What is the basis for Lombard's view that the basis of justification for OT men was different than for OT women? While reading J. V. Fesko's The Theology of the Westminster Standards, I found an interesting tidbit in the context of his discussion of justification in Reformed theology:

  Medieval theologians such as Lombard argued that Old Testament men were justified through circumcision and women were justified by their faith and good works.

Reformed theology, of course, rejects this idea, holding that justification is by faith alone (not circumcision nor good works).  But the idea that men were justified on a different basis than women is still intriguing, so I'd like to better understand the view.

What is the basis for arguing that men and women in the OT were justified through different means?  More specifically, here are a few aspects of the question:

What is the biblical and logical basis for such a view?
Why would there be two means of justification, one for men and one for women?
Why would men not also be justified on the basis of "faith and good works"?
Would faith thus not be required for men to be justified?

I'd like to restrict the question to the views of Lombard and other scholastics – here I'm not looking for post-Reformation versions of this view.

Full study: Medieval Readings of Romans

But of course, Lombard's view is based on the incorrect assumption that circumcision started with Abraham.

The practice of circumcision predates Judaism by more than 10.000 years. Circumcision is the world's oldest planned surgical procedure, suggested by anatomist and historian Grafton Elliot Smith to be over 15,000 years old, pre-dating recorded history.

The Semites most likely copied the practice from the Sumerians. Abraham is believed to have had circumcision performed on himself and on all male relatives and servants in his household whether of Semitic origin or not, as a mark of the covenant between his God and these people, known thereafter as His Chosen People, the Children of Israel.  Historians date this as around 1800 BCE, clearly long after circumcision was introduced by the Sumerians and Semites.

So just as some have assumed that circumcision started with Abraham, so others like Herodotus have incorrectly suggested that the Children of Israel introduced it into Egypt during their captivity around 1200 BCE.

Evidence exists that ritual circumcision was being performed by the Egyptians as early as 2300 BCE, confirmation of this being a wall
painting from Ankhmahor, Saqqarah, Egypt (dated in the eighth Dynasty, 2345–2182 BCE)

Now that we have established circumcision clearly predates Judaism, it is logical to search for the origin of this dualistic gender-based justification in customs that predate Judaism as well. Egyptian circumcision was used to demarcate a special elite class, very much like in the Abrahamic tradition, it is used to set apart the "chosen". Priests were the custodians of both secular and religious knowledge and they played a significant role in offering sacrifices to the Egyptian gods. Priests were expected to be pure morally and in physical appearance. The presence of the foreskin was regarded as a sign of female sexual organ and impurity and hence it was to be removed. As purity was a status of higher rank and a coveted attribute, the practice of circumcision, which originally was prescribed for the priests, ultimately became adapted by all men.

Priestesses in Ancient Egypt, on the other hand, were not circumcised and usually served in the temples of female deities. Those who served Isis were instructed to perform good deeds every day, such as anonymously donating to the poor. Detailed instructions for daily good deeds, rituals and sacrifices date back to the earliest dynasties.


Anglican Minor Orders? Do Anglicans have the minor orders of subdeacon, acolyte, exorcist, lector, and door-keeper (porter), like in the Catholic Church (cf. Council of Trent ses. 23 ch. 2), and the major order of deacon? (I know they claim to have the priesthood.)

Yes, Anglicans do have deacons, and while there are people who perform the tasks of some of the minor orders, particularly acolyte, and lector, and while they often have some training in the role they serve, they are not officially sanctioned "minor orders" in the sense of being provided for in canon law. The only official orders in the Anglican church besides Deacon are Bishop and Priest.


Church Fathers on the Queenship of Mary My Question: Which Church Fathers thought of Mary as a Queen?

The Church Fathers can be both early and late(max 500AD).

Many Church Fathers have written about the Queenship of Mary either directly or indirectly.

To start with, let us answer the question as to who are the Church Fathers according Catholicism?

  The Fathers of the Church are so called because of their leadership in the early Church, especially in defending, expounding, and developing Catholic doctrines. For the first two centuries, most of these men were bishops, although in later years certain priests and deacons were also recognized as Fathers.

  The list includes such notables as: Clement of Rome (d. A.D. 97), Ignatius (d. 110), Polycarp (d. 155), Justin Martyr (the Church’s first major lay apologist; d. 165), Irenaeus (d. 202), Cyprian (d. 258), Athanasius (d. 373), Basil (d. 379), Cyril of Jerusalem (d. 386), Ambrose (d. 397), John Chrysostom (d. 407), Jerome (d. 420), Augustine (d. 430), Cyril of Alexandria (d. 444), Pope Leo the Great (d. 461), and Pope Gregory the Great (d. 604).

  The Church demands four major characteristics to be exhibited in the life and works of an early Church leader if he is to be considered a Father of the Church. These are antiquity, meaning that he lived before the eighth century (the death of St. John Damascene [cir. A.D. 750] is generally regarded as the close of the age of the Fathers); doctrinal orthodoxy; personal sanctity; and approval by the Church. - Who were the Church Fathers?

Which Church Fathers thought of Mary as a Queen (prior to the year 500 AD)?

  The Fathers of the Church unanimously called the Blessed Virgin Mary their Queen. Here is a sample of a few of the Fathers in their own words:

  St. Jerome tells us "We should realize that Mary means Lady in the Syrian language."

  St. Peter Chrysologus says "The Hebrew name ‘Mary’ means ‘Domina’ [Lady] in Latin. The Angel therefore calls her Lady so that the Mother of the Lord, whom the authority of her Son made and caused to be born and to be called the Lady, might be without servile fear."

  St. Ephrem has Mary saying:
  "Let Heaven sustain me in its embrace, because I am honored above it. For heaven was not Thy mother, but Thou hast made it Thy throne. How much more honorable and venerable than the throne of a king is his mother."

  St. Gregory Nazianzen calls her "the Mother of the King of the entire universe" as well as "Virgin Mother who brought forth the King of the entire world." - The Church Fathers On The Queenship Of Mary

The later Church Fathers are even more explicit in their wording as to Mary's Queenship as St. John Damascene calls her: "Queen, ruler, and lady".

Although not a Church Father, Catholic tradition sees Mary's Queenship in St. John's vision in the Book of Revelation 12:1-5:

  “And a great sign appeared in heaven: A woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars: And being with child, she cried travailing in birth, and was in pain to be delivered. And there was seen another sign in heaven: and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads, and ten horns: and on his head seven diadems: And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman who was ready to be delivered; that, when she should be delivered, he might devour her son. And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with an iron rod: and her son was taken up to God, and to his throne.” - Biblical Basis of Mary's Royalty


Which books are regarded as puritan spiritual classics? In recent readings I've found some (informal) quotes to puritan sayings like:

  "Pray for the gift of tears"

...meaning that a puritan should pray to ask for true repentance of his sins to the point of tears.

  "Our first duty as Christians is to get ourselves happy in God"

...which is pretty obvious.

My question is which can be regarded as puritan spiritual classics? And my extra bonus question is: where can I find the quotes listed above?

The ultimate Puritan spiritual classic is The Pilgrim's Progress (1678, 1684) by John Bunyan. It is an allegory for the journey of the individual Christian to God's kingdom, beset by characters like "Mr Worldly Wiseman" and "Lord Hate-good", travelling through places like "Vanity Fair" and "the Slough of Despond". It has had enormous influence in literature and culture. Apparently, it was said that any Puritan household would always possess at least two books: this and the Bible.

Bonus question #1: The idea of 'Praying for the gift of tears' is not original to Puritanism. Evagrius Ponticus, a monk of the fourth century, wrote in his On Prayer (s. 5, trans. Luke Dysinger):

  First of all pray that you may receive tears, so that by means of sorrow you may be able to calm the wildness within your soul; and by confessing your iniquity to the Lord, obtain forgiveness from him.

I don't know the answer to bonus question #2.


Is thinking of God as a Loving Father specific to Christianity? I was looking to respond to someone who sent me a Christopher Hitchens video saying that nothing would be different if Jesus never existed and I was thinking of all the ways this is dead wrong.  One of those ways was that Jesus taught to address God in Heaven in our prayers as "Our Father".  This may have been foreshadowed in the OT, as far as I know it was never made explicit until Jesus did so.

So for the purposes' of apologetics, can I say concretely that the idea of God as a loving Father is specific to Christianity?

It is not specific to Christianity, there are many other religions that use similar associations of deities with male or female parents. This is a well-known form of anthropomorphism in the human sciences: the attribution of human traits, emotions, or intentions to non-human entities. It is considered to be an innate tendency of human psychology.

In the Norse pantheon, one of the names of Odin is Alföðr, literally "all-father", father of all.
Similarly, in the Greek pantheon, Zeus was respected as an allfather who was chief of the gods. Even the gods who are not his natural children address him as Father. He was also called the father of men.
In Native American Animism, there is the All-Father, the Sky-Father, and the Earth-Mother
The Egyptian God Khnum bears the title "father of fathers" in some of the oldest religious preserved texts.
In Babylonian, Sumerian and Akkadian texts we find the titles "father of all" and "father of heaven" for the deity Anu.

The principle of associating the top deity of any pantheon with "father" was very common in older patriarchal societies.

It is also not the case that "Jehovah as father" was never made explicit in the OT:

  Jer 31:9  They shall come with weeping, and with supplications will I
  lead them: I will cause them to walk by the rivers of waters in a
  straight way, wherein they shall not stumble: for I am a father to
  Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn.

