Who actually were writers of the Gospels? Who actually wrote the Gospels? Take the example of Matthew, is it Matthew who wrote this book himself or did someone consolidate all the materials from what Matthew had?

Our knowledge of who wrote the Gospels comes principally from two sources:

Manuscripts
Patristic writings (early Christian historians)

--
Manuscripts
The manuscript evidence is unanimous.
A title would be found either in the superscript (the top) or the subscript (the bottom) of the manuscript, or both. There are manuscripts where these portions are missing and, as a result, the portion of the manuscript that survives has no title.
Focusing then on intact manuscripts (by which I mean manuscripts with a surviving superscript and/or subscript):

The number of intact Gospel manuscripts without a title: 0
The number of Gospel manuscripts attributed to someone other than
Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John: 0
What % of intact Gospel manuscripts attribute the Gospels to the same
names listed in modern Bibles: 100%

This is overwhelming evidence of authorship. If the authors were unknown, we should see a variety of names cropping up in the manuscript titles--this is exactly what we do not see.
The original audiences would have known who the author was; the idea that the document did not identify its author is speculative, it is supported by 0 manuscript evidence. But the idea that the recipients didn't know who wrote this document (keep in mind some of these recipients were willing to die for what these documents said) is implausible.
For a very deep dive reviewing the evidence on Gospel titles, see the work of Martin Hengel.
The manuscript evidence is 100% consistent in supporting the claim that the Gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
--
Patristic writings
Numerous early Christian historians reported who wrote the Gospels--some of the most important of these historians are Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, Eusebius, Epiphanius, and Jerome.  Among these heavyweight scholars it is extraordinarily rare to find unanimity--they disagree about almost everything. But on this specific topic--who wrote the Gospels--their testimonies are in agreement. All of these scholars (and many more who could be named) reported Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John as the authors of the Gospels.
The scholars I’ve named represent multiple generations and tremendous geographic diversity--they cover the breadth of the Mediterranean: Lyons, Alexandria (x2), Carthage, Caesarea, Salamis, and Dalmatia.
Let’s consider very briefly some highlights of the evidence for each of the Gospels:
Matthew
Matthew is far and away the most quoted Gospel in the early church--it was known and trusted from the earliest patristic writings. It is quoted by Ignatius & Polycarp. Eduard Masseux argued effectively that Matthew is also quoted in 1 Clement, given exact correspondence in unusual Greek wording. (see pp. 21-24 here) Matthew is also quoted by the Didache, which may have been written in the 1st century. A passage from Matthew is found in the Epistle of Barnabas; the date of this epistle is uncertain, but Robinson (Redating the New Testament Ch. 10) makes a compelling argument that it was written in the 1st Century.
Matthew is mentioned as an author by name by Papais (~105), and explicitly as the author of the first Gospel by Irenaeus (~180), but it is quoted as a known, accepted, authoritative source as early as the first century--by people who knew the apostles personally.
The absence of any controversy over authorship--not the slightest insinuation even among the enemies of Christianity, is telling evidence that the third-generation Christians did not try to rename the Gospel of Matthew. Therefore, the author to whom the first Gospel was attributed by Irenaeus is the same person to whom the Gospel was attributed by the students of the apostles (second-generation Christians like Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp)
Mark
Papias of Hieropolis preserved in his history (written ~105) the testimony of a first-generation Christian Elder, indicating that Mark wrote a Gospel based on the preaching of Peter. Clement of Alexandria recorded this information a century later as well. Since Clement provides a number of details not found in any known fragment of Papias (and since Clement was from the Alexandrian church Mark is said to have founded), it is likely that Clement has at least some independent information (For the testimony of Papias, see HE 3.39; for several of the key statements by Clement see HE 2.15 & HE 6.14).
Two very well-informed scholars report that Mark wrote the second Gospel, they corroborate each other, their testimony is sustained by every Patristic writer after them, and there are exactly 0 competing claims.
Why is the Gospel of Mark multiply attested (by early sources) as having been written by such an obscure figure? (this is not the story you’d tell if you were making it up!) Far and away the simplest explanation is that it is true.
Luke
Our earliest surviving source naming Luke as the author appears to be the Muratorian Canon, written approx. AD 170; Irenaeus also names Luke as the author when writing circa AD 180. However, we have much earlier evidence that the Gospel of Luke was written by a disciple of Paul--we just wouldn’t know which one without the 2nd century sources.
Luke-Acts forms a two-part work by the same author. Colin Hemer has masterfully argued that the Book of Acts was written by an eyewitness disciple of Paul circa AD 62 (see here) (see also an excellent summary by Frank Luke on SE-Biblical Hermeneutics here). The author is intimately familiar with the people, time, and places he describes.
We can therefore show deductively that Luke was written by a disciple of Paul:

P1: The book of Acts was written by an eyewitness disciple of Paul
P2: The same author wrote the Gospel of Luke & the book of Acts
C: The Gospel of Luke was written by an eyewitness disciple of Paul

Courtesy of the Muratorian Canon and the writings of Irenaeus (to say nothing of the numerous later sources corroborating the claim), we know which disciple of Paul. But that it was an eyewitness disciple of Paul can be established from first-century sources.
John
Irenaeus of Lyons is arguably our most important external witness to Johannine authorship. He was from the part of the world where John lived in his later years (Irenaeus only moved to Gaul later in life), and was a pupil of Polycarp of Smyrna, who was a disciple of John. Irenaeus is just one link removed from apostolic testimony and, crucially, only one link removed from the author he claims wrote the Gospel of John.
Irenaeus grew up in a world saturated with John’s influence. He studied the works of Papias (another disciple of John). If Irenaeus believed John wrote John, that is enormously important historical evidence.
So did Irenaeus believe John wrote John or was he just saying that to further an agenda?
Irenaeus has often been misrepresented by those who do not appreciate his method of argumentation. Irenaeus argues from premises to conclusions. The premises are things that are generally known, the conclusions are the things he wants to prove. His conclusions could be garbage (I think some of his conclusions are clearly not garbage, but certainly some of his conclusions do appear to be false), but that doesn’t matter for our analysis here. We really don’t care about the process of reasoning Irenaeus used to get from his premises to his conclusions—because his attestation of Johannine authorship is used as a premise!
It may take a minute for the impact of that last statement to sink in. Irenaeus uses John’s authorship of the 4th Gospel as a premise (see Against Heresies Book 3 chapter 1). This means in his day and age (circa 180), John’s authorship of the 4th Gospel was generally known. Irenaeus is tearing apart (no joke, read Against Heresies) his opponents’ beliefs; if he cites an obviously false premise, he leaves himself open to a devastating counter-argument.
That Irenaeus can get away with baldly stating that John wrote John, without having to argue for it, in a world just 1 generation removed from John, indicates that this was a statement that was nearly incontrovertible at that time.
For a quick but scholarly review of the evidence of Johannine authorship, Erik Manning covers both the internal and external evidence.
There is a thread on SE-Biblical Hermeneutics suggesting John could not have written the Gospel of John--my thoughts in counter to that claim are here.
--
Patristic evidence for authorship by Matthew & Mark is early and unanimous
For Luke the evidence for authorship by an eyewitness disciple of Paul is exceptionally strong. That the disciple's name was Luke is well-attested, but not as well as that of Matthew & Mark.
For John, the evidence is almost unanimous, and it comes only one link removed from John himself.
--
Conclusion
The historical evidence is remarkably solid--yet, as many are aware, critical scholarship in the last 2 centuries has rejected most of this evidence. F. David Farnell put it very well:

Could it be that Enlightenment-spawned Historical Criticism has so
systematically ignored the early fathers because they stand as
manifest contradictions to its cherished dogmas?

There are implications to Gospel authorship, and some do not like those implications. But the evidence itself is robust - authorship of the Gospels by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John is very well-attested. Introducing later redactors (for whom we do not have evidence) to explain the authorship of the Gospels usually requires multiplying entities beyond necessity.
I am in the process of producing a video series on Gospel authorship--those interested can find it here. I find that the evidence supports the view that the Gospels were indeed written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.


Didn't Jesus return to Earth after the resurrection when he appeared to Paul? Why has anyone not brought to light Jesus return to earth when he appeared to Paul while Paul was on the road to Damascus? Was this not a return of Christ when he called Paul into the ministry of faith?

I think you might be overthinking this. Going by NKJV, Acts 9:1-9, Christ did not necessarily "appear" physically. Verses 3-4 only indicate that Paul heard a voice and saw a light, and that light could have been anything

  As he journeyed he came near Damascus, and suddenly a light shone around him from heaven. 4 Then he fell to the ground, and heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?”

That's not really much to go by, and that brings me to my second point: if this was the second coming, why would Paul not write more about it? Typically, when something in the Bible (or really any other documentary) is important in some way, there will be more than a few sentences explaining the importance.
That's not to say this event wasn't important; it is, but for a different reason, and as a matter of fact this importance is elaborated on (at least, more so than anything about the encounter with Christ itself). If we look later in the chapter, we find a part where God explains to Ananias the significance of Paul and why he needs to be healed.

  13 Then Ananias answered, “Lord, I have heard from many about this man, how much [b]harm he has done to Your saints in Jerusalem. 14 And here he has authority from the chief priests to bind all who call on Your name.”
  15 But the Lord said to him, “Go, for he is a chosen vessel of Mine to bear My name before Gentiles, kings, and the children[c] of Israel. 16 For I will show him how many things he must suffer for My name’s sake.”

