How do Protestants view "Catholic" miracles, such as those that attest to a saint? An important part of Catholicism is the canonization of saints in the present day. One of the criteria for canonization is the confirmation of miracles associated with the would-be saint. In particular, a great number of "modern" Catholic miracles involve the Virgin Mary, e.g. the "Miracle of the Sun" at Fatima.

Given that protestants believe miracles occurred historically, as recorded in the Bible, and also that protestants are unlikely to believe that the Virgin Mary is performing miracles in the modern days, my question is the following:

  How do protestants react to Catholic miracles? If these claims are met with disbelief, how does a protestant defend her disbelief in the miracles in a way which is not also applicable to the miracles in the Bible?

If it will result in a sharper answer, a response which focuses on one specific miracle, like the Miracle of the Sun, would be helpful and interesting.

This question strikes very close to the heart of the Protestant Reformation, along with the subsequent generations of the Reformers. This topic mainly revolves around what the Catholic Church defines as the communion of Saints, which is one of the main Catholic theological DNA strands rejected by Protestants. Perhaps the most feasibly specific answer can be narrowed down to the positions held by the Reformers of the Classical Reformation.

Its important to note that there are quite a few categories of Catholic miracles such as Eucharistic, stigmatic, healing, etc.

However, for the sake of conserving time and space, let's focus specifically on the two aspects indicated in the body of your question...

Miraculous intercession of the Saints

What the Catholic Church teaches

A canonized saint, according to Rome, is a Christian who during his/her life lived a life of exemplary holiness. At first martyrs were singled out as such. From the 4th century on, confessors, those who had refused to deny Christ in the face of death, were also recognized. Finally many others who had lived remarkable lives of holiness were admitted to the cultus.

  In full consciousness of this communion of the whole Mystical Body of
  Jesus Christ, the Church in its pilgrim members, from the very
  earliest days of the Christian religion, has honoured with great
  respect the memory of the dead; and, "because it is a holy and a
  wholesome thought to pray for the dead that they may be loosed from
  their sins" (2 Mac. 12:46) she offers her suffrages for them. The
  Church has always believed that the apostles and Christ's martyrs, who
  gave the supreme witness of faith and charity by the shedding of their
  blood, are closely united with us in Christ; she has always venerated
  them, together with the Blessed Virgin Mary and the holy angels, with
  a special love, and has asked piously for the help of their
  intercession. Soon there were added to these others who had chosen to
  imitate more closely the virginity and poverty of Christ, and still
  others whom the outstanding practice of the Christian virtues and the
  wonderful graces of God recommended to the pious devotion and
  imitation of the faithful. (Lumen Gentium 7.50)

By the 12th Century popular devotion to saints swelled so incredibly that it became difficult to separate fact from fiction. It was Alexander III, who in 1170 first declared that no one should be venerated as a saint apart from the Roman Church. This found its way into canon law. The process of beatification and canonization was an attempt to regulate the cult of the saints and to remove the abuses.

Beatification is the act by which the Pope permits the restricted public veneration after death of a Christian who lived an exemplary life of holiness. Normally, the person in question had to have performed one attested miracle. Those beatified receive the title "Blessed." Only those beatified are eligible for Sainthood.

Canonization, as mentioned above, is the definitive declaration by the Pope, that a Christian previously beatified has entered into eternal glory and therefore a public cult is established for the new Saint throughout the whole Church. Prior to this declaration, however, is a long legal process which begins at the diocesan level, proceeds to the Congregation for the Causes of the Saints in Rome, and eventually comes before the cardinals and bishops who advise the Pope. Normally one miracle since beatification is required for canonization. There must be a miracle associated with the person's grave or relics, which is said to occur through the intercession of the saint in heaven.

What the Reformers taught

The Protestant Reformation of the sixteenth century, however, involved a radical reaction against the cult of saints and their relics. The Reformers rejected the idea of saintly intercession, which was thought in Lutheran terminology to constitute reliance on works rather than on faith.

Traditional Lutheran theology teaches that saints pray for the Church in general, but are not mediators of miraculous intercession. Martin Luther, the founder of Lutheranism, approved honoring the saints, but condemned with strict sobriety the acceptance and promulgation of miraculous intercession by the Saints in Heaven.

From his commentary on 1st Peter:

  Thus Scripture calls us holy while we are still living here on earth,
  if we believe. The papists have taken this name away from us and say:
  `We should not be holy; only the saints in heaven are holy.' Therefore
  we must get the noble name back. You must be holy. But you must be
  prepared not to think that you are holy of yourself or on the strength
  of your merit. No, you must be holy because you have the Word of God,
  because heaven is yours, and because you have become truly pious and
  holy through Christ. This you must avow if you want to be a Christian
  (Luther's Works 30:7)

Luther is commenting here on the phrase in 1 Peter 1:2, "by the sanctifying work of the Spirit." But his emphasis, as in the previous quote, is on the Scriptural fact that all believers in Jesus Christ, all Christians, are holy, that is, are saints.

In Luther's 1531 Galatian commentary he reflects on the view of saints he previously held.

  When I was a monk, I often had a heartfelt wish to see the life and
  conduct of at least one saintly man. But meanwhile I was imagining the
  sort of saint who lived in the desert and abstained from food and
  drink, subsisting on nothing but roots and cold water. I had derived
  this notion about unnatural saints from the books not only of the
  sophists but even of the fathers . . . But now that the light of truth
  is shining, we see with utter clarity that Christ and the apostles
  designate as saints, not those who lead a celibate life, are
  abstemious, or who perform other works that give the appearance of
  brilliance or grandeur, but those who, being called by the Gospel and
  baptized, believe that they have been sanctified and cleansed by the
  blood of Christ. Thus whenever Paul writes to Christians, he calls
  them saints, sons and heirs of God, etc. Therefore saints are all
  those who believe in Christ, whether men or women, slaves or free
  (Luther's Works 27:81-82)

A little later in the same work...

  When we have repudiated this foolish and wicked notion about the name
  "saints" which we suppose applies only to the saints in heaven, and on
  earth to hermits and monks who perform some sort of spectacular work
  let us now learn from the writings of the apostles that all believers
  in Christ are saints (LW 27:83)

John Calvin composed a systematic critique of the cult of miraculous relics in the vernacular (Traité des reliques,1547), in which he rejected the veneration of relics on theological grounds.

The Thirty-Nine Articles formulated by the Anglican Church condemned the "invocation of saints" as...

  ...a fond thing, vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of
  Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God. (Article XXII)

Theological opposition often turned to violent iconoclasm on the part of Huguenots  during the Wars of Religion. Collections of Catholic relics that had been revered as miraculous were destroyed and the statues of the saints in many French churches still bear the scars of attack.

Many Protestant churches strongly reject all saintly intercession, on  the basis of verses like 1 Timothy 2:1–5, which says that Jesus is the sole mediator between God and man, as well as Deuteronomy 18:10-11, which seems to forbid invoking departed souls. They also point to the fact that there are no examples in the Bible of anyone requesting the intercession of the dead - Jesus Christ being the lone exception, because he is believed to be alive and resurrected, and because he is believed to be both human and divine.

Marian apparitions

According to the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, the era of public revelation ended with the death of the last living Apostle. A Marian apparition, if deemed genuine by Church authority, is treated as private revelation that may emphasize some facet of the received public revelation for a specific purpose, but it can never add anything new to the deposit of faith. The Church may pronounce an apparition as worthy of belief, but belief is never required by divine faith. The Holy See has officially confirmed the apparitions at Guadalupe, Saint-Étienne-le-Laus, Paris (Rue du Bac, Miraculous Medal), La Salette, Lourdes, Fátima, Pontmain, Beauraing, and Banneux.

The only way a protestant (or anyone else) could justify belief in Marian apparitions is to accept completely the Roman Catholic view of Mary. If these apparitions are authentic and are performed under the auspice of almighty God, then we are dealing with the Mary revealed in Roman Catholic theology.  These apparitions do nothing but confirm distinctly Catholic beliefs.

For example:

  In 1858 Saint Bernadette Soubirous was a 14-year-old shepherd girl who
  lived near the town of Lourdes in France. One day she reported a
  vision of a miraculous Lady who identified Herself as "the Immaculate
  Conception" in subsequent visions. In the second vision she was asked
  to return again and she had 18 visions overall. According to Saint
  Bernadette, the Lady held a string of Rosary beads and led Saint
  Bernadette to the discovery of a buried spring, also requesting that
  the local priests build a chapel at the site of the visions and lead
  holy processions there.

The messages of these approved apparitions are, for the most part, cut and dry. You won't find many (if any at all) protestants willing to accept any of this. If you do find any...then perhaps you might consider quietly and charitably directing him or her to their nearest parish priest.


Are men more important then women? I had this question for a while and I just can't find the answer. Whenever I go to church all I hear, is that boys can do this, that and other things, but the girls can only listen and sing. It makes me feel very sad and depressed since I feel like I'm only an object that men has in order to not feel lonely .

What you referring to is Complementarianism.

  Complementarianism is a theological view in Christianity [...] that men and women have different but complementary roles and responsibilities in marriage, family life, and religious leadership. [...] These separate roles preclude women from specific functions of ministry within the community. Though women may be precluded from certain roles and ministries, they are held to be equal in moral value and of equal status. The phrase used to describe this is 'Ontologically equal, Functionally different'.