  Isa 64:8  But now, O LORD, thou art our father; we are the clay, and
  thou our potter; and we all are the work of thy hand.

  Isa 63:16  Doubtless thou art our father, though Abraham be ignorant
  of us, and Israel acknowledge us not: thou, O LORD, art our father,
  our redeemer; thy name is from everlasting.

  Deu 32:6  Do ye thus requite the LORD, O foolish people and unwise? is
  not he thy father that hath bought thee? hath he not made thee, and
  established thee?

  1Ch 29:10  Wherefore David blessed the LORD before all the
  congregation: and David said, Blessed be thou, LORD God of Israel our
  father, for ever and ever.

  Jer 3:19  But I said, How shall I put thee among the children, and
  give thee a pleasant land, a goodly heritage of the hosts of nations?
  and I said, Thou shalt call me, My father; and shalt not turn away
  from me.

  Mal 1:6  A son honoureth his father, and a servant his master: if then
  I be a father, where is mine honour? and if I be a master, where is my
  fear? saith the LORD of hosts unto you, O priests, that despise my
  name. And ye say, Wherein have we despised thy name?

  Mal 2:10  Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us? why
  do we deal treacherously every man against his brother, by profaning
  the covenant of our fathers?

  Pro 3:12  For whom the LORD loveth he correcteth; even as a father the
  son in whom he delighteth.

  Psa 103:13  Like as a father pitieth his children, so the LORD pitieth
  them that fear him.


In Mark 10:17-31, what did the rich man lack? I tried searching for this on Christianity.SE, but couldn't find anything. Google searches brought up a lot of opinions based on different theologies and opinions. I'm looking for an answer to this out of Scripture. The part I'm talking about is in Mark 10:21:

  And Jesus looking upon him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.

Is the "one thing" simply the "treasure in heaven" Christ is referring to? Or is it something else?

While I'm more looking for a purely Scriptural answer, I'd be interested in getting the Catholic perspective on this.

The one thing he lacked was actually the most important thing - saving faith in God.  That he lacked this is evidenced firstly by his failure to put his trust wholly in Christ to follow Him no matter what, but also by his failure to obey the first (and greatest) commandment evidenced by him prioritising his wealth over the will of God.

  No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money. - Matthew 6:24 ESV


Was universalism the majority belief of the early church? I recently came upon an article that made this statement:

  According to historical records, Universal Reconciliation was the majority belief of the church during the first five centuries of the Church and the majority of the early Church Fathers.  Through infighting, jealousy, and outright heresy among unscrupulous churchmen who conducted Church Councils after the year 400 AD, the doctrine was soon disregarded then completely eliminated.

Is this true? What writings do we have from early church fathers prior to 400 ad that supports or doesn't support this statement?

Background

Obviously, this topic suffers from dogmatists on both sides. Universalists are desperate to overstate their case, and traditionalists are desperate to prove the early church didn't have any (except a negligible few) universalists. Spoiler alert--they are both misguided.

The truth is that this subject is extremely confusing, which makes speculation easy. And even if it were true that the majority of the early church believed one view over the other, we probably couldn't know for sure. Perhaps modern scholarship will one day shed more light. Until then, we must be very careful.

I will demonstrate how difficult it can be to state that one view is the "majority" over the other by listing important Christians in the early church and their stance on the issue. Hopefully I have done a good job to avoid cherry picking, but I encourage you to do your own research and double check my work. I will gladly update this answer as this is a massively difficult question to answer.

Views an Early Christian is Likely to Hold

The present-day "traditional" view: The vast majority of human beings go to an eternal hell and the minority go to an eternal heaven. Early Christians who believed this almost always believed the fire was literal.
Annihilationism: Those who are damned are blotted out of existence and no longer conscious.
Denial of the general resurrection: The damned are never raised.
Apokatastasis: The majority of human beings go to hell, but hell is purgatorial. Eventually, after enough time, all the damned will "convert" in hell and join the saints in heaven. Most advocates of this doctrine argue that all evil will cease to exist one day--thus implying (or teaching) that even the devil will convert.

Important Early Christians on Eternality/Temporality of Hell1

Christians in the First and Second Century

Author of the Gospel of Mark: He may be telling Peter's account of the Gospel. He writes for a gentile audience. He uses the term aiōnios once in reference to judgement.
Author of the Gospel of Matthew: He may favor annihilation based on how he quotes/paraphrases Jesus in Matthew 10:28. He wrote to a Jewish audience and uses the term aiōnios many times when talking about punishment in the afterlife.
Author of the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles: He uses the term aiōnios only in reference to salvation. This is true of his Gospel and Acts. He writes to a gentile audience.
Author of the Gospel of John: He uses aiōnios only in reference to salvation. He demonstrates influence from Greek philosophy (i.e. John 1's Hymn to the Word). He writes to a gentile audience. His rendering of Christ's words seem to imply a cosmic scope of God's salvific will.
Odd Christians Paul references in 1st Corinthians 15: Paul mentions that some Christians performed baptisms on behalf of dead people in order that those dead people might be raised. It seems these primitive Christians believed postmortem salvation was possible, and so it is possible that they might have thought all who are dead could one day be saved.
Paul: He leaves us without anything definitive. Romans 9 can be evidenced as belief in double predestination while Romans 11 can be evidenced as belief in universal predestination to salvation. 2 Corinthians 5 says Christ is reconciling the world to himself. It is possible he may have never used the term aiōnios in reference to fate of the damned, but this depends on the authenticity of 2nd Thessalonians. 1 Corinthians 15 is indicative of apokatastasis, but it is possible we misunderstand him. Philippians 2 says all will confess Christ as Lord. Passages about those perishing (i.e. 2 Cor 2:15-16) indicate he believed in an eternal hell, but it is hard to say. Our interpretations of Paul's theology typically determines our interpretations of "perish."
Author of the 2nd Epistle of the Thessalonians: He uses aiōnios once in reference to the damned's fate, but he pairs it with olethros suggesting the damned are annihilated.
Author of the Epistle to the Colossians: He mentions that Christ will "reconcile to himself all things" by virtue of his atoning sacrifice.
Author of the 1st Epistle to Timothy: He says God desires all men to be saved and says Christ is the savior "of all men, especially those who believe." But the epistle is pastoral, so the author is possibly guarding his audience from the full story. Some argue that the author didn't really mean "all men," but instead meant "some (or a minority) of all classes of men"--this interpretation first appears in the 5th century in Augustine's letter to a friend.
Author of Epistle of James: He mentions how reconciled apostates were saved from "death." This may imply annihilation, though we have little of substance to draw from.
Author of Epistle of Hebrews: He says the damned will be devoured and suffer fiery indignation, and refers to judgement as aiōnios once.
Author of Epistle of 1st Peter: This writer believes Jesus descended into hades to preach the Gospel to imprisoned spirits. He might have meant Christ redeemed some of the damned.2
Author of Epistle of 2nd Peter: He says God desires for all to come to repentance and does not desire for any to perish.
Author of Epistle of 1st John: Most readers understand this author to mean Christ is the propitiation for even the damned. However, a minority think that this author doesn't actually mean that, but instead meant Christ is the propitiation for Christians everywhere. The author also talks about a "sin leading to death" which no one should pray for. Perhaps he believed in a sort of "mortal sin" which damns people forever, or perhaps he meant something else.
Jude: He compares the eternal fire the damned will suffer with the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. This suggests he thinks of damnation as annihilation.
Author of Revelation: Nearly impossible to tell given the symbolic nature of the text. Secular scholar Bart Ehrman believe he is depicting annihilation. He says the devil will burn aiōnas tōn aiōnōn, seeming to indicate eternal suffering. Though some early Christians interpreted the "lake of fire" as being a "refiner's crucible" indicating universalism.
Author of the Didache: He doesn't seem to believe in the general resurrection.3 It is possible he thinks that only the saved are raised to life and the damned are left dead. It is hard to tell, however, because the document abruptly ends right when he is explaining this.
Author of the Eighth (Christian) Sibyllines: This author defends the idea that prayers for the damned are efficacious.
Author of the Apocalypse of Peter: This author defends the idea that prayers for the damned are efficacious, and in some versions, he says Jesus said that hell will not last forever. There are very graphic depictions of hell in the text.
Author of the Odes of Solomon: This author says Jesus saves all of the dead in hell.
Author of the Shepherd of Hermas: This author says something related to this topic. Something to do with penance in the early church. Someone in the comments help me figure out a short description for this one.

Christians Producing Apocryphal Texts in Third and Fourth Century

Apocalypse of Paul: He writes of postmortem repentance and intersession for the damned.
Author of the Gospel of Nicodemus: He says the tree of Jesus' cross destroys all that Satan gained with the tree of knowledge.
Author of the Acts of Paul and Thecla: The writer tells of story of a damned woman being saved through her friend's prayers.
Author of the Acts of Thomas: The writer writes about Jesus rescuing spirits in hell. There are many other things which can be said about the universalistic tendencies of this document. It is also extremely heretical and endorses all sorts of odd gnostic ideas.
Author of the Acts of Philip: The writer is argued by some to be anti-gnostic. Many of its passages demonstrate the writer believes firmly in the salvation of all.
If anyone knows of any other early Christian texts which hint towards one view or another, please add to this list. Also let me know of any errors and if you know of any scholars who argue that any Christian above actually believed other than what I put.

Notable Post-Apostolic Christians' Positions4,5

If I bold someone's position it is because there is a very high probability that they actually held that position. If I do not bold, it just means we do not know with high probability.

St. Ignatius of Antioch (35 -107): annihilationism/eternal hell
St. Polycarp of Smyrna (69 - 115): annihilationism/eternal hell
Valentinus (heretical gnostic, 100 - 160): annihilationism/eternal hell6
St. Justin Martyr (100 - 165): annihilationism/eternal hell/apokatastasis
Tatian (120 - 180): eternal hell
St. Irenaeus of Lyons (140 - 202): annihilationism/eternal hell/apokatastasis
Clement of Alexandria (150 - 215): apokatastasis
Bardaisan (heretical gnostic, 154 - 222): apokatastasis7
Tertullian (155 - 240): eternal hell
St. Hippolytus of Rome (170 - 235): apokatastasis?8
Origen (184 - 253): apokatastasis9
St. Cyprian of Carthage (200 - 258): eternal hell
Pope St. Dionysius of Alexandria (Patriarch of the See of St. Mark, ? - 264): apokatastasis
Arius (heretic, 250 - 336): eternal hell
Arnobius of Sicca (255 - 330): annihilationism
Eusebius of Caesarea (260 - 340): apokatastasis
St. Aphrahat (280 - 345): unknown
St. Athanasius of Alexandria (296 - 373): apokatastasis
St. Hilary of Poitiers (300 - 368): eternal hell
St. Ephrem the Syrian (306 - 373): eternal hell/apokatastasis
St. Gregory of Nyssa (335 - 395): apokatastasis10
St. Ambrose (340 - 397): eternal hell/apokatastasis
Evagrius Ponticus (345 - 399): apokatastasis
St. Jerome (347 - 420): apokatastasis and then later eternal hell
St. John Chrysostom (349 - 407): eternal hell (though he has some faint suggestions of apokatastasis)
St. Augustine (354 - 430): apokatastasis and then later eternal hell
Pelagius (heretic, 360 - 418): eternal hell
St. Cyril of Alexandria (376 - 444): unknown
St. Isaac of Antioch (400s) : unknown
St. Pope Gregory the Great (540 - 604): I'd assume eternal hell, but someone ought to double check for me
St. Maximus the Confessor (580 - 662): apokatastasis (though with "warnings" of eternal hell)
St. Isaac of Nineveh (613 - 700): apokatastasis
St. John of Damascus (675 - 749): eternal hell
John Scotus Eriugena (815 - 877): apokatastasis

Other Early Christian Universalists Just for Fun

St. Theophilus of Antioch (120 - 183)
St. Didymus the Blind (313 - 398)
St. Basil of Caesarea (329 - 379)
St. Gregory of Nazianzus (329 - 390)
Diodore of Tarsus (? - 390)
St. Macrina the Younger (330 - 379)
St. Maximus of Turin (? - 408/423)
Theodore of Mopsuestia (350 - 428)
St. John Cassian (360 - 435)
St. Peter Chrysologus (380 - 450)
Theodoret of Cyrus (393 - 466)
Ps. Dionysius the Areopagite (4th - 5th century)

Conclusion

Universalism is certainly present in the early church, but it is too difficult to say if it was the majority view. Notice too how easy it is to deceive people by listing only universalists as I did in the "Other Early Christian Universalists Just for Fun" section. There are lots of early Christians, so it is easy to cherry pick.

Footnotes

1As I move further in time, I will be less comprehensive and only mention the most significant figures.

2Again, authors might believe in universalism if they believe in postmortem salvation.

3General resurrection or universal resurrection is the orthodox Christian doctrine that all men, saved and damned, will have their physical bodies physically resurrected on the last day. This idea is expressed clearly in John's Gospel.

4I roughly deem an early Christian "notable" if they either are 1) very clear as to their position on the eternality of hell or 2) vital to the development of Christian orthodoxy. I also include all notable church fathers even if we don't know their position.

5If a particular Christian's position cannot be pinned down but is still relevant to this the subject, I include them too. Comment if you have any to add.

6I include Valentinus because he nearly became the bishop of Rome, and his heretical beliefs framed some of the discussion for how the orthodox Christians would respond and then formulate their beliefs. Some will claim Valentinus taught apokatastasis, but this is a half-truth. Valentinus' apokatastasis was neither universal nor holistic, viz. only a certain class of men and only the souls of these men (not their material bodies) would be benefactors of this "apokatastasis." See Ilaria Ramelli's book for more information on this.

7Bardaisan was very against the Valentinian gnostics despite being a gnostic himself. He denied the resurrection of the body as well.

8 St. Hippolytus of Rome taught Origen mostly about the theology of the Logos during Origen's stay in Rome. He was a good friend of Origen, and was anti-Valentinian like Origen. Hippolytus wrote in Greek, but we have his writings in Latin translations. He teaches a form of Purgatory, and when writing against heresies he never condemns apokatastasis. I struggled to find any definitive proof that he believed apokatastasis from scholarship other than that Ramelli seems to hint at him being predisposed to it, but maybe I'm misreading her. In my estimation, he seems to lean more towards apokatastasis than otherwise.

9Some orthodox Christians drew a parallel between the belief that the devil could never be saved with Valentinus' predestination. Origen responded by biting the bullet saying even the devil could be saved, thus defending his doctrine of free will. Though, he later "denied" he believed in the eventual salvation of the devil in a letter to his friends in Alexandria. See Joseph F Badir's document "Predestination and Election" in the academia.edu link in the resources below.

10St. Gregory of Nyssa is one of the three great Cappadocian Fathers. He is certainly a universalist, and he even believed the devil would be saved. The other two, St. Gregory of Nazianzus and St. Basil of Caesarea are very likely to be universalists.

Resources

https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Christian_Doctrine_of_i_Apokatastasi.html?id=YfGZAAAAQBAJ
https://www.patristics.co/patristic-universalism/
https://www.academia.edu/Documents/in/Christian_Universalism


According to Pentecostalism/Charismaticism, can Satan understand all tongues? This question is geared towards Pentecostals and Charismatics (although all views are welcome), can Satan understand the tongues that are spoken by a person that is speaking in tongues as uttered by the Holy Spirit?

Here is one passage that when taken literately can imply that only God can hear the spoken utterance, but it context it doesn't really hold up since the context is order of worship. but if there is no interpreter, he must keep silent in the church; and let him speak to himself and to God. (1 Cor 14:28)

Since Satan was an angel and has been around the earth since the creation (and Babel), is it possible that he is able to understand the utterance of men and angels If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. (1 Cor 13:1)

One more argument that one can make is that the "Holy Spirit" is Holy and Satan is not, therefore Satan cannot understand the Holy utterances of the Holy Spirit.  But I have been unable to find biblical support for this claim.

This question popped up during a casual discussion with my Charismatic friend and I'm Pentecostal.

From experience, it is a relatively common teaching in Pentecostal and Charismatic circles that one of the benefits of praying in tongues is that Satan can't understand it (and can't stand it!).  As well as the verses you've cited, this doctrine is also supported by Romans 8:26-27 -

  26 Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness. For we do not know what to pray for as we ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words. 27 And he who searches hearts knows what is the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints according to the will of God. (ESV)

For those unfamiliar with Pentecostal/Charismatic doctrine, where the bible talks about 'praying in the Spirit' it is taken as synonymous with praying in tongues (cf. 1 Cor 14:14-15)


Is there any connection between the country of origin of Popes and nearby large gatherings of Catholics or Councils? Not that a run of 2 means anything (or Rio is in Argentina like I mistakenly assumed It is just down the road) and given there were hundreds of years of Italian popes to skew this statistic, but it seems like Pope Francis and Pope Benedict XVI being elected months prior to World Youth Days nearby their countries of origin is not a complete coincidence.

Maybe it is, but just to dispel any possible conspiracies, has there ever been a precedent of electing a Pope to draw attention to an event upon the Pope's "homecoming"?

No. Because until St John-Paul II, few popes traveled, and those that did, didn't travel much. There was no expectation of a Pope's homecoming, in the sense of the Pope returning to his country of origin.


Question about nativity and timelines I can't quite wrap my head round this one. How do we know so much about the birth of Christ, but almost nothing about his growing up?

As I see it, there were only a handful of people at the birth, Mary, Joseph, some shepherds and possibly the owner of the stable. That's been documented and detailed in the gospels in reasonable detail, so someone there must have provided details.

If they realised that His birth was significant then I can understand the sharing of the facts of his birth, but if that was the case then why not more detail about His growing up?

If they didn't realise until He started his ministry that he was the same Jesus, and then connected the stories together, then there wouldn't have been any real oral traditional stories of his birth. How was there such a detailed narrative about it?
It doesn't make sense to me to document only the birth and then nothing until the ministry.

I understand the way stories were handed down, and I understand that the gospels were written later, but I just can't reconcile the above.

This answer is from the perspective of history and the Bible (whether divinely inspired or merely a message that humans wanted us to hear).

There are four specific ages that are significant in Judaism:

Birth
1 week old: male circumcision Brit Milah.  This symbolizes the physical covenant between God and God's People.
12-13 years old: morally responsible for one's actions Bar Mitzvah or Bat
Mitzvah.  Past this age, people are no longer to be treated as children, but as adults.
30 years old: qualified for leadership.  Behaviour and attitudes can change significantly before 30, but are relatively stable after that.  E.g. Priests had to be at least 30 years old (Numbers 4:3), Joseph began running Egypt (Genesis 41:41,46), and David was anointed King of Israel (2Samuel 5:3).