This is the significance of the event: not that Christ appeared (as he has many times to many people since then), but that his appearance changed someone's life and turned them into one of the Lord's most influential followers, if not the most influential.


Does specific authorship of a given book of the Bible "matter"? Based on a variety of previous questions, it seems that specific authorship of many parts of the Bible are not known for sure.
For example (though I realize there are traditions of who wrote what):

Job
Ruth
Esther
Hebrews

Question(s):
Why is specific authorship considered important (eg the on-going scholarly debates over who wrote the epistle to the Hebrews)?
Is it important?
When is it important?

note - I am not looking for direct answers to canonicity, but for whether specific authorship is important

Author means the person who wrote a book, put pen to paper and signed his name to the work. As far as books of the original "bible:" what has been found are only copies of books. Some have been signed by the copier - a few early copies have been dated - and we can discover something about who authorized the copy. But as we have found no original writings, we cannot know who might have been the originator of the text we do have. Since we cannot know who was the author, this topic is not important.

But if you want to know who wrote the translations of the Bible as we have them in our various Bibles, that's another topic, and worth discussing.


Are intentional sins somehow "worse?" There seems to be a sense among many Christians that sins are somehow "less bad" if they were accidental. Leaving aside two salient points, namely:

The entire point of grace is that sins are forgiven.
That all sins are equal in the sight of a perfect God

the question is then, how do people get to the place where they look to the intentionality of the sin?

Are there denominational confessions that differentiate? Is there a biblical basis for making intentional sin somehow worse?

First, I don't think:

  That all sins are equal in the sight of a perfect God

is a biblical statement:

  Jesus answered him, "You would have no authority over me at all unless it had been given you from above. Therefore he who delivered me over to you has the greater sin." (John 19:11, emphasis mine)

All sin is offensive to our holy God.  I don't think the Bible teaches all sin is equally offensive to God.

To answer your question, this parable seems to indicate that intentionality does matter:

  And that servant who knew his master's will but did not get ready or act according to his will, will receive a severe beating. 48 But the one who did not know, and did what deserved a beating, will receive a light beating. Everyone to whom much was given, of him much will be required, and from him to whom they entrusted much, they will demand the more. (Luke 12:47-49)

So, what are the implications of the believer?  Sin is like an infection, the more you partake of it, the more corruption it works on your soul:

  Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap. 8 For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life. (Gal 6:7-8)

The person who is sinning intentionally is working harder at sowing to the flesh and will therefore reap more corruption.


If the Bible contains all of the word of God and there can be no more, then why do we need the Nicene Creed? There seems to be a huge contradiction in traditional Christianity that claims that there can be no more scripture or divine doctrine and yet the only way to determine whether a denomination is "Christian" (e.g., Jehovah's Witnesses or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) is to refer to an extra-Biblical doctrine (i.e., the Nicene Creed) as if it were scripture.

(If you don't think the Nicene Creed is treated as scripture, then how do you define scripture?)

The old creeds are useful summaries of Christian doctrine. They are useful because the way God decided to shape the Bible was not like a systematic theology textbook, even though we might sometimes wish it was!

The creeds were written in times of division in the church to clarify what the groups that wrote them believe the Bible taught. In general each phrase from one of the creeds will have several passages which back it up, though occasionally that is disputed, such as with the Filioque.

I think the real value of the creeds is that they were written to be completely unambiguous. If you talk to a non-Trinitarian about the passages which a Trinitarian believes support the Trinity, they will probably have alternative ways to interpret them: "it means one in person, the spirit isn't distinct from the father/son here, begotten indicates a created being". For better or worse, the creeds allow you to very quickly establish whether someone is an orthodox Christian or not. But to actually convince someone of orthodox doctrine you'll still need to go through those passages one by one.


Non-Christian/secular translation of the Bible? Is there a rigorous translation of the Bible, sponsored or produced by secular organization?  Not that this translation would be necessarily more impartial, but it would be nice to have this version to read in parallel with other versions. There are several Parallel works (listed below) but they too seem to be affiliated with Christian organization or scholars.

Popular translations:

The NIV was sponsored by the Christian Reformed Church and the National Association of Evangelicals.
The KJV conforms to instructions by King James I to support the episcopal structure of the Church of England.

Parallel translations:

The Amplified Bible (which sources 2+ translations side-by-side) is a product of the Zondervan Corporation, the founding member of the Evangelical Publishing Association of America.
The Comprehensive New Testament - promising. I may read it, but also edited and compiled by Christians.

The Society for Biblical Literature produces a well regarded translation (Logos even carries it).  According to their own mission statement, they are concerned with biblical scholarship and not doctrine. Their vowed mission statement is simply "to promote biblical scholarship." They are a secular organization not affiliated with any religious organization (see comment below). Their Greek translation of the New Testament is available for free here, but I believe their translation of the Old Testament requires purchase.

Additionally, Isaac Asimov and Thomas Jefferson both have secular digests that bear some reading. (Admittedly, neither is an ad fontes translation, but they did look at sources to compile their versions.)

As for commentaries that speak to the translation difficulties that come from a decidedly secular point of view.:

The Oxford Companion to the Bible was the product of many well respected theological scholars, including several who are not Christians. Bruce Metzger is (was?) the chief editor.
Anything by Bart Ehrmann e.g. Misquoting Jesus should speak to the historical value of the source texts and give guidance.
Anything by John Dominic Crossan or The Jesus Seminar would also fall into this category. JDC is currently in the leadership of the SBL.


What is the LDS (Mormon) view of the necessity of Jesus death and resurrection? I heard recently in a sermon that the LDS church views Jesus' death and resurrection as almost a "blemish" on Christianity - that it was an unfortunate event, and not at all the way God planned for things to go.

According to this statement, this is the reason there are no crosses in LDS churches, at the Temple in SLC, etc.

This SLC Tribune article seems to indicate the same.

My question, therefore, has two parts:

Is the article / claim of the sermon correct, and
What is the "official" doctrinal stance of the LDS church on the death and resurrection of Christ?

That it was "an unfortunate event, and not at all the way God for planned to things to go" is not the teaching of the Mormon Church, as Mormons believe the Atonement happened precisely the way God willed it to happen and that it was perfect beyond our comprehension.

The official doctrinal stance of the LDS church on the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ is this:

  The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the
  Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was
  buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and
  all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to
  it.

Source: http://jesuschrist.lds.org/SonOfGod/eng/his-life-and-teachings/articles/we-believe

As Mason Wheeler pointed out in the comment above, the symbolism of the cross and the doctrinal belief of the death and resurrection of Christ (the Atonement) are two separate things. While the Atonement is central to the LDS doctrine, the cross is generally avoided as it tends to remind us of the dead Christ rather than the living Christ.

It is not because the death of Christ was disgraceful, per-se, that Mormons do not use the cross. It is just not a symbol of worship the LDS church has chosen to endorse.

Yet I know many Mormons who have a cross in their home. Usually smallish, and only decorative. It has no religious significance and might have even simply been a gift from another Christian friend. I know of no occasion where there has been formal retribution for a Mormon having or wearing a cross, but it is true: you won't find them on or in LDS meetinghouses or temples.


Would Mormons accept communion, administered by a representative of another Christian denomination, as valid? There are considerable differences in some beliefs between Catholic and Protestant churches on one hand, and the Mormon church on another hand.

One of these is the belief in Trinity due to which, according to the answers to this question and this question, Lutheran/Protestant churches do not view Mormons as Christian. Another difference is the symbols used with the communion, being that Mormons use water instead of wine (as is explained in the answers to this question).

Now considering some more exceptional situation, such as when serving in U.S. military during a war, as in the book cover shown below, would Mormons accept communion from military chaplains that may not be Mormons?

Or would a Mormon in this case not participate in the communion, or have the communion on their own (or possibly request a Mormon chaplain)?

A better answer would come from an actual LDS war veteran, but I would imagine that a Mormon in the military may participate in an available ceremony as a symbol of friendship, unity, and support with the rest his regiment. Although they may participate, Latter-day Saints maintain that ordinances are only authorized when exercised by the Priesthood of God, which is had His Church only (the LDS Church). That's not to say the ceremony by the non-LDS chaplain is not beneficial to the Latter-day Saint—it still provides him a blessed opportunity to worship with other Christians who share the same fundamental beliefs—it just is not binding in heaven. In fact, I think any decent member of the LDS Church would encourage, not disparage, participation in available Christian worship services.

You can find out more about the LDS Church and military relations on its website: https://www.lds.org/callings/military-relations/organization-leader-responsibilites?lang=eng and https://www.lds.org/callings/military-relations/military-chaplains?lang=eng. There's nothing particularly quotable but it should give good background. I think the point is that this is up to the individual member's conscience. Other questions and answers on this site go into detail about the Priesthood authority necessary for ordinances to be valid in heaven.

As an aside (that may or may not be relevant), I have personally met and informally interviewed a Latter-day Saint astronaut who commanded a couple Shuttle missions. I asked about how he worships in space. Even he, a Priesthood holder, needed to obtain authorization from his local Priesthood leader (bishop or stake president) before the mission to be able to administer the Sacrament if the opportunity arose. Of course, this was done privately in the extremely limited personal time allotted. But the point is, the administration of ordinances that are considered officially valid before the Lord is well organized, even... in space.


Do Messianic Jews adhere to the Talmud? Messianic Jews are Jews that believe Jesus is their Messiah. Do they in general consider the Talmud to be authoritative and something they must adhere to?

