Introduction to Catholicism, Protestantism, Presbyterianism, Anglican and Eastern Christian for kids I'm quite ignorant on such different Christianity religions, on their history, main differences, and relations etc, so quite handicapped in introducing such to my 7 years old boy.
I noticed there's a very good question here Can somebody summarize the different "branches" of Christianity to me, and explain why they exist in the first place? however it's more for adults, ie more on facts.
May I ask for a recommendation on materials that explain such clearly and also with much fun? It's even better if it's a book.

I don't think children read comic books anymore, but 60 years ago I'd have understood it if it were described in terms of "alternate" universes, something like this:

Earth-0: the original apostolic biblical Christianity
Earth-1: the Roman Church
Earth-2: the Eastern Church
Earth-3: the Protestant Churches
Earth-3.1: the Anglican Church
Earth-3.2: the Presbyterian Church
Earth-3.?: …
Earth-4: the Mormon Church
Earth-5: the Jehovah's Witnesses
…

Some event causes a divergence and splits off a separate world.
The people in each world have truths that would be considered false in many of the other worlds.

One world knows that the Flash is really Jay Garrick, while another knows it is Barry Allen.
One world knows that Mary was born without sin and is now in heaven listening to our prayers, while another knows that Mary was an ordinary woman who is now dead and buried.

The child will understand the concept of groups of people believing things that completely contradict what other groups believe, without having to feel that any of them are "wrong".
What each group believes can then be taught and studied objectively for what it is, not for whether it is "true".


Are there any Christian denominations that assure equality with God? Christianity, in general, is a monotheistic religion and confirms the existence of a single god.
But in the Trinity God exists in three forms. And the three forms are equal except for relational differences.
It is well-known that we are not equal to God in at least many or all aspects. But my doubt is about the possibility of becoming God in all aspects at any point in time (includes post-death).
Can a human become God, in all aspects, according to any denomination?
No restrictions on human or time or place are assumed. I mean one is allowed to assume any human, any time (before or after death), any place (universe or heaven).

Almost all Christian denominations hold that God is fundamentally different from Humans, particularly in that God is uncreated, eternal and the creator of everything that is. Humans thus cannot become God.
The only denomination I know of that teaches that Humans can become equal with God (and can in fact become gods) is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, also called the Mormon Church.

In LDS doctrine, the goal of each adherent is to receive "exaltation" through the atonement of Jesus. If a person receives exaltation, they inherit all the attributes of God the Father, including godhood. Mormons believe that these people will become gods and goddesses in the afterlife, and will have "all power, glory, dominion, and knowledge".


What is the Calvinist perspective on John 5:28–29 in regard to earning salvation? John 5:28–29 seems to teach salvation by works:

  Do not marvel at this, for an hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment. (ESV)

How do Calvinists explain this passage?

The note for John 5:29 in the John MacArthur NASB Study Bible (MacArthur is Calvinist) says:

  Jesus was not teaching for justification by works (see 6:29). In the context, the "good" is believing on the Son so as to receive a new nature that produces good works (3:21; Jas 2:14-20), while the "evil" done is to reject the Son (the unsaved) and hate the light, which is the result of evil deeds (3:18,19). In essence, works merely evidence one's nature as "saved" or unsaved (see notes on Ro 2:5-10), but human works never determine one's salvation.

There is no note specifically for John 5:28.


Looking for a resource discussing the Biblical principles on how to avoid a victim mentality Beyond the obvious of:

Jesus died on the Cross and drank down God's wrath, what do we have to complain about?
All things that happen were things allowed by God to sanctify us.
Read the book of Job

what are some deep theological works on avoiding/fighting the victim mentality?

This is definitely a reference request in that I'm unable to extract this knowledge out of the Biblical verses myself, so I'm looking for a great theologian who has -- and reading their work.

In particular, I'm looking for something scripture based. I'm not looking for the prosperity gospel notion of "God wants you to be happy! To have your best life now! Smile! Be Happy! Yay! :-)!" rather I'm looking for something deep -- something that takes the "victim mentality", reduces it to the fundamental sins / thoughts that gives rise to the "victim mentality", and shows how to over come it.

Certainly, people like Martin Luther, David Brainerd, Dietrich Bonehoeffer, and others ... must have at times been tempted with "victim mentality" -- and surely some must have written about how they overcame it.

Lastly, if anyone had a right to claim to victim mentality -- it'd probably have to be Christ, who lived a perfect live and became the sacrificial lamb. Thus, if there's work on how Christ avoided the victim mentality, that'd be great too.

For some reason modern popular authors that deal with this subject are more of the autobiographical nature, such as Joni Eareckson Tada who has various books and lectures about taking joy in God's sovereignty, where she herself has been in a wheelchair for over thirty years.  Another person along the same line that I remember is Corrie ten Boom whose story of trying to love and evangelize people in Nazi concentration camp was published under the name'The Hiding Place'.  However, although these show great faith and lack of the victim mindset, they are not theological works but works of example.

As far as theological works go, there really are not many. Some might argue a famous work like 'The Christian in Complete Armour; A Treatise Of the Saints War against the Devil', By William Gernel is what you are looking for, and possibly it is. However, although many give this work very high reviews, I found it a little tiring to read and not really delving in the questions you are raising.  It might almost seem to veer slightly into a stoics approach to the 'warfare' of life.  It certainly leaves no room for a victim mentality, but still I would not say 'this is it'.

The only book I can think of that properly deals directly with the subject and is a classic, is Dr.  Martin-Lloyd Jones, 'Spiritual Depression: Its Causes and Cure'.  The title is a little misleading because although it's been about twenty years since I read it, I remember it would depress a lot of people.  It spends some time showing that the gospel really has all we need to rejoice in our sufferings.  I do not remember it being stoical, but at the same time self-pity is not spared at all in this deep theological work.


What does Western Catholic infant baptism and confirmation involve, especially with regard to being identified as a Catholic? My son’s grandmother was Roman Catholic and she wanted us to have him baptised without delay.  However, given we did not intend to bring him up in the Catholic faith, that would not have been possible.  I found lots of information in this article: Infant Baptism.

I am also aware that confirmation takes place later, at around age 7, the age of discretion.  Source: Confirmation

Since then, I have wondered if baptised infants of Catholic parents are identified as being a member of the Catholic Church.  Is a baptismal certificate given to the parents, and, if so, what does it say?  Or does a child not become a recognised Catholic until after confirmation?  And what obligations and responsibilities does that confer upon the child?

What does Western Catholic infant baptism and confirmation involve, especially with regard to being identified as a Catholic?

Children baptized as infants are recognized as being Catholics, regardless if the parent really bring the child up in the Catholic Faith or not. All children who die and are baptized in the Church may be buried in the Church. Even after the age of reason they will be recognized as Catholics, but are not allowed to receive other sacraments until the sacrament of confirmation and reconciliation have been received. Until then they are often seen as Catholics who are not practicing their faith.

The child must be properly educated in order to be confirmed in the Latin Rite. If he or she does not attend religious formation classes, they will not be confirmed or receive communion in the Church until properly instructed. Some such Catholics eventually attend RCIA (Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults) as adults in order to become fully incorporated into the mystical body of Christ.

Eastern Rite Catholics are confirmed at baptism.

I know some priests that will baptize the first child of parents that are of dubious in their possible commitments and will refuse baptism for a second child if the first is not instructed in the faith. Other priests will baptize a second and third child in the hope that parents will eventually educate the children as Catholics.

At the baptism of a child in the Catholic Church, the parents will receive a baptismal certificate.

The parish registry will contain the listing in addition of the child’s name, the parents names, the godparent’s names, the priest who performed the baptism and the name of the parish church where it was performed.

The place of baptism is very impossible for a practicing Catholic to remember. Each additional sacrament such as confirmation, marriage, ordination to the priesthood will be sent to person’s church of baptism and the information will be inscribed into the official baptismal registry of the individual. Catholics may request this information at any time. It is obligatory for entering a seminary or a Religious Order.

Here is an example for such a request from the Archdiocese of Toronto, Canada.


Is God just and/or merciful? I am told, repeatedly, with great intensity and sincerity that YHVH / the LORD is kind and merciful, forgiving of all sins.

Now, I read the Bible enough. God's main demonstrations of power seem to be, in chronological order,

Smiting the enemies of israel
Smiting those who offend his prophets (in one case, a bunch of kids who made fun of Elijah's bald spot)
Smiting those who worship other gods

Often after a natural or man-made disaster, we get a major evangelical religious figure saying that this is the Lord smiting us 'cause we made Him mad.

Now, this behavior in which God partakes would not be permissible for a human being:

If an army officer did this he'd be court-martialed
If a politician did this he'd be voted out/impeached
If a civilian did this he'd be arrested

What is it about the LORD that justifies actions that aren't justifiable for humans?

A few points:

The "bunch of kids who made fun of Elijah's bald spot" were not a bunch of kids, (the KJV's translation is quite unfortunate here,) but a bunch of youths (meaning teens or young men.) It was Elisha, not Elijah, that they were making fun of, and laughing at him for being bald wasn't their offense.  This incident took place soon after Elijah's ascension into heaven, and they were telling him to "go up, thou bald head."  In other words, "hey baldie, if your master could go up to heaven, why can't you do it too?"  Insinuating that God's chosen servant didn't have the power of God with him as his predecessor did was their sin, and it was a pretty serious sin indeed, because it can lead others around them away from the Lord.

Also, it says that there were over 40 youths involved in the incident.  That's not "a bunch of kids," it's a small mob, and "mocking" in Old Testament times was not always confined to simple verbal taunting.  They could very well have been putting the prophet in physical danger.  One man, old enough to be going bald, against 40 strong young men isn't good odds, so why shouldn't he call upon the Lord for some help with his predicament?

As for the more general cases of "smiting the wicked," your "most superficial ethical level" is superficial indeed, as it only looks at the situation from a mortal perspective.  To understand these actions, we need to look at it from an eternal perspective.

The scriptures make it clear that we will be judged according to our works, and that salvation comes by the Atonement of Jesus Christ, whose power we can apply to ourselves through faith and repentance.  We have free will, to choose good or evil, for as long as that's a meaningful choice.  But when a person or a civilization reaches the point where they've sunk so low that there are no good choices to make, and no faith or desire to repent in their hearts, then there's no point in keeping them around any longer, especially if doing so would harm others.  (For example, by allowing them to live long enough to bring children into the world that would never end up having a chance to live righteously due to the environment they were raised in.)  At that point, God destroys them to prevent greater harm to the world.

It's an act of love, done by an all-knowing God who understands the consequences, which makes it fundamentally different from a murder committed by a sociopath who doesn't know (or most likely even care) what his victims might have done had they continued to live.


Is the ASV Bible public domain in the UK? The ASV Bible is viewed to be a Public Domain work in America (as is the KJV), but is the ASV also considered a public domain bible in England?

I ask this question because the internet indicates that there were certain licensing provisions made with the Crown in the original production of ASV. So would I or anyone have any problems or issues with UK copyright or Crown issues in the UK by repeatedly quoting the ASV? Oxford and Cambridge apparently don't allow the KJV to be quoted for commercial usage, and other types of usage has limitations. Is that true for the ASV bible also?

Even though KJV is still under UK copyright until 2039, ASV is not.
KJV copyright status according to wikipedia:

Public domain in most of the world. Crown copyright in the United Kingdom due to crown letters patent until 2039, and all countries which have international mutual copyright recognition agreements.

ASV copyright status according to wikipedia (emphasis mine):

Copyright: Copyright expired
...
In 1901, after the 15-year deferral agreement between the American and British Revisers expired, and the Revised Version, Standard American Edition, as the ASV Bible was officially called at the time, was published by Thomas Nelson & Sons. It was copyrighted in North America to ensure the purity of the ASV text. In 1928, the International Council of Religious Education (the body that later merged with the Federal Council of Churches to form the National Council of Churches) acquired the copyright from Nelson and renewed it the following year. The copyright was a reaction to tampering with the text of the Revised Version by some U.S. publishers, as noted above. By the time the ASV's copyright expired for the final time in 1957,5 interest in this translation had largely waned in the light of newer and more recent ones, and textual corruption hence never became the issue with the ASV that it had with the RV.


What is the Biblical basis for unitarianism? I ask this mostly in reaction to this question: What is the Biblical basis for the doctrine of the Trinity?

From what I've seen, the majority of Christians believe in Trinitarianism, but some believe in Unitarianism instead.

My understanding of Unitarianism is that, in this view of God, only the Father (as referenced by Christ) is called God. Christ is just a man, created by God and given certain powers/privileges that aren't afforded to most men.

What is the Biblical foundation for Unitarianism?

Note:

I am not asking for a debate on the truthfulness of this position, but I am looking for an argument that defends its soundness with Bible verses, preferably not limited to a single translation.

If a single translation is to be favored, I would like to know why (references to the original Greek/Hebrew used in translation if possible).  I only ask this because it doesn't seem to be a very common position to hold, so I assume there is valid evidence to support it.

In John 17:3, Jesus says:

  Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.

Here, Jesus is speaking of God as the only true God and Jesus as being sent by God, not being God incarnate.

Also, in Matthew 4:10, Jesus himself says to:

  ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.’

Other verses seem to emphasis this:

  Mark 10:18 (NIV)
  “Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone.

Also, they take the following verse (Phillippians 2:6-8) and use this to say that Jesus had the form of God (outer appearance), but took on the form of man.  So, (ironically) while it's  central to the concept of the Trinity, it's also used in Unitarianism to show how Jesus was not God:

  Phillippians 2:6-8 (NASB) (emphasis added)
  [... Christ Jesus,] 6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. 8 Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross

These concepts make people think that Jesus was not actually God and that only God the Father is actually God.


Biblical basis for baptism as a prerequisite for salvation Some people believe that if you have not been baptized, you cannot be saved.

Others (including myself) believe that it is merely the outward declaration of what has already happened in the heart.

Given that Jesus baptized no one, and that one of the most famous conversions involved no baptism (the thief on the cross), what Biblical basis does the argument for baptism giving or being a prerequisite to salvation have?

I second the answer of @mason-wheeler that Acts 2:37-38 represents the basic Christian assumption that repentance and baptism, and indeed the entire Christian life that is "the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and breaking of bread, and prayers," is critical to salvation, and pursuit of salvation outside this life is perilous. Furthermore, resisting a known means of salvation is foolishness and approaching the mindset of the damned. If you are asking whether baptism is required of you, then the answer is almost certainly an emphatic yes, unless you are severely ill or have some other similarly extenuating circumstance such that no one will consent to baptize you.

If, however, we ask whether baptism is required of our neighbors for their salvation, then we must examine our hearts, for then we are prying into their business.

If, instead, this is a more abstract question, then the answer is that God saves Whom He will save, and we know that He is just. This categorically does not mean that if you die outside of this life, specifically outside of traditional baptism, then you are not favored by God, or that then you are eternally consigned to hell. For Abraham was surely among those raised by Christ in His resurrection, and he was not baptized. Noah was not even circumcised. And surely Christ would not leave his "very good" creations Adam and Eve to languish in the grave!

It is instructive to consider the case of the thief on Christ's right hand. For even if this thief were not baptized by water and the Spirit, he certainly was baptized with the baptism with which Christ was baptized (Mark 10:38). Many seemingly unbaptized and uncircumcised-of-heart will certainly enter the kingdom of heaven ahead of many of us who are baptized and sell this birthright for bodily pleasure or, worse, spiritual delusion. There are last which shall be first, and there are first which shall be last. (Luke 13:30). (By the way, the thief too is considered a saint of the Orthodox Church, and is celebrated in hymnody as the first man to come back to paradise. The last thing he stole was salvation!)

It is not baptism that saves, but God Who saves. In His wisdom, God has appointed baptism, and anointing with oil, and communion, and marriage, and countless other wonderful mysteries to be effective tools in His inscrutable working-out of our salvation.


Does being a Christian mean being a Bible literalist? Where are the lines for Bible literalism in the Christian faith? Are all aspects of the Bible treated with the same level of literal belief (as actual history), or are some parts considered to be stories that are simply provided to illustrate a principle (parables).

It would seem that as a Christian it would imply belief that Jesus is the Christ. Does that also imply belief in the story of Noah's Ark as literal history?

In the strictest sense, I would doubt anyone is truly a literalist. For example, when Jesus says that he is the door, it would be a difficult position to hold that Jesus literally is made of wood and swings on hinges.

What most people mean, on the other hand, when they speak of belief that the Bible is "literally true", is merely that what is claimed in the Bible is true, with an allowance for figurative language.

I am not aware of a direct claim or command in scripture that belief in its truth is requisite for salvation. On the other hand, as God is a talking god, to love the Lord is no less than to love his words, so if someone establishes a pattern of rejecting God's word without repentance or movement toward it, I would begin question his or her grounds for assurance of salvation.


Does Eastern Orthodoxy approve the use of contraception? This subject is clear when it comes to Catholicism who explicitly forbids contraception and encourage natural family planning.
Then most protestants do not forbid the use of contraception.
However when it comes to Eastern Orthodoxy, it seems that there is a smoke in the air, and nobody has a clear position. Orthodox Christians don't have a central catechism like the Catholic Church does, so that only further complicates things.
Does Eastern Orthodoxy have a position at all when it comes to contraception?
(My guess would highly be that they forbid it.)

According to the Orthodox Church In America contraception is only permitted when danger or hardship would come to the family as a result of birth of a child as seen here on their website

  The voluntary control of birth in marriage is only permissible, according to the essence of a spiritual life, when the birth of a child will bring danger and hardship. Those who are living the spiritual life will come to the decision not to bear children only with sorrow, and will do so before God, with prayers for guidance and mercy. It will not be a decision taken lightly or for self-indulgent reasons.
  According to the common teaching in the Orthodox Church, when such a decision is taken before God, the means of its implementation are arbitrary. There are, in the Orthodox opinion, no means of controlling birth in marriage which are better or more acceptable than others. All means are equally sad and distressing for those who truly love. For the Christian marriage is the one that abounds with as many new children as possible.


What does Jesus mean when He says that we should be like children? Matthew 18:1-4:

At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, “Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?”
He called a little child and had him stand among them. And he said: “I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

What does this mean? How can we apply it?

Great question!
There are so many things about this verse that are so awesome. I would propose Jesus' answer has a two-fold answer.

Part 1
First, Jesus says that we will not enter the kingdom of heaven unless we become like a child. We need to change our mindset and think like children think. Not that we become immature and act childish in the traditional sense, but that we accept things in simplicity. Children have a way of believing everything you say and believing it as fact. It's only when we grow up that we tend to question everything. The currency of the kingdom of heaven is faith. It's what moves God's heart and what the great people of God are known for. So for the first part Jesus is telling us, "have faith like a child".

Part 2
The humility of children is very evident. It's a beautiful thing to watch. Although they may compete with each other in games and such, the humiliity they have without even knowing it is astouding! They were also thought of in Jewish culture as insignificant until they were 12. Essentially, Jesus is saying act as if you were the lowest in society. Jesus often tell us to go lower if we want to be higher. Our humility in His eyes equals in direct proportion to how He exalts us. The word says over and over that our job is to humble ourselves in His sight and He exalts us.

I hope this makes sense and helps :)


How did John Calvin reconcile killing followers of opposing religious views with the New Testament? I was reading about persecutions by Christians and was wondering if the persecutors justified their violence with passages of the bible and how they reconciled that with the teachings of Jesus.

In particular, on this website I read about Calvin: "So entirely was he in favour of persecuting measures, that he wrote a treatise in defence of them, maintaining the lawfulness of putting heretics to death."

I'm not asking about the general view of Calvin regarding capital punishment or his philosophical, civil or criminal law thoughts on it but specifically I was wondering how he reconciled supporting killing of people with other religious views with the teachings of Jesus or the New Testament. Would Jesus, according to Calvin, have supported the killing of heretics?

See this article (A Recipe for Intolerance: A Study of the Reasons Behind John Calvin's Approval of Punishment for Heresy) for one researcher's opinion.

The gist is that:

1) Calvin generally agreed that Old Testament laws were not binding on Christians, but contradicted himself by appealing to them to defend the punishment of heretics, in a way that was similar to Augustine.

2) This combined with an ancient legal tradition that originally sprang from Scripture (the Constitutio Criminalis Carolina) but then developed on its own to form the basis of civil law. This cultural tradition permitted the execution of heretics.

3) A group he called the "Libertines" used Servetus as a test case to embarrass and discredit Calvin as a powerplay. It was a setup to sour his reputation and assume power. The defense attorney, Berthelier, was the leader of this group. The Libertines had written scathing attacks against Calvin's Institutes, making it a personal matter.


What arguments are there that, by him who is Logos, life was not - immediately and purposefully - created on earth? In the beginning was the Logos and the Logos was with God. And the Logos was God ...
  All things were made by him and without him was not anything made that was made.[John 1:1-3 KJV]

What arguments are there that life on earth was made by any other means than through Him who, from the beginning, is Logos (who is now named Jesus Christ) ?

I mean this question in the context of arguments made by so-called 'old earth' theorists who argue for an evolutionary 'creation' - which is impossible (see below) - rather than an immediate creative act in producing life on earth.

All life on earth is cellular, whether animal or vegetable. Life on earth is a matter of cells, even viruses. The organic molecules within the cell do not occur in nature, nor do they survive in nature (except, interestingly, DNA). These - the most complex molecules found on earth, only occur in living cells, not otherwise.

Experiments with electric discharges (to simulate lightning) in vessels containing inorganic molecules have, arguably, produced only a few of the most simple amino acids.

Calculations (see YouTube video produced by eminent scientists) show that the chance occurrence of a single protein (of the more simple kind of structure) would take immeasurably longer than the supposed age of the universe.

The chance occurrence of a single cell is simply impossible, requiring the juxtaposition of a vast array of heterocyclic sugars; all twenty two of the essential amino acids; at least three hundred proteins all folded into exactly the correct three dimensional form to facilitate their own, specific, catalytic task; ribosomes, DNA and RNA.

The DNA would need to be already coded (C,G,A and T) to form a living organism, something that is chemically impossible without the active presence of both ribosomes and messenger RNA.

The energy of the cell is produced by the reaction of ADP (adenodiphosphate) to ATP (adenotriphosphate) which reaction (called the Krebs cycle or the Citric Acid Cycle) requires an array of sugars and other organic molecules to be successful.

How do evolutionists explain the impossibility of a single cell ever forming by chance, of its own accord - and not by the immediate oversight and the focused attention of the Intelligent and Eternal Creator of all things ?

Your main question prompts me to respond quite simply – “There are lots of arguments that life on earth was NOT created deliberately by one called the Logos” (who, the Bible informs us, later became the man Jesus Christ.) That is because many people who try to formulate arguments about life arising on earth make zero mention of even the possibility of a supernatural First Cause. So, every argument devoid of including God would be such an argument as you ask for.

Many people these days express great annoyance at the very idea that this God deliberately created this universe and life in it. I frequent a web-site where there are often vitriolic verbal attacks on all who dare to suggest that God deliberately created life on earth. They claim that evolutionary theory shows there was “no necessity for God”. Those people sometimes present arguments too, but I am not going to repeat them here – they can do that for themselves, should they so wish.

Your additional points are worth commenting on, and here I quote from the book below, written by a scientist who believes God (the Logos) created this universe and all life in it – deliberately.

  When Watson and Crick discovered the structure of DNA in 1953, it was
  realized that the specification for life is 'written' on huge
  molecules using an elegant genetic language having an alphabet of just
  4 'letters'. Yet that is not proof of the existence of an Intelligent
  Designer of DNA. Here's the proof...
  Information is stored on DNA
  molecules, transcribed on to RNA molecules and translated into
  proteins (the work-horses of the living cell). The processes of
  storage, transcription and translation closely mimic an advanced human
  language, involving codes, syntax and semantics.
  This 'language of
  God' (as Francis Collins, leader of the Human Genome Project, calls
  it) is present in all living systems and, without it, no life would be
  possible. It follows that the essence of life resides not in chemistry
  but in information and communication - things that can only be the
  product of intelligence - not chance - and which the hypothesis of God
  would lead us to expect.  Who Made God? Searching for a theory of everything,
  chapter 12, Edgar Andrews (EP Books 2012 Edition)

I will not go into the matter of "arguments made by so-called 'old earth' theorists who argue for an evolutionary 'creation' - which is impossible (see below) - rather than an immediate creative act in producing life on earth." The time element is a subject in its own right, not least because many 'old earth' supporters do not argue for an evolutionary 'creation'.

That is why my answer to your last question is simply that no explanation for a single cell ever forming by chance can give a satisfactory answer. Life can only arise from the Intelligent and Eternal Creator of all things, who is the source of life.


What are the Six Prophetic & Apostolic Proclamations to the World? In the April 2020 Sunday Morning session of the General Conference of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, President Russell M. Nelson, before reading what would become the sixth Proclamation to the World, stated there had been only five proclamations before it.1

I am finding conflicting reports about what those five proclamations are.  For example, this page at BYU.edu loosely suggests they are:

The First Presidency's Counsel on Youth (1999)
The Family: A Proclamation to the World (1995)
God's Love for All Mankind (1978)
Parenthood (1942)
The Origin of Man (1909)

Contrast this with this list from The Encyclopedia of Mormonism only lists four.

A Proclamation of the First Presidency of the Church to the Saints Scattered Abroad (1841)
Proclamation of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (1845)
Proclamation of the First Presidency and the Twelve Apostles (1865)
Proclamation of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (1980)

Both of those sources exclude "The Living Christ: The Testimony of the Apostles" (2000), most likely because the two sources (notably the second) were compiled before 2000. (If "The Living Christ" is added to The Mormon Encyclopedia's list, we'd have five. That might be the list.)

Does anyone know what the five proclamations referred to by President Nelson are?  If so (and as a requirement for the best answer), please list title, delivery date, a summary of the proclamation, and a link to the official or original proclamation. For extra credit, include today's proclamation, the sixth.

1 At the time I wrote this question, the Sunday Morning session's transcripts had not yet been posted.  When they become available, they will be located here.

Proclamations from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: 1

1841 A Proclamation to the Saints Scattered Abroad source
1845 Proclamation to the Leaders of the World source
1865 A Proclamation of why leaders encouraged destroying the book "Biographical Sketches of Joseph Smith the prophet and his Progenitors for Many Generations" source
1980 (sesquicentennial anniversary) concerning [The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saint's] progress, its doctrine, its mission, and its message source
1995 The Family: A Proclamation to the World source
2020 The Restoration of the Fulness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ: A Bicentennial Proclamation to the World 1

1 Prophet Introduces a New Proclamation to the World: “The Restoration of the Fulness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ”


Doctrinal significance of the tense and subject of "Adored and Glorified" in the Nicene Creed So, I was working out a UML diagram to expose holes in every attempt to analogize the Trinity, and I came to:

  adored and glorified

 (formerly, worshiped and glorified)

everything else in the Creed are things that "I believe" what is the difference between saying, who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified and saying who with the Father and the Son I adore and glorify?

I'm pretty much asking, who is the subject of the predicate of sentence, is it still me, or us, or the Church Triumphant?  To put it another way, complete this sentence, "who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified by ..."

I'd prefer a Catholic answer, and not one that challenges my premises either!

It appears to be an issue directly related to the Latin. As we see in the original Latin that was brought out of the Council of Nicea the line:

  Qui cum Patre et Fílio simul adorátur et conglorificátur

Roughly translated to English, we see it translated to "Who with the Father and to the Son, He is worshiped and glorified". (We'll ignore the literal translation of worship for now).

I would gather that the original Council meant to have it taken that at this point of the creed we have already announced what we as individuals mean (I believe) and are now at the point where we talk about what the Church believes and holds true. Thus the Church Triumpant is the predicate of the sentence and no longer we as individuals.


How is "every man be fully persuaded in his own mind" not contradictory to the "narrow is the way leading to life"? The following verses seem to imply that Paul was liberal when it came to the believers' practice of their faith in the Lord:

  One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day
  alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. He that
  regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth
  not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth
  to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the
  Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks. (KJV, Romans 14:5-6)

However, the Lord's words on the way leading to life seem more strict:

  Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the
  way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in
  thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which
  leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. (KJV, Matthew
  7:13-14)

So, how are Paul's words not contradictory to the Lord's words? I think there must be some explanation.

How is “every man be fully persuaded in his own mind” not contradictory to the “narrow is the way leading to life”?

The Romans verse in context is referring to disputes between Christians.

The "narrow way" refers to those from the population at large who have become Christian.

Even the nation of Israel had the problem of the "broad way" that leads to destruction.

  Judges 17:6  In those days there was no king in Israel, but every man
  did that which was right in his own eyes.

The Romans verse is talking about those who have already entered in by the narrow gate by allowing Christians the elbow room to have their doctrine a little wrong.

  Romans 14:2  For one believeth that he may eat all things: another,
  who is weak, eateth herbs.


From Scripture, what are the signs of demonic presence? From scripture, what are the signs/manifestations of demonic presence?

Can scripture be used to bring out and away the demonic presence?

What warning signs should be looked for as far as the various stages and progression of the  demonic presence?

I don't know if this type of answer is allowed, but my reason for posting is to try to help you. It's what I have seen in real life.

My younger brother's best friend, who lives down the road from us became demon possessed, he comes from a really good family, they are christians, he's a really nice kid, hard working, always helping out his family, didn't really get involved with anything bad.

My brother who hangs out with them often started noticing weird things about him, as did his family. I should note that later we found out from him he became possessed much earlier, but it did not show right away. As soon as he tried to get rid of it, by repenting of everything he could possibly think of, the problems started, and he was arrested and in a mental institution under heavy sedatives within a week.

He seemed to switch personalities randomly while talking, one minute he's his normal self, and the next he says weird things which contradict the bible or what he normally thinks, then he will switch back and continue being himself. My brother said he would start to act like a different personality. This got progressively worse, he started not sleeping and barely ate anything, he was skinny to begin with and lost 15 pounds within a short period of time, he also became violent towards his family members whereas before he was a really gentle kid, for example he threw his younger sister down on the floor and yelled for no reason, they started to be afraid of him. He would also come home and report how something is trying to kill him while he's driving, by making him go really fast and weave across the road... when he visited a church an hour away with our churches youth he stayed after and started fighting someone yelling obscenities (this is so out of character for this guy) and to top it off he called the cops on himself. He also, jumped out of the car and ran away, the cops later found him in just his boxers and nothing else on roaming around and brought him home.  The things he did where basically self destructive and socially embarrassing.

When they prayed together with his family in the evening as normal, he would obey his parents and kneel down, but he would not actually pray himself. He also, didn't want to or couldn't say the word Jesus. His mother was really getting scared and desperate at this point and she knew of a man from her former country that could get rid of demons so she went to another room shut the door and called this guy, but her son not even knowing that she was calling and being with the family in the living room (they have a large house)  started screaming NO! NO! NO!, so the guy on the phone said let me speak to him. The kid took the phone and the man said Do you know who I am? The kid said yes you are a man of God... anyway his mom bought this man a ticket to the states, we live in Washington but the man flew in to california to meet with some local church leaders there to pray together prior to meeting her son... On the way to California, they stopped at a friends house for the night, in the evening he grabbed a huge kitchen knife and tried to stab his father, he was violent towards him when they were at home too,.... basically he threatened to kill everyone I guess he was trying hard to avoid getting to california, so they obviously called 911... the police came but wouldn't enter the house.  So everyone was stuck with a crazy guy inside and a whole squad of armed police outside... they started praying and coaxing and finally were able to get him to put down the knife.... police came in and arrested him and took him to the mental hospital so he didn't make it to california.... I should note that by this time our church was praying and our church leaders were fasting for him and everyone knew about it. At the hospital they ran a lot of tests but could find nothing wrong with him... however he was kept under a large dose of really bad sedatives so mostly he slept the whole time. When he got a chance to go up before the judge to see if he could be let out, he acted normally enough, but when he spoke with the judge he called him a satan so he got sent back to the mental hospital. Finally, the men from california came out and prayed for him for a long time to expel the demon and the demon left him... he was slowly weaned off the sedatives but still required a small amount regularly because he became easily excitable... he would talk a lot and fast and got overly interested in the bible continually annoying everyone and asking a ton of questions... so they took him to a rehab facility for addicts, there where people there who had experience with this type of thing... he lived there for I think a week they shaved his head.... told him to take off a little woven bracelet he had on his wrist which he bought in Mexico and prayed a lot for him, now he's back to normal completely.

How did he become possessed? A demon cannot take possession of just anyone they wish to... you have to have some type of door open for it to be able to do so. In this guy's case he confessed to becoming interested in the illuminati, it started innocently enough with him researching it online, it was later discovered he had collected every single illuminati shirt and had them hidden in his room, and became more and more obsessed with finding more information out about it... finally on a school trip he visited a university here in washington (he was trying to pick where he was going to school), and met someone at the school orientation or at the campus who he called "the doctor", it was really a chiropractor, who he told us, told him he can become rich and powerful really quickly without going through all the trouble of school or with doing very little school? im not sure, he met with this guy privately, and after that he became possessed and would talk about how great this doctor was to anyone who would listen.  He was really infatuated with this guy and even tried to get my brother to go "visit him" when my brother was in Seattle, which happily my brother wasn't able to do because he was busy. Moral of story don't get involved in the illuminati and don't wear any mexican woven bracelets, don't get involved with anything from the occult or horoscopes, and fortune telling, because these will open the door for satanic entities.

The only other thing I've heard of is a man who was demon possessed for 15 years, and he was kept chained to the living room floor, was aggressive to everyone but would allow his wife to bring him food and clean up after him.... I don't know what happened but he was rid of his possession and went back to a normal life after all those years.... the poor wife though stuck by her crazy husband through all that time.

If you want to see examples of demon possessed or dedicated followers you can look at celebrities and world leaders.... some of them will even put things in their music or say things in interviews that they made a contract. One example of someone trying to back out of their contract is Britney Spears, Britney's not crazy, but many people think they can sign a contract get what they want, and then back out whenever they feel like.... and that's not really the case.


What is the origin of the idea that the baby Jesus did not cry? "...the cattle are lowing. The baby awakes. But little Lord Jesus, no crying he makes."
~ 2nd verse to Away In A Manger

Did this idea originate from historical Christian doctrine? Where did this idea come from that baby Jesus didn't cry?
I didn't realize that I had believed this my whole life until literally an hour ago when I was singing the song to my 1 yr old and thought "Wait...what?"

Did this idea originate from historical Christian doctrine?

I suggest the answer may be "no".  (I'm not citing any specific authoritative documents to prove this theory.)

Where did this idea come from that baby Jesus didn't cry?

When I was first exposed to this song, I recall thinking this:

People don't appreciate babies crying.  People know that babies cry, but people appreciate babies being quiet.  When a baby is sleeping, or otherwise just being quiet, people will sometimes refer to the baby as "being good".

Jesus was perfect.
That means Jesus was good.

I doubt that the song implied that Jesus never cried.  I think the song was just portraying a nice situation, including a moment of time when Jesus was being good (by not crying).


What are the divisions between Vatican I and Vatican II Catholics? On this site Catholic questions are often answered very well by self avowed Catholics. Often two such users will argue well their viewpoints, but reach very different conclusions. For example see  as Does the Catholic Church officially recognize Protestants as Christians?

In the comments, I have learned that there are adherents to the Church under a set of doctrines called Vatican I and another group adhering to Vatican II.

What are the major divides between the two and which group is the larger?

I think you're misunderstanding a few of the issues; so let's get some background out of the way.

The First Vatican Council was an ecumenical council of bishops of the Catholic Church held at the Vatican in 1870. A number of important issues were discussed, and some Church doctrine was formalized; perhaps the most important of these issues was papal infallibility. (Not all Catholics agreed with what the Church had stated about the Pope being, in certain circumstances, infallible; many of these broke away and established what's now called the Old Catholic Church.)

The Second Vatican Council, another ecumenical council, was likewise held at the Vatican between 1962 and 1965. A number of things were discussed here, largely relating to the Church in its relationship to the modern world. Several documents came out of the Council: many appeared, at least at first sight, to contradict things which had been accepted for years in the Church, even stated as dogma. Answers to this question offer an overview of what the disagreements were and why they arose.