The Gospels explicitly mention Jesus's birth (Luke 2:7), his circumcision (Luke 2:21), his unaccompanied visit to the Temple (Luke 2:46), and the beginning of his ministry.  Jesus was both Priest and King, so 30 years old is a doubly appropriate age.

What happened between those key events was not considered relevant, so there was no need for it to be recorded.  Luke 2:51-52 provides all the details we need to know about his life between 12 and 30:

  Then he went down to Nazareth with [his parents] and was obedient to them. But
  his mother treasured all these things in her heart.  And Jesus grew in
  wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man.


Who is the best prophet in Christianity? and is he the best human being in the eyes of God? The degree of how well God is worshipped varies from person to person, some do better deeds, have better morals, or do greater sacrifices than others, so it seems natural that there will be some human who is the best human in the eyes of God. I'm curious if Christians have some consensus on who is the best human or the most perfect human being, in terms of following God's orders.

I am asking this question with the assumption that Jesus is not human and does not worship someone/something since He is God himself (my assumption may be wrong). I guess my question is more about who is the best worshipper of God? If it's Jesus then did Jesus actually "worship"? How so?

There is no consensus within Christianity about who is the 'best' prophet.

The Christian belief in the universal sinfulness of human beings (apart from God's grace) tends to mean that such comparisons are not encouraged.

As you intimated, Jesus is an exception to this. The vast majority of Christians believe that Jesus is both fully God and fully human. If your question had not excluded him he would unquestionably be 'the best prophet' in all senses, and he is also considered the 'best human being'.

Since there isn't a consensus (or doctrine) on this, we can only have the opinions of various Christians, which we cannot discuss on this site.


Did Jesus forgot that he was asked by his disciples where he was going? In John 13:36, Peter asks Jesus where he is going:

  Simon Peter said to him, “Lord, where are you going?” Jesus answered
  him, “Where I am going you cannot follow me now, but you will follow
  afterward.”

And in John 14:5, Thomas also asked Jesus where he is going:

  Thomas said to him, “Lord, we don’t know where you are going, so how
  can we know the way?”

But later in John 16:5-6, Jesus said that no one asked him where he is going!

  But now I am going to him who sent me. None of you asks me, ‘Where are
  you going?’Rather, you are filled with grief because I have said these
  things.

Did Jesus forgot that he was indeed asked?

There is no contradiction or forgetfulness of Yeshua's part. Peter did ask where he was going previously, and Thomas implies the question, but at this particular time nobody asked him where he was going.

But now I am going to him who sent me. None of you asks me, ‘Where are you going? ’Rather, you are filled with grief because I have said these things.
νῦν δὲ ὑπάγω πρὸς τὸν πέμψαντά με, καὶ οὐδεὶς ἐξ ὑμῶν ἐρωτᾷ με Ποῦ ὑπάγεις

The word ἐρωτᾷ (asks) is in the present tense. You can see that here, as well as in the translation. Meyer's NT Commentary offers the interpretation that Yeshua paused between "me" and "none", though he says such an interpretation is unnecessary...

None of you asks me: whither dost Thou go away? but because I have spoken this to you, namely, that after my departure such sufferings shall befall you, grief has filled your heart, so that you have become quite dumb from sorrow, and blunted to the higher interest which lies in my going home to Him who sent me. According to De Wette and Lücke, there is said to be a want of exactness in the entire presentation, resting on the fact that John 16:6 does not stand before καὶ οὐδείς. The incorrectness of this assumption, in itself quite unnecessary, lies in this, that the first proposition of John 16:5 is thus completed: “But now at my departure I could not keep silence concerning it,” by which the 6th verse is anticipated. According to Kuinoel and Olshausen, a full point should be placed after πέμψ. με, and a pause is to be assumed, in which Jesus in vain awaited a question, so that He continued subsequently with an interrogation: “Nullusne vestrum me amplius interrogat, quo abiturus sim?” But the assumption of pauses (others, including De Wette, make the pause after John 16:5) is, when the correlation of the conjunctions is so definitely progressive, unwarranted.
The fact that already in John 13:36 the question had been put by Peter ποῦ ὑπάγεις (comp. the question of Thomas, John 14:5), does not stand in contradiction with the present passage; but Jesus censures simply the degree of distress, which they had now reached, in which none among them fixed his eye on the goal of the departing One, and could come to a question for more definite information respecting it.


What role do the people of Rome play in the election of a pope? Everett Ferguson, in Church History, I, 20.I, describes the process for papal election set down in the Lateran decree of 1059 (In nomine Domini) as follows:

  The election of the pope was to be by the cardinal bishops, confirmed by the cardinal presbyters and deacons [...], and ratified by the people of Rome. [emphasis added]

I'm wondering what that "ratification" looked like.  Was it a formal process by which the people of Rome had ballots and a voting booth?  (I assume not)  Was it just assumed that if a bunch of people were cheering nearby that the people had ratified the election?  Or does "people" have some technical meaning here?

The Catholic Encyclopedia says that the election should not be understood as a "popular vote of the Romans," but I'm not sure if the process has changed over the years.

What role did the people of Rome play in papal elections, according to the Lateran decree of 1059, and do they play the same role today?

I'm not knowledgeable about papal elections in 1059 or today, but Edward Gibbon's history has the following remark:

  The freedom of elections subsisted long after the legal establishment of Christianity, and the subjects of Rome enjoyed in the church the privilege which they had lost in the republic, of choosing the magistrates whom they were bound to obey. As soon as a bishop had closed his eyes, the metropolitan issued a commission to one of his suffragans to administer the vacant see, and prepare, within a limited time, the future election. The right of voting was vested in the inferior clergy, who were best qualified to judge of the merit of the candidates; in the senators or nobles of the city, all those who were distinguished by their rank or property; and finally in the whole body of the people, who on the appointed day flocked in multitudes from the most remote parts of the diocese … it was everywhere admitted, as a fundamental maxim of religious policy, that no bishop could be imposed on an orthodox church without the consent of its members. The emperors, as the guardians of the public peace, and as the first citizens of Rome and Constantinople, might effectually declare their wishes in the choice of a primate; but those absolute monarchs respected the freedom of ecclesiastical elections, and, while they distributed and resumed the honours of the state and army, they allowed eighteen hundred perpetual magistrates to receive their important offices from the free suffrages of the people.


Was Leo Tolstoy a heretic? Leo Tolstoy, author of War and Peace and Anna Karenina, wrote his own version of the Christian Gospels.[1] He called it The Gospel in Brief. In it, he mixed many beliefs of the different disciples. In doing so he claimed to have eliminated the agenda of the gospel writers. Interestingly, but to the surprise of many, he rejected most of Jesus's supernatural occurrences, since they were unnatural. Thus he denied the existence of miracles. Even more interestingly, Tolstoy felt that G-d was incomprehensible. It is not involved in human affairs. Thus on this basis, he denied Jesus's divinity, writing that all men are sons of G-d, "the infinite source of being." Thus Jesus was not G-d; he was as human as all other people.

Tolstoy was convinced that people have a religious duty, to "love thy neighbor as thyself." He felt that this was Jesus' true message since the infinite source created everything out of love. Thus people can only relate to G-d by being like G-d, in the sense of not just feeling but acting out loving-kindness.

Interestingly enough, Tolstoy's nonviolent methods influenced Mahatma Gandhi. Since he was a pacifist, he was highly critical of the Russian government's involvement in wars. Tolstoy writes, "The Gospel puts in the place of what men call 'God' a right understanding of life. Without this understanding there is no life; men only live in so far as they understand life."

For his views, he was excommunicated by the Russian-Greek Orthodox Church. His radical views can be compared to that of Spinoza's, who was also excommunicated by the rabbis.

In short, what do modern Christians think of Tolstoy's views? Is he still a heretic, or is the church open to conversation? Where does one draw the line of tolerance? Whether or not one agrees with everything Tolsory writes, can his views still be deemed very thought provoking?

[1] Thomas Jefferson also wrote his version of the gospels, but we shall not engage it here.

A really interesting question since as a Christian who opposes the use of lethal force by Christians, I have tended to count Leo Tolstoy as an ally of sorts since he also takes Jesus' command to 'love your neighbor as yourself' as foundational to an ethic of sacrificial love. However, upon further research (also here) I realized that you are right on the two counts which you ask:

1). As a thoroughly 'modern man' Tolstoy did not believe Jesus performed miracles.

2). Tolstoy also denied that Jesus was a 'son of God' preferring to interpret Jesus' Resurrection as being symbolic and ultimately rejecting his divinity.

On the first count, most Christians in the protestant tradition are willing to be flexible - denial of miracles was all the rage for many in Tolstoy's era and its influence is still evident within the significant 'cessationist' lobby in evangelicalism today. For example, no reference to miracles is made in the Apostle's Creed - although Mary's virgin conception is. On the second count however, Tolsoty is undeniably a heretic having rejected the tenet at the very heart of the gospel.

