Is one who is "least in the kingdom of heaven" still in heaven? Recently I read something that quoted this verse from the bible:

  Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches
  others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven,
  but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great
  in the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 5:19, NIV)

It got me wondering, when Jesus says things like "will be called least in the kingdom of heaven", does this give evidence that there are different positions in heaven, or was Jesus implying the least position in heaven is not going to heaven at all?

There are several teachings that indicate that there will be rewards in Heaven. Most commonly this is in reference to the Bema Seat. The statement of "least" and "greatest" in heaven is a art of that belief. Being "great" would imply that you've earned it as a reward for meekness, faithfulness, humility, etc.

More here:

http://www.precepts.com/StudyMaterials/Outlines/EndTimes/Our_Rewards_in_Heaven.html
http://www.bible-knowledge.com/rewards-in-heaven/
http://www.inplainsite.org/html/rewards_in_heaven.html

Excerpt from the last:

  This article is essentially a continuation of The Bema or Judgment
  Seat of Christ... Unfortunately many Christians, draw the conclusion
  that since all our sins have been forgiven, our works cannot possibly
  be considered at the judgment Seat of Christ.. Not true according to I
  Corinthians 3:9-13.

  Ips-Bar

  Introduction Rewards [mis-thos'] in the Bible means pay for service…
  literally or figuratively, good or bad…  exemplified by Revelation
  22:12...
   - "Behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to give to every one according to his work" (Revelation 22:12).

  The following two verses are one example each of good and bad.

  And shall receive the reward of unrighteousness, as they that count it pleasure to riot in the day time. Spots they are and blemishes,
  sporting themselves with their own deceivings while they feast with
  you;  Having eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from sin;
  beguiling unstable souls: an heart they have exercised with covetous
  practices; cursed children:  Which have forsaken the right way, and
  are gone astray, following the way of Balaam the son of Bosor, who
  loved the wages of unrighteousness; [2Peter 2:13-15]
  Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: but each shall receive his own reward according to his own labor. [1Corinthians 3:8].

  The wicked are also ‘rewarded’, but this article concerns itself
  solely with the ‘good’ rewards’.

  Rewards Vs. Salvation It will be well to make it clear from the outset
  that Salvation and Rewards are two totally different things. Salvation
  is a free gift, but rewards are earned by our works after we are
  saved. The Bible clearly teaches good works will not get us into
  heaven. Salvation [forgiveness of sin and entrance to heaven]  is
  based on Jesus’ work on the cross and God shows no partiality
  regarding salvation (Acts 10:34).  [See Salvation].

  However, the Bible also makes it clear that the saved will also
  receive rewards in Heaven over and above forgiveness and eternal life,
  and that the level of reward will be based on works done here on
  earth. Apparently there are those that will make it to heaven, but who
  have earned little or no additional rewards. Right after assuring us
  that salvation is not by works in Ephesians 2, Paul says this, "We are
  God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God
  prepared in advance for us to do".

  It is the consistent teaching of the New Testament that God promises
  to reward believers for their good works… mentioned explicitly in many
  verses!

  "The Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works" (Matthew
  16:27).
  "[God] will render to each one according to his deeds" (Romans 2:6).
  "He who plants and he who waters are one, and each one will receive his own reward according to his own labor" (1 Corinthians 3:8).
  Therefore, my beloved brethren, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding (excelling) in the work of the Lord, knowing that your toil
  is not in vain in the Lord. [1 Corinthians 15:58]
  Whatever you are doing, work at it with enthusiasm, as to the Lord and not for people, because you know that you will receive your
  inheritance from the Lord as the reward. Serve the Lord Christ.
  [Colossians 3:23-24]

  And implied in many more…

  yours is the kingdom of God. Blessed are ye that hunger now: for ye shall be filled. Blessed are ye that weep now: for ye shall laugh.
  Blessed are ye, when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate
  you from their company, and reproach you, and cast out your name as
  evil, for the Son of man's sake. Rejoice in that day, and leap for
  joy: for behold, your reward is great in heaven; for in the same
  manner did their fathers unto the prophets. But woe unto you that are
  rich! for ye have received your consolation. Woe unto you, ye that are
  full now! for ye shall hunger. Woe unto you, ye that laugh now! for ye
  shall mourn and weep. Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of
  you! for in the same manner did their fathers to the false prophets.
  (Luke 6:20-26).
  knowing that whatsoever good thing each one doeth, the same shall he receive again from the Lord, whether he be bond or free. (Ephesians
  6:8).
  whatsoever ye do, work heartily, as unto the Lord, and not unto men; knowing that from the Lord ye shall receive the recompense of the
  inheritance: ye serve the Lord Christ. (Col 3:23-25).
  "God is not unjust to forget your work and labor of love which you have shown toward His name, in that you have ministered to the saints,
  and do minister" (Hebrews 6:10).

  Some of the good works mentioned in Scripture which will be rewarded
  include

  perseverance under persecution (Luke 6:22-23), caring for the needy (Matthew 25:34-36), treating enemies kindly (Luke 6:35), prayer
  (Matthew 6:6), fasting (Matthew 6:18), and generous giving (Matthew
  19:21).


According to Catholicism, did Moses believe in the Trinity? According to Catholicism, did Moses, and especially the Jewish people during his time, know that God is triune?

St. Thomas Aquinas explains this in his question on "Whether it is necessary for salvation to believe explicitly in the Trinity?" (Summa Theologica II-II q. 2 a. 8):

  …before Christ, the mystery of Christ was believed explicitly by the learned, but implicitly and under a veil, so to speak, by the simple, so too was it with the mystery of the Trinity.

Moses was certainly among "the learned".

My Catholic scriptural scholar friend wrote me:

  Moses was indeed instructed in the mystical science and (literally) hieroglyphic [ἱερός = sacred, holy] sign-ification of the tetragrammatic but Trinitarian Name of the only true God, יהוה (Y-H-W-H).

  The inspired description of the divine essence as relationality was given him to know in the properly heard revelation recorded in Exodus 3:14: “I’m being/I’m/I shall be who I’m being/I’m/I shall be” → an a-temporal ACTIVE present: אֶהְיֶה.

  Thus, St. Moses did know, albeit in the mystical darkness of the cloud on Mount Sinai, that Y-H-W-H is He whose essence is to be itself (ipsum esse) as relation; He, that is, whose essence is to be relation to Himself—i.e. of knowing and loving Himself. Verse 14 tells us who this God is in terms of His essence, which is ‘to be’ itself as r-e-l-a-t-i-o-n → which the specific Hebraic relative pronoun is clearly intended to emphasize, אֲשֶׁר, as it connects (and thereby also differentiates) the mirroring/symmetrical clauses אֶהְיֶה (“I’m being/I’m/I shall be”) grammatically designating God’s indivisible esse:

  “I’m being/I’m/I shall be [אֶהְיֶה] who [אֲשֶׁר] I’m being/I’m/I shall be [אֶהְיֶה].”

  St. Abraham knew the triune God under a certain mystical mode of His blessed revelation (a true visitation and vision, see Gen 18:2), as he was visited by “three men” (אֲנָשִׁים), i.e. three subsisting personalities who are the One divine essence, whom he unmistakably addressed as: “My Lord…” (Gen 18:3).

  He was the recipient of other revelations of the triune God (as were Moses and other holy Patriarchs), having seen and rejoiced in the day of the Only-Begotten Son (John 8:56) → in other words (dixit St. Thomas in the section and § you referenced to [above]), in mysterio Christi.

Also (ibid.):

  In the Old Testament the Trinity of Persons is expressed in many ways; thus at the very outset of Genesis it is written in manifestation of the Trinity: "Let us* make man to Our* image and likeness" (Gn. 1:26).

*"Us" and "our" are first-person plural; ∴, there are multiple Divine Persons.


Why are the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary such a big deal that all Catholics must believe in them? As described in this answer to a question about infallible papal statements, there are two teachings that were clearly given ex cathedra: the Immaculate Conception (that Mary, mother of Jesus, was born sinless) and the Assumption of Mary (that Mary at the end of her life went body and soul into heaven). Moreover, all Catholics are required to believe in it and not believing it means you are separated from the church.

From my Protestant perspective, I'm struggling to understand why these two dogmas are such a big deal that all Catholics must believe in them.

I mean, I get that the Church has taken a stance on it and that they would like everyone to believe in it. But there are other statements of faith that the Church holds as true yet doubt or disbelief doesn't expel you from the Church. I'm not seeing why these matters are so important to warrant that. It seems to me that how Mary's life began and ended is between her and God and I'm not understanding how that is relevant to me and my salvation.

Why are the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary such a big deal that the popes, by speaking ex cathedra, require all Catholics to believe in them?