There is no agreement on this within the movement:

some believe that adherence to the Oral Law, as encompassed by the Talmud, is against Messianic beliefs
some deny the authority of the Pharisees, believing that they were superseded, and their teachings contradicted, by Messianism
some call rabbinic commentaries such as the Mishnah and the Talmud "dangerous and state that followers of rabbinic and halakhic explanations and commentaries are not believers in Jesus as the Messiah
some are selective in their applications of Talmudic law
some exercise serious observance of Jewish halakha


What attributes does Jesus have from an LDS doctrinal perspective that are different from the Jesus in the Holy Trinity? I ask this because when I read about the attributes of Jesus in the Trinity and compare him to the Jesus as explained by Mormon doctrine I find very little difference. With that being said if there are differences, how do they effect his divinity?

The answer to this, in regards to Jesus Christ's divinity, would be:  There is little to no difference.  The differences in Mormon theology do not alter the way Christ's Divinity is regarded by Mormons vs. the regard given by Trinitarians.  Trinitarians and Mormons both view Christ as Divine, and the Most Divine Possible.

I will provide some background, and also explain one potentially insignificant perceived difference that comes to my mind.

While the Mormon Church may believe that the Trinity are 3 separate beings with the same purpose, as opposed to 3 forms of the same being (possibly an oversimplification, but the Trinity is difficult for me to explain) The role of Jesus Christ is the same, through him and him alone comes Salvation.  He is Divine.  He is God.  (From of Mormon perspective you might alter that to say, he is "a God")  It it through his merits that all mankind may be saved and live Happily in the afterlife (slightly different perspective on afterlife for Mormons and Mainstream Christinity)

One specific attribute that may be a little (or a lot) different, is the existence of Jesus Christ's physical body.  Mormons Believe he still has one, a Divine immortal body that is inseparable from his spirit.  Mainstream Christian religious belief may not agree with this idea.  I've met pastors who have said that Christ only took a physical form while on earth, and once ascended to heaven returned to a spirit, or spiritual form, and that we too will be like that while in Heaven.

Mormons believe the physical form and spiritual form together will be the final Divine form.  Not a mortal physical body, but an immortal physical body.  Mormons will refer to this body as a Celestial, Perfected or a Glorified Body.   You'd find information about this in The Doctrine and Covenants, a publication from the LDS Church.  It's also been repeated by LDS Apostles and Prophets throughout the years.

The difference in Mainstream Christian or more specifically Trinitarian beliefs vs. Mormon beliefs on Christ's Divine physical form may be the biggest difference, if and when it's a difference at all.

The following link may suggest that the difference I perceive is not really a difference:  Jesus Ressurection Was Physical

Here is an Official LDS statement on who Jesus Christ is, and his Divine purpose:  The Living Christ


In Roman Catholicism, how far back in history does the process (Sacrament) of Confirmation go? Does the Sacrament of Confirmation go back to the early Church?  Also, has it always occurred around the age 14 (except in situations where it would occur later, such as conversions)?

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, the sacrament of Confirmation comes directly from the beginning of the Church, as performed by the Apostles, and thus, it is part of the Oral Revelation (or Tradition, Living Magisterium), and partly seen in the Written Revelation (i.e. the Scriptures). The Encyclopedia states:

The Sacrament of Confirmation is a striking instance of the development of doctrine and ritual in the Church. We can, indeed, detect much more than the mere germs of it in Holy Scripture; but we must not expect to find there an exact description of the ceremony as at present performed, or a complete solution of the various theological questions which have since arisen. It is only from the Fathers and the Schoolmen that we can gather information on these heads.

Then there are two quotes used to support this Biblical basis:

We read in the Acts of the Apostles (8:14-17) that after the Samaritan converts had been baptized by Philip the deacon, the Apostles "sent unto them Peter and John, who, when they were come, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost; for he was not yet come upon any of them, but they were only baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus; then they laid their hands upon them, and they received the Holy Ghost".
Again (19:1-6): St. Paul "came to Ephesus, and found certain disciples; and he said to them: Have you received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? But they said to him: We have not so much as heard whether there be a Holy Ghost. And he said: In what then were you baptized? Who said: In John's baptism. Then Paul said: John baptized the people with the baptism of penance . . . Having heard these things, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had imposed his hands on them, the Holy Ghost came upon them, and they spoke with tongues and prophesied".

From them, the author concludes:

From these two passages we learn that in the earliest ages of the Church there was a rite, distinct from baptism, in which the Holy Ghost was conferred by the imposition of hands (dia tes epitheseos ton cheiron ton Apostolon), and that the power to perform this ceremony was not implied in the power to baptize.

The article goes on to expose evidence and support for the rite later in history, including the Church Fathers.
This perspective is part of the Catholic doctrine, as expressed in the Cathecism (and quoting Paul VI's apostolic constitution Divinae consortium naturae):

1288 "From that time on the apostles, in fulfillment of Christ's will, imparted to the newly baptized by the laying on of hands the gift of the Spirit that completes the grace of Baptism. For this reason in the Letter to the Hebrews the doctrine concerning Baptism and the laying on of hands is listed among the first elements of Christian instruction. the imposition of hands is rightly recognized by the Catholic tradition as the origin of the sacrament of Confirmation, which in a certain way perpetuates the grace of Pentecost in the Church."

Finally, regarding the age of baptism, as stated in the comments by Ken Graham, the Eastern Rites (and the Orthodox Church, in which the sacrament is called Chrismation) performs both sacraments together, whereas the Latin Rite and Western church performs them separately. The same page of the Catechism linked above states:

1290 In the first centuries Confirmation generally comprised one single celebration with Baptism, forming with it a "double sacrament," according to the expression of St. Cyprian. Among other reasons, the multiplication of infant baptisms all through the year, the increase of rural parishes, and the growth of dioceses often prevented the bishop from being present at all baptismal celebrations. In the West the desire to reserve the completion of Baptism to the bishop caused the temporal separation of the two sacraments.

Regarding particularly the Western church, the age at which the confirmation was administered varied considerably. For example, the Encyclopedia states:

It was especially during the thirteenth century that vigorous measures were taken to secure the proper administration of the sacrament. In general, the councils and synods direct the priests to admonish the people regarding the confirmation of their children. The age limit, however, varies considerably. Thus the Synod of Worcester (1240) decreed that parents who neglected to have their child confirmed within a year after birth should be forbidden to enter the church. The Synod of Exeter (1287) enacted that children should be confirmed within three years from birth, otherwise the parents were to fast on bread and water until they complied with the law. At the Synod of Durham (1217? Cf. Wilkins, loc. cit. below) the time was extended to the seventh year.

The latter became, later on, the custom. The Encyclopedia states:

Further, when infant baptism became customary, confirmation was not administered until the child had attained the use of reason. This is the present practice, though there is considerable latitude as to the precise age. The Catechism of the Council of Trent [(1545-1563)] says that the sacrament can be administered to all persons after baptism, but that this is not expedient before the use of reason; and adds that it is most fitting that the sacrament be deferred until the child is seven years old, "for Confirmation has not been instituted as necessary for salvation, but that by virtue thereof we might be found well armed and prepared when called upon to fight for the faith of Christ, and for this kind of conflict no one will consider children, who are still without the use of reason, to be qualified."

This custom of the use of reason being reached at age 7 continues to be in the Canon Law today, under the title "age of discretion", as can be seen here.
This shows that Confirmation was indeed administered at quite different ages across the centuries, and far from the custom of 14 years old, as in some countries today.


What were the disciples afraid of? In Mark 10:32 it says

  32 And they were in the way going up to Jerusalem; and Jesus went
  before them: and they were amazed; and as they followed, they were
  afraid. And he took again the twelve, and began to tell them what
  things should happen unto him,...

and got my attention that Disciples were afraid of something and cant figure out what they were afraid of?

We should not so much look for what the disciples were afraid of, but look at how the story in Mark's Gospel unfolds and why the disciples are being described as afraid, without apparent reason. David Rhoads, Joanna Dewey and Donald Michie say in Mark as Story, page 1,  that the composer of Mark's Gospel has used sophisticated storytelling techniques, developed the characters and the conflicts, and built suspense with deliberateness, telling the story to generate certain insights and responses in the audience.

In the case of this passage, the author is building suspense in preparation for the following verses, in which Jesus foretells his crucifixion:

  Mark 10:33-34: Saying, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man shall be delivered unto the chief priests, and unto the scribes; and they shall condemn him to death, and shall deliver him to the Gentiles: And they shall mock him, and shall scourge him, and shall spit upon him, and shall kill him: and the third day he shall rise again.


Why do churches often have altars? In Judaism, the template had an altar for sacrificing. But we believe our sacrifice is done.

So, what is the point of a church altar?

In Roman Catholic liturgy specifically, the altar is where the Eucharistic Sacrifice is made; i.e., Christ's one sacrifice on Calvary is made present again on the altar at each mass. The altar, in this theology, is still for performing sacrifices.

  "In the New Law the altar is the table on which the Eucharistic Sacrifice is offered. Mass may sometimes be celebrated outside a sacred place, but never without an altar, or at least an altar-stone."

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01346a.htm

As the largest unified body of Christians on the planet, Roman Catholics have a large influence on the terminology we use. Note that as a Protestant I don't agree with this theology, but the term "altar" likely persists in our churches merely as a matter of "stale" terminology used by those who do not know better. Protestant theology (at least all that I'm aware of) does not allow for an "altar." The reason to have an altar is antithetical to the Protestant doctrines regarding regeneration and justification and having something that fulfills the purpose of altar (meaning that it isn't just a matter of stale terminology) is nonsense in Protestant churches.


