Why does the Catholic Church prefer burials over cremation? In a copy of Order of Christian Funerals that my deacon owns, it says this regarding burial and cremation:

413 Although cremation is now permitted by the Church, it does not enjoy the same value as burial of the body. The Church clearly prefers and urges that the body of the deceased be present for the funeral rites, since the presence of the human body better expresses the values which the Church affirms in those rites.
414 The Church's teaching in regard to the human body as well as the Church's preference for burial of the body should be a regular part of catechesis on all levels and pastors should make particular efforts to preserve this important teaching.

Unfortunately, it doesn't go into detail about why the Catholic Church prefers burial over cremation.
What is the reasoning for this? What values that the Church affirms are better expressed through burial, but not cremation?

Cremation erodes the belief in the resurrection of the body* and the afterlife (although nothing can prevent our bodies from resurrecting on the last day).

Moral theologians Frs. McHugh, O.P. & Callan, O.P.'s Moral Theology §2595 write:

  (b) The prohibition of the cremation of corpses (Canon 1203 [= 1983 Code canon 1184 [§1.2]]) is not based on natural law or on any dogma, as though the burning of dead bodies were intrinsically evil or repugnant to our faith in immortality and resurrection. On the contrary, in exceptional cases (e.g., in time of war or epidemic) cremation is permitted, if a real public necessity requires it. The reasons for the anti-cremation law are: the tradition of the Old and New Testaments (Gen., iii, 19; I Cor., xv. 42), and especially the example of Christ whose body was consigned to the tomb; the association of burial throughout the history of the Church with sacred rites and the doctrine of the future life, and the contrary association of cremation both in times past and today with paganism and despair; the sacred dignity of the human body (Gen., i. 25; I Cor., iii. 16, iii. 5), and the feeling of affection for parents, relatives, friends, which is outraged when their bodies are consigned to the furnace. The practical arguments offered for cremation are chiefly hygienic and economic; but it is certain that proper burial at sea or in the grave is no menace to public health, and is not more expensive or difficult than cremation. A most serious objection to cremation is that it makes exhumation impossible, and is therefore a means of concealing murder by poison. It is not lawful for a Catholic to coöperate (except materially in case of necessity) with cremation, or to belong to any society that promotes the incineration of corpses; it is not lawful for a priest to give the last Sacraments or funeral rites to those who ordered the cremation of their bodies.

cf. §40.14 "Cremation" of Romano Amerio's Iota Unum

The 1869 International Congress of Freemasons made them promote cremation for undermining belief in the resurrection of the body and the afterlife. Fr. John Laux writes in Catholic Morality (imprimatur 1932), p. 106:

  On December 8, 1869, the International Congress of Freemasons imposed it as a duty on all its members to do all in their power to wipe out Catholicity from the face of the earth. Cremation was proposed as a suitable means to this end, since it was calculated to gradually undermine the faith of the people in "the resurrection of the body and life everlasting."

cf. Charles Augustine, O.S.B., D.D.'s A Commentary on the New Code of Canon Law on 1917 canon 1240: "all societies whose principal purpose is to promote cremation, or which have tendencies similar to those of Freemasonry" are prohibited from ecclesiastical burial.

*Notes on the resurrection of the body & cremation:

The Sadducees—the Jewish sect Jesus called, along with the Pharisees, a "brood of vipers" (Mt. 3:7)—disbelieved (unlike the Pharisees) the resurrection of the body (cf. Mt. 22:23).

Now, under the guise of "hygiene," cremation is actually incentivized.(similar to how circumcision—which began as a Jewish purification ritual—is now promoted for hygienic reasons, despite there being no evidence it is more hygienic, although the circumcision rate in the U.S., at least, is declining; and today's circumcision is very different from how ancient Jews were circumcised, which was with one swipe of a knife; modern, Pharisaic circumcision dates from 140 AD)

There are places that freezes bodies because they believe in the future the technology will be so advanced as to be able to resurrect the dead! It's possible, but an unreasonable hope. Even the pagan philosophers realized the human soul is immortal and is still related to the body after death (although some of them did believe in reincarnation). That the soul is immortal follows from the fact we humans are able to know universal things, which are eternal.


On what basis did Mary Queen of Scots first reject the Scots Confession? The history of the Scots Confession seems to have some amusing interludes. Having been drafted in just 4 days by 5 guys all named John, it went on to serve as the primary confession of the Church of Scotland for almost a century. The only snag it seems to have hit was when Mary, Queen of Scots, refused to ratify it even after Parliament signed off on its representation of the desired reforms.

What was it about the confession that didn't suit Mary*? What was her justification for rejecting it?

* It's possible that this is a historical question more than it is doctrinal. I think it is on topic here because I want to know specifically if there were any doctrinal points in the Confession that proved to be a hindrance to its ratification by the state at the time. At the same time, the primary reason might turn out to be a variant of "Mary, Mary, quite contrary".

It is not clear that Mary made the decision entirely by herself; at the time, she was in France with her husband King Francis II, and they were both young (in August of 1560, she was 17 and he was 16). Mary's regent, her mother Mary of Guise, had only just died, and their court was dominated by the "Guise faction". The official reply to Parliament was in the name of Francis II, who wrote:

  Mais nous trouvons ... que votredite résolution est fort eslongnée de ce que vous devez faire en nostre endroict : ce qui ne nous a pas grandement pleu.
    1

  (My translation:) But we find that your said resolution is much removed from what you ought to do in our place, and this has not greatly pleased us.

The records of William Cecil contain a summary of this letter:

  FRANCIS II to the ESTATES OF SCOTLAND.
  Has heard the message of the Chevalier of St John2. Is very much displeased with their proceedings, and hopes to see them return to the good path which they have left. Will send two noble persons as deputies to assemble the Parliament legitimately. He, for his part, is willing to forget past offences, as he has declared to the Chevalier of St John. - Orleans, 16 Nov. 1560. 3

In any case, the legal issue was the legitimacy of Parliament to pass laws on religion. According to the agreement of 8 July which led to its meeting, any religious matters were to be deferred to a later meeting between Mary and a parliamentary delegation. They were also not meant to take any action against Church estates for the time being - but instead, they did start the process of breaking up large property holdings, regulating tithes, and denying the authority of the Pope or the Crown to make appointments to ecclesiastical office. All of this was part of the package of legislation that Mary and Francis were asked to ratify. It was a huge step for a Parliament that historically had left religious affairs to other authorities.

Other legitimacy concerns related to the procedure and membership of this parliament, as the Protestant faction was able to arrange a particularly strong representation for themselves. This group was strongly in favour of alliance with England instead of France, and was trying to marry the Earl of Arran - Mary's heir - to Elizabeth I, as part of a plan to unite the two crowns under a Protestant. Clearly, this was unacceptable to France and to Mary (it eventually happened with her son James VI). The Archbishop of St Andrews, who was also the Earl of Arran's uncle, requested Francis and Mary to withhold ratification, in the hopes that more moderate Protestants than Knox would then be willing to seek a compromise - some sort of religious tolerance, as opposed to the Protestant absolutism of the Confession. We also know that they were lobbied by Pope Pius IV to stand firmly on the Catholic side, and make no concessions.

Doctrinally, the action of Parliament was held (by Knox) to be founded not on royal authority, but on divine law, making any procedural problems irrelevant. In the same way, the Confession and the First Book of Discipline (also 1560) envisage that the state has no role of governance over the church. The rejection of the 1560 Parliament's acts, founded on legitimacy concerns, is not only a political statement but has a doctrinal dimension, regarding what the relationship between church and state ought to be.

Moreover, the monarch is expected to be faithful to Christian doctrine in the form expounded by Knox, meaning that Mary, for example, could not attend Mass even in private. So it's not a question of whether she would agree that her Protestant subjects could follow the Confession, but more of her denying that everyone in Scotland, including her when she returned, had to abide by it. As a matter of conscience, she was unwilling to resolve the sectarian crisis in the way Knox preferred (everybody becomes Protestant, problem solved), preferring a model where she and others could remain Catholic.

Further reference:

History of the Scottish Parliament (3 vols). Edinburgh University Press (2004-2010). See especially the chapter by Keith Brown on the Reformation Parliament, at the end of volume 1.
For more on politics and legitimacy: Le crépuscule de l'Auld Alliance : la légitimité du pouvoir en question entre Écosse, France et Angleterre (1558-1561). Eric Durot. *Histoire, économie et société 27(1):3-46. 2009.
William Robertson's History of Scotland (1759) contains a brief account of Sandilands getting a frosty reception from the royal couple.

1. Négociations, lettres et pièces diverses relatives au règne de François II, Louis Paris, Paris: Imprimerie Royal, 1841, at p692. Found thanks to the article of Durot (his note 229, on p39)
2. James Sandilands, Lord of Calder, head of the Order of St John of Jerusalem in Scotland, was the official messenger sent by Parliament to Mary and Francis.
3. No. 712 in Calendar of State Papers, Foreign series, Elizabeth vol. 2 (1560-1561). ed. Joseph Stevenson. London: Longmans, Green, Reader and Dyer (1865).


According to Calvinism, if Catholicism might lead to salvation, why to remain a Calvinist? (Henry IV story) In his 1786 book, "The History of Heresies and Their Refutation", (saint) Alphonsus Liguiri wrote:

I think the danger of eternal perdition, by dying separated from the Church, should be a sufficient motive to convert every heretic. It was this that made Henry IV [of France] forsake Calvinism, and become a Catholic. He assembled a conference of Catholics and Calvinists, and after listening for a time to their arguments, he asked the Calvinistic doctors if it was possible a person could be saved in the Catholic faith; they answered that it was; "Then," said the King, "if the faith of the Roman Church secures salvation, and the Reformed faith is at least doubtful, I will take the safe side and become a Catholic." (p.634-5)

The logic in the above story is simple: If Catholicism is true, Calvinism leads to perdition; If Calvinism is true, Catholicism might lead to salvation. Ergo, statistically speaking, it is more convenient for salvation to be Catholic.

Naturally, the above is valid if and only if:
1. According to Catholicism, Calvinism leads to perdition:
In my understanding of this, before the Second Vatican Council, the interpretation of the phrase "there is no salvation outside the Church" (Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus) was that non-Catholic Christians could not be saved. This is surely in line with the argument of the story, and what Alphonsus believed. However, after the Second Vatican Council, and without a change in the dogma itself, the interpretation of the phrase allows for non-Catholics (e.g Calvinists) to be saved. In this sense, the argument of Henry IV, from a Catholic perspective, falls apart.
2. According to Calvinism, Catholicism might lead to salvation:
As I read online, the key doctrine about salvation in Calvinism is that of predestination. Besides the seemingly divergent understandings of what this means, at least from what I read, predestination is surely open to Catholics. Or, to say the same, it is not closed to them merely because of being Catholic. In this sense, the "Calvinistic doctors" of the story were right.
Please indicate in the answer if this is not the case (i.e. that according to Calvinism there is no salvation in the Catholic Church).

If point 2 above is correct, then it is just natural to ask: would it be more sensible for Calvinists, from a probabilistic sense, to adopt Catholicism as their faith, just as Henry IV "did?" Or, to put it differently, what is the counterargument in the above story? Why is it sensible from a salvific point of view to remain a Calvinist?
PS: a quick glance at Wikipedia suggests the story of Henry IV might not be true. But that's beside the point.

The Calvinist answer to the question "is there salvation in the Catholic Church" is "yes and no." It is "no" because there is nothing salvific in being affiliated with the papacy. We deny the legitimacy of the office of pope, in addition to many other unbiblical offices and deny sacerdotalism entirely as a scheme of salvation. A person whose hope for a basis of salvation is placed in the pronouncements or presumed dispensation of grace at the discretion of Roman Catholic priests is someone a Calvinist would consider unsaved or at least very confused and saved in spite of it.

The "yes" part of the question is based on the belief that salvation is found in Jesus alone and it is fully possible to be a member of a corrupt church and yet be a sincere believer.

The idea that a person would be a Catholic "just to be safe" would imply that they are not trusting in Christ for forgiveness but rather in their church membership or placing their hope in men. The Calvinist position is that salvation is by direct faith in Jesus Christ alone, not faith plus works, nor faith plus membership/blessing by a priest. We don't recognize apostolic succession as a legitimate biblical concept except in the succession of apostolic doctrine.

Reformed confessional documents rarely even offer the name "Roman Catholic" as a courtesy, preferring names like "papcy" and "papist" due to a lack of desire to grant the premise that "Catholicism" is "catholic" (i. e. the universal church). The Westminster Confession of Faith in the chapter on marriage forbids marriage with "papists and other idolators" (chapter 24).

The default posture of Calvinism towards Rome is to view them as a mission field in the form of a true church that has been corrupt (hence we recognize Roman baptisms as legitimate baptisms whereas the baptisms of heretical churches like LDS or Jahovah's Witnesses we would not recognize and would judge that the person would need to be baptized for the first time).


Eating sour grapes and transmitting sin over generations Prophesying the restoration of Israel, Jeremiah makes the following statement:

  In those days they shall no longer say: ‘The fathers have eaten sour
  grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge.’ (Jer 31:29 - also see Ezek 18:2)

which is explained in the next verse:

  But everyone shall die for his own iniquity. Each man who eats sour
  grapes, his teeth shall be set on edge. (Jer 31:30)

However, in the next chapter the following statement is made:

  You show steadfast love to thousands, but you repay the guilt of
  fathers to their children after them... (Jer 32:18)

This reminds of a statement made in the Ten Commandments:

  I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for
  the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who
  hate me, but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love
  me and keep my commandments. (Ex 20:5,6)

In one sense therefore every person will die for his/her own sin, yet there is a possibility of carrying sin/guilt over to the next generation. Is Israel (and/or God's children) exempt from transmitting the guilt, or how should we solve this seeming paradox?

I actually don't read that as a paradox.  The sin of the parents have consequences that carry over further than just their own generation.  Additionally,  Jeremiah 32:18 ("you repay the guilt of fathers to their children after them") doesn't mean that the guilt is being transferred, but rather repaid.

I don't see in the passages that you quote where every person will die for his own sin -- in fact, that goes against my understanding of the Old Testament, where they were required to make sacrifices instead (at least the people of Israel).  The potential paradox that I see stems from the last passage (Ex 20:5-6), where God "punishes children for the sin of the parents [...] but show[s] love to a thousand generations of those who love [Him]."   However, it really isn't a paradox, because it's quite possible to punish (read consequences), while still showing love (and indeed blessings as well).

I find family analogies to be particularly applicable in situations regarding God (He's our Father in Heaven, after all...).  An example of this situation would be the loving father (earthly) that had to punish his children for their disobedience.  He might use the rod, or take away privileges, but still loves his children.  In fact, even while taking away certain privileges for the disobedience in this example, he could still reward current good deeds with other rewards.


Mitred women in the Catholic Church? Mitred women in the Catholic Church?
Historically, we know that there were women in the Early Church, who were non-ordained deaconesses.
I know that male deacons and even kings have been given the privilege of wearing a mitre. But is there any historical evidence of women wearing the mitre within the Catholic Church?

A Catholic mitre from the 19th century, displayed in the Museo dell'Opera del Duomo in Pisa, Italy

The mitre is a type of headgear now known as the traditional, ceremonial headdress of bishops and certain abbots in traditional Christianity. Mitres are worn in the Catholic Church, Orthodox Church, as well as in the Anglican Communion, some Lutheran churches, and also by bishops and certain other clergy in the Eastern Catholic Churches and the Oriental Orthodox Churches. The Metropolitan of the Malankara Mar Thoma Syrian Church also wears a mitre during important ceremonies such as the Episcopal Consecration.

Mitred women in the Catholic Church?
The short answer is: Abbesses of certain very ancient abbeys in the West also wore mitres, but of a very different form than that worn by male prelates.
At times within the history of the Church, abbesses wore the stole, carried the crosier and even wore the mitre and ring, just like their male counterparts!
The Catholic Encyclopedia sets the context:

"The Carthusian nuns have retained the privilege of the consecration of virgins, which they have inherited from the nuns of Prébayon. The consecration, which is given four years after the vows are taken, can only be conferred by the diocesan. The rite differs but slightly from that given in the "Pontifical". The nun is invested with a crown, ring, stole and maniple, the last being worn on the right arm. These ornaments the nun only wears again on the day of her monastic jubilee, and after her death on her bier. It is a consecrated nun who sings the Epistle at the conventual Mass, though without wearing the maniple." - The Carthusian Order (Catholic Encyclopedia)

The Carthusian nun may in some circumstances don the stole and read the Gospel!
Mitred abbesses certainly existed, but some seemed to extend their privileges a little more.

Of Mitres, Mitred Abbesses and Clerical Kings
Discussing the phenomenon of mitred abbesses today it is hard not to bring up issues of women's ordination. The comparison, however, largely serves to underscore the difference between the authority the great abbesses of mediaeval days wielded and that which would-be priestesses desire. The mitred abbess, and her regal Germanic cousin the princess-abbess (Reichsäbtissin, Fürstäbtissin) are creations of medieval Christendom, rather than a mythical feminist early Christianity populated by misunderstood bishops' wives turned by a linguistic trick into bishopesses. While abbesses reportedly signed the canons of the Synod of Whitby ahead of the priests present, there is a long and sizable gap between the obsolenscence of (unordained) deaconesses and the appearance of the first mitred abbess. In the extraordinary instances where abbesses overstepped their bounds and claimed some share of sacerdotal authority, it was more a matter of personal aggrandisement unconnected with their legal feudal rights and unlinked to some wider ideology.
The disappearance of the abbess as a political figure also seems in part accountable to the neo-classical biases of the Renaissance that reintroduced to Europe a pre-Christian Roman legal attitude that barred women from the comparative liberties of the Middle Ages. A queen or duchess ruling in the stead of her absent husband or underaged son fit more clearly into the feudal system than into the absolutist monarchies of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. The abbess--often ruling over numerous local fiefs, holding sizable feudal rights, and sitting on the local imperial Council of Prelates alongside abbots and the occasional bishop--was a continuation of that custom. The abbess's "official" source of power was as a temporal ruler, which nonetheless testifies to the broad-mindedness of the Middle Ages with regards to female authority. In the few instances where her official power was ecclesiastical (as in the extraordinary case of the abbess-nullius of Las Huelgas in Spain), it was juridical rather than sacramental.
There were comparatively few mitred abbesses as opposed to Reichsäbtissinen; I know of only two for certain--Las Huelgas in Spain, Conversano in Italy. There were at probably quite a few others, such as Nonnburg in Austria, whose abbess may have been mitred at one time if I recall correctly, and wore a ceremonial crown as late as the 1920s. Their rights to partial pontificalia date back to a time when the mitre was itself comparatively new, and confined to the pope and cardinals. Shortly thereafter we find a veritable surfeit of mitred privileges granted to notable foreign bishops, abbots, cathedral canons (whose use actually predates that of abbots, as in the case of the chapter of Besançon that dates back to 1051), and even temporal rulers.
The case of mitred kings is particularly interesting, representing the ideal of close relations between pontiff and ruler, as well as the ruler as serving as an icon of Christ the King. In some cases, the lines between spiritual and temporal started getting blurred in some places, as at least one authority reports that during the High Middle Ages the Holy Roman Emperor would be ordained as a priest before his coronation, a priesthood admittedly without responsibilities, but a priesthood all the same. Incidentally, the Emperor also had the peculiar right to sing the Christmas Gospel with a drawn sword, and also honorary membership in several cathedral chapters.
However, the mitre was usually bestowed on most worthy kings as a sign of fealty to Rome, and did not accompany ordination. The oldest example of such a privilege goes back to Nicholas II, who granted the mitre to Duke Spytihnev of Bohemia, while Alexander II decorated his successor Vratislas in the same fashion. Roger of Sicily purportedly received the right to the mitre, along with crozier, ring, dalmatic and sandals from Lucius II. Regal robes, for that matter, often hinted at the ecclesial, and indeed at the coronation of Elizabeth II in 1953, the traditional robes included garments closely patterned on a dalmatic and a stole. This has less to do with women's ordination than the quasi-sacerdotal charisma that attached itself to kingship in medieval days.
It is in this context that one can make the most sense of mitred abbesses. The abbess of Conversano acquired for herself the right to a pectoral cross, ring, crozier and mitre at some point--though the crozier itself is hardly unusual and is still a symbol of their authority today. There was some abuse of this power, as she claimed canonical power over the clergy (not unlike many kings and dukes who interfered in the appointment of bishops), and annually received their homage while solemnly vested in her ornaments. For this she was nicknamed the "Monster of Apulia" and ended up on the receiving-end of numerous clerical complaints. Rome nonetheless agreed that she had a right to the homage and arranged a compromise in 1707 by which the ceremonial was simplified. She was allowed only to place the mitre and crozier on a table by her side, rather than wear them as in days past. Ih 1750, the homage and her jurisdiction itself were completely done away with.
There appears to be a pattern of less tame abuse extending beyond the use of pontificalia to more serious juridical and sacramental infractions. The Catholic Encyclopedia notes: Thus, in the Capitularics of Charlemagne, mention is made of "certain Abbesses, who contrary to the established discipline of the Church of God, presume to bless the people, impose their hands on them, make the sign of the cross on the foreheads of men, and confer the veil on virgins, employing during that ceremony the blessing reserved exclusively to the priest," all of which practice the bishops are urged to forbid absolutely in their respective dioceses. [...] The Monastieum Cisterciense records the stern inhibition which Innocent III, in 1220, placed upon Cistercian Abbesses of Burgos and Palencia in Spain, "who blessed their religious, heard the confession of their sins, and when reading the Gospel, presumed publicly to preach."
It appears, though, this was not connected with any organized resistance to males-only ordination. Considering that abbesses had the authority to hear non-sacramental "confessions" (the "chapter of faults") from their charges as a form of disipline, either in private or public, though without absolution and pennance, and lay confession was not unknown even in the days of St. Ignatius Loyola (though even then not without some doubts as to its sacramental efficacy), such outrageous behavior is more easily understood.
There is at least one instance when an abbess was granted some measure of juridical power that was not allowed to cross over into the realm of spiritual abuse. This was the mitred abbess (also called abbess-nullius or abbess-general) of Las Huelgas in Spain, the noble lady, the superior, prelate, and lawful administratrix in spirituals and temporals of the said royal abbey, and of all the contents, churches, and hermitages of its filiation, of the villages and places under its jurisdiction, seigniory, and vassalage, in virtue of Bulls and Apostolical concessions, with plenary jurisdiction, privative, quasi-episopal, nullius diacesis
whose priviledges were confirmed in 1628 by the bull Sedes Apostolicae of Urban VIII. By royal decree, the abbess-nullius held unlimited secular authority over fifty villages, held civil and criminal courts, granted letters dismissorial for ordination and licensed local clergy. This situation persisted as late as 1873, and seems to have not been particularly problematic for Rome. Bear in mind the Spanish crown itself had a fair amount of power over the local Church, and so the non-clerical abbess's powers over clerics may have been less surprising in her day than in ours.
The Reigning Abbess-General's powers are echoed throughout the Germanies in a minor key, though there they are exclusively secular, as they held their principal authority as the rulers of fiefdoms and as members of the unwieldy Imperial Diet. The Abbess of the Princely Convent of Buchau was represented in the Diet and sat on the Swabian Bench of Prelates, and held a fair number of estates. Similar cases of ruling abbesses, often with the title of Princess of the Empire, princely ecclesiastical or spiritual rank (fürstliche geistliche würde), and seats among the Lords Spiritual of the German diet, are too numerous to mention.
In Bohemia, the abbess of a similar institution known as the the Theresian Royal and Imperial Ladies' Chapter of the Castle of Prague had received the right in 1791 to crown the Queen of Bohemia. The last surviving Princess-Abbess, Archduchess Maria Annunziata von Habsburg-Lothringen, died as recently as 1961, though the chapter was dissolved in 1918.
The mitred abbess is an interesting figure; it is unclear to me whether she has anything to teach us today, or whether she is merely a historical curiosity. At Las Huelgas and elsewhere, powerful abbesses operated with the blessing of Rome, while elsewhere, a legitimate juridical authority ended up bleeding, through pride, into an illegitimate quasi-sacramental one.
Nonetheless, even in the instance of the Abbess of Conversano, Rome recognized her priviledges, even if the details were changed. The socio-political conditions that led to the rise of the abbess are not present today, and unlikely to return. (Though, on the other hand, some well-placed Ann Arbor Dominicans staffing certain branches of certain diocesan curias would not be amiss today!) In a more secure age, such as the medieval epoch, such fascinating jurisdictional oddities could flourish without troubling the general frame. These abbesses shows that the Catholic Church has had a place for women in authority in the past--and that she sought, in the best cases, to foster a strong maternal authority not dependent on claims of priestly ordination and uniquely conditioned to the noble charisms of the feminine genius.

Even some Catholic artists have depicted  Our Lady, wearing a classic chasuble and stole, stands at the altar, presumably ready to distribute holy communion. She seems to hold a paten in her right hand, and with her left she holds the hand of the child Jesus. Even those entitled to wear a mitre do not wear the mitre while distributing Holy Communion.

A crosier, a pectoral cross and a stole worn in a deacon’s way by an abbess of the Cistercian Abbey of Santa María la Real de Las Huelgas in Spain. Apart from privileges concerning vestments, the abbess of that abbey had also numerous lay privileges and a real ecclesiastic power; she could e.g. impose excommunications.

The canons of St. Vitus cathedral as deacons assistants during the ingress of the new metropolitan of Prague, archbishop Karel Boromejský Kašpar.


Does Exodus 3:14 explain who God is to everyone regardless of time and culture? Exodus 3:14 states:

  God said to Moses, “I am who I am. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I am has sent me to you.’

This seems appropriate in regard to the Israelites since they have had knowledge of God beforehand, but what about in terms of today and other cultures? Can this as a stand-alone passage be used to describe who God is to a people other than the Israelites and possibly in this present time?

For example, I also read Hebrews 8:10:

  "For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts."

It seems to apply to the Israelites or "His people", that they should know "I Am" to be the author of these laws which are in their hearts. However, can this be sufficient to those who are not God's people or not Israelites? This passage causes a lot of confusion for those who  live in a culture steeped with traditions of "multiple-gods".

EDIT: Consequently, when Jesus proclaims himself as God, does that only explain who he is based on previous knowledge of who the Father is?

I think that the best answer to this question is "Yes...and no."

Yes

God does not say "I have always been" or "I will always be" or "I am coming". He says "I am." This verse is often used as part of the common Christian understanding that God exists above and outside of the human understanding of time.

This verse as a summary of God's universal, achronological reality is applicable to all people regardless of time and culture. God's existence applies identically to all people. No matter your original culture, no matter what era you live in, it is an aspect of Christianity to regard God as a single, powerful, timeless entity*.

No

Personally, I do not favor attempts to fine stand-alone verses to explain concepts, especially important theological points. While verses in isolation can still carry very important messages, local context (nearby verses) and absolute context (whole Bible) are critical.

The nature of God is a very fundamental piece of Christianity (and most religions, for that matter). While I think that Exodus 3:14 is a very good member of the list of verses that help describe God, I do not consider it sufficient as a stand-alone verse. It does not address:

God's desire for justice
God's desire for mercy
God's triune nature
God's relationship with mankind.
God's role as Creator.

As a person raised in the church, it's difficult to guess at other perspectives, but I think that hearing Exodus 3:14 without any other introduction to God would confuse me more than it educated me.

Note

I still think it's a very important verse, I think it's valuable to include in an exposition into who God is. But if it were sufficient on its own, the Bible would be a lot shorter.

*I hope that was phrased loosely enough to account for most majors Christian views, I know there are differences on the specifics of this point, please correct me if I am wrong.


What are the differences between the roles of husband and wife in a Christian marriage? Current culture has a lot to say about the similarities of the roles of husband and wife in marriage. What does the Bible have to say about roles in a Christian marriage?

My answer would be that the Bible has little or nothing to say about roles (that is, who does what) within a marriage, but it has quite a lot to say about authority.  Authority does not have to do with who does what, but who leads whom and where the buck stops.
Ephesians 5:21-33 is key:

21 Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.
22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing[b] her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church — 30 for we are members of his body. 31 “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.”[c] 32 This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33 However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.

Which, in the context, starts of with an admonition for mutual submission between believers and then goes on to define the authority structure within a family.
I have yet to meet a women who honestly would object to being submissive to a man whose objective was to love her "just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her".
Note also that Christian authority is (should be) exercised with a servant's heart.  That is to properly lead my wife I must strive to serve her.


When someone converts to Christianity and is "reborn in Christ," is it the body or the soul that is reborn, or both? I understand this question can be approached from different denominational positions, depending on how one interprets John 3:3-5.

Jesus replied, "Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of
God unless they are born again." "How can someone be born when they
are old?" Nicodemus asked. "Surely they cannot enter a second time
into their mother's womb to be born!" Jesus answered, "Very truly I
tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of
water and the Spirit."
— Gospel of John, chapter 3, verses 3–5, NIV

As asked, your question will receive many answers, most of them will be personal opinions. I will not undertake to answer your question as asked.
I will however, give you the scriptures concerning this subject as I know them. You may use them for your research in seeking truth. I also would like to suggest that you seek consultation with your Pastor or other trusted Christian.
Those Scriptures from the King James  version are as follows:

Matthew 11:28  Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.

Matthew  11:29  Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.

Matthew 10:28  And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

Matthew  16:25  For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.

Matthew _7:21  Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

Matthew _7:24  Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:

Matthew_7:26  And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:

John_15:15  Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you.