Catholics believe that Mary was chosen, not so that she could be the Mother of God, but so that she could choose whether or not to be the Mother of God—and that in order to make this choice in complete and perfect freedom, she was redeemed from original sin from the moment of her conception:

In order for Mary to be able to give the free assent of her faith to the announcement of her vocation, it was necessary that she be wholly borne by God's grace.
Through the centuries the Church has become ever more aware that Mary, "full of grace" through God, was redeemed from the moment of her conception. That is what the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception confesses ...
At the announcement that she would give birth to "the Son of the Most High" without knowing man, by the power of the Holy Spirit, Mary responded with the obedience of faith ..., Thus, giving her consent to God's word, Mary becomes the mother of Jesus.
Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraphs 490–491, 494; emphases added

The Church teaches that this belief, though not always formally articulated, dates back to the beginning of the Church. As the Word of God, it has come down to us in Sacred Tradition. To deny it would be to deny that Sacred Tradition is the Word of God, or even to deny that the Word of God is Truth.
To be clear, this was part of the depositum fidei, the treasury of the faith, even before it was labeled an ex cathedra truth. But it was something that was simply assumed to be obviously true: of course Catholics would, and would have to, believe it. Pope Pius IX declared it as dogma in 1854 in the bull Ineffabilis Deus (which, mysteriously, seems to be missing from the Vatican website).
In the bull, Pope Pius stated that among his reasons for declaring this belief as dogma were to show that the Catholic Church was the one true Church, regardless of the beliefs of other churches; and to put into a formal statement something which had been believed and declared by the Church since ancient times. He asked for comment from the bishops about whether he should make such a statement of dogma, and they concurred. Therefore Pope Pius wrote:

We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.
Hence, if anyone shall dare—which God forbid—to think otherwise ... let him know and understand that he is condemned by his own judgment ...

In other words, the pope simply said that because of the antiquity and universality of the belief, it was a matter of Sacred Tradition, revealed by God. Such a belief cannot be denied without denying that God's revealed Word is Truth.
Something similar happened with the declaration of the Assumption of Mary, proclaimed nearly a century later. Again the pope (Pius XII, in his apostolic constitution Munificentissimus Deus reviewed a long history of belief that Mary was assumed into heaven, and interpretations of Scripture supporting the fact. He revealed that, just as his predecessor, he had asked the bishops of the world whether he should declare this belief a dogma, and they had responded overwhelmingly "yes". He therefore stated:

We pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.
Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic faith.

All this is perhaps just a long way of saying the following:
Why are the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary such a big deal that the popes, by speaking ex cathedra, require all Catholics to believe in them? Because the Church believes, and has believed from as far back as we can find, that these things have been revealed to us by the Word of God; and we cannot deny the Word without falling away from God.

Addendum: Based on a comment, it appears that the question is attempting to understand why Mary's assumption, as opposed to (for example) Elijah's1, is picked out as being so important for the Church to emphasize. The reason is simply that Mary is so much more important to the Church than Elijah is. Elijah was, certainly, a holy man, among the closest to God of all major characters in the Old Testament. But he was not so pure and holy as Mary was. There was no particular reason for him to need to be sinless; there's not the compelling "appropriateness" for sinlessness that there is with Mary. Similarly, though he was also "caught up to heaven", it's not for the extreme intimacy of his relationship with God—a relationship that couldn't get much more intimate than that of Mother with Son. So it's much more important for the Church to emphasize the holiness of Mary than that of Elijah.
1The original poster chose Moses as an illustration; but Moses died and was buried, whereas Elijah was taken up to heaven.


If our body is the church, why should we go to a place called church? In the old testament days, God asked Moses to construct a place for Him to reside.

Exodus 25:8 (NKJV)
And let them make Me a sanctuary, that I may dwell among them

But in New testament, We read that our own body is the Temple of Holy Spirit.  We read it in a number of places when Paul writes to the Corinthians,

1 Corinthians 6:19 (NKJV)
Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own?
1 Corinthians 3:17 (NIV)
If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy that person; for God’s temple is sacred, and you together are that temple.
1 Corinthians 6:19 (NIV)
Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own;
2 Corinthians-6:16
For you are the temple of the living God

However in Hebrews we have Assembly should not be forsaken.

Hebrews 10:25 (NKJV)
..not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as is the manner of some, but exhorting one another, and so much the more as you see the Day approaching.

If our body is the Church, What is the place when we gather on the Sabbath day, as we call it too as Church? Is that just an assembly? Is that just enough to keep our body Holy and ignore the gathering? If God lives in the Church, our Body, Is the congregation is needed?

Our bodies are not the church.

The verse in 2 Corinthians that you quote says that our bodies are temples. In context this is saying that we (rather than a building) are the dwelling place of the Holy Spirit. In the OT his presence would rest in the temple and that was considered his dwelling among his chosen people. In the NT this took a new form -- the vail in the temple was torn asunder -- and his spirit actually lives within those who have been called according to his purpose.

It is only together in fellowship that we make up the church. Believers collectively are a body: the church.


To the YEC, did God make a single male/female pair of each kind of animal? Genesis 1:21-22

  So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing
  with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to
  their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw
  that it was good

  God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and
  fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth."

Genesis 1:24

  And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to
  their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground,
  and the wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so.

For example :
A. God create a bunch of elephants, cows, doves, eagles, penguins, dolphins, dogs, ants, snakes, etc etc ... here and there across the earth - male and female.

B. God create 2 elephants, 2 cows, 2 doves, 2 eagles, 2 penguins, 2 dolphins, 2 ants, 2 snakes, etc etc ... male and female for each type and they are all in one place ---> Something like when on the 6th day we go to a zoo or to an African Safari, many types of animal are there - but there are only two for each type, male and female.

C. Almost like B, but the two elephants on the most North of the earth, the two doves somewhere on other part of the earth, the two penguins on the most South of the earth, the two snakes exactly in the Eden Garden, etc etc. In other words, the size of the "African Safari" is as big as the earth size :).

So, according to the YEC - is it A or B or C ?

Thank you.

The Answer is A.  The question is very good, but a lot of people are not familiar with the phrase - YEC [It should be explained ] and it also should be noted that many who hold this view do not use or like this term - Young Earth Creationists, because something that is 6-10 thousand years is ancient - not young. It's better to use the term Biblical Creationists, or "those who believe in the literal creation account".
The creation account in Genesis 1:20-24 doesn't say explicitly, but when we look at other passages, [using solid principles of Bible Interpretation- scripture interprets scripture, and other clear passages inform or shed light on less clear ones] we can see that the answer is A.
It is a common view among those Biblical Creationists- who hold the literal creation position - that the original earth was one giant land mass and split as a result of plate tectonics in the Genesis flood.  We know this from at least 2 separate scriptures, and it's important to the topic.  I Chronicles 1:19 and Genesis 10:25 "In the days of Peleg, the earth was divided."
https://answersingenesis.org/geology/plate-tectonics/did-the-continents-split-apart-in-the-days-of-peleg/.
So in this scenario there were thousands of miles of continuous, connected land mass.  If God had only made 2 otters or 2 racc0ons, or 2 rabbits, or 2 squirrels, they could have been devoured in the first week by a vulture, fox or eagle and poof, 1/3 of the animals are extinct in a year.
But this leads us to the other evidence from scripture. *Remember that we should compare scripture to help shed light on questions like these and other issues.
Ask most of your Christian friends "How many of each kind of animal were on the ark"? and they will immediately say two. But this is a commonly held myth.
It's great for helping 4 year old kids remember the story, and making kids songs rhyme, but it's not true.
Scripture explicitly says that there were 2 of the unclean animals but 7 pairs of the birds and 7 pairs of clean animals. It's no coincidence that the sacrificial animals are also the same animals they could eat.
Genesis 7:1-3 "Then the LORD said to Noah, “Go into the ark, you and all your household, for I have seen that you are righteous before me in this generation. 2 Take with you seven pairs of all clean animals,a the male and his mate, and a pair of the animals that are not clean, the male and his mate, 3 and seven pairs of the birds of the heavens also, male and female, to keep their offspring alive on the face of all the earth.
As soon as Noah and his family left the ark, they made a sacrifice, so if there were 2, then the sheep and goats would immediately be extinct.
It's clear from other scripture that the pure spotless young lamb was to be a perfect picture of his son- the spotless lamb of God, so it wouldn't work for God to have people sacrifice unclean animals - and the other point is that scripture says that it is slothful to kill an animal and not eat it.
God's design of clean animals for sacrifice and for eating also provided a means for the Old Testament priests to eat.


What is the scriptural basis for clerical celibacy? In the Catholic Church, priests are required to stay celibate. (As far as I know, protestant priests that convert to Catholicism are allowed an exception -- they can become Catholic priests even if they already have family.)

I cannot understand how this fits with the Bible, as

Peter was married (Matthew 8:14), and he still was (according to Catholics) the first Pope.
According to Paul, overseers  and elders must be "the husband of one wife" (1 Timothy 3:2, Titus 1:5-6)
Paul even seems to consider the ability to raise children as a criterion of overseers (1 Timothy 3:4-5)

What, then, is the biblical (or other) basis for clerical celibacy? How are the passages I mention consistent with this?

One good biblical argument for celibacy (for those called):
Matthew 19:9-12

I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery."
[His] disciples said to him, "If that is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry."
He answered, "Not all can accept [this] word, but only those to whom that is granted.
Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it."

The teaching of the Catholic Church would take a bit to unpack, but as I understand it:

Priestly Celibacy is a teaching or instruction, not a doctrine or dogma.

Deacons may be married, but are not allowed to remarry after their wives die.

You're right that ministers of other Christian denominations can continue in their vocation as a priest, while married.

But that's not an argument for anything. For one thing, priests need to be chaste in order to perform their duties at Mass.  They need to be free to perform their duties completely selflessly without needing to care for their families.  The top down structure of the Church means that a parish community will be assigned a priest, not a parish community will raise up a priest, like they might in another tradition.
In short, for diocesan priests it wouldn't be fair to the wife to be subject to the Bishop with her husband.  It wouldn't be fair to the parishoners to come second to the wife and children.  For priests in various religious orders, they mostly take vows which include Chastity (which is not exactly the same as celibacy, but in this sense it is).  Those vows come out of monastic traditions reaching back to the 5th-6th Century.
More info from Catholic Encyclopedia


From a Catholic perspective, what do family relationships look like in heaven? According to Matthew 22:30, people in heaven do not marry. What do the family relationships look like there? Will our relations to parents, kids, wives and husbands disappear?

