instruction, or counsel.


What Bible "type" disambiguation? Bible shopping...I like to read from the HCSB, but I've seen a number of "types" of Bibles available:

Daily Bible
Devotional Bible
Study Bible
Reference Bible
Thinline Bible

Can someone compare and contrast the types listed, and perhaps suggest a type for my use? I simply want to read the Bible. In big chunks. Uninterrupted by commentary. In large print, no split columns or anything. I want what I would call a "Reading Bible" but popular sites for Bibles don't seem to use that term.

Thanks God bless!

Daily Bible: A regular bible printed on normal pages and regular footnotes etc.

Devotional Bible: The bible text, packaged with chunks of text by one or more authors, designed to help explain the text or otherwise help the Christian reflect on the scriptures.

Study Bible: Big footnotes. Lots of footnotes. Bigger explanations at the beginning of bible books, bigger sections at the back with maps and reference points and tables and lists. Designed to provide commentary on most verses and passages, so that you always have a reference on the page to help explain the meaning of the text.

Reference Bible: Same thing as a study bible. Depending on who wrote it and why, it may include more reference to key texts or traditions of a group or denomination (e.g. early church material, reformation material, creeds, declarations, councils etc)

Thinline Bible: Thin pages. Lots of stuff in less physical space. It's like going from DVD to Blu-Ray, but in paper form.

The most important thing is having a good, consistent translation which you understand, and you won't go far wrong with the HCSB as you have it - but there are lots of others. Translations exist along a spectrum, depending on how much they try to stick to the original text "word for word" and how hard they try to convey it accurately into your own language "thought for thought". The HCSB is the former, most 'reader' bibles tend to be along the second kind.

Recommendation

I haven't seen a copy myself, but the ESV Reader's Bible should be right up your alley - no section headings, no verse numbers or footnotes, just a solid English translation of the Greek text as we know it. I wouldn't go using it permanently myself (footnotes are useful!), but it sounds fantastic and now that I've found out about it I definitely want one for myself.

ESV Reader's Bible

I would really recommend finding a Christian bookshop in your town/city and have a look through what they have - they could probably help you find what you're after, and order it in too if necessary. I'm not typically one to buy bibles online, they're too personal!


Abomination of Desolation This question is for all denominations. This opens the question wide up and is broad, but as a seeker of truth, I am curious to know what each denomination teaches and considers doctrine about this topic.

I was reading this morning in The Book of Mormon:

  Heleman 15:1
  And now, my beloved brethren, behold, I declare unto you
  that except ye shall repent your houses shall be left unto
  you desolate.

As I was thus pondering on this verse, I was reminded of Daniel's Abomination of Desolation as referenced in Matthew 24:

  Matthew 24:15
  When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation,
  spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place,
  (whoso readeth, let him understand:)

I have had a question about the Abomination of Desolation for a couple years, and with that verse things have started to come to light, and I would like other viewpoints from my own. The only additional scripture I have found about the Abomination of Desolation is in the Doctrine and Covenants, which reads in part:

  D&C 88:85
  That their souls may escape the wrath of God, the desolation of
  abomination which awaits the wicked, both in this world and in
  the world to come...

The Abomination of Desolation is awaiting the wicked, as I read further in Daniel:

  Dan. 11:31
  And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the
  sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice,
  and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate.

and

  Dan. 12:11
  And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away,
  and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be
  a thousand two hundred and ninety days.

My conclusion from what I have read is, as one pollutes the sanctuary of strength, and replaces the daily sacrifice with abomination, the desolation comes upon the wicked. There is a similar question with great answers, but it doesn't fully answer my question.

Question: What is the sanctuary of strength and the daily sacrifice? By so knowing this, it will be easier to avoid bringing this upon myself.

From a Catholic perspective: The primary standard translation of the Bible used by Catholics in the United States is the New American Bible, Revised Edition, which is available on the website of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. The translation of Matt. 24:15 reads:

“When you see the desolating abomination spoken of through Daniel the prophet standing in the holy place (let the reader understand),

There is a footnote to the words "desolating abomination", which reads:

The desolating abomination: in 167 B.C. the Syrian king Antiochus IV Epiphanes desecrated the temple by setting up in it a statue of Zeus Olympios (see 1 Mc 1:54). That event is referred to in Dn 12:11 LXX as the “desolating abomination” (NAB “horrible abomination”) and the same Greek term is used here; cf. also Dn 9:27; 11:31. Although the desecration had taken place before Daniel was written, it is presented there as a future event, and Matthew sees that “prophecy” fulfilled in the desecration of the temple by the Romans. In the holy place: the temple; more precise than Mark’s where he should not (Mk 13:14). Let the reader understand: this parenthetical remark, taken from Mk 13:14 invites the reader to realize the meaning of Daniel’s "prophecy."

Thus, the standard Catholic interpretation is that "the desolating abomination" ("the abomination of desolation" in the translation you use) is used by Jesus to speak of the desecration and destruction of the temple. Luke (21:20) has a similar idea:

When you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, know that its desolation is at hand.

I'd also be interested in seeing answers from other Christian perspectives.


Are the Seven Sorrows of Mary the seven pillars in Proverbs 9:1? Proverbs 9:1 English Standard Version (ESV)

"Wisdom has built her house;
    she has hewn her seven pillars."

"HEWN" (Thesaurus)

Adj.    1.  hewn - cut or shaped with hard blows of a heavy cutting instrument like an ax or chisel; "a house built of hewn logs"; "rough-hewn stone"; "a path hewn through the underbrush"
hand-hewn
cut - fashioned or shaped by cutting; "a well-cut suit"; "cut diamonds"; "cut velvet"
Based on WordNet 3.0, Farlex clipart collection. © 2003-2012 Princeton University, Farlex Inc.

  The Seven Sorrows of Mary also correspond to the Seven Gifts of the Holy Spirit:

  1.The Prophecy of Simeon – Fear of the Lord (Mary is explicitly reminded of her sorrowful vocation: “a sword shall pierced thy soul”)

  2.The Flight into Egypt – Piety (Mary fulfills her duties toward Joseph and Jesus in a foreign land)

  3.The Loss of the Child Jesus in the Temple – Knowledge (Mary’s knowledge of Christ’s identity as the Son of God)

  4.Mary Meets Jesus on the Way to Calvary – Fortitude (Mary’s strength in seeing Christ in His Passion)

  5.Jesus Dies on the Cross – Counsel (Mary is the spiritual guide and counselor for all who seek her crucified Son)

  6.Mary Receives the Body of Jesus in Her Arms – Understanding (As Mary holds the dead body of her Son, she perceives His coming resurrection)

  7.The Body of Jesus is Placed in the Tomb – Wisdom (Christ is hidden but Mary’s soul continues to see Christ and communicate with Him)

  7 Sorrows of Mary and the 7 Gifts of the Holy Spirit

My question is, since the 7 Sorrows are equated to 7 Gifts of the Holy Spirit, are the 7 pillars in Proverbs 9:1 corresponding to Mary's Immaculate Heart which is pierced by a sword of sorrows as depicted in Her images particularly Her Immaculate Heart with 7 swords pierced?

I'm looking for Catholic and Church Father Teaching that Mary's Seven Sorrows is the Seven Pillars mentioned in the Proverbs 9:1 and the "Sorrowful & Immaculate Heart of Mary" become "the house of the Holy Spirit" as prophesied in Isaiah 11:2 a perfect dwelling place/tent for the Holy Spirit.

Are the Seven Sorrows of Mary the seven pillars in Proverbs 9:1?

  Wisdom has built her house,
  she has set up her seven columns.

Nowhere can I find in Catholic sources that equates a remote possibility that the seven pillars mentioned in Proverbs 9:1 are the Seven Sorrows of Mary.

The Seven Sorrow of Mary are primarily a devotion for the faithful of the Church in both their personal (private) and liturgical lives of piety. This devotion is of a recent development with the Church and as such the Church Fathers will be silent on the subject.

  The Feast of Our Lady of Sorrows grew in popularity in the 12th century, although under various titles. Some writings would place its roots in the eleventh century, especially among the Benedictine monks.4 The first altar to the Mater Dolorosa was set up in 1221 at the Cistercian monastery of Schönau.

  The formal feast of the Our Lady of Sorrows was originated by a provincial synod of Cologne in 1423. It was designated for the Friday after the third Sunday after Easter and had the title: Commemoratio angustiae et doloris B. Mariae V. Its object was the sorrow of Mary during the Crucifixion and Death of Christ. Before the sixteenth century this feast was limited to the dioceses of North Germany, Scandinavia, and Scotland.

