Is the Israel of the NT the modern country? The Israel talked about throughout the Old Testament is fairly clearly a specific people group and later a country. The New Testament also makes references to Israel. Are these references comparable? Are they still talking about the Jewish people group and modern nation of Israel?

Is there any reason to believe that the NT mentions of Israel are to be understood differently?

As an example, consider this verse fragment:

  Romans 11:26a (ESV)
  And in this way all Israel will be saved...

Should this verse be understood to mean that all the citizens of the modern country of Israel will be saved or is the sense different? If different, where does this difference start and how is one to know when a reference to 'Israel' carries which meaning?

Not at all. Israel itself has many meanings in the OT:

Israel = Jacob, son of Isaac
Israel = The nation of Israel (all 12 tribes of Israel)
Israel = The northern tribes of Israel (as opposed to Judah)
Israel = The people of God

The most common usage in the Old Testament is that it's referring to the nation of Israel (the full nation until Northern Israel went into Exile and then Judah). But although Israel were the people of God, many of them weren't really. We see this because of their sinful rebellion and God punishes them through two exiles. Their hearts were hard and they frequently chased after foreign gods.

And yet, we do find a portion of Israel, called the remnant or True Israel, who serve God as the nation were supposed to. We see this when Elijah is hiding after having slayed the priests of Baal and God tells him that he has preserved 7000 people faithful to him (1 Kings 19:18). In fact, all through the Old Testament, the idea of the faithful remnant is present. The remnant is really what the whole nation was supposed to be (a people who loved God and devoted themselves to honouring Him).

And so we come to the new Testament. Paul gives a great teaching on this in Romans:

  Romans 9:6-8 (NIV)
   6 It is not as though God’s word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. 7 Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children. On the contrary, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.” 8 In other words, it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring.

He makes the distinction I've explained above - not all Israel are Israel, i.e. not all of the nation of Israel are God's people (see one meaning of Israel applied to the first reference and another to the second). God has always kept Himself a faithful remnant and indeed, this is how it is for us as Christians. God's People (the New Israel) who are defined as people who accept God by faith, regardless of whether they are Jew or Gentile (Romans 3:21-31).

So returning to your verse:

  Romans 11:25-26a (NIV)
   25 I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers and sisters, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in, 26 and in this way all Israel will be saved.

Christians everywhere are the new Israel, the People of God, and they comprise Jews and Gentiles. It has nothing to do with the modern country of Israel.


Under what conditions can a re-married Catholic couple receive the sacrament of the eucharist? According to familiaris consortio, the only case where a "civilly" re-married Catholic may receive communion, is where they repent and live like brother-sister, so to speak.

Are there other, perhaps special situations, where such a Catholic may be allowed to receive the Eucharist? Is there some applicable canon law, other papal, or something in the catechism that I may not be aware of?

We are assuming that the re-married catholic had a prior valid marriage in Catholic church that has not yet been declared null, and that the second marriage is a civil marriage only.

Are there other, perhaps special situation, where such a Catholic - divorced and remarried - may be allowed to receive the Eucharist?

No there aren't
Unless a declaration of nullity [cf.entire Ch 1 (Art 1-7) Code of Canon Law] is issued on the prior marriage, and the current marriage convalidated.

  a. Epikeia and aequitas canonica exist in the sphere of human and
  purely ecclesiastical norms of great significance, but cannot be
  applied to those norms over which the Church has no discretionary
  authority. The indissoluble nature of marriage is one of these norms
  which goes back to Christ Himself and is thus identified as a norm of
  divine law. The Church cannot sanction pastoral practices - for
  example, sacramental pastoral practices - which contradict the clear
  instruction of the Lord.

  In other words, if the prior marriage of two divorced and remarried members of the faithful was valid, under no circumstances can their
  new union be considered lawful and therefore reception of the
  sacraments is intrinsically impossible. The conscience of the
  individual is bound to this norm without exception.2

  2 Cf. Angel Rodríguez Luño, L’epicheia nella cura pastorale
  dei fedeli divorziati risposati, ibid., pp. 75-87; Piero Giorgio
  Marcuzzi, S.D.B., Applicazione di "aequitas et epikeia" ai contenuti
  della Lettera della Congregazione per la Dottrina della Fede del 14
  settembre 1994, ibid., pp. 88-98; Gilles Pelland, S.J., La pratica
  della Chiesa antica relativa ai fedeli divorziati risposati, ibid.,
  pp. 99-131.

  Source: Objections to the Church's Teaching on the Reception of Holy Communion by Divorced and Remarried Members of the Faithful by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger | Congregation for the Doctrine for the Faith.

Please see also

  CCC 1665 The remarriage of persons divorced from a living, lawful
  spouse contravenes the plan and law of God as taught by Christ. They
  are not separated from the Church, but they cannot receive Eucharistic
  communion. They will lead Christian lives especially by educating
  their children in the faith.

And

CDF October 22, 2014 response to the Question of a French Priest: "Can a confessor grant absolution to a penitent who, having been religiously married, has contracted a second union following divorce?"

Endnote

OP contained - "civilly" re-married Catholic - wording. If one is re-married, there must have been a prior marriage that ended in a divorce.
A Sacramental marriage is a marriage between two baptized persons. A valid marriage between a Catholic and a non-baptized person is NOT a sacramental marriage.
If a Catholic marries not observing the Church's laws on marriage, that marriage is invalid.

Please see this answer to: Is a Catholic annulment divorce in a Catholic way?


If Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) don't believe in a Holy Trinity, then who do they believe is God? It's a pretty well-known fact that Latter-Day Saint members (aka Mormons) do not believe in the Holy Trinity, i.e., that God, Christ and the Holy Ghost are 'one'.  So what exactly do they believe in, when it comes to the nature of God?

Along these lines, how can they understand scriptures that state Christ and God are one?

LDS understanding of the nature of the Father and the Son is drawn from the First Vision, Joseph Smith's first-hand account of an encounter with them as an answer to his prayer to learn the truth about God and religion:

  I saw a pillar of light exactly over my head, above the brightness of the sun, which descended gradually until it fell upon me. ... When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!

The Father and the Son reveal themselves as distinct individuals.  And if this is not in harmony with the traditional description passed down in various creeds,

  The Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that ... “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”

Joseph Smith later clarified that:

  The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us.

LDS understanding of the Father and the Son being "one" is more in keeping with the literal meaning of the original text than of the interpretations that arose from it.  It kind of gets lost in translation, but it's a lot more clear in Greek that the Father and Christ are not one (the same being); they are one (united, the same in purpose.)  Further clarification can be found in John 17, where Jesus asks four separate times in his great intercessory prayer to the Father that his disciples may be one "even as we are."  To interpret this as a desire for the disciples to somehow merge into a composite being would be strange, to say the least.


How do opponents respond to the Grace Gambit? You might be familiar with Pascal's Wager, also known as Pascal's Gambit. It states that one is best off believing in Christianity, because, if it is true, you'll be saved and go to heaven, and if it is not true, it has still led you a decent life of moral behavior.
As Pascal said, "If you win, you win everything, if you lose, you lose nothing" - i.e, if you're right, you get eternal life, if you're wrong, you only sustain (if any) temporary injuries.
I personally disagree with this wager, but I thought of a related gambit that addresses those that believe in a pseudo-works salvation. It is as follows:

If you are saved by grace, you should want to serve God as heartily
and fully as possible, loving him and your neighbor and doing good
works. If we assume that, if salvation is not by grace, that it is by
works, than you are best off believing in grace in the first place, as
it will fuel you to do good works, and if it turns out to be wrong,
you'll still most probably get into heaven given the amount of good
you've done.

This goes for any degree of human participation, be it a light view of faith/works salvation or a full-fledged Pelagian view of salvation by works.
My question is, how would those that this gambit addresses respond to it? Catholics, Arminians (sort of), Pelagians, any who hold to any degree of human participation of works to salvation, how would you respond to this logic, both biblically and logically?
In sum, why not believe in salvation by grace? It'll fuel you to do good works, and if you're right, you'll be saved. If you're wrong, and salvation is by works, no sweat! You've already done all those good works as a result of grace anyways, so you'll be saved that way too.

This isn't truly an "answer" to the question so to speak, so please excuse my butting in here.  I think it may be helpful, however, for future readers, to do a small deconstruction of this argument from the perspective of a sola fide belief system.  I'm still interested in the other perspectives as well.

While logically, the gambit seems to make sense, it makes unclear the entire object of the faith in a very relativistic way.  At it's core, the different soteriologies that exist all point, eventually, to a difference in who God is.  The soteriology of salvation by faith alone apart from works implicitly assumes that there is a loving God who has provided a way for us to be near him, and has provided it in such a way so that:

We are freed from having to do works for salvation.
God is declared righteous and the only one worthy of praise.

To have a "fall-back" position is to either be unclear or deny the character of God has he has revealed it through Scripture.  In other words, living by the gambit is inherently a lack of faith in the saving power of God via Christ's sacrifice.  It's the kind of relativist "soft belief" that is so pervasive today (for which we have Pascal, among others, to thank).

It's the Christianized version of the relativistic worldview, which will claim to believe something, but doesn't believe either it's truth or it's power enough to stand it up in contrast to conflicting beliefs.  In other words, it's prideful unbelief masked in believing terms for no true reason other than to allow the one holding the gambit a false sense of security that they've somehow "out-logicked" God, and thus, he can hold God's hand to the fire saying he must save us because of our amazing prowess with finding loopholes.

In other words, it's another sign of depravity.

And I say this with great humility, realizing as I write this that I, sadly, am too often subject to this form of unbelief.