Unfortunately, neither those who accept not those who reject the teachings promulgated by Vatican II regard those on the other side as part of the true Catholic Church. It is reasonable to say, however, that far fewer than half a billion people (that is, half the number of people calling themselves Catholic) do in fact reject the Council and its teachings.


How is the amazement of the Jews explained by those who believe that "Render Unto Caesar" affirmed the paying of taxes? In Matthew 22:15–22, Luke 20:20–26, and Mark 12:13–17, the question "is it right to pay taxes to Caesar?" is perceived as a "trap" by both Jesus and the Pharisees who are putting the question forth.
Jesus answers this trap question with the reply: "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's".
All three Gospels then record the Jews as being "amazed" at this answer.

If "Render Unto Caesar" is the equivalent of "yes, it is right to pay taxes to Caesar", I fail to see how this answer would be "amazing" to the Jews at all (i.e. there's nothing "amazing" about saying you should pay your taxes).

So my question is: what arguments are used to explain the amazement of the Jews in this passage, by those denominations of Christians who interpret the words "Render Undo Caesar" as Jesus answering in the affirmative to the question of whether it is right to pay taxes?

What lies below is certainly not the only way to interpret this scripture, but it is one way I find extremely compelling, and to my knowledge, provides a reasonable historical understanding.
This passage in scripture is built on a long foundation of culture and history, which is largely lost on a modern audience.
First, a reminder about the immediately apparent context:  Jesus had just entered the temple and driven out the merchants.
Also remember the larger context, that the Jews are living under occupation, and they resent having to pay taxes to a foreign ruling power, and they are eagerly awaiting a messiah to come and rescue them from this oppression--some are expecting a military leader to lead a rebellion against Rome. Practically all Jews are expecting some sort of political leader (there wasn't a clean distinction between politics and religion then, as there often is in our minds today).
So when Jesus was asked about paying taxes to Caesar, it was a loaded question, not really about taxes, per se, but inviting Jesus to take sides on the issue of open rebellion.
But that's not enough to fully demonstrate why Jesus' questioners were amazed.  As N.T. Write explains briefly in Jesus and the Victory of God, Jesus' words "Give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and to God what belongs to God" mirrors a revolutionary phrase, which would have been well known in contemporary Jewish culture of the time.
A hundred years earlier, during the Maccabaean rebellion, Mattathais made a famous death-bed speech, which concluded with "Pay back the Gentiles in full, and obey the commands of the law"--a command to, according to the law of God, rebel against, attack, and destroy the pagans.
Jesus mirrored this popular "call to arms" to say, in essence, "Give Caesar what he deserves." But he said it in the context of paying taxes.  Was Jesus demanding that Jews pay taxes? Was he demanding that they rebel against Caesar?
As Wright concludes, He had done neither. He had done both.
This is why they were amazed... and probably incredibly confused.

Here I quote the relevant section of Jesus and the Victory of God, for greater context. I've still edited out a few bits, so as not to make it any longer than absolutely necessary.

The question of tax-money was not simply a trick, designed to frame a charge against Jesus. Jesus' reply, likewise, should not be read simply as a cunning avoidance of the question, still less as a way of shifting the discussion from 'politics' to 'piety'. Tax and Temple, Caesar and God, are the subject-matter.
'We know that you ... show no respect of persons.' This preamble assumes that Jesus is not afraid of Caesar, and so will give the revolutionary answer if that is what he believes. That, at least, is what the questioners assume the bystanders will be thinking.
Jesus' pithy reply encapsulates the larger issues of his own doubly revolutionary kingdom-agenda. He began by requesting one of the relevant coins. This took the initiative away from his questioners, forcing them to reveal their own hand first. The coin bore an image and superscription which were, from a strict Jewish point of view, blasphemous. The image was prohibited (even the cynical Antipas, as we saw, had stopped short of using an image of himself on his coins), and the superscription proclaimed Caesar in divine terms, specifically as the son of a god. Jesus' questioners were thus themselves already heavily compromised by possessing such an object.
Jesus then responded with the famous two-line aphorism: give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and to God what belongs to God. This has often been taken to imply a neat division of loyalties: state and church, Caesar and God, held in delicate tension. Alternately, the saying has been read as a wry, ironic comment, or, indeed, as a direct challenge to zealotry. But there is reason to suppose that both parts of the aphorism are more subtle, and more closely linked to the issues of Temple, Messiah, and Jesus' whole kingdom-announcement, than those options allow.
Jesus' hearers would have been expecting some kind of signal that he was indeed in favor of revolution. It might be cryptic, but in many political situations coded statements are all that one can offer. I suggest that Jesus deliberately framed his answer in terms that could be heard as just a coded statement, with which he neatly refused the either/or that had been put to him and pointed to his own kingdom-agenda as the radical alternative.
The initial clue is found in a passage probably familiar to Jesus and his audience, if only through the regular celebrations of the Maccabaean heroes at the annual festival of Hanukkah. As the old revolutionary Mattathias was preparing to die, he made a speech to his sons, exhorting them to zeal for the law, and invoking the zealous heroes of old. The speech ends as follows:

Judas Maccabaeus has been a mighty warrior from his youth; he shall command the army for you and fight the battle against the peoples. You shall rally around you all who observe the law, and avenge the wrong done to your people. Pay back the Gentiles in full, and obey the commands of the law.

With that, Mattathias died. The sequel, as we have seen, is that Judas took command, led the revolt, fought the battle, defeated the pagan army, cleansed and restored the Temple, refortified Jerusalem--and established a royal dynasty that lasted for a hundred years. Through Herod's marriage to Mariamne, it was still in existence in Jesus' own day.
Mattathias instructed his sons to give back to the pagans an equal repayment: do to them as they have done to us. The saying is unambiguously revolutionary. The second clause put this in its wider context: obey the command of the law. ... The Maccabaean saying had a double thrust: your duty towards the pagans is to fight them, and your duty to our god is to keep his commandments.
I propose that Jesus' cryptic saying should be understood as a coded and subversive echo of Mattathias' last words. His Temple-action created a context within which his saying would have meant: Pay Caesar back what he is owed! Render to Caesar what he deserves! The words Jesus said would, prima facie, have been heard as revolutionary.
When, however, the words are set in context, they acquire a second layer of meaning. Jesus was not in a classroom giving a lecture, or for that matter on a battlefield urging on the troops. He was facing a questioner with a Roman coin in his hand. Suddenly, a counterpoint appears beneath the coded revolutionary meaning; faced with the coin, and with the implicit question of revolution, Jesus says, in effect 'Well then, you'd better pay Caesar back as he deserves!' Had he told them to revolt? Had he told them to pay the tax? He had done neither. He had done both.


How do Protestants understand major differences in doctrine between denominations? As a Catholic I believe that the Catholic Church was established by Jesus and given the authority to teach infallibly on the topics of faith and morals.

My understanding is that many Protestants believe that individual Christians have the grace to interpret the Bible for themselves.

For those who believe this, how do you understand major differences in the beliefs between various Protestant denominations?  If any sincere believer who has "been saved" is able to read and properly interpret the Bible through the work of the Holy Spirit, why so many fundamental differences in belief?

For instance, there seems to be wide disagreement on the necessity of baptism for salvation.  Some believe it to be the method of conferring sanctifying grace on the recipient, some believe it is merely symbolic, etc.

At the First Vatican Council (1869), the Catholic Church defined the doctrine of papal infallibility.  The Church certainly believed in papal infallibility long before that, but there was some disagreement over the specifics.  At that council, the long-held belief was codified as, itself, an infallible teaching.

First Vatican Council - Section 4, Chapter 4, Part 9

  ...we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.

The doctrine of papal infallibility was one of the primary things against which Martin Luther fought.  At the Diet of Worms, when he was questioned on the infallibility of the Pope, he stated, "I deny that he is above scripture."  He argued that since Jesus rebuked Peter, Peter must have been fallible, and since Peter was fallible, it logically follows that all of his successors would be fallible too.

Martin Luther, and other reformers, did not believe that the Pope was the wrong person to be considered infallible.  Rather, they believed that no person, not even Peter, was infallible (save Jesus, of course).  Protestant churches do not believe that their church, leaders, or anyone else is infallible.  They typically believe that only the scriptures (sola scriptura), in the form of its original writing, is actually inspired and infallible.

It is not only admissible, but even expected, among Protestants, that different people will come to different conclusions about the meaning of the scriptures, because, as they believe, we are all fallible people.  It is expected that good-people will disagree for many reasons.  Depending on which ancient manuscripts you are using, which translation of those original languages you are reading, which hermeneutical approach you are using to interpret its meaning, and the theological framework to which you are pinning your understanding, there are many possible ways to "properly" interpret the same passage.

Having so many theological differences does not contradict Protestant teaching.  On the contrary, it confirms their teaching of the fallibility of all people.  In Protestant circles, truthfulness of doctrine is not judged by who stated it, but rather by what methods they used in arriving at it.


Souls being immortal vs all of existence needing to be continually and actively maintained by God Non Christian asking a question here.

My understanding is that Christianity claims that:

A) Souls are immortal.

B) Everything that exists (except God Himself) needs to be continually maintained by God, or it'll simply disappear.

This seems to me to be contradictory.

Assuming souls are not an exception to the above rule, it seems to me that immortality means that something will exist as long as God sees fit to maintain it. My problem with this is that surely God can maintain anything indefinitely, so there's nothing special about Souls.
God could maintain a speck of dust indefinitely, say.

One could say that souls being immortal isn't an inherent trait, but a prediction of sorts. It's not that souls can exist forever that makes them special; it's that they will exist forever. However, I've yet to see any Christian argue for this view.

Regards, Peter.

The New Testament explicitly states that only God is immortal.1 And yet, elsewhere in the New Testament, Christians are said to become immortal.2 Even Jesus told those who believed in him that they would never die.3 How can this be reconciled?

This question is answered in Pseudo-Justin’s Questions and Answers to the Orthodox:

  Ἐρώτησις ξα.
  Eἰ μόνος ἀθάνατός ἐστιν ὁ θεὸς κατὰ τὸν ἀπόστολον,  πῶς ἀληθὲς κατ' αὐτὸν τὸ Πάντες μὲν οὐ κοιμηθησόμεθα;
  Ἀπόκρισις.
  Μόνος ἔχων τὴν ἀθανασίαν λέγεται ὁ θεός, ὅτι οὐκ ἐκ θελήματος ἄλλου ταύτην ἔχει, καθάπερ οἱ λοιποὶ πάντες ἀθάνατοι,  ἀλλ' ἐκ τῆς οἰκείας οὐσίας.
  Question 61.
  If only God is immortal according the apostle, how is it true according to him that “we shall not all sleep”?
  Answer.
  It says God [is he who] “only has immortality” since He has this [immortality] not of His will, as all the rest are immortal, but rather, of His own essence.

Succinctly stated, God alone is inherently immortal, and all the rest who are or shall be immortal are immortal by God’s will since they are granted immortality by Him. Hence, it is written that “the Father has life in Himself.”4 Not so for all others; all others are given eternal life.5

Justin Martyr himself further elaborates the quality of the soul’s immortality in his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew:6

  Now, that the soul lives, no one would deny. But if it lives, it lives not as being life, but as partaking of life. But that which partakes of anything is different from that of which it partakes. Now the soul partakes of life, since God wills it to live. Thus, then, it will also not partake [of life] when [God] does not will it to live. For living is not its own characteristic property, as it is God’s.
  ὅτι δὲ ζῇ ψυχή, οὐδεὶς ἀντείποι. εἰ δὲ ζῇ, οὐ ζωὴ οὖσα ζῇ, ἀλλὰ μεταλαμβάνουσα τῆς ζωῆς· ἕτερον δέ τι τὸ μετέχον τινὸς ἐκείνου οὗ μετέχει. ζωῆς δὲ ψυχὴ μετέχει, ἐπεὶ ζῆν αὐτὴν ὁ θεὸς βούλεται. οὕτως ἄρα καὶ οὐ μεθέξει ποτέ, ὅταν αὐτὴν μὴ θέλοι ζῆν. οὐ γὰρ ἴδιον αὐτῆς ἐστι τὸ ζῆν ὡς τοῦ θεοῦ·

In the prior chapter, he wrote,7

  For those things which exist after God, or shall at any time exist, these have a corruptible nature, and are such as may be blotted out and cease to exist. For God alone is unbegotten and incorruptible, and therefore He is God, but all other things after Him are created and corruptible.
  ὅσα γάρ ἐστι μετὰ τὸν θεὸν ἢ ἔσται ποτέ, ταῦτα φύσιν φθαρτὴν ἔχειν, καὶ οἷά τε ἐξαφανισθῆναι καὶ μὴ εἶναι ἔτι· μόνος γὰρ ἀγέννητος καὶ ἄφθαρτος ὁ θεὸς καὶ διὰ τοῦτο θεός ἐστι, τὰ δὲ λοιπὰ πάντα μετὰ τοῦτον γεννητὰ καὶ φθαρτά.

In summary,

God alone is inherently immortal; God as “life in Himself.”
Everything else is created and not inherently immortal.
To become immortal, God grants (gives) it immortality as He wills.
Two types of immortality: inherent and granted.

Footnotes

1 1 Tim. 6:16: «ὁ μόνος ἔχων ἀθανασίαν».
2 1 Cor. 15:53–54
3 John 11:26
4 John 5:26: «ὁ πατὴρ ἔχει ζωὴν ἐν ἑαυτῷ»
5 John 10:28: «κἀγὼ ζωὴν αἰώνιον δίδωμι αὐτοῖς»
6 p. 489, Ch. 6
7 p. 488, Ch. 5

References

Justin Martyr. Πρὸς Τρύφωνα Ἰουδαῖον Διάλογος (“Dialogue with Trpho the Jew”). Patrologiæ Cursus Completus: Series Græca. Ed. Migne, Jacques Paul. Vol. 6. Petit-Montrouge: Imprimerie Catholique, 1857.


How could God hold Adam and Eve accountable for sinning when they didn't know evil? Until Adam and Eve ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, how could they know that disobeying God was sinful, as they didn't understand that it was evil? Why does God hold them accountable for sinning when they didn't know what evil was?

James 4:17 states "Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn't do it, sins." (NIV)

Adam and Eve knew what they should and shouldn't do.  God made it very simple: "but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil." (Gen 2:17 NIV)  It was clear that they were to avoid that tree.  As James 4:17 states, they knew what to do and didn't do it and became sinners as a result.


How to compare Christian pastor credentials? Requirements for ordination vary across denominations. Baptists and Pentecostals, for example, will ordain people without even a high school diploma, whereas many of the more liturgical denominations require masters and doctoral level degrees before one can even preach.

How then, is one able to assess the academic qualifications of ordained clergy across denominations?  In other words, is there a resource that would assist one in gauging the stringency of the qualification process before one is allowed to serve as preist, minister, or pastor? And, what common requirements for ordination can be compared across denominations, so as to be able to compare similiar qualifications across denominational lines.

The kind of comparison you are suggesting is not going to work for a number of reasons. The most prominent one is a huge difference in job description between those that different denominations consider church leaders.
The Catholic church, for example, ordains priests based on several years of college-level education, as well as other requirements, academic and spiritual. However they often select leaders who do not have any formal education and give them the education required to do the job. Moreover a Catholic church will typically have one priest overseeing a church with many hundreds of members. Various other paid and volunteer workers take on other roles within the church.
A Baptist or other Protestant church of similar size may have several people with the title 'Pastor' on their paid staff. Those people may have different responsibilities. There may be a children's pastor, a music pastor, or even an administrative pastor. There may be an outreach pastor whose job is to work with the homeless and street people. Many of those people are qualified very differently from the Catholic priest, and any attempt to draw conclusions by comparing their qualifications is not going to yield useful results.
Even if you were to compare just 'lead pastors' (those in charge of an entire congregation), just because a denomination has no minimum standard of academic qualification doesn't mean they habitually appoint those with no academic qualifications. Most of the churches I know that have no minimum standards routinely appoint people with masters degrees.
Another significant issue is the one of who appoints church leaders. Catholic, Anglican and many more 'high church' denominations have their leaders appointed (ordained) by the denomination. This means a certain amount of uniformity of their leaders. However in congregationalist denomination each church appoints its own leaders. This means leadership qualifications are decided by every single church. There might be different standards for every single Baptist church in a denomination, as well as between denominations. Not to mention that each church is free to revise its own standards or ignore them if it feels like it.
As another aside, I don't know of any denomination that requires a masters degree - or any degree - before they are accepted for ordination training.


What is the name of this theological problem? I have formulated a theological problem, and I would like to research different answers people have for it. This process would be a lot easier if I had a solid starting point. I am wondering if there is a formalized name for this question (ex. some subcategory in theodicy), or a similar question. Or if not that, then possibly the names of some books or papers that discuss it.

Here is the problem, as I have structured it:

  God made humans. (Genesis 1:27)
  God knows the future. (Isaiah 46:10)
  If we don’t follow God, we will go to hell. (Revelation 21:8)
  Many people do not follow God. (Matthew 7:13-14)
  It is better to have not been born than to go to hell. (Mark 14:21)
  God is good. (Psalm 107:1)

  Therefore God made humans knowing that most of them would go to hell (a place that it would be better to have not been born than to end up in).

  Would it not have been better to not have been created?

Note: I have structured it like a very informal logic proof, as that is what I am most familiar with.

The problem is known as "theodicy".

Actually, this is just one portion of the problem of theodicy, but it's part of the "How can a good God permit evil?" question.  "How God could create beings that will go to Hell" is subset of the problem of theodicy.

This is one of the most commonly covered questions in the field of Apologetics.  A Bing/Google/(Choose your search engine) search for "Apologetic Theodicy" should get you any number of possible answers to that question.  Of course, which makes sense to you, personally, is hard to predict. there are differing approaches to the issue based on your belief in things like free will, where god's sovereignty and man's ability to chose begins and ends, etc.


Will there be ongoing co-creation (aka technological development) in heaven? On Earth, the Catholic Church teaches that humans are co-creators with God.

  To human beings God even gives the power of freely sharing in his
  providence by entrusting them with the responsibility of “subduing”
  the earth and having dominion over it. God thus enables men to be
  intelligent and free causes in order to complete the work of creation,
  to perfect its harmony for their own good and that of their neighbors.
  Though often unconscious collaborators with God’s will, they can also
  enter deliberately into the divine plan by their actions, their
  prayers, and their sufferings. They then fully become “God’s fellow
  workers” and co-workers for his kingdom. (Catechism of the Catholic
  Church, paragraph 307)

Does any tradition see this concept of humans being co-creative/co-worker extending into heaven? If so, does this mean that we will continue to push technology forward?

Matthew 18:18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

This does not specifically refer to co-creation, but then neither does any other scripture in the Bible.  So, if we are co-creators here on Earth, as taught in the Catechism of the Catholic church, then Matthew 18:18 may lend some support that this might carry over to heaven.

One might also ask "Why would poets in a glorified state (fully freed from themselves and truly free to fully be themselves) not write poetry and gadget makers make gadgets--as a form of worship integrated with their personalities?" Exposure to the presence of God (and the perfected images, as well as the rest of creation, reflecting that glory) would certainly generate the need for an outlet of worship and being all the creature one is created to be would be a good way to declare "Holy, holy, holy, is the LORD of hosts. The whole earth is full of his glory."


What does the Bible say about sex before marriage / premarital sex? The title pretty much asks the question, but let's set the stage like this:

  Two people meet in High School, have sex, then eventually get married.

What does the bible say about sex prior to marriage in general?

What does the bible say about sex prior to marriage, but leads to marriage?

Premarital (aka extramarital) sex is fornication, which is sometimes differentiated from adultery. While adultery is specifically forbidden in the 10 Commandments, it would appear the Bible has the same opinion of fornication. There are times when the two terms are used interchangeably as well.
All from the KJV:

Acts 15:20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from
pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled,
and from blood.
1st Corinthians 6:18 Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.
1st Corinthians 7:2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
1st Thessalonians 4:3 For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication:

So it looks safe to say that "Thou shall not commit adultery" also applies to fornication. The colloquialism "living in sin" is accurate.
It doesn't specifically say "Even if you plan to get married, fornication is still a sin." But the 1st Corinthians 7:2 reference is pretty close. To avoid fornication, get married.


What is the Bible basis for the idea of a temporary holding place? A friend once told me about the idea that there are two temporary "holding places", so to speak. If a person died and would go to Heaven, but that time had not yet come, they would go to a temporary paradisaical place and similarly for Hell (not the Catholic Purgatory). Some support is given in Luke 23:

Luke 23:40-43 (NLT)
'40 But the other criminal protested, “Don’t you fear God even when you have been sentenced to die? 41 We deserve to die for our crimes, but this man hasn’t done anything wrong.” 42 Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your Kingdom.”
43 And Jesus replied, “I assure you, today you will be with me in paradise.”'

Where did Jesus (and the criminal) go for the three days that He was dead?
There is also the fact that "Hades" refers to a different place than "Hell".
So what other Biblical evidence is there for a temporary holding place?

Remember that after the Crucifixion, when Mary Magdalene found Jesus in the garden, he told her that he had not yet ascended to his Father in Heaven.  This implies that Paradise, where he had been while he was dead, is not Heaven.

It gets even more interesting in 1 Peter chapter 3, where it says that while Jesus was dead, he went and preached to the spirits in prison, who had been disobedient while in mortality.  So here we have mention of two intermediate "holding places:" Paradise for the righteous and the spirit prison (for lack of a better name) for the wicked.

These are not to be understood as the final dwelling places of the soul, commonly known as Heaven and Hell, because we will be sent to our final dwelling places after the Judgment, which is described as taking place after the Resurrection.


A woman's testimony was considered inadmissible in a court of law. Whose law? As an argument for the validity of the Gospels, I have heard it mentioned by multiple pastors that a woman's testimony was considered inadmissible in a court of law, so the fact that women first discovered Jesus's empty tomb (e.g. Luke 24:10) is an indicator that the Gospel writers weren't fabricating their stories.

In reading through 2 Chronicles, however, I have been noticing a pattern in which the mothers of some of the kings have been mentioned (e.g. Jehoaddan in 2 Chron. 25:1, Naamah in 2 Chron. 12:13), and there is even a queen who reigns, Athaliah (2 Chron. 22:10), who is also mentioned in 2 Kings.

I know that certain women play major roles in Biblical events (Sarah, Esther, etc.) I'm also aware that in Judaism, a child is considered Jewish if the mother is Jewish, and I am certain that this plays a role in many of these passages, in terms of validating the lineage of various kings.  There are also cases in which no men are living in a family, and women become heirs to a family's inheritance (Num 27:2-4).

There are other parts of Scripture which have led some Christians to percieve women as "lesser" than men (e.g. 1 Tim 2:12), but the overall impression I get is that women have had very different, but equally critical roles throughout Scripture.

It seems like this argument of a woman's testimony was probably true of the Roman law, but by reading through the Bible, I'm not convinced that it was true in Jewish circles, and I wonder if the argument itself isn't a little misleading.  I think it would pertain specifically to the Roman culture, but the initial push of Christianity was meant specifically for other Jews anyway, not for gentiles.

Note:  I ask because I want to both 1) understand this argument, and 2) this aspect of Jesus's culture more accurately-- so if you have sources, please cite them.  I'm not looking to discount the authority of the Gospels:  I believe the accounts were accurate, and I'm a firm believer that all Scripture is breathed by God (2 Tim 3:16). Nor am I looking at this with an agenda (I happen to be a complementarian, but my wife is not-- God's mercy and love is way more important to me than my own views or blind rule-keeping).  Also, I am not trying to create a controversy, so please keep it civil!

Transistor I feel you. I think oftentimes the answer is not clear but many Christians take comfort in believing all of their church's teachings and their apologists' arguments are valid. When I ask questions about the premises or certain details which seem to be contradictory I am often told not that the answer isn't really known or that the answerer disagrees, but I am wrong and should read a book. In the majority of cases I suspect the person answering knows less than I do about the subject but just doesn't want to be seen admitting that something they believe might be false. Even if it is a modern doctrine. I think this is unfortunate as it has led to many religious splits and wars.

Anyway, in this case if you look at Jewish rabbinical law from the Talmud, women are generally not considered admissible witnesses in a courtroom. Here are sources:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testimony_in_Jewish_law

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0021_0_21003.html -- see Women

Since the Talmud was written by the rabbis who were codifying Jewish law in the tradition of the pharisees starting a mere 100 years after Jesus, it seems likely that this was Jewish law generally at the time when Israel had its own courts.

We are talking here about court testimony, though. How men reacted to women is a related but different matter. The opinions about women as witnesses may have spilled over to the disciples - but given that Jesus freely included women among his group and they were all like a big family, I doubt that this is a criterion for embarrassment any more than other mentions of Mary Magdalene in the Biblical as well as Gnostic gospels.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Magdalene

Moreover another problem for the argument that the gospel writers "wouldn't have put women" as the first ones to see the tomb is the way this information is treated. Luke specifically pointsout that a bunch of women talking about the body no being there didnt make any sense:

http://biblehub.com/luke/24-11.htm

To me it is much more curious that the subsequent verses describe people talking and walking with Jesus, but not recognizing him. It is interesting what the notion of resurrection really was. These stories all have a bit of a mystical quality.

But to answer your question - yes there is a precedent to suppose that women's testimony was not usually admissible in court and this may have affected the disciples. But these werent just any women, they were the ones who were by Jesus' side when the men had fled. They were around for years and part of the family. It could have been that the disciples didn't believe because the women had trouble relaying such an event.

Consider this also: the gospels differ on what the women saw. As for the centurions who saw things, the gospels claim they were bribed by Jews to say nothing happened. Here is Matthew 27 on the events before the burial:

"51At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook, the rocks split 52and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. 53They came out of the tombs after Jesus’ resurrection ande went into the holy city and appeared to many people.

54When the centurion and those with him who were guarding Jesus saw the earthquake and all that had happened, they were terrified, and exclaimed, “Surely he was the Son of God!”

55Many women were there, watching from a distance. They had followed Jesus from Galilee to care for his needs. 56Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of Zebedee’s sons."

The whole thing sounds a bit fantastical - we don't find reports of resurrected saints anywhere else. But assuming this was true, then:

1) Resurrections and coming out of tombs already occurred on a large scale so it's strange why the disciples couldnt believe it happened again.

2) The centurions were already so impressed they were convinced that Jesus was the Son of God. So it's a wonder how they were able to be bribed by Jews to say nothing happened after witnessing the empty tomb of Jesus. Why was the money that big of a deal to them at that point?

To me these are bigger questions than why women saw the empty tomb first.


What is the reason that nuns always cover their hair? I've always been curious to know what's the reason that nuns, usually used to cover their hair and not show it out, while monks head is usually uncovered? What's the religious explanation for that thing?

N.b. What's the reason that sometimes monks or pastors covered their head?