  According to Fr. William Saunders, "... in 1482, the feast was officially placed in the Roman Missal under the title of Our Lady of Compassion, highlighting the great love our Blessed Mother displayed in suffering with her Son. The word compassion derives from the Latin roots cum and patior which means "to suffer with".

  After 1600 it became popular in France and was set for the Friday before Palm Sunday. By a Decree of 22 April 1727, Pope Benedict XIII extended it to the entire Latin Church, under the title "Septem dolorum B.M.V.".2 In 1954, it still held the rank of major double (slightly lower than the rank of the September feast) in the General Roman Calendar. Pope John XXIII's 1960 Code of Rubrics reduced it to the level of a commemoration. - Our Lady of Sorrows

The pillars of Proverbs 9:1 possibly could symbolize the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit

Although Dr Taylor Marshall shows a relationship between the Seven Sorrows of Mary and the Seven gifts of the Holy Spirit, he in no way means the Mary's seven sorrows are the columns mentioned in Proverbs. The 7 Sorrows are not equated to 7 Gifts of the Holy Spirit, nor are they the 7 pillars in Proverbs 9:1.

7 Sorrows of Mary and the 7 Gifts of the Holy Spirit

The History and Seven Graces of the Seven Sorrows of Mary

Mary is the Vessel that God uses to help humanity come closer to union with the Blessed Trinity. Only in this way is Mary a column of the Church. Her role is unique. Yes she is the Spouse of the Holy Spirit, but devotion to Mary must remain in the realm of clear doctrine also.

  St. Maximillian Kolbe, in keeping with Catholic Tradition, sees Mary as holding a preeminent place in God's plan of salvation; of being a conscious cooperator with all the grace which comes from God to man. But while Sacred Tradition, represented by writers such as St. Louis de Montfort, emphasize Mary's Divine Motherhood as being the basis for this teaching, Kolbe views Mary's universal mediation of grace as primarily being linked with and drawn from her intimate and hidden relationship with the Holy Spirit.

  All grace, says the Polish saint, ultimately comes to us from God the Father, through the merits of Jesus Christ, his Son, and is distributed by the Holy Spirit; and the Holy Spirit, in distributing all grace, works in and through Mary — not because he has to do so, but precisely because in his plan of salvation, God wills to do so. And God wills to do so for a reason: Jesus, the Source of all grace, came through Mary via the work of the Holy Spirit; therefore it is fitting that all grace continue to come through Mary by the work of the Holy Spirit.

  Kolbe sees Mary's preeminent role in this divine ordo — of grace and love coming from God to man, and of love returning from man to God — as flowing especially from her unique and intimate union with the Holy Spirit. He says that the Holy Spirit dwells in Mary's soul in such an ineffable manner that it goes beyond and is deeper than the union achieved between the Holy Spirit and souls by sanctifying grace in Baptism.

  To convey this deep union between Mary and the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity, Kolbe, in keeping with Sacred Tradition, refers to Mary as the "spouse" of the Holy Spirit. But at the same time Kolbe expresses dissatisfaction with this term, saying that "spouse" is really inadequate to describe this intimate and mysterious relationship. In matrimony a man and woman become united through sacramental grace so as to become, in a mystical way, "one flesh." But Kolbe sees the union between Mary and the Holy Spirit being even more intimate than that of spouses in marriage.

  What accounts for Mary's special relationship with the Holy Spirit? Kolbe says it is her Immaculate Conception, which was accomplished through the direct work (via appropriation) of the Holy Spirit. With Mary's Immaculate Conception, God the Father and the Son willed that Mary be united to their common Spirit of Love in such a close and intimate manner that would allow the Holy Spirit to bring about the Incarnation of the Word within her womb, making Mary the Mother of God; and further, that this union would enable Mary to be the instrument or vessel through which the Holy Spirit would distribute all the graces merited by Christ. Kolbe emphasizes that the precise meaning of "Immaculate Conception" is a great mystery, too deep and mysterious to be fully understood. - The Holy Spirit And Mary

The seven pillars of Proverbs possibly symbolize the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit. The Seven Sorrows are not to be equated to the seven Gifts of the Holy Spirit. There is a relationship between them according to Dr Taylor Marshall, but again the Seven Sorrows of Mary are not the seven pillar of proverbs. The Sorrows of Our Lady remain a devotional issue within the Church.


Why wasn't Noah's wife name revealed? How do Catholic theologians explain that there is no name for Noah's wife? She is mentioned multiple times in the book of Genesis and she kept everything in order in the ark for 12 months, so I think it is strange that she isn't named in the Bible.

Neither Roman Catholics nor just about any other Christian denominations believes that the Bible contains every detail possible.  As John writes, These things are written that you might know that Jesus is the Christ.

Just about every accepted theory of inspiration suggests that the Bible that the words we have are "sufficient" (and that is the Theological(TM) term) - meaning they are enough - not exhaustive.  Evangelicals are more likely to harp on things like sola scriptura than Catholics who believe in the Magesterium - but even they would reject the need for such a minor detail.

As Mark Shea, a catholic apologist writes:

  Material sufficiency means that all the bricks necessary to build doctrine is there in Scripture. However, it also teaches that since the meaning of Scripture is not always clear and that sometimes a doctrine is implied rather than explicit, other things besides Scripture have been handed to us from the apostles: things like Sacred
  Tradition (which is the mortar that holds the bricks together in the right order and position) and the magisterium or teaching authority of the Church (which is the trowel in the hand of the Master Builder). Taken together, these three things -- Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium -- are formally sufficient for knowing the revealed truth of God.

  (in Not by Scripture Alone, edited by Robert A. Sungenis, Santa Barbara, CA: Queenship Pub. Co., 1997, chapter 4: "What is the Relationship Between Scripture and Tradition?," 169-210; quote from 181-182)

In Pope Clement XI's Prayer for all things necessary for salvation, for example, supplicants pray:

  I beg of Thee to enlighten my understanding,
  to inflame my will,
  to purify my body,
  and to sanctify my soul.

  Give me strength, O my God,
  to expiate my offences,
  to overcome temptations,
  to subdue my passions,
  and to acquire the virtues proper for my state.

  Fill my heart with tender affection for Thy goodness,
  hatred for my faults,
  love for my neighbour,
  and contempt of the world.

The name of Noah's wife is exceedingly unlikely to inform any of these things.


How do protestant youth group ministers reach apathetic parents of religious education students? Another year of teaching religious ed. is starting for me next week and one thing our DRE wants to emphasize, with the new diocesan norms mandating tests, of all things, is that we need more parental involvement.

I'm Catholic, but I'd like to know what Protestants do to get the parents of their students more involved in their children's religious education. Mostly, how do you overcome barriers when your student's parents don't attend services or come to many church events.

My Background

That... entirely depends. I am a former Protestant and have spent several years helping in Catholic youth ministry. My wife is a former DRE and now acts as a consultant DRE/retreat coordinator for a couple of parishes. We often talk about how those parishes run their ministry and how it might be improved.

What I did as a Protestant

One major difference: a lot of the youth-oriented ministry happens in parallel or in the stead of Sunday services. Sunday School is something very foreign to the Catholic Church, even when "children's liturgy of the word" is available. Much, if not most, catechesis happens during that period. This model means that if the parents don't go to church, neither do the kids. In that sense, outreach to parents is outreach to kids.

There will often be other ministries which meet and try to bring kids in. In the church I was raised in, it was not unheard of for parents to have limited or no involvement in these groups (or in the church as a whole). Come to think of it, I remember that one's parental involvement could be summarized: "drop the kids off." The impression I got was that the purpose of the ministry was for the kids and the youth minister would do his best to talk with kids outside of that if the kids wanted to.

I remember another ministry that was purely focused on giving kids a safe, drug free place to hang out. There would be a testimony at one point in the evening, but it didn't really exist for the purpose of catechesis.

Why whole-family is particularly important to Catholics

I think that it also might be important to note why there is an emphasis on family catechesis in the Catholic Church. Unlike many Protestant denominations where the accepted doctrine is, "know your Bible," the Catholic Church has a defined set of dogmas which cannot really be disagreed with (well, you can disagree, but you're wrong). This places a special emphasis on getting parents to be aware of what the Church teaches.