Matthew  7:16  Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

Matthew  7:17  Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.

Matthew  7:18  A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

Matthew  7:19  Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

Matthew  7:20  Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

You will also find that some good commentaries will help in understanding not only these, but any other Scriptures.
There are several Bible study aids available for free downloads on the internet, I have found them very helpful. Two fine ones that I use are e-sword and the Word. Both are free and have the ability to download many Bible versions, commentaries, and many other useful things such as maps, and etc.
Good luck in your studies, they are invaluable to new Christians as well as elder Christians.


What does the Bible teach/say about luck? Is there such a thing, do we have a measure of randomness and ability to shape our own destinies or ultimately are all things predestined.

I'll give you one perpective. According to the following verse:

Romans 8:28 (ESV)

  And we know that for those who love God all things work together for
  good,fn for those who are called according to his purpose.

In other words, to the Christian who has grown to love and trust God implicitly, God's hand is in everything in his life, in both good and "bad" events. Even the negative circumstances are taken as though from God, allowed by God to shape the believer's character, as it states in Romans 5:3-4,

  Not only that, but we rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that
  suffering produces endurance, and endurance produces character, and
  character produces hope,

You may be confusing luck and shaping our own destinies. They are not mutually exclusive. If I want to lose 10 lbs, I can trust to chance or make my own luck by eating fewer calories than I burn until I get the weight I want. But when I act on it, then, according to the dictionary of English words, the event is no longer luck, but a planned event. If you plan something to happen, then it is no longer luck. (This is not always correct though: you can intentionally make your way to a red-carpet gala to get a movie star's autograph (not luck) and either the star doesn't show up, or you're too far to get to him (bad luck.)


Does the Pope talk with God? We know that visionaries, such as them, talk/talked with the Virgin Mary or God.

But does the Pope directly talk with God or the Virgin Mary? Or, does he do it in any other, not-direct, way? Is it the same for any precedent Pope?

But does the Pope directly talk with God or the Virgin Mary? Or, does he do it in any other, not-direct, way?

First, notice that God is Trinitarian, so anyone "speaking" to God must speak to one of the three persons, either God the Father, Jesus or the Holy Spirit.

Now, regarding visions or other forms of visitations, if we are to believe the apocryphal Acts of Peter, then Peter himself (the First pope) was the only Pope in history of which we have recollection to have directly talked to God (as Jesus). There seems to be no other account of such encounter.

Regarding talking to God in "other, not-direct, way", of course! That's what prayer is all about. Jesus taught us and encouraged us to pray to God the Father. He Himself gave us the example of such prayer. Thus, this is not limited to popes but open to every Christian. We can also direct our prayers/conversation to Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

Now, it is only us (so far as I know) who speak in terms of words to God. God might respond in multiple, sometimes unexpected ways, to our prayers and questions. Many times we are so busy and anxious with the daily tolls of life that there is no enough silence in our hearts/souls in order to listen to God.


Important Western Soteriological Works Does anyone know what works are considered to be principal elements of Western soteriological thought, primarily focused on Roman Catholic and Protestant ideologies?

I'm interested mostly in primary texts by the likes of Martin Luther, Erasmus, and Calvin, since I've had a hard time finding exactly where in, for instance, Luther's Works, he discusses such things.

  Example: I'm reading a book on Luther's inception, and it sends me to
  "LW 34:167", which corresponds to one of Luther's soteriological writings. I'm curious if people know about stuff like this for other theological thinkers; for instance where Calvin outlines his theories of predestination.

When I took Soteriology, we read alot of primary sources.  I asked my old professor, Tarmo Toom, an expert in patristic soteriology, for that list.  I've added links to the two documents you will be most interested in reading.

  Athanasius, On Incarnation, 25-64;
  Augustine, On Nature and Grace, 22-51, 58-67.
  Anselm, Why God Became Man? (Book Two);
  Aquinas, Summa Theologica 12ae, Q 109, Art. 1-10.

I remember Athanasius' On Incarnation to be particularly interesting - the idea was that salvation was God's way of telling Jesus how much he loved him, by giving him us and eternal life in us as a love offering...

Specifically, for Luther and Calvin:

  Luther, Two Kinds of Righteousness,
  Calvin, Institutes, Ch. 11
  Tanner, Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, 671-681; The Remonstrance (The Arminian Articles); The Canons of the Synod of Dort.

Finally, for more modern perspectives, he selected:

  Soteriology: A Contemporary Protestant/Evangelical Perspective
  W. G. Rusch, Justification and the Future of the Ecumenical Movement, 23-34, 35-46, 133-149; (in class, The Gift of Salvation).
  Soteriology: A Contemporary Roman Catholic Perspective
  Rahner, Foundations of Christian Faith, 24-43; The Content of Faith, 199-202, 344-349; The Hope of Salvation; (in class, Catechism of the Catholic Church).

  Soteriology: A Liberation Perspective
  - Boff, Salvation and Liberation, 1-66.

  Soteriology: An African-American Perspective
  - Cone, God of the Oppressed, 138-162, 195-246.

  Soteriology: A Non-Violent Perspective
  - Weaver, Nonviolent Atonement, 12-19, 70-98, 210-224.

  Soteriology: A Feminist Perspective
  - Japinga, Feminism and Christianity, 107-126.

Full bibliography here:

Anselm, Why God Became Man? in St. Anselm: Basic Writings. Chicago: Open Court,
1996, 253-302.
Aquinas, Summa theologica 12ae Q 109, Art. 1-10 in Aquinas on Nature and Grace, ed.
A. M. Fairweather. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1954, 137-156.
Augustine, On Nature and Grace, in FC 86, trans. John A. Mourant and William J.
Collinge, 1992, 22-90.
Boff, L. and C. Salvation and Liberation: In Search of a Balance between Faith and
Politics. Translated by R. R. Barr. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1984, 1-66.
Canons of the Synod of Dort, in Creeds and Confessions of Faith in the Christian
Tradition, ed. J. Pelikan and V. Hotchkiss. New Heaven: Yale University Press, 2003, 571-600.
Calvin, J. Institutes, Ch. XI, in Library of Christian Classics. Philadelphia: The
Westminster Press, 1961, 89-107.
Cone, J. H. God of the Oppressed. New York: Seabury, 1975, 138-162, 195-246.
Fiddes, P. S. “The Understanding of Salvation in the Baptist Tradition,” in For Us and
For Our Salvation, ed. W. J. Hollenweger. Utrecht: Instituut voor Missiologie, 1994, 15-37.
The Hope of Salvation, International Theological Commission. Origins (April 26, 2007):
726-748.
Japinga, L. Feminism and Christianity: An Essential Guide. Nashville: Abingdon, 1999,
107-126.
Justification and the Future of the Ecumenical Movement: The Joint Declaration on the
Doctrine of Justification, ed. W. G. Rusch. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2003 (Chadwick, H. “An Anglican Reaction: Across the reformation Divide,” 23-34;
Franklin, R. W. “A Model fro New Joint Declaration: An Episcopalian Reaction to the Joint Declaration on Justification,” 35-46; Macchia, F. D. “Justification and the Spirit of Life: A Pentecostal Response to the Joint Declaration,” 133-149).
Luther, M. Two Kinds of Righteousness in Martin Luther’s Basic Theological Works, ed.
T. F. Lull. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989, 155-164.
Rahner, K. Foundations of Christian Faith: An Introduction to the Idea of Christianity.
Trans. W. V. Dych. New York: Crossroad, 1978, 24-43.
__. The Content of Faith. Ed. K. Lehmann and A. Raffelt, trans. ed. H. D. Egan.
New York: Crossroads, 1993, 199-202, 344-349.
The Remonstrance (The Ariminian Articles), in Creeds and Confessions of Faith in the
Christian Tradition, ed. J. Pelikan and V. Hotchkiss. New Heaven: Yale University Press, 2003, 549-550.
Tanner, N. P. (ed.), Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, vol. II. Washington D.C.:
Georgetown University Press, 1990, 671-681.
Weaver, J. D. The Nonviolent Atonement. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001, 12-19, 70-98,
210-224.
Anselm, Why God Became Man? in St. Anselm: Basic Writings. Chicago: Open Court,
1974.
Boff, L. and C. Salvation and Liberation: In Search of a Balance between Faith and
Politics. Translated by R. R. Barr. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1984.
Cone, J. H. God of the Oppressed. New York: Seabury, 1975.
Dunn, J. D. G. The Theology of Paul the Apostle. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998.
Green, J. B. and Baker, M. D. Recovering the Scandal of Cross: Atonement in New
Testament & Contemporary Contexts. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2000.
Weaver, J. D. The Nonviolent Atonement. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001.


What is an example of a deductive argument that Biblical Unitarians would present to prove that Jesus is not God? I'm interested in learning about how Biblical Unitarians arrive at the conclusion that Jesus is not God from a deductive reasoning standpoint (for examples of deductive arguments, see this question). I'm particularly interested in the validity and soundness of their arguments. Is the argument valid? Is the argument sound? Are the premises of the argument properly justified? Is the argument rigorous in its use of words or is it taking advantage of the ambiguity in certain definitions?

There are a large number of arguments that can be made from a Biblical Unitarian standpoint that Jesus is not God. Although I am skeptical of deductive arguments such as you are looking for (and prefer multiple lines of probabilistic reasoning that point towards a conclusion, instead), here is one that is easily transferred to that format (taken from Jesus is the Son of God; not God the Son, a Biblical Unitarian site).

"Jesus and God have separate wills. Jesus prayed to God, “not my will,
but yours, be done” (Luke 22:42 ESV; cp. John 5:30). If Jesus and the
Father are the same “one God,” then they would have one will."

God cannot have a will different from His own will.
If two persons are both God, therefore those two persons will have the same will.
Jesus and the Father's wills are at times different.
Therefore, Jesus is not God.

Trinitarians of course can respond to this, by saying things like 'Jesus has two wills', one his divine nature and one his human nature. Only the human nature is in conflict. And so on, and so on (as the link referenced above goes on to note).
The question for me isn't whether any one argument is logically seal-proof (virtually no argument is, for anything), but how the arguments taken together weigh against the counter-arguments.
The major line of argument by Biblical Unitarians isn't that there are 100% deductive arguments in their favour (although I think some get pretty close, and requires a 'God is ultimately a mystery we cannot understand' response), but that the scriptural evidence strongly leans in favour of Jesus not being God.
Again, for argument after argument that Jesus is not God, you can see the page linked above. You could transform basically all these points into a more formal style.


What Christianity offers which other religions cannot? Every religion has its own uniqueness. However, most of the religions have some common grounds to relate to other religions.
Many Christians believe that the Christian faith is not only unique as a religious system but also has some uniqueness in what it offers, which other religions do not or cannot offer. If so, can anyone explain about at least one thing that only Christianity offers, which other religions cannot?

C.S. Lewis answered this question:

During a British conference on comparative religions, experts from around the world debated what, if any, belief was unique to the Christian faith. They began eliminating possibilities. Incarnation? Other religions had different versions of gods' appearing in human form. Resurrection? Again, other religions had accounts of return from death. The debate went on for some time until C. S. Lewis wandered into the room. "What's the rumpus about?" he asked, and heard in reply that his colleagues were discussing Christianity's unique contribution among world religions. Lewis responded, "Oh, that's easy. It's grace."1

I agree - if I had to summarise it in one word, it would be "Grace". Most other religions require people to try really, really hard to be worthy enough. Only in Christianity does God himself come to us to make us worthy, not as a reward for our hard work but as a free gift of grace.
I think that is the fundamental thing which distinguishes Christianity from other religions.


Where is the reference to John's student writing that John wrote his gospel because the synoptic gospels needed more detail? Two early church fathers (Ignatius and Polycarp) were students of John the apostle.  Someone wrote that one of them wrote that John was unhappy with missing details of the previous gospels, motivating him to write his gospel.  I've been trying to find this reference in their writings.

Not aware of the idea that John wrote his gospel because the other three needed added details, but there is the thought that John wrote for more "light" on certain general matters.  These are from Irenaeus, a disciple of Polycarp, a disciple of John.

In a still clearer light has John, in the Apocalypse, indicated to the Lord’s disciples what shall happen in the last times, and concerning the ten kings who shall then arise, among whom the empire which now rules [the earth] shall be partitioned.
Irenaeus AH V XXVI

Irenaeus in AH III XI does argue that the gospels must be 4 in number and does outline why John's gospel is so important.

John, the disciple of the Lord, preaches this faith, and seeks, by the proclamation of the Gospel, to remove that error which by Cerinthus had been disseminated among men, and a long time previously by those termed Nicolaitans, who are an offset of that “knowledge” falsely so called, that he might confound them, and persuade them that there is but one God,
-AH III XI-

As the OP mentions, John taught Polycarp and Polycarp taught Irenaeus.  Here is an example.
TO EDIT TO INCLUDE EUSEBIUS' EXPLANATION (mentioned in another answer)

And when Mark and Luke had already published their Gospels,762 they say that John, who had employed all his time in proclaiming the Gospel orally, finally proceeded to write for the following reason. The three Gospels already mentioned having come into the hands of all and into his own too, they say that he accepted them and bore witness to their truthfulness; but that there was lacking in them an account of the deeds done by Christ at the beginning of his ministry.763

And this indeed is true. For it is evident that the three evangelists recorded only the deeds done by the Saviour for one year after the imprisonment of John the Baptist,764 and indicated this in the beginning of their account.

For Matthew, after the forty days’ fast and the temptation which followed it, indicates the chronology of his work when he says: “Now when he heard that John was delivered up he withdrew from Judea into Galilee.”765

Mark likewise says: “Now after that John was delivered up Jesus came into Galilee.”766 And Luke, before commencing his account of the deeds of Jesus, similarly marks the time, when he says that Herod, “adding to all the evil deeds which he had done, shut up John in prison.”767

They say, therefore, that the apostle John, being asked to do it for this reason, gave in his Gospel an account of the period which had been omitted by the earlier evangelists, and of the deeds done by the Saviour during that period; that is, of those which were done before the imprisonment of the Baptist. And this is indicated by him, they say, in the following words: “This beginning of miracles did Jesus”;768 and again when he refers to the Baptist, in the midst of the deeds of Jesus, as still baptizing in Ænon near Salim;769 where he states the matter clearly in the words: “For John was not yet cast into prison.”770

John accordingly, in his Gospel, records the deeds of Christ which were performed before the Baptist was cast into prison, but the other three evangelists mention the events which happened after that time.
-source-


Why was Martin Harris punished for revealing the Lost 116 pages? I am fully aware of the Messianic Secret in Mark, but I don't understand why Martin Harris would feel as though he should be punished for revealing the pages he recorded from Smith's translation of the Golden Plates.  After their loss, it is my understanding that Harris never again served as scribe. Furthermore, according to my tour guide, Smith also claimed responsibility for this loss, stating that "God had to humble him" by "giving into" Smith's desire to let Harris have the pages.

What was so sacred about these 116 pages that revealing them was so bad?  Was the theology contained therein of particular importance, or was the problem simply that Smith felt he should not have betrayed the command of the Angel?

Along these lines, I'm curious as to the theological significance of what he translated. What was in this material that needed to be protected?

The Lord had commanded Joseph Smith to reveal the manuscripts to no one who was not involved in the translation. Martin petitioned Joseph three times to show the manuscripts to his (Martin's) wife, and each time Joseph took the issue to the Lord.

The Harris family was wealthy, and Martin was helping pay for the publication of the Book of Mormon. His wife protested and wanted proof of the translation because of his involvement and probably because of the financial burden. Incidentally, she badgered him on the issue and demanded to see the plates -- or something convincing.

In response to Joseph's first two pleas, the Lord denied the request, and I believe He even said to trouble Him no more on the matter (See near the end of D&C 5). The third time, the Lord finally permitted it (kind of like the Parable of the Importunate Widow) -- but not without warning of the consequences for disobedience.

Joseph conceded to let Martin take the raw manuscript (but not the actual plates), being the 116 pages that had been translated. Later, Martin returned to Joseph and admitted that he had lost the pages. Joseph lost his gift to translate and was commanded to repent:

  5 Behold, you have been entrusted with these things, but how strict
  were your commandments; and remember also the promises which were made
  to you, if you did not transgress them.

  ...

  10 But remember, God is merciful; therefore, repent of that which
  thou hast done which is contrary to the commandment which I gave you,
  and thou art still chosen, and art again called to the work;

  11 Except thou do this, thou shalt be delivered up and become as
  other men, and have no more gift.

The pages consisted of what would be called, probably, the "Book of Lehi" -- writings at the beginning of the plates by Nephi's father, the same Nephi whose writing now starts the Book of Mormon record as we have it today.

In the Book of Mormon, we learn that Nephi was inspired to re-write at least some of what his father wrote, so that nothing too important was lost (see vs. 1-3 in linked scriptures for more context) -- emphasized parenthesis my own:

  3 And after I had made these plates by way of commandment, I, Nephi,
  received a commandment that the ministry and the prophecies, the more
  plain and precious parts of them (Lehi's writings), should be written upon these plates;
  and that the things which were written should be kept for the
  instruction of my people, who should possess the land, and also for
  other wise purposes, which purposes are known unto the Lord.

Now, the writings weren't so sacred that nobody could know what they said, but rather, they had to be carefully handled -- and understandably so. Imagine the frenzy if the translation of a record on "gold plates" was public while it was happening... especially during a major Christian excitement in the country!

So, the Lord warned Joseph to not re-translate the missing portion because evil men were plotting against them. From Doctrine and Covenants 10 (chapter heading):

  Revelation given to Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Harmony,
  Pennsylvania, in the summer of 1828 (see History of the Church,
  1:20–23). Herein the Lord informs Joseph of alterations made by wicked
  men in the 116 manuscript pages from the translation of the book of
  Lehi, in the Book of Mormon. These manuscript pages had been lost from
  the possession of Martin Harris, to whom the sheets had been
  temporarily entrusted. (See the heading to section 3.) The evil design
  was to await the expected retranslation of the matter covered by the
  stolen pages and then to discredit the translator by showing
  discrepancies created by the alterations. That this wicked purpose had
  been conceived by the evil one and was known to the Lord even while
  Mormon, the ancient Nephite historian, was making his abridgment of
  the accumulated plates, is shown in the Book of Mormon (see Words of
  Mormon 1:3–7).

The whole half of the 10th section is relevant here, but in particular:

  10 And, behold, Satan hath put it into their hearts to alter the words
  which you have caused to be written, or which you have translated,
  which have gone out of your hands.

  11 And behold, I say unto you, that because they have altered the
  words, they read contrary from that which you translated and caused to
  be written;

  12 And, on this wise, the devil has sought to lay a cunning plan,
  that he may destroy this work;

  13 For he hath put into their hearts to do this, that by lying they
  may say they have caught you in the words which you have pretended to
  translate.

  14 Verily, I say unto you, that I will not suffer that Satan shall
  accomplish his evil design in this thing.

Summary

In conclusion: The writings of Lehi were about as sacred as the rest of the Book of Mormon record, but it was vital that the work remain protected against those conspiring against it. And yes, Joseph and Martin both should have obeyed the Lord in this instance -- the first time. But the Lord saw it coming, so He prepared a way for us to still have the important parts of what Lehi wrote and allowed Joseph to repent and continue the translation (with a different scribe -- but Martin Harris still sacrificed in many ways, after losing the manuscript, to support the publication of the Book of Mormon and the Church).


In Scripture - Was Prophecy That was Spoken in Good Faith, ever Corrected? 1. Question - A Reference Request:

Is there any occasion in scripture where someone prophesied to another and made an honest mistake, or were later corrected?

Note: This is apart from any discussion regarding false prophets.*

2. Context:

"Schools of Prophecy" often claim that "Words of Knowledge" to others can be mistaken, or subject to personal fallibility, (Shawn Bolz on Accountability / Fallibility);

Is there a Biblical Basis for this?

Other Closely Related Questions:

https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/50906/in-scripture-was-gods-voice-ever-mistaken-when-spoken-privately
Historically, How was “Word of Knowledge” Understood?
What is the Biblical Basis for "Schools of Prophecy"?
How to know whether God truly spoke to you?
What is the Biblical basis for testing the truthfulness of every statement made by Prophets or Apostles who have been confirmed as 'real'?

The example that comes to mind is in Acts chapter 21. The context is, Paul is traveling to Jerusalem, where he knows he will be imprisoned.

  We sought out the disciples there and stayed with them seven days.
  Through the Spirit they urged Paul not to go on to Jerusalem. When it
  was time to leave, we left and continued on our way. All of them,
  including wives and children, accompanied us out of the city, and
  there on the beach we knelt to pray. After saying goodbye to each
  other, we went aboard the ship, and they returned home.

  We continued our voyage from Tyre and landed at Ptolemais, where we
  greeted the brothers and sisters and stayed with them for a day.
  Leaving the next day, we reached Caesarea and stayed at the house of
  Philip the evangelist, one of the Seven. He had four unmarried
  daughters who prophesied.

  After we had been there a number of days, a prophet named Agabus came
  down from Judea. Coming over to us, he took Paul’s belt, tied his own
  hands and feet with it and said, “The Holy Spirit says, ‘In this way
  the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem will bind the owner of this belt and
  will hand him over to the Gentiles.’”

  When we heard this, we and the people there pleaded with Paul not to
  go up to Jerusalem. Then Paul answered, “Why are you weeping and
  breaking my heart? I am ready not only to be bound, but also to die in
  Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus.” When he would not be
  dissuaded, we gave up and said, “The Lord’s will be done.”

  Acts 21:4-14 (NIV) (emphasis mine)

While the information being prophesied by Agabus in this case was not false (verse 4 may be talking about only a temporary halt), the disciples certainly interpreted and reacted to the prophesy wrongly in their response to it. Paul had to correct them all, including Philip.


How possible is it that the Septuagint / LXX wasn't specifically quoted in the NT? Couldn't it be possible that the NT writers quoted from a Hebrew or Aramaic Old Testament, and that the Septuagint was transliterated afterwards, or that the NT was later translated to match the Septuagint?

The reason why I ask this is because I can't really seem to find much proof of the age of the Septuagint. The two arguments for the authenticity of the Septuagint seem to be "the NT writers quoted from the Septuagint" and the anecdote of a Jew named Aristobulus, who mentioned that the Law had been translated into Greek under the reign of Ptolemy. Don't Jews refer specifically to the books of Moses as the Law? And wouldn't it be a big stretch to assume that he is truly speaking about the Septuagint being translated during the reign of Ptolemy? Yet this is what many advocate to be true.

It is highly unlikely. I will address the OP's commentary/questions in turn:

  The reason why I ask this is because I can't really seem to find much proof of the age of the Septuagint.

I offer the following pedantic quibble only because it is directly relevant to OP's concern: when considering the historical creation of the Greek Jewish scriptures, it is unhelpful to think of "the Septuagint" as a monolithic piece of literature. (This amusingly titled lecture makes the point well.) The "Old Greek" scriptures were translated over a period of 2-3 centuries, in various locations (Jobes) Still, it's a good question as to how we know when these translations were made.

  The two arguments for the authenticity ....

I'm not sure what is meant but "authenticity" here. For the sake of this answer, I'm going to assume OP means "creation prior to the turn of the era".

  The two arguments for the authenticity of the Septuagint[1] seem to be "the NT writers quoted from the Septuagint"....

(Here this almost sounds like "authenticity" has some theological weight, but I'm going to proceed by assuming this is purely a historical question about the date of the LXX.)

Right, they certainly did. The OP further suggests that the NT writers actually quoted from the Hebrew and either:

[the NT] was later changed to match the LXX;

This requires a very low view of the manuscript tradition by which we receive the Greek New Testament. Given the strength of NT manuscript evidence beginning in the 2nd C. and the absence of any evidence of a systematic scribal effort to change the manuscripts in this way, this is highly unlikely.2 The fact that the NT authors frequently draw on aspects of the LXX quotes that are unique to the Greek text in their arguments makes this all the more implausible.

Take Luke's account of Peter's application of Psalm 16 to the resurrection in Acts 2:26: "... my flesh will also dwell in hope..." (ep’ elpidi). The hope theme is characteristic of the Greek Psalms , but the Hebrew reads "my flesh dwells securely" (lābeṭaḥ) (see Aejmelaeus). In order to project (retroject) the choice of ep’ elpidi into the LXX, we would have to believe that Luke made this odd translation choice in one verse, and someone subsequently mined the Greek Psalter for words translating forms of bṭḥ ("to be secure") and changed most but not all of them to forms of elpizo ("to hope"). It is much more plausible that this represents a special proclivity (or whatever -- see Aejmelaeus) of the Psalms translator, and Luke was dependent on the form of the Greek Psalm 15  (Heb/EVV 16) that was passed down to him.

or
the LXX was written to match the NT.

Again, this would involve fabricating arguments in the NT out of thin air when they depend on readings not found in the Hebrew. More concretely, there is ample evidence that the Greek versions were created earlier. The OP cites Aristobulus who mentions the Greek law having been written during the reign of Ptolemy.  More famous (and probably earlier) is the entertaining and pseudonymous "Letter of Aristeas", dated by scholars to the 2nd C. BCE. It presents an elaborate story of the creation of the Greek "Law". The tale is widely considered to be a fabrication, possibly written to defend a particular form of the Greek text. Nonetheless, it attests to the existence of an established Greek text by the end of the 2nd C. BCE, i.e considerably prior to the NT. Other sources prior to the turn of the era which assume the existence of Greek translations include:

Eupolemos, a Jewish historian who wrote in the middle of the 2nd C. BCE and seems to have used a Greek version of Chronicles
the Greek text of Wisdom of Joshua ben Sira (a.k.a Sirach), dated ~132 BCE, which contains a prologue that makes reference to a translation of "the law, the prophets, and the rest of the books".

Additionally, linguistic studies show that the Greek translations comprising the "Septuagint" most closely approximate a phase of Koine Greek attested spanning from the beginning of the third to the end of the second centuries BCE. See Dines (pp. 50ff.) for details. She draws on Lee, 1983.

Most concretely, we have manuscript evidence of the Old Greek translations pre-dating the NT.  Please see this answer on Hermeneutics.SE for the details. A handful of manuscripts are dated prior to the turn of the era, and those dated to the 1st C. CE can also not reasonably be expected to have been altered to conform to a NT canon that did not  yet exist as such.

We can see, then, that it is unlikely that the Old Greek translations were substantially dependent on the New Testament. On the other hand, there may well be isolated instances of textual "problems" in the LXX that were introduced as "corrections" to agree with New Testament quotations. I'm aware of an argument by Karen Jobes (a respected LXX scholar) that the variation between the Greek and Hebrew of Psalm 40:7-9 were introduced by Christian scribes to conform to the text of Hebrews 10:5-7, which (she argues) was creatively adapted from a version of the Greek text (which is no longer extant) that looked more like the MT.3 This is an unusual scenario, though, and it is only possible in a text like the Psalter where there is no manuscript evidence in the pre-Christian era (in contrast to the Pentateuch, minor prophets). Some would also argue that Romans 3:13ff influenced the Greek text of Psalm 14:3 (LXX 13:3).

While I would be interested in learning about more instances like those described above, I think the evidence is sufficient (and certainly most Septuagint scholars think the evidence is sufficient) that the original Greek translations of the Hebrew scriptures pre-dated the New Testament. The New Testament authors were dependent on (quoted, referenced, and drew insight and inspiration from) these texts.

 Notes, references:

1. In the strictest sense, "Septuagint"  refers only to the Pentateuch. I take it that the OP's interest is wider.

2. One would expect to see various stages of this, incomplete changes, more variants around these (hundreds) of verses that would need to be changed, etc. There was not a single, authoritative NT manuscript (or an authoritative manuscript of any book) available that could be changed definitively and then reproduced perfectly, thereby avoiding any traces of the emendation. I encourage you to read a book about NT textual criticism to frame your thinking on the plausibility of this.

3. This is a somewhat complicated but (IMO) elegant argument. For other, I think more standard, explanations of this discrepancy, see How is the Septuagint interpretation of Psalms 40:6 reconciled with the Hebrew text? on Hermeneutics.SE.

The information in this answer is attested in the following introductory texts. While Jobes/Silva is my personal favorite, Dines has more material specifically bearing on the OP's questions/concerns:

Karen Jobes and Moises Silva. Invitation to the Septuagint Baker Academic, 2nd Ed., 2015.

Jennifer M. Dines The Septuagint (T&T Clark, 2004).

I have also cited, in addition to linked material:

Anneli Aejmelaeus, Faith, Hope, and Interpretation: A Lexical and Syntactical Study of the Semantic Field of Hope in the Greek Psalter in Studies in the Hebrew Bible, Qumran and the Septuagint presented to Eugene Ulrich Ed. Peter W. Flint et al. Brill, 2006.


What does John Wesley mean by this phrase? In one of his last letters to Wilberforce, John Wesley wrote in 1791:

Dear Sir,
Unless the divine power has raised you to be as Athanasius contra Mundum, I see not how you can go through your glorious enterprise in opposing the inexcreble villainy which is the scandal of religion, of England and of human nature. Unless God has raised you up for this very thing, you will be worn out by the opposition of men and the devils. But if God be for you, who can be against you? Are all of them together stronger than God? O, be not weary of well doing! Go on, in the name of God and in the power of his might, till even American slavery (the vilest that ever saw the sun) shall vanish away before it.
...
That He who has guided you from youth up may continue to strengthen you in this and all things, is the prayer of, dear sir,
Your affectionate servant, John Wesley

Q. In this letter what is the meaning and significance of the phrase 'Athanasius contra Mundum' in the context of his (and Wilberforces) anti-slavery crusade?

The Latin phrase translates as “Athanasius against the world.”  Athanasius was a Christian theologian, a Church Father, and the chief defender of Trinitarianism against Arianism.  He battled against the Arian heresy prevalent in the fourth century and his persistence resulted in the defeat of his detractors.  Here is a brief overview:

In 325, at the age of 27, Athanasius began his leading role against the Arians as a deacon and assistant to Bishop Alexander of Alexandria during the First Council of Nicaea. Roman emperor Constantine the Great had convened the council in May–August 325 to address the Arian position that the Son of God, Jesus of Nazareth, is of a distinct substance from the Father. Three years after that council, Athanasius succeeded his mentor as archbishop of Alexandria. In addition to the conflict with the Arians (including powerful and influential Arian churchmen led by Eusebius of Nicomedia), he struggled against the Emperors Constantine, Constantius II, Julian the Apostate and Valens. He was known as Athanasius Contra Mundum (Latin for Athanasius Against the World).  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athanasius_of_Alexandria

Background Information on John Wesley and the Methodists: Under the direction of John Wesley, Methodists became leaders in many areas of social justice, including prison reform and the abolition of the Slave Trade.  John Wesley’s letter to William Wilberforce was written six days before his death.  From 1739 onwards, Wesley and the Methodists were persecuted by clergymen and magistrates. They were attacked in sermons and in print and at times attacked by mobs because of their stand against slavery.

In 1788, when the abolition campaign was at its height, he preached a sermon in Bristol, one of the foremost slave trading ports. In those days, an anti-slavery sermon could not be preached without considerable personal risk to the preacher and a disturbance broke out.

He maintained an interest in the abolition movement until he died. Wesley also famously said:

"Give liberty to whom liberty is due, that is, to every child of man, to every partaker of human nature. Let none serve you but by his own act and deed, by his own voluntary action. Away with all whips, all chains, all compulsion. Be gentle toward all men; and see that you invariably do with every one as you would he should do unto you."  http://abolition.e2bn.org/people_32.html

Background Information on William Wilberforce:  William Wilberforce made many enemies during his campaign to have slavery abolished.  In 1807 he published a 350-page book, ‘Letter on the Abolition of the Slave Trade’, part of which said this:

That the Almighty Creator of the universe governs the world which he has made; that the sufferings of nations are to be regarded as the punishment of national crimes; and their decline and fall, as the execution of this sentence; are truths which I trust are still generally believed among us … If these truths be admitted, and if it be also true, that fraud, oppression and cruelty, are crimes of the blackest dye, and that guilt is aggravated in proportion as the criminal acts in defiance of clearer light, and of stronger motives to virtue… have we not abundant cause for serious apprehension?… If… the Slave Trade be a national crime… to which we cling in defiance of the clearest light, not only in opposition to our own acknowledgements of its guilt, but even of our own declared resolutions to abandon it, is not this, then a time at which all who are not perfectly sure that the Providence of God is but a fable, should be strenuous in their endeavours to lighten the vessel of the state, of such a load of guilt and infamy?  (Letter on the Abolition of the Slave Trade, 1807, pp. 4–6)  Source: https://www.open.edu/openlearn/history-the-arts/history/history-art/wilberforce/content-section-5.1

Here is an extract from a link that includes John Wesley’s letter to William Wilberforce:

WRITTEN FEBRUARY 24, 1791 at age 88 from Balam, England, six days before his death, this last letter of Wesley’s was addressed to William Wilberforce. Wesley had spoken out forcibly against slavery, repeatedly referring to the slave trade as the “execrable sum of all villainies”. In 1774 he wrote the influential Thoughts Upon Slavery.  Wilberforce, a Member of Parliament, was active at the time in an unsuccessful attempt to pass abolition. Debate continued for several years and in 1807 the abolition of slavery was effected throughout the British Empire.

The text of the letter is given below and can be used to follow the aged, faltering hand of the still hearty Wesley. The “tract” to which Wesley refers was written by a former slave, Gustavus Vassa, who was born in 1745 in Africa, kidnapped and sold for a slave in Barbados. In 1757 he was sent to England and, according to church records, was soon converted to Christianity.  https://christianhistoryinstitute.org/magazine/article/wesley-to-wilberforce/

Context of “Athanasius contra Mundum” with regard to the anti-slavery crusade:  John Wesley knew, from first-hand experience, that the battle against slavery had made him many enemies.  He also knew that William Wilberforce was fighting against powerful politicians and merchants, many of whom had a vested financial interest in maintaining the slave trade.  That is why Wesley made reference to Athanasius, that fourth century theologian who waged war against the religious establishment in order to root out heresy.  He was acknowledging that Wilberforce was up against the entire establishment, both political and commercial, and that, like Athanasius, he would be fighting against the world in his endeavour to bring slavery to an end.
His prayer for Wilberforce was that God, who had guided him from his youth, would continue to strengthen him in this mighty battle.  Wesley’s prayer for Wilberforce was answered.


Where does the Catholic church stand on governments supporting foreign groups or other governments that abuse human rights? Where does the Catholic church stand on governments supporting foreign groups or other governments that abuse human rights?

In a Christians perspective; should their/a government support foreign governments/groups that abuse human rights?

The answer seems obvious: No Church could publicly back any government or foreign group that abuses human rights. Historically, the Church's stance may have been different behind the scenes, as most well-known recently in South America.  However, Pope John Paul II issued a number of apologies for past wrongs, on behalf of the Church, and these should define the Catholic Church's present stance on these issues. He apologised for:

The legal process on Galileo Galilei, around 1633 (31 October 1992).
Catholics' involvement with the African slave trade (9 August 1993).
the Church Hierarchy's role in burnings at the stake and the
religious wars that followed the Protestant Reformation (May 1995).
the injustices committed against women, the violation of women's
rights and the historical denigration of women (10 July 1995, in a
letter to "every woman").
the inactivity and silence of many Catholics during the Holocaust ( (16 March 1998).
Catholic sex abuse cases (20 November 2001, email from a laptop in the Vatican)
the Church-backed "Stolen Generations" of Aboriginal children in
Australia
the behaviour of Catholic missionaries in China in colonial times.

Pope Francis seems unlikely to depart from the spirit of John Paul's apologies.


Why did the people believe that no one would know where the Christ came from? In John 7:25-27, Jesus is speaking to a crowd of people.  They seem pretty impressed with Him and begin to wonder if He could be the Messiah.  However, one of their objections is that they know where He came from.  They believe that when the Christ comes that no one will know where He came from.

  Some of the people of Jerusalem therefore said, “Is not this the man
  whom they seek to kill? 26 And here he is, speaking openly, and they
  say nothing to him! Can it be that the authorities really know that
  this is the Christ? 27 But we know where this man comes from, and when
  the Christ appears, no one will know where he comes from.”  John
  7:25-27 ESV

Where, then, did they get the idea that no one would know where the Christ came from?

In John 7:27, it is written,

Rather, we know where this man is from, but when the Messiah comes, no one knows where he is from.
ἀλλὰ τοῦτον οἴδαμεν πόθεν ἐστίν ὁ δὲ Χριστὸς ὅταν ἔρχηται οὐδεὶς γινώσκει πόθεν ἐστίν

According to the Gospels, "the chief priests and the scribes" understood that the Messiah was to be of the seed of David and born in Beit-Lechem (Matt. 2:4-5; John 7:42 cp. Mic. 5:2).
People were cognizant of Yeshua's parents (Mark 6:3; John 1:45 cp. John 6:42) and the town he resided in, Natzaret of Galil (Matt. 21:11; John 7:41).
On the other hand, it was prophesied that the Messiah would be born of a virgin (Isa. 7:14 cp. Matt. 1:23) and be the seed of a woman (Gen. 3:15). Essentially, a human male would not contribute to the conception of the Messiah.
"Seed from another place"
In the Midrash Bereshit Rabba, Parashat Bereshit, it is written,

"…and she called his name Set, for God appointed me another seed…"
(Gen. 4:25). Rabbi Tanchuma in the name of Rabbi Shemu'el said, "She
observed the seed that came from another place. And what is this?
This is the King Messiah."
ותקרא את שמו שת כי שת לי אלהים זרע אחר וגו׳ רבי תנחומא בשם רבי שמואל
אמר נסתכלה אותו זרע בא ממקום אחר ואי זה זה מלך המשיח

The midrash states that the seed from which the Messiah would be conceived would come "from another place" — perhaps an allusion to him being of divine origin.
"Root from dry ground"
Another scripture which seems to hint at a peculiar childhood of the Messiah is Isaiah 53:2.
In his Epistle to Yemen (Iggeret Teiman), Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon (Rambam) wrote,

And, Yesha'yahu (Isaiah) said similarly, when he (the Messiah) appears
without knowing his father and mother and family: "And he will grow up
in His presence as a branch, even like a root out of dry ground (etc.)..."
(Isa. 53:2).
וְאָמַר יְשַׁעְיָה כְּמוֹ כֵן, כְּשֶׁיִּרְאֶה מִבְּלִי שֶיודע לוֹ אָב
וְאֵם וּמִשְׁפָּחָה, "וַיַּעַל כַּיּוֹנֵק לְפָנָיו וְכַשֹּׁרֶשׁ"
וְגוֹמֵר יְשַׁעְיָה נ"ג ב'.

Rambam wrote that the Messiah would not know his father, mother, or family. While this isn't true of Yeshua, it demonstrates a traditional Jewish interpretation concerning the Messiah which Rambam received. It is quite possible that this same tradition existed among the Jewish people in the time of Yeshua. That is, some believed that the Messiah's father, mother, and family would be unknown and that the Messiah would appear from obscurity.
Perhaps one of the reasons Rambam interprets the scripture in such a manner is because the ground is said to be "dry." A root in dry ground is essentially dead or on the verge of death, as it receives no sustenance. Trees and plants are often used as metaphors in reference to ancestors. For example, the Messiah is said to be the "root of Yishai" (Isa. 53:11). That the Messiah, the root of Yishai, grows up out of dry ground, indicates that he is from an obscure family, contrary to the belief that the Messiah would be a well-known public figure worthy of pomp and grandeur.
I have also read that Raymundi Martini, in his Pugio Fidei, quotes Rabbi Moshe Ha-Darshan in saying that the Messiah would be fatherless, by connecting Zech 6:12 to Isa. 53:2 and Ps. 110:3 (according to the thought of the LXX). I'm currently searching the Pugio Fidei attempting to locate the page.


Why should we pray if God knows everything? If God knows everything, then why do we pray? For example, my dad is in the hospital, and he's really sick. So I pray to God to help my dad get better. Doesn't God know he's in the hospital and in need of help? Do my prayers prompt God to action? And if I don't prompt God for action, will he help my dad anyway?

Philippians 4:6 tells us

  "Be anxious for nothing, but in everything, by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving, let your requests be made known unto God."

In Acts 1:13-14, after Jesus ascends, we see

  "And when they (the Apostles) had entered, they went up to the upper room, where they were staying, Peter and John and James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot and Judas the son of James. All these with one accord were devoting themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and his brothers."

Acts 2:42, Acts 3:1, Acts 6:4 and Acts 12:5 all mirror this - the need and dependency on prayer.

So, why do we pray?
For a number of reasons. We pray because it is a form of serving the Lord (Luke 2:36-38). We pray in preparation for major decisions (Luke 6:12-13); to overcome demonic barriers (Matthew 17:14-21); to gather workers for the spiritual harvest (Luke 10:2); to gain strength to overcome temptation (Matthew 26:41); and to obtain the means of strengthening others spiritually (Ephesians 6:18-19).

Does God know your father is in the hospital in need of help?
Absolutely. His eyes are everywhere (Proverbs 15:3), and He knows all things (1 John 3:19-20).

Do your prayers prompt God to action?
Yes and no. God is no respecter of persons (Acts 10:34), and all things are in accordance to His will and if you ask as such, He will hear you (1 John 5:14). By praying to the Lord, you are showing Him you need Him. A perfect analogy would be like this - are you yourself more likely to help someone asking in the heat of the moment, or someone asking out of true sincerity?

If you don't prompt God for action, will he help your dad anyway?
Absolutely. God does not need to wait for you, or anyone else, to take action. He is above all things, and everything moves in accordance to His will. He does not want you or your father to suffer, and the odds are with you that He will help you and your family through this tough time.


When was the tripartite (body, soul, and spirit) view of man officially rejected by a church council? The trichotomy of man (or his trichotomous or tripartite nature) is the belief that man was created with three "parts" – body, soul, and spirit.  This is a popular viewpoint among many Christians, but the official position of Catholicism (Catechism §365), not to mention the majority view of many Protestant traditions, is that man consists of only body and soul.

It turns out that there was some disagreement on this point in the early church.  Apollinaris of Laodicea came up with a tripartite scheme in his attempts to explain the incarnation of Jesus, and he was defeated at the First Council of Constantinople (381).  However, according to J. Oliver Buswell's Systematic Theology (3.2.5.H.2), his trichotomism was not specifically rejected – just his view of Christ's nature more generally.

Thus, I wonder – when did the church specifically reject the trichotomy of man?  By "church" I'm referring to the orthodox (small O) church prior to the East-West schism, the Western church prior to the Reformation, and, if necessary, Roman Catholicism after that.  Note too that this means I'm looking for official church councils, not the writings of respected fathers and doctors.

Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (Book 2, §14), directs us to relevant councils:

4th Council of Constantinople (869–70)
4th Lateran Council (1215)

The first of these rejects the idea that man has "two souls," which, if not completely rejecting trichotomy, at least gets close to it.  Canon 11 reads:

The Old and the New Testaments teach that man has one rational and intellectual soul, and all the Fathers speaking the word of God, and all the teachers of the Church declare the same opinion. (Denzinger, §338)
unam animam rationabilem et intellectualem habere hominem (Ott)

In the opening chapter of the 4th Lateran Council, we find a more explicit statement within a general expounding of God's nature and creative work:

By [God's] own omnipotent power at once from the beginning of time created each creature from nothing, spiritual, and corporal, namely, angelic and mundane, and finally the human, constituted as it were, alike of the spirit and the body. (Denzinger, §428)
deinde (condidit creaturam) humanam quasi communem ex spiritu et corpore
constitutam (Ott)

So it turns out that the trichotomous doctrines were only officially rejected several centuries after Apollinaris, but still well before the Reformation.  Thus it makes sense that many major Protestant traditions continued to hold this view.


How do Lutherans interpret Matthew 15:11? "What goes into someone's mouth does not defile them, but what comes out of their mouth, that is what defiles them." Matthew 15:11.
I guess one thing that Jesus wants to say here is that eating pork does not defile man, or any other food that was forbidden. But what else does Jesus mean? What about the "but what comes out of their mouth, that is what defiles them." part?

In Matthew 15:11, Jesus was responding to the Pharisees who said:

  "Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat." - Matthew 15:2 ESV

Jesus replied:

  He answered them, "And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? - Matthew 15:3 ESV

Jesus was telling the Pharisees that they were treating their tradition as equal to or greater than God's law.  Thus:

  10 And he called the people to him and said to them, "Hear and understand:
  11 it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but what comes out of the mouth; this defiles a person." - Matthew 15:10-11 ESV

He later elaborates that:

  17 Do you not see that whatever goes into the mouth passes into the stomach and is expelled?
  18 But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this defiles a person.
  19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander.
  20 These are what defile a person. But to eat with unwashed hands does not defile anyone." - Matthew 15:17-20 ESV

Put another way, your evil actions toward God and toward others are the source of your sin, not the failure to practice church rituals.


Are we saved by grace or works? Throughout the New Testament there seems to be a distinction drawn between grace and works, it is almost as if one salvation question is “who you are” and the second salvation question is “what have you done”.  On the one hand, we know we are saved by grace not by works, and yet we read that only the "doers" of the will of the Father will enter Heaven.

It seems as if there are two salvation questions: Have you received God’s grace by faith, are you born anew with the Holy Spirit and as such a child of God’s? The second seems to be as a child of God’s and with the availability of the Holy Spirit, is the Spirit of God bearing out Jesus Christ through your life's work?

Examples from Scripture:

Beginning with Jesus chastising Nicodemus in John 3:5,6 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

Grace to the Gentiles: Acts 15:8-10 And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?

Ephesians 2:5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)…2:8,9 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.

2 Timothy 1:9 Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began

In contrast Jesus says: Matthew 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

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

Revelation 21:7 He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son. But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

Is there any historical references within Christianity where the salvation of the soul by grace and the salvation of ones life works are differentiated (realizing that they are related)?  It certainly seems that 1 Corinthians 3:15 differentiates these perspectives: (If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved).  It seems the "new birth" assures entrance into God's kingdom and the "works" born of faith in the will of God the Father determines how much of ones life will will enter into the Kingdom of God, is this correct?

For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of
  yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should
  boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good
  works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.
  (Ephesians 2:8-10)

Good works do not earn us a ticket into heaven, the merits of the sacrifice of Christ alone earn us a ticket into heaven.  But it is also written

  Those who regard worthless idols Forsake their own Mercy. (Jonah 2:8)

Although good works do not earn us a ticket to heaven, evil works if not confessed and overcome can disqualify us from heaven.  Therefore we can say "For it is by grace you have been saved through faith, and faith if it has not works is dead" (Ephesians 2:8, James 2:17) You are absolutely on the right track when you say we must be doers of the word, and overcomers of sin, yet we are saved by grace.

  We have no hesitancy in telling you that in order to obtain the
  immortal inheritance and the eternal substance, you must be overcomers
  in this probationary life. Everything that blots and stains the soul
  must be removed, must be cleansed from the heart. We must know what it
  means to be a partaker of the divine nature, having escaped the
  corruptions that are in the world through lust. Are you willing to
  wage war against the lusts of the flesh? Are you ready to battle
  against the enemy of God and man? Satan is determined to enslave every
  soul if he can; for he is playing a desperate game to win the souls of
  men from Christ and eternal life. Will you permit him to steal from
  you the graces of the Spirit of God, and plant in you his own corrupt
  nature? or will you accept the great provision of salvation, and
  through the merits of the Infinite Sacrifice made in your behalf,
  become a partaker of the divine nature? God has given His
  only-begotten Son, that through His shame, suffering, and death, you
  might have glory, honor, and immortality. The Signs of the Times, June
  15, 1891


Can anybody identify from which order these nuns are? Picture taken Eastbourne about 1900.

The order I believe it is the order of Grey Nuns (of the Sacred Heart).

Here is a US branch with an image with a similar headpiece.

Here are a few different orders but the leftmost is a Grey Nun with a heart-shaped headpiece.

This is the original posting of that image but there aren't any details besides those given by OP.

@MattGutting found a nun who disagrees with me (I am not certain in my answer so it is definitely possible). She says:

  Def not Gray Nuns. They have more of a widow's peak looking thing. Could be Sisters of Christian Charity of St Elizabeth w/ modified neck piece. They may be an order unique to the UK, however. The ones that tend to have the "heart" facepiece are usually some form of "Charity" nun.


How can an atheist or Jew Baptize? It's my understanding that a Jew or even an atheist can perform a baptism if they use the proper form and matter, with the correct disposition, which is, to do what the Church intends. How can an atheist have the right intention if they do not even believe that Original Sin exists?

The idea you are paraphrasing is ex opere operato, the idea that the sacrament is in itself efficacious and does not depend on the intention of either the minister or the recipient. Not all denominations hold to it. Those that do, probably have nuances in their application of it. The historical origins of this viewpoint go back to the Donatist Controversy in the 4th century. Back then the schism was between ex opere operanti and ex opere operato.

Here are a couple of links explaining them both in more detail:

Ex Opere Operato (New Catholic Encyclopedia)

Ex Opere Operanti (New Catholic Encyclopedia)