What evidence exists to support church traditions regarding the deaths of the following apostles? The Bible tells us that King Herod had James killed by the sword (Acts 12:2) but says nothing about the death of Peter, although Jesus made reference to his martyrdom (John 21:18).  Is there any evidence to support the tradition that Peter was crucified upside-down in Rome?

The most commonly accepted tradition regarding the death of Paul comes from the writings of Eusebius, an early church historian.  Eusebius claimed that Paul was beheaded at the order of the Roman emperor Nero or one of his subordinates.   Because Paul was a Roman citizen (Acts 22:28), he was not crucified.  Is there a reliable source of information to confirm how Paul died?

Although John died peacefully as an old man, there is a tradition that he was boiled in a basin of boiling oil during a wave of persecution in Rome, but miraculously survived.  He died in Turkey.  Are there any records that support this account of being boiled in oil?

Andrew was severely whipped then crucified on an x-shaped cross in Greece, taking two days to die. Is there any record of this event?

Church tradition says that Thomas travelled by sea to India in AD 52. He was later martyred and buried there after witnessing to the Indian people.  Is there any historical evidence about this?
I suspect that Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 260–c. 340) might be the best source of reliable information given his prolific works on church history.

  In his Church History or Ecclesiastical History, Eusebius wrote the first surviving history of the Christian Church as a chronologically-ordered account, based on earlier sources, complete from the period of the Apostles to his own epoch.[49] The time scheme correlated the history with the reigns of the Roman Emperors, and the scope was broad. Included were the bishops and other teachers of the Church, Christian relations with the Jews and those deemed heretical, and the Christian martyrs through 324.[50] Although its accuracy and biases have been questioned,[51] it remains an important source on the early church due to Eusebius's access to materials now lost.[52]

Sources:

Eusebius of Caesarea

Church History (Eusebius)

However, I simply don’t know where to start!  Any links to reliable sources would be appreciated.  What evidence exists to support church traditions on the persecution and martyrdom of Peter, John, Andrew, Thomas and Paul?

Foxe's Book of Martyrs used to be considered a standard textbook on the matter, but whether it is still considered so to be, I wouldn't know. It is certainly an excellent source.

It is said (I don't know how true it is) that in England (I assume this refers to the seventeenth century, or so) there were fireplaces in homes that had two niches in them, one each side of the fire.

One niche was for the Authorised Version of the Bible and the other niche was for Foxe's Book of Martyrs.


Why is the Gospel of Thomas considered heretical by Nicene Christians? I've seen in a few places the Gospel of Thomas described as Gnostic and thus heretical. I've seen people dismiss it as heretical but never going into the details of why that is the case. Why is the gospel of Thomas considered heretical?

I have read the text, it seemed quite interesting to me, shares much of the material from other gospel texts and as the form is a sayings gospel leaves much to interpretation; I don't think it would be difficult for even pretty stringently orthodox people to interpret it to their satisfaction. Although you could construe it in a number of ways, you could say that for lots of works that are considered canonical. It certainly doesn't seem any more different from the synoptic gospels than is the Gospel of John. The dating might be questionable but that doesn't make it doctrinally unsound surely otherwise Ephesians could not be canonical. The only saying that even seems to hint at gnosticism to me is 114 and that is known to be a later addition to the text.

To be clear I'm referring to the sayings gospel not the infancy gospel.

Wikipedia does a good job of summarizing the heresy, but I want to pull out some source material.

Some of the sayings do attest to the synpotic Gospels, but there is a lot of heresy in there too:

From the top, selected parts of The Gospel of Thomas:

  These are the secret sayings that the living Jesus spoke and Didymos Judas Thomas recorded.
  1. And he said, "Whoever discovers the interpretation of these sayings will not taste death."

Gnostics were all about "special knowledge." That's where the word comes from: Gnosis - to know.  Orthodox Christianity tends to find "secret knowledge" repugnant.

  The dead are not alive, and the living will not die. During the days when you ate what is dead, you made it come alive. When you are in the light, what will you do? On the day when you were one, you became two. But when you become two, what will you do?"

This eschataology differs significantly.

  Jesus said to his disciples, "Compare me to something and tell me what I am like."
  Simon Peter said to him, "You are like a just messenger."
  Matthew said to him, "You are like a wise philosopher."
  Thomas said to him, "Teacher, my mouth is utterly unable to say what you are like."
  Jesus said, "I am not your teacher. Because you have drunk, you have become intoxicated from the bubbling spring that I have tended."
  And he took him, and withdrew, and spoke three sayings to him. When Thomas came back to his friends they asked him, "What did Jesus say to you?"
  Thomas said to them, "If I tell you one of the sayings he spoke to me, you will pick up rocks and stone me, and fire will come from the rocks and devour you."

More secret knowledge, and an implication that Jesus is merely a teacher, nothing more.

  Jesus said, "When you see one who was not born of woman, fall on your faces and worship. That one is your Father."

Docetism

  22 ... Jesus said to them, "When you make the two into one, and when you make the inner like the outer and the outer like the inner, and the upper like the lower, and when you make male and female into a single one, so that the male will not be male nor the female be female, when you make eyes in place of an eye, a hand in place of a hand, a foot in place of a foot, an image in place of an image, then you will enter [the kingdom]."

Matter is evil according to gnostics, and the implication here is that matter cannot enter into the kingdom

  "If you do not fast from the world, you will not find the (Father's) kingdom. If you do not observe the sabbath as a sabbath you will not see the Father."

Legalism, and anti-materialism

  Jesus said, "If the flesh came into being because of spirit, that is a marvel, but if spirit came into being because of the body, that is a marvel of marvels.Yet I marvel at how this great wealth has come to dwell in this poverty."

More anti-materialism

  His disciples said, "When will you appear to us, and when will we see you?"
  Jesus said, "When you strip without being ashamed, and you take your clothes and put them under your feet like little children and trample them, then [you] will see the son of the living one and you will not be afraid."

Gnostics were antinomian as a result of their anti-materialism.  This would be a kind of that.

  Jesus said, "The Pharisees and the scholars have taken the keys of knowledge and have hidden them. They have not entered nor have they allowed those who want to enter to do so.

More secret knowledge

  Jesus said, "If they say to you, 'Where have you come from?' say to them, 'We have come from the light, from the place where the light came into being by itself, established [itself], and appeared in their image.'If they say to you, 'Is it you?' say, 'We are its children, and we are the chosen of the living Father.'If they ask you, 'What is the evidence of your Father in you?' say to them, 'It is motion and rest.'"
  Jesus said, "Whoever has come to know the world has discovered a carcass, and whoever has discovered a carcass, of that person the world is not worthy."