The Catholic position preferred and biblical arguments welcome.

What is the beatitude of heaven?

Catechism of the Catholic Church 1027 answers:

  This mystery of blessed communion with God and all who are in Christ
  is beyond all understanding and description. Scripture speaks of it in
  images: life, light, peace, wedding feast, wine of the kingdom, the
  Father's house, the heavenly Jerusalem, paradise: "no eye has seen,
  nor ear heard, nor the heart of man conceived, what God has prepared
  for those who love him."1

  1. 1 Cor
  2:9.

Thus it is the blessed ( = supremely happy) 1) communion with God and 2) communion with all who are in Christ.

Catholic theology expands on this by calling the former "Essential beatitude" and the latter "Accidental beatitude". And part of the accidental beatitude is:

  They delight greatly in the company of Christ, the angels, and the
  saints, and in the reunion with so many who were dear to them on
  earth2.

2. cf. Accidental beatitude in Heaven | New Advent

They way I see it, it will be coming home to one great big family reunion, wonderful and beyond all telling. cf. Matt 8:11:

  11 I tell you, many will come from east and west and sit at table with
  Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven[.]


What does "Altare privilegiatum" mean exactly today? Does anyone know what "Altare privilegiatum" means today?

I mean, in former times it meant that the altar was privileged and one can get an indulgence.
I also know, that for some of those altars, there had some renewals to be done by the Holy See.

But what's the meaning of that today?
A lot has changed even in church. Does this have any meaning at all today?

If so, what's the meaning?

Are the indulgences attached to privileged altars still valid?
The short answer is no.

A Privileged Altar (Altare Privilegiatum) is an altar in a Roman Catholic church where a plenary indulgence can be gained for a soul in purgatory whenever Mass is celebrated there.
Two examples are the Vallarpadam Church, Kerala and St. Thomas of Canterbury Church, Canterbury.
The term 'Privileged Altar' is used in the 1917 Code of Canon Law. The plenary indulgence is attached usually by the celebration of a Requiem Mass and benefits a soul in purgatory when Mass is offered for that intention at the Privileged Altar.
The grants of privileged altars were suppressed by Norm 20 of Pope Paul VI's Apostolic Constitution 'Indulgentiarum Doctrina'. - Privileged Altar

In Pope Paul VI's new rules for indulgences were published in his Indulgentiarum Doctrina he states the following:

Transitional Norms
These new norms regulating the acquisition of indulgences will become valid three months from the date of publication of this constitution in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis.
Indulgences attached to the use of religious objects which are not mentioned above cease three months after the date of publication of this constitution in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis.
The revisions mentioned in n. 14 and n. 15 must be submitted to the Sacred Apostolic Penitentiary within a year. Two years after the date of this constitution, indulgences which have not been confirmed will become null and void.
We will that these statutes and prescriptions of ours be established now and remain in force for the future notwithstanding, if it is necessary so to state, the constitutions and apostolic directives published by our predecessors or any other prescriptions even if they might be worthy of special mention or should otherwise require partial repeal.
Given at Rome at St. Peter's on January 1, the octave of the Nativity of Our Lord Jesus Christ, 1967, the fourth year of Our Pontificate.

I have personally been in churches where these once called privileged altars still exist and the local clergy had told me the the indulgences pertaining to the deceased had been suppressed. In other words, these once called privileged altars have lost their privileged status and are simply altars or main altars whichever the case may be for a particular church altar.
It is interesting to note that certain priests carried this privilege with themselves, regardless if they offered a requiem mass on privileged altars or not. The privilege was attached to their person!
The 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia has this to say about privileged altars as they existed prior to Vatican II:

An altar is said to be privileged when, in addition to the ordinary fruits of the Eucharistic Sacrifice, a plenary indulgence is also granted whenever Mass is celebrated thereon, the indulgence must be applied to the individual soul for whom Mass is offered. The privileged altar must be a fixed, or immovable, altar, but in a wider sense that is, it must be stationary or permanent, whether built on a solid foundation or attached to a wall or column, even though it be not consecrated, but have merely a consecrated stone (portable altar) inserted in its table. The privilege is annexed not to the altar-stone, but to the structure itself, by reason of the title which it bears, that is, of the mystery or saint to whom it is dedicated. Hence if the material of the altar be changed, if the altar be transferred to another place, if another altar be substituted for it in the same church, provided it retains the same title, and even if the altar is desecrated or profaned, the privilege is preserved. To gain the indulgence, the Mass must be a Mass of Requiem, whenever the rubrics permit it. If, on account of the superior rite of the feast of the day, or on account of the Exposition of the Blessed Sacrament, or for other reasons, a Requiem Mass cannot be celebrated, the indulgence may be gained by celebrating another Mass (S. C. Indulg., 11 April 1864). This privilege is of two kinds, local or real and personal. It is local or real when it is annexed to the altar as described above. Hence whoever the priest may be who celebrates Mass at such an altar, the indulgence is gained. It is personal when it is inherent in the priest, so that it does not depend on the altar, but on the priest who celebrates. Hence on whatever altar he may celebrate, whether it be a fixed or a portable one, and in whatever church he celebrates, the altar he uses is for the time being a privileged altar. On 2 November every altar is privileged. The bishops of the United States have the faculty (Facultates Extraordinariae C., fac. viii) of declaring privileged one altar in every church and public chapel or oratory, whether it be consecrated or not, of their dioceses, provided this privilege had not been previously granted to any other altar in such church under the same conditions.

Although these ecclesiastic privileges no longer exist, Pope St. Paul VI makes note of the formatting in his Apostolic Constitution Indulgentiarum Doctrina:

n.20—Holy Mother Church, extremely solicitous for the faithful departed, has decided that suffrages can be applied to them to the widest possible extent at any Sacrifice of the Mass whatsoever, abolishing all special privileges in this regard.


Why does Catholicism have priests but Protestantism does not? The Catholic Church (and apparently Lutheran, Anglican and Episcopalian churches) have clergy with the title of "priest", as did Old Testament Judaism.  Are Protestant "preachers", "reverends", "pastors", "ministers", etc. all essentially "priests", or is there some difference between these two systems of clergy titles?  Why didn't Protestants just keep on with the title "priest" for it's clergy?  Why does Catholicism not follow the same logic and avoid that title?

In the Old Testament, priests would appeal to God on behalf on sinful men through sacrifices.  Jesus is the Great High Priest who 1) offered Himself as a sacrifice once for all and 2) who ever lives to intercede for us.

The old priesthood order was of the line of Aaron, but in 70 A.D. in the destruction of Jerusalem, the ancestral records were destroyed, I believe.  Therefore, there is no current Aaronic Priesthood.  Jesus was of the greater Melchizedek Priesthood that preceded the Aaronic Priesthood.

Consequently, there is no need for a man to intercede on our behalf to God, since Jesus does that.  Indeed, the New Testament states that there is "one mediator between man and God--the Man Christ Jesus".

The New Testament also states that all believers are priests (a chosen priesthood) to worship God.

The role of priest is not mentioned in Ephesians 4:11-12

  It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, to prepare God's people for works of service.

The Protestant church has the office of pastor and teacher and evangelists.  Missionaries could be considered apostles, since that word means "one who is sent out".  Teaching pastors could be considered prophets--not necessarily in foretelling the future, in proclaim the message of God.

So, Protestants reject the notion that there is the need for any other mediator between us and God.  We confess our sins to God--not to any man.  (Only one place in the New Testament are we commanded to confess sins to another person, and it states there that is "to one another"--not to a priest.  So, confessing to a "priest" is valid if the "priest" confesses to you as well).


What is an overview of Christian viewpoints on why God sanctioned eating meat after the fall if veganism was already the pre-fall standard? Genesis tells us that Adam, Eve and all animals had originally plant-based diets, as God provided them with every plant and tree for food:

29 And God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food. 30 And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.” And it was so. 31 And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day. [Genesis 1:29-31, ESV]

However, later passages of the Bible reveal that, after the fall, God approved of animal-based diets:

And God blessed Noah and his sons and said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. 2 The fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth and upon every bird of the heavens, upon everything that creeps on the ground and all the fish of the sea. Into your hand they are delivered. 3 Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything. [Genesis 9:1-3, ESV]

9 The next day, as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the housetop about the sixth hour to pray. 10 And he became hungry and wanted something to eat, but while they were preparing it, he fell into a trance 11 and saw the heavens opened and something like a great sheet descending, being let down by its four corners upon the earth. 12 In it were all kinds of animals and reptiles and birds of the air. 13 And there came a voice to him: “Rise, Peter; kill and eat.” 14 But Peter said, “By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean.” 15 And the voice came to him again a second time, “What God has made clean, do not call common.” 16 This happened three times, and the thing was taken up at once to heaven. [Acts 10:9-16, ESV]

22 “But the father said to his servants, ‘Quick! Bring the best robe and put it on him. Put a ring on his finger and sandals on his feet. 23 Bring the fattened calf and kill it. Let’s have a feast and celebrate. 24 For this son of mine was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.’ So they began to celebrate. [Luke 15:22-24, ESV]

Question: Why did God eventually sanction animal-based diets after the fall if originally the norm across the board was veganism? Was it for nutritional reasons or something else?
I don't know if there is a unique answer to this question, so I'm posing it as a request for an overview of Christian viewpoints. Obviously, my intention is not to overwhelm you with a question that is impractically broad, so it would be just fine for me if an answer is posted simply enumerating some of the most compelling views according to e.g. a reputable Christian authority on the matter, etc.