Additionally, there are many people who were Catholic at some point, but then faded. However, they still want their kids to receive the sacraments (this phenomenon does not frequently occur in Protestant settings, because, for the most part, there is no major sacrament between baptism and marriage). Whole family catechesis, as a requirement, affords the catechetical ministries of the Church the opportunity to preach to these people and try to get them to at least think about what it means to be Catholic and why they want their kids to receive the sacraments to begin with.

As a final note, the whole-family models are most often associated with sacramental preparation. Many Catholic churches will offer ministries which are similar to the youth ministry I grew up in. While these ministries will actively seek adult volunteers (parents are great at helping set up and tear down, let me tell you), more often the focus is on helping the teenagers grow in their faith, even it the teen is not Catholic (I knew one girl who was baptized because of one of these programs) or does not have Catholic family (all too often).


How does the gospel turn justice into a defender of the guilty? Usually we think of God's justice as his perfect judgment in punishing sin and dispensing equity along perfect scales of measurement.  However as we were born in sin, justice is essentially something we fear.  However upon believing in Christ it seems justice switches around:

  If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. (1 John 1:9, NIV)

How is it that 'justice' no longer stands as a accuser but a defender? Assuming their is no merit in confession, only admission of guilt, how does the gospel make justice ensure we are always cleansed from sin? In some ways this seems counter intuitive. How does justice and faithfulness defend the guilty?

As it's been preached to me, justice, here, refers to God's faithfulness to His own promises.  It does not refer to giving us what we deserve, which would be Hell.  Toward us, justice would necessarily mean Hell.

Instead, "Just" refers to the fact that He has promised to forgive us through the cleansing power of Christ's blood, as long as we have repented and placed our faith in Christ.

Short version: In this verse, we see that because God is Just, He will keep His promises.  That would be why the word is combined with "faithful".

For doctrinal support, I refer to Barne's Notes on the Bible

  And just to forgive us our sins - The word "just" here cannot be used
  in a strict and proper sense, since the forgiveness of sins is never
  an act of justice, but is an act of mercy. If it were an act of
  justice it could be demanded or enforced, and that is the same as to
  say that it is not forgiveness, for in that case there could have been
  no sin to be pardoned. But the word "just" is often used in a larger
  sense, as denoting upright, equitable, acting properly in the
  circumstances of the case, etc. Compare the notes at Matthew 1:19.
  Here the word may be used in one of the following senses:

  (1) Either as referring to his general excellence of character, or his
  disposition to do what is proper; that is, he is one who will act in
  every way as becomes God; or,

  (2) that he will be just in the sense that he will be true to his
  promises; or that, since he has promised to pardon sinners, he will be
  found faithfully to adhere to those engagements; or perhaps,

  (3) that he will be just to his Son in the covenant of redemption,
  since, now that an atonement has been made by him, and a way has been
  opened through his sufferings by which God can consistently pardon,
  and with a view and an understanding that he might and would pardon,
  it would be an act of injustice to him if he did not pardon those who
  believe on him.

  Viewed in either aspect, we may have the fullest assurance that God is
  ready to pardon us if we exercise true repentance and faith. No one
  can come to God without finding him ready to do all that is
  appropriate for a God to do in pardoning transgressors; no one who
  will not, in fact, receive forgiveness if he repents, and believes,
  and makes confession; no one who will not find that God is just to his
  Son in the covenant of redemption, in pardoning and saving all who put
  their trust in the merits of his sacrifice.

Also from Vincent's Word Studies (also available from the same link as Clarke's Commentary)

  Just (δίκαιος)

  Rev., righteous. From δίκη right. The term is applied both to God and
  to Christ. See Revelation 16:5; John 17:25; 1 John 2:1; 1 John 3:7; 1
  Peter 3:18. The two words, faithful and righteous, imply each other.
  They unite in a true conception of God's character. God, who is
  absolute rightness, must be faithful to His own nature, and His
  righteous dealing with men who partake of that nature and walk in
  fellowship with Him, is simply fidelity to Himself. "Righteousness is
  truth passing into action" (Westcott).


Can families do their own communion service with the sacrament being valid as a means of grace? In Protestant denominations where the practice of the Lord's Supper / Holy Communion is considered a means of grace (instead of 100% remembrance / memorial), can a head of family celebrate the Lord's Supper with his family at home, following as closely as possible how it is celebrated at church by the pastor?  More importantly, is it a valid sacrament that becomes the same means of grace as when it's performed by the church pastor?
I am asking specifically for Protestant denominations that

do not have special rules to restrict performing the Lord's Supper / Holy Communion to certain roles (like an ordained priest), which opens the possibility for a head of family to perform the service at home
take the view of the Lord's Supper / Communion as a means of grace rather than 100% memorial only

Theologically I cannot find any issues, since:

Unlike in Catholicism and possibly in Anglicanism, there is no special ordination required for performing the rite so that the bread and wine becomes the means of grace
There is the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers

I'm asking this in the context of Covid-19 gathering restrictions.  But even when Covid-19 pandemic is over, if families are really serious in obtaining grace through the Lord's Supper, can they supplement the Lord's Supper service at their churches (usually monthly) by doing it weekly at home as well?  According to wikipedia:

Presbyterian and Reformed Churches have been considering whether to restore more frequent communion, including weekly communion in more churches, considering that infrequent communion was derived from a memorialist view of the Lord's Supper, rather than Calvin's view of the sacrament as a means of grace.

A related point to consider (not part of this question): in the early church period before there were special church buildings and when a congregation was possibly no larger than an extended household, who officiated over the Lord's Supper?  Was an ordained pastor necessary to perform it?
The answer should name the denomination(s) which see the Lord's Supper as conferring grace to the partakers (instead of a memorial / remembrance) and then state one of these possibilities:

They explicitly disallow home-based communion service.  If they disallow,  what's the theological reason, since Protestants in general subscribes to the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers.  Also, the motivation is not to be schismatic since the confession of faith is preserved and the home-based communion service partakers are still full members of the church.
They allow home-based communion service with some prescriptions on how to conduct it.  If they allow, whether the home-based service is as valid as a sacrament that becomes the means of grace when it's performed by the church pastor at church.
They are silent on this

Different denominations within Protestantism would have different answers to this. The Church of England (especially Anglo-Catholic) would have a very different idea to an Open Brethren Assembly, for example.
The objection of potential 'schism' or 'disunity' cannot apply when circumstances prevail in which the separation (of households) is due, solely, to a definite requirement that cannot be overcome.
Of course, views differ as to the concept of a 'memorial' or a 'sacrament' and as to whether the process is one of the 'remembrance' of Christ by the congregation or the administering of a 'sacrament of grace' to the congregation.
There is no prescription in scripture that any particular individual is required to administer the elements, bread and wine, or the blessings and prayers associated with those elements. In the generality of Protestantism, an elder would normally do so. Or a minister or pastor if one were presiding.
Paul states 'when ye come together', so it is a gathering of the whole church in that particular locality and the partaking represents one body, that is to say His body broken that One Body may be joined, in Him, to God.
Similarly, of the cup, Jesus says 'drink ye all of it' the 'all' being all that is of Christ's body in that particular locality.
But in such a time as circumstances enforce households to be separated, surely Protestantism should, in its being based on scripture rather than tradition and on faith rather than sacraments, allow of household memorials of the sufferings and death of Christ.
For if, in the present state of the Church, a household finds itself in the situation where no local gathering sufficiently answers to the Body of Christ or to the true preaching and teaching of the gospel, should not such an individual household in a particular locality remember the Lord in his death (in the way which he prescribed) until he come ?
For Jesus said 'where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I  in the midst'.
And if only two or three, due to circumstances, are the sum total of the body of Christ in one place at one time, shall they not remember Him who is in their midst, with bread and wine, as He, himself, exampled ?


Will Elijah return before the final judgement? I just read this passage and had never heard of this prophecy regarding Elijah.

Malachi 4:5-6 ESV

  “Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the great and
  awesome day of the Lord comes. And he will turn the hearts of fathers
  to their children and the hearts of children to their fathers, lest I
  come and strike the land with a decree of utter destruction.”

Taking account of this passage in Malachi, will Elijah make a re-appearance on earth at some point in the future, specifically, as it appears from the passage, at the time of or around the time of the final judgement?
Was this a fulfilled prediction of the transfiguration prior to Jesus's execution?
Was this prophecy fulfilled at some other point in the past?
Is Malachi literally talking about Elijah coming back to earth or was he speaking metaphorically?
How is this prophecy regarded or interpreted in dispensationalism (if at all). How so in Catholicism, or any of the other major Christian groups?
Also, Does this passage inform the beliefs of the people at the time of Christ, when they were confused about his identity.