More anti-materialism

  Jesus said, "I disclose my mysteries to those [who are worthy] of [my] mysteries.

More secret knowledge

  Jesus said, "Whoever has come to know the world has discovered the body, and whoever has discovered the body, of that one the world is not worthy."
  Jesus said, "Images are visible to people, but the light within them is hidden in the image of the Father's light. He will be disclosed, but his image is hidden by his light."
  Jesus said, "When you see your likeness, you are happy. But when you see your images that came into being before you and that neither die nor become visible, how much you will have to bear!"
  Jesus said, "How miserable is the body that depends on a body, and how miserable is the soul that depends on these two."

More anti-materialism

Do you see a pattern here?

Gnostics believe the body is inherently and irredeemably evil. Therefore, it doesn't matter what the body does - only your spirit matters.  That is the heart of the antinomian heresy that Gnostics teach.

Beyond this, yes, there is a lot of repetition of the Synoptic Gospels - after all Gnostics thought they were Christians too.  But the innovative parts of Thomas are the parts that orthodox Christians either thought "meh" or heresy.

That's why it never made the canon.


Orthodoxy's "ancestral sin" versus Calvinism's "total depravity" Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I understand, one of the major differences between Eastern Orthodox and Protestant theology is "ancestral sin."

Note:

Although Roman Catholicism's definition of original sin and Orthodoxy's view of ancestral sin are very similar, they do have subtly important differences.

These differences stem from the translation of the New Testament Greek text into Latin.

The consequences of the Fall spread to the whole of the human race. This is elucidated by St Paul: 'Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned' (Rom.5:12). This text, which formed the Church's basis of her teaching on 'original sin', may be understood in a number of ways: the Greek words ef' ho pantes hemarton may be translated not only as 'because all men sinned' (Greek translation), but also 'in whom [that is, in Adam] all men sinned' (Latin Translation). Different readings of the text may produce different understandings of what 'original sin' means.

If we accept the first translation, this means that each person is responsible for his own sins, and not for Adam's transgression. Here, Adam is merely the prototype of all future sinners, each of whom, in repeating Adam's sin, bears responsibility only for his own sins. Adam's sin is not the cause of our sinfulness; we do not participate in his sin and his guilt cannot be passed onto us.

However, if we read the text to mean 'in whom all have sinned', this can be understood as the passing on of Adam's sin to all future generations of people, since human nature has been infected by sin in general. The disposition toward sin became hereditary and responsibility for turning away from God sin universal.

St. Augustine obviously took the Latin road in interpreting this verse, and consequently developed and elaborated on the nature of original sin. All of the Protestant Reformer's theology concerning the fall of man was rooted in the Augustinian school of thought, and consequently is slightly more similar to Catholicism than Orthodoxy.

What I'm trying to wrap my mind around is how this difference in interpretation reciprocally translates to rebirth in Christ.

The hinge-verse for me is:

  ...As one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man’s
  act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men. For as
  by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man’s
  obedience many will be made righteous...so that, as sin reigned in
  death, grace also might reign through righteousness to eternal life
  through Jesus Christ our Lord (Rom.5:18-21)

Orthodoxy teaches that through birth we inherit Adam's fallen nature, but not his personal guilt. Likewise, in rebirth (baptism) we inherit Christ's redeemed nature.

Calvinism adheres to the doctrine of total depravity, leaning heavily on Augustine's view of original sin. According to this belief, man inherits not only a fallen nature, but Adam's personal guilt as well.

What are the doctrinal consequences of these differences in light of Romans 5:18-21?

This question is intended to specifically focus on how the Orthodox definition of "ancestral" sin differs from the John Calvin's Augustinian (Catholic) view of the fall of man.

It's probably important to emphasize here that Calvin, as far as I know (and I think we are in agreement on this point), did not believe "Original Sin" to have been completely absolved by the birth of Christ. Indeed it was also in Romans(9:18-23) that one of the early Calvinists' favorite quotes appears:

Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden. 19 One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" 20 But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' " 21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use? 22 What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath--prepared for destruction? 23

That is (for this type of Calvinist), whilst the doorway to absolution had been opened by the death of Christ, this did not mean that many (or even most) of the human race were part of the elect: they were still endowed with an original imperfection. At least one seventeenth century theologian (really wish I could remember where I read it!) argued that the pots "prepared for destruction" served to demonstrate the goodness and the beauty of God, because the apprehension of goodness depended on the presence of its opposite.

This brings us to the next question. There have been many different views on the matter of original sin. My memory of Luther, for instance, is that the best humans strive to be perfect, but it is only through the grace of God that this is ever actually achieved. Redemption, for Luther, seems to be open to those willing to work at it, so long as God is also willing. Absolution from the sin of Adam and his punishments is therefore, in theory, possible for any member of the human race. It is probably clear form this, that doctrines of Orignal Sin have an interdependency with doctrines of Free Will vs Determinism.

There are some other interesting passages relating to this that you may want to consider. Whilst many would argue that the discussion of the Jeremahic Covenant (in particular Jeremiah 31:29) is really a discussion of contemporary Jewish law and the practice of holding children accountable or punishable for the sins of their parents, it can also be read as a discussion of the right of men to a moral existence independent of that of their parents:

As I have watched over them to pluck up, to break down, to overthrow, to destroy and to bring disaster, so I will watch over them to build and to plant," declares the LORD. 29"In those days they will not say again, 'The fathers have eaten sour grapes, And the children's teeth are set on edge.' 30"But everyone will die for his own iniquity; each man who eats the sour grapes, his teeth will be set on edge

It is, therefore, also a comment on Original Sin - the sin that was endowed upon the human race by their first father, Adam, and their mother, Eve.

As for the specific doctrinal consequences - to attempt a succinct answer, we are going to have to at least start off with the question "differences for whom (which Protestant theologians, which Orthodox scholars)" and also I think, wonder in passing why the Catholic church seems to be left out of the analysis, since it was within the Catholic church (particularly after waning Constantinople was stormed by the Crusader armies) that the doctrine of Original Sin was most successfully and forcefully promulgated (in my view).