This includes the concept of male headship, but does not mean that women are less "important" than men. It only means that they have different roles. You can take a role that falls under the responsibility of men, and then use that to say "women are less important". But that would ignore the whole picture, where both women, and men, have important roles.

  I feel like I'm only an object that men has in order to not feel lonely .

This is certainly not in agreement with complementarian views, which, correctly understood, neither objectifies men or women. Furthermore, your roles and responsibilities extend far beyond making someone "not feel lonely."

From the article: "God has created men and women equal in their essential dignity and human personhood."


What is the status of St Malachy's prophecy within Catholicism? As might be well-known to some, and perhaps especially to Catholics, the name of Saint Malachy, a former Archbishop of Armagh, is often associated with the Prophecy of the Popes. Much of the recent interest in this prophecy appears not to come from within Catholicism itself. Is there a general consensus from within Catholicism on this seemingly important issue?

There is no consensus, because there is hardly any discussion about this in official Catholic circles. For eg. a google search on the vatican website for "prophecy of the popes" (in quotes) or "prophecy of malachi" (in quotes) or "prophecy of saint malachi" (in quotes) yields no relevant results. On the other hand you will find huge discussion on things like the prophecies of Fatima, the revelation to Sr Faustina and so on.

It seems the official Catholic Church doesn't give so much weight to this prophecy.  catholic.com, which is the largest Catholic apologetics site in the world says that "The consensus among modern scholars is that it is a 16th-century forgery created for partisan political reasons".


Is the Catholic faith based purely on the Bible? I have heard that, although Catholics use the Bible, their faith is not solely based upon it. I have heard it said that for Catholics, tradition precedes the Bible, and that is why there are some practices and doctrines that the Church has that cannot be found in the Bible. The alleged reasoning behind this is that tradition predates the Bible and it's the tradition that influenced the making of the Bible. I'm not sure about this though. Is it true that the Catholic Church has some beliefs that override the Bible, or are not based upon it? I'm sorry if this sounds stupid, but I don't really have a clue.

Is the Catholic faith purely based on the Bible?  No.  Is it largely based on the the Bible, and is the Bible the most sacred text in the Catholic faith? Yes.

There are lots of important parts of Catholic theology that are extrabiblical traditions, and generally not believed by Protestant congregations who consider themselves "purely" based on the Bible.  Protestants are not "purely" based on the Bible, either.  It is entirely possible both churches would be purely based on the Bible, but the Bible doesn't answer every question people like to ask.

Here is one belief that deviates from the Bible in both churches: the virginity of Mary after giving birth to Jesus.  If someone believes anything on that subject, they have exceeded the scope of the Bible.

Certainly the Bible says that Mary was a virgin when she conceived, through the time when she gave birth to Jesus (see Matthew 1:23-25).  The Bible does not talk about her sex life after that.  In Protestant churches, many people believe Mary would have had a normal sex life with her husband Joseph, even going on to bear more children.  Evidence: Jesus has siblings.  In the Catholic church, the official belief is that Mary was eternally a virgin -- that is, throughout her entire life, she never had sex.  Jesus' siblings are explained away by other extrabiblical traditions: perhaps Joseph was a widower, and had children from another wife; perhaps the translation is incorrect, and the words for "brother" or "sister" should truly be translated as "cousin".

Both beliefs are based on things outside of the Bible.  Because the Bible doesn't say one way or another.


Where does the Bible talk about marriage to non-Christians? Possible Duplicate:
  Are inter-faith marriages prohibited by the Bible?

1st & 2nd Corinthians speak of how Christians should not be "unequally yolked" in marriage to non-Christians.

Where else does the Bible talk about marriage to non-Christians?

The history of the Israelites from the period of Joshua through the Kings is one big warning about intermarrying with other peoples.

Joshua adjures the people not to let any men, women, or children in Canaan survive, lest they be a temptation.  (Indeed, Rahab is singled out not to be killed* as the exception.)
Solomon is chastised for taking concubines from other lands
Jezebel, the wife of Ahab is a constant source of temptation to go to other gods, especially Baal.
Ruth is seen as extraordinary, being a Moabite, but nonetheless willing to become a Jew for inclusion in the promise.

In every case during this period where foreign wives are mentioned, it is considered a bad thing. Only where foreign wives are willing to drop their identity and join the people of the Land is it ever commended in Scripture.


Were all Nephilim evil? The Bible speaks of the Nephilim as the offspring of the “sons of God and daughters of men” in books such as: Genesis, Enoch, and a couple others. It does explain that they bred from evil beings, but it doesn’t specify if they themselves were evil or not, and even if they were supposed to be “evil”.

Were they all evil?

Were all Nephilim evil?

Impossible to say, but I doubt it.

Let us start by seeing who the Nephilim of the Scripture may truly be:

  The Nephilim (Hebrew: נְפִילִים) were the offspring of the "sons of God" and the "daughters of men" before the Deluge, according to Genesis 6:1-4.

  A similar or identical biblical Hebrew term, read as "Nephilim" by some scholars, or as the word "fallen" by others, appears in Ezekiel 32:27.1

  When people began to multiply on the face of the ground, and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that they were fair; and they took wives for themselves of all that they chose. Then the Lord said, "My spirit shall not abide in mortals forever, for they are flesh; their days shall be one hundred twenty years." The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went in to the daughters of humans, who bore children to them. These were the heroes that were of old, warriors of renown. — Genesis 6:1–4, New Revised Standard Version

  The word is loosely translated as giants in some Bibles and left untranslated in others. The "sons of God" have been interpreted as fallen angels in some traditional Jewish explanations.

  According to Numbers 13:33, they later inhabited Canaan at the time of the Israelite conquest of Canaan.

  The Lord said to Moses, "Send men to spy out the land of Canaan, which I am giving to the Israelites" ... So they went up and spied out the land ... And they told him: "... Yet the people who live in the land are strong, and the towns are fortified and very large; and besides, we saw the descendants of Anak there." ... So they brought to the Israelites an unfavorable report of the land that they had spied out, saying, "The land that we have gone through as spies is a land that devours its inhabitants; and all the people that we saw in it are of great size. There we saw the Nephilim (the Anakites come from the Nephilim); and to ourselves we seemed like grasshoppers, and so we seemed to them." — Numbers 13:1–2; 21; 27–28; 32–33. New Revised Standard Version.

And now let us look at what the Sons of God may mean:

  Sons of the God (Hebrew: בני האלהים) literally: "sons of the Gods") is a phrase used in the Hebrew Bible and apocrypha. The phrase is also used in Kabbalah where bene elohim are part of different Jewish angelic hierarchies.

  Hebrew Bible

  Genesis 6

  And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown. — Genesis 6:1–4, KJV

  The first mention of "sons of God" in the Hebrew Bible occurs at Genesis 6:1–4. In terms of literary-historical origin, this phrase is typically associated with the Jahwist tradition.3

  This passage has had two interpretations in Judaism:

  Offspring of Seth: The first references to the offspring of Seth rebelling from God and mingling with the daughters of Cain are found in Christian and rabbinic literature from the second century CE onwards e.g. Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, Augustine of Hippo, Julius Africanus, and the Letters attributed to St. Clement. It is also the view expressed in the modern canonical Amharic Ethiopian Orthodox Bible. In Judaism "Sons of God" usually refers to the righteous, i.e. the children of Seth.
  Angels: All of the earliest sources interpret the "sons of God" as angels. From the third century BCE onwards, references are found in the Enochic literature, the Dead Sea Scrolls the (Genesis Apocryphon, the Damascus Document, 4Q180), Jubilees, the Testament of Reuben, 2 Baruch, Josephus, and the book of Jude (compare with 2 Peter 2). This is also the meaning of the only two identical occurrences of bene ha elohim in the Hebrew Bible (Job 1:6 and 2:1), and of the most closely related expressions (refer to the list above). In the Septuagint, the interpretive reading "angels" is found in Codex Alexandrinus, one of four main witnesses to the Greek text.

  Rabbinic Judaism traditionally adheres to the first interpretation, with some exceptions, and modern Jewish translations may translate bnei elohim as "sons of rulers" rather than "sons of God". Regardless, the second interpretation (sons of angels or other divine beings) is nonexistent in modern Judaism. This is reflected by the rejection of Enoch and other Apocrypha supporting the second interpretation from the Hebrew Bible Canon.

Using Scripture to interpret Scripture is a very common practice in our day and as such the New Testament in the person of St. Luke shows us that the Sons of God were the descendants of Adam.

According to Scripture “sons of God” means “persons who are begotten independently of any creature’s decision”. All angels can appropriately be called “sons of God”, but not all characters called “sons of God” in the Bible can appropriately be considered angels. The “sons of God” in Genesis 6:1-4 are undoubtedly human, and it is fitting to consider that they were created directly by God through transformation of human-like animals into persons.

  Who was the son of Enos, who was the son of Seth, who was the son of Adam, who was the son of God. - Luke 3:38

Thus if the Nephilim were the descendants of the Sons of God (sons of Adam) and the "daughters of men" surely not all of them were evil. Some of them would have had good and upright souls.


Jesus predicts that some will not die until he comes in his kingdom, but did this occur? Matthew 16:28

  I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.

Mark 9:1

  And he said to them, "I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God come with power.

Luke 9:27

  I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God

Obviously everyone that heard Jesus say this is no longer living, so it seems this prediction by Jesus did not take place. Perhaps I am misunderstanding what the 'Kingdom of God' is. Or maybe Jesus is saying that salvation brings life, and physical death is not important. I think that is was the pervading belief among early Christians that they would live to see the second coming of Christ, as evidenced by some of the letters of Paul. How am I misinterpreting this?

The very next story in each of those passages is the transfiguration. My interpretation: The kingdom is here! Jesus is alive and reigning through his church and in the hearts of the saints. Because the Kingdom has an already/not-yet character, it has not yet come in its fullness, but it is here. And Peter/James/John saw in the transfiguration a preview of the fullness which is to come, Christ in his power and glory.


Apparent discrepancy in Isaiah 66:3-4 In Isaiah chapter 66: 3-4, God had this to say.

  3 But whoever sacrifices a bull
      is like one who kills a person,
  and whoever offers a lamb
      is like one who breaks a dog’s neck;
  whoever makes a grain offering
      is like one who presents pig’s blood,
  and whoever burns memorial incense
      is like one who worships an idol.
  They have chosen their own ways,
      and they delight in their abominations;
  4 so I also will choose harsh treatment for them
      and will bring on them what they dread.
  For when I called, no one answered,
      when I spoke, no one listened.
  They did evil in my sight
      and chose what displeases me.”

But did not God tell Israelites to sacrifice animals to cleanse their sins? Wasn't the sacrifice of animals unnecessary? Why does God tell them this now?

This lamentation/complaint against Israel's wickedness and their practices of sacrifice is interesting because it is not only found in Isaiah 66 (the last chapter) but also in Isaiah 1:

  3 The ox knoweth his owner, and the ass his master's crib: but Israel
  doth not know, my people doth not consider.

  4 Ah sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, a seed of evildoers,
  children that are corrupters: they have forsaken the Lord, they have
  provoked the Holy One of Israel unto anger, they are gone away
  backward.

  5 Why should ye be stricken any more? ye will revolt more and more:
  the whole head is sick, and the whole heart faint.

  6 From the sole of the foot even unto the head there is no soundness
  in it; but wounds, and bruises, and putrifying sores: they have not
  been closed, neither bound up, neither mollified with ointment.

  7 Your country is desolate, your cities are burned with fire: your
  land, strangers devour it in your presence, and it is desolate, as
  overthrown by strangers.

  8 And the daughter of Zion is left as a cottage in a vineyard, as a
  lodge in a garden of cucumbers, as a besieged city.

  9 Except the Lord of hosts had left unto us a very small remnant, we
  should have been as Sodom, and we should have been like unto Gomorrah.

  10 Hear the word of the Lord, ye rulers of Sodom; give ear unto the
  law of our God, ye people of Gomorrah.

  11 To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith
  the Lord: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed
  beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of
  he goats.

  12 When ye come to appear before me, who hath required this at your
  hand, to tread my courts?

  13 Bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto me;
  the new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away
  with; it is iniquity, even the solemn meeting.

  14 Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hateth: they are a
  trouble unto me; I am weary to bear them.

  15 And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from
  you: yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear: your hands are
  full of blood.

  16 Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from
  before mine eyes; cease to do evil;

  17 Learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the
  fatherless, plead for the widow.

  18 Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your
  sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red
  like crimson, they shall be as wool.

  19 If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land:

  20 But if ye refuse and rebel, ye shall be devoured with the sword:
  for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it.

The theme is the same at the beginning of Isaiah as at the end of it: frustration.  It could be phrased in modern terms as:

  "You are missing the point," the Lord says.  "I gave you a law of
  sacrifices so that you could repent of your sins, but you aren't
  actually using it to stop sinning!  You are treating sacrifice as 'the
  cost of doing business,' as a price to pay to make sins acceptable,
  instead of as an act of contrition as part of the process of
  repentance, and I'm sick of it!  What I truly want is repentance, and
  a people who make a real effort to follow my commandments, and without
  your heart being in the right place, killing a bunch of animals really
  means nothing to me."

This is consistent with Paul's declaration in Galatians 3 that the Law of Moses was intended as a "schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ".  The sacrifices themselves had no innate cleansing power; their virtue was in the act of obedience to God's will, and in pointing their hearts towards the true sacrifice that they prefigured, the Atonement of Jesus Christ.  If Israel forgot about that, when it was the entire point of the law, no wonder the Lord was annoyed with them!


What is the Biblical basis for Total Depravity? Calvin, among his other points starts with the point that we are totally depraved and sinful from birth. What is the Biblical basis for this point?

This is a good place to start:

  We have all become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous
  deeds are like a polluted garment. We all fade like a leaf, and our iniquities, like the wind, take us away. -- Isaiah 64:6, ESV

Btw, the Hebrew for "polluted garment" is more literally "menstrual rag".

But I think there is a lot of misunderstanding about total depravity. The Heidelberg Catechism has this to say about what it means to do something good:

  Q91. What do we do that is good?

  A. Only that which
        arises out of true faith,
        conforms to God's law,
        and is done for his glory;    and not that which is based
        on what we think is right
        or on established human tradition.

And who would argue that natural man can do anything that fits that definition apart from grace? Here is the Canon of Dordt on the topic of total depravity:

  Therefore all men are conceived in sin, and by nature children of
  wrath, incapable of saving good, prone to evil, dead in sin, and in
  bondage thereto, and without the regenerating grace of the Holy
  Spirit, they are neither able nor willing to return to God, to reform
  the depravity of their nature, nor to dispose themselves to
  reformation.

If you simply delete the word "regenerating" from that article, you get something that both John Wesley and Thomas Aquinas could agree to (because of prevenient grace).

Understood this way, total depravity is not a "Calvinist" doctrine but one affirmed by the whole western church (the Eastern Orthodox have a distinctly different understanding of original sin). It only becomes Calvinist-specific when you start arguing over prevenient vs. regenerating grace, which to me seems like a pretty minor issue.


Did Jesus really die? I know that Jesus is really God. But I'm still confused... I don't get how God could die or be killed by people. Isn't God always there? How can God die?

Please explain this to me in an easy to understand way.

Sacred Tradition would say yes, the recently reworded Nicene creed says,

  He suffered death and was buried

We also say it was in:

  accordance with the Scriptures

which means, there's some prophecy that says this had to happen which you can read in Psalm 22 or Isaiah 53 or Genesis 22

Death is the splitting of the body, but not splitting "The Godhead" from the body.  So, no part of Christ ceases to be God upon death.

The Summa has some other pretty good points concerning this question, I'll summarize:

All humanity was subject to death because of original sin. Jesus was the only one who, because of who He was, could payback this debt through death.
Jesus proves concretely that He did take on human flesh by dying in it.
His death destroys the power of death, knowing God has complete power over death and life gives us comfort.
To set an example of being "Dead to Sin"
So that He could be the first to rise from the dead and give us all hope in the resurrection.

So, it's clear that He did it for a reason, but you're wondering if it is possible.  Some say God can "square a circle" other's don't.  Naive me says God can make a circle square, but "reply to objection 1" me has learned that God cannot deny himself.  He cannot tell a lie and if he says He's going to send us His Son as a Redeemer who will die, then that's what's going to happen.

Furthermore, St. Thomas says:

  Christ did not suffer death which comes of sickness, lest He should seem to die of necessity from exhausted nature: but He endured death inflicted from without, to which He willingly surrendered Himself, that His death might be shown to be a voluntary one.

Which leaves you hanging, and this is a central point of the Faith, which to wrap around with what I said about the Nicene Creed, is probably why it gets a mention.  If Jesus didn't die, he couldn't have risen and if Christ didn't rise from the dead then:

  And if Christ has not been raised, then empty [too] is our preaching; empty, too, your faith.


Does the Church in general need to revisit and revise its strategy in maintaining the faith? Is it a high time that we need to impart the young Christians (children) a comprehensive knowledge of all the doctrines of Christianity, or do we tend to raise them as unconvinced Christians susceptible to falter in their faith?
When a child with an analyzing mind is made to follow a Christian religion but is not made aware of the profound facts about the various beliefs/doctrines of the religion during the catechism classes, he tends to become an unconvinced Christian. When he starts seeking answers to these unconvinced claims from whichever source he finds, he is faced with answers, which sometimes are diametrically opposite to each other, answers that are in confirmation of his belief as well as against it. In absence of right guidance at the time of his growth, some of these young Christians end up in accepting those answers are against the Christian teachings.
Does the Church in general need to revisit and revise its strategy of adapting to the changed world and change the techniques, to ensure the maintenance of the faith in economically advanced countries?

In considering the causes of the lack of in-depth doctrinal and apologetic instruction provided to Christian youth, we might do well to consider the extent to which many, if not the majority of adults who self-identify as Christian are equally untaught.

Some of us are called to in-depth study of the bible; some of us are naturally drawn to a comprehensive study of world religions; some of us are fascinated by human nature, and see the study of religion as providing key historical insights into how the human mind and personality work.

I suspect, however, that the majority of people around the world see the pursuit of entertainment as a more effective use of their spare time, as a way to relax from the stress of life. Add the fact that religious study is -- as with study of most topics -- necessarily academic, and regarded by many as "dry," "stuffy," and even "boring," and one can see how religious study can only be "exciting" to those with a particular way of looking at the world.

This is not to provide an excuse for lack of religious ferver, but simply to acknowledge what, to one way of thinking, is the actual state of things for many.

With reference specifically to Christianity, many would agree heartily with criticism of the instructional methods, or lack thereof, used in many denominations. For example, critical analysis of what is often called the "emergent/emerging church movement" will sometimes describe lack of effective religious instruction as a causal factor in the formation of many of the beliefs espoused by some within the "movement."

All of that being said, I know of no effective ways of resolving the situation. The lack of effective religious instruction of youth can be traced to the lack of effective religious understand in many adults, and is the lack of effective religious understanding in many adults a symptom of anything other than tepid faith -- that is, one that does not present an overwhelming desire to know God, and to love God with all of one's heart, soul, strength, and mind? Exhortation to a more consuming faith, as an attempt to counter lack of religious ferver, is, after all, among the central topics addressed in scripture.


Does God intend or call some people to live alone forever in their life? No. I am not talking about taking the sacrament of priesthood or brotherhood or being a nun who is called to live a holy life only for Christ.

I mean if a man tries hard to find a partner but it seems he is always failing in his life to find a partner so, in that case, is that man called by God to live alone forever as long as he lives, spend time praying to God and serve the people of the society by good, generous, loving, caring, and honest deeds? Is not taking the sacrament of marriage a sin even when it's not his choice?

I could be wrong but I saw statistics that about 0.99999% of people around the world would never have a relationship. So this question.

Does God intend or call some people to live alone forever in their life?

The short answer is that it is very possible.

There are four basic states of life within the Catholic Church: marriage, consecrated life, priesthood and the single state as an unmarried lay person.

Trying to find one’s true vocation in life is for some individuals a task that will engulf their entire life.

Only at the end of earthly journey in this world, will some truly know if God really intended some to live single their whole life long. It may be thus true or it may not. When we see Our Lord on the day of our own particular judgement, it will all be revealed. For some, the answer will be yes. For others it will be no, for God will show to us where we may have gone astray in our true vocation.

  Pope John Paul II, who wanted to be known as ‘the Pope of the family’, wrote in his familial document “Familiaris Consortio” that those without a family must be able to find their family within the Church. In fact, the entire final section of this document is dedicated to single people.

  This is a subject with which John Paul II would have been intimately familiar – by the age of 20, all of his immediate family on earth had passed away, and he surrounded himself with good friends that essentially became his family.

  In the document, he wrote: “For those who have no natural family the doors of the great family which is the Church - the Church which finds concrete expression in the diocesan and the parish family, in ecclesial basic communities and in movements of the apostolate - must be opened even wider. No one is without a family in this world: the Church is a home and family for everyone, especially those who 'labor and are heavy laden.'”

  The Catechism of the Catholic also recognizes “the great number of single persons who, because of the particular circumstances in which they have to live – often not of their choosing – are especially close to Jesus' heart and therefore deserve the special affection and active solicitude of the Church, especially of pastors.” (CCC 1658). -Is the single life a vocation? Maybe we're asking the wrong question.

I would like simply mention here two things. It
would be good to talk to a priest or pastor about this subject matter. They may have some valuable insights in helping one discerning things in life. Secondly, vocations are a challenge. Even Pope St. John Paul II, at one time, considered getting married before entering the seminary. He was young, healthy and handsome. He spoke to his spiritual director and followed the promptings of the Holy Spirit.

The states of life are never easy.

Once again the answer to your question is possibly!

Let us here simply recall the words of Jesus to his Apostles:

  10 His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.

  11 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. - Matthew 19: 10-12


Can Christians be guilty of "robbing" God like it says in Malachi 3? God accuses the Israelites of "robbing" him by not tithing the full tenth according to the Levitical law. Can this also be true of believers today who are part of the new covenant and dead to the law?

  Malachi 3:8-11 ESV Will man rob God? Yet you are robbing me. But you say, ‘How have we robbed you?’ In your tithes and contributions. You are cursed with a curse, for you are robbing me, the whole nation of you. Bring the full tithe into the storehouse, that there may be food in my house. And thereby put me to the test, says the Lord of hosts, if I will not open the windows of heaven for you and pour down for you a blessing until there is no more need. I will rebuke the devourer for you, so that it will not destroy the fruits of your soil, and your vine in the field shall not fail to bear, says the Lord of hosts.

The reason I ask is because this is one of the go-to passages people use to encourage tithing because of the benefits that come from it (God will pour down a blessing). If that's the case, then are the downsides of not tithing shown through this passage also true?

The New Testament is silent on the topic of Tithing. This left us with our own interpretation of the Old Testament laws regarding Tithe. Most of the Pentecostal and Evangelical denominations make it an obligation to Tithe while the Catholic church doesn't collect Tithes.

If we study the life of the first century Christians, they did not pay Tithes but instead, they sold everything they had and put it at the feet of the Apostles. They did not give 10%, they gave 100%.

  All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any
  of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they
  had. With great power the apostles continued to testify to the
  resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at
  work in them all that there were no needy persons among them. For from
  time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the
  money from the sales and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was
  distributed to anyone who had need. (Act 4:32-35, NIV)

The NT simply say that you should give to God whatever you are willing and give it with a cheerful heart. But do not try to lie about the money to the church as Ananias and Sapphira did.

To answer the question, it actually depends on how you interpret the OT laws. Some take this verse from Malachi literally and pronounce blessings and curses. But the NT is silent on this. Remember that many laws from OT are now obsolete but it is not clear whether Tithing is obsolete or not. Nevertheless, the NT gives emphasis on giving to God and His servants.

  Nevertheless, the one who receives instruction in the word should
  share all good things with their instructor. (Galatians 6:6, NIV)

So, give as much as you can. For the more you give, the more you will get. The less you give, the less you get. Don't just give 10%. Give 20%,30% or even 100% and God will bless you as He promised in Malachi. But I don't know about the curses.

  Remember this: Whoever sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and
  whoever sows generously will also reap generously. Each of you
  should give what you have decided in your heart to give, not
  reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.
  And God is able to bless you abundantly, so that in all things at all
  times, having all that you need, you will abound in every good work.
  (2 Corinthians 9:6-8, NIV)


Did Paul hear Jesus teach in person? Did Paul (Saul) hear Jesus teach? I base this on his being approximately the same age and being taught by Gamaliel in Jerusalem during the time of Christ's ministry. A Jewish source mentioned that followers of specific Rabbis were sent out to listen to itinerant teachers to strengthen their understanding of Torah by comparing the teachings.
 I can't remember where I read he may have been an early follower but left when Christ's teachings became hard.
 To me this in part would explain his extreme reaction to the earliest Christians and why he was so aggressive in the discipline of the Christians.

To a certain extent you answer your own question.
Saul (in his own testimony) claims an unassailable Jewish lineage(Eph 3:4-6).  His devotion to the Jewish faith motivated him to repress what he perceived to be the ultimate heresy.  The Bible records that he was present at the stoning of Stephen; this would have been sometime after the formation of the early Church.  He would also have been a contemporary of the disciples themselves,  therefore it is reasonable to assume that a teacher of Judaism would be careful to not respond to hearsay about Jesus's message and teachings.

He, in all probability, did hear Jesus firsthand, but as the Bible does not specifically state this, it remains a hypothetical question with the only answer being: unknown.


Why are the other names of God not used in Christianity? The Bible has lots of names and titles for God: the Tetragrammaton ("YHWH"), Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh, Yah, Adonai, HaShem, Adoshem, YHWH Tzevaot, as well as Adonai, Baali, El, Elah, Eloah, Elohim, El Roi, El Shaddai, Elyon, The Eternal One, Shalom, Shekhinah, HaMakom.

But it seems to me that orthodox Christians only call him God, and when they read the Bible pronounce Lord, LORD, and lord the same even though they're distinct in Hebrew.

So why aren't the other terms used in Christianity?

I understand that some people perceive the names as titles and not names, however that's not how they were understood in Judaism.  Also, I don't believe this is a hermeneutics excursion as it's more of a "why did Christianity do that?" instead of "how is this translated / transliterated?"

To be clear, Christians do use other names of God in some contexts.

Michael Card's song El Shaddai was wildly popular in the 80's, and is often credited with launching the career of Amy Grant.
I remember singing Jehovah Jireh, and dozens of other songs like that.
Kay Arthur has a popular study based on the names of God, directed especially at women.

That list came to mind in the first 30 seconds of thinking.  There are many, many others.

As to why these aren't more popular? I'd suggest it's simply linguistic.  People gravitate towards the familiar when addressing a person.  Even if the Duke of Cambridge has 4 main names and 21 titles, they're still going to call him "Prince William" ninety nine times out of a hundred.  It's the same with "God." Hebrew is hard to pronounce, has the appearance of being overly formal in the King James, and generally is more foreign to the culture of mainstream American evangelicalism than anything else.  In spite of that, as shown above, we often incorporate it.  As such, I think the question should actually be reversed - why use the Hebrew as much as we do?


What is the official Roman Catholic opinion on Swedenborg? What is the official opinion of the Catholic Church on works of Emanuel Swedenborg, especially Heaven and Hell?

The Catholic Church directly contradicts many of the teachings of Swedenborg, but as best I can tell has not directly addressed Swedenborg himself. I am unaware of any documents from the Magisterium directly addressing Swedenborg. Thus, in that sense, the Catholic Church does not have an official position on Swedenborg. However, many of Swedenborg's teachings directly contradict the doctrines of the Catholic Church and so would be condemned as heresy.

So, to state it a different way, we cannot talk about the Catholic position on Swedenborg as a whole (because one has not been taken), but we can talk about the Catholic position on his individual teachings. It is completely possible that some of his teachings are in direct alignment with the Catholic Church while others are heretical according to the Catholic Church.

Let's take a look specifically at the teachings listed in the Heaven and Hell article.  I've attempted to be brief and so only touched on the major points.  Please feel free to ask questions on anything I didn't cover and I will do my best to answer.

Trinity

The Catholic Teaching is that God is three distinct persons in one nature.  Swedenborg contradicts this teaching, claiming that there is only one person.

Angels

Swedenborg teaches that angels used to be men and women and still live quite a bit like humans on earth.  This, again, is a direct contradiction to the Catholic teaching.  The Catholic teaching is that Angels are pure spirits (no corporeal bodies whatsoever) and are a separate nature from human nature.  Angels were created separately from humans and humans never become angels.

Marriage

Both Swedenborg and the Catholic Church agree that marriage is between one man and one woman and "what God has joined, let no man put asunder." However, they disagree on the nature the marriage bond.

Swedenborg taught that marriage continues after death. Catholic teaching is that marriage is for life, not afterlife. This is witnessed by the marriage vows, "till death do us part."

Heaven and Hell
(Thanks to Lee Woofenden for helping write this section)

The first difference between Swedenborg and the Catholic Church is the nature of judgment after death. Swedenborg teaches the concept of a "World of Spirits" in which a person's "true nature" is revealed over time after they die. Everyone enters this World of Spirits at death and over time whether or not Heaven or Hell is a better match for their nature is revealed to them. They then naturally choose the better match.

Catholic teaching is that when we die we are immediately judged and enter Heaven, Hell, or Purgatory.  There is no reveal over time of our "true nature" but a direct judgment.  Those who have rejected God are sent to Hell and those who have not attain Heaven. (Possibly going through Purgatory on the way to Heaven. Purgatory is a place for those who have gained Heaven, but first need to purge a remaining attachment to some earthly thing).

There is an interesting distinction between these two viewpoints.  In Swedenborg's teachings, those in hell don't want to be in heaven. In the Catholic teaching, the desires of those in hell are completely irrelevant, they simply cannot enter heaven. They have rejected God and so cannot attain the beatific vision (see below).

The other major difference appears to be in the definition of heaven and hell itself.  The Catholic Church defines Heaven and Hell primarily in terms of the gaining or the deprivation of the beatific vision. That is, the beholding of God's glory and seeing him face to face. Heaven is the attainment of the beatific vision, Hell is the deprivation of this glory. While the Catholic Church does teach that we will be active and doing "stuff" in heaven, the focus and definition is on the beatific vision as that is the greatest glory and dwarfs all other occupations of heaven.

Swedenborg thought of heaven, not as a beatific vision of God, but as a realm in which people live in community and engage in acts of love and service toward one another. His vision of heaven was closer to that of a good society here on earth, though in a spiritual rather than a material way.
He described various occupations in heaven, most of which today would be considered "service industries," such as education, child-raising, preaching, and so on. Though he did describe periodic worship services in heaven, he rejected the idea that angels spend eternity in unceasing worship, praise, and contemplation of God.


What is an overview of the similarities and differences between the Catholic doctrine of Original Sin and the Reformed doctrine of Total Depravity? Upon a cursory examination, both the Catholic doctrine of Original Sin and the Reformed doctrine of Total Depravity seem to say that mankind is by default separated from God.

What is an overview of how these doctrines are alike and how they differ?

The Catechism of the Catholic Church deals with this subject in §385–412.  A couple sections in particular reveal several significant contrasts between Catholic and Reformed theology:

§405: Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence". Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ's grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.
§407: The doctrine of original sin, closely connected with that of redemption by Christ, provides lucid discernment of man's situation and activity in the world. By our first parents' sin, the devil has acquired a certain domination over man, even though man remains free.

Key points:

Original sin "is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is [...] inclined to sin" (405)
Through Adam's sin, "the devil has acquired a certain domination over man, even though man remains free." (407)
"Baptism [...] erases original sin and turns a man back towards God." (405)

Now, representing Reformed theology, we turn to the Westminster Larger Catechism:

A25: The sinfulness of that estate whereinto man fell, consisteth in the guilt of Adam's first sin, the want of that righteousness wherein he was created, and the corruption of his nature, whereby he is utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite unto all that is spiritually good, and wholly inclined to all evil, and that continually; which is commonly called original sin, and from which do proceed all actual transgressions.
A32: The grace of God is manifested in the second covenant, in that he freely provideth and offereth to sinners a mediator, and life and salvation by him; and requiring faith as the condition to interest them in him, promiseth and giveth his Holy Spirit to all his elect, to work in them that faith, with all other saving graces; and to enable them unto all holy obedience, as the evidence of the truth of their faith and thankfulness to God, and as the way which he hath appointed them to salvation.
A165: Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, wherein Christ hath ordained the washing with water in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, to be a sign and seal of ingrafting into himself, of remission of sins by his blood, and regeneration by his Spirit; of adoption, and resurrection unto everlasting life; and whereby the parties baptized are solemnly admitted into the visible church, and enter into an open and professed engagement to be wholly and only the Lord's.

Corresponding to the points above:

As a result of Adam's sin, man is "utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite unto all that is spiritually good, and wholly inclined to all evil." (25)
God "promiseth and giveth his Holy Spirit to all his elect, to work in them that faith, with all other saving graces; and to enable them unto all holy obedience" (32)
Baptism is a "sign and seal of ingrafting into [Christ], of remission of sins by his blood" (165)

Thus we see three significant differences, briefly summarized:

In Catholicism, man is "wounded," under a "certain domination" of Satan, and "inclined to sin."  But in Reformed theology, man is "wholly inclined to all evil" and "utterly indisposed [...] unto all that is spiritually good."
In Catholicism, "man remains free" from complete domination by sin and Satan, but in Reformed theology, only God has the power to work faith and obedience in the elect.
In Catholicism, baptism  "erases original sin," but in Reformed theology, it is only a "sign and seal" of salvation, not in itself restorative.

As for similarities, we can see several from the context of these sections.  Both systems see original sin propagating to all mankind as a result of the sin of our first parents, and this sin has dire effects both on individuals and on the world at large.  And in both systems, Christ is the antidote, the New Adam who destroys sin and death.


Which kind of relations are considered incestous in Christianity? My question, in strict propriety, is specifically what kind of relationships are defined as incestuous in Christianity?

I am guessing that it is forbidden to marry one's parents/children or siblings but what about other relations like first cousins. I would appreciate some sort of a reference to maybe a specific passage in Christian holy scriptures. Is this something specifically commanded by God explicitly, listing forbidden relations? Or is it some sort of an interpretation done later by a scholar which is widely accepted today?

And I am talking about Christianity in general encompassing all of its sects. Do different sects have different rules?

First, a timeline.

The prohibition on incest was not given until well after creation. At least as far as traditions that believe Genesis to be a historical account are concerned, Adam and Eve were the first two humans on earth, they procreated, had a whole bunch of  sons and daughters, some of which paired. For more on this see:

Did Adam and Eve's Progeny Commit Incest?

There was actually another bottleneck in the human family tree much later at the time of Noah. While Noah's direct offspring brought their spouses along for the ride, his grandchildren would have been limited to marrying each other, so cousins if not siblings.

The commands about not marrying family relations that were too close didn't come for another couple thousand years, about the time of the Mosaic law that was to govern Israel after they were taken out of Egypt.

The prohibition is later affirmed and renewed in various places and still in effect today and won't be changed again.

So who's included?

There is a run down of relationships that are considered too close or otherwise off limits here:

  Leviticus 18:6-18 (ESV)
  6  “None of you shall approach any one of his close relatives to uncover nakedness. I am the Lord. 7  You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father, which is the nakedness of your mother; she is your mother, you shall not uncover her nakedness. 8  You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father's wife; it is your father's nakedness. 9  You shall not uncover the nakedness of your sister, your father's daughter or your mother's daughter, whether brought up in the family or in another home. 10  You shall not uncover the nakedness of your son's daughter or of your daughter's daughter, for their nakedness is your own nakedness. 11  You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father's wife's daughter, brought up in your father's family, since she is your sister. 12  You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father's sister; she is your father's relative. 13  You shall not uncover the nakedness of your mother's sister, for she is your mother's relative. 14  You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father's brother, that is, you shall not approach his wife; she is your aunt. 15  You shall not uncover the nakedness of your daughter-in-law; she is your son's wife, you shall not uncover her nakedness. 16  You shall not uncover the nakedness of your brother's wife; it is your brother's nakedness. 17  You shall not uncover the nakedness of a woman and of her daughter, and you shall not take her son's daughter or her daughter's daughter to uncover her nakedness; they are relatives; it is depravity. 18  And you shall not take a woman as a rival wife to her sister, uncovering her nakedness while her sister is still alive.

There are also related reiterations of this in Leviticus 20:11-21, Deuteronomy 22:30, and Deuteronomy 27:20-23.

Basically we have:

No parents (including inlaws or anyone intimate with parents)
No children (or anyone intimiate with them, son inlaw, dauther inlaw, etc)
No siblings (including half siblings)
No grandchildren (or any other level of offspring)
No aunts, uncles (or their intimates)
No inlaws (brother inlaw, sister inlaw)

Also included here is having relationships with someone who is any of these connections to somebody you've been intimate with - with a notable exception for siblings if the original parter is diceased. In other words if your wife dies, marrying her mother (or daughter even if the child isn't yours) is not an option, but if she had a sister you could marry her. Another case worth mentioning is Levirite marriage where marrying your siblings spouse is allowed in the vent your sibling has died.

Notably absent from the list of specifically prohibited relationships is first-cousins. Some people make the case that these would be covered in the more umbrella statement of Lev 18:1 where "any close" (litterally blood) relatives are off limits. Another factor to consider here is that it is illegial in some states and countries, a factor Christians usually consider binding (although they may not consider all things allowed by the state as permissable, they usually consider those prohibited by the state as off limits). The same social taboos about first-cousins that exist in the West are not nearly as strong in the Middle East. How Christians view that case in practice, at least to some extent, mirrors the cultural understanding.

That this assortment of off-limit relationships was still expected of Christians in the New Testament can be seen here:

  1 Corinthians 5:1 (ESV)
  5 It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that is not tolerated even among pagans, for a man has his father's wife.

Are these views consistent across sects?

Almost, but not quite.

As I mentioned above, there is some variation in understanding when it comes to doubtful cases not specifically listed above such as first-cousins or step siblings:

Does the Old Testament law prohibit marriage among step siblings?

However the differences in understanding tend to be isolated more to regions than to sects.

There are of course a number of small sects with very different views on family relationships in general. (See LDS, it's sects and polygamy). However as a broad generalization incest is widely defined in roughly the same way as above, partly because the Scriptural prohibition is so specific.

Summary

Christians generally consider incest to cover a wide variety of family relationships.


Did Jesus condemn wealth? Mathew 19 : 16 - 24

16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good?  there is none good but one, that is, God:  but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
18 He saith unto him, Which?  Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
19 Honour thy father and thy mother:  and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
20 The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up:  what lack I yet?
21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven:  and come and follow me.
22 But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful:  for he had great possessions.
23 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.
24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

This bible passage has really got me confused. Does this mean that Jesus condemns wealth and it is not good to be rich?.

No, it does not mean that at all.  We cannot assume that everything Jesus ever said to anyone applies to all people in all times.  Jesus gave this specific commandment to this specific person at that time.

Other places in Scripture, Jesus acknowledges that there are wealthy people and gives instructions to them--not condemnations.

  As for the rich in this present age, charge them not to be haughty, nor to set their hopes on the uncertainty of riches, but on God, who richly provides us with everything to enjoy. 18 They are to do good, to be rich in good works, to be generous and ready to share, 19 thus storing up treasure for themselves as a good foundation for the future, so that they may take hold of that which is truly life.  1 Timothy 6:17-18 ESV

The Old Testament acknowledge that God does bless with material things at times, though this is not His greatest blessings.

  Honor the Lord with your wealth and with the firstfruits of all your produce;
  10 then your barns will be filled with plenty, and your vats will be bursting with wine.  Proverbs 3:9-10 ESV

So, no, this is not a condemnation of wealth or capitalism or anything like that.  It is a specific command to a specific person who perhaps had made an idol out of his wealth which needed to be removed.


From an LDS perspective, what is an Unclean Spirit? From an LDS perspective, what is an unclean spirit?  What is its history?  Where did it come from?

From the scriptures, I gather that unclean spirits want to inhabit mortal bodies.  My guess is that unclean spirits once lived on earth in a mortal body.

Some might say an unclean spirit is the same as an evil spirit and is the same as the third part of the host of heaven which fell in the pre-mortal existence.  I would be happy to know if this is correct or if an unclean spirit is different than the other two.

Unclean spirits are those spirit children of God who kept not their first estate, which refers to the life before earth life. All men and women lived with God as his spirit children before coming to the earth as mortal beings. Those who kept their first estate were rewarded with a chance to live on Earth, receive a mortal body, be resurrected, and obtain salvation. Those who keep their second estate (on Earth) shall be exalted. Unclean Spirits, or Evil spirits, are those who did not keep their first estate, and will never receive a mortal body.

The Book of Abraham gives us the most detailed information about our life before the creation of the Earth:

  22 Now the Lord had shown unto me, Abraham, the intelligences that
  were organized before the world was; and among all these there were
  many of the noble and great ones;

  23 And God saw these souls that they were good, and he stood in the
  midst of them, and he said: These I will make my rulers; for he stood
  among those that were spirits, and he saw that they were good; and he
  said unto me: Abraham, thou art one of them; thou wast chosen before
  thou wast born.

  24 And there stood one among them that was like unto God, and he said
  unto those who were with him: We will go down, for there is space
  there, and we will take of these materials, and we will make an earth
  whereon these may dwell;

  25 And we will prove them herewith, to see if they will do all things
  whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them;

  26 And they who keep their first estate shall be added upon; and they
  who keep not their first estate shall not have glory in the same
  kingdom with those who keep their first estate; and they who keep
  their second estate shall have glory added upon their heads for ever
  and ever.

  27 And the Lord said: Whom shall I send? And one answered like unto
  the Son of Man: Here am I, send me. And another answered and said:
  Here am I, send me. And the Lord said: I will send the first.

  28 And the second was angry, and kept not his first estate; and, at
  that day, many followed after him.

That second angel, who was angry, and kept not is first estate, was Lucifer, Satan, the Devil, and those who followed after him; that third part who of the host of heaven who will never have a body of their own, and shall be cast our into outer darkness.

  3 And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red
  dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his
  heads.

  4 And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did
  cast them to the earth: (Revelations 12:3-4)

  ...for, behold, the devil [...] rebelled against me, saying, Give me
  thine honor, which is my power; and also a third part of the hosts of
  heaven turned he away from me because of their agency; And they were
  thrust down, and thus came the devil and his angels; (Doctrine and
  Covenants 29:36-37)

  And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their
  own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness
  unto the judgment of the great day. (Jude 1:6)


What is an overview of Christian arguments against the "unconscious violinist" analogy used to support abortion in the case of rape? I was originally looking for any Christian Church that is against abortion in the case of rape that has also responded to the scenario below or something similar to it. I was instead advised to revise my question into something like:

  What is an overview of Christian arguments made against the Thomson
  paper's support for abortion in the case of rape?

"A Defense of Abortion" (Thomson):

  You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with
  an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been
  found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers
  has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you
  alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped
  you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged
  into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from
  his blood as well as your own. [If he is unplugged from you now, he
  will die; but] in nine months he will have recovered from his ailment,
  and can safely be unplugged from you.

It is said later that:

  Critics of Thomson's argument generally grant the permissibility of
  unplugging the violinist, but seek to block the inference that
  abortion is permissible by arguing that there are morally relevant
  differences between the violinist scenario and typical cases of
  abortion.

But it is unsourced. :(

To make my intentions clear, the above is an analogy for a female being raped and impregnated by a male. Some churches claim that the female is obliged to carry the child to birth if medically practical because the child is innocent of his/her father's sins, has a right to life, etc etc etc.

(Assume ideal conditions such as medical complications not being present so the mother and child are healthy, the mother can give birth, the mother and the father are not close relatives, a proper hospital is available and can be afforded, an adoption agency is available etc etc etc)

So do those arguments apply to the violinist too? What are the "morally relevant differences" ? I understand that Thomson was defending abortion in non-rape cases, but let us consider only rape cases.

What's the difference? Why are women responsible for carrying a child, who she did not consent to carrying, to birth but people are not responsible for caring for a violinist who they were attached to without consent?

I am not saying women are not responsible, but if they are, it looks like everyone is responsible for the violinist.

I will begin by observing that the answer to this question is a logical and philosophical one, hence it does not depend on a particular religion or denomination. It is human nature itself that demands utmost respect for all human beings, and hence all people—regardless of religion—are obligated to work for the end to direct abortion in all cases.

I will, however, answer from the perspective of the Catholic Church.

For the purposes of this discussion, direct abortion is defined as any action “tending directly to destroy human life in the womb ‘whether such destruction is intended as an end or only as a means to an end;’” see Evangelium Vitae 62, which is quoting an address made by Pope Pius XII on November 12, 1944, to the San Luca Biomedical Association.

Regarding direct abortion itself

The Catholic Church takes the position that direct abortion can never be justified for any reason. In other words, although there may be situations in which a medical procedure must be made that results in the death of the child (e.g., in the treatment of ectopic pregnancies, or in the case of particularly aggressive cancers), the death of the child can never be directly intended—either for its own sake, or for the sake of some other good. As Pope John Paul II said in Evangelium Vitae,

  I declare that direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, always constitutes a grave moral disorder, since it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being (No. 62).