In Aquinas's first proof of God's existence, what is the difference between accidentally and essentially ordered causal series? I'm reading «Teología Natural» by Ángel Luis González. In the book, it is stated that St. Thomas Aquinas' viae would allow an indefinite series of causes.
He distiguishes between two causes. The first is the "cause essentially subordinated in the present", and the "cause accidentally subordinated in the past". Only the latter can come from a process in infinitum. He even quotes St.Thomas: S.Th., I, q.46, a.2, ad 7.

I'm having a some difficulty in understanding what these two types of causes are.

Any help would be appreciated

Here's S.Th., I, q.46, a.2, ad 7, for reference:

In efficient causes it is impossible to proceed to infinity "per se"—thus, there cannot be an infinite number of causes that are "per se" required for a certain effect; for instance, that a stone be moved by a stick, the stick by the hand, and so on to infinity. But it is not impossible to proceed to infinity "accidentally" as regards efficient causes; for instance, if all the causes thus infinitely multiplied should have the order of only one cause, their multiplication being accidental, as an artificer acts by means of many hammers accidentally, because one after the other may be broken. It is accidental, therefore, that one particular hammer acts after the action of another; and likewise it is accidental to this particular man as generator to be generated by another man; for he generates as a man, and not as the son of another man. For all men generating hold one grade in efficient causes—viz. the grade of a particular generator. Hence it is not impossible for a man to be generated by man to infinity; but such a thing would be impossible if the generation of this man depended upon this man, and on an elementary body, and on the sun, and so on to infinity.

St. Thomas distinguishes between causal series ordered per accidens ("accidentally") and causal series ordered per se ("essentially"). Edward Feser's Aquinas: A Beginner's Guide (ch. 3 "Natural Theology," § "The First Way") describes the difference:

This brings us to an important distinction Aquinas and other medieval thinkers made between two kinds of series of efficient causes. On the one hand there are causal series ordered per accidens or “accidentally,” in the sense that the causal activity of any particular member of the series is not essentially dependent on that of any prior member of the series. Take, for example, the series consisting of Abraham begetting Isaac, Isaac begetting Jacob, and Jacob begetting Joseph. Once he has himself been begotten by Abraham (and then grows to maturity, of course), Isaac is fully capable of begetting Jacob on his own, even if Abraham dies in the meantime. It is true that he would not have existed had Abraham not begotten him, but the point is that once Isaac exists he has the power to beget a son all by himself, and Abraham’s continued existence or non-existence is irrelevant to his exercise of that power. The same is true of Jacob with respect to both Abraham and Isaac, and of Joseph with respect to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Given that we are considering them as a series of begetters specifically, each member is independent of the others as far as its causal powers are concerned. Contrast this with a causal series ordered per se or “essentially.” Aquinas’s example from the First Way of the staff which is moved by the hand is a standard illustration, and we can add to the example by supposing that the staff is being used to move a stone, which is itself moving a fallen leaf. Here the motion of the leaf depends essentially on the motion of the stone, which in turn depends essentially on the motion of the staff, which itself depends essentially in turn on the motion of the hand. For if any member higher up in the series ceases its causal activity, the activity of the lower members will necessarily cease as well. For instance, if the staff was to slip away from the stone, the stone, and thus the leaf too, will stop moving; and of course, if the hand stops moving, the whole series, staff included, will automatically stop. In this case the causal power of the lower members derives entirely from that of the first member, the hand. In fact, strictly speaking it is not the stone which is moving the leaf and the staff which is moving the stone, but rather the hand which is moving everything else, with the stone being used by it as an instrument to move the leaf and the staff being used as an instrument to move both stone and leaf.
Causal series ordered per accidens are linear in character and extend through time, as in the begetting example, in which Abraham’s begetting Isaac occurs well before Isaac’s begetting Jacob, and Isaac’s begetting Jacob occurs well before Jacob’s begetting Joseph. Causal series ordered per se are paradigmatically hierarchical with their members acting simultaneously, as in the staff example where the movement of the leaf occurs precisely when the movement of the stone occurs, which is precisely when the movement of the staff occurs, which is precisely when the movement of the hand occurs. Now it is in Aquinas’s view at least theoretically possible for a causal series ordered per accidens to regress to infinity, and thus have no beginning point (ST I.46.2). (This is why Aquinas thinks it is not possible to prove via purely philosophical arguments that the world must have had a beginning in time.) For since each member of such a series has its causal power independently of the earlier members, there is no need to trace any particular member’s action back to the activity of a first member; for instance, when Jacob begets Joseph, it is precisely Jacob who begets him, and not Abraham who begets him by using Isaac and Jacob as instruments. By contrast, “in efficient causes it is impossible to proceed to infinity per se – thus, there cannot be an infinite number of causes that are per se required for a certain effect; for instance, that a stone be moved by a stick, the stick by the hand, and so on to infinity” (ST I.46.2). For “that which moves as an instrumental cause cannot move unless there be a principal moving cause” (SCG I.13.15). That is to say, since the lower members of a causal series ordered per se have no causal power on their own but derive it entirely from a first cause, which (as it were) uses them as instruments, there is no sense to be made of such a series having no first member. If a first member who is the source of the causal power of the others did not exist, the series as a whole simply would not exist, as the movement of the leaf, stone, and staff cannot occur in the absence of the hand.
What Aquinas is saying, then, is that it is in the very nature of causal series ordered per se to have a first member, precisely because everything else in the series only counts as a member in the first place relative to the actions of a first cause. To suggest that such a series might regress infinitely, without a first member, is therefore simply unintelligible. The leaf is “moved” by the stone only in a loose sense; strictly speaking, the leaf, stone, and staff are all really being moved by the hand. Thus to suggest that this series of purely instrumental causes might regress to infinity is incoherent, for they would not in that case be the instruments of anything at all (CT I.3). As A. D. Sertillanges put it, you might as well say “that a brush can paint by itself, provided it has a very long handle” (quoted by Garrigou-Lagrange in God: His Existence and His Nature).
Given their essentially instrumental character, all causes in such a series other than the first cause are referred to by Aquinas as “second causes” (“second” not in the sense of coming after the first but before the third member of the series, but rather in the sense having their causal power only in a secondary or derivative way). It is worth emphasizing that it is precisely this instrumental nature of second causes, the dependence of whatever causal power they have on the causal activity of the first cause, that is the key to the notion of a causal series per se. That the members of such a series exist simultaneously, and that the series does not regress to infinity, are of secondary importance. As Patterson Brown and John Wippel point out, even if a series of causes ordered per se could somehow be said to regress to infinity, it would remain the case, given that they are merely instrumental causes, that there must then be something outside the entire infinite series that imparts to them their causal power.
Whether or not the series of causes per accidens regresses infinitely into the past, then – and again, while Aquinas believed that it did not, he didn’t think this could be proven through philosophical arguments – a causal series per se existing here and now, and at any moment we are considering the matter, must necessarily trace back to a first member. But strictly speaking, even the hand in Aquinas’s example doesn’t count as a first mover – the example is intended merely as a first approximation to the notion of a first mover – because it is itself being moved insofar as its activity depends on the motion of the arm, the flexing of certain muscles, and so forth. To understand the way in which such a series regresses and how it does and must terminate, it is crucial to remember that for Aquinas, motion or change is just the reduction of potency to act. So when we talk about one thing being moved by another, which is moved by another, and so on, in a causal series ordered per se, this is shorthand for saying that a certain potency is reduced to act by something whose potency is itself reduced to act by something whose potency is itself reduced to act by … and so forth. (Or, to soften the technical terminology slightly, a certain potentiality is actualized by something whose potentiality is itself actualized by something whose potentiality is itself actualized by … and so on.) As should be evident, such a series can only possibly terminate in something which is not reduced to act or actualized by anything else, but which just is in act or actual, and thus “unmoving.” The potential of the hand for movement is actualized here and now by the flexing of the muscles of the hand, the potential of the muscles to flex is actualized here and now by the firing of certain motor neurons, the potential of the motor neurons to fire is actualized here and now by the firing of certain other neurons, and so forth. Eventually this regress must terminate in something which here and now actualizes potentialities without itself being actualized, an unmoved mover.


How does the relationship compare between earthly children and spiritual children in LDS theology? As I understand LDS teaching, a couple may have an eternal family with the children they produce here on earth.  However, that couple may also attain godhood and then produce spiritual children for their own worlds as well.  Thus, a couple may have both earthly children as well as celestial or spiritual children.  Their spiritual children then take on flesh on another world and seek to attain godhood themselves.  (This is the doctrine of eternal progression, as I understand it.)

So, my question concerns the relationship of the couple that attains godhood to their spiritual or celestial children and how that is similar or different from the relationship they have with the children they had here on earth.

Do the celestial or spiritual children become part of their eternal family as well?  Do spiritual children share equal status with earthly children?

All people on Earth are spiritual sons and daughters of God, who is called Heavenly Father for this reason.  So, all those on this Earth who "attain godhood" will be reunited with Him in one giant happy eternal family.  This includes a couple and their earthly children.

At this point, it becomes more speculation on my part.  There may be references for what I am about to say, but I couldn't tell you them.

As I understand it, any spiritual children that a celestial couple has will go through the whole plan of salvation that we are currently going through on another "world".  As they attain godhood, they will be added into the big happy eternal family that will include their earthly parents, their spiritual parents, and our Heavenly Father and Mother.  As far as whether they will have "equal status" I would say yes in the sense that all people are equal in God's eye, but I would say no in the sense that the earthly children would have much much more time to progress, and therefore will be at a higher level similar to how God is at a higher level than us.