Mark 6:14-15 NIV

  King Herod heard about this, for Jesus’ name had become well known.
  Some were saying, “John the Baptist has been raised from the dead, and
  that is why miraculous powers are at work in him.”

  Others said, “He is Elijah.”

Mark 8:27-28 NIV

  Jesus and his disciples went on to the villages around Caesarea
  Philippi. On the way he asked them, “Who do people say I am?”

  They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still
  others, one of the prophets.”

In Matthew 11:13-14 Jesus says John the Baptist is "the Elijah who was to come" before the Messiah.


When was the word "trinity" first applied to God in Christianity? The word "trinity" does not occur in the Bible.

When, in early Christian writings and creeds, was the word "trinity" first used in reference to God?

After that first (known) occurrence, what are some of the other key earliest uses of the word "trinity" in reference to God in Christian writings and creeds?

(Please do not respond with general defenses of the doctrine of the Trinity. This is a doctrinal history question specifically about the earliest uses of the word "trinity" in relation to God.)

Without question, Theophilus of Antioch (d. 183) is your man. He wrote in Greek:

[God's creations on the first three days--light, sky, and vegetation--] are types of the Trinity [Τριάδος], of God, and His Word, and His wisdom. And the fourth [day, the creation of the moon and stars,] is the type of man, who needs light, that so there may be God, the Word, wisdom, man.
Theophilus to Autolycus, Book II

You often hear Tertullian's (155 - 240) name in connection with this, but he was the first Latin writer to use the term (trinitas in his case), as well as the first to connect it with the word "persons."


Mere Christianity Book I Chapters 1 and 2: How would Lewis explain morality being inherently known but also taught? I recently started reading Mere Christianity, and I am trying to figure out Lewis's view on whether morality is taught or is something that every person knows by nature. He seems to claim both views, and  I am trying to figure out how he reconciles them (or if I have just misunderstood something).
In chapter 1 ("The Law of Human Nature"), Lewis states the following:

This law was called the Law of Nature because people thought that every one knew it by nature and did not need to be taught it. They did not mean, of course, that you might not find an odd individual here and there who did not know it, just as you find a few people who are colour-blind or have no ear for a tune. But taking the race as a whole, they thought that the human idea of decent behaviour was obvious to every one. And I believe they were right.

Then in chapter 2 ("Some Objections"), Lewis addresses an objection that the Law of Nature is just a social convention "that is put into us by education." He responds with the following:

The people who ask that question are usually taking it for granted that if we have learned a thing from parents and teachers, then that thing must be merely a human invention. But, of course, that is not so. We all learned the multiplication table at school. A child who grew up alone on a desert island would not know it. But surely it does not follow that the multiplication table is simply a human convention, something human beings have made up for themselves and might have made different if they had liked? I fully agree that we learn the Rule of Decent Behaviour from parents and teachers, and friends and books, as we learn everything else.

He then goes on to explain why the Law of Nature / Moral Law / Rule of Decent Behavior falls into the same category as mathematics, being a real truth instead of a convention.
On the surface, it seems like Lewis is making opposing statements: first that this moral law is intrinsically known by humans without being taught and second that it is something that is in fact taught. My guess at this point is that he sees our sense of right and wrong as a faculty that must be developed. While we may know the principles of morality as children, we do not know all of the applications of those principles and must be taught. And perhaps it is a sense that can become sharpened or dulled, so good teaching could sharpen it.
That's how I would reconcile those statements based on how in the first quote someone without moral knowledge is likened to someone with an impaired sense. But that may just be the way I would explain it, and I'm not confident that that is actually the way he would explain those statements. Perhaps there is something that is so obvious to him (and everyone else in the world since his target audience was all of the UK) that it goes without saying, and I have completely missed it.
So if anyone has any insights into what Lewis has said or would say on how morality is inherently known while also being taught, please share. Thanks!

Q: Mere Christianity Book I Chapters 1 and 2: How would Lewis explain morality being inherently known but also taught?
Lewis made the point that there are Laws of Human Nature or morality which are known to almost all people on Earth. He believed that most people in most cultures would agree that stealing or murder are wrong.
Yet Lewis also pointed out that theft and murder happen all the time.
Why? Lewis answers:

...a body could not choose whether it obeyed the law of gravitation or
not, but a man could choose either to obey the Law of Human Nature or
to disobey it.

[Lewis, C. S.. Mere Christianity (C.S. Lewis Signature Classics) (p. 4). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.]
Lewis summed this issue in this passage:

...These, then, are the two points I wanted to make. First, that human
beings, all over the earth, have this curious idea that they ought to
behave in a certain way, and cannot really get rid of it. Secondly,
that they do not in fact behave in that way. They know the Law of
Nature; they break it. These two facts are the foundation of all clear
thinking about ourselves and the universe we live in.

[Lewis, C. S.. Mere Christianity (C.S. Lewis Signature Classics) (p. 8). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.]
The laws of gravitation or mathematics are universal. Drop an object and it falls. Try to disobey the law of gravitation by jumping from a building and you will fall.
Lewis described Laws of Human Nature that are inhereent in our nature. These laws are known to all, but they can be disobeyed unlike natural laws such as gravitation.
If the Laws of Human Nature are known to all, yet frequently disobeyed, what is the purpose of teaching them?
Parents, family members, teachers, and preachers all emphasize the need to follow these laws and I believe they do so in order to make it more likely that the students or children or friends would actually choose to follow the moral laws Lewis described.


If baptism cleanses original sin then why do the children of baptised parents still need to be baptised? Why do the children of the parents who were baptized need to be baptized? The parent's original sin was removed by their baptism so they shouldn't be passing it down anymore. Or how does it work? Is it the corrupted human nature that is inherited or is it something else?

What is the Roman Catholic teaching on this?

According to the Catholic Church (Council of Trent's Decree Concerning Original Sin):

this sin of Adam…in its origin is one, and being transfused into all by propagation, not by imitation [of the parents' vices, bad example, etc.], is in each one as his own

St. Thomas Aquinas, in Summa Theologica I-II q. 81 a. 1 ("Whether the first sin of our first parent is contracted by his descendants, by way of origin?") c. describes how original sin propagates:

…granted that some bodily defects are transmitted by way of origin from parent to child, and granted that even some defects of the soul are transmitted in consequence, on account of a defect in the bodily habit, as in the case of idiots begetting idiots; nevertheless the fact of having a defect by the way of origin seems to exclude the notion of guilt, which is essentially something voluntary. Wherefore granted that the rational soul were transmitted, from the very fact that the stain on the child's soul is not in its will, it would cease to be a guilty stain binding its subject to punishment; for, as the Philosopher says (Ethic. iii, 5), "no one reproaches a man born blind; one rather takes pity on him."
Therefore we must explain the matter otherwise by saying that all men born of Adam may be considered as one man, inasmuch as they have one common nature, which they receive from their first parents; even as in civil matters, all who are members of one community are reputed as one body, and the whole community as one man. Indeed Porphyry says (Praedic., De Specie) that "by sharing the same species, many men are one man." Accordingly the multitude of men born of Adam, are as so many members of one body. Now the action of one member of the body, of the hand for instance, is voluntary not by the will of that hand, but by the will of the soul, the first mover of the members. Wherefore a murder which the hand commits would not be imputed as a sin to the hand, considered by itself as apart from the body, but is imputed to it as something belonging to man and moved by man's first moving principle. In this way, then, the disorder which is in this man born of Adam, is voluntary, not by his will, but by the will of his first parent, who, by the movement of generation, moves all who originate from him, even as the soul's will moves all the members to their actions. Hence the sin which is thus transmitted by the first parent to his descendants is called "original," just as the sin which flows from the soul into the bodily members is called "actual." And just as the actual sin that is committed by a member of the body, is not the sin of that member, except inasmuch as that member is a part of the man, for which reason it is called a "human sin"; so original sin is not the sin of this person, except inasmuch as this person receives his nature from his first parent, for which reason it is called the "sin of nature," according to Eph. 2:3: "We…were by nature children of wrath."