Does the Bible itself give us clues about which parts to interpret literally and which figuratively? I know that the question may seem a little bit self-referential but I ask it anyway:

There is often great controversy among Christians what parts of the Bible are to be interpreted literally and what parts are to be interpreted symbolically. The most prominent one that comes to mind is of course creation vs. evolution but there are many issue more throughout the Bible.

My question:
Which parts of the Bible are relevant to give some clues or even guidance what should be interpreted literally and what symbolically?

Jesus himself shows us that we should not interpret the Bible literally, but must always apply context ie. account for factors like genre, historical situation, cultural background, audience and author's intent.
He cures a sick woman rather than upholding an uncompromising law:

...whoever does any work on the sabbath day shall be put to death. (Exodus 31:15)

His priestly opponents challenge him and he responds:

a man was there with a withered hand, and [the Pharisees] asked him, ‘Is it lawful to cure on the sabbath?’ so that they might accuse him. He said to them, ‘Suppose one of you has only one sheep and it falls into a pit on the sabbath; will you not lay hold of it and lift it out? How much more valuable is a human being than a sheep! So it is lawful to do good on the sabbath.’ (Matthew 12:10-12)

It is hard to imagine how bewildering and shocking it must have been for those present to witness this reinventing of the rules, let alone the subsequent miraculous healing.
It might at first glance appear logical to use the literal approach for some passages but not others. Since it is not clear how to do this, we risk making arbitrary decisions, jeopardising our objectivity. One seemingly obvious route would be to treat the two Testamants differently, but the following pronouncement from Christ shows that this is erroneous:

"‘Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfil. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, will be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 5:17-19)

In other words, if we want to take the New Testament literally, we must do the same with the Old.
Another unusual but important clue that the Bible gives us is its inconsistencies. If we are supposed to interpret it literally, then we should be able to pull out any two verses without them giving different accounts or contradicting each other. However, there are counterexamples such as:

Again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, ‘Go, count the people of Israel and Judah. (2 Samuel 24:1)
Satan stood up against Israel, and incited David to count the people of Israel. (1 Chronicles 21:1)
Then Jesus, crying with a loud voice, said, ‘Father, into your hands I commend my spirit.’ Having said this, he breathed his last. (Luke 23:46)
When Jesus had received the wine, he said, ‘It is finished.’ Then he bowed his head and gave up his spirit. (John 19:30)

Even for theological doctrine, there are discrepancies unless we apply context eg.

Parents shall not be put to death for their children, nor shall children be put to death for their parents; only for their own crimes may persons be put to death. (Deuteronomy 24:16)
Prepare slaughter for his sons because of the guilt of their father. (Isaiah 14:21)
For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. (Romans 4:2)
Was not our ancestor Abraham justified by works when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? (James 2:21)
The Father and I are one. (John 10:30)
If you loved me, you would rejoice that I am going to the Father, because the Father is greater than I. (John 14:28)

If Scripture could be fully appreciated literally, then it would be so obvious as to leave no room for uncertainty or doubt. It would have the same implications as God appearing in all his majesty: faith would be rendered obsolete and free will would cease.
The danger of not applying context for every verse is that the Bible ceases to be a dynamic and evolving text and instead becomes outdated, inapplicable and irrelevant over time.


In Catholicism, how is the practice of infant communion reconciled with the rule that first reconciliation must precede first communion? Paragraph 1457 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church states, without qualification,

  Children must go to the sacrament of Penance before receiving Holy Communion for the first time.

On the other hand, in some Eastern rite churches, infants receive the Eucharist. Paragraph 1233 of the Catechism says,

  In the Eastern rites the Christian initiation of infants also begins with Baptism followed immediately by Confirmation and the Eucharist, while in the Roman rite it is followed by years of catechesis before being completed later by Confirmation and the Eucharist, the summit of their Christian initiation.

Since infants have not committed any personal sins, it doesn't seem like it would make sense to require them to receive the sacrament of Penance. Should Paragraph 1457 have an exception for infants?

What you quote from the CCC makes reference to 1988 Canon 914, which does make the qualification that only children who have reached the age of reason are bound to make a sacramental confession before First Communion (my emphases):

  Can.  914 It is primarily the duty of parents and those who take the place of parents, as well as the duty of pastors, to take care that children who have reached the use of reason are prepared properly and, after they have made sacramental confession, are refreshed with this divine food as soon as possible. It is for the pastor to exercise vigilance so that children who have not attained the use of reason or whom he judges are not sufficiently disposed do not approach holy communion.


Why does Justin Martyr say that those who are unworthy of seeing God will become imprisoned in animal bodies? In Dialogue with Trypho, an early Christian text, Justin Martyr and a Jew named Trypho discuss the nature of the soul and its interaction with God. After talking a bit about if animals could see God and if that was any different than humans, this conversation happens (translation taken from here):

[Trypho asked,] "'What, then, is the advantage to those who have seen [God]? or what has he who has seen more than he who has not seen, unless he remember this fact, that he has seen?'
"'I cannot tell,' I [Justin Martyr] answered.
"'And what do those suffer who are judged to be unworthy of this spectacle?' said he.
"'They are imprisoned in the bodies of certain wild beasts, and this is their punishment.'

This seems like a really bizarre conclusion to me, yet Trypho seems to take it in stride, moving on to his next argument. Why would Justin Martyr assert that those who see God and yet were unworthy would become imprisoned in the bodies of certain wild animals? Was this a commonly held belief in his lifetime (in the years A.D. 100–165)?

First, keep in mind that Trypho is (almost certainly) a fictional character. He takes the statement in stride because it suits Justin's purpose.

To answer your question, transmigration of the soul  was a common belief in many Hellenistic philosophies. Note that Trypho stated at the beginning of the dialog that he studied under Corinthus the Socratic in Argos. It is not unreasonable that he would be familiar with if not accept the concept.

Now the question becomes ' Did Justin teach transmigration?' Read on. It seams to me that he is leading Trypho to reject the idea. The section closes with

  Trypho: Therefore souls neither see God nor transmigrate into other bodies; for they would know that so they are punished, and they would be afraid to commit even the most trivial sin afterwards. But that they can perceive that God exists, and that righteousness and piety are honourable, I also quite agree with you.

  Justin: You are right.


Did the early church record other events of handing people over to Satan? Did the early church record other events of handing people over to Satan?

So when you are assembled and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord. (1 Corinthians 5:4–5, NIV)
Among them are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan to be taught not to blaspheme. (1 Timothy 1:20, NIV)

The early church did indeed apply this language to specific cases, particularly in relation to God's judgment and church discipline.