How often do Christian missionaries report occurrences of miracles while on the mission field? From time to time I come across testimonies of missionaries reporting extraordinary anecdotes that occurred when they were on the mission field. For instance, I've heard of stories of people getting miraculously healed after getting prayed for, demonic entities showing up at night telling them they won't be able to evangelize in that country, bullets getting deflected, people manifesting as if possessed and getting delivered, etc. The following are some of the most extraordinary anecdotes from missionaries that I've come across so far:
A,
B,
C,
D
E,
F,
G,
H,
I,
J,
K,
L,
M,
N,
O,
P,
Q,
R,
S.
Question: How common is it that Christian missionaries come back from their mission trips reporting extraordinary anecdotes? How often do missionaries report supernatural experiences of any sort while on the mission field? Do any denominations or Christian organizations keep records of these extraordinary stories from their missionaries?

I have been in touch with individual missionaries, and missionary couples, over many decades. They send reports to prayer supporters and probably even more fulsome reports to any missionary society or church that sends them and helps provide for them.  Some missionaries are self-supporting and do not report back to any organisation or church, only sending news-letters to Christians who pray for them. They are full of miracles “in the field”. I have also read many books about missionary exploits, some in previous centuries. I could not collate any statistics on the frequency of such missionary reports of miraculous events, for there are far too many even with the limited information I have. Nor do I have access to missionary reports outside of Protestant ones although I support Christian Solidarity Worldwide which has a largely Catholic base. When I heard Baroness Cox speak locally, she was asked if she believed in miracles.

“We don’t believe in miracles,” she replied, “We DEPEND on miracles!”

And therein lies the problem with answering your question.
The extent of God-ordained miracles in outreach work of missionaries and those helping the persecuted Church is so vast as to be incalculable. Even if you were to find an organisation logging missionary experiences of miracles from every Christian denomination there is, they would miss out a huge number. There’s a specific reason for that.
It has to do with the safety and protection of Christian missionaries. These days, few countries allow religious missionaries of any religion to enter in for such activity. They can enter in order to fill teaching posts, or do engineering work, or medical work etc, but if they are suspected of also doing Christian missionary work, they will be expelled and never allowed to return. In some countries in the world where, I suspect, the greatest number of miracles are happening, Christians involved (whether missionaries or nationals living there) could end up in prison or even lose their lives. I personally know one man born in such a country who now lives with his family abroad, but visits it (and other countries that are immensely dangerous to operate in), and all his news-letters have miracles in them. Not that he tells us of all such miracles. He would need a book to record them all, and I do not exaggerate. Another couple I personally know go in and out of India, at their own expense, and their news-letters are just the same. They relate some miracles, but many others are only mentioned in verbal exchanges. They, too, would be in some danger if their identities became public.  A family I personally know who spent decades living in Turkey warned every reader of their news-letters not to make the information public.  Another couple I know who were missionaries in Africa happily shared wonderful events with friends in the church but their ‘sending’ organisation who would also know of these events, would only record accounts from missionaries ‘signed up’ to their group.
I doubt if there is any official body collating all records of all missionary ‘miracle’ experiences. And there is no way I would share with you or anybody else the many miracles I have heard of over the decades. I would not even suggest bare statistics because providing those would entail a huge number of hours of searching through those news-letters I kept (from the early 1980s till now), but most were shredded.  This means that your main question is unanswerable (by anybody). Your second question would surely get the answer, “It is not uncommon” from every Christian involved with missionaries. Your third question would require an answer from people in touch with every missionary in the world, and I doubt if even one such person exists. Your fourth question gets a “No such organisation does all of that” from me, but I could be wrong.
This is a less than helpful response to your four questions, but because you ask about a really interesting and important matter, I have risked incurring the wrath of the moderators by posting what amounts to a non-answer, apart, that is, from my answer to your second question - How common is it that Christian missionaries come back from their mission trips reporting extraordinary anecdotes?  -to which I have replied, “It is not uncommon”.


Do any Protestant denominations organize a canon starting from a collection of books other than the Roman Catholic Church's canon? It is my understanding that most Protestant groups recognise a 66 book canon which is entirely a subset of the Roman Catholic canon and which was developed by removing the so-called apocrypha from the Latin Church's Old Testament. Are there any Protestant denominations which started from a non-Roman canon when developing their Bible?

For example, some Orthodox churches organize their Bibles to include some or all of the following works the Catholic Church does not include in her canon. Do any Protestant denominations include any of these in their Bibles, or specifically reject these books in the formation of their canon in the same way some Protestant groups specifically reject Tobit and Baruch?

1 Esdras
2 Esdras
3 Maccabees
4 Maccabees
Prayer of Manasseh
Psalm 151
Psalms 152–155
Jubilees
Enoch 1–3
Meqabyan
2 Baruch

Protestant in this sense should be taken to be used in the broader meaning: Any western non-Catholic non-Orthodox church founded during or after the Reformation, especially those founded in the United States of America.

(List from Wikipedia)

Many of the Reformation confessions (statements of belief) mention an Apocrypha, but most do not explicitly give a list of non-canonical books. Two do however, which I have quoted below. Most of those non-canonical books are in the Catholic canon, but three are not:  the Prayer of Manasseh and 3rd and 4th Esdras (sometimes confusingly called 1st and 2nd Esdras). What marks these books out is that they were included in the Vulgate. So I think the debate over the Protestant canon was not so much about revising the Catholic canon, but evaluating the books that were well known in Europe.

I haven't found any modern statements of belief that explicitly list excluded books. Although Protestant academia is of course aware of the other canons and I'm sure you could find detailed arguments for why each book is excluded, in general there is little debate now over any of the OT apocrypha. Now the debate is over why the Pseudepigrapha were excluded.

I found one more interesting statement in the Helvetic Consensus, which I will quote last: it says that only the Hebrew of the OT is to be accepted, and that it should not be corrected (i.e. through textual criticism) by the Septuagint or Samaritan Pentateuch etc. This is a position which would be rejected by most Protestants today, and most Bible translations do frequently prefer the Septuagint over the Masoretic text. This is significant for this question because most of the books rejected by the Western church were not written in Hebrew. As the Eastern church emphasised Greek texts and preferred the Septuagint over the Hebrew, there would've been little issue with accepting additional books written in Greek. This is probably the ultimate reason why the Orthodox churches accept so many more books than the Western churches.

Dutch Reformed: The Belgic Confession (1566)

  Article 6: The Difference Between Canonical and Apocryphal Books

  We distinguish between these holy books
  and the apocryphal ones,

  which are the third and fourth books of Esdras;
  the books of Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Jesus Sirach, Baruch;
  what was added to the Story of Esther;
  the Song of the Three Children in the Furnace;
  the Story of Susannah;
  the Story of Bel and the Dragon;
  the Prayer of Manasseh;
  and the two books of Maccabees.

  The church may certainly read these books
  and learn from them
  as far as they agree with the canonical books.
  But they do not have such power and virtue
  that one could confirm
  from their testimony
  any point of faith or of the Christian religion.
  Much less can they detract
  from the authority
  of the other holy books.

Anglicanism: The 39 Articles (1571)

  Article VI

  Of the Sufficiency of the holy Scriptures for salvation

  Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. In the name of the holy Scripture, we do understand those Canonical books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church.

  Of the Names and Number of the Canonical Books

  Genesis
  Exodus
  Leviticus
  Numbers
  Deuteronomy
  Joshua
  Judges
  Ruth
  The First Book of Samuel
  The Second Book of Samuel
  The First Book of Kings
  The Second Book of Kings
  The First Book of Chronicles
  The Second Book of Chronicles
  The First Book of Esdras
  The Second Book of Esdras
  The Book of Esther
  The Book of Job
  The Psalms
  The Proverbs
  Ecclesiastes or Preacher
  Cantica, or Songs of Solomon
  Four Prophets the greater
  Twelve Prophets the less

  And the other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine; such are these following:

  The Third Book of Esdras
  The Fourth Book of Esdras
  The Book of Tobias
  The Book of Judith
  The rest of the Book of Esther
  The Book of Wisdom
  Jesus the Son of Sirach
  Baruch the Prophet
  The Song of the Three Children
  The Story of Susanna
  Of Bel and the Dragon
  The Prayer of Manasses
  The First Book of Maccabees
  The Second Book of Maccabees

  All the Books of the New Testament, as they are commonly received, we do receive, and account them Canonical.

Swiss Reformed: The Helvetic Consensus (1675)

  Canon II:

  But, in particular, The Hebrew original of
  the OT which we have received and to this day do retain as
  handed down by the Hebrew Church, “who had been given the
  oracles of God” (Rom 3:2), is, not only in its consonants, but
  in its vowels either the vowel points themselves, or at least
  the power of the points not only in its matter, but in its
  words, inspired by God. It thus forms, together with the
  Original of the NT the sole and complete rule of our faith and
  practice; and to its standard, as to a Lydian stone, all extant
  versions, eastern or western, ought to be applied, and wherever
  they differ, be conformed.

  Canon III:

  Therefore, we are not able to approve of
  the opinion of those who believe that the text which the Hebrew
  Original exhibits was determined by man’s will alone, and do not
  hesitate at all to remodel a Hebrew reading which they consider
  unsuitable, and amend it from the versions of the LXX and other
  Greek versions, the Samaritan Pentateuch, by the Chaldaic
  Targums, or even from other sources. They go even to the point
  of following the corrections that their own rational powers
  dictate from the various readings of the Hebrew Original itself
  which, they maintain, has been corrupted in various ways; and
  finally, they affirm that besides the Hebrew edition of the
  present time, there are in the versions of the ancient
  interpreters which differ from our Hebrew text, other Hebrew
  Originals. Since these versions are also indicative of ancient
  Hebrew Originals differing from each other, they thus bring the
  foundation of our faith and its sacred authority into perilous
  danger.