Thus, a child's parents being virtuous or not has no bearing on whether the child inherits original sin or not. For everyone—except Jesus incarnate Himself and His Blessed Virgin Mother, who was preserved from original sin by a special privilege*—belonging to the human race alone makes one contract original sin.
*cf. Council of Trent and Ineffabilis Deus


Can the devil and/or yourself lead you to a wrong form of Christianity? I have the fear that the devil and/or myself can lead me to a wrong form of Christianity, such as one subtly based on works, without you actually knowing it. Is there an example of this in the Bible, or are there passages that talk about this? Thanks.

Asuming that there is one objectively True form of Christianity, the mere existence of the wide array of beliefs, some exclusive and contradictory to others means that some forms of Christianity must be false.  Simply logic tells us that  two mutually exclusive things can't both be true.

Therefore, it follows that if some forms of Chrisianity must be false, then it must be possible for people to be led and allow themselves'to be led to follow a false form of Christianity.

Without even going into doctrine, the clear answer to your question is "yes, you can lead yourself to a false form of Christianity".

Delving into Scripture, we're warned of false prophets, false spirits, able to disguise themselves as spirits of light ( 2 Corinthians 11:12-15: ), leading us to believe in false doctrines... Doctrines of devils (1 Timothy 4:1), so both logically and Scripturally, it's entirely possible to believe in a false form of Christianity.

Of course, discussing which form of Christianity is the right one is not within site guidelines, but that there is a right form is a belief comonly shared across Christianity.  And we all believe that we are practicing it.


Are there any Protestant beliefs which have their roots in Mormon doctrines? Protestants often associate Mormonism with outlandish1 doctrines like innumerable Gods, people living on the sun, or special underwear that you can't take off2.  But I am curious what lies at the "other end of the spectrum"; are there any Mormon doctrines which have been so embraced by Protestants as to shape their beliefs?

That is, are there any common Protestant beliefs which have their origin in Mormon teachings?

The reason I ask is:

Like it or not, modern Protestant thinking is influenced by our culture
Mormonism is a significant part of our culture
I am curious if "A+B=C", so to speak; has Mormonism had any significant impact on the shaping of Protestant thinking?

[1] My use of the word 'outlandish' here is not meant to be inflammatory.  Such ideas are commonly viewed by Protestants as 'outlandish' (foreign, strange, etc.); I realize they may not seem outlandish to Mormons, and I realize that many Protestant doctrines would seem outlandish to non-Protestants.

[2] Please note that these are my words, based on things I've heard Protestants say - not the words of modern Mormon theologians.

The Short Answer: No. And, AFAIK, there are no Mormon teachings at all that have spread to other traditions. Here's why.

Ecclesiologists who study the history of the church sometimes distinguish between four primary "branches" of christendom: the Roman Catholic church, the Eastern Orthodox church, the Protestant church, and the "bible cults." Protestant is an umbrella term that refers to theological traditions that are rooted in the Protestant Reformation of the sixteenth century. Protestantism is known for its theological diversity, and a quick glance at a World Almanac shows dozens of Protestant denominations worldwide that each report at least 5,000 houses of worship, extending into the millions for larger denominations.

This diversity of theological traditions is due, in part, to the fact that -- unlike the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches -- Protestantism lacks a single, unifying authoritative leader or leaders that can define for adherents what is and isn't considered acceptable doctrine. In fact, the Protestant Reformation itself grew out of the rejection of the notion of the authority of clergymen and church history, in favor of consulting the bible itself. The event that is regarded as the "official" beginning of the Reformation was Martin Luther nailing his 95 Theses to the door of the church at Wittenberg, Germany, in the year 1517. The central topic addressed in that document was the official [Roman Catholic] church practice of selling "Indulgences," which Luther believed was an offense against God because, he said, it was not based on sound interpretation of scripture.

So, the word "Protestant" encompasses a wide set of beliefs. In general terms, the Protestant church is differentiated by it's emphasis on the authority of scripture over both church tradition and any extra-biblical teachings of clergymen when seeking to determine what is pleasing to God (see "Sola Scriptura" (1), (2)). There is also a common, though not unanimous adherence to the other "Solas" of the Reformation (see the same references as above). Other than that, however, there are few specifically Protestant points of difference that can be made which will apply to all churches that self-identify as Protestant.

The history of the Mormon church, on the other hand, extends back to 1830 (see "Organization of the Church" sub-heading in the reference). The intervening two hundred-some years between when Protestantism began, and when Mormonism later began, provided plenty of time for the development of many doctrines unique to various Protestant theological traditions. By 1830, many denominations had well established, comprehensively defined sets of beliefs. That is, in many cases there was simply no need to adopt additional doctrine, from Mormonism or elsewhere -- and in many denominations, the process of adopting new doctrine is fairly complex. Finally, there is the widespread contemporary categorization of Mormonism as a "bible cult" by many, though not all denominations. (Note that this C.SE response does not attempt to address the issue of whether or not that categorization is accurate, but simply notes that many people do assert such a categorization).

While my familiarity with Mormon doctrine is at a fairly "introductory" level, and based primarily on a number of conversations with some LDS adherents, my present understanding is that at the basis of Joseph Smith's set of teachings is the notion that all translations of the bible, except for his own, are flawed and incomplete, lacking the additional books endorsed by Smith (the "Book of Mormon"), as well as the modifications made to various books in the Protestant OT & NT, which Smith said were provided to him by one he called "Moroni." (Reference). Since all doctrine established outside of the Mormon church is based on translations other than Smith's, it makes sense that Mormon doctrines remain within those churches that teach Smith's doctrines, and they have not penetrated other traditions.


In Catholic evening prayer, why do some days have Psalm prayers, other days do not? Nov 9, feast of St. John Lateran, feast, evening prayer, no psalm prayer.
Nov 10, St Leo, pope and Doctor, memorial,, evening prayer, psalm prayer.
Nov 11, St Martin of tours, bishop, memorial, evening prayer, no psalm prayer

Why some days are there psalm prayers, other days not?

The psalm prayer consists of optional prayers that may be said after each psalm. The General Instruction of the Liturgy of the Hours describes them as follows:

  112. Psalm-prayers for each psalm are given in the supplement to the Liturgy of the Hours, to help in understanding them in a predominantly Christian way. They may  be used in the ancient traditional way: after the psalm a period of silence is observed, then the prayer gathers up and rounds off the thoughts and inspirations of those taking part (Source: http://dariasockey.blogspot.it/2013/04/divine-office-factoid-5-perenniel-psalm.html).

They appear in the Office of Readings, Morning Prayer (Lauds), the Daytime Prayers (Terce, Sext, and None), and Evening Prayer (Vespers). They do not appear at Night Prayer (Compline).

There are a number of reasons why a psalm prayer might not appear after the recitation of a given canticle. First of all, a psalm prayer appears only after a true psalm, one of the 150 chapters of the Book of Psalms (as numbered in the Vulgate, not in the Hebrew Old Testament). Hence, they never appear after the second canticle of Lauds (which is always taken from an Old-Testament source other than the Psalms) or the third canticle of Vespers (which is always taken from the New Testament).

Second, especially in the Office of Readings and the Daytime Prayers, sometimes a psalm runs continuously, constituting two or three of the canticles. (Also Psalm 118, or 119 in the Hebrew, is so long that it is spaced out during several weeks.) In those cases, the psalm prayer is found only at the end of the complete psalm.

Since the psalm prayer is optional and not usually used in public recitation, many editions omit it altogether.

(However, the online edition on iBreviery in English, which uses the American text, does have them.)


The Jehovah's Witness perspective concerning the Four Horsemen As a continuation of this question and this question:

Few Biblical symbols, allegories, or metaphors have fired the imagination more than the alleged Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse described all too briefly in Revelation 6:1-8.

Do the Jehovah's Witnesses have an official interpretation of these verses? And if so, how are the Horsemen interpreted by the Jehovah's Witness faith?

In the Watchtower Society’s 1988 reference book, “Insight on the Scriptures” Vol. I, it says this on page 1146:

  “In the apostle John’s symbolic vision, the glorified Jesus Christ is
  depicted as riding a white horse and as being accompanied by an army,
  all of whose members are seated on white horses. This vision was
  revealed to John as representing the righteousness and justice of the
  war that Christ will wage against all enemies on behalf of his God and
  Father, Jehovah. (Re 19:11, 14) Earlier, Christ’s taking kingly action
  and the calamities that follow are represented by different horsemen
  and their mounts. – Re 6:2-8.”