Regarding the case of pregnancy that results from rape

Hence, a woman who has been raped (and whoever finds herself in that situation deserves the utmost care and support!), and is pregnant as a result, is indeed obligated to bring the child to term. This obligation arises from the fact that the child in question is a human being—in fact, a human person—with all the rights and obligations that accrue to a human being, simply for being human. The most fundamental right of all is the right to life.

It should also be observed that although rape itself is an unspeakable crime, pregnancy as such is not, nor does it cause harm to the mother. Rather, it is a normal part of human development. Clearly, the way in which this particular kind of pregnancy comes about is extremely traumatic and violent, but the pregnancy itself is not a violence against the woman or her body.

It is true that pregnancy brings with it certain risks, but modern medical care mitigates the vast majority of them. It is also true that pregnancy—especially one that is unexpected and emotionally charged, as in this this case—can be burdensome for the mother. However, the proper response is for society to help her bear the burden: doing violence to the completely innocent child in her womb solves nothing and heals nothing.

(I do not have access to scientific studies on cases of pregnancies resulting from rape—I am not sure that there are enough cases to be statistically significant—however, ample anecdotal evidence shows that bringing the child to term is often a source of healing for the mother. See for example, this story about a mother who was raped when she was 12; a story about people conceived in rape; a story from a woman who at first wanted her baby dead. Moreover, abortion itself is always extremely harmful to the woman who has it done—at a minimum, for the moral damage it causes, but at least in a significant number of cases, it also produces intense anguish and suffering.)

A look at the “violinist” analogy

Let us now look at the analogy presented by the O.P.

The first thing to observe is that it is an entirely canned and unrealistic situation. In reality, there is no medical situation is like this. (In the case of kidney failure, the proper procedure is to give the violinist kidney dialysis.)

Let us, however, take the “bait” and see if the analogy between the situations really holds. In fact, there are important differences:

The violinist is not healthy. He is, in fact, in a very precarious medical situation, and any treatment that will be performed on him has only a limited chance of success. On the contrary, in the vast majority of cases, the baby conceived in rape is perfectly healthy, and so is the mother (at least for the most part—she is generally not at death’s door, like the violinist). Unless someone does violence to him, the baby is fully expected to survive and flourish.
The violinist depends on the kidnapped victim only tenuously for his survival. Once his disease is cured, he can go on his way. On the other hand, a baby (at least before viability) depends radically on his mother for his very existence. In other words, the violinist depends on the kidnapped victim only because (1) he has an illness and (2) the kidnapped person has been connected to him—in other words, he depends only accidentally on the kidnapped person. The baby, on the other hand, depends on his mother (as it is said) essentially—that is just how the baby is made right now, even though he is perfectly healthy.
Comparing not the crimes committed, but only the situation of the victims (person kidnapped and mother) after the crime is committed, the person connected to the violinist is subjected to a much worse burden. The kidnapped person must remain immobile for nine months in a hospital; pregnancy (without diminishing the real burdens that it entails) does not impose a comparable burden on the mother.
Removing the connection to the violinist does not intend to procure the death of the violinist. It intends to remove the victim from a burdensome (and, in this case, unjust) situation. On the other hand, direct abortion does violence to the baby—it necessarily intends the baby’s death.

With these differences in mind, let us look at each situation:

Would a person who finds himself connected to a sick violinist be obliged to remain there until the violinist recovers?

We should observe that—as in the case of abortion—the fact that the person aiding the violinist was placed in that position by violence is actually irrelevant to the question. The question is: now that I find myself connected to a sick violinist (however I got there), may I disconnect myself?

The answer is, “It depends on the circumstances.” (Assuming I am this victim), I cannot summarily pull out the connections, without at least appraising the situation. I have to consider the life of this sick person, and whether my actions would directly procure his death or not.

In this case, however, because his dependence on me is circumstantial or (to use the classical terminology) “accidental,” I would most likely not be obligated to continue the “treatment.” We are dealing with a very sick patient whose life might (or might not) be prolonged by my being connected with him. The use of my kidneys is, at the end of the day, a risky experimental procedure that has a certain probability of success, but is not 100% certain, and might even cause me harm.

Moreover, remaining connected to the violinist is a tremendous burden (one not comparable to pregnancy, as mentioned above). It could only be imposed on me with my consent—which is obviously lacking in this case.

In summary, the dependence of the violinist on the kidnapping victim for his survival is too tenuous or “accidental” for it to impose an absolute obligation on the kidnapped person to continue the “treatment.” However, even in a case like this the life of the violinist must be preserved as best as the situation allows.
May a woman who finds herself pregnant as a result of a rape do violence to her child?

No, never. There is no way to “disconnect” the baby without necessarily bringing about his death. The dependence of the baby on his mother is essential—brought about by his very constitution.

Moreover, the burden imposed by the baby on the mother is one that can be reasonably be expected to be born. It does not threaten her life or her wellbeing, and what risks there are can (in the vast majority of cases) be mitigated. The evidence strongly suggests that pregnancy and birth are healing experiences for mothers that are victims of rape—and that aborting such children, on the contrary, causes the mother anguish and unspeakable suffering.

A better analogy

I will propose a better analogy that is closer to the situation of pregnancy that results from rape.

Suppose that through some sort of act of violence (perhaps a terrorist attack or something similar), I encounter a newborn baby who has no one to care for him. (Suppose that he is the only survivor of a terrorist attack.)

Supposing that there is no one else who can do so, would I be obliged to take care of him? I think that everyone would agree that the answer is “yes.” At a minimum, I would be obliged to find someone else who would be willing to take over that responsibility.

Does the fact that the situation was imposed on me by violence take away my responsibility? Not a bit. It may make it more difficult for me to take on that responsibility, but the responsibility remains. The proper response, however, is to seek help and support in fulfilling that responsibility—not to do violence to the innocent child who is the subject of it.


How many 'Books' never made it to the Bible (Old and New Testament)? Alternatively:
How many books were included in early Bible compilations and then later removed?

A book in the bible, to my understanding, is one of the many named divisions in the Old and New Testament.  Mathew, Mark, Luke and John would be 4 different books, and each of Paul's letters to the churchs in the different cities would each be a 'book'

There are a certain number of Books in the King James Version, but how many other 'books' or writings did scholars/historians/religious leaders have access to but for one reason or another, were never included in the more modern Bible compilations.  (perhaps due to controversy, or translation disputes, or issues in verifying the author)

If we could go back and add all of these books and letters to the Old and New Testament today, how many books would the Bible have?

This questions comes out of curiousity after seeing books in a Catholic printing of the bible that did not exist in the King James version.

I'm assuming the Apostles or whoever compiled the Bible books, didn't have the whole structure and order down in the exact way they printed now.

The "books" of the Bible are just that- they are separate works by separate authors in separate contexts. Yes, Luke wrote 2, Moses wrote 5, and Paul wrote somewhere between 7 and 13, but Stephen King has written more than one book, too :)

Matthew, for example, was written by the Apostle Matthew. Luke, by Paul's traveling companion. Mark was written by Peter's close friend. The point is, these are different books by different authors that are just assembled into a library of what, by consensus, has been agreed to be the best of the best.

To ask, "what books dind't make it in?" is answered by a simple statement: everything else.

There were all sorts of Gnostic Gospels at the time, but, of course, the main stream of Christianity rejected that. As such, there was never a "conspiracy" to keep out, say, the 115 proverbs that are the Gospel of Thomas, or the Epistle of Barnabas, or the Gospel of Peter, or Judas, or any of the lot. There was simply a general agreement that all of these books had no more place in the Christian canon than Mitt Romney would in the Democratic Convention.

Additionally, there were several fictional works, in the same way that today people write historical fiction. Google "New Testament Apocrypha" for details.

Finally, one accepted criteria for canonicity was an apostolic claim. As such, important Christian works such as 1 Clement, the martyrdom of Polycarp, The Shepherd of Hermas, or the Didache are highly important and good theology in them. They are worthy of study by Christians, but never made the criteria of canonicity.

In short, the Bible is really a lot like, say, the New York Times best seller list. It is a compilation of what's "best". What's not included isn't trash- its just not in the same league. The same is true of the canon. C.S. Lewis is amazing, but he isn't the agreed upon historical consensus.


Are there Christian traditions/literatures regarding fear of God and Heaven in the afterlife? It seems to me that contemplating encountering God (as understood by most Christians), and one's life in Heaven, in the afterlife, could, in some cases, give rise to significant fear.

One might be, after all, in the direct presence of the creator of the universe, the sole almighty being, and one who knows every single thing about you; there is no apt analogue like that in earthly experience and just the unfathomable magnitude of that might be terrifying to consider.  (And yes, even given the explicit belief that God is good).

Likewise, the thought of oneself in Heaven (leaving aside considerations of a New Earth), could be, if not exactly fearful, at very least difficult to consider given the, again, boundless degree of difference from our mortal life. The thought that our mortal life and all that went with it is irretrievably over might trouble us.  Concerns about how human relationships (arguably the central aspect of human life), such as marriages and camaraderie, would work in Heaven might give us at least concerns--and in some cases deep sadness.  There is the notion of identity, which in life is an amalgam of profession, family, interests, values, character, foibles, quirks, history, age, health, traumas, and other factors, and which, in Heaven, might be significantly altered, since many of the important factors will be obviated.  And, of course, all physical considerations may be massively altered in a spiritual realm. Taken as a whole, and given that the saved are inevitably headed for just this place, these considerations might generate trepidation in addition to the "meeting God" fear.