As my professor at Moody Bible Institute (an institution generally 'reformed' in its thinking) wrote here quoting what is generally considered a standard text of Evangelical orthodoxy:

  I am in hearty agreement with Affirmation Ten of This We Believe: “We affirm that the bodily resurrection of Christ from the dead is essential to the biblical Gospel (1 Cor. 15:14).”...Jews and Greeks could conclude that a crucified Messiah is a contradiction, an absurdity. That is, since Jesus suffered and died, indeed was crucified, he must have been rejected by God. But the opposite is the case; the Resurrected One was not rejected by God.

That is the simple answer to your question: if his affirmation of count 1 did not lead to a denial of count 2 (i.e. if he at least affirmed that God the Father bodily resurrected Jesus Christ) then Tolstoy did not belief the Gospel. If he was merely uncertain about this particular point, for example as the exact meaning of what it meant that Jesus was the Son of God, perhaps there could be more conversation and uncertainty as to his status. But since he actively denied Jesus' divinity and resurrection, he stands starkly against the very essence of what Christians proclaimed in the very first sermons in the book of Acts, and against the bare minimum of what all Christians must believe:

  ...if you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. (Romans 10:9, NRSV)

You close your questions asking about where the 'line' of tolerance is generally drawn, and whether his views can still be viewed as thought-provoking.

In brief, although rejection of miracles is a huge red flag, the last line which all protestant Christians will hold is exactly contention 2 - the bodily resurrection of Jesus - and Romans 10:9 - see also 1 Corinthians 15.

Secondly, although within fundamentalist circles the tendency is never to look beyond the bible for truth, especially in spiritual matters, most Christians of the reformed and protestant traditions are willing to read and learn from a rather wide theological circle. For example, the ethical theme of loving your enemies which so captured Tolstoy and which he identified with the cross has strongly influenced many today, taking Jürgen Moltmann's The Crucified God as just one example.

That Tolstoy looked only at the cross and rejected the resurrection is however, a mark against him that protestants should never forget. It reminds me of the more recent work of open theologian Gregory Boyd's Cross Vision which speaks a lot about looking at Jesus through the lens of the cross at the expense of remembering that the crucified God was raised bodily from the dead.

This raises a final issue relevant to your question, learning from those who reject the resurrection is perfectly acceptable, even recommended for protestants, many of whom work in secular fields, or who find value in reading the work of non-Christian spiritual genius'. However, someone like Tolstoy should not be espoused (from the evangelical perspective) as a 'Christian' teacher or writer, and would never be accepted to pastor or lead within a reformed Church. I think of Jordan Peterson, someone who has recently received praise and attention from American evangelical Christians for his writings about religion (including a 'metaphorical/literary' acceptance of the resurrection) coupled with public calls for him to 'be saved'.


Jakob Böhme - influence Which denominations apart from Quakerism, if any other, were influenced by the teachings of German Protestant mystic Jakob Böhme?

His Wikipedia page lists some people he influenced:

  Pierre Poiret, John Pordage, William Law, Louis Claude de Saint-Martin, William Blake, Hegel, Schopenhauer, Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling, Julius Evola

Going through those it seems like area of influence was mostly Enlightenment philosophers, Theosophists, and liberal mainline Protestants. One that stands out is John Pordage, who founded the Philadelphians.

  The Philadelphians [...] were a Protestant 17th century religious group in England. They were organized around John Pordage (1607–1681), an Anglican priest from Bradfield, Berkshire [...] Pordage was attracted to the ideas of Jakob Böhme, a Lutheran theosophist and Christian mystic.


Do Biblical Unitarians believe in Creatio Ex-nihilo (creation out of nothing)? Creatio ex-nihilo, for the purposes of this question, meaning that matter is not eternal and was therefore brought into existence by God at a specific moment (the beginning) and this creation is also inclusive of space, time, and any other dimension understood to be necessary for material existence.  In other words, creatio ex-nihilo means that, prior to creating everything (if saying prior to time even makes any sense) there was only God.
Also see this related (closed) question.
Following are two quotes from an article at Biblical Unitarian.com entitled "John 1:1- But what about John 1:1?".  I was searching whether Biblical Unitarians (BU) believe that God created everything out of nothing (creatio ex-nihilo) but could not find any direct statement (the search was not exhaustive).

If we understand that the logos is God’s expression—His plan, purposes, reason and wisdom, it is clear that they were indeed with Him “in the beginning.”

Most Jewish readers of the Gospel of John would have been familiar with the concept of God’s “word” being with God as He worked to bring His creation into existence. There is an obvious working of God’s power in Genesis 1 as He brings His plan into concretion by speaking things into being.

It seems clear that John 1:1 is linked to Genesis 1:1 as referring to the same "beginning" in BU thought but it is unclear whether BU believe that everything was created "ex-nihilo" and what "everything" might encompass.

Do Biblical Unitarians believe that God created everything out of nothing and does everything include matter, space, time, etc (as defined above), or 1a) did God create matter into an existing space-time, or
1b) did God "create/form" things from already existing elemental matter, or 1c) is there some other alternative that escapes me?

*Note:  Part of the reason for this question is, if something existed into which or from which God created then how can God be said to have created everything (if indeed such is claimed)?

"Our approach is to use Scripture as our sole and final authority in understanding who God has revealed Himself to be, and who is Jesus the Messiah." (https://www.biblicalunitarian.com/about)
With this statement in mind, I see no reason to believe Biblical Unitarians do not believe in creatio ex nihilo. They hold to the teachings of Genesis 1:1 and Hebrews 11:3 like any Christian would.
Unitarians distinguish themselves from classically orthodox Christians (think Council of Nicea) by denying trinitarianism. They believe the Godhead to be unitary, with only God the Father. They identify the word "Word" in English translations of John 1:1 (it's logos in Greek) not as Jesus, but as "God’s expression" or God's wisdom (https://www.biblicalunitarian.com/videos/but-what-about-john-1-1). It is true that logos is a word with many meanings and a kind of elasticity and lexical richness that no single English word can capture. As for the identification of the Word "as God" in 1:1, Biblical Unitarians will likewise highlight the lexical richness of the Greek theos and note that lesser beings than the true God can be called theos. In the Septuagint translation of Psalm 82:1, theos and related forms are used to speak of lesser divine beings or lowercase-'g'-gods.
Classically orthodox Christians suggest that John 1:1-18 refers to Jesus, with vv. 14-18 especially linking "the Word" with Jesus.


What arguments can be made that 1 Corinthians 15 is not about physical resurrection? This is something of a long shot. I had a friend look at 1 Cor. 15 (and other parts of the Bible), and he formed the conclusion that 1 Cor. 15 was about a spiritual and not bodily resurrection—i.e., that Paul felt that the resurrection appearances of Jesus were visions.

Is there an argument that 1 Cor. 15 is not about physical resurrection?

(I don't see it in the passage, but I wanted to open my mind to how other people read it.)

If one chooses to explain away 1 Corinthians 15:4-7

  that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the a

There is still the matter of 15:36-38

  What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. 37 And what you sow is not the body that is to be, but a bare kernel, perhaps of wheat or of some other grain. 38 But God gives it a body as he has chosen, and to each kind of seed its own body.

The metaphor of the seed dying but coming back with a new tangible substance is made by both Jesus and Paul. It is a nonsensical metaphor if only a spiritual one

Likewise, if death is the same for all, how could death have been overcome, per verse 51?

Finally, the word raised has a very definite meaning of to come back to life. Egerow has a linguistic link to energizing, to rising up, like one does in the morning. It is as fully physical and it is without matter.

As pointed out in your question on Gnosticism, there were those who wanted to make Jesus out to be a spirit, rather than flesh. The difference is that historically, most of these heresies took an all or nothing approach.

Docetists believed that Jesus never was human at all - he only appeared to be. That Gonstics held this is clear:

  The testimony of anti-gnostic writers like Irenaeus to the Docetism of the unholy succession of Gnostics and gnosticizing teachers in the second century (beginning for Irenaeus with Cerinthus and in this respect including Marcion and his followers) is broadly confirmed by the Nag Hammadi gnostic texts (Rudolph, 157–71, Tröger). Thus the Acts of John 97–104 portray Christ, already risen from his temporary body, watching the crucifixion of Jesus taking place

(Dictionary of the New Testament and Latter Developments, "Docetism")

The book of 2 John (7) clearly says this is to be rejected, saying:

  For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not confess the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh. Such a one is the deceiver and the antichrist.

(This isn't a rebuttal, just a rejection - otherwise you have seen it in the other question!)

With both Paul and John rejecting this "Jesus only looked like flesh" all along, it would be unreasonable to think that they wouldn't have mentioned something if they thought that after the cross, Jesus' substance was less than flesh.

Indeed, Thomas' touching of Christ, that he ate bread, and other things really make it seem that Jesus' resurrection was physical.

To make 1 Cor 15 merely a spiritual endeavour would be joining up with the Gnostics in the end, and is thus rejected elsewhere in Scripture and Christian practice.


What is the reasoning for Latin being the official language of Catholic Mass? The New Testament was originally written in Greek. But yet Roman Catholics held Mass in Latin for hundreds of years.

What scriptural evidence, if any, caused Latin to be picked over Greek?

Was any scriptural reasoning used to defend keeping the Mass in Latin for so long? What are the reasons?

The evolution of the Latin Rite as we know it today does not necessarily come from Sacred Scripture as much as it does ecclesiastical functionality.

As The Roman Rite aritcle at The Catholic Encyclopedia puts it:

  The Roman Rite was adopted throughout the West because the local bishops, sometimes kings or emperors, felt that they could not do better than use the rite of the chief bishop of all, at Rome. And this imitation of Roman liturgical practice brought about in the West the application of the principle (long admitted in the East) that rite should follow patriarchate.

  Apart from his universal primacy, the pope had always been unquestioned Patriarch of the West. It was then the right and normal thing that the West should use his liturgy.

The Church does, as it always has, teach that the the Greek language used by the New Testament writers is the inspired "language" chosen by God to reveal his Truth. Prior to the invention of the printing press only about 10% of the population could read.  This number dropped even lower with the advent of the "dark" ages initiated by the Barbarian invasions and the fall of Rome.

The New Testament as we know it was not officially canonized until A.D. 397 with the ratifying approval of Pope Damasus. By this date the Mass had already been celebrated in and around Rome for over 300+ years prior. St. Jerome was commissioned by Pope Damasus to translate the newly canonized Greek texts into Latin so that more people could understand the New Testament texts.  This is the same reason why the King James/Douay-Rheims editions have been translated into the more universally spoken English language of today.

(See Canon of the New Testament from The Catholic Encyclopedia.)

Keep in mind that the Eastern Catholic (and also Greek Orthodox) churches have all along used Greek in all of their liturgies and rituals to this day.  It is arguable that the language chasm that existed between the East and West is what ultimately lead to the East-West Schism.

Later, during the Reformation period, the Council of Trent was convened to address and severely condemn the rampant abuses that had crept into the Church's liturgies, as well as respond to the Reformers.  The Council led to the solidification of the Tridentine Mass, which was celebrated universally in the Western Latin Rite for over 400 years until Vatican II.  Elements of the Tridentine Mass still exist in the "Novus Ordo" liturgy, which uses both Latin and the vernacular of the local region (i.e. English, German, French, or Spanish).

(See Reforms of the Council of Trent.)

Latin's superiority and precision is 2nd only to Greek in the history of languages.  Perhaps this is why the Holy Spirit chose Greek for divine revelation.  This is also why the Catholic Church was hesitant to translate the Bible into English from Latin.  English is more likely to be manipulated to misrepresent meanings conveyed.  Latin is more pure than English. Greek, however, is the purest of all languages.


Where did Aaron die? At the Lord’s command Aaron the priest went up Mount Hor, where he died on the first day of the fifth month of the fortieth year after the Israelites came out of Egypt. (Numbers 33:38, NIV)
The Israelites traveled from the wells of Bene Jaakan to Moserah. There Aaron died and was buried, and Eleazar his son succeeded him as priest. (Deuteronomy 10:6, NIV)

These passages seem to say that Aaron died in different places. How can they be reconciled?

Numbers 20:25–29 says (NABRE)

  Take Aaron and Eleazar his son and bring them up on Mount Hor. Then strip Aaron of his garments and put them on Eleazar, his son; but there Aaron shall be gathered up in death. Moses did as the LORD commanded. When they had climbed Mount Hor in view of the whole community, Moses stripped Aaron of his garments and put them on Eleazar his son. Then Aaron died there on top of the mountain. When Moses and Eleazar came down from the mountain, all the community understood that Aaron had breathed his last; and for thirty days the whole house of Israel mourned Aaron.

The New American Bible has a note to this passage; it states

  Mount Hor: not definitively identified, but probably to be sought in the vicinity of Kadesh. According to Dt 10:6, Aaron died at Moserah (cf. "Moseroth" in Nm 33:30–31), which is apparently the name of the region in which Mount Hor is situated.

That's one possibility.

Similarly, the Pulpit Commentary on Deuteronomy 10 states

  As Aaron died there, Mosera must have been in the vicinity of Mount Her [sc. Hor].


Vacillating passion for Christ Throughout a person's life they might experience some incredible highs in their relationship with Christ. They might receive answers to prayers and/or a bounty of unexpected blessings. A person might also at times find themselves very unsure and seemingly lost in a dark wilderness. But what about on a daily basis? A person may look in the mirror in the morning after spending a wonderful morning alone in prayer with the Heavenly Father only to look in that same mirror in the evening and realize they had avoided seeking God, praising God and sharing His love.

What does the Scripture say about this? Are there any biblical characters who struggle with this?

This seems more to refer to the phenomena which Paul recounts when he says, 'I die daily'; in short, one may wake up in the morning with hope that he will walk according to the ways of God, but in the evening find that he hasn't. This is not bipolar; it is realistic and one of the reasons each person can say with certainty, 'I am the chief of all sinners'.

In his novel Till We Have Faces, Lewis has a good recounting of this phenomena - of waking up trying to do and be good, and finding it impossible by the end of the day.

One thing to consider is this: One's relationship with God is not a matter of feelings of peace or good intentions; it is to walk the path of Christ himself which is a path of suffering (consider the Beatitudes.) Thus why Paul says, "I die daily."

According to modern psychological practice and tradiiton, a spiritually healthy person may seem deranged simply because they are not trying to feel good; they are trying to be good. And that involves a lifelong path of, as far as any man may know for himself, feeling bad. There are plenty of NT quotes from even the Lord himself to support this. And this is precisely why, as far as I can tell, the actual peace surpasses understanding.


Why do Roman Catholics show devotion to the Sacred Heart and Immaculate Heart? I wonder why Roman Catholics show devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus and Immaculate Heart of Mary if their devotion can be shown to Jesus Christ and Mary instead? What's the difference?

Ok.  I don't know if this will be an appropriate answer, because I have not had the time to dig deeply into finding any expert Catholic writings on this specifically.  Pope Pius XII's Encyclical HAURIETIS AQUAS on devotion to the Sacred Heart is about the closest I can find in the near term, but I have not read it fully to see if it addresses your question sufficiently.

By my own reason though, I think of the analogy to understanding a very complex subject, design, etc. in our earthly life or to understanding any given person.  If you contemplate a very complex thing as a whole, as humans, it is hard to understand it at a very deep level.  If we narrow our focus of the subject in our contemplation, then we start to develop a deeper understanding of the larger subject.  I believe that is a large reason that the Catholic Church recognizes various titles, roles, and view points on Jesus, Mary, God the Father, the Church, and even ourselves.  It is to allow our limited human perception to penetrate the hugely complex (infinitely complex in the case of God) to understand them much more fully.


How did Adam and Eve win at Hide and Seek? I began reading the KJV a couple months ago, and one question that keeps plaguing my mind is, "How did Adam and Eve successfully hide from God?"

Genesis Chapter 3:

  8 And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in
  the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the
  presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.

  9 And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where [art]
  thou?

  10 And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid,
  because I [was] naked; and I hid myself.

Good question because that scripture screams that question every time it is read.

I don't believe that Adam and Eve successfully hid from God. How could they if God is omniscient?

Hebrews 4:13

  And there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all
  things are naked and open to the eyes of Him to whom we must give
  account.

Psalm 139:4

  Even before a word is on my tongue, behold, O Lord, you know it
  altogether.

So if God knows all, then the question becomes why did God ask the question, because it wasn't because he didn't know. So if the question wasn't for God's benefit, then it must have been for Adam's

If we process the whole scene, Adam and Eve had been in perfect relationship and fellowship with God until they disobeyed and sinned against God. Then all of the sudden Adam and Eve are trying to avoid God. When God asks the question, even in Adam's hearing of the question, he has to realize that something isn't right.

God has never had to ask this question before, because Adam had never hidden from God before. So for God to ask, let's Adam know even before he answers, that God knows something is wrong.

Even in the same scripture God continues to ask questions. God could've just came in and said "Adam and Eve you sinned and the serpent tempted you, here are your curses, see you later", but instead He questions them.

Then for Adam to answer he can begin to understand and process "where" he is in relationship to God versus where he was. Adam's position has changed, and he is not in the same place physically or spiritually.

God does this throughout scripture where He asks a question he already knows the answer to, but it is to the benefit of the hearer that he asked the question.

There are many scriptures where God asks questions, but indeed already knows the answer. Here are a few:

Genesis 4:6 NKJV

  So the Lord said to Cain, “Why are you angry? And why
  has your countenance fallen?

Genesis 4:9-10 NKJV

  9 Then the Lord said to Cain, “Where is Abel your brother?” He said,
  “I do not know. Am I my brother’s keeper?” 10 And He said, “What have
  you done? The voice of your brother’s blood cries out to Me from the
  ground.

1 Kings 19:9-10 NKJV

  9 And there he went into a cave, and spent the
  night in that place; and behold, the word of the Lord came to him, and
  He said to him, “What are you doing here, Elijah?” 10 So he said, “I
  have been very zealous for the Lord God of hosts; for the children of
  Israel have forsaken Your covenant, torn down Your altars, and killed
  Your prophets with the sword. I alone am left; and they seek to take
  my life.”

After Elijah's final answer God corrects him and gives him an assignment to go anoint Elisha

Hopefully this helps.


What is the extra value of the body of Christ in the Eucharist when someone is already full of the Holy Spirit? In the Catholic Church, the Eucharist is almost the central practice of their faith. By eating the bread as the body of Christ, one is united with God, but sometimes a person can be so full of the Holy Spirit (like St. Paul) that it seems to them that the Eucharist isn't the center of their belief.

So how did the Eucharist become the center of faith, according to the Catholic Church, if one is full of the Holy Spirit (Ephesians 1:13)? How do the Holy Spirit and the Eucharist relate to each other?

I am Catholic, and from personal experience I know that taking the Eucharist in the right conditions gives you an immediate spiritual rehabilitation.
You become more Christlike, more loving, more calm, etc.
The Church teaches that it also forgives venial sins.
What must be understood is that the Sacrifice of Christ on the cross is
the same as the eucharistic sacrifice, the Eucharist re-presents the sacrifice.
But it does not kill Jesus over and over again every time it is performed,
it's that same sacrifice on the cross which is continually re-presented in churches for the People of God.

CATHECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
Article 3 The Sacrement of the Eucharist
1365 Because it is the memorial of Christ's Passover, the
Eucharist is also a sacrifice. The sacrificial character of the
Eucharist is manifested in the very words of institution: "This is my
body which is given for you" and "This cup which is poured out for you
is the New Covenant in my blood."187 In the Eucharist Christ gives us
the very body which he gave up for us on the cross, the very blood
which he "poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."188
1366 The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes
present) the sacrifice of the cross, because it is its memorial and
because it applies its fruit:
[Christ], our Lord and God, was once and for all to offer himself to
God the Father by his death on the altar of the cross, to accomplish
there an everlasting redemption. But because his priesthood was not to
end with his death, at the Last Supper "on the night when he was
betrayed," [he wanted] to leave to his beloved spouse the Church a
visible sacrifice (as the nature of man demands) by which the bloody
sacrifice which he was to accomplish once for all on the cross would
be re-presented, its memory perpetuated until the end of the world,
and its salutary power be applied to the forgiveness of the sins we
daily commit.189

Now in the case of someone who's as holy as St. Paul the Eucharist is still necessitated ordinarily.
I say ordinarily because it is possible to get a pass if you are animated by extraordinary grace like many protestants I would think.
It should also be noted that ordinary grace is more reliable, more consistent.
Of course in this case we will stick to the ordinary grace scenario.
In the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve were kept alive because of the fruits
of the Tree of Life(Gen 3:22). In Revelation, which is the final conclusion and a miror image of Genesis, we learn that the nations are kept alive by the fruits of the Tree of Life(Rev 2:7, Rev 22:2). We know that no mere tree can keep someone alive eternally, but we also know that God likes to use physical things to usher in spiritual realities. Like the Bread and Wine of the Holy Communion.

John 6:48-50 King James Version (KJV)
I am that bread of life.
Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.
This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat
thereof, and not die.

Taking this data into consideration, we can conclude that any ordinary ministry must be assisted by the Eucharist even if it shows saintly spiritual maturity.  The Holy Spirit is not at odds with the Eucharist, but rather cooperates with the Eucharist to "decode", as it were, all the power which is hidden behind the physical apparence of the sacrifice.
Imagine the spiritual layout of your body, your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit, when you take the Eucharist you allow the Holy Spirit to fill you more, to take control of areas which were kept prisoners by habitual sins or ever demonic entities like St. Paul mentions(2 Cor 12:7-9).
This is why one must not be in mortal sin when taking the Eucharist,
it angers God and he may very well stike us dead as he could have done with Adam and Eve but instead sealed the Garden.
That is how the Eucharist became the center of the Catholic faith.
The Eucharist re-presents Christ our Lord, and it sustains us spiritually
no matter how holy one may be, in the case of ordinary ministry, we must re-fill and that's how God desired it to be. It keeps us humble and closer to him.


How could I bring up security concerns at the church that I attend? I currently attend a church on Sundays, and this church serves as a synagogue on other days of the week.  Currently, there is a bit of security at the entrance, e.g. some security guards in uniform, but they are not police and do not appear to be armed.  We get scanned by metal detectors before entering.

How could I bring up security concerns to this church, say, during coffee hour after the Sunday Service?

Basically, I wonder how prepared they are to counter something like a terrorist attack.

I don't want to offend anyone - how could I inquire about this politely?

Uniformed security at a church is uncommon enough that you can use it as a conversation opener.

If I were you I would seek out a (non-clergy) trustee / deacon / elder / congregation-council member / whatever and simply ask "what's up with the guards?"  That should open the topic, and you will likely learn something about the congregation's history and struggles.

How do you find the person to talk to if you don't already know them? Easy: ask a person who serves coffee for an introduction.

Believe me: asking polite questions of lay leaders honors their offices; they'll love it. Don't hesitate.


What does the Roman Catholic church teach about those who die having never heard of Christ? What does the Roman Catholic church teach about those who die having never heard of Christ? Is there any possibility of salvation for them?

Related:
What happens to people who have never heard about Jesus? This question has too broad of a scope according to the new guidelines, and it doesn't have a good answer from the Roman Catholic point of view.

What does the Catholic church teach about fate of non-Catholic christians?

The basic doctrine is "Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus:" outside the Church there is no salvation.
This is formulated by St. Cyprian in Epistle 72 (emphasis mine):

But if not even the baptism of a public confession and blood can profit a heretic to salvation, because there is no salvation out of the Church, how much less shall it be of advantage to him, if in a hiding-place and a cave of robbers, stained with the contagion of adulterous water, he has not only not put off his old sins, but rather heaped up still newer and greater ones!

And affirmed by about a dozen Popes in the form of ecumenical councils, encyclicals, and papal bulls. But the line has been prone to misinterpretation, and it's a lot more complicated than it appears.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church says this on the matter:

846How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.

The issue is something called "inculpable ignorance." The Catholic Church is the only path to salvation, but those who do not know its dogmata through no fault of their own are to be held blameless: they will not be punished for that which they do not know is wrong, and can still be saved through the Church:

848"Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."

But those that do know the Catholic faith and reject it cannot be saved: there is no alternate path to salvation. From the Lumen Gentium (LG), paragraph 14:

In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church. Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.

But, it's still a little more complicated than that. This doctrine, as explained above, might be interpreted to mean that only non-Christians that are also ignorant of the Catholic faith are held blameless. But it also applies to Christians. From the Unitatis Redintegratio, paragraph 3:

Even in the beginnings of this one and only Church of God there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly condemned. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions made their appearance and quite large communities came to be separated from full communion with the Catholic Church-for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame. The children who are born into these Communities and who grow up believing in Christ cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation, and the Catholic Church embraces upon them as brothers, with respect and affection. For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect.

That is, what's interesting about this doctrine is that it essentially puts nearly every Christian denomination in partial communion with the Church: nearly all Christians agree with the Roman Catholic Church on some things. If they never learn anything about the things with which they disagree (to give a basic example, the prohibition on the priestly ordination of women), they would be held blameless.
It's only when a Christian is faced with both the Catholic position and the non-Catholic position—and chooses the latter—that it becomes a problem of heresy. They could do this for any number of reasons: misinformation, misinterpretation, reliance on bad actors, etc. It's then the mission of the Church to bring those people back into the fold. From LG., paragraph 16:

But often men, deceived by the Evil One, have become vain in their reasonings and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, serving the creature rather than the Creator. Or some there are who, living and dying in this world without God, are exposed to final despair. Wherefore to promote the glory of God and procure the salvation of all of these, and mindful of the command of the Lord, "Preach the Gospel to every creature", the Church fosters the missions with care and attention.


what is "the argument" of Jesus in Luke 24:39? Luke 24:39 Look at my hands. Look at my feet. You can see that
  it's really me. Touch me and make sure that I am not a ghost,
  because ghosts don't have bodies, as you see that I do."

I'm in the middle of a discussion with one of a Sola Scriptura church member.
He said that the word "ghost" there means "demon/satan" not "ghost of a dead man".

I ask him why ?
He said it is because the Bible say "there's no such thing as ghost of a dead man". (Hebrews 9:27). So, any kind of an appearance (seen by human) which cannot be touch, then it's certainly the demon in disguise as someone thought ever live on earth by the living, he continued.

If I directly put that "demon" word in a verse, it becomes like this :

  Luke 24:39 Look at my hands. Look at my feet. You can see that
  it's really me. Touch me and make sure that I am not a demon,
  because demons don't have bodies, as you see that I do."

To me, logically the argument will be something like this :
Because you can touch me - then I'm not a demon (in disguise)
If I'm a demon (in disguise) - then you can not touch me.

He said yes, the argument is like above.

For another reference,

  Luke 24:37 They were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a
  ghost.

Assuming that the meaning of the word "ghost" in the verse above is the ghost of a dead man, then to me the conclusion is : on what they saw, they thought it's the ghost of Jesus.

change to "demon" :

  They were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a demon.

Then (following on what the member of the SS Church said) my conclusion is : on what they saw, they thought it's a demon in disguise as Jesus.

The question :
Is there any reference from Sola Scriptura Church's father (for example, Martin Luther) on what this Sola Scriptura Church member said ?

The Greek word translated as “ghost” in Luke 24:37 and 39 is ‘pneuma’.  This word can mean many different things, such as wind, air in motion, breath, spirit, a spiritual being, a bodiless spirit or specter, or a foul spirit.  According to my William D. Mounce Greek Interlinear, the meaning of this word in Luke 24:27 and 39 is “a bodiless spirit, or specter.”

If Jesus wanted to say that he was not a demon, then the Greek word ‘daimonion’ would have been used.  This word is used in Luke 11:14 when Jesus was driving out an evil demon and in Matthew 8:31 the Greek word is 'daimon’ which means a malignant demon or an evil angel.

Jesus was not trying to reassure his disciples that he was not a demon, presenting himself as a human.  Jesus was showing his disciples that he was made of flesh and bones, a body that bore the marks of his crucifixion, evidence that his body had been physically resurrected.  Jesus’ purpose was to reassure his disciples that he was not a disembodied spirit.  At His incarnation Jesus took on human flesh, and at His resurrection His body was glorified—although He retained the scars.

  “Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side. Do not disbelieve, but believe.” (John 20:27).

I regret I am unfamiliar with the Sola Scriptura Church and what it teaches and so I can’t comment on that.

Edit: In response to your comments, if "ghost" means “spirit beings,” then yes, they exist. If "ghost" means “spirits of people who have died,” then no, they do not come back to earth and appear to people. The Bible makes it abundantly clear that there are spirit beings, both good and evil. But the Bible negates the idea that the spirits of deceased human beings can remain on earth and appear to the living.


Why is "in the name of Jesus Christ" usually used at the end? In the scriptures, a phrase such as "in the name of the Lord" or "in the name of Jesus" is typically used at the beginning of statements, especially commands. In our day, I notice that most of our prayers, for instance, end "in Jesus' name" or "in the name of Jesus Christ." By way of another example, it seems that even most special Priesthood blessings by Latter-day Saints end with such a phrase, instead of starting with it.

Is there significance in the reversal of the placement of this phrase? Does the meaning change whether at the beginning or end?

(Sometimes I think when we say a prayer and end it with that phrase, it tends to get lost behind the other words, or is said quickly as a part of just ending the prayer, instead of carrying the meaning of praying in the Lord's name, which is why I'm asking this question.)

The answer to your question is in several Scriptures.

In the book of Matthew He told us first of all that we should pray directly to the Father, and not for rewards here on Earth.

Matthew 6:5 through 7 KJV

  5  And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

  6  But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

  7  But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.

Then Jesus taught his disciples (which of course includes us) in the model prayer:

Matthew 6:9 through 15 KJV

  9  After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.

  10  Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.

  11  Give us this day our daily bread.

  12  And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.

  13  And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.

  14  For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you:

  15  But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

This was given as an outline and not meant to be recited word for word, but even if you recite it word for word, what matters is your intent; and so praying the "Lord's Prayer" in not in any way sacrilegious as long as your intent is right.

He went on to say that we need to pray knowing that God has the power to grant our every wish, and that He will grant them in accordance with His plans for us.

Matthew 21:22  KJV

  And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.

John 14:13 and 14 KJV

  13  And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.

  14  If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.

Finally He tells us that if we expect him to grant our request we must continue in his word, and be the best Christian we know how to be.

John 15:7  KJV

  If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you.

It really doesn't matter when you acknowledge Jesus Authority, either before or after, but it does matter that you acknowledge it.


How does the Bible explain the existence of fossils that are millions of years old? People have been finding fossils for many years. Millions of fossils fill museums and storage vaults around the world, and we've yet to find a single one of a human. This suggests that the animals and plants that became fossilised are from a much earlier time than humans ever existed in.

How does creationism (and the timeline and events of the bible) explain the existence of fossils?

2nd Peter 3:8 KJV reads:

  But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with
  the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

This is Peter writing to address the questions saying "Where is the Lord?  He said he would return soon!"

Matthew 13:13 KJV reads:

  Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not;
  and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.

Genesis 1:5 KJV reads (emphasis mine):

  And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And
  the evening and the morning were the first day.

Every man understands what a day is.  It's possible God revealed this using these words so that even the unlearned (us) could understand the basic ideas of his word throughout the ages.

God speaks in parables and metaphors (thanks, Anthony!) because as mortal beings, we are stuck in our own little frames of reference.  I don't know exactly what it takes to build a planet from nothing, but from what I've learned in my life it would take a lot of matter, a lot of pressure, and a lot of time.

It could very well have taken billions of years, we don't know.  As they say, God works in mysterious ways.


What Popes have resigned in the past? Pope Benedict XVI recently announced his resignation. What other Popes have abdicated in the past? The media keep pointing to Gregory XII, but it is my understanding that he was deposed by the Council of Constance (involuntarily).

Gregory XII resigned by proxy at the Council of Constance. He had appointed Cardinal Giovanni Dominici of Ragusa and Carlo Malatesta to represent him, and Malatesta announced the resignation which was accepted by the Council. That Council deposed Antipope John XXIII and excommunicated Antipope Benedict XIII. Gregory's resignation was necessary to end the Western Schism, and was probably at the request of the Council. However, he was not deposed by the Council of Constance.

Martin V was consecrated Pope a month or so after the death of Gregory XII, who lived two years after his abdication. The sede vacante period was quite lengthy.

Pope Celestine V ruled that a pope had the right to resign the papacy, and he did so after only seven months in office in 1294. In the early church, Pope Pontian resigned in 235 after being exiled to the salt mines of Sardinia. Other popes who abdicated are John XVIII in 1009 and Benedict IX in 1045, together with Benedict XVI in 2013.

In addition to the above, the Catholic Encyclopedia also lists Pope Gregory VI who was held to have procured Benedict IX's resignation and was persuaded to resign to avoid accusations of simony.

There are also the doubtful cases of Marcellinus and Liberius; and the non-resignation of Pius VII — he had signed a deed of resignation which would only take effect if he were to be imprisoned in France during his trip there for the coronation of Napoleon in 1804.

Pope Benedict XVI visited the tomb of Pope St Celestine V in 2009, laying his pallium on it and pausing for devotion. He visited again in 2011.


Early Christians who Defended Licitness of Non-Procreative Sex? Were there any early Christians who defended non-procreative sex as licit?

Having read through quite a bit of the Ante-Nicene Church Fathers, I can't remember ever seeing anyone advocate for non-procreative sex. Rather it was common to advocate for remaining a virgin for life.

I think if anyone in the early church did advocate for non-procreative sex, you are more likely to find them among those whom the Church Fathers debated against and labeled as heretics.

Keep in mind, also, that they didn't have condoms back then or the concept of "safe sex." And there most certainly weren't any church fathers advocating for homosexuality - which would contradict the scriptures (and the early church fathers drew heavily from the scriptures).


Refuse the Call of God? I am a Christian, I want to teach and share the word of God as I wish
but I do no want the call of God upon my life. This may sound weird but please hear me out first.
I want to spread the word of God, its my passionate, something I love to do. But I don't want it to be like tag on me.

I don't know if I'm making sense, I can explain further on request.

My question is, is this ideology wrong?

Jeremiah felt your pain. In chapter 20, he cries out against God, blaming God that he had to deliver these messages of woe. He goes so far as to accuse God of deceiving him:

  You have deceived me, Yahweh, and I let myself be deceived, you are stronger than I and have overpowered me. I have become a laughingstock the whole day, the whole of it mocks me. Every time I speak, cry out “Violence!” and “Destruction!” shout,
  (then) the word of Yahweh becomes for me a reproach and derision the whole day;

That said, Jeremiah understands that he will still be compelled to preach :

  and (every time) I think, “I shall not remember it or speak any more in his name,” (then) it is in my heart,(it is) like burning fire,(like) pressure in my bones,
  and I am tired of holding (it) in,
  and cannot «bear».

Likewise, Jonah resisted the word of the Lord- and of course he ran. Moses, when he was given the word of the lord basically responded, "here I am, send my brother Aaron!"

(Indeed, it always makes me laugh when people say the church is just a big conspiracy for some men to gain power over others. I think about how much power any of the prophets ever had, and ask why would anyone have sought that out? Paul was beheaded, Peter was crucified upside down - of the 12 apostles, only John died a natural death. Even later, from Perpetua to Assissi to Bonhoeffer, the faith is not a means of gain!) What you are feeling, when you don't want to have the call of God isn't weird - in fact it is quite rational. But, you love God. And trust me, love is rarely rational. If you are married, you probably remember some of the weird things you felt compelled to do for her too. It's the same thing, only more worth it.

I say all of this to tell you that you are not the first to love God but not want to deliver his message. It is a terrifying responsibility, and it is not atypical to not desire it. From a worldly standpoint, it will neither win you friends, nor always even let you influence people.

But take heart, for as Jesus said in Matthew 5:11-12:

  Blessed are you when men shall persecute you and revile you and speak all manner of evil against you for my name sake, for so treated they the prophets who were before you"

Instead just remember what he says to the good ones in Matthew 25:

  Well done, thou good and faithful servant.


What is the difference between the Life that Christ gives and the Life that Wisdom brings? I noticed that these two passages are rather similar:

Proverbs 8:35-36 (ESV)
For whoever finds me [wisdom] finds life and obtains favor
from the Lord, 36 but he who fails to find me injures himself; all who
hate me love death.”
1 John 5:12 (ESV)
Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God
does not have life.

What kind of life is being taught about in these two passages? Are they the same thing or how are they different?
Do any church doctrines speak directly to the issue of these two usages of life?

The hebrew word for life in Proverbs is chay (חָי) and means life or alive (which doesn't seem to imply anything spiritual).

In 1 John the word used is the greek word zóé (ζωήν) which means: life, both of physical (present) and of spiritual (particularly future) existence.

So in the literal sense the verse 1 John is talking about more than just physical life, true spritual life. True spiritual life wasn't something that was possible prior to Jesus.

In a less literal sense they are both talking about the same thing and that is that true life is only found in God.