To get more details on the Revelation 6:2-8 verses which are specifically asked about in this question, I found this explanation in the Watchtower Society’s  1969 book, “Then is Finished the Mystery of God”, page 40:

  “In this preliminary vision the rider on the white horse differs in
  appearance from the rider of the white horse described in Revelation
  19:11-16, where this same rider is pictured as having ‘many diadems’
  on his head and as having protruding out of his mouth a sharp long
  sword with which to smite the nations of earth, to pronounce the
  execution of divine judgement upon them. However, in this latter
  vision the rider of the white horse is riding to the ‘war of the great
  day of God the Almighty’ at the place that is called in Hebrew
  Har-Magedon… But when the rider on the white horse appears with his
  bow after the opening of the first seal of the scroll it is at the
  beginning of that ‘time of the end.’ That is when the seven Gentile
  Times have ended, and hence it was the early autumn of the year 1914
  C.E…”

This indicates that the Jehovah’s Witnesses interpret the first rider of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse to be Jesus Christ from the year 1914 and onwards, and that they also interpret the rider of the white horse in chapter 19 verses 11 and 14 to be Jesus Christ, but that ride is still future as they say the battle of Armageddon has not yet begun.
On page 44 the author of that 1969 book goes on to confidently state that,

  “Worthy ones of this generation of mankind will see the crowned Rider
  of the white horse complete his conquest with the help of Jehovah God
  the Almighty.”

However, given that a generation is about 36 years or so, that generation has NOT seen the completion of Christ’s ride. He then admitted to previous interpretations not being too precise either:

  “In July [of 1917] the Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society published the
  book known as the seventh volume of the ‘Studies in the Scriptures’.
  (See the issue of August 1, 1917, of ‘The Watch Tower and Herald of
  Christ’s Presence’, page 226, column 2.) This book contained a
  commentary on the entire Book of The Revelation, and attempted to
  explain, but too soon, Revelation 6:1, 2. However, thirteen years
  later, or on August 11 of 1930 the Watch Tower Society released at its
  Brooklyn headquarters the two volumes of the book entitled ‘Light.’
  Ah, at last this set forth the explanation of Revelation 6:1, 2 that
  was based on events since the end of the Gentile Times in 1914, which
  events fulfilled the thrilling Bible prophecies.”

After saying the year 1914 was only identified in 1930, with hindsight, as the time Jesus began to ride forth as per Revelation 6:2, the ‘Then is Finished the Mystery of God’ book goes on to give its interpretation of the three other horsemen, from pages 46 to 76. Here are just brief quotes to summarise Jehovah’s Witnesses beliefs about them:

  “The horse that John now saw come forth was ‘fiery-colored,’
  flame-colored, red like blood. Its color suggested blood! Very
  appropriately so, because it fitted in with the mission on which the
  horse’s rider rode, namely, ‘so that they should slaughter one
  another.’ Besides this, since it was granted to the rider ‘to take
  peace away from the earth,’ what could this mean but war, bloody war?
  So, then, when the Gentile Times ended in 1914 and the Rider on the
  white horse did ride forth, was this event marked by bloody war? Yes.
  World war, the first world war of human history!” Page 50 “The crowned
  rider of the white horse took no part in World War I, which was
  started by the second horseman armed with the ‘great sword’.” Pages
  51-52

  “The horseman that John now saw was on a black horse... represents
  famine, food shortages… After the outbreak of World War I and the
  ending of the Gentile Times in 1914, this is exactly what happened.”
  Pages 52 & 54

  “A fourth figurative horseman dashes onto the scene of world affairs.
  His horse is yellowish pale, livid, sickly-looking in color. What a
  good match its color was to the name of its rider, whose name is
  Death! …This is premature death… the symbolic rider Death was
  accompanied by Hades… Those brought down to Hades by the fourth
  horseman Death were to be many… something that would be an added proof
  of the fact that the first horseman, Jesus Christ, had been crowned
  and had begun to ride victoriously since the close of the Gentile
  Times in 1914 C.E.”

and then refers to the Spanish influenza of 1918-19 which killed some 20 million victims. Pages 56 to 59.

The key point in the Jehovah’s Witness interpretation of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse is the date October 1914, upon which all of their interpretation depends.  If they are wrong about that, they are wrong about all else. So far, they are sticking to their doctrine about October 1914, but if that is dropped at any time, then they will have to reinterpret their claims about the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse.


Has the Catholic Church responded to the apparent implausibility of a census as described in Luke? Over on History Stack Exchange, answers to the question Why would Jesus' parents travel to their birthplace for a Roman census? indicate that the scholarly consensus is that Luke is wrong in his descriptions of the census prior to Jesus' birth. Among their reasons are:

No Roman documents exist that indicate a census occurred for the entire Roman empire
Herod in Judaea, Quirinius in Syria, and Augustus in Rome did not rule at the same time
Requiring everyone to travel to one's ancestral home, especially one from 42 generations and 1,000 years before, is a logistical impossibility and we have no evidence that Roman censuses required this
Accounts of contemporary censuses, such as one in 104 A.D., required returning to their current residences (as opposed to being away on travel). Thus if censuses functioned similarly in Jesus' time, Mary and Joseph would have been legally obligated to remain in Nazareth rather than travel to Bethlehem.

Has the Catholic church provided an official response or explanation for the apparent implausibility of the census as described in the Gospel of Luke?

The matter of which census Luke referred to requires knowing the year Jesus was born. The Bible does not specify which year and problems with this are written about in the ‘Concise Sacramentum Mundi Encyclopedia of Theology’ (1981) edited by renowned Catholic Professor Carl Rahner. On page 732 Catholic scholars Ingrid Maisch and Anton Vogtle write:

  The year of Jesus’ birth is also uncertain. The difficulties can only
  be briefly indicated: Jesus is said to have been born under Herod the
  Great when Quirinius was governor of Syria (Lk 2:1). But there is no
  evidence that Quirinius was governor during Herod’s lifetime. None of
  the explanations of this contradiction so far suggested is
  satisfactory. All that is generally accepted is that Jesus was born
  before 4 B.C. (death of Herod). More precise details cannot be drawn
  from the infancy narratives of Matthew and Luke.

However, there are biblical clues about when John the Baptist was born, which is significant because John was six months older than Jesus. See http://taylormarshall.com/2012/12/yes-christ-was-really-born-on-december.html for Catholic reasons for a 25 December birth, based on their view that John the Baptist was born in the summer (argued for further down the article).  Some Protestants argue for him having a spring birth, meaning Jesus would have been born around September/October and conceived the previous December but either way, they fit in with the 7 B.C. census theory which now follows.

The year 7 B.C. was a rare one in having a triple conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn, which could fit in with the account of Magi from Persia seeing a significant star. David Hughes, Professor of Astronomy at Sheffield University, discovered that, three years before Herod's death, there was a rare series of alignments of Jupiter and Saturn. They came together three times over several months. The first conjunction was in May, he said, giving them plenty time to plot the next two conjunctions (in September and November) and travel the very long distance to Jerusalem, over which the second conjunction appeared at the time of Jesus' birth. Herod the Great summoned Jewish religious experts who told him and the Magi that a prophesied King would be born in Bethlehem. By the time the third conjunction happened, it brought the Magi to Bethlehem, to the very house where Mary and the child were. This implies a bit of a time lapse between Jesus' actual birth in a stable and being a child in a house in Bethlehem. Clearly, the stable accommodation had only been temporary (undoubtedly much to Mary’s relief). The Bible shows that Mary and Joseph stayed local as Jesus was circumcised on his eighth day in the temple, and Mary went to the temple for her purification.

Zoroastrian Magi viewed Jupiter as representing a new king; Saturn the old. The planets coming together would signify a change of ruler. This happening in Pisces would speak to them of Israel as they associated Pisces with Israel. This triple conjunction would make the planets involved appear to be travelling backwards and, on specific days, to have actually stopped. All planets do this, but it is very rare when two do so at the same time. This accounts for a special light appearing to stand still over Bethlehem in November that year. Thus goes the explanation according to Professor David Hughes. I have no idea if he is a Catholic or not, or even if he has any religious faith, but he claims his theory is based on cosmological events.  An article on this was in 1 September 2009 ‘Weekend’ magazine which was reviewing a BBC2 documentary on Christmas Eve that year. Now, here comes the link to Luke’s census.