See the pictures below:

The pictures were taken from these sites:

1) http://www.farnboroughabbey.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/1780121_245834752276028_1793833854_o.jpg

2) https://www.winebusiness.com/content/image/wv/wv-2013-11-14_monks.jpg

3) http://sainthermanmonastery.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/31-Monastery-brotherhood-with-Bishop-Maxim-Abbot-Metodije-Monk-Damaskin.jpg

The custom originates in Judaism, and different arguments are given for it. Married women, in particular, cover their hair in an act of modesty. They argue a woman's hair should be reserved for her husband (not so different from the customs in Islam).
Religiously it is also an act that separates one from the world.
Within Christianity there are additional scriptures and Church Fathers who reinforce such head coverings. Here's a line from Paul on the subject:

1 Corinthians 11:6 For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head.

He seems to quibble over this point a bit, but ultimately takes the stance of tradition on the matter:

1 Corinthians 11:13-16 Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, 15 but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. 16 If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God.

The Church Father Tertullian, around 200 AD, wrote "On the Veiling of Virgins." In this writing he argues that not only should married women cover their heads, but that all women should do so. (for a translation, see here: On the Veiling of Virgins).
So the practice is rooted in a Jewish tradition and the wider mid-eastern culture. It has additionally been expounded on both in the Christian scriptures and the subsequent writings of Church Fathers.
As for men, Paul also makes the argument that men should NOT have their heads covered.

1 Corinthians 11:4  Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head.
1 Corinthians 11:7 A man ought not to cover his head,[b] since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man.

This breaks a bit with modern and Orthodox Judaism, where men wear a covering in prayer (if not all the time!).
Despite the scriptural arguments, I rarely if ever see Protestant women wear head coverings. Ultimately it seems to come down to a given sects culture. In America most would not think it immodest to not cover one's hair.


When will be the end of the Catholic Church on earth by definition? Matthew 16:18

  And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock, I will build my
  church,* and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against
  it.

Is there any teaching of the Catholic Church on when it can be considered the end of its existence by definition?
Clearly, it is not the death of the pope as the new one can be elected. Is there a time period how quickly the pope needs to be elected and if not met the institution ends? I doubt there is.

Would that be if the last person who was baptized in the Catholic Church die? Can we then say this is the end of the Catholic Church on Earth?
We still have the communion of the saints so basically, it will never cease but I'm asking on Earth.

When I say "when" I don't mean in time but rather what are the conditions so we can say this is not the church anymore.

The papacy will last until the end of the world, as the First Vatican Council said in Pastor Æternus (July 18, 1870), ch. II, "On the Perpetuity of the Primacy of blessed Peter in the Roman Pontiffs":

  That which the Prince of Shepherds and great Shepherd of the sheep, Jesus Christ our Lord, established in the person of the blessed Apostle Peter to secure the perpetual welfare and lasting good of the Church, must, by the same institution, necessarily remain unceasingly in the Church; which, being founded upon the Rock, will stand firm to the end of the world.

If the papacy "will stand firm to the end of the world," so will Church Militant (the Church on earth), as the papacy without the Church would be an absurdity.

Perhaps a more interesting question would be: "Will there be a pope at the time of the end of the world?" I believe this is still an open question.


Original number of angels and fallen angels How many angels left with Lucifer when God banished them from heaven?

There is a passage in Revelation, chapter 12, verses 3 and 4, which may be the only passage to tell us the proportion of the angelic host to have fallen from their exalted state in heaven:

  "Then another sign appeared in heaven:  and behold, a great red dragon having seven heads and ten horns, and on his heads were seven diadems.  And his tail swept away a third of the starts of heaven and threw them to the earth. And the dragon stood before the woman who was about to give, birth, so that when she gave birth he might devour her child."

There are other verses which speak of angels and a war in heaven, the result of which was their being cast out of heaven along with their leader, Satan (cf. vv. 8-9; 9:1; Dan. 8:10; Jude 6; 2 Pet. 2:4).  Moreover, other passages link metaphorically the "stars of heaven" (or simply "stars") with angelic beings (see Job 38:6,7; and Isa.14:12,13).

To attempt to come up with an even approximate number of angels who kept their abode in heaven is an exercise in futility.  True, Revelation 5:11 says there are 10,000 times 10,000 angels--besides living creatures and elders--around God's throne, though some versions (e.g., the NIV) describe the number of angels as "myriads of myriads and thousands of thousands."  Then thousand times ten thousand is a hundred million, but then thousands of thousands on top of the hundred million will still not give us an accurate count.

About all we can say about the number of angels is that there are a lot of them.  Who knows, there could (I repeat, could) be as many angels as there are stars, and the number of stars . . ., well, lets put it this way:  only God Himself knows not only how many there are, but He also has a name for each one (see Psalm 147:4; cf. Gen.1:16, where it says simply, "He also made the stars," as if it was no big deal!).


Are (or should be) the resolutions of the SDA General Conference public? Currently I'm doing a little bit of research on how different churches are organised.
As far I can understand, the General Conference of the Seventh Day Adventist Church has an important role on discussing different important matters which are voted and eventually shared around the world.

The General Conference is responsible for the spiritual and developmental plans of the church around the world.
Source: adventist.org

If I get it correctly, after each General Conference event, a resolution is made containing the changes in the way how the church works (organizational issues, believes/principles (?) etc).
How are these resolutions shared and to whom? Who has access to them?
Should they be public (to anyone, including people outside of the church) or be available only to the members of the church?
The point which I'm missing is:

if they would be shared only with the pastors/leaders, how would a member know if something is changed?
if they are shared only with the members, how would someone from outside (who eventually wants to be a member) know what they are going to accept without knowing what the General Conference decided before?
are there any points which should not be shared with members? Similarly, are there any parts which are shared with members but not with non-members?
how would somebody from outside of the church request as much information which is supposed to be public?

While this question is about the SDA church, for comparison, I'm interested how other churches/organisations handle this subject (e.g. LDS, JW etc).

The Seventh Day Adventist General Conference session is not secret, nor is it well published.  Formal minutes are only distributed to delegates of the session; this is primarily for practical reasons.

However, there are lots of news sources that cover the proceedings that discuss the high-level decisions that are made.  For instance http://2015.gcsession.org/en/news/index.html

you can also find information on sites like https://spectrummagazine.org/article/2015/05/29/how-delegates-are-selected-general-conference-sessions

Regarding becoming a member, this is articulated through the fundamental beliefs. Usually, the General session deals with the business of the church and the protocols of the different offices of the church.  Not often effecting lay members beliefs.  Recently, however, there has been issues with how women should be accepted into leadership and the ministry credentials they can carry.

There is no secrecy at the session level.  However, a board of directors is appointed that runs the organisation between sessions.  These minutes are confidential, but cannot make significant changes; These are confidential as they can deal with highly sensitive operational issues that can affect employees. (Think restructures, pay cuts or increases, moral failures and apostates)

As a member, I gain all my information from the websites, both the official ones and the reputable Adventist news publishers. In reality, the General conference session has little impact on my day to day faith, or how the local church operates.  There are other downstream organisations that have more influence over these.


What did the Dominicans have against the immaculate conception? I was readIng an ad for a movie about blessed Duns Scotus which said he was debated and won against the Dominicans in the 13th century about the special privilege given to Mary, her Immaculate Conception.

What I don't know (and don't really want to buy the movie to find out is)

For what reason did they doubt her Immaculate Conception? (and)
Is this why the Rosary starts with the Annunciation and not the
Immaculate Conception?

It's a little bit of medieval politics centered around St. Thomas Aquinas.

St. Thomas had a strong connection to the Dominicans, having received the habit of St. Dominic twice (it's a long, unrelated story) and defending them in a dispute between the friars and the University at which he received his Doctorate of Theology. His works became part of the core teachings of the Dominican order, especially after his death.

Now, St. Thomas was commonly believed to have opposed the idea of the Immaculate Conception, stating in the Summa:

  The sanctification of the Blessed Virgin cannot be understood as having taken place before animation, for two reasons. First, because the sanctification of which we are speaking, is nothing but the cleansing from original sin: for sanctification is a "perfect cleansing," as Dionysius says (Div. Nom. xii). Now sin cannot be taken away except by grace, the subject of which is the rational creature alone. Therefore before the infusion of the rational soul, the Blessed Virgin was not sanctified.

Fast-forward a few years later to when Bl. Duns Scotus starts to formulate the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception as we know it today. He provided the biggest defense of the Immaculate Conception to date; or as the Catholic Encyclopedia puts it:

  He showed that the sanctification after animation — sanctificatio post animationem — demanded that it should follow in the order of nature (naturae) not of time (temporis); he removed the great difficulty of St. Thomas showing that, so far from being excluded from redemption, the Blessed Virgin obtained of her Divine Son the greatest of redemptions through the mystery of her preservation from all sin.

Gradually, all the universities and orders began to adopt Scotus's position. The Dominicans, on the other hand, were obliged to follow their brother Thomas (who formed much of their order's early theology), rejecting Scotus's "workaround." It took a few hundred more years of interpreting St. Thomas's works until they eventually came around.

In hindsight, it appears that people were working off of different terms, or as the Catholic Encyclopedia puts it:

  In the thirteenth century the opposition was largely due to a want of clear insight into the subject in dispute. The word "conception" was used in different senses, which had not been separated by careful definition. If St. Thomas, St. Bonaventure, and other theologians had known the doctrine in the sense of the definition of 1854, they would have been its strongest defenders instead of being its opponents.