Will we still feel affection towards others when we are in heaven? I know that heaven is all about love. But in Catholic church, we distinguish love (will) and affection (emotion). In our day to day lives, love is often accompanied by affection - but will this be the case for us in heaven? It may or may not be possible depending on whether the impassibility only applies to God or not. There is a notion that in heaven, we will love each other in the same way that God does for us, but at the same time we know that we will be in our resurrected "body", which may or may not enable us to feel affection. To reconcile God's love and his impassibility, the Church teaches that God's love is not like rock (cold and immutable), but like unceasing fire (hot, intense, but also constant) - will we love each other in this manner in heaven?

It is the matter of "passive love" and "active love". Suppose that you brought a present to one of your fellows in heaven. Passive love would say "I brought this present to you in my commitment to love everyone, but I didn't do this because I 'like' you", whereas active love would say "I brought this present to you, because I really really really do like you!"

I don't know if there is any specific teaching of the Catholic Church on this topic, but there is no harm to ask.

We are not quite sure how our affectivity (emotions, passions, and so on) will work in Heaven before the General Resurrection, however the Church teaches dogmatically that all human beings will receive their bodies at the General Judgment. As the Nicene-Constantopolitan Creed (the one said at Mass nearly every Sunday) says

  I look forward to the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come.

See also the Catechism of the Catholic Church, nos. 992-1004 and 1038.

Being in Heaven, therefore, does not destroy our human nature—including the corporeal aspects of that human nature, which is necessary for there to be affectivity in the strict sense—but rather perfects it.

It follows that there will indeed be emotions and affection in Heaven—not exactly the same as on earth (for one thing, there is no marriage in Heaven—see Matthew 22:30 and the parallel passages), but more perfect and more intense.

UPDATE (because of expansion of question)

When the Church teaches that human beings will impassible in Heaven, it specifically means that we will be unable to suffer (i.e., experience pain). It does not mean that we will be incapable of experiencing passions (emotions, affections, and so on). Passions, understood in this latter sense, are part and parcel of human nature, and so they will not be destroyed by the Beatific Vision—indeed, they will be intensified. (See, for example, Catechism No. 1044.)

Of course, they will not be disordered, as they frequently are here on earth. Moreover, the conditions will be different, because the persons in Heaven will be before the very source of all their longings—namely, God. In Heaven, therefore, we will be in the condition of having all our longings—our very deepest longings—perfectly fulfilled.

(God, on the other hand, is impassible in every sense—not because He lacks love, but because His love is constantly active—as the O.P. points out. God cannot experience emotions in His Divine Nature, because one needs a body for that; however, since He is the Creator of the emotions, He experiences something even better than our emotions.)

In short, all of our faculties will be operating at their “maximum” in Heaven: through our will, we will love God (and our neighbor) intellectually; through our sensitive appetites, we will be drawn to Him, they will be actuated at their maximum intensity, and hence we experience affection for Him (and our neighbor).

In short, we will experience all the types of love that are characteristic of man—active and passive, intellectual and sensitive—but at their maximum intensity and without disorder.

Sources for more information

The best source for more information is the Summa theologiae of St. Thomas Aquinas.

Regarding the faculties of the soul—intellect, will, and sensitive appetites—have a look at I, qq. 79-82

Regarding the passions (Thomas’ term for emotions, feelings, and similar phenomena), the entire Ia-IIae (first part of the second part) is relevant; but especially qq. 22-25. Also interesting are the questions regarding the passion of love, qq. 26-28.

Regarding heavenly beatitude, see I, q .26, especially Article 4.

Also, see St. Thomas on the Christ’s glorified body (which applies also to our own body after the General Resurrection): III, q. 54, a. 3.


What does the "reformed and recovered Christian fundamentalist" mean? I've been reading god is not Great by Christopher Hitchens. I'm a Muslim and this book is my most extensive introduction to Christianity so far, as well as other religions including mine, to some extent.

Here is the passage:

  Some of these would still be in some danger if I were to name them, but I must admit my debt to the late Dr. Israel Shahak, who introduced me to Spinoza; to Salman Rushdie, who bravely witnessed for reason and humor and language in a very dark time; to Ibn Warraq
  and Irfan Khawaja, who also know something about the price of the ticket; and to Dr. Michael Shermer, the very model of the reformed and recovered Christian fundamentalist.

I'm now familiar with the basic denominations, sects etc. of Christianity to some extent but am really confused by the churches, traditions, movements and so on. There are so many of them and they may be a bit too confusing for a beginner.

One of them is reformed and recovered fundamentalist. There is a universe of definitions and explanations on the Internet, I know. But believe me, the more I read them the more confused I get. Moreover, I read each one of them separately and think that I've got the idea but then again, whenever I try to combine and make sense of them, I fail.

I would be more than grateful if anyone could explain me what a reformed and recovered fundamentalist is in simple terms for a non-native non-Christian dummy, so to speak.

As a side note, I know it isn't within the scope of this site but now that I've asked one question about the above passage, I must admit that I don't understand either what is meant by know something about the price of the ticket here. I totally understand if you wouldn't like to answer this one since it's off-topic.

Thank you so much.

This isn't really about Christianity, but let me answer anyway.

First, please note that Christopher Hitchens was an extreme and vociferous opponent of both Christianity and Islam. Learning about Christianity from him is like learning about America by reading Soviet Cold War propaganda.

By "reformed and recovered Christian fundamentalist", Hitchens means that Michael Shermer used to be a "Fundamentalist Christian", but isn't any more. (Hitchens describes many Christians as "Fundamentalist" that most people wouldn't).

"Knowing the price of the ticket" means that these are people who have suffered in some way for speaking about about what they believe (or in this case, don't believe). I.e. they they have experienced the cost of speaking out.


What is the Biblical basis for believing that God punishes Christians for disobedience? Suppose that a person is faithful and counted among those in Christ, and the person is disobedient in some manner.  What is the Biblical basis for the idea that God will punish this Christian beyond the immediate natural consequences of their actions?

For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.
Hebrews 12:6 (KJV)

As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.
Revelation 3:19

The parable of the talents:

And that servant, which knew his lord’s will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.
Luke 12:47

Ananias and Sapphria:

But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession,
And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles’ feet.
But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?
...
And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things.
...
And it was about the space of three hours after, when his wife, not knowing what was done, came in.
And Peter answered unto her, Tell me whether ye sold the land for so much? And she said, Yea, for so much.
Then Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? behold, the feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door, and shall carry thee out.
Then fell she down straightway at his feet, and yielded up the ghost: and the young men came in, and found her dead, and, carrying her forth, buried her by her husband.
Acts 5:1-10

Dying because of lying is not an "immediate natural consequence" (or else almost everyone would be dead); it is a punishment of God.

The Bible is clear that God punishes disobedience.


What hard evidence is there that Charles Wesley was Arminian? It is well-known that John Wesley was an adherent and defender of Arminian soteriology. I have noticed that it is often assumed, and occasionally explicitly asserted, that his brother Charles agreed with him on this point; and yet, I have never seen any actual document or writing or quotation justifying this assertion.

Indeed, some verses from some Wesley hymns would appear to indicate a more "monergistic" view of the work of God in saving sinners than the Arminian view; a famous example is the penultimate verse of And can it be:

    Long my imprisoned spirit lay

    Fast bound in sin and nature's night;

    Thine eye diffused a quick'ning ray,

    I woke, the dungeon flamed with light;

    My chains fell off, my heart was free;

    I rose, went forth and followed Thee.

The key point here is that the last three lines are the consequence not of a merely "will-freeing ray" by which it became possible for Wesley now to choose to follow Christ. Rather, the light, freedom and rising in this second half of the verse (remedying the previous lying, bondage and night mentioned in the reverse order in the first half of the verse) are all the consequence of the external intervention of Christ's quickening (i.e. making alive) ray; undoubtedly, this life refers to the spiritual life of being in Christ, not merely a new ability to choose God that wasn't there before.

But perhaps more striking still is the second verse of the less well-known hymn Spirit of Faith, Come Down:

    No one can truly say

    that Jesus is the Lord,

    unless Thou [the Spirit] take the veil away

    and breathe the living Word.

    Then, only then, we feel

    our interest in his blood,

    and cry with joy unspeakable,

    "Thou art my Lord, my God!"

The key is the phrase Then [and] only then, ... Charles Wesley clearly portrays only two possible scenarios:

In the first scenario, the individual's experience has not yet involved having the Spirit removing the veil and breathing the living Word, and this inherently means that the individual is left unable to say with genuine meaning that Jesus is the Lord, feeling no real interest in His blood.
In the second scenario, the Spirit's work of removing the veil and breathing the living Word is applied to the individual, and the consequence of this will be the opposite extreme, namely that the individual responds to the reality of the blood of Christ by crying out with unspeakable joy that Christ is his/her Lord and God.

So in view of these, my question is:

    What actual evidence is there that Charles Wesley was Arminian?

Please note: I am not just asking for evidence that Wesley wasn't a full-fledged 5-point Calvinist; indeed, the previous verse of the same hymn says that it belongs to the Spirit to give a person eyes to see that He Who died for every sinner died for that person.