There was a census in 7B.C., written about by 5th century historian Orosius. He said Augustus ordered a census of each province everywhere, with all men to be enrolled to show allegiance to Caesar Augustus. Josephus notes that "When all the people of the Jews gave assurance of this goodwill to Caesar, and to the king's government, these very men [the Jewish Pharisees] did not swear, being about six thousand." This census took place in 7 B.C. and was for non-Romans. Romans wouldn't need to be registered as showing allegiance to Caesar but Joseph would need to be registered, which accounts for him taking Mary to Bethlehem where he'd been born. That census mentioned by Orosius could have been that little known one Luke referred to, for Jewish men to swear allegiance to Augustus, which the Pharisees refused to do. It seems to have been for non-Romans, to boost Augustus's inflated ego and calm his nerves about disloyalty. The vanity of the Roman emperors knew no bounds and they would not care how much money was spent / lost in demanding people sign up to their rules. The wealth of Rome was fabulous. A census was nothing to them. Besides, it was the poor people forced to travel who would lose out and since when did Rome ever care about poor people?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Census_of_Quirinius supposes Luke’s account is wrong but then gives information on Quirinius’ later rule and the later census. Official Catholic views on this triple conjunction happening the same year as this little-known census mentioned by Orosius have not come to light in my research.


Is Christianity an experiential practice? It has been stated to me that Christianity is "experiential" meaning it is experienced and not necessarily understood.  Do I have that definition correct?  Is this true?

Yes, I think it is.  Though, with an emphasis on "necessarily".  Well, beyond the core tenants, anyway.

If you are a Christian but have never experienced God's love, then something is missing.  I'm not talking about charismatic or pentecostal "gifts of the Spirit", I'm just talking about... feeling that God loves you.

Miguel de Unamuno: "Those who believe that they believe in God, but without passion in their hearts, without anguish in mind, without uncertainty, without doubt, without an element of despair even in their consolation, believe only in the God idea, not God Himself”

Disclaimer: this is my understanding, and probably mine only.  I do not speak for any congregation, demonination, or any other -ation.


Will executioners of capital punishments be saved? '(...)Look, today you drive me from the surface of the earth. I must hide from you, and be a restless wanderer on earth. Why, whoever comes across me will kill me!'
'Very well, then,' Yahweh replied, 'whoever kills Cain will suffer a sevenfold vengeance.'

Quote from Genesis 4, 14-15
God said that everybody who kill a murderer will have 7 times bigger punishment than him. Does that mean that executioners of capital punishments will be not saved ?

There is a fundamental flaw in the logic here.

Genesis 4 clearly applies to a single person - the person who kills Cain.  Generalizing this to any executioner is not supported by the text. To wit:

  'Very well, then,' Yahweh replied, 'whoever kills Cain will suffer a sevenfold vengeance.'

Indeed, if it did call for that, Genesis 9:6 would be unenforceable:

  From his fellow man I will require a reckoning for the life of man.
    “Whoever sheds the blood of man,
      by man shall his blood be shed,
  for God made man in his own image.

As such, generalizing adds a needless tension introduced by the hypothetical.  There is an old joke that conflates "Judas went out and hung himself," followed by "Go and do thou likewise."  Standard hermeneutical approaches say that adding to the text is not warranted.


Does Daniel 12:1–2 indicate the damned will have physical bodies like the Saints? In Daniel chapter 12 we are given some insight into the last days, and it appears the many who have been buried will awake. Does this mean that all will have the same type of resurrection body?

  Daniel 12:1–2  (NKJV)
  "At that time Michael shall stand up, The great prince who stands watch over the sons of your people; And there shall be a time of trouble, Such as never was since there was a nation, Even to that time. And at that time your people shall be delivered, Every one who is found written in the book. 2  And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, Some to everlasting life, Some to shame and everlasting contempt.

Yes, that is the case, in some form or another.

This article gives a good discussion, including some of the other verses supporting this.

  Marvel not at this: for the hour comes, in which all that are in the
  tombs shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have done
  good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil,
  unto the resurrection of judgment.

  John 5:28-29, emphasis added

And,

  But this I confess unto you, that after the Way which they call a
  sect, so serve I the God of our fathers, believing all things which
  are according to the law, and which are written in the prophets;
  having hope toward God, which these also themselves look for, that
  there shall be a resurrection both of the just and unjust.

  Acts 24:14-15, emphasis added

I appreciate the article because it goes further into discussing the condition of the bodies they will have,

  The term clearly seems to indicate that the body of the wicked will
  reflect a ruined condition, with the beauty of its earthly design
  egregiously diminished, if not extinguished altogether. There is no
  bodily “redemption” (Romans 8:23) for the rogue! One can only imagine
  how horrible the scenes of hell could be.

  The resurrected bodies of the unrighteous will be susceptible to pain,
  together with whatever “conscience” and “memory” torments they will
  experience (cf. Luke 16:27-28).

  From the article cited above.

Other verses that would indicate this would be Revelation 20, the final resurrection, as well as Jesus' description of it in the end of Matthew 25 and 1 Corinthians 15.


Are there any common themes in the dreams so many Muslims have that prompt them to come to Jesus? I understand that a good number of believers, who were once Muslim, became Christians after having a dream where Jesus appears to them and tells them to follow Him.

Examples are recorded in books like I Dared to Call Him Father and others.

Are there any common themes in these dreams?  Does Jesus Himself always appear?

Also, is this common for people in any other religion like Hinduism, Taoism, or anything like that?

I have only heard of this happening en masse in the Muslim world.  The testimonies I have heard from missionaries to Turkey and Iran are these people are seeing Jesus appear to them.

One other notable example I've heard of this happening recently (1996) to a non-Muslim is Joshua Blahyi, formerly known as General Butt Naked in Liberia.  He tells of a man and a woman appearing to him, and the man spoke in his old dialect.  He says the man was Jesus.  I don't know who the woman was.

You can see his story in a piece by the Vice Guide to Travel[possibly NSFW].


Why did people live so long before the Flood? In Genesis 5, some of the descendants of Adam are listed with their ages. The people listed lived very much longer than anybody does today. For example, Adam lived to be 930. The oldest age, 969 years, is listed for Methuselah.

How did these people live so long? Does the Bible explain this at all?

The accuracy of the chronologies in Genesis 5 and 11 has been greatly debated. People have proposed various means of adjusting the figures to more realistic values, on the assumption that there has been some textual error. (This is partly motivated by differences between the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint, suggesting some confusion on the part of translators and editors.) Others are happy to assume that the text we have received is essentially correct.

Augustine discusses some such schemes in City of God 15.9-15; he believes that the patriarchs did indeed live to the stated ages (basically, because stranger things have happened). The basic problem he finds with trying to rescale the figures (he discusses several alternatives, such as that one "year" in the text should really be one month, or that all the numbers are inflated by a factor of ten) is that the Genesis account also gives the ages at which each man fathered his son. Enosh was 90 when he had his son (Genesis 5:9) and 905 when he died (5:11). Rescaling either gives him a long lifespan in any case, or has him fathering Kenan at an unusually young age.

Julius Wellhausen in Prolegomena to the History of Israel (1882) suggested a complicated scheme based on a "Great Year" of 4000 years in total from Adam to the rededication of the Temple in 164BC. He puts the Exodus at 2666 years after the creation, with the 26 generations from Adam to Aaron each representing a century (the remaining 66 years are assigned to Eleazar). Many other scholars have since refined this idea, suggesting tweaks and trying to understand the textual influences. Under this family of interpretations, the ages of the patriarchs are purely notional - there may be some symbolic reason for the particular numbers being as they are, but the purpose is simply to express generational decline. This is analogous to documents from surrounding cultures, such as the Sumerian King List, which also feature enormous but decreasing lifespans.

Martin Luther assumes in his Commentaries on Genesis (vol. 2, ch. 5, paragraphs 34-43) that the ages are as stated. He attributes their long lifespans to better diet, and to their righteousness:

  35) Though the body was sounder than at present, yet the general vigor and strength of limb which men had in paradise before the advent of sin, had passed away. It is true, however, that their bodily well-being was enhanced when, after the fall, they were renewed and regenerated through faith in the promised seed. For the same reason, also, sin was weakened through faith in the seed. As for us, we have lost their strength and vigor just in proportion as we have departed from their righteousness.

  36) With reference to food, who cannot easily believe that one apple, in that primeval age, was more excellent and afforded a greater degree of nourishment than a thousand in our time? The roots, also, on which they fed, contained infinitely more fragrance, virtue and savor, than they possess now. All these conditions, but notably holiness and righteousness, the exercise of moderation, then the excellence of the fruit and the salubrity of the atmosphere - all these tended to produce longevity till the time came for the establishment of a new order by God which resulted in a decided reduction of the length of man's life.