For example, Chrysostom describes Judas and Job as being "delivered to Satan," and says:

  Many such instances still occur. For since the Priests cannot know who are sinners, and unworthy partakers of the holy Mysteries, God often in this way delivers them to Satan. For when diseases, and attacks, and sorrows, and calamities, and the like occur, it is on this account that they are inflicted. (Homilies on 1 Timothy, V)

Jerome doesn't seem to disagree with Lucifer of Cagliari's description of the priest's typical practice:

  The priest, we know, offers his oblation for the layman, lays his hand upon him when submissive, invokes the return of the Holy Spirit, and thus, after inviting the prayers of the people, reconciles to the altar him who had been delivered to Satan for the destruction of the flesh that the spirit might he saved ("The Dialogoue Against the Luciferians," 5)

And Basil of Caesarea offers specific instructions regarding those who have repented from grievous sin:

  There can, however, be no doubt that we ought to receive those who have repented of impurity committed in ignorance for thirty years.  In this case there is ground for forgiveness in ignorance, in the spontaneity of confession, and the long extent of time.  Perhaps they have been delivered to Satan for a whole age of man that they may learn not to behave unseemly; wherefore order them to be received without delay, specially if they shed tears to move your mercy, and shew a manner of living worthy of compassion. (Letter 188, VII)

The question of what the church fathers meant by the phrase is a bit different, but the context of the above quotes should be helpful in that regard.


How do schisms in the church fit into the plans of a monotheistic God? Before 1054 a reasonable claim could be made that there existed "one holy catholic and apostolic Church", as the Nicene Creed puts it.  Since then, the visible church has divided into at least three strands, if not many more.

Given ongoing efforts to reconcile the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox branches, I assume that each believes that schism does not serve God's greater purpose.  (Feel free to provide an answer if I'm wrong or miss some nuance, however.)  Many Protestants believe that both the Western and Eastern churches are wrong or at least misguided to the extent that they are no longer the one true church.

But many Protestants, myself included, believe that the invisible church is infused within all the traditions of the church.  We hold that while some traditions (notably our own) are more faithful to Jesus' original call, all Christian traditions that cling to the ancient creeds will be represented in the Resurrection at the end of this world.  But if so, what good purpose could there be for schisms, sects, denominations, synods, conferences, and offshoots?  Isn't the acceptance of organizations that proclaim theology antithetical to what we know to be true more a product of postmodernism than anything found in the Bible?

N.B.: This question serves the purpose of devil's advocate for the May blog topic: What is the church?  I have a number of ideas about how to answer the question, but I'd like to have my beliefs tested before I publish them to a broader audience.

Short Answer: Schisms in the church are the result of sin. However, God can use even the schisms to serve His purposes, by making a distinction between those who are walking according to His ways and those who are not.

First, it is important to distinguish between "the church" and "all the churches".  (Compare 1 Timothy 3:15 and Romans 16:16 - same Greek word.)

"The" Church

In one sense, there is one church, comprised of all believers.  Amongst believers, we should strive for unity, which means walking in humility, patience, tolerance, etc.

  [I, Paul] implore you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling with which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, showing tolerance for one another in love, being diligent to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit . . . one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father -Ephesians 4:1-6

The implication is that if there is not unity, it is due to sin.  (See also Matthew 5:23-24.)

Local Churches

Believers gather together in local assemblies, which are referred to as "churches" in the Bible.  For various reasons, local churches tend to take on unique personalities.  (e.g. Revelation 2-3)  However, the principle is the same - be of like mind.  (2 Corinthians 13:11, Philippians 1:27, 2:2)

  Now I exhort you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all agree and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be made complete in the same mind and in the same judgment. -1 Corinthians 1:10

Reality

Unfortunately, divisions are a reality.  This wasn't something Martin Luther brought into the church... consider the following division between the ministries of Paul and Barnabas:

  Barnabas wanted to take John, called Mark, along with them also. But Paul kept insisting that they should not take him along . . . And there occurred such a sharp disagreement that they separated from one another -Acts 15:37-39

The Root of the Problem

It is an unpopular message, but scripture teaches us clearly what the reason for division is.  Divisions are the result of a person (or assembly) becoming worldly, devoid of the Spirit, following after their own lusts:

  'In the last time there will be mockers, following after their own ungodly lusts.' These are the ones who cause divisions, worldly-minded, devoid of the Spirit. But you, beloved, building yourselves up on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Spirit, keep yourselves in the love of God -Jude 1:18-21

In contrast to these wicked men, believers are instructed to walk by faith, pray in the Spirit, and remain in the love of God.

Redemptive Purpose

God doesn't desire divisions amongst His people, but if a person (or assembly) becomes worldly, lustful, etc. sometimes it is necessary for a separation to take place.

  I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people; I did not at all mean with the immoral people of this world . . . for then you would have to go out of the world. But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person . . . For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church? . . . REMOVE THE WICKED MAN FROM AMONG YOURSELVES."  -1 Corinthians 5:9-13

Of course, Luther believed the Catholic Church had become so corrupt in his day that he needed to separate from them.  The Catholic Church responded with excommunication. In other words, the "two groups" felt they had irreconcilable differences in doctrine, and one or both sides were unwilling to continue in fellowship together.

But God can even work through situations caused by the evil motives of men, and work it all out for the good of His people (Genesis 50:20, Romans 8:28.)  There is even a redemptive purpose which God can work through divisions - He can use the divisions to shed light on who is following in His ways and who isn't.

  when you come together as a church, I hear that divisions exist among you . . . there must . . . be factions among you, so that those who are approved may become evident among you. -1 Corinthians 11:18-19


Do Lutherans now consider the followers of Zwingli and Calvin to be their brothers in Christ? Do Lutherans now consider the followers of Zwingli and Calvin to be their brothers in Christ and members of the Body of Christ?

From here I found out that Luther did not believe that Zwingli was saved. What about the followers of Luther in these days? Do they consider Calvinists and Zwinglinists as their brothers in Christ?

Unsurprisingly, the answer differs based on which Lutheran you ask.

For example, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, which is by far the largest Lutheran denomination in the United States practices open communion by which any baptized Christian is welcome to celebrate the Eucharist with them.  In fact, for the last twenty years, the ELCA has had a formal relationship of full communion with the Presbyterian Church USA and Reformed Church in America, respectively the first- and third-largest Calvinist churches in the United States.  However, neither the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod nor the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod do so.  Both groups limit communion to their own members or to members of churches found to be in full doctrinal agreement with their beliefs, a requirement that necessarily excludes Calvinists.