Yes, there are claims that both John and Charles Wesley were Arminians, but more often than not it is the theology of John that is under discussion.  “And can it be” is a wonderful example of how Charles Wesley used hymns to present his theological views.  The article in the first link below gives an interesting insight into the background and biblical basis behind the words.
Another article that sheds light on the theology of Charles Wesley is in the second link below: “Ye Need Not One Be Left Behind/For God Hath Bidden All Mankind”: Charles Wesley’s Response to the Doctrine of Limited Atonement by Charles Edward White, Spring Arbor University.  Part of that article says:

“When John Wesley collected his brother’s hymns for the use of the people called Methodists, he opened the book with his brother’s birthday anthem, O For a Thousand Tongues to Sing. This song serves as an overture for the hymnal, introducing many of the characteristic themes of Methodist belief. Beginning with overwhelming gratitude and praise for Father and Son, it quickly moves to the proper human response of spreading God’s honor throughout the world. The intense personal experience of forgiveness, liberty, and cleansing comes next and then the declaration that all is of grace by faith fills out the first six verses. With verse six, however, Charles subtly moves from proclamation to argumentation. It is not by accident that against his Roman Catholic opponents he sings, “Look and be saved by grace alone/Be justified by faith.”
“With the introduction of the word “every” Charles arguably fires the first shot in a battle against Calvinism that will rage for the rest of his life.  Along with the second hymn in the Collection and at least forty-three additional hymns in this volume, Charles wrote a thirty-six stanza poem, and published two volumes entitled “Hymns on God’s Everlasting Love” with forty-six more songs to combat what he calls “the poison of Calvin.”
“As we have seen, one of the topics which most exercised him was the concept that the atonement of Christ might benefit only a small portion of humanity. This idea he battled through arguments made from scripture, reason, and experience. Because his arguments are made in song, none of them can be fully developed or defended from all caviling. At least one, it must be admitted, depends upon a misunderstanding of the scriptural text. But when carefully examined, as we have done for two of the most-widely-known hymns on the topic, it becomes clear that the force of Wesley’s argument for the universal scope of the atonement is like the force of a landslide. While travelers may be able to dodge any individual rock, the sheer volume and weight of the whole phenomenon will overwhelm them.”

Part of an article (third link below) says this about Charles Wesley’s hymn “The Horrible Decree”:

“Charles Wesley was a prolific hymnist, with approximately 9000 hymns and sacred poems to his name. Among my favorites are “And Can It Be?” and “O, for a Thousand Tongues to Sing!” Welsey–along with his brother John–were also a theological polemicist, however, who wrote his polemics into his songs. One of his most blunt anti-Calvinist hymns is “The Horrible Decree,” which refers to the Calvinist doctrine of limited atonement.”

John Starke, pastor of preaching at Apostles Church in New York City and co-editor of ‘One God in Three Persons’ (Crossway, 2015), had this comment to make (fourth link below):

“For these reasons, it took me some time to come around to see the Wesleyan-Arminian theological perspective as something worth claiming. But I eventually did so. The sermons of John Wesley and the hymns of Charles Wesley were major factors for me. These are simply excellent, and gradually they drew me to the conviction that these Wesley brothers must have had a grasp of something important if they could keep producing things like that. The Wesleys teach a form of evangelical Protestantism that goes straight to the heart and changes lives. That's what drew me in to the Wesleyan way of thinking.”

A final thought from Jeff Robinson (PhD, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary) who is a senior editor for The Gospel Coalition (fifth link below):

“The fact so many Calvinists love to sing the gospel-rich hymns of Charles Wesley, which John loved and printed and commended and sang, shows what Wesley meant when he said he was within a “hair’s breadth” of Calvinism.”

[1] https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justin-taylor/charles-wesleys-and-can-it-be-background-and-scriptural-allusions/
[2] http://evangelicalarminians.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/White.-Charles-Wesleys-Response-to-the-Doctrine-of-Limited-Atonement.pdf
[3] https://georgepwood.com/2009/07/10/the-horrible-decree-by-charles-wesley/
[4] https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/youre-a-calvinist-right/
[5] https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/meet-a-reformed-arminian/


What is an overview of interpretations of "all Israel will be saved" in Romans 11:26? (Catholic/Protestant overview) The phrase "all Israel" in Romans 11:25–26 has been a source a significant disagreement in church history, particularly since the Reformation:

  25 Lest you be wise in your own sight, I do not want you to be unaware of this mystery, brothers: a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. 26 And in this way all Israel will be saved, as it is written, “The Deliverer will come from Zion, he will banish ungodliness from Jacob” [ESV]

What is an overview of Catholic and Protestant teaching on the meaning of the phrase "all Israel will be saved" in Romans 11:26?

There are three principal interpretations of this passage among Protestants and Catholics.  "All Israel" might refer to:

A future large-scale conversion of Jewish people to Christianity
All the Jewish people elected by God
All the people of God, both Gentiles and Jews

The first of these views is easily the most popular, and is widely held by premillennialists (both dispensational and classic) as well as some postmillennialists and amillenialists.  The second and third views are primarily held by amillennialists.

Large-scale conversion of Jewish people

The most commonly held position on this text is that Romans 11:26 is a prophecy of a future large-scale conversion of Jewish people, which is typically associated with the Second Coming of Christ.

This view was popular among the church fathers, as the Catholic Encyclopedia summarizes:

  According to the interpretation of the Fathers, the conversion of the Jews towards the end of the world is foretold by St. Paul in the Epistle to the Romans.1

Pope Gregory I2 and Thomas Aquinas3 take this view, and George Leo Haydock4 and the Catechism of the Catholic Church5 appear to do as well, though their language may admit alternate readings.

Among Protestants, this view is commonly associated with dispensationalism.  The Moody Bible Commentary says:

  All Israel should probably be understood to refer to the vast majority of the ethnic people of Israel.

Like others, the commentary specifically understands Paul to not be saying "that in the future every Jew will be saved," nor that he means all Jews in history, but rather the "Jewish people at a given point in time."  This interpretation is based on the other uses of "all Israel" in the Septuagint, where the phrase does not necessarily mean every single Jewish person.6

Besides dispensationalists, however, many other protestants also accept this interpretation, including classic premillennialists like John Piper7 and Wayne Grudem,8 postmillennialists like Charles Hodge9 and Greg Bahnsen,10 and amillennialists like John Murray.11

In defense of this position, proponents argue that the surrounding context necessitates interpreting "Israel" as the Jewish people.  As C. E. B. Cranfield writes,

  It is not feasible to understand Ἰσραήλ in v. 26 in a different sense from that which it has in v. 25, especially in view of the sustained contrast between Israel and the Gentiles throughout vv. 11-32. That πᾶς Ἰσραήλ here does not include Gentiles is virtually certain.12

Another argument is that only this view can properly be called a "mystery."  Bahnsen says that proponents of other interpretations "overlook how irrelevant, obvious, unmysterious and anticlimatic Paul's declaration would be made."10

All the Jewish elect

The second view holds that "all Israel" refers to the elect of Israel only—that a future mass conversion of Jewish people, though not excluded, is not taught by the text.  It is espoused primarily by some in the Reformed tradition, such as Herman Bavinck, Louis Berkhof,13 William Hendriksen, and Anthony Hoekema.14

Proponents of this view argue that the context does not warrant interpreting this passage as prophecy.  O. Palmer Robertson emphasizes that 11:1 and 11:5 "orient this first paragraph of Romans 11 to the question of God's dealing with Israel in the present hour."  This current time emphasis is maintained, Robertson says, in Paul's reference to his present ministry (13–14) and the repeated use of "now" in verses 30–32.15  Similarly, Hoekema argues that these later verses could easily be interpreted as pertaining to Christ's first coming, not only to his second coming.

Hoekema, relying on Hendriksen, also argues that using the phrase "all Israel" to describe an end-times conversion:

  does not do justice to the word all [...]. Does "all Israel" mean just the last generation of Israelites?  This last generation will be just a fragment of the total number of Jews who have lived on this earth.  How can such a fragment properly be called "all Israel"?

To Hoekema, the mystery referred to is the "interdependence of the salvation of Gentiles and Jews."  This interdependence, and the partial hardening of Israel, Hoekema argues, is something that has been happening in the past and will continue to happen, until the Second Coming of Christ.

All the people of God

The third view holds that "all Israel" refers to spiritual Israel, that is, all the people of God throughout history, both Jews and Gentiles.  Like the previous view, it does not necessarily reject the possibility of a future mass conversion of Jews, but does not see this passage as necessarily prophetic in nature.