To put it shortly:  it's a very different being in a very different place--and that might be scary.

So, how, if at all, has Christianity, through authors, notable church leaders, or other key figures, addressed these types of concerns in the primary traditions, such as Catholicism or mainline Protestantism?

[Terminology associated with this gist, if it exists, would also be helpful.  And note:  I am not at all looking for SE user reassurance or Bible guarantees that the afterlife will not be frightful; I am looking for whether this theme has been addressed in the main traditions or not, and, if so, where and how.]

The Bible itself is replete with commands that we are to have a reverent fear of God that is to coexist with our love of God. The fear of God is a recurrent theme in Scripture, and it is commended and linked directly with holiness. Nave's Topical Bible, for example, shows several subtopics and a multitude of individual references for the topic "Fear of God." See also the prophet's experience in Isaiah, chapter six.

That being said, the short answer to your question is: yes, the fears that you list, and many others, seem plainly reasonable for sinful human beings -- that is to say, all human beings. Prior to entering heaven, however, the believer is changed so that those fears cease to be relevant. Here's why.

The Christian "ordo salutis," or "order of salvation," has been developed from a close study of the Scriptures. While different traditions have slightly different teachings about the number and order of the steps, a frequently offered summary includes the steps of:

Justification, which occurs when one receives faith in Christ and forgiveness of sins;
Sanctification, the ongoing process by which a Christian is brought into greater conformity with Christ over time; and
Glorification, the final perfecting of a believer which takes place after death and prior to entrance into heaven. The particular timing will vary according to one's eschatological views.

At glorification, the Christian is entirely cleansed of his "sin nature," and he no longer has any inclination towards sin whatsoever. Being perfectly free of sin enables him to delight wholly in God, and all other things become secondary and unimportant in the immediate presence of God's glory.

That's why nothing else matters in heaven. Man was originally designed to find satisfaction in God alone. When sin entered the picture, we became distracted and focused on the creation, instead of the Creator -- that is, we all became idolaters, to greater and lesser degrees. Glorification remedies that problem.

Here's a bit of further reading on glorification in Baker's Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology, with several references to Scripture.

Here's a link to the "Order of Salvation" entry in volume three of The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge at CCEL.

Here are some links to related discussion from John Piper. Each video is about three minutes in duration, and he directly explains why Christians have no need to fear heaven. As always, he explains things much more clearly and simply than I ever could, and I recommend his teachings wholeheartedly: Video 1, Video 2

And for more on the idea of finding satisfaction in God alone, see Desiring God, the ministry of John Piper. He teaches about something called "Christian Hedonism."


Can Satan read our minds? I come from the assumption that God can read our minds.  That we can pray silently and that God will hear our prayers.

However, can Satan hear our prayers as well?  Can he hear our other thoughts?

I ask because if Satan can hear our thoughts, then he may learn ways to tempt us by listening to our prayers to God.

A very related question is, can he give us thoughts of evil?  Whether or not he can read our minds, can he implant ideas into our minds?

I don't think there is any Biblical evidence of this. However, if we assume he can't, directly (which I suspect) then I'm sure he can indirectly, through a combination of body language, experience of humans and knowledge of specific individuals.

Say for example you look twice at an attractive member of the opposite sex - you don't need to read minds to have an educated guess what that person might be thinking.

Btw, I assume the question is referring to demonic entities in general. The likelihood that Satan, who is not all knowing nor all present, is trying to figure out what you are thinking must be pretty low.


Why is there no archaeological evidence that Christians existed for 200 years after 70 AD? This is from the 2/1/2018 issue of Biblical Archaeology Society:

...For almost two hundred years after the crucifixion, Roman cities are entirely devoid of any trace of early Christians; to date, no one has ever found any object that’s been plausibly connected to them. As an archaeologist and a historian, I think it’s time we start taking this silence seriously and stop trying to fill it with any more sensational “discoveries.” Many of Jesus’ followers—men and women who lived in the first, second and even third century Roman Mediterranean—simply didn’t want to be found.
That’s not exactly the first thing that usually comes to mind when we think about early Christians, but the evidence is insurmountable at this point. For almost four hundred years, there were no manger scenes anywhere in the Roman world. There were no crucifixes displayed in homes or schools. There weren’t even any bound Bibles tucked into church pews. In fact, we actually don’t even know what “churches” looked like, at least, not until the middle of the third century. For a community that would later come to remember its earliest history as a time of vicious persecution, answered with outspoken acts of martyrdom, this archaeological silence poses a slight problem. Where are these people?...

Here are some standard evidences of the early existence of Christianity:

Many extant Bible MSS date from before 350 AD such as p1 (3rd), p4 (3rd), p5 (3rd), p9 (3rd), p15 (3rd), p20 (3rd), p52 (about 125), p90  (2nd), p98 (2nd), p104 (2nd), and many more). There are also many important archaeological artifacts.  (See a more complete list of MSS in UBS4, UBS5 NA27, NA28.)
The voluminous writings of all the ante-Nicaean Fathers (e.g., Ignatius, Clement, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and Origen), starting at about 110 AD.  (My sets consist of The Apostolic Fathers by Holmes [Baker Academic] and Ante-Nicene Fathers [T&T Clark Edinburgh, Eerdmans Publishing])
The writings of Josephus (about 90 AD) refer to Christians, Christian practice, Christian belief, and even Jesus.
Chapel of Saint Ananias, Damascus, Syria, dates from the first century.
A fragment of an inscription bearing the name of Pliny, Basilica of Sant'Ambrogio, Milan.  Pliny the Younger, the Roman governor of Bithynia and Pontus (northern modern Turkey), wrote a letter to Emperor Trajan around 112 AD and asked for counsel on dealing with Christians. The letter (Epistulae X.96) details an account of how Pliny conducted trials of suspected Christians who appeared before him as a result of anonymous accusations, and in the letter he asks for the Emperor's guidance on how the the Christians should be treated.
Tacitus (a Roman senator) wrote in his book (circa 116 AD) about Jesus and His execution under Pilate, and the existence of Christians in Rome ("Annals" book 15, chapter 44).
The Roman historian Suetonius (c. 69 – after 122 CE) made references to early Christians and their leader in his work Lives of the Twelve Caesars (ca. 121 CE). The references appear in Claudius 25 and Nero 16, and they describe the lives of Roman Emperors Claudius and Nero.
Documents excavated at Oxyrhynchus show many writings about Christianity dating from the first- and early second century.
ΙΧΘΥΣ (Ichthys--fish inscriptions dating from the second century.
Numerous Christian graves in the Catacombs of Rome dating from the second century.

There is much more, and all of it well known.

We should not be surprised we have as much as we do to document early Christianity.  Up until Constantine issued the Edict of Toleration from Milan in 313, which legalized Christianity, Christianity was illegal and suffered numerous purges and persecutions, culminating with Diocletian's attempt to annihilate Christians. However, much evidence has survived, as I've documented above.

See also A History of Christianity Regions 2 & 4 (DVD) for more general information about early Christianity.


Do Cessationists believe that the Holy Spirit still speaks specific messages or instructions to Christians today? The book of Acts includes several examples:

Then the Spirit said to Philip, “Go up and join this chariot.” Acts 8:29

While Peter was reflecting on the vision, the Spirit said to him, “Behold, three men are looking for you. But get up, go downstairs and accompany them without misgivings, for I have sent them Myself.” Acts 10:19-20

The Spirit told me to go with them without misgivings. These six brethren also went with me and we entered the man’s house. Acts 11:12

While they were ministering to the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for Me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” Acts 13:2

Do Cessationists believe that this is still happening today?
(*) Notice that the messages need not be communicated via mechanical sound waves travelling through the air necessarily, they could be communicated telepathically, or by impressing the sounds directly into the disciple's mind (aka "hearing a voice in one's head"), etc. Whatever the means, the point is that the Holy Spirit was clearly giving specific messages or instructions to the disciples in the book of Acts. Do Cessationists believe that the Holy Spirit is still doing that today?

This is from an article in Tabletalk magazine, which is produced by Ligonier Ministries.  It is written by Robert Rothwell and supposses to be the voice of Reformed Christianity on the topic of cessationism.  There is much in the article describing the purpose of audible contact from the HS to the individual and why those purposes are expired.

We cessationists do not believe that the Spirit is unable to speak through prophets today, but only that He has chosen not to. We cessationists believe that the Spirit can and often does heal people in unexpected ways when we pray for them. We believe that the Holy Spirit speaks to us through the sound exposition of His Word. We believe that He opens and closes doors for us and even arranges providential “coincidences” in our lives. In fact, I contend that traditional Reformed cessationism has a higher view of the Spirit’s power and freedom than traditional continuationism. This is because we confess that the Spirit must bring dead souls to life in order for us to believe; that He must do so without our asking, for in our spiritually dead state outside of Christ we will not ask for new life; and that He does so for only those whom He freely chooses and at the moment of His own choosing.

It appears as though, for the cessationist, communication of the Spirit to the individual believer is limited to "sound exposition of the Word" rather than a voice which tells us to "go here" or "do this".
*Note: I do not hold this position by doctrine nor by experience.