Update based on the comments:
Answers can include viewpoints that reject the premise (that veganism was the norm right after Creation and before the Fall), I have no issues with that, as long as quotes or summaries of the argumentations given to reject the premise are included.

Update 2:
To those who reject the premise: you guys have inspired to ask a related question on Hermeneutics.SE: Does Genesis 1:29-31 leave any room for the existence of animal-based diets in the period between the Creation and the Fall?. Feel free to explain your reasons on that question.

Background information regarding the state of humanity prior to the flood: The depravity and ungodly lifestyles of the entire world at that time were enough to cause the Lord to “regret that He had made man” (Genesis 6:1-6).

Now the earth was corrupt in God’s sight, and the earth was filled with violence. And God saw the earth, and behold, it was corrupt, for all flesh had corrupted their way on the earth (Genesis 6:11-12).

Noah, on the other hand, is described as a “preacher of righteousness” (2 Peter 2:5), suggesting he had spent years warning his friends and neighbours what the Holy God was about to do.  No one listened.  After the flood waters had receded God told Noah that it was permissible to eat animal flesh (but not to consume the blood).
You ask: Why did God eventually sanction animal-based diets after the fall? Was it for nutritional reasons or something else?
The Bible does not say.  A Christian scholar (of the Reformed Protestant persuasion) by the name of Matthew Henry presents “the Magna Charta—the great charter of this new kingdom of nature which was now to be erected, and incorporated, the former charter having been forfeited and seized.”  Here is a relevant paragraph from his commentary:

A grant of maintenance and subsistence: Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you, v. 3. Hitherto, most think, man had been confined to feed only upon the products of the earth, fruits, herbs, and roots, and all sorts of corn and milk; so was the first grant, ch. 1:29. But the flood having perhaps washed away much of the virtue of the earth, and so rendered its fruits less pleasing and less nourishing, God now enlarged the grant, and allowed man to eat flesh, which perhaps man himself never thought of, till now that God directed him to it, nor had any more desire to than a sheep has to suck blood like a wolf. But now man is allowed to feed upon flesh, as freely and safely as upon the green herb. Now here see, (1.) That God is a good master, and provides, not only that we may live, but that we may live comfortably, in his service; not for necessity only, but for delight. (2.) That every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, 1 Tim. 4:4. Afterwards some meats that were proper enough for food were prohibited by the ceremonial law; but from the beginning, it seems, it was not so, and therefore is not so under the gospel.  Source: https://www.christianity.com/bible/commentary.php?com=mh&b=1&c=9

I have no idea what other Christian denominations think about this, and time does not permit me to investigate further.  Suffice to say that sometimes, when the Bible is silent on a matter, we simply do not need to know.  Curiosity and speculation are normal, but ultimately unsatisfying.
Further on in the commentary, Henry notes that although God had granted man dominion over animals, yet they were subjects to the Creator, and under the restraints of his law.  Henry’s commentary goes on to discuss the Noahic covenant in Genesis chapter 6.  He concludes:

Noah lived to see two worlds, but, being an heir of the righteousness which is by faith, when he died he went to see a better than either.

Additional information: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Henry
https://www.gotquestions.org/eating-meat-with-blood.html
https://www.gotquestions.org/dominion-over-animals.html
https://www.gotquestions.org/Noahic-covenant.html


Catholic interpretation of Revelation by John? Does the Catholic Church have the book of Revelation all fleshed out or do they teach it's sealed?

I'm aware of some elements, like the woman, for example, being Mary. If everything is fleshed out, then could someone point me to a good resource or briefly summarize its views?

The best, most detailed Catholic commentary on St. John's Apocalypse is

The Book of Destiny (1956) by Fr. Herman Kramer.

cf. the briefer, older commentary: The Apocalypse of St. John (1921) by Fr. E. Sylvester Berry

Commenting on Apoc. 12:1 ("woman clothed with the sun"… etc.), Fr. Kramer writes:

  The woman of chapter twelve is not the Blessed Virgin Mary.

  […]

  According to the ancient Fathers, the human nature or character of the Church is here delineated, while in chapters four and five her divine nature and prerogatives were depicted.

  […]

  The twelve stars represent the twelve apostles; or they may be God's mystical number symbolizing the Christian nations, that as a contrast to the ten crowned horns of the beast, shall be the glory of the Church when the days of Antichrist approach.

  […]

  The moon under her feet has ever been understood to symbolize the unchanging and unchangeable character of the Church.

cf. these excerpts of his commentary on Apoc. 12

Also, St. John's Apocalypse contains a detailed description of the Catholic Mass.


Was the "abomination of desolation" Caligula's proposed statue in the Temple? In Mark 13:14 (and similarly in Matthew 24:15) Jesus is reported as saying:

"When you see ‘the abomination that causes desolation’ standing where it does not belong—let the reader understand—then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains"

A leading theory is that this refers to the Roman standards being placed in the ruins of the Temple after Titus destroys Jerusalem in 70 AD.

But there is evidence that Caligula wanted to place a statue of himself in the Temple thirty years earlier. He sent Petronius to Syria to lead an army into Judea to force the Jews to accept this statue. The Jews were getting ready to resist this imposition. Luckily Caligula died in 41 AD before this order was carried out.

Perhaps this is evidence that the gospels of Mark and Matthew were written at some time during the period between Caligula's edict in 39 AD and his death in 41 AD? By contrast Luke's description of these events in Luke 21:20-24, which was probably composed using Mark's gospel, seems to clearly indicate Jerusalem's fall so that puts the composition of Luke-Acts later than 70 AD.

The web page  http://virtualreligion.net/iho/pilate.html gives the following three passages (but seems to use 43 AD instead of the standard 41 AD for the date of Caligula's death):

Edict to Erect Imperial Statue in Temple [39 AD]

Now Gaius (Caligula) bore a grudge for being ignored only by the Jews in this respect [i.e., honoring him as divine]. So he sent his legate, Petronius, to Syria to take the rule over from Vitellius and ordered him to lead a large force into Judea. If they received him willingly, he was to place a statue of (Caligula) in the temple of God. But if they treated him with arrogance, he still was to do this after mastering them in battle ---  Josephus, Antiquities 18.261

Jews Prepare to Fight Caligula

Under Tiberius there was quiet. Then at the command of Gaius Caesar to place a statue of him in the temple, (the Jews) took up arms instead. But Caesar's death put an end to the commotion.
    --- Tacitus, Histories 5.9

Caligula's Death Averts War [41 AD]

Indeed, the Jews had given the appearance of rising up in revolt; (but) after the news of (Caligula's) murder there was no need for compliance (with his order). (Yet) fear remained that some emperor would command the same thing.
    --- Tacitus, Annals 12.343

P.S. In 2 Thessalonians 2 Paul seems to imply that, after a rebellion, the "man of lawlessness" will have himself worshiped as a god in the Temple. Caligula and his proposed statue in the 40s AD seems to fit this description better than Titus' standards in 70 AD. Also Paul goes on to mention that someone is holding this event back. This could well be Petronius whom sources say was delaying putting up Caligula's statue in the Temple as he knew what trouble it would cause.

On page 81 of http://ellisskolfield.com/pdf/2012-T.O.pdf Ellis Skolfield argues that the building of the Dome of the Rock on the Jewish Temple mount following Khalifa Omar's conquest of Jerusalem is the abomination of desolation. The original source is Bishop Sophronius, who was the bishop of Jerusalem at the time and made the connection to Daniel's prophecy (Daniel 11:31), as well as Jesus' words in Matthew.

It is likely that Daniel's earlier prophecy refers to Antiochus IV Epiphanes' slaughter of a pig on the altar in Jerusalem. Comparing Daniel's prophecy and its supposed fulfillment with Matthew's prophesy may be helpful.


Are there other biblical examples of people turning into pillars of salt? Are there more instances, in the Bible, of people turning into pillars of salt (Gen. 19:26) and does it have a specific meaning?

There are no other instances in the Bible of becoming turned into a pillar of salt. Regarding the meaning of salt there does not seem to be a symbolic correlation of 'salt' with the judgment that lot's wife suffered. In fact salt generally means to preserve, like an antibiotic due to its pure composition and ability for preserving meat from rotting. I suppose if we said she was condemned absolutely or 'purely' we might extend the metaphor but  that seems forced.

The fact that she became a solid rock-salt-like figure who must have stood there for sometime does have meaning. She was turned into a memorial of death for all to witness. Even today the region where Sodom and Gomorra was said to be (around the river Jordan and the Dead Sea) is filled with unusual salt levels. Swimmers can even float in the water. This long lasting memorial shows that loving the world and turning our eyes to gaze upon it when we should be fleeing from the 'wrath to come' by turning to Christ through faith, indicates that all unbelieving souls will ultimately be judged in an absolute and severe sense.

Maybe the solidity itself has meaning too, beyond its lasting memorial effect. The heart that is wicked is often referred to as 'hard' in the Bible. Hard hearted is a sign of rebellion and wickedness. In this sense not only is she a memorial but it shows that loving the world makes one absolutely hard an insensitive to God and his love. But this is again possibly a slightly forced metaphor. The striking point about the story is its simplicity and avoidance of any further explanation. Maybe that is more to the point. God will judge the sinner and there is nothing complicated about it. No alternate solutions will be found. It will just happen while standing dead in one's tracks.