Luther also points out that the chronology has many of the patriarchs alive at the same time, with Adam dying not long before Noah was born:

  43) Truly that primeval time was a "golden age," in comparison with which our present age is scarcely worthy of being called the age of mud. During those primeval centuries, there lived at the same time nine patriarchs, together with their posterities, and all of them in harmony concerning the faith in the blessed seed! All these glorious things Moses just mentions, but does not explain; otherwise this would be the history of histories.


Why do Catholic churches have a red lamp burning inside? Is there any significance to the red lamp that is lit inside Catholic churches?

I ask because I recently saw a green lamp lit at the entrance to a Church of Scotland village church and wondered if the lighting of a lamp is common to both Catholic and (some) Protestant churches.  Just curious!

The sanctuary lamp or tabernacle lamp signifies that the Blessed Sacrament is present* in the tabernacle.*cf. Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist

If it is extinguished,* it signifies there is no Blessed Sacrament the tabernacle.*(like during the Stripping of the Altar at the end of a Holy Thursday service)

Its origins are Exodus 27:20-21:

  Command the children of Israel that they bring thee the purest oil of the olives, and beaten with a pestle: that a lamp may burn always, in the tabernacle of the testimony, without the veil that hangs before the testimony.

They are placed by the tabernacle

or hung on a wall of the sanctuary:

From Rev. William A. O'Brien's Sacristan's Manual for the Extraordinary Form:

  THE SANCTUARY LAMP. This lamp usually hangs in the center of the sanctuary before the tabernacle. It must be kept burning day and night. This is a strict obligation and the sacristan should see that the lamp is ever ready to fulfill its purpose.


What exactly is hermeneutics and exegesis? Two terms that get thrown around on this site a lot are 'hermeneutics' and 'exegesis.'  To the layman, what exactly do these terms mean?

Both terms relate to how a person translates the symbols in a document into a meaningful thought.  Depending on how one approaches a given set of symbols, different meanings can be made.

In at least one classic example, consider:

  GODISNOWHERE

As word-based people, we want to insert spaces.  But, do we insert them as:

GOD IS NO WHERE
GOD IS NOW HERE

How you do is based on your perception.

At its most fundamental, hermeneutics attempts to systematize both how people add meaning (Sapir-Whorf, Act-Theory, etc. etc. etc.), and attempts to suggest some basic principles that guide how it should be done.  For example, some commonly agreed upon hermeneutics:

A text can never mean what its intended audience could not have thought it meant.
A text has meaning when the audience hears it, regardless of what the author may have intended.
If there is disagreement about which the original author most likely intended, the more difficult meaning should not be discounted just because it is difficult.
A word is presumed to mean what it would have meant in most contexts, unless otherwise redefined.

And, further things like that.  The question of inspiration also comes up a lot.

Finally, exegesis is a method that one uses to literally "draw meaning out" of a text.  Given a small bit of Scripture, a preacher doing good exegesis will extract the core meanings out of the text, as opposed to writing his particular meaning into a text. (This is often derivisely called eisegesis for 'writing into')

Some activities that typically happen in good exegesis relate to good hermeneutical principles:

Outlining the passage to see the context in which a particular word or verse stands.
Learning about the culture of the intended audience, to understand how they would have understood it.
Researching alternative uses of a given word, to find the commonalities amongst them.

These principles seek towards one aim- arriving at a common consensus on what a verse really is supposed to "mean" regardless of the biases one might have in approaching the text in the first place.


Is there an ontological change in human nature after Jesus Passion and resurrection? I came across this passage from Jacques Servais, commenting on Thomas Aquinas’ view on Christ’s Passion:

  God himself acts in human nature by regenerating it from within. He, in fact, wanted, to save us, not through his will alone, but through the meritorious and atoning work of the Cross.

See the original here

I was wondering if that means that after the fall of Adam, humanity as it was desired by God was degraded, ontologically speaking.
When Jesus came and delivered us from sin, He, being sinless and divine, has restored our nature, therefore establishing an ontological change.

Human nature cannot be entirely destroyed by sin, and, as St. Thomas Aquinas writes in Summa Theologica III q. 89 a. 3, man can be restored to his former dignity by penance or even to a lesser, equal, or greater degree of virtue.


How old was Zedekiah when he became king? 1 Chronicles 3:15 says Jehoiakim was born 2nd, Zedekiah was born 3rd, and Shallum [Jehoahaz] was born 4th.

Jehoahaz was 23 years old when he became king, and Jehoiakim was 25 years old when he became king 3 months later. So how is it that 11 years later Zedekiah is only 21 years old when he becomes king? Shouldn't he be 35 years old according to 1 Chron. 3:15?

From Contradicting Bible Contradictions we find an intriguing answer.
Zedekiah was a lot younger than his “position” in the line of sons of Josiah because he was actually a grandson via an affair between Jehoikim and Hamutal one of Josiah wives. So his position was immediately after his biological father Jehoikim’s position.

  Zedekiah is called: son of Josiah (verse 15), but he is also called: son of Jehoiakim (verse 16). When we take this information seriously – and we do – we have to reckon with an extramarital affair. Diagram tree of verse 15 and 16 with the mothers of the princes:

                                  King Josiah ￼
                ____________(spouses)________
                |                        |                       |
  Unknown mother ￼    Zebidha ￼        Hamutal ￼ ———→
                |                        |                       |             extramarital son
        Johanan ￼        Jehoiakim ￼     Jehoahaz ￼              |
        (firstborn)            (Eliakim)           (Shallum)         Zedekiah ￼
                                  |            —————————→ (Mattaniah)
                             (spouse)
                            Nehushta ￼
                                  |
                            Jehoiachin ￼
                             (Jeconia)

  1 Chronicles 3:15 says: Zedekiah was a son of Hamutal, a wife of Josiah (2 Kings 23:31 and 24:18).
  1 Chronicles 3:16 says: Zedekiah was also a son of Jehoiakim.
  At the age of about 15 Jehoiakim begot Zedekiah by Hamutal, one of Josiah’s spouses. In fact Josiah became the grandfather of Zedekiah and could be called his father by the rule: the son of a son is a son.
  Hamutal named the boy Mattaniah (2 Kings 24:17), meaning: ‘Gift of God’; but Josiah called him Zedekiah, meaning: ‘God is righteous’.
  Zedekiah was on the list of succession (1 Chronicles 3:15), immediately after his biological father Jehoiakim. When Jehoiakim would die as king, Zedekiah was his firstborn to succeed and that gave him the unusual position on the list of succession.


What is the biblical basis against a child's right to privacy? The so-called "right to privacy" is a hot-button issue in many modern societies, and within that discussion, the question of a child's right to privacy is often raised.  Christians take positions in the debate, and at least sometimes point to the Bible to make their case.  Evangelical author Edward T. Welch writes:

  Scripture seems to lean in the direction of rejecting the concept of privacy in the parent-child relationship. (Addictions, 95)

Welch doesn't provide any explicit biblical support for this claim, so my question is: what is the biblical basis against the idea of a child's right to privacy in relation to their parents?

Here I am talking about children who are legal minors living with their parents, and I'm specifically asking about their privacy within the parent-child relationship.  The question of a child's privacy within the church or society at large is a separate issue.  I'm also focusing on the question of a right to privacy, not whether it is biblical for parents to give their child privacy in certain situations.

According to the Bible, children are supposed to be obedient to their parents. (Colossians 3:20, Ephesians 6:1-3) So the parents get to decide how much privacy to give or not to give their children, and children are not automatically afforded a certain amount of privacy. A parent that is living by Bible principals would consider what is best for their child. Some parents feel that a certain amount of privacy will earn their child's trust and help their child to open up to them about important matters.

There are certain extreme situations where a child would have the right to privacy if the parent would abuse the lack of privacy in a wicked way. Even though the parent has authority over the child, God has authority over the parent and the child. So if the parent tries to use their authority over the child in a way that contradicts God's expressed will, there might be a reason for the child or others to protect the child's privacy against that parent. (Acts 5:29). But generally, unless this is an extreme situation, the Bible is not always giving other people permission to assign the child privacy from their parents, even if it is questionable whether or not the parent is acting in harmony with God's will. At the same time, the government also has authority over both the child and the parent, so they could give the child certain privacy rights, as long as those rights don't make it impossible for the child or the parent to be obedient to God. (Romans 13:1)