What were Jesus's last words on the cross? I've been comparing the same events written across different gospels recently, and although I was aware of the differences between the gospel accounts of Jesus's very last moments before death I really was stuck when I started to look at them in depth.

Mark and Mathew are very similar, though once you get to Luke, then John seem to diverge.

Mark 15:33-37

  At noon, darkness came over the whole land until three in the afternoon. And at three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?” (which means “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”).
  When some of those standing near heard this, they said, “Listen, he’s calling Elijah.”
  Someone ran, filled a sponge with wine vinegar, put it on a staff, and offered it to Jesus to drink. “Now leave him alone. Let’s see if Elijah comes to take him down,” he said.
  With a loud cry, Jesus breathed his last.

Matthew 27:45-50

  From noon until three in the afternoon darkness came over all the land. 46 About three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eli, Eli,[c] lema sabachthani?” (which means “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”).
  When some of those standing there heard this, they said, “He’s calling Elijah.”
  Immediately one of them ran and got a sponge. He filled it with wine vinegar, put it on a staff, and offered it to Jesus to drink. The rest said, “Now leave him alone. Let’s see if Elijah comes to save him.”
  And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit.

Luke 23:44-46

  It was now about noon, and darkness came over the whole land until three in the afternoon, for the sun stopped shining. And the curtain of the temple was torn in two. Jesus called out with a loud voice, “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit.” When he had said this, he breathed his last.

John 19:28:-29

  Later, knowing that everything had now been finished, and so that Scripture would be fulfilled, Jesus said, “I am thirsty.” A jar of wine vinegar was there, so they soaked a sponge in it, put the sponge on a stalk of the hyssop plant, and lifted it to Jesus’ lips. When he had received the drink, Jesus said, “It is finished.” With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.

Its easy to reconcile many events in the gospels using telescoping (they just skipped over large sections of time, without mention) but here they are talking about such discrete moment in time that its hard to use that explanation. Also, there is a clear cause and effect sequence, especial with Luke ("When he had said this...") and John ("With that..."), its hard to reconcile.

Is there an answer other than at least two gospel writers just got it wrong? Or they weren't reporting on Jesus's actually words but only making theological points?

And a secondary question is, if presumably Luke had a copy of Mark when he was writing and perhaps a copy of Matthew as well, then why would he deviate when it was right in front of him? And of course John may or may not have had a copy of any of the others in front of him.

I don't see how to answer this without copying and pasting the entire resolution from the other site, but in summary, each person documented what they heard, and in total we can deduce what he actually said, which is, all in a loud voice, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?", then "Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit:"and finally, "It is finished:"

From an apologetics site dedicated to showing possible resolutions to Bible discrepancies:
http://contenderministries.org/discrepancies/contradictions.php#17

  First, John was nearer to the cross and probably heard things the
  others didn't. John is referred to in scripture as the disciple that
  Jesus loved (John 13:23). Notice he is mentioned as being near the
  cross of Jesus.

  John 19:25  Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother, his mother's
  sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene. When Jesus saw
  his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he
  said to his mother, "Dear woman, here is your son," and to the
  disciple, "Here is your mother." From that time on, this disciple took
  her into his home."

  Notice, in the verse above, Jesus is speaking only to Mary and John
  who are directly below the cross.

  When John recounts the events at the cross, he's focusing on what was
  said privately to him at the foot of the cross and what's said to
  those standing close by - the plea of thirst, the statement of
  completion, and the turning over of responsibility for Jesus' mother
  to John.

  Matthew focused on the words Jesus said "in a loud voice" to all that
  were there (the crowd).

  The Last thing Matthew heard was "My god, my God, why hast thou
  forsaken me? Then a loud cry before giving up the ghost.

  Luke hears the same loud cry that Matthew mentions, but also hears
  after that, probably because he's closer, "Father, unto thy hands I
  commend my spirit". It makes sense that he would say "My God, My
  God..." in a louder voice than he would say his last words commending
  his spirit into the father's hands.

  When Jesus asked for something to drink, he was speaking to those
  below the cross where John was standing. John heard what the others
  farther back heard, but also heard the dialogue about asking the
  people near the cross for water and his quieter statement, "It is
  finished".

  Here are the three accounts put together:

  "And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, 'Eli,
  eli, lama sabachthani?' that is to say, 'My God, my God, why hast thou
  forsaken me?'....Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice said
  , 'Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit:' (notice the cry with a
  loud voice is separated from Jesus commending His spirit, probably
  quieter), then he said softly, 'It is finished:' and he bowed his
  head, and gave up the ghost."

Note that this is from one apologetics website, and is an interpretation rather than something we know as absolute fact, but it is answered using the basic principles of resolving Biblical discrepancies.


How widespread is the safe environment program in Catholic Catechetical programs? Tomorrow I get to once again do the safe environment class as directed by my diocese (Madison). I was just wondering, because I have nearly no way of knowing other than to maybe randomly get an associate of the USCCB wandering in here and answering my question, but is everyone doing this program or is it dependent on the amount of sexual abuse cases in your diocese, is it ever going to go away?  For me, at least, its getting pretty old.

I remember having to do something similar when I was hired at a parish in Mill Creek, Washington, US, in 1993. Thus (based purely on anecdotal evidence) in the United States such programs have been around for at least 20 years in at least some dioceses.

The website of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) has a page on the "Safe Environment" program, and another detailing a document known as the "Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People".  This document (PDF file) includes "Essential Norms", canon law specifically binding on dioceses in the United States. These Norms do not direct dioceses to have a "safe environment" program; however, the Charter itself, in Article 12, states:

  Dioceses/eparchies are to maintain “safe environment”
  programs which the diocesan/eparchial bishop deems to be
  in accord with Catholic moral principles. They are to be conducted
  cooperatively with parents, civil authorities, educators, and community
  organizations to provide education and training for children,
  youth, parents, ministers, educators, volunteers, and others about
  ways to make and maintain a safe environment for children and
  young people. Dioceses/eparchies are to make clear to clergy and all
  members of the community the standards of conduct for clergy and
  other persons in positions of trust with regard to children.

This Charter is described on the "Frequently Asked Questions" page of the USCCB's Committee for Child and Youth Protection as a "uniform policy" and states, on that page:

  Dioceses and eparchies have been required to meet Safe Environment expectations since 2003 and should plan on meeting those expectations for the foreseeable future.

(emphasis added)


Is there Catholic teaching and/or prophecy that a pope may be the false prophet of Revelation and the Church the whore of Babylon? This is a sample response to the claim that the pope is the Antichrist and this to the claim that the Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon of Revelation 17 and 18.

This question is asking whether there is Catholic teaching and/or prophecy that a pope, now or in the future, may be the false prophet of Revelation and the Church the whore of Babylon (= Rome).

This question was prompted because of websites like the first one below, and from the history of Israel. Please see:

Biblical False Prophet Cardinal Bergoglio – "Pope Francis"
cf. 2 Maccabees 4 (RSVCE)

cf. This prophetic message that has ecclesiastical approval:

  "Rome will lose faith and become the seat of the Antichrist."
   - APPARITION of the BLESSED VIRGIN on the Mountain of LA SALETTE the 19th of September, 1846. Published by the Shepherdess of La
  Salette with Imprimatur by Mgr. Bishop of Lecce.

Note: From scripture, fornication, immorality, whoring are in certain places used to mean idolatry and unfaithfulness to God.

cf. Catholics must learn to resist their popes — even Pope Francis by Michael Brendan Dougherty | May 6, 2014.

The commentary on 2 Thessalonians 2:4 (that Antichrist "sitteth in the temple of God") of the very anti-Protestant Original Douay-Rheims Bible says:

  St. Augustine therefore li. 20 de civit. c. 19 and St. Jerome q. 11 ad Algasiam. do think, that this sitting of Antichrist in the temple, doth signify his sitting in the Church of Christ, rather than in Solomon's temple. Not as though he should be a chief member of the Church of Christ, or a special part of his body mystical, and be Antichrist and yet withal continuing within the Church of Christ, as the Heretics feign, to make the Pope Antichrist (whereby they plainly confess and agnise [recognize] that the Pope is a member of the Church, & in ipso sinu Ecclesia, and in the very bosom of the Church, say they:) for that is ridiculous, that all Heretics whom St. John calleth Antichrists as his precursors, should go out of the Church, and the great Antichrist himself should be of the Church, and in the Church, and continue in the same. And yet to them that make the whole Church in revolt from God, this is no absurdity. But the truth is, that this Antichristian revolt here spoken of, is from the Catholic Church: and Antichrist, if he ever were of or in the Church, shall be an Apostate and a renegade out of the Church, and he shall usurp upon it by tyranny, and by challenging worship, religion, and government thereof, so that himself shall be adored in all the Churches of the world which he list to leave standing for his honor. And this is to sit in the temple or *against the Temple of God, as some interpret. If any Pope did ever this, or shall do, then let the Adversaries call him Antichrist.

This passage makes it clear that a true pope cannot be Antichrist, but Antichrist will be an anti-pope, and anti-popes are not members of the Church.