Is "the ends justify the means" compatible with Christianity? This cliche is usually quoted in the context of "the ends don't justify the means", but in practice most folks seem to live as if the ends did justify the means even if the means involved sin. However sometimes people cannot see clearly what is sin and what isn't. An example might be with-holding information from a loved one so as not to upset them.

While on clear situation of sin they might come down one way, given a predicament where the right choice isn't clear to a person, they often turn this cliche the other way around and tell themselves that the ends do justify the means.

Is there any Biblical content that speaks to this cliche one way or another. Is there a good "retort cliche" that one could use as a reminder of the proper way to make a moral or ethical decision in light of Christian teachings?

The idea that "the ends justify the means" admits that there is something inherently wrong with "the means".  Indeed, it admits that "the means" are actually unjustified by themselves.  The claim, then, is that although "the means" are unjustifiable in themselves, that a particular outcome that is achieved by them results in the justification of the unjustified.

Christianity certainly does not have any basis for this idea, and it doesn't need any.  I know of a particular religion that believes it's alright for its followers to lie in a conversation with someone of another religion if lying helps them win the argument.  Christianity, however, does not need to do this, because Christianity believes that truth is on its side.  That's a key point, because Truth invites questioning, whereas lies and falsehoods do not.

God calls us to do what is righteous and then trust Him for the results.


What is the difference between 'Biblical' and 'Systematic' theology? Particularly among Protestant traditions, it is common to classify books and classes that cover broad looks at theological issues as either 'Biblical' or 'Systematic'. Sometimes this is even extended to categorize theologians.

What is the difference between these arrangements or systems? Are they in conflict or competition with each-other, or are they complimentary in some way?

Biblical and systematic theology are two different ways of studying the Bible.  The main difference is what the theologies study.

Biblical theology is focused on studying a portion of the Bible and how that relates to the rest of the Bible.  An example may be specifically studying a portion of Isaiah.  The person studying may look back at what led up to one of Isaiah's prophecies and how that prophecy is fulfilled in Christ.

Systematic theology focuses on different topics and studies what the Bible says about that topic.  An example here may be studying the attributes of God.  A person studying the attributes would start by finding all the scripture which mentions the attributes of God.  After having all the scriptural references, they could then build a doctrine based on that scripture.

These methods of theological study are complimentary.  While biblical theology may give you insight into a specific portion of scripture, it may not be the best way of building a doctrine since it may not give you all that scripture says on a specific topic.  On the other hand, systematic theology can give you a very detailed view on a topic, but that view can be enhanced by providing even more context to the specific scripture which discusses a view.


Is there only one God (or אֱלֹהִים, or θεός) by nature? Men may be called "gods" (equivalent to Hebrew אֱלֹהִים (elohim) or Greek θεός (theos)) according to office, because they assume God's authority on earth. For example, in Exo. 21:6, it is written,

  Then his master shall bring him to the judges...

The English word "judges" is translated from the Hebrew word הָאֱלֹהִים (ha-elohim), the word most often translated into English as "God" in the KJV.

But, are there any others besides YHVH who are "G/god/ אֱלֹהִים/ θεός" according to nature, rather than office?

If so, how does one reconcile that acknowledgment with scripture that state there is "one God" (cp. Isa. 45:5; Mark 12:32; 1 Cor. 8:6)?

If not, how does one reconcile that belief with scriptures such as 2 Cor. 4:4?

I think the general understanding among Christians is that God, properly understood, is unique in both nature and office when considering His full nature and full office. That is, there's no other being that is is His own essence (nature) or is the creator of all things (office). (Summa, Part 1, Question 3)

However, your question, as stated, seems to be more of a linguistic question. The words we use to refer to God are ultimately finite and flexible. Even if we had a word for a moment in time that specifically referred to the single being who is His own essence and is the creator of all things, that word would dissipate in its pure meaning very rapidly. Furthermore, words with strict meanings are often used in other contexts hyperbolically or illustratively.

Let's pretend our word for the single being who is His own essence and is the creator of all things is Pift. Thusly, it's proper for me to say,

  There is only one Pift. And Pift alone is worth our praise and
  worship.

But, I can also, in the very next sentence say,

  Cast your other Pifts aside. They're worthless!

Or even,

  That man is a Pift.

The first statement uses Pift in the proper literal form. In fact, the first sentence is tautological; it just paraphrases part of our literal definition. The other two statements abuse the strict, literal denotation of the word, but they each have a proper connotation. They're not necessarily misuses of the word, nor do they necessarily change the meaning of the first statement or the word itself.

In the second statement, something other than Pift is revered as Pift; and to highlight the reverence inappropriately given to these things, they're called Pift -- or perhaps the reverencers simply know them as Pift(s), and I'm using the term to avoid confusion (possibly counterproductive). In either case, there exist (or possible doesn't exist) some perceived things that is given honor and worship on par with Pift. Hence, they are the "Pifts" of our lives.

In the third statement, Pift is clearly just a hyperbole. There exists a man whom we think is awesome for some reason -- perhaps he can run 100 miles without stopping to pee or something equally amazing. To highlight how abnormal or amazing this is, we might call him a Pift. The hyperbole is obvious to an average person, and no harm is done to our word or our first statement.

However, the case with God-terminology in the Bible is often of a somewhat different nature, I think. Take a peek at What are the different names of God in the Bible and what do they mean?. You'll see a slew of "names" like Abba, Alpha, Omega, Good Shepherd, Creator, King, Judge, etc.

These are all words with other meanings, and fulfillable by numerous other things, used to refer explicitly to God in their context. They don't necessarily come with an explanation like, when I say judge here, what I really mean is God. Rather, they're [usually] used and understood by context. Take judge as an example.

Suppose you get a letter in the mail from your local court system that contains this:

  You will appear in court on Friday, February 8th. A jury of your peers
  will determine your guilt or innocence. If guilty, the judge will
  determine your sentence.

The judge in this context is a person, a particular one of many who have the qualifications and can fill the role.

Now, suppose you get a letter from a concerned (and probably tactless) Christian friend:

  You will die. Your sins will be weighed against your good deeds. And
  the Judge will determine your sentence.

We're talking about a very specific being here. The phrase, The judge will determine your sentence, is the same. And the denotation is similar, if not identical. But, the connotations and understood meanings are chasms apart.

The interpretive lens for the titles of God in the Bible fall in this spectrum -- from words that may be intended to mean the only one possible God to words elevated to illustrate particular offices or attributes of God. In neither case do I think there's any real ambiguity in the educated Christian mind. And in general, these sorts of ambiguities tend to arise only when we focus too closely on somethings (literal meaning of a word, in this case) and ignore the context.


How does Catholicism biblically defend purgatory in a way that upholds the sufficiency of Christ's work? Below is a quote from an answer to this question "What is the basis of the teaching that souls in purgatory can intercede for the living?:

The (Catholic) Church refers to the souls in purgatory as the Holy
Souls in Purgatory, since their salvation has been assured.,
although their souls must be purified from the remaining residue of sin committed while on earth!

From what I understand from this quote and others, the souls in purgatory are not meriting the fulfillment of their salvation by making up for sins committed but are, rather, having the sin remaining in them purged from their being much like dross is purged from precious metal.
I have seen it written in the same answer that Divine Justice is purifying souls in purgatory and we on earth can alleviate some of the pain of their waiting by our prayers and sacrifices.
My question is not about the prayers or the process of purification in purgatory.  My question is about the notion of there being some aspect of Divine Justice that was not satisfied on the sinners behalf by Jesus Christ!
If Jesus bore our sins in His body on the tree (1 Peter 2:24), and if Jesus' blood offered once for all is so much better than the blood of heifers and goats (Hebrews 9:11-15), and if Jesus' blood purifies us from all sin (1 John 1:7), and if he was delivered to death for our trespasses and raised for our justification (Romans 4:22-25), if Jesus accomplished everything that the Father sent Him to do (John 17:4) including bearing the punishment/chastisement of God that brought us peace (Isaiah 53:5),
and if we do not make peace with God by having and living out faith.  God, in Christ, has made peace with us and we enter into that rest by faith.

For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell,
and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross. - Colossians 1:19-20

How can there possibly be any remaining residue of sin left in a born again believer that Divine Justice needs to purge out that was not dealt with by the Lord Jesus Christ?  Isn't purgatory like saying that Jesus was almost successful...that He has removed only some of our sins as far as the east is from the west?
Jesus has said that He does not give peace as the world gives it (John 14:27) which is to withhold some until full reparations are made.  This is the new covenant:  "Heb 8:12  For I will be merciful toward their iniquities, and I will remember their sins no more.”
Purgatory sounds like He remembers for a while.

The Catholic Church teaches the doctrine of Purgatory while also teaching the sufficient and superabundant merits of the Passion of Christ.
The first component to understanding this is the dogma that not all temporal punishment is remitted by God with the guilt of sin and the eternal punishment. This is based upon a number of examples in Scripture where despite the guilty party being forgiven, they receive a temporal punishment for their sin. For example:

And David said to Nathan: I have sinned against the Lord. And Nathan said to David: The Lord also hath taken away thy sin: thou shalt not die. Nevertheless, because thou hast given occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, for this thing, the child that is born to thee, shall surely die.  (2 Samuel 12:13-14)

The Church has connected this to Christ's admonition to take up your cross (do penance)

And he that taketh not up his cross, and followeth me, is not worthy of me. (Matthew 10:38)

Christ's atonement is fully adequate and superabundant:

For you are bought with a great price. ( 1 Corinthians 6:20)

Knowing that you were not redeemed with corruptible things as gold or silver, from your vain conversation of the tradition of your fathers: But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb unspotted and undefiled, Foreknown indeed before the foundation of the world, but manifested in the last times for you, Who through him are faithful in God, who raised him up from the dead, and hath given him glory, that your faith and hope might be in God. (1 Peter 1:18-21)

Now the law entered in, that sin might abound. And where sin abounded, grace did more abound. (Romans 5:20)

Thus, the Church teaches that Christ's death merits sufficient grace to cover every sin, yet Divine Justice requires temporal punishment to make amends for the harm due to our sins. Our enduring temporal punishment has value because of the merits of Christ.
Finally, Purgatory as a necessity derives from Scripture:

And so betaking themselves to prayers, they besought him, that the sin which had been committed might be forgotten. But the most valiant Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves from sin, forasmuch as they saw before their eyes what had happened, because of the sins of those that were slain. And making a gathering, he sent twelve thousand drachms of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection, (For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should rise again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead,) And because he considered that they who had fallen asleep with godliness, had great grace laid up for them. It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins. (2 Machabees 12:42-46)

Emphasis mine. If they were thought to be damned, no prayer could help. If they were thought to be saved, no prayer would be necessary.
2 Machabees is the most explicit as far as describing a practice with its theological implication, but there are New Testament passages which also have implications of Purgatory.

And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but he that shall speak against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in the world to come. (Matthew 12:32; emphasis mine).

The "in the world to come" was interpreted by both Pope St. Gregory the Great and St. Augustine as referring to the possibility of some sins being remitted after death, hence a middle state of Purgatory.
Similarly, in 1 Corinthians:

According to the grace of God that is given to me, as a wise architect, I have laid the foundation; and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon. For other foundation no man can lay, but that which is laid; which is Christ Jesus. Now if any man build upon this foundation, gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble: Every man's work shall be manifest; for the day of the Lord shall declare it, because it shall be revealed in fire; and the fire shall try every man's work, of what sort it is. If any man's work abide, which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work burn, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire. (1 Corinthians 3:10-15)

Here there is a distinction between the man whose works abide (who shall receive a reward) and the man whose works burn (who shall be saved "by fire"). The latter case is understood as referring to purgation of the effects of their sins.

Be at agreement with thy adversary betimes, whilst thou art in the way with him: lest perhaps the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison. Amen I say to thee, thou shalt not go out from thence till thou repay the last farthing. (Matthew 5:25-26)

"repay the last farthing" was understood as referring to smaller offenses and the context suggests a time-limited rather than eternal penalty.


John 1:18 - "No one has ever seen God" - How do Trinitarians reconcile this scripture with the belief that the Lord Jesus Christ is God? In John 1:18, it states

  θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε
  "No one has ever seen God."

Trinitarians believe that the Lord Jesus Christ is God [the Son], the second person of the Trinity. That being said, how do Trinitarians reconcile the belief that the Lord Jesus Christ is God with the statement in John 1:18, "no one has ever seen God"?

From a Trinitarian standpoint there is nothing to reconcile.

As with most things, the answer is found in the context. The whole of John 1:18 reads:

"No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him." (NASB)

The person John refers to here is the same one Jesus exclaims in John 6:46:

"Not that anyone has seen the Father, except the One who is from God; He has seen the Father." (NASB)

Jesus explicitly states that he is "the One" when he says, "I came forth from the Father and have come into the world; I am leaving the world again and going to the Father." (John 16:28 NASB)

I'm not aware of any arguments to the contrary, though I think it would be quite extraordinary if John were contradicting his own testimony from John 1:1 by excluding Jesus as the one from God who is God.


Is this a Calvinistic or Arminian statement of faith? We believe in the Holy Trinity consisting of God the Father, Jesus Christ, His only begotten Son, and the Holy Spirit. We believe this triune God to be perfect in every way and worthy of our complete devotion and worship. We believe that all mankind is born into sin, separated from God and destined to an eternal destiny apart from God. We believe that God, in his infinite love, has provided a way for us to attain relationship with Him, by sending His son to be born as a man, to suffer, and to die in our place. We believe that on the third day after His death, Jesus Christ was resurrected and now sits at the right hand of God, interceding for us. We believe that we are saved by faith in Jesus Christ and that faith will be manifested thru obedience to Christ. We believe the bible to be the infallible Word of God and the final authority on all matters. We believe that God has called us to live holy lives, as He did, and desires us to honor Him by caring for the poor and needy and by setting free those who are held captive by the devil. We believe that when life on earth is over, those who have repented of their sins, accepted Jesus Christ as their savior, and have strived to walk as He did, will be united with Him forever in heaven.

The disagreement between Calvinists and Arminians are over the precise nature of predestination and election. The traditional Arminian position can be seen in the Five Articles of Remonstrance. The key difference between an Arminian and Calvinist position is that of free will: Arminians believe that human beings are born with free will, and can therefore resist God's grace. Salvation is, from this perspective, conditional on whether a man or woman accepts God's grace.
By contrast, the traditional Calvinist / Reformed view is that mankind does not have free will, we are incapable of accepting salvation unless God himself enables us.
This is how the 39 Articles of the Church of England puts it:

X. Of Free-Will
The condition of Man after the fall of Adam is such, that he cannot turn and prepare himself, by his own natural strength and good works, to faith; and calling upon God. Wherefore we have no power to do good works pleasant and acceptable to God, without the grace of God by Christ preventing us, that we may have a good will, and working with us, when we have that good will. Source

The statement of faith you cite does not actually take a position on these things. I would suggest this is almost certainly intentional. Some denominations or churches do not want to take a position on this, for fear that they will alienate some people. Many churches simply want to focus on what unites, rather than what some say are more contentious issues.
There are no doubt arguments to be had of the wisdom of such an approach, but perhaps to go into it would be beyond the scope of this answer!


Matthew 1:19, Divorce, and Virginity In light of Joseph being called a righteous man in Matthew 1:19, does this mean that divorce because one of the two was not a virgin at the time of marriage is biblically valid?

I know of no doctrine held by any Christian tradition based on this passages that speaks to virginity at the time of marriage in relation to possible divorce. It is simply not the subject matter of the passage and drawing such a conclusion from it would be bad hermeneutics. You would need to find other teachings on previous relationships or extra-marital relationships in order to address that issue in a Biblical fashion.

If you look at other Biblical passages, you will note that basically the only valid grounds for divorce is the case of adultery. Even then it is not prescribed / required, only possible allowed.

If you look into the marriage traditions of the time, you will find that the issue of divorce was as relevant to Betrothal (engagement of sorts) as it was to marriage. A betrothal could not just be broken off for any reason, it was as good as a marriage vow as far as being binding on the parties, but the relationship was not to be consummated until after the wedding.

Mary getting pregnant during the betrothal was (barring the supernatural) obvious proof of adultery. Having committed herself to marry and be faithful to one man and entering a binding contract with him, Joseph would know he hadn't slept with her so she must have slept with another man.

With this understanding, we see that the only thing this passage could teach us about divorce is to reinforce the teaching that says adultery is possible grounds for divorce, but that it is not unlawful to NOT divorce even cases of adultery.


Which liturgical rites (forms of Mass) are presently used in the Roman Catholic Church? A liturgical rite is a way to celebrate the Mass. At least for the purpose of this question I will assume this meaning of the term.

The standard way Mass is celebrated by Roman Catholics is in the Roman Rite. This normally refers to celebration of the Mass originally based on the Missale Romanum from 1970 as commissioned by Pope Paul VI (there have been recent modifications); this happens (always?) in the local language. The so-called extraordinary form of the Roman Rite is the Tridentine Mass, celebrated in Latin, nowadays according to the Missale Romanum of 1962.

Aside from these two liturgical rites (which some will say are technically just two forms of a single rite), I have seen mention of others, such as the Ambrosian Rite, Anglican Use, and Zaire Use. Which forms of Mass (rites) are presently used within the Roman Catholic Church? How can one characterize them, and where are they used?

How can one characterize (a rite)?

A rite represents tradition about how sacraments (not just Mass) are celebrated. As the early Church grew and spread, it celebrated the sacraments as would be best understood and received in the context of individual cultures, without ever changing their essential form and matter.

Which forms of Mass (rites) are presently used within the Roman Catholic Church? and where are they used?

Counting novus ordo and tridentine as a single rite, there are totally 5 western rites and 22 eastern rites (with five eastern liturgical tradition). The complete list of functional rites and their jurisdiction can be found at gcatholic.org.

Please see Wikipedia article titled List of Catholic rites and churches for the list of defunct rites, But I really doubt that this is an exhaustive list of defunct rites.


Is there a Christian perspective on the matter of "delusion"? What I mean by this is, in other communities of people, there may be certain ways to measure a delusion.  An atheist may define it differently than a theist.  The official DSM has a specific way to define a "delusion" (with religious exemption).

Do any Christian doctrines have a clear way to define delusions OR is there no such thing as a psychological delusion from a Christian perspective?

Delusion is neither a Christian nor a non-Christian matter.  Delusion is simply believing something that isn't true despite overwhelming evidence.  I don't believe there is a specific "Christian" perspective on it.

I'm going to try very hard to answer the rest of this objectively and not get on a soap box (even though it goes against my obnoxious nature).

Let's start with a definition of a "delusion", straight from Wikipedia.

  A delusion is a belief held with strong conviction despite superior
  evidence. Unlike hallucinations, delusions are always pathological
  (the result of an illness or illness process). As a pathology, it
  is distinct from a belief based on false or incomplete information,
  dogma, poor memory, illusion, or other effects of perception.

As long as we are limited finite beings, a certain amount of uncertainty exists in determining what is "real" and what is not.  As long as we are finite, we can't know and prove everything.

As long as we're not omniscient then the best we can do it to try to interpret the evidence in such a way that it makes sense to us.

Here's an example an atheist and non-atheist can relate to:

For years, scientists thought that atoms were the smallest level of matter, until they realized that atoms are made up of proton, neutrons, and electrons.  Then came quantum physics, which indicates that at that level, reality is a lot more strange and complex than ordinary physics.  Does this mean that the scientists that didn't understand quantum physics were "delusional"?  No, they simply didn't have all the facts.  We still don't.

Going back to the "superior evidence" portion of the definition, there is plenty of evidence both for and against the existence of God, creationism, theism, the Bible as God's word, and a whole host of other beliefs that separate us.  The problem isn't the evidence itself in many cases, it's how our own personal biases and our own presuppositions color how we interpret the evidence.  We don't have conclusive evidence for or against Christianity.

I came from the atheist viewpoint to be a very firm believer in the most conservative young-earth view of Christianity based on examining the evidence.  I was attempting to show my mom how dumb Christianity is.  My own bias was against Christianity. I don't say this to convince you or anyone else, but I do say it to back up the fact that I have examined the evidence, and I would argue with anyone that the evidence is far from conclusive either way.

I came to my position not because the evidence for God was so overwhelming, but because I learned through years of research that the evidence against His existence wasn't as strong as I'd believed, and an open mind led me to believe, personally, that the evidence for Him has fewer unresolved assumptions and problematic discrepancies.

Therefore, Christianity is not delusional, nor is atheism.  Neither one fits the textbook definition of "against overwhelming evidence".  There's a big difference between "there's overwhelming evidence" and "I'm only aware of some of the evidence and reject out-of hand the evidence that doesn't support my viewpoint."

From the note it looks like I went the wrong route and am not answering your question as you intended, but I think the above still applies.

In 2 Thessalonians 2:11, (KJV) we read:

  And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they
  should believe a lie:

This delusion simply refers to a falsehood - a false belief, still meeting the textbook definition above.  This is just a specific delusion being spoken of in this case.  it doesn't nullify or establish the idea of "delusion" still meeting the normal understanding of the word.


According to Catholicism and/ or Protestantism, how many times was Jesus of Nazareth, whether pre-incarnate or incarnate, begotten? How many times was Jesus of Nazareth, whether pre-incarnate or incarnate, begotten?

Once - in two different ways depending on our definition of 'begotten'

There seems to be some confusion on the subject because "only begotten" a theological term  does not mean "begotten" a biblical term.

But to answer your question, if thinking 'begotten' as in 'only begotten' it gains prominence in Council of Nicaea in A.D. 325 representing Christ’s single eternal generation:

  The phrase “only-begotten” is not an accurate translation and should not be used in any of the nine passages. This phrase is derived from the Latin Vulgate (a translation of the Bible from about the 5th century which has been quite influential on other translations) and reflects certain theological debates about the person of Christ. While the language of the Word being born of God is present in the 2nd century, the most notable occurrence of this language is the creed from the Council of Nicaea in A.D. 325. This creed speaks of the Son of God as begotten of the Father, unique—that is, from the substance of the Father—God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made, of one substance with the Father. This creed was the result of the rejection of the heresy that the Son of God was the first created being. Ultimately the phrase “begotten not made” leads to what theologians call the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son. (Elwell, W. A., & Beitzel, B. J. (1988). Baker encyclopedia of the Bible (1590). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House.)

Not to say that the theological term is not very biblical. When the word begotten is used with “son” it does mean God’s only Son, indicating God’s absolute delight towards him and his absolute uniqueness (Jn 3:16, 18; 1 Jn 4:9). The statement at the baptism and transfiguration of Jesus in the Synoptics 'This is my beloved son' also carries the same sense of God’s absolute delight towards him and his absolute uniqueness, but not principally a literal/spiritual 'birth'. Not 'principally' a 'birth' but by implication as Jesus is unique since he is also eternally begotten. If that does not make him unique I do not know what can. In fact the very notion of a son, and all its uses in scripture could be argued as having its ultimate meaning in dimly reflecting the glory of the Son. The concept of sonship finds its ultimate meaning in Christ.

To confuse matters more, in Hebrews Chapter 1:5 it reads ‘For to which of the angels did God ever say, “You are my Son, today I have begotten you”? Or again,  “I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son”? this seems to imply a 'birth' or sorts, but not really. From this type of reference we are naturally tempted to mix the theological term (i.e. eternal generation) with the biblical prophecy first fulfilled in David (as a type) and in Christ as Messiah. Therefore, although “only begotten” is a theological term referring to a single eternal event, ‘today I have begotten you’ means something totally different in terms of a true generation, or 'birth'. This really refers to his 'birth' from the dead, or the first born.

John Owen explains the different views about 'begotten' very well here, as well as the correct view to take:

  And some assign this to the day of his incarnation, when he declared him to be his Son, and that he should be so called, as Luke 1:35; some to the day of his baptism, when he was again solemnly from heaven proclaimed so to be, Matt. 3:17; some to the day of his resurrection, when he was declared to be the Son of God with power, Rom. 1:4, and Acts 13:33; some to the day of his ascension, whereunto these words are applied. And all these interpretations are consistent, and reconcilable with each other, inasmuch as they are all means serving unto the same end, that of his resurrection from the dead being the most signal amongst them, and fixed on in particular by our apostle in his application of this testimony unto him, Acts 13:33.
  And in this sense alone the words have any appearance of respect unto David, as a type of Christ, seeing he was said, as it were, to be begotten of God when he raised him up, and established him in his rule and kingdom. (Owen, J. (1854). Vol. 20: An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews, Volume 3 (W. H. Goold, Ed.). Works of John Owen (136–137). Edinburgh: Johnstone and Hunter.)

Conclusion: The biblical term “begotten” refers to the resurrection of Christ, which happened once. The theological term “only begotten” refers to the eternal generation of the Son, by an inconceivable communication of the essence and substance of the Godhead by the Father --- only happened in a continuous forever. God’s absolute delight towards Christ and his absolute uniqueness implied by the words 'only Son' brings the single eternal generation and the single generation from the dead together under the Sonship theme. Both his eternal generation and his resurrection make him absolutely unique and proven fully approved of by God. This is partly why Jesus always used the phrase 'the Son' as implying being one and only person generated from yet equal to his Father, for example, as in John 5:16-29.


How do Cessationists interpret John 14:8-14, especially verses 11 and 12? John 14:8-14 (NIV):

8 Philip said, “Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.” 9 Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? 10 Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. 11 Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the works themselves. 12 Very truly I tell you, whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father. 13 And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14 You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it.

My understanding of verse 11 is that Jesus is pointing to the works he has done that give evidence that the Father is in him, which without a doubt include the signs and wonders he had been performing during his ministry. Then in verse 12 he says "whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these".
How do Cessationists interpret this passage, especially verses 11 and 12?

Edit: Luke 7:20-23 (NIV) gives explicit examples of the works Jesus did:

20 When the men came to Jesus, they said, “John the Baptist sent us to you to ask, ‘Are you the one who is to come, or should we expect someone else?’” 21 At that very time Jesus cured many who had diseases, sicknesses and evil spirits, and gave sight to many who were blind. 22 So he replied to the messengers, “Go back and report to John what you have seen and heard: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is proclaimed to the poor. 23 Blessed is anyone who does not stumble on account of me.”

As Rhetorician has said, it is the greater work of bringing souls to salvation.  Just before Christ died, after His ministry of, debatably, three and a half years, there were about one hundred and twenty believers (Acts 1:15) in Jerusalem, and some elsewhere (eg at Sychar in Samaria).  When Peter preached at Pentecost, on the first day of receiving the Holy Spirit, about three thousand souls were added to their number (Acts 2:41).
That is the greater works.
The miraculous healings of the New Testament era, apart from those of our Lord, were done only by the Apostles and by two of their close band.. Stephen and Phillip.  The only other miraculous healing was by the restoration of sight to Saul by Ananias (Acts 9:17).  That's it.  Notice the following verses:-
Then fear came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were done through the apostles. (Acts 2:43)
And through the hands of the apostles many signs and wonders were done among the people. And they were all with one accord in Solomon’s Porch.  (Acts 5:12)
Truly the signs of an apostle were accomplished among you with all perseverance, in signs and wonders and mighty deeds. (2 Corinthians 12:12).
They were the signs of an Apostle, not of all believers, or many believers.
how shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation, which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed to us by those who heard him, God also bearing witness both with signs and wonders, with various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit, according to His own will? (Hebrews 2:3-4)
And if there were some who had gifts of miracles, signs and wonders then we should expect to see them named in the following verse:
And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ  (Ephesians 4:11-12)
And then we discover Paul who had power to raise the dead at an earlier stage lost the power to heal Timothy, advising take a little wine for the sake of your frequent illnesses (1 Timothy 5:23)... and
Trophimus: Trophimus I left in Miletus sick (2 Timothy 4:20).... and
Epaphroditus: Yet I considered it necessary to send to you Epaphroditus, my brother, fellow worker, and fellow soldier, but your messenger and the one who ministered to my need; since he was longing for you all, and was distressed because you had heard that he was sick. (Phil 2:24-26)
Finally when a believer was sick they were not to call for a worker of miracles or a wonder worker, they were to call for the ordinarily appointed elders of the church who were chosen on the basis of their spirituality (1 Timothy 3:1-7).  These are the ones to call:
Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer of faith will save the sick, and the Lord will raise him up. And if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven.  (James 5:14-15)
Cessationists believe that the greater works means effective preaching of the Gospel with the aid of the Holy Spirit; the continuing works of miraculous gifts and healings is a myth.
The sign miracles were the work of the apostles and a few of their band only.  And only those who were eye witnesses of the resurrection could be an Apostle (Acts 1:21-26) who are by their writings along with the Old Testament prophets the foundation of the church (Ephesians 2:20).
And the Word of God explicitly tells us that the last of the Apostles was the Apostle Paul:
After that He was seen by James, then by all the apostles. Then last of all He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time.  For I am the least of the apostles, who am not worthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. (1 Corinthians 15:7-9)
There are no more Apostles, nor Prophets, nor the signs of Apostles (2 Cor 12:12) which were given to authenticate their message of the Gospel.
[[I have used "Proving the Charismatic gifts have ceased" by Dr Peter Masters, a 50 pence booklet from the Tabernacle Bookshop, Metropolitan Tabernacle, Elephant & Castle, London. Tel: UK 0207 735 7076]]


Where in Old Testament is said something like we must be cautious reading it because prophets can make mistakes? A week ago I was reading Matthew, and at Mt 2:15 and 2:17 he write about Old Testament prophecies. Searching for it, maybe in Jeremiah, I read something like  'we must be cautious reading the Holy Scriptures because prophets can make mistakes'. I found it a beautiful message, but at the time, when I was searching for the prophecy referenced by Matthew, I don't pay too much attention to it, and today I'm not able to find it again.
Can someone point me the location of some versicle that could be that?

I think the passage you are asking about is:

  Jeremiah 14:13 through 17 KJV  Then said I, Ah, Lord GOD! behold, the prophets say unto them, Ye shall not see the sword, neither shall ye have famine; but I will give you assured peace in this place. 14  Then the LORD said unto me, The prophets prophesy lies in my name: I sent them not, neither have I commanded them, neither spake unto them: they prophesy unto you a false vision and divination, and a thing of nought, and the deceit of their heart. 15  Therefore thus saith the LORD concerning the prophets that prophesy in my name, and I sent them not, yet they say, Sword and famine shall not be in this land; By sword and famine shall those prophets be consumed. 16  And the people to whom they prophesy shall be cast out in the streets of Jerusalem because of the famine and the sword; and they shall have none to bury them, them, their wives, nor their sons, nor their daughters: for I will pour their wickedness upon them. 17  Therefore thou shalt say this word unto them; Let mine eyes run down with tears night and day, and let them not cease: for the virgin daughter of my people is broken with a great breach, with a very grievous blow.

If this is the passage it must be noted that it is referring to False Prophets as stated in verse 14.

If these are not the verses you are asking about let me know and I will do some more research.

Hope this helps.


Do people have the ability to truly love God, without God guiding them into loving him? From this answer:

  Secondly, men do not hate God because of the world he created, they hate God because he is good and they are not. However consciously or unconsciously, they hate him because he is altogether different than they are. They do not understand him and if they did they would not like what they found. The Bible teaches that men love darkness because their deeds are dark and that God is light. (John 3:16-20) Men will naturally hate that which brings judgement to their deeds.

So people are created sinners and they naturally hate God, right? They could try to love God under the influence of teaching but it's just forced change of their nature through mind (so to speak) and when they experience lots of suffering, it is going to break them at some point and they will realize that they don't really feel the love. Unless of course God has blessed them to love him, in which case they will feel the unconditional love for God. But they have no influence here.

  Those who (through God's intervention in giving them a new heart) chose to hate sin and love God on earth ...

So ultimately only a divine intervention can make a person love God?

Here is how I would explain the viewpoint behind the comments you quote in your question. I do hold a belief about the nature of people that says that since the fall they are inherently bad, totally corrupt. This doesn't mean they were created that way, just that the corruption that we inherit from the first Adam is so complete that we can do nothing truly good or right on our own volition. This is commonly known as the doctrine of Total Depravity. You might check the entry on Theopedia, and articles such as this or this for an overview of how this doctrine is derived from Scripture.

Rather than defend that doctrine here, I simply want to point out that your question hinges on it. You ask:

  So ultimately only a divine intervention can make a person love God?

To answer this, one possible way of defining what it looks like for a human to love God would be this way:

  John 14:15
  “If you love me, you will keep my commandments.

Yet if we apply this simple test to humanity and ask, "Do they keep his commandments?" we are left with the bleak conclusion that there are indeed none who keep God's commandments as God intended.

  Romans 3:12
  All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.

Of course that isn't the end of the story. Again your question posed whether only a divine intervention can make a person love God. Christianity's answer to that is yes, and that divine intervention has taken place. That divine intervention is very poetically prophesied about in Ezekiel.

  Ezekiel 11:19-20
  And I will give them one heart, and a new spirit I will put within them. I will remove the heart of stone from their flesh and give them a heart of flesh, that they may walk in my statutes and keep my rules and obey them. And they shall be my people, and I will be their God.

This is grace. Unmerited favor: a divine intervention to transform undeserving fallen humans  into creatures capable of loving that which they once hated.

There are of course Christian traditions that do not hold this view. Perhaps most notably, Catholicism has a different take on the issue. While they agree that man in his fallen state is incapable of doing any works that could affect his salvation apart from the Grace of Jesus, they disagree on how total the fallen state is concluding that the heart of men is not really dead to God, only wounded. While they understand salvation to be affected by God, they think man is capable of acting as an initiator in this process. Likewise several Protestant traditions hold that man in his fallen state is still capable of making some good choices.

In doing so, Reformed Theology would argue, they replace some aspect of grace with some aspect of works. If men can and do in their natural state "choose" to love God and that makes them eligible for salvation, salvation ceases to be purely a grace bestowed by God and his sovereign will in the matter becomes eclipsed by ours to whatever measure men are thought to be capable of deserving anything.


At what age and how do young Catholics know or be notified that they have committed a mortal sin or a venial sin? At what age and how do young Catholics know or be notified that they have committed a mortal sin or a venial sin? Basically, do they tell the priest at Confession that they have committed a mortal sin or venial sin, or does the priest tell the Catholic what type of sin the person has committed and what the consequences will be?

The "how" is asking for the process by which the young Catholic will be notified of the sin

Ordinarily, people (children and adults) simply tell the priest in confession what they did. The priest will determine whether the sin was mortal or venial (or perhaps no sin at all), possibly after asking the penitent some questions to get a clearer idea of the penitent's intention and state of mind, or of the circumstances surrounding the sin.  The priest might but need not tell the penitent explicitly whether he considers the sin mortal or venial.


Where does the story of "the Cross on top of Adam's Skull" come from? On my trip to Church of the Holy Sepulchre, the tour guide told us that inside the church, there is a place where the Cross was located, and right beneath the Cross, there buried the Adam's ( yes, Adam our great-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand ancestor) Skull. When Jesus died, his blood filled the skull, and so on, and so on.

I can't find this reference in the Bible, so I assume that it must come from somewhere, probably from Catholic tradition? But I can't be sure.

Where does the story of "the Cross on top of Adam's Skull" come from?

According to Emmanouela Grypeou and Helen Spurling (The Book of Genesis in Late Antiquity, Brill 2013, p71ff), the earliest Christian reference to this idea is Origen (c. 184-253), who traces it to Jewish tradition:

  Concerning the place of the skull, it came to me that Hebrews hand down [the tradition that] the body of Adam has been buried there; in order that 'as in Adam all die' both Adam would be raised and 'in Christ all will be made alive'. (Commentary on Matthew, 27.32, original in Greek; later Latin translation here does not mention any Jewish tradition)

Essentially the same story is recounted by:

A text of c.325-350 attributed, probably falsely, to Athanasius of Alexandria (c.297-373)
John Chrysostom (c.347-407) in a homily on John's gospel, 19:16, says "Some say that Adam died there, and there lies; and that Jesus in this place where death had reigned, there also set up the trophy."
A fifth or sixth century commentary on Isaiah, attributed, again probably falsely, to Basil the Great (329-379)
Epiphanius of Salamis (c.310-403) in his Panarion 46.5, against the Tatianists, says Adam "was buried there, on the site of Golgotha. This is probably the way the place, which means 'Place of a Skull', got its name, since the contour of the site bears no resemblance to a skull."
Basil of Seleucia (d. 458) in his Sermon 38 (Patrologia Graeca 85.409)
Jerome (347-420) in his commentaries on Matthew 27:33 and Ephesians 5:14, both written in 398; though he finds the story doubtful.

Even at this stage of Christian history, there was some doubt about the archaeological truth of the story, despite its tempting doctrinal resonance (Christ as the second Adam). The location of the crucifixion was not known with any certainty; still less, the burial place of Adam, which Jerome instead located in Hebron. If Adam's skull is buried under Golgotha, and if the Holy Sepulchre is indeed built on top of Golgotha, then the skull is somewhere under the church.

Regardless, it is still a very old story, as the examples above show.