What is the current Vatican's position on the Council of Constance (regarding John Wycliffe) in 1415? Wikipedia documents the following which occurred after the death (from a stroke) of John Wycliffe in 1384, at the age of 64 :

  The Council of Constance declared Wycliffe a heretic on 4 May 1415, and banned his writings, effectively both excommunicating him retroactively and making him an early forerunner of Protestantism. The Council decreed that Wycliffe's works should be burned and his body remains removed from consecrated ground. This order, confirmed by Pope Martin V, was carried out in 1428.[24] Wycliffe's corpse was exhumed and burned and the ashes cast into the River Swift, which flows through Lutterworth.

What is the current Vatican's position on the digging up of Wycliffe's body and its being burned ? And why did the Council require this ? Was it to prevent John Wycliffe from arising from the dead in the resurrection ?

Regarding the Council of Constance in Switzerland, this is what I gleaned from an article by Caroline T. Marshall in the Lion History of Christianity (published 1997). She was writing about Jan Hus, who was ordained as a Catholic priest in 1401:

  "His case was referred to Rome. In 1415 Hus attended the Council of
  Constance in order to defend his beliefs... The Hussites, especially
  after the execution of Jan Hus at the Council in 1415, held that all
  Christians should receive both bread and wine. The Council prohibited
  it. Wyclif was condemned for heresy by the Council in 1415, and his
  body disinterred from holy ground in 1427." (pages 330-331)

  Page 339 adds, "The two most troublesome movements [to the papacy]
  were those instigated by Hus and by Wyclif, whose followers came to be
  called Lollards. By the end of the Middle Ages they had come to attack
  the very foundations of the medieval hierarchy, including the papacy
  itself."

Another history book, "The Pilgrim Church" by E.H. Broadbent (Pickering Classic first published 1931, quoting from the 1985 edition page 124) notes,

  "Another object of the Council was to combat the teachings associated
  with the names of Wycliff and Hus... But, in spite of the Imperial
  promise, [Huss] was seized and cast into a foul dungeon on in island
  in the lake. To justify this action the Council promulgated a solemn
  decree (1415), claimed as a decision given by the Holy Spirit and
  infallible, for ever binding, that the Church is not bound to keep
  faith with a heretic... After a solemn service of degradation, Huss
  was burned."

I looked to a modern-day Catholic source to see if any mellowing of attitudes to such matters has occurred. In The Encyclopedia of Theology edited by Karl Rhaner (published 1981) it was written under the heading of 'Heresy I. Canon Law' that only a baptized Catholic who 'contumaciously denies or doubts a truth which ought to be adopted by virtue of divine or Catholic faith' can be called a heretic (page 604). It must be noted that Jan Hus was an ordained Catholic priest, and Wyclif was the best Catholic scholar in Oxford, and who considered preaching to be the most important duty of the clergy. He was a preacher. Both were accused of heresy.

Yet there have been changes in attitudes to heretics in more recent times. It further says on page 605,

  "Vatican II avoided completely the words heresy and heretic. The
  decrees speak only of separated non-Catholic Christians or of
  separated brothers. In view of the Directorium Oecumenicum it may be
  assumed that the notion of heresy and heretic have changed since
  Vatican II. The view upheld by Augustine that those who are born
  (Christians) outside the Catholic Church are not to be spoken of as
  heretics seems to be prevailing once more. Hence the only heretics
  would be those who deliberately departed from the doctrine of the
  Church of Jesus Christ, and these would then be subject to the
  penalties of canon law."

It seems clear from that that Hus and Wyclif are still viewed as heretics by the Catholic church for there was no retraction regarding their attacks on the foundational authority of the papacy. On page 608 Rhaner mentioned some ancient groups, but not the Lollards. He said, "The Church learns to know more clearly its own truth by hearing and rejecting contradiction of its own truth, and of its growing self-understanding."

The simple question that requires answering is this - Has the Catholic church changed its self-understanding of the authority of the papacy to come closer to that stated by Hus and Wyclif, or vice versa? The answer is, 'No. There has been no change in either stance regarding the authority of the papacy.' That is my answer to your main question.

As for your secondary questions about Catholic views regarding exhuming Wyclif's body in 1428 (44 years after his death), I can only point to a comment to your question, questioning details of the event. The exhumation itself is not denied. However, history records that at Lutterworth Church, around the grave, in the chancel, was Chichele, Archbishop of Canterbury, and Bishop Fleming of Lincoln, plus other dignitaries and clerics. The source I cite below adds that Wyclif's coffin was carried on the shoulders of men through the chancel, down the winding road to the River Swift. A fire was then kindled on the bridge; the bones of Wyclif were taken out of the coffin and flung into it. They were reduced to ashes which were then cast into the River Swift. Thomas Fuller, 'The Church History of Britain: From the Birth of Jesus Christ until the Year MDCXLVII, 3 vols. (London, England: Thomas Tegg and Son, 1837), 1.493


Why the word "REgenerate" according to the Calvinist? I've search in the internet :

  RE- a prefix, occurring originally in loanwords from Latin, used with
  the meaning “again” or “again and again” to indicate repetition, or
  with the meaning “back” or “backward” to indicate withdrawal or
  backward motion: regenerate; refurbish; retype; retrace; revert.

I mean, if it's Adam or Eve - it's easier to understand as it's still logical to think that Adam / Eve was generated at the first time of their existence. So, after they sin, the word regenerated make sense ---> for example : God generate Eve again.... or God generate Eve back to her condition before.

But what about for other people, who were created under the power of original sin and spiritually dead? Why is it still "REgeneration" for them, according to Calvinism?

As Calvinism became mature, the meaning of regeneration became more specific: what God does to produce spiritual life in a spiritually dead person.  This is to be distinguished from the person's contribution to the whole process of conversion.  Calvinism teaches Total Depravity, meaning that a person is spiritually dead at birth (because of original sin) and consequently do not have the ability to make a decision for faith in Jesus before God performs this regeneration act.  The act is usually preceded by Calling (see Calvinist ordo salutis), which is best likened to Jesus calling Lazarus from the dead.  In this restricted sense, we may wonder why the term is not simply "generation".