This view has some early support from at least one church father, Theodoret of Cyrus:

  All Israel means all those who believe, whether they are Jews, who have a natural relationship to Israel, or Gentiles, who are related to Israel by faith.16

Some have also suggested that Augustine shared this view, based on a passage where he uses language from Romans 11 and calls the elect from both Jews and Gentiles "a truer Israel,"17 but elsewhere he emphasizes a future conversion of Jews.18 John Calvin, though apparently also seeing a future conversion of Jews, nonetheless argues that Paul's meaning with "all Israel" is "the whole Israel of God," including both Jews and Gentiles, just as it is in Galatians 6:16.19

Modern defenders of this view include N. T. Wright, who sees Paul switching the meaning of "Israel" midstream as a rhetorical device:

  [Paul] has systematically transferred the privileges and attributes of "Israel" to the Messiah and his people. It is therefore greatly preferable to take "all Israel" in v.26 as a typically Pauline polemical redefinition.20

Another proponent, Lee Irons, challenges the prevailing view's argument that "Israel" in verse 26 should be interpreted the same way as "Israel" elsewhere in the chapter (as the Jewish people) by referencing Romans 9:6, "they are not all Israel that are of Israel," as an example of differing meanings in the same sentence.  He also contends that an overarching theme in Romans is a challenge to the traditional "Jewish-only" vision of Israel (citing 2:26, 2:12, and 9:24), and sees the "mystery" as being the same as that of Ephesians 3:6:

  This mystery is that the Gentiles are fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel. (ESV)

References:

Catholic Encyclopedia, "General Judgment."
Gregory, Morals on the Book of Job, I-30. "[The Holy Church,] having taken in the Gentiles to the full, at the end of the world she converts to herself the souls of the Jews likewise."
Aquinas, Commentary on Romans. "The blindness of the Jews will last up to the time when the full number of the Gentiles will come to the faith [...] when the full number of the Gentiles has come in, all Israel will be saved, not some, as now, but universally all." (also archived via WebCite)
Haydock, Commentary.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1.2.2.7, 674 seems to indicate this view as well, though its language may leave open the possibility of the third view: 'The "full inclusion" of the Jews in the Messiah's salvation, in the wake of "the full number of the Gentiles", will enable the People of God to achieve "the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ."'
Moody Bible Commentary on Romans 11:26.  Septuagint examples are Nm 16:34; 1 Sm 25:1; 1 Ch 11:10, 15:25, 19:17; 2 Ch 10:3.
Piper, "All Israel Will Be Saved", February 29, 2004 sermon. "[T]here will be a great and stupendous national conversion of Israel some day." "I don't know the details, but it seems to me that Paul does mean that in connection with the second coming of Christ there will be a great turning of Israel to Christ." (also archived via WebCite)
Grudem, Systematic Theology, 1099. "[Paul] says that sometime in the future a large number [of Jews] would be saved."
Hodge, Commentary on Romans, 371–74: "Israel here, from the context, must mean the Jewish people."
Bahnsen, "Gospel Prosperity and the Future of Israel," from Calvinism Today – 4, Vol. III, No. 2 (April 1993). 'By this declaration Paul must have meant by “Israel” what he has meant by the term throughout the chapter: namely, ethnic Jews (his brothers “according to the flesh”).' (also archived via WebCite)
Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, quoted in Bahnsen, "Gospel Prosperity and the Future of Israel." "[I]t is the salvation of the mass of Israel that the apostle affirms."
Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, quoted in Irons, "Paul's Theology of Israel's Future," 8.
Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 6.3.1.B. "'All Israel' is to be understood as a designation, not of the whole nation, but of the whole number of the elect out of the ancient covenant people."
Hoekema, The Bible and the Future, 139–47.
Robertson, “Is There a Distinctive Future for Ethnic Israel in Romans 11?,” chapter 16 in Perspectives on Evangelical Theology, quoted in Irons, "Paul's Theology of Israel's Future", 5–7.
Theodret, "Interpretation of the Letter to the Romans," quoted in Ancient Christian Commentary, 299.
Augustine, quoted in Ancient Christian Commentary, 298.
Augustine, City of God 20.29. Hodge cites Augustine in support of this view (Commentary, 374) and so does Meyer (Critical and Exegetical Handbook, II, 234).
Calvin, Commentary on Romans. "When the Gentiles shall come in, the Jews also shall return from their defection to the obedience of faith; and thus shall be completed the salvation of the whole Israel of God, which must be gathered from both."
Wright, The Climax of the Covenant, 250, quoted in Irons, "Paul's Theology of Israel's Future," 20–21.  See "Romans and the Theology of Paul", section VI.
Irons, "Paul's Theology of Israel's Future," 8, 15–21.


What are the "correct" steps for a layman to be a Christian? Assume that I am a layman without knowledge other than science-related ones. How should I do to be a Christian in a correct way?

In more strict words, what are the "correct" steps or algorithm to be a Christian? In more honest words, is assuming God(s) exist(s) the first step? You can also think of how do you persuade me to fear God, etc, etc.

I hope this question will be reopen to let others help me go to the heaven!

Yes, belief in God's existence is the first step. As Hebrews 11:6 says,

  And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him

Beyond that, the good news of the Gospel is that Jesus already has taken the first steps toward you becoming a Christian.

  God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in him. 17 In this way, love is made complete among us so that we will have confidence on the day of judgment, because in this world we are like him ... We love because he first loved us. 1 John 4:16-20

While the exact process of "conversion" is a matter of some debate, the sign that it has occurred is not - you are to grow in Christ, bearing fruit in keeping with repentance. As Paul says,

  But the Holy Spirit produces this kind of fruit in our lives: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. There is no law against these things! Those who belong to Christ Jesus have nailed the passions and desires of their sinful nature to his cross and crucified them there Galatians 5:24

Just remember, we obey out of love, not out of a need for love. As Jesus said,

  If you love me, you will obey what I command John 14:15

This is the way of the Gospel- that God loves us, and we in turn respond in obedience out of love,

  For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast. Ephesians 2:8-9

Or, if you prefer it all one text, consider Titus 3:3-8

  At one time we too were foolish, disobedient, deceived and enslaved by all kinds of passions and pleasures. We lived in malice and envy, being hated and hating one another.  But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life. This is a trustworthy saying. And I want you to stress these things, so that those who have trusted in God may be careful to devote themselves to doing what is good. These things are excellent and profitable for everyone.


In premillennial theology, is the last judgement before the millennium? According to the Millenium theory, such period is followed by the end of times.
My question is:
Before this end, is there supposed to be Last Judgement? I have read that there only exists a time of happiness but no mention was given regarding if there would be a distinction between those “good”and “bad” humans.

Millennialism (from millennium, Latin for "a thousand years"), or chiliasm (from the Greek equivalent), is a belief advanced by some religious denominations that a Golden Age or Paradise will occur on Earth prior to the final judgment and future eternal state of the "World to Come".  Premillennialism sees Christ's second advent as preceding the millennium, thereby separating the second coming from the final judgment. In this view, "Christ's reign" will be physically on the earth.  Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennialism

Premillennialism is the view that Christ’s second coming will occur prior to His millennial kingdom, and that the millennial kingdom is a literal 1000-year reign of Christ on earth.  During this time Christ will judge the nations on earth but the last judgment will not happen till the end of the millennium.  Matthew 25:31-46 describes the judgment of the nations after the tribulation period and during the millennium:

  When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne.  Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.

The sequence of events that take place at the end of the millennium are described in Revelation20:7-15.  First is the defeat of Satan:

  And when the thousand years are ended, Satan will be released from his prison and will come out to deceive the nations that are at the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them for battle; their number is like the sand of the sea.  And they marched up over the broad plain of the earth and surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city, but fire came down from heaven and consumed them, and the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulphur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.

Then comes the final judgment before the Great White Throne:

  Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. From his presence earth and sky fled away, and no place was found for them.  And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Then another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, according to what they had done.  And the sea gave up the dead who were in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them, and they were judged, each one of them, according to what they had done.  Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire.  And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

This final judgment of unbelievers occurs at the end of the Millennium, before the creation of the new heaven and earth.  At this judgment, unbelievers from all the ages are judged for their sins and consigned to the lake of fire.


Why did the disciples cast lots when the Holy Spirit was promised In the book of Acts Chapter 1:v 4-5 regarding an earlier speech of Jesus, it is written

  On one occasion,while he was eating with them he gave them this command:Do not leave Jerusalem,but wait for the gift my father promised,which you have heard me speak about.
  5:For John baptised with water but in a few days you will be baptised with the Holy spirit.

When the disciples were choosing one of their own to replace Judas,it is written Acts 1:v23-26

  So they proposed two men:Joseph called Barsabass (also known as Justus) and Matthias.
  24:Then they prayed,"Lord,you know everyone's heart.Show us which of these two men you have chosen 25: to take over this apostolic ministry,which Judas left to go where he belongs." 26:Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias;so he was added to the eleven apostles.

If they were to baptised by the Holy Spirit in a few days time,then why did they use a form of divination by casting lots to discover who to choose?

Good question.
First, casting lots is not the same thing as divination.  Divination is one of the forbidden practices mentioned in the Old Testament, and it involved the attempt to foretell future events or discover hidden knowledge by occult or supernatural means.  Diviners were just one class of people forbidden to practice their "arts" in Israel's midst.  Others included wizards, questioners of the dead, witches, sorcerers, people who purge children with fire, augurers, omen readers, and enchanters (though this is not an exhaustive list).
Clearly, the early 11 apostles were not seeking God's guidance by occult, magical, or supernatural-apart-from-God means.  Notice they

"prayed, 'Lord, you know the hearts of all. Show us which one of these two you have chosen to assume the task of this service and apostleship from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place'" (vv.24,25).

The apostles knew enough to seek God's face first.  This is significant, I feel.  They also considered carefully the qualifications of the two "applicants" (see vv.21-23), much as the early church in Jerusalem did when they appointed deacons (Acts 6:1-7).  Finally, they did not "put it to a vote," with 51 percent of the vote carrying the day.  No, they prayed and then they put out a "fleece," so to speak (see Gideon's experience in Judges 6:39,40).  In short, their hearts were in the right place.
More in answer to your question:  Yes, the apostles were promised the baptism of the Holy Spirit.  Moreover, Jesus gave them a "temporary" endowment of the Holy Spirit to "tide them over," so to speak, prior to Pentecost (see John 20:22,23).
I have two questions:  1) Did the disciples truly know and appreciate fully what Jesus did in John 20 when He breathed on them and told them to receive the Holy Spirit?; and 2) Did they appreciate what being baptized with the Holy Spirit signified (see John 15:5-15 and Acts 1:8)?  To both questions I have to answer no--at least not fully.
As with so many of the things Jesus told them (sometimes over and over again), Jesus' words went right over their heads.  It was not until after His resurrection that they "remembered" His words and were able to make sense of them (see Lk 24:8; Acts 11:16).
The apostles did at the time the best they knew how.  They did not know (which we do today with 20/20 hindsight) that Jesus' "temporary" endowment was probably sufficient for making this important decision, and that they therefore did not need to resort to an Old Testament method such as the Urim and the Thummim to confirm God's will in the matter (see Ex 28:30; Lev 8:8; Ezra 2:63; and Neh 7:65).
Perhaps some even better questions (and I'm surprised you did not ask them) would be:

Why did the apostles feel it was incumbent on them to appoint a twelfth apostle?

Did Jesus reveal His will to them in this matter prior to His death and resurrection, and  His words simply did not find their way into the canon of Scripture?

Furthermore, were the eleven being presumptuous in concluding that a twelfth apostle was indeed God's will for them at that time?

Had God really wanted Paul, who had yet to appear on the scene, to be the twelfth apostle (though I do not personally feel this was the case), and by electing the twelfth apostle themselves they "cheated" Paul of the honor?

Before I close, I'll share a personal anecdote you might find enlightening and constructive.  I had a professor in Bible College who told us of a desire he once had to join with the Wycliffe Bible translators in their translation work among people-groups having no Bible in their heart language.  The day came when his application papers were all ready to be signed and then mailed to the mission's headquarters.
Of course he had prayed about the decision, seeking God's face and will, and he by no means took the decision lightly.  When he reached the dotted line at the bottom of the application form and was just about to sign his name, something unusual happened: he forgot his name!  Yes, he forgot his name completely, and no amount of wracking his brain would bring it to mind so that he could sign the application.  He took his mental block as a "sign" God did not want him to become a Wycliffe Bible translator.
As with Gideon's fleece, the Urim and the Thummim, the occasional casting of lots, and perhaps any other non-biblical way of making an important decision, my professor cautioned us that this type of guidance should be the exception to the rule and not the rule itself.
In conclusion, I have found that prayer and fasting (individually and corporately); the advice, opinions, and confirmation of godly people; and last but not least the witness of the Spirit within us (especially the gift of His peace when making an important decision), are more than sufficient to determine God's will regarding the majority of decisions for which God's Word does not provide clear answers.
When you've exhausted those three avenues of guidance, however, and you still do not have a clear answer, I say pursue other means of guidance (e.g., a "fleece"), and then expect an answer, and possibly a miracle!


What purpose do angels serve (Protestant)? If God is omnipotent and can help His children in any situation and in any place, why does He have angels do His will? As I recall, angels are spirit like God.

From a Protestant perspective, based on what the Bible says:

It is true that angels are spirit creatures, but unlike God, they are created.  Although angels were created as an order of creatures higher than humans, unlike humans, they are not created in the image of God (Genesis 1:26).  Unlike humans, angels do not have to study the past because they have experienced it. Therefore, they know how others have acted and reacted in situations and can predict with a greater degree of accuracy how we may act in similar circumstances.  However, their knowledge is limited.  For example it says in Matthew 24:36:

  But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only.

One purpose of angels is explained to us in Hebrews 1:14:

  Are they not all ministering spirits sent out to serve for the sake of those who are to inherit salvation?

The Bible describes many different functions that angels perform as they serve God.  They praise God (Psalm 148:1-2; Isaiah 6:3). They worship God (Hebrews 1:6; Revelation 5:8-13). They rejoice in what God does (Job 38:6-7). They serve God (Psalm 103:20; Revelation 22:9). They appear before God (Job 1:6; 2:1). They are instruments of God's judgments (Revelation 7:1; 8:2). They bring answers to prayer (Acts 12:5-10). They aid in winning people to Christ (Acts 8:26; 10:3). They observe Christian order, work, and suffering (1 Corinthians 4:9; 11:10; Ephesians 3:10; 1 Peter 1:12). They encourage in times of danger (Acts 27:23-24). They care for the righteous at the time of death (Luke 16:22).

Some angels are designated as "cherubim," which are living creatures who defend God's holiness from any defilement of sin (Genesis 3:24; Exodus 25:18, 20). "Seraphim" are another class of angels, mentioned only once in Scripture in Isaiah 6:2-7, and are described as having three pairs of wings. They apparently have the function of praising God, being God's messengers to earth, and are especially concerned with the holiness of God.

Yes, angels serve God by doing His will, and it is God’s will that his holy angels serve believers.  It is also God’s Will that his holy angels will return, along with Christ Jesus, to judge the world prior to His Millennial Reign.


When Jesus gave Peter his name (rock) what is the significance that he then said upon a ‘different’ kind of rock he would build his church? When Peter made his famous confession, Jesus responded by saying:

  And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. (NIV Mathew 16:18)

Looking up the original Greek I see that Jesus is referring to two types of rocks and one is related to the other, but they are not the same.

Peter = Πέτρος, Pétros (a masculine noun) – properly, a stone (pebble), such as a small rock found along a pathway.

Rock = pétra (a feminine noun) – "a mass of connected rock”

The question is, ‘What is the point of bringing in two types of rocks in response to Peter’s confession?’

Ok, so the reality is that there is the appearance of a Discrepancy of sorts in the bible, Peter being called "Pétros", and The church being built on "pétra."

As a Catholic heres how we interpret this scripture.

  the Aramaic word kēpā'  meaning rock and transliterated into Greek as Kēphas is the name by which peter is called in the Pauline letters (1 Cor 1:12; 3:22; 9:5; 15:4; Gal 1:18; 2:9, 11, 14) except in Gal 2:7-8 ('Peter'). It is translated as Petros ("Peter") in Jn 1:42. The presumed original Aramaic of jesus' statement would have been in English, "You are the Rock (kēpā') and upon this rock (kēpā') I will build my church." The Greek text probably means the same, for the difference in gender between the masculine noun petros, the disciples new name, and the feminine noun petra (rock)  may be dew to the unsuitability of using a feminine noun as the proper name of a male.Although the two words were generally used with the same meaning, "rock" ...

Thats found in the note on Mt 6:18 (NAB) in my bible

So another words Jesus used the same word to refer to peter and 'the rock,' which is why Catholics believe that Jesus "built the church" on Peter, and the other popes. Of course, Faith is a gift given by God, and if it wasn't for that faith, Peter, and the rest of the Papacy, and their flock could have never started the church that we know today. So it does make sense, in a way, to say that Peter is a 'little rock' and upon the 'Big rock', the faith Of the head of the body of Christ, (which is given to peter) Jesus builds his church.


How are the bread and wine explained by those who forbid images of Jesus? This question is directed at those who subscribe to the Westminster Standards, particularly Westminster Larger Catechism 109, which reads:

  The sins forbidden in the second commandment are [...] the making any representation of God, of all or of any of the three persons, either inwardly in our mind, or outwardly in any kind of image or likeness of any creature whatsoever (Westminster Larger Catechism, Answer 109)

This language is usually understood to forbid any artwork that attempts to represent Jesus, even simple drawings or sculptures.

But it seems as though the language of the catechism should be applied even more strictly.  Couldn't the bread and wine used in the celebration of the Lord's Supper be considered a "representation of God," particularly given the language of the Westminster Confession of Faith, 29.5?

  The outward elements in this sacrament [...] [represent] the body and blood of Christ. (WCF 29)

One counterargument is that the elements only represent Christ's human body, not his human-divine person.  But the same could be said of a stone in a manger scene or a line drawing in a children's book, and these are seen as forbidden by WLC 109.

How do those who strictly hold to WLC 109 deal with the apparent conflict or tension with use of bread and wine in the observance of communion?

For general argumentation in defense of the principles found in WLC 109, see Why do some Christians object to images of Jesus?

All that God has made, expresses himself. The creation of luminaries in the heavens expresses something about Light. And God is Light; and in him is no darkness at all.
The creation of vegetation, the creation of animal life, expresses something about life itself. And all life is of God and from God.

I would not understand and appreciate what 'the Lion of the tribe of Judah' means, were I not aware of what a lion is, in the natural creation. Nor could I appreciate the Lamb of God who taketh away the sin of the world, had I not walked through the field beside my home and walked among the flock.

But it would be very wrong for me to take a lamb home and worship it. Or to paint a picture of a lamb and put it above my fireplace and idolise the image as some kind of representation of Jesus. In that sense my attitude is as strict as WLC 109 and the article describes my own thinking. I abhor all representations and images and have none in my own home.

However, I think there is a very big difference between appreciating the way God has expressed himself in his own creation, and idolatrously worshipping the creature rather than the Creator.

Likewise the elements. When I partake of bread and wine, it is in response and obedience to the words of Jesus himself, This do in remembrance of me. But of Christ, himself, the apostle says :

  Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more. II Corinthians 5:16 KJV.

To see only the flesh of Jesus Christ, to remember only his historic and natural manhood, is failing of the remembrance and is close to (if not actually) idolatry.
We remember He, Himself : The Son of God, come incarnate, risen and ascended. And we remember the significance of what he did in his humanity and with his humanity.

But we are given elements as an aid. We are granted a focus and an ordinance. Because we are still in the body. Because that is how our (present) humanity works.

Just as we are granted the visionary images in the Book of the Revelation, it is something we need. Spiritual things are conveyed to us in the vehicle of prophetic imagery. We need something in our mind as a vehicle to which to attach the spiritual concepts. So that we can think of them with a human brain.

We are informed of a vision of the Son of man, his eyes as a flame of fire. It is very wrong to depict that in any way. It is misguided to imagine that Jesus actually looks like that, physically. It is one flame, not two, and the concept is spiritual. The natural is for the brain to process, but the spiritual concept is for faith. Likewise the elements of bread and wine. They are visibly there, but they are there as an aid to faith, not as an aid to idolatrous worship.

I do not think anyone should be burdened or conflicted in conscience by the existence of the elements upon the table at the memorial. Nor with the act of physically participating. But we do, all and always, need to be careful of idolatry of every kind. Covetousness, itself, is a form of idolatry.

As the Apostle John tells us, in the last words of his first epistle :

  Little children, keep yourselves from idols. Amen. I John 5:21 KJV.

It is a constant exercise. We are enjoined to so do. And we need to be careful.
I respect the sensitivity of someone troubled by the question. But I do hope that they should be troubled no longer.


Did the metaphor of ' cup of suffering' as used by Jesus derive from OT? At John 18:11 (NRSVCE) we see Jesus foretelling His passion and death on the cross :

".. Jesus said to Peter, “Put your sword back into its sheath. Am I not to drink the cup that the Father has given me?” "

Here, Jesus is using the image of cup to symbolise the suffering for a positive purpose , as against the cup of wine' referred to at Psalms 75: 8 and from which thewicked of the earth' are to drink.

I wish to know if Jesus was referring to any other writing of the Old Testament while speaking of the cup of suffering ? What do the teachings of Catholic Church tell about the possibility of such a  reference ?

The Old Testament is full of references to the "pouring out" of wrath, usually God's wrath. This alone is not enough to draw the connection between wrath and drinking a cup. After all, there are many things that can be poured out like fire (Nahum 1:5) and water (Hosea 5:10). The majority of these references do not directly make a simile but refer to "pouring out wrath" without any comparison to the kinds of things that could be poured out but, there are some cases where wine is hinted.

Isaiah 63:6 - I trampled down the peoples in my anger; I made them drunk in my wrath, and I poured out their lifeblood on the earth.”

Here we have a drunkenness, wrath, and blood. Wine and blood are commonly interchanged elsewhere in the Bible. Genesis 49:11 has a reference to wine as "the blood of the grapes." Violence is sometimes referred to as being "drunk with blood" (Numbers 23:24, Deuteronomy 32:42, Isaiah 49:36, Ezekiel 39.19).

Jesus knows that he is preparing to suffer his own bloodshed to take upon himself the wrath of God and he is tapping into the biblical associations between wine, blood, and wrath.


How does the Roman Catholic Church interpret predestination? I've been trying to determine how the Roman Catholic church interprets the idea of predestination.  From what I have found so far it appears to be a view more rooted in single predestination, though I have yet to find a credible source that adequately explains this.

I will specify my question to how does the Roman Catholic Church interpret the Calvinist view of single or double predestination?

Against the Calvinist doctrine on predestination, the Council of Trent's 6th session (Decree on Justification) says:

CANON IV.—If any one saith, that man's free-will moved and excited by God, by assenting to God exciting and calling, nowise co-coperates towards disposing and preparing itself for obtaining the grace of Justification; that it can not refuse its consent, if it would, but that, as something inanimate, it does nothing whatever and is merely passive: let him be anathema.
CANON V.—If any one saith, that, since Adam's sin, the free-will of man is lost and extinguished; or, that it is a thing with only a name, yea a name without a reality, a figment, in fine, introduced into the Church by Satan: let him be anathema.
CANON VI.—If any one saith, that it is not in man's power to make his ways evil, but that the works that are evil God worketh as well as those that are good, not permissively only, but properly, and of himself, in such wise that the treason of Judas is no less his own proper work than the vocation of Paul: let him be anathema.
CANON XVII.—If any one saith, that the grace of Justification is only attained to by those who are predestined unto life; but that all others who are called, are called indeed, but receive not grace, as being, by the divine power, predestined unto evil: let him be anathema.
CANON XVIII.—If any one saith, that the commandments of God are, even for one that is justified and constituted in grace, impossible to keep: let him be anathema.

See also Fr. Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P.'s Reality ch. 11 (Providence And Predestination) and Predestination (esp. pp. 117f. on Protestantism, which mentions Calvin's theory).


Did St. Augustine think sexual pleasure = concupiscence? Did St. Augustine think sexual pleasure and concupiscence are identical? If not, why do some people seem to think this? Concupiscence is simply a disorder in which the body rebels against the rational soul; this is something completely different from pleasure.

No, St. Augustine doesn't say concupiscence is identical with venereal pleasure.

Although it is true "concupiscence is disorder in which the body rebels against the rational soul," one prominent manifestation of this disorder (which is not identical to the disorder) is seeking pleasure against the dictates of reason, which is the sin of lust.

Unlike concupiscence, which is an evil, coital pleasure in itself is morally neutral (Super Sent., lib. 4 d. 31 q. 2 a. 3 co. // suppl. q. 49 a. 6 co.):

  pleasure in a good action is good, and in an evil action, evil; wherefore, as the marriage act is not evil in itself, neither will it be always a mortal sin to seek pleasure therein.[operationis bonae est delectatio bona, et malae mala. Unde cum actus matrimonialis non sit per se malus; nec quaerere delectationem erit peccatum mortale semper.]

However, referencing St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas seems not to distinguish concupiscence and venereal delectation (Summa Theologica II-II q. 153 a. 2 ad 2):

  That venereal concupiscence and pleasure (concupiscentia et delectatio venereorum) are not subject to the command and moderation of reason, is due to the punishment of the first sin, inasmuch as the reason, for rebelling against God, deserved that its body should rebel against it, as Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xiii, 13).


What does the LDS church teach about what men and women did or do in the pre-existence? I understand that the LDS Church believes that everyone existed in the spirit world prior to their conception in the womb in the physical world.

What specifically, though, does the pre-existence consist of?  As I recall, there is opportunity to live well and to live poorly in the pre-existence, and that has impact in this world.  What, then, does the LDS Church teach about this pre-existence, what it's like, and what tests a person must pass?

According to The Family: A Proclamation to the World,

  IN THE PREMORTAL REALM, spirit sons and daughters knew and worshipped
  God as their Eternal Father and accepted His plan by which His
  children could obtain a physical body and gain earthly experience to
  progress toward perfection and ultimately realize their divine destiny
  as heirs of eternal life. The divine plan of happiness enables family
  relationships to be perpetuated beyond the grave. Sacred ordinances
  and covenants available in holy temples make it possible for
  individuals to return to the presence of God and for families to be
  united eternally.

Specifically, the pre-existence (perhaps more correctly "pre-mortality" since the doctrine is we did, in fact, exist -- though I've seen the term used all over the place and I'm not sure why) consisted of all of God's children living in His presence. We were all taught the plan of salvation, or God's plan for us to come to earth, gain a body, and progress and be like Him.

We learned about agency (the power to choose), which we had before we came here. This included the choice to even come to earth and gain a body, which was God's plan. Those who rejected it followed Lucifer and were damned (stopped in their progression).

Both the Bible and certain LDS scriptures refer to those who chose to follow God in the pre-mortal life (and, to use your words, "passed the test") as those who "kept their first estate" (e.g. Jude 1:6; see also Isaiah 14).

In mortality here on Earth, we do not remember our pre-mortal life. The Bible refers to this as seeing "through a glass, darkly" -- or, in more common lingo, being separated by the veil. There will be death and resurrection, through which we will remember all things again.

To answer a comment, there is no doctrine of reincarnation in LDS theology. Birth to earth (that rhymes) was a one-time event, and after death we will be resurrected but not reincarnated. The whole process of mortality is a one-time process for each of us and mortality is not repeated.

The LDS Topical Guide to the Scriptures has a very helpful index for scriptures related to pre-mortal existence, many of which come right out of the Bible.

[ Further reading ]


Would believing the coming again of the Son of Man has already happened be considered heretical by the Catholic Church? Some Christians hold that the Second Coming of Jesus is yet to come, and some hold it has already happened (certain kinds of preterism).
Would holding that Jesus in the Olivet discourse (Matthew 24:30, "They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory.") was prophesying an event that has already happened (say, associated with the siege of Jerusalem and destruction of the Second Temple) be considered heretical by the Catholic Church?

Would believing the coming again of the Son of Man has already happened be considered heretical by the Catholic Church?
The short answer is yes, as it definitely goes against the traditional point of view of the Church and almost all Catholics would not accept it. It also goes against the Apostles Creed: "He will come again to judge the living and the dead."
The constant tradition of the Church believes the Second Coming of Christ has yet to happen.
Prophecy is generally not accepted as being complete until the events of the things prophesied have fulfilled their course. The Church has never accepted that the prophecies concerning the Second Coming of Christ have been fulfilled. In fact, I have never known any Catholics who have expressed this perspective. The Church simply believes it is yet to come. To believe otherwise is not heresy, but is not official stance of the Church.
There is a lot of speculation on this subject matter, even within the Catholic Church, but the vast, vast majority of the faithful hold that the Second Coming is yet to come.

It is the traditional view of Roman Catholics and Orthodox Christians, preserved from the early Church, that the Second Coming will be a sudden and unmistakable incident, like "a flash of lightning".[Mt 24:27] They hold the general view that Jesus will not spend any time on the earth in ministry or preaching, but come to judge mankind. They also agree that the ministry of the Antichrist will take place right before the Second Coming. - Second Coming