Cardinal Manning, the most prominent father at the First Vatican Council who was responsible for the definition on papal infallibility, said in his Temporal Power of the Vicar of Christ 2nd part (4 lectures), "The Perpetual Conflict of the Vicar of Christ", pp. 81-173 (available in printed form from TradiBooks as The Pope and The Antichrist):

  We have here [2 Thessalonians 2:3-11] a prophecy … of a [spiritual*] revolt, which shall precede the second coming of our Lord … The authority, then, from which the revolt is to take place is that of the kingdom of God on earth, prophesied by Daniel [cf. Daniel 2] as the kingdom which the God of heaven should set up … in other words, the one and universal Church, founded by our Divine Lord, and spread by His Apostles throughout the world. In this one only kingdom was deposited the true and supernatural pure theism, or knowledge of God, and the true and only faith of God incarnate, with the doctrines and laws of grace. This, then, is the authority from which the revolt is to be made, be that revolt what it may.

[*"St. Jerome, with some others, interprets this revolt to be the rebellion of the nations or provinces against the Roman Empire. … They have revolted, and no manifestation has appeared." Thus, the revolt is spiritual, not temporal.]

There's also Pope Leo XIII's Prayer to St. Michael the Archangel, which the Pope wrote after having a vision; its full version includes:

  These most crafty enemies have filled and inebriated with gall and bitterness the Church, the spouse of the immaculate Lamb, and have laid impious hands on her most sacred possessions. In the Holy Place itself, where has been set up the See of the most holy Peter and the Chair of Truth for the light of the world, they have raised the throne of their abominable impiety, with the iniquitous design that when the Pastor has been struck, the sheep may be scattered.

(source: the 1910 The Raccolta or Collection of indulgenced prayers and good works, p. 125)

cf. also The Permanent Instruction of the Alta Vendita: A Masonic Blueprint for the Subversion of the Catholic Church.

From all these quotes, it is clear that Antichrist will be a pope who apostatizes from the Church and thus becomes an anti-pope.


What is a mission trip? What does it mean when a person says "I have to go on a mission trip for a week", and the mission trip destination is in the United States of America, the person's home country?

I have the impression that a mission trip can actually be a missionary activity. Yet, I also have the impression that a mission trip is just a fun excursion or camping trip.

A mission trip should always include missionary activity.  The activity itself is widely varied and does not require international travel: it can include volunteer work, evangelism, teaching, or a number of other things.  The words "mission trip" speak to the purpose of the trip, not the activity of the trip.  The mission of a mission trip is to, either directly or indirectly, lead people toward God.
Oftentimes, these trips are exciting.  A person's motive for going on a mission trip, as with all things, is complex.  One of my pastor friends calls secondary motives, which everyone has to some degree, a "shadow mission".  For example, say there is a mission trip planned to build a house in Mexico with Casas Por Cristo.  The mission is to build a house for a poor family in the name of Jesus Christ, with the hope that the family receiving the house and people in that area would be positively affected by Christianity.  Casas Por Cristo works with local pastors to evangelize to the area; the people on the mission trip simply provide the labor (and money) to build the house itself.  A shadow mission for someone attending the trip may be to experience international travel, or spend time with a cute girl also on the trip, or to appear spiritual, or to have fun.
I only mention the idea of a "shadow mission" to explain why you may get the impression that it is "just a fun excursion or camping trip."  When that pastor would take college students on mission trips, he would urge them to evaluate their own shadow missions and to be aware that the true mission is leading people toward God.
Mission trips are generally short-term events.  Most trips are two weeks long or less, though trips can certainly be longer, up to a year or so.  Anything that is a year or longer is usually categorized as long-term missions, performed by a missionary.
Here are examples of mission trips:

Spending a week in Mexico building a house
Repairing a church building in Honduras
Working in a Russian orphanage
Smuggling Bibles into China or other closed countries
Helping clean up after Hurricane Sandy
Spending a week in San Francisco handing out gospel tracts and talking to people about God
Traveling 2 hours to a youth camp to repair/build cabins

Here are examples of things that are not mission trips.

Going to a Christian concert
Attending a Christian summer camp
Going camping with the Youth Group at your church
Driving to Disney World with a church group to ride rollercoasters
Watching a Christian movie at a theater with other Christians

That said, it is common in a one or two-week mission trip to include a fun day on the way home (which may be going to Disney World, seeing a concert, going to the beach, etc.).


What is the biblical basis for Antinomianism or extreme Grace? What is the biblical basis for systematic Antinomianism, or, if you prefer, extreme Grace?

I am looking for someone with first hand knowledge of its teachings who can justify this view. Wikipedia lists verses of the Bible which seem to counter it. A good answer will  rebut those verses from an Antinomianist's perspective.

Another term is "Gospel Reductionism".

Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. Romans 8:1
For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. 1 Cor 2:2
Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. Mark 16:16

There are very few people who openly claim the name Antinomian. But I've met many who were effectively Antinomian in their faith walk.  In different cases, I've seen discussions of sin, social responsibility, and even good works "shut down" by repeating one of the three verses above.
In other words, "there is no condemnation" is read as "no need to examine my conscience."  "Knowing nothing but Christ" is read as "stop talking about knowing the needs of others." "Whoever is baptized" is read as "I'm baptized, stop talking about morality."


Does "Mere Christianity" represent the core of Christian belief? I just finished reading C. S. Lewis in A Time of War by Justin Phillips.  It seems Lewis went to great lengths to ensure that everything he said in his BBC talks that became Mere Christianity was orthodox for a large cross-section of the Christian faith available in England at the time.  He consulted Anglican, Dissenting, and Roman Catholic authorities to verify that he did not say anything that would be seen as incorrect by any of these traditions.

But he did not consult Eastern Orthodox or Reformed theology experts.  It also seems to me that by leaving out controversial topics (e.g., papal authority, baptismal practices, etc.) Lewis might also have left out critical beliefs of certain faith traditions—even core beliefs in some cases.  (I think leaving out these "internal matters" was the right call at the time, but it might leave us with an incomplete view of Orthodoxy.)

My question is two-fold:

Did Lewis say/write anything in the series that would be rejected by Orthodox or Reformed Christians?
Does Mere Christianity cover enough of the bases for most Christians to be a good reference for what constitutes the core of the faith?

This is what Lewis has to say for himself in his introduction:

I hope no reader will suppose that "mere" Christianity is here put forward as an alternative to the creeds of the existing communions—as if a man could adopt it in preference to Congregationalism or Greek Orthodoxy or anything else. It is more like a hall  out of which doors open into several rooms. If I can bring anyone into that hall I shall have done what I attempted. But it is in the rooms, not in the hall, that there are fires and chairs and meals. The hall is a place to wait in, a place from which to try the various doors, not a place to live in. For that purpose the worst of the rooms (whichever that may be) is, I think, preferable.

Lewis (along with contemporaries such Dorothy L. Sayers and Dietrich Bonhoeffer) played a part in promoting the Ecumenical movement and struggled with the definition of the Church.  On the one hand, philosophically there ought to be a unifying system of belief among the body of Christ.  On the other, many of us find life in the beliefs and practices that are most divisive.  (Depending on which side of the Adriatic Sea you live on, Hesychasm is either "navel-gazing" or experiencing God.)
Mere Christianity proposes a solution that we simply ignore those things we disagree on and talk about those that are common.  To use Lewis' analogy of a large building with many rooms, the hallways will have beige carpet and unobjectionable artwork and plants that don't require much in the way of care.  In the same way, "mere" Christianity will insist on only those beliefs and practices that remain when the bulk of disagreement is removed.
Shockingly, what's left over turns out to be supremely rich.

After a paragraph in which he explains that some people may spend considerable time in the hallway before finding (what we Protestants sometimes call) a "church home", Lewis address picking a denomination and how we should think of those we disagree with:

In plain language, the question should never be: "Do I like that kind of service?" but  "Are these doctrines true: Is holiness here?  Does my conscience move me towards this? Is my reluctance to knock at this door due to my pride, or my mere taste, or my personal dislike of this particular door-keeper?"
When you have reached your own room, be kind to those who have chosen different doors and to those who are still in the hall. If they are wrong they need your prayers all the more; and if they are your enemies, then you are under orders to pray for them. That is one of the rules common to the whole house.

Summary
More than anything else, Mere Christianity stands as a valiant attempt at ecumenicism.  If it fails, it fails because the idea of bringing the entire Christian faith into one house is unworkable.  I would prefer to believe that it succeeds.


Why would people make themselves eunuchs "for the Kingdom of heavens sake"? The text I'm drawing from is Matthew 19:1-12. Here is my main text:

  "But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.
  12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it." (my emphasis added)
  Matt 19:11-12 (KJV)

It would do anyone who answers well to read all of Mathew 19:1-12.

Would someone please both answer the above question, and explain verses 10 and 11 in a more basic form? thanks!

It seems that Christ is simply saying that some servants of the Lord remain single so that they might be totally devoted to the Lord and not diverted by being married. Paul seems to make the same point when discussing marriage when speaking to the Corinthians.


Did William Cowper believe himself to be saved at the end of his life? The 18th-century poet William Cowper is best-known in Christian circles for the hymns he wrote, like "There is a fountain, filled with blood" and "God moves in a mysterious way."  He had deep evangelical convictions, and was close friends with John Newton, of "Amazing Grace" fame.

But he had a difficult life: he suffered from repeated bouts of depression and insanity, and several times attempted to commit suicide. In 1773, a particularly acute attack led him to believe that he was unsaved, as Robert Manson Myers writes:

  Cowper was seized in 1773 with a conviction that God's displeasure rested heavily upon his soul.  He never lost this persuasion that he was irretrievably damned, and his religious despair thereafter appeared in the gentle melancholy and morbid religiosity of much of his verse. ("Fifty Sermons on Handel's Messiah," Harvard Theological Review, October 1946, 232; emphasis added)

Elsewhere in this essay, Myers seems to reveal a bias against evangelicalism.  That, combined with some statements on Wikipedia, makes me doubt his accuracy on this point; for example:

  [Cowper] continued to suffer doubt and, after a dream in 1773, believed that he was doomed to eternal damnation. He recovered and wrote more religious hymns. (WP)

My question, then, is two-fold.

Did William Cowper continue to hold to his evangelical beliefs until he died in 1800?
Did he die believing that he was going to hell?

Ideally this would be answered primarily through Cowper's own writings, or at least a sympathetic (not hagiographic) biographer.

No way to know for sure.

The closest you are likely to get, in terms of first hand accounts, will be found in Thomas Taylor’s
Biography of, “The Life of William Cowper, Esq (1833).”

I found the quote. The volume was neither of the ones I suggested in my comments.

Several years ago, however, I had read everything I could find on William Cowper.  His
particular ‘thorn in the flesh’ was an intimate concern of mine at the time.  This is what
first drew me to Olney, in fact.

Now that I remember where I read this, I realize that there is no point in looking any further for a closer account than 33 years of Cowper’s passing.  Thomas Taylor was privy to documents such as journals and letters (as is apparent by the references he makes to testimony of individuals) which I was never able to find extant records for. Not to mention, first hand accounts of John Newton’s adopted daughter, Cowper’s nephew (John Johnson), and near acquaintances who had direct association with Cowper (sorry about the names, I think Newton’s adopted daughter was the daughter of the rev. Unwin, and his widow. [better check that though]).

Regardless, there are some significant clarifications in the “The Letters of John Newton.” One of these being a clarification of the frequently referenced account of Cowper’s Nephew (John Johnson). Cowper’s nephew was present at his passing. The following is taken from Rev. Newton's letter to Mrs. Hannah More, dated May 24, 1800.

  "My most dear and intimate friend, William Cowper, has obtained a release from all his distresses. I preached a funeral sermon for him on the 11th inst. from Eccles. ii. 2, 3. Why was he, who both by talents and disposition seemed qualified, if it were possible, to reform the age in that the bush which Moses saw all in flames was a fit emblem of his case?
  The Lord's thoughts and ways are so much above ours, that it becomes us rather to lie in the dust in adoration and silence than to inquire presumptuously into the grounds of his proceedings; yet I think we may draw some lessons from his sufferings. I wish to learn from them thankfulness for the health and peace with which I have been favoured, and caution not to depend upon whatever gifts, abilities or usefulness, past comforts or experiences, have been afforded me. In all these respects, my friend was, during a part of his life, greatly my superior. He lived(though not without short conflicts), in point of comfort and conduct, far above the common standard, for about ten years; and for twenty-seven years afterwards he knew not one peaceful day (The Letters of John Newton pp 355-56.")

The following is a third hand verbal account finally recorded in 1906 by Stopford Brooke, that Cowper’s nephew made note of the expression on Cowper’s face the half-hour before he had passed:

  "Dr. Moule, the Bishop of Durham, vouches for the following incident:
  'When Cowper lay dying there did not come to him one gleam of hope. John Johnson, his nephew, was watching by him, and in thought was strongly tempted towards a blank infidelity by the sight of such goodness seemingly so deserted. Then, on a sudden, there came a change. The dying face was irradiated as with surprise of joy "unspeakable and full of glory." Cowper lay speechless, motionless, but visibly enraptured for the last half-hour before the ceasing of his breath. Then his nephew clasped the dead man's Bible to his heart, and said, "His God shall be my God, and his faith my faith!"' "Cowper's nephew, John Johnson, told the story to William Marsh, afterwards Dr. Marsh of Beckenham. Dr. Marsh told the story to his daughter, Miss Catharine Marsh, who, at the age of 88, still (in 1906) lives at Brandon. This lady related it to Dr. Moule (Theology in the English Poets; Cowper, Coleridge, Wordsworth & Burns pg 54)."

I have read the same account, from what I originally thought was one of Newton’s letters (though I have been unable to verify that) on this specific observation; and it seems to me that it was esteemed to be a notion of Cowper’s nephew, rather than some other-worldly cipher on the face of Cowper, that should be taken as evidence (though I wished it was). The previous account may bear the marks of some embellishment. It is also 106 years after his passing.

Here is evidence that Cowper was in the same condition he suffered from most of his adult life, just months before he passed (all of the information relevant to your interest begins around page 300 [Taylor’s: The Life of William Cowper]).

  “It became evident towards the close of 1799, that his [Cowper's] bodily strength was rapidly declining, though his mental powers, notwithstanding the unmitigated severity of his depression, remained unimpaired.”

From: Mr. Hayley who was a longtime friend of Cowper:

  “The sight of such writing from my long-silent friend, inspired me with a lively, but too sanguine hope, that I might see him once more restored.
  Alas! the verses which I surveyed, as a delightful omen of future letters from a correspondent, so inexpressibly dear to me, proved the last effort of his pen."

This was dated the 31st of January; though I always thought that the last work of Cowper was

Cast-Away

  Obscurest night involved the sky,
  The Atlantic billows roared,
  When such a destined wretch as I,
  Washed headlong from on board,
  Of friends, of hope, of all bereft,
  His floating home for ever left.

  No braver chief could Albion boast
  Than he with whom he went,
  Nor ever ship left Albion's coast,
  With warmer wishes sent.
  He loved them both, but both in vain,
  Nor him beheld, nor her again.

  Not long beneath the whelming brine,
  Expert to swim, he lay;
  Nor soon he felt his strength decline,
  Or courage die away;
  But waged with death a lasting strife,
  Supported by despair of life.

  He shouted: nor his friends had failed
  To check the vessel's course,
  But so the furious blast prevailed,
  That, pitiless perforce,
  They left their outcast mate behind,
  And scudded still before the wind.

  Some succour yet they could afford;
  And, such as storms allow,
  The cask, the coop, the floated cord,
  Delayed not to bestow.
  But he (they knew) nor ship, nor shore,
  Whate'er they gave, should visit more.

  Nor, cruel as it seemed, could he
  Their haste himself condemn,
  Aware that flight, in such a sea,
  Alone could rescue them;
  Yet bitter felt it still to die
  Deserted, and his friends so nigh.

  He long survives, who lives an hour
  In ocean, self-upheld;
  And so long he, with unspent power,
  His destiny repelled;
  And ever, as the minutes flew,
  Entreated help, or cried - Adieu!

  At length, his transient respite past,
  His comrades, who before
  Had heard his voice in every blast,
  Could catch the sound no more.
  For then, by toil subdued, he drank
  The stifling wave, and then he sank.

  No poet wept him: but the page
  Of narrative sincere,
  That tells his name, his worth, his age,
  Is wet with Anson's tear.
  And tears by bards or heroes shed
  Alike immortalize the dead.

  I therefore purpose not, or dream,
  Descanting on his fate,
  To give the melancholy theme
  A more enduring date:
  But misery still delights to trace
  Its semblance in another's case.

  No voice divine the storm allayed,
  No light propitious shone;
  When, snatched from all effectual aid,
  We perished, each alone:
  But I beneath a rougher sea,
  And whelmed in deeper gulfs than he.

That is all I have time for right now, but there are several extant collections of journals and letters from all of the near acquaintances of John Newton and William Cowper. Some of them may even have more information on the personal insights of Cowper’s near acquaintances (I have not nearly read them all).

Since this is not a real answer, I feel the liberty to express my own opinion about Cowper’s dying belief, and the hope he represents to all sincere believers who suffer from depression, and false fears of abandonment.

1 John 3:20
“For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things.”

My version of "The Life of William Cowper" is electronic.
I don't remember where I got it from.

Sorry I didn't have more time to look into this. I do enjoy visiting Olney.


What is the significance of the name, "The Word"? God / Jesus has many names which reveal something of His nature / character, e.g.:

Son of God (reveals His divine nature)
Son of Man (reveals His human nature)
etc.

But "The Word" is more puzzling to me. Why is Jesus called "The Word" and what does it reveal about Him?

  In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

John 1:1

By Greek word being translated to Word is "Logos".  Both Jews and Gentiles would have taken significant meaning from this.

For Jewish readers, Logos is how God achieved his will and is the personification of God's revelation to them.

For Gentile readers, Logos would have been understood as an intermediate entity through which God created and communicated.

By calling Jesus "the Word" in John 1:1, he is saying Jesus is God's will and God is communicating through him.  He is also saying that Jesus is a part of God, therefore anything which comes through Jesus, even though it is through the flesh, is directly from God.

Reference


What do the Catholic Church consider constitutes intrinsically impossible things? We all know that by his omnipotence, God can do anything and everything "possible".

Q1. If so, what things are considered by the Church to be "impossible" for God to do?

Q2. Is it correct to say that an event is not an impossible event as long as the event has "some possibility" to occur in future (even if it be a very, very slight possibility)?

Thank you,

The Catechism contains a definitive statement on this.

Nothing is impossible with God, who disposes his works according to his will.
[CCC 269]

It references a number of biblical texts to support that statement:

It was I who made the earth, and man and beast on the face of the earth, by my great power, with my outstretched arm; and I can give them to whomever I think fit. — Jer 27:5
Ah, Lord GOD, you have made heaven and earth by your great might, with your outstretched arm; nothing is impossible to you. — Jer 32:17
[And behold, Elizabeth, your relative, has also conceived a son in her old age, and this is the sixth month for her who was called barren;] for nothing will be impossible for God.
— Lk 1:37

It goes on:

God's almighty power is in no way arbitrary: "In God, power, essence, will, intellect, wisdom, and justice are all identical. Nothing therefore can be in God's power which could not be in his just will or his wise intellect."
[CCC 271] quoting St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica I, 25, 5, ad I.

This explains things which appear to be impossible: they are impossible because God does not include them in his wisdom or justice. Anything which is impossible is impossible because it does not obey the natural laws of the universe, which is ordered according to God's will. However, he could will impossible things to happen if they are not contrary to his nature and are necessary for revelation and salvation. Thus he can allow a chariot to ascend to heaven; or water to become fine wine; or a Virgin birth to happen; or a dead body to be resurrected, speak and walk.


What is the Authenticity of Bible? I have heard many arguments and debates on the authenticity of bible. But everyone involved was just putting forward his or her own opinions/suggestions. I would like to know a little more about this topic. Could anyone provide me with valid historical, doctrinal... evidences on the same (Bible as a stack of say, 66 books)?

There is a saying that if you need a book to answer a question, the question is too broad.  In this case, the following book Evidence That Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell is your book.

Briefly, this work of apologetics is pretty well recommended by many Christian churches.  There are several chapters on the authenticity of the Bible.

McDowell has many, many arguments about the authenticity of the Bible, but perhaps the most compelling for me is the sheer number of early manuscripts, when compared against say, Homer, Virgil, or Shakespeare.

As to whether or not the 66 (or 73) books together are "the Bible" (meaning that it represents the full reading list), search this site for 'canon' and 'canonization.'  There are already several questions that address how the various books came to be in the Bible.'

Specifically, I would recommend:

What are the biblical arguments that the Bible canon is closed?
Why haven't we revised the Bible in centuries?
Lineage of Each Verse of Scripture


Who are "we" in the pre-mortal life according to the LDS? From this link

In our premortal life, we were taught lessons that prepared us to
assist Heavenly Father in bringing about the salvation of His children
(see D&C 138:56).

For a non Christian like me, especially English is not my mother language, it's difficult to understand a sentence which came from a Christian world.
That's why to me the word "we" in the quote is ambiguous since it can be:
A. We = the elects
B. We = all humankind
Hence the question.

B) all humankind
The next paragraph in the article states

The Prophet Joseph Smith explained that while in our premortal state, we were all present when God the Father explained His plan for the salvation of His children.

emphasis added by me


Did the symbols of star in Christianity and Judaism originate independently? In the literature of Christianity, the symbolic drawing of star is a pentagram picturising a five-pointed star. Judaism, on the other hand, uses hexagram that is, a six-pointed star . I wish  to know whether the symbolic representation of star in Christianity and Judaism originated and/or evolved independently. Views of any denomination are most welcome.

It would certainly seem that the symbols came about independently.
Symbols in Christian Art and Architecture says of the two stars:

  The five-pointed star is the star of Bethlehem. Shaped roughly like a human being, it represents Jesus' incarnation.
  The Christian five-pointed star should be distinguished from the pagan pentagram, which is formed of five lines which intersect. Most often shown upside down, the pentagram is associated with satanic ritual.

  Num. 24:17 "I see him, but not now; I behold him, but not near. A star will come out of Jacob; a scepter will rise out of Israel. (NIV)

  Matt. 2:1 After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi(n) from the east came to Jerusalem 2 and asked, "Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star in the east(n) and have come to worship him."

  The six-pointed star is the Creator's star. Its six points stand for the six days of creation. The points are also said to represent the six attributes of God - power, wisdom, majesty, love, mercy and justice. This star is also known today as the Star of David, and is a symbol of modern-day Israel. The six-pointed star is of ancient origin and is used in many religions with a variety of meanings.


What ever happened to the ostiarius? The ostiarius was a person that guarded the church door to prevent unbaptized people from entering the church during the Eucharist. What ever happened to this role?

Relating to this subject, why do so many churches now have door greeters that actually welcome people (really anybody) into the church, even during the Eucharist, including allowing the participation of such unbaptized individuals at the Eucharist?

The ostiarius (or door keeper) evolved after the legalization of the church from existing Roman customs. While initially, (under church persecution) there was a need for protection from persecution, this did not become an official title until well after that need.  It became fashionable, however, to adopt the roman custom. Just about any good house would have had a "bouncer" so to speak.  As the church grew in the Middle Ages, and by fiat the entire populace was assumed to be Christian, the role itself became vestigal.

The death knell for the ostiarious was Vatcian II.

To wit, Wikipedia says:

  The porter was not a part of Holy Orders administering sacraments but simply a preparatory job on the way to the Major orders: subdiaconate (until its suppression, after the Second Vatican Council by Paul VI), diaconate and the priesthood. Like the other minor orders and the subdiaconate, it is retained in Indult Catholic societies such as the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter.

In general, Vatican II is often hitched with a view towards opening the doors to the common man.  The early church was a very open and flexible thing - Paul, for example, would say that he became "all things to all men so that by any means I might save some."  Vatican II re-emphasized this, seeking to knock down all barriers that kept people from Jesus. Saying the mass in the venacular (as opposed to Latin), for example, was designed explicitly to knock down a barrier.  The ostiarious was literally one such symbol.
In general, the attitude of what the church is has shifted over the centuries.  In the Middle Ages, it was a powerful thing, and by its own admission, a self-selected elitist club.

The modernization and secularization of the culture has made this stance impossible to hold. Like with excommunication, adding a bar to an voluntary organization is inherently counter-productive, but also not the point of the church in any event. Today, the metaphor now is more akin to the church as a hospital for wounded sinners.  All of this openness is, for many, simply a return to the model of the early church, and hence a Good Thing(TM).


Can a Mormon reach salvation if they do not pay tithes? This is actually a question that stems from some information that I found when reading this article. The article claims that Mormon Mission Presidents receive each a lot of tax free benefits, and it says the following:

  Unlike other church members, this family can receive temple recommends
  without paying tithing on “income.”

So I looked up what the "temple recommends" are and based on this article and this article, it seems that it is a paper slip that allows a person to enter the temple (both of these articles briefly mention tithing as one of the requirements receiving the "temple recommends").

Anyway I did also find this SE question which has some answers according to which the only consequences from non-tithing are the loss of temple access and participation in some "important saving ordinances".

One of the articles referenced in an answer to that question is this First Presidency Message "Concerning Tithing" (By President Marion G. Romney, dated June 1980). This article says among other things:

  Tithing is not a free-will offering; it is a debt, payment of which
  brings great blessings...it is apparent that tithing is a debt which
  everyone owes to the Lord as rent for using the things that the Lord
  has made and given to him to use. The Lord, to whom one owes tithing,
  is in a position of a preferred creditor. If there is not enough to
  pay all creditors, he should be paid first.

So this question is about these "important saving ordinances". Does all of this mean that a Mormon who does not pay tithes cannot visit the temple and consequently will not be able to reach salvation?

Note: I am looking for an official opinion by the Mormon Church on this matter. If the official opinion is indeed that "Anyone can attain salvation. Anyone can be denied salvation. It's all up to Our Lord." then that is fine, although it begs the question why anyone would spend their time or money to support this or any other religious organization.

First, the word salvation needs to be defined.  In the LDS church, salvation "means to be saved from physical and spiritual death." (See Salvation and Exaltation by Elder Russell M. Nelson of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.) In the LDS church, members strive for exaltation in the Celestial Kingdom, which is the highest glory one can obtain in the next life, and is usually also considered part of "being saved" in LDS rhetoric.  In order to be saved, you have to have lived "a life of obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel and service to Christ." (See: The Guide to the Scriptures: Salvation.)

In order to receive full celestial glory (or exaltation) after this life, you must receive the ordinances of the temple: "The principal purpose of temples is to provide the ordinances necessary for our exaltation in the celestial kingdom." (See True to the Faith: Temples.)

One of the questions in the interview to receive a temple recommend asks if you are a full tithe payer. Therefore, to enter the temple, "The person must certify that he or she is . . . paying a full tithing." (See: Preparing to Enter the Holy Temple).

In the temple you make sacred covenants that require you to live worthily to enter the temple. "The ordinance consists of a series of instructions and includes covenants we make to live righteously and comply with the requirements of the gospel." (See: True to the Faith: Temples.)  Therefore, one must keep the commandments, one of which is tithing, in order to be saved and exalted.  See Tithing.

(All links are to www.lds.org: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints)


Why does God have a chosen people? Christians as well as Jews believe that God made the Israelites as his "Chosen People."

Why does God need a Chosen People at all?

The Scripture isn't clear on why, but here are a few suggestions that make sense to me.

Choosing a specific people allowed God to demonstrate His power through all of the military battles, and possibly most dramatically via the release if His people from Egypt.
Choosing a specific people demonstrates His sovereignty - The fact that He can choose Whom he pleases to accomplish great things.
It demonstrates what He values.  He chose the descendants of Abraham because Abraham had faith, and obeyed Him, even to the risk of losing his beloved son.
Choosing one nation allows God to show clearly, through a well-documented, historically verifiable history, His hand moving to guide a nation.  Summing up the history of His people, you can learn a great deal about God and his relationship to man that may not have been as apparent if He had scattered his miracles among the many nations.

He chose a nation and gave them special privileged and assistance
They chose to reject Him and go after other gods
He withdrew His blessing and allowed judgement to come on even those that He chose initially because of their rejection
He forgave them and healed them when the repented of their sin.


Are there any Catholic sects which disagree with the sinlessness of Mary? As a protestant, the concept of the sinless state of Mary is one of the hardest aspects of Catholicism to swallow. The historical account of the adoption of this doctrine doesn't lend any credibility to the view, either.  It thus seems incredibly likely that there are a large number of Catholics who also take issue with this belief (not to mention other beliefs on which Catholics and protestants traditionally disagree--transubstantiation, etc).

So my question is:  Are there any sects, movements or other formally recognized groups (as opposed to dissenting individuals) within the Catholic church who do not believe in the sinlessness of Mary, and if so, how are they recognized and treated by the rest of the Catholic church?

No.

Mary's freedom from sin since the point of conception, which Catholics celebrate as The Immaculate Conception, was affirmed in a Papal Constitution by Pope Pius IX.

  In the Constitution Ineffabilis Deus of 8 December, 1854, Pius IX
  pronounced and defined that the Blessed Virgin Mary "in the first
  instance of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace granted
  by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the
  human race, was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin."

And Papal Constitutions are binding to all Catholics to whom they are directed:

  Papal Constitutions are ordinations issued by the Roman pontiffs and
  binding those for whom they are issued, whether they be for all the
  faithful or for special classes or individuals.

That said, you can expect that many self-identified Catholics and "Catholic" groups don't believe the doctrine. But, by virtue of the Papal Constitution, they're not "formally recognized by" or "in full communion with" the Catholic Church.

And the importance of the doctrine may be illustrated by the fact that the feast thereof is one of the Holy Days of Obligation in the US.


How do non-reformed theologists argue against "God alone matters"? Edit

For anyone that might stumble across this by accident:

This is not a position that reformed theologists hold. (I.e. my assumption is incorrect.)

Original Question

If I understand reformed theologists correctly, reformed theology revolves around:

God alone matters
Everything for the glory of God.

Viewed from this perspective, how do non-reformed theologists argue against reformed theology?

NOTE: I understand this question is probably a bit too general. I would appreciate comments on how to narrow this.

Thanks!

Matthew 22:37-40
King James Version (KJV)

  37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy
  heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

  38 This is the first and great commandment.

  39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as
  thyself.

  40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

I believe it is self explanatory that from the second commandment, we are to love ourselves and others as well.  Therefore, I believe this is a very locked-tight argument that all people matter, not just God.

This answer may not directly answer your actual question, because Reformist Theology may not assume God only matters, so the question may incorrect in its assumptions.  However, it does speak to the matter of whether only God matters.


How literally is Romans 10:14 supposed to be taken? I recently learned that St. Augustine held an extremely literal view of a particular verse in Romans...

  Romans 10:14  (NLT)

   14 But how can they call on him to save them unless they believe in him? And how can they believe in him if they have never heard about him? And how can they hear about him unless someone tells them?

Apparently, Augustine taught that deaf people (without today's cochlear implants) wouldn't be able to be saved merely because they wouldn't be able to hear people telling them about the Gospel.  This raises the following question:

How literally should this verse be interpreted?

The letters to the seven churches in Revelation have a recurring theme, "he who has ears, let him hear" - and yet they were written letters!

Literally believing a deaf person cannot be saved, I believe with the larger context of scripture, is wrong.

The bible was written - yes, if you had been born deaf, you may have only been minimally literate 2000 years ago. However, there were also many cases of folks becoming deaf with age, who earlier were not, and who were still at least somewhat literate.

Likewise, in the introduction of Revelation a blessing is pronounced upon the reader and the hearer.

The message of the gospel does not require hearing, it requires being delivered, processed, understood, affirmed, and believed-in.


Why do Catholics believe that it is a priest's blessing that transforms the elements into the body and blood of Christ? I understand that Catholicism teaches the doctrine of transubstantiation, that is, that the bread and wine of the Eucharist are transformed into the literal body and blood of Christ.  This apparently takes place once a priest pronounces a blessing on the elements.

My question is why does it take a priest to do this, and why must a blessing be given in order to achieve this?  When did the teaching originate regarding the necessity of a priestly blessing?

The Catholic Church believes that this has been the tradition since "the beginning" of the Church.

Firstly, according to the Church, Christ makes it very clear in John 6:41-58 that the literal, physical consumption of His body is ultimately intended. The phrasing used in this passage, particularly in the Greek, is very unambiguous. As compared to other passages, wherein Christ clarifies figurative language, in John 6, when pressed to clarify, he intensifies the language, using a more animalistic and "gory" verb to denote the eating/gnawing of His own flesh.

Secondly, the Church sees the Last Supper as the formal establishment of the Eucharist. Christ says a blessing, the exact words of which are not included in the Gospel, but were undoubtedly remembered by the 12 and/or were simply commonplace blessings. He declares the bread and wine to be His body and blood. He distributes it. And He commands the disciples to repeat what He's done (by calling it a covenant in Matthew and Mark, and by also explicitly commanding it in Luke). Especially in the context of John 6:41-58, it's unambiguous in Catholic belief.

  14 When the hour came, he took his place at table with the
  apostles. 15 He said to them, “I have eagerly desired to
  eat this Passover with you before I suffer, 16 for, I tell
  you, I shall not eat it [again] until there is fulfillment in the
  kingdom of God.” 17 Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and
  said, “Take this and share it among yourselves; 18 for I
  tell you [that] from this time on I shall not drink of the fruit of
  the vine until the kingdom of God comes.” 19 Then he took
  the bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, saying,
  “This is my body, which will be given for you; do this in memory of
  me.” 20 And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying,
  “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which will be shed for you. (Luke 22:14-20)

Speculating into the Church rationale a little: It may be worth mentioning that in the general command to eat His flesh and drink His blood is given to a crowd / the general faithful. In this Last Supper discourses, however, Jesus is with "the twelve," with whom He often gives special commands and teachings not given to the general faithful. Thus, the Church may be concluding from this the command to consecrate the bread and wine is given only to the Apostles and their successors.

So, the framework is set in the Gospel. Christ establishes a set of procedures for the disciples to follow, by which they are to consume His body and blood (of "the new and everlasting covenant"). Historically, the practice is referred to in the New Testament and early Church writings.

In the New Testament, for instance, 1st Corinthians makes it clear that the Eucharist was common practice. It's also fairly clear that practice thereof followed a particular pattern, and that reception thereof was to be taken very seriously.

  23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I
  delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he
  was betrayed, took bread, 24 and giving thanks, broke and
  said: Take and eat: This is my body, which shall be delivered for you.
  This do for the commemoration of me. 25 In like manner also
  the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new
  testament in my blood. This do, as often as you shall drink, for the
  commemoration of me. 26 For as often as you shall eat this
  bread and drink the chalice, you shall show the death of the Lord,
  until he come. 27 Therefore, whosoever shall eat this
  bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of
  the body and of the blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man
  prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread and drink of the
  chalice. 29 For he that eats and drinks unworthily eats and
  drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord. (1
  Corinthians 11:23-29)

Outside the New Testament, the Didache, among copious other writings, confirms the practice.

  Now concerning the Thanksgiving (Eucharist), thus give thanks. First,
  concerning the cup: We thank you, our Father, for the holy vine of
  David Your servant, which You made known to us through Jesus Your
  Servant; to You be the glory for ever. And concerning the broken
  bread: We thank You, our Father, for the life and knowledge which You
  made known to us through Jesus Your Servant; to You be the glory for
  ever. Even as this broken bread was scattered over the hills, and was
  gathered together and became one, so let Your Church be gathered
  together from the ends of the earth into Your kingdom; for Yours is
  the glory and the power through Jesus Christ for ever. But let no one
  eat or drink of your Thanksgiving (Eucharist), but they who have been
  baptized into the name of the Lord; for concerning this also the Lord
  has said, Give not that which is holy to the dogs. (Didache
  9)

Summa Theologica, question 75, Article 2 further confirms some historical tradition of the belief in transubstantiation and that it through the act of consecration that the Lord makes Himself physically present in the species of bread and wine.

Beyond that, I'd suggest taking a look at the Catholic Encyclopedia article on the Real Presence. In particular, see the Proof from Tradition section.

In terms of why the laity cannot yield the effect of transubstantiation, I don't have an extensive enough knowledge to pin that question down precisely. But, the general tone of the NT letters and the Didache is that ordained bishops and deacons (Apostles) and prophets retain special rights to speak and perform in Church gatherings, Eucharistic celebrations, and so forth. The distinction is made in the Catholic Church between Apostles and Disciples -- anyone and everyone can be a disciple, but not all are Apostles, if I'm not mistaken.

From a more theological standpoint, bear in mind that Catholic theology is just generally sacramental, wherein specific things, individuals, group members, or entire groups represent  or reveal spiritual realities. As such, it detracts from the sacrament if the symbolism is lost in some way, such as if the priest's Church-given, sacramental, iconic role is confounded or infringed on. The priest is assigned, in ordination, as a sacramental icon of Christ. If anyone is allowed to step in and out of this iconic role at any given time, the sacramental nature is largely lost.

To illustrate that point of Catholic understanding, consider an umpire. Two teams and a host of onlookers assemble and agree, more or less, to operate under the ruling of an "ordained" umpire, whose job it is to represent [and enforce] the rules of the game. If anyone were free to step in at any time to make a call, the rules become blurry -- they have no unbiased body or icon on the field anymore. And if an this game, wherein anyone can step in to make a call, were to go on for too long, the rules would change in-play and the game would devolve in to chaos.

Now, if we can imagine the loss of integrity and the rise of chaos that naturally takes place in petty human affairs by blurring iconic lines, imagine, says Catholic theology, how much more dangerous it is to blur the lines around sacramental icons (icons representing spiritual realities). We lose sight of truth very quickly. And in fact, any authority or "real" effect is immediately lost once we desecrate an iconic role -- even in petty human affairs! It makes a huge difference whether someone in the stands yells, "you're out" or the game's designated umpire yells, "you're out!" Much greater is the difference, says Catholic theology, in sacramental affairs.