But when we survey the theological history of regeneration prior to Calvinism,  regeneration was usually linked to baptism, and that is why the term baptismal regeneration is common in other denominations (see wikipedia).  Baptism clearly implies being reborn: we die to our old self and God resurrects us to the new life.  As we participated in Adam to die spiritually, we participated in Jesus to be resurrected.  With this linkage, the term "regeneration" makes sense.

For scriptural support, theologians cite what Jesus taught Nicodemus of needing to be "born again" in John 3:3-8, as well as what Paul taught in Titus 3:5 which links being born again with baptism.  In Titus 3:5 the word used is palingenesia which originally means re-creation (see wikipedia), which is then translated in theological literature to the Latin word regenerationem from which came the English word "regeneration".


In Matthew 26:63-64, does the high priest think that the Messiah is Son of God? Matthew 26:63-64 NIV:

  The high priest said to him, “I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Messiah, the Son of God.” “You have said so,” Jesus replied.

So do Jews believe that the Messiah is to be the Son of God or is it a later Christian invention?

Jews tend to think that christians commit idolatry. However, merely believing that Jesus is the messiah is not idolatry. Rabbi Akiva did that too to someone else.

The question is about the idea whether messiah is the Son of God or not. If even the high priest, and Peter, believed that, then it'll be very interesting. Peter, a jew, also equated Son of God with Messiah when Jesus asked "Who do you think I am?"

This question is not about divinity of Jesus. That will be a different question. The question is whether the idea that messiah is a Son of God (perhaps in some lesser sense) originate out of judaism.

Several Second Temple documents — and not just the Christian tradition — reflect the hope that God will re-establish the Israelite monarchy. This was often based on the promises God makes to David in 2 Sam 7, which state that his son Solomon:

Will build the Temple.
Will become God's son.
Will have a throne established forever.

This makes excellent sense of the fact that the High Priest, in the passage you are asking about, moves directly from questions about Jesus's relationship to the Temple to a question about whether Jesus is God's son: both questions were attempts to determine whether Jesus saw himself as a fulfillment of 2 Sam 7. So when the High Priest asked if Jesus was God's son, he meant, “do you think God has adopted you as a son to rule over his people Israel, like he adopted Solomon as his son?”


What is the basis for the Swedenborgian view that the most common concept of God in Christianity (the Trinity) is a belief in three gods? The vast bulk of Christian denominations, representing the overwhelming majority of Christians, subscribe to the doctrine of the Trinity, which, boiled down to its essence, is "one God in three Divine Persons."

Non-Christian monotheists such as Jews and Muslims sometimes charge Christians with believing in three gods (a form of polytheism) based on this trinitarian doctrine.

However, even within Christianity, at least one group, the Swedenborgians, views trinitarianism as a belief in three gods, or tritheism.

What is the basis for the Swedenborgian view that the Trinity of Persons is a belief in three gods?

Though Swedenborgians generally don't put much focus on charging mainstream, trinitarian Christians with tritheism, a rejection of the Trinity of Persons is key to Swedenborgian doctrine. A key part of that rejection is that the traditional doctrine of the Trinity is viewed as being a belief in three gods rather than in one God, and therefore as being polytheistic rather than monotheistic. Strict monotheism is central to Swedenborgian faith and worship. Anything that conflicts with or endangers full, strict monotheism is therefore rejected.
The basis for the Swedenborgian view that the traditional Trinity of Persons is a belief in three gods rather than in one God is as follows:
Here is a quote from the Athanasian Creed, which is accepted as authoritative by the vast bulk of Christians and Christian denominations, showing that the situation is more complex than simply saying that the Trinity is one God:

For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity; to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord; So are we forbidden by the catholic religion; to say, There are three Gods, or three Lords. (Source: Athanasian Creed, from Wikipedia)

This statement perfectly encapsulates the fundamental contradiction in the doctrine of the Trinity, and the reason why every Christian theologian who expounds on it admits that it is a mystery that cannot be understood by the human mind, but that must nevertheless be believed.
The practical reality is that in thinking of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit each as distinct "persons" of God, the mind of the believer inevitably thinks of them as three different beings. This is tantamount to thinking of three gods, no matter how vigorously the believer says "one God" with the lips. Each person of God is given a distinct role, and they are conceptualized as interacting with one another as distinct personalities.
To illustrate this picture of three gods in the minds of those who believe in the Trinity, in Christian artwork the Trinity is commonly pictured as three distinct beings. In Western Christianity, most commonly the Father is pictured as an old bearded man, the Son as a young bearded man (often on the cross or associated with the cross), and the Holy Spirit as a dove. For example:

Holy Trinity, fresco by Luca Rossetti da Orta
In Eastern Christianity, artwork depicting the Trinity often simply has three human figures. For example:

Trinity (Andrei Rublev)
Clearly, though the lips are saying "one," the mind is thinking "three." But as the Athanasian Creed says, the church forbids the faithful from saying, "There are three Gods." Therefore faithful Christian trinitarians will always say, "There is one God."
Here is how Emanuel Swedenborg (1688-1772), whose theology is accepted in the various Swedenborgian denominations, articulates this contradiction between what the mind is thinking and what the lips are saying, based on the Athanasian Creed. This is from Swedenborg's True Christianity, #172:

At a conceptual level, the idea of a trinity of divine persons from eternity (meaning before the world was created) is a trinity of gods. This idea is impossible to wipe out just by orally confessing one God. The following words in the Athanasian Creed make it very obvious that a trinity of divine persons from eternity is a trinity of gods:

The Father is one person, the Son another, and the Holy Spirit another. The Father is God and Lord, the Son is God and Lord, and the Holy Spirit is God and Lord. Nevertheless there are not three gods and lords; there is one God and Lord. Just as Christian truth compels us to confess each person individually as God and Lord, so the catholic religion forbids us to say three gods or three lords.

This creed has been accepted by the entire Christian church as ecumenical or universal. Today everything known and acknowledged about God comes from it. Those who took part in the Council of Nicaea that gave birth to this posthumous child called the Athanasian Creed had no other concept of the Trinity except a trinity of gods, as any can see who merely keep their eyes open as they read it. Since then they have not been the only people thinking in terms of a trinity of gods; the Christian world thinks in terms of no other Trinity because its whole concept of God comes from that creed and everyone now lives in a faith based on those words.
I submit it as a challenge to everyone—both laity and clergy, laureled professors and doctors as well as consecrated bishops and archbishops, even cardinals robed in scarlet and in fact the Roman pope himself—that the Christian world nowadays thinks of no other Trinity except a trinity of gods. You should all examine yourselves and then speak on the basis of the images in your mind.
The words of this creed—the universally accepted teaching about God—make it as clear and obvious as water in a crystal bowl. For example, the creed says that there are three persons, each of whom is God and Lord. It also says that because of Christian truth, people ought to confess or acknowledge that each person is individually God and Lord, but that the catholic or Christian religion or faith forbids us to say three gods or lords. This would mean that truth and religion, or truth and faith, are not the same thing; they are at odds with each other.
The writers of the creed added the point that there is one God and Lord, not three gods and lords, so that they would not be exposed to ridicule before the whole world. Who would not laugh at three gods? On the other hand, though, anyone can see the contradiction in the phrase they added.

Certainly, due to the insistence of the Bible and the church that there is one God, Christians who believe in the Trinity will always and emphatically say that there is one God.
However, the Swedenborgian view is that no matter how many times this is said, the concept in the minds of those who believe in the Trinity is of three divine beings. This amounts to thinking of God as three gods, regardless of any abstract metaphysical statements about their being "one in essence," and regardless of the continually repeated statement that the three are one God.


How many times Jesus was montioned in both of Holy Bible and Holy Quran? Is there someone here give me the number of citations of Jesus in the original version of the Holy Bible ? I say to you in the Holy Quran He is mentioned 32 times and we have a Surah called Merry which means Meriam in Arabic language  Mother of Jesus ? Is there the same in the Holy Bible ?

Note: Am afraid that the number of citations of Jesus in Holy Quran is greater than its citation in the Holy Bible

Edit I have edited the question without changing its meaning such that I want exactly the number of citation in the original Holy Bible not in the corrupted version.

In order to avoid arguments about corrupted versions and exactly what consistutues a mention of Jesus, let us cut straight to key point. You write:

  I am afraid that the number of citations of Jesus in Holy Quran Greater than its citation in Holy Bible

That is unquestionably not true

Four books of the Bible (the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) are life stories of Jesus, and talk about virtually nothing else. They are called the "Gospels" and make up about 82400 words. That is more words than there are in the Quran.

Another 23 books of the Bible talk extensively about Jesus. They, together with the Gospels, make up what is called the "New Testament". They have a total of around 100,000 words.

The number of explicit mentions of Jesus in the Bible (not counting ones where one of his titles is used instead of his name) is about a thousand, more than twenty times the number in the Quran.

The amount of the Holy Bible talking about Jesus is much more than the entirety of the Quran. This is unsurprising. Jesus is the Central figure of the Christian scriptures and the Christian religion. "Christian" comes from "Christ", which is a title of Jesus.


Was Arianism spread using musical jingles? I found an interesting claim in Bruce Shelley's Church History in Plain Language, regarding Arius's methods of promoting his theology, Arianism:

  [Arius] put ideas into jingles, which set to simple tunes like a radio commercial, were soon being sung by the dock-workers, the street-hawkers, and the schoolchildren of the city. (107)

Shelley doesn't provide a citation, so I wonder what his basis is.  How do we know that Arius used "jingles" or "simple tunes" to promote Arianism?  How do we know that they were popular among these particular groups of people?

The source appears to be mostly St. Athanasius, who was a deacon in Alexandria at the time the Arian controversy broke out (and later the bishop of the same see). He writes in his Discourses Against the Arians (Discourse 1, Chapter 1, 4)

  For of the one [i.e., a certain Sotades, who apparently wrote songs] has Arius imitated the dissolute and effeminate tone, in writing Thaliae [The Banquets, songs that Arius wrote so as to be sung at banquets]; on his model; and the other [i.e. the daughter of Herodias] he has rivalled in her dance.

and

  Who, after abandoning the oracles of divine Scripture, call Arius's Thaliae; a new wisdom? And with reason too, for they are announcing a new heresy. And hence a man may marvel, that, whereas many have written many treatises and abundant homilies upon the Old Testament and the New, yet in none of them is a Thalia found; nay nor among the more respectable of the Gentiles, but among those only who sing such strains over their cups, amid cheers and jokes, when men are merry, that the rest may laugh; till this marvellous Arius, taking no grave pattern, and ignorant even of what is respectable, while he stole largely from other heresies, would be original in the ludicrous, with none but Sotades for his rival. For what beseemed him more, when he would dance forth against the Saviour, than to throw his wretched words of irreligion into dissolute and loose metres?

So, it seems that Arius composed songs that sailors could easily remember. (It is to be recalled that Alexandria was a major port city.) This seems to be the reason that Arianism spread so quickly, whereas previous heresies had remained largely contained in local areas.


Where does the Bible support the idea of church budgets, for those traditions that think it does? Most churches work under a budget system, and have meetings every year to discuss this. What are their Biblical justifications for doing so?

Since of the Bible doesn't have a direct reference/listing of budgets, I believe the idea would come from teaching throughout.

Everything from Joseph's wisdom

  Genesis 41:35-37
  They should collect all the food of these good years that are coming and store up the grain under the authority of Pharaoh, to be kept in the cities for food. This food should be held in reserve for the country, to be used during the seven years of famine that will come upon Egypt, so that the country may not be ruined by the famine.”

  The plan seemed good to Pharaoh and to all his officials.

To the Temple tax

  Exodus 30:13-15
  Each one who crosses over to those already counted is to give a half shekel, according to the sanctuary shekel, which weighs twenty gerahs. This half shekel is an offering to the Lord. All who cross over, those twenty years old or more, are to give an offering to the Lord. The rich are not to give more than a half shekel and the poor are not to give less when you make the offering to the Lord to atone for your lives.

The tithe

  Exodus 23:19
  “Bring the best of the firstfruits of your soil to the house of the Lord your God...

The teaching of Jesus

  Luke 16:10-11
  “Whoever can be trusted with very little can also be trusted with much, and whoever is dishonest with very little will also be dishonest with much. So if you have not been trustworthy in handling worldly wealth, who will trust you with true riches?

  Luke 14:28
  “Suppose one of you wants to build a tower. Will he not first sit down and estimate the cost to see if he has enough money to complete it?

  Luke 14:31
  “Or suppose a king is about to go to war against another king. Will he not first sit down and consider whether he is able with ten thousand men to oppose the one coming against him with twenty thousand?

And Paul

  1 Corinthians 4:2
  Moreover it is required in stewards, that a man be found faithful.

And many more.

So, I would submit that managing what we have been given wisely, which is what a budget is, is very biblical.


When did the teaching that salvation can still be obtained by people after their physical death first appear in Christianity? Since the time canon was formed, when did the teaching that salvation can still be obtained by people after their physical death first appear in Christianity?

The idea shows up very early on, dating back to apostolic times.  We see Paul talking about baptisms on behalf of the dead (1 Corinthians 15:29) as if it were a familiar, non-controversial practice, and in Peter tells how Christ went to preach to "the spirits in prison" while he was dead, (1 Peter 3:18-20) and saying that they were sinners who had been disobedient in their lives.  So it's safe to say that the concept has been around since the beginning of Christianity.


Does Catholic Church have any dogma about homosexuality? Does Catholic Church have any dogma about homosexuality? I have not heard nor found any.
One is tempted to make the comparison with the "conditional nature of the private property rights" that are expressed, e.g. in https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20201003_enciclica-fratelli-tutti.html article 120. There is no dogma about the private property rights (AFAIK), there is strong Church teaching on the conditional nature, but nevertheless, there are attempts to question this conditionality.
I am not aware of any official (*.va) list of all dogmas, but there is one non-official list http://www.traditionalcatholicpriest.com/2015/09/19/a-list-of-the-dogmas-of-the-catholic-church/ and it has 2 dogmas for marriage.

The First Vatican Council established that the pope is infallible when,

by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals [de fide vel moribus] to be held by the universal Church

(source: "What is meant by “faith and morals” with regards to papal infallibility?")
Now, Pope Pius XI, discussing the abuse of matrimony in Casti Connubii, 31 Dec. 1930, reiterated longstanding Catholic teaching* that the primary purpose of the sexual organs is procreation of children, and anything against this (e.g., sodomy, contraception, etc.) is a sin against nature and intrinsically evil (Denzinger 2239):

But surely no reason, not even the gravest, can bring it about that what is intrinsically against nature becomes in accord with nature, and honorable. Since, moreover, the conjugal act by its very nature is destined for the generating of offspring, those who in the exercise of it deliberately deprive it of its natural force and power, act contrary to nature, and do something that is shameful and intrinsically bad.

*cf. Romans 1:26-27, that "men with men working that which is filthy" "is against nature" and "the natural use of the women"
His condemnation of contraception in that same encyclical is also infallible dogma pertaining to morals; cf. the "De moribus" section of this answer.

There is no dogma about the private property rights

It is a defined dogma that Jesus and the apostles possessed private property:Pope John XXII Cum inter nonnullos 13 Nov. 1323 on the poverty of Christ (Denzinger 494):

[…] to affirm persistently that our Redeemer and Lord Jesus Christ and His apostles did not possess anything either in particular or even in common […] we […] declare […] shall henceforth be branded as erroneous and heretical, since it expressly contradicts Sacred Scripture, which in many passages asserts that they did have some possessions […]

And they had rights to the use, selling, or donating of said property:

Moreover, […] to affirm persistently that the right to use these same possessions which Sacred Scripture testifies that they had was by no means appropriate to our aforesaid Redeemer and His apostles, and that they did not have the right to sell or to donate them or to acquire others by means of them, which, nevertheless, Sacred Scripture testifies that they did […] is wicked, contrary to Sacred Scripture, and to Catholic doctrine about the use, actions, or deeds on the part of our Redeemer, the Son of God, we declare […] worthily branded as erroneous and heretical.


Are the requirements for attaining godhood in LDS teaching the same or different for every world? In my understanding of LDS teaching, both Jesus and Lucifer proposed plans of salvation to Elohim, and Jesus' plan was chosen.  As a result, some people on earth may attain godhood if they follow the gospel and obey its teachings to a high enough standard.

The idea that two plans of salvation were offered seems to indicate that there really was an option.  So, my question is whether or not the attainment of godhood is the same for all worlds or if the requirements could be vastly different from world to world.  Does each god have the option of creating his own requirements for his spiritual children to attain godhood themselves or is there, in reality, one universal gospel for all worlds and all gods?

The plan was put forth by Elohim and when it was understood that a Redeemer was needed to effect the plan it was then that his Beloved and First born Son responded, "Here am I, send me"...

There never was an option.

"Come, Know the Lord Jesus"  McConkie, General Conference, April 1977


According to the LDS Church, what is the purpose or result of proxy baptisms for those who have already died? I understand that one of the main works that an LDS member is encouraged to perform is proxy baptism, that is, a baptism on behalf of their ancestors or others who have already died.  Another question asked what the basis for this practice was.

However, I'm interested to know what impact or result is thought to be achieved by the proxy baptisms.  It seems that they could be performed for 1) people who were already Mormon, 2) people who were of a similar faith, 3) people of a different faith, 4) people of no faith at all, or even 5) people who were once Mormon but who rejected the Mormon faith who had already been baptized themselves at one point in time.

So, what does the proxy baptism achieve?  If someone is left out by an oversight or who had no children, does that person simply get deprived of something because they were overlooked?  I also wonder if proxy baptisms are made for children who die prior to birth, either by abortion or miscarriage.

So, again, what is the purpose or impact on those for whom proxy baptisms are made?

To understand the doctrine of baptism for the dead, it's necessary to first understand the doctrine of baptism, and the crucial role it plays in LDS theology.  Baptism is held to be essential for the salvation of everyone with the maturity to be capable of committing sin.  The fourth Article of Faith states:

  4 We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.

This is consistent with Acts chapter 2, in which, after hearing the Apostles' miraculous teachings:

  37 Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and
  said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren,
  what shall we do?

  38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you
  in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall
  receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

The same principle is found in Acts 19:

  1 And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul
  having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding
  certain disciples,

  2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye
  believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether
  there be any Holy Ghost.

  3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they
  said, Unto John's baptism.

  4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance,
  saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should
  come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.

  5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord
  Jesus.

  6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on
  them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

  7 And all the men were about twelve.

This poses a problem, though: if God wishes to have all men be saved and come to a knowledge of him (1 Timothy 2:3-4), and the principles of salvation require all to be baptized and receive the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands, then what of those who are incapable of meeting this requirement because they are no longer in possession of a physical body?  There have been many people who lived their entire lives and died without ever so much as hearing about Jesus Christ, because of where they lived.  Is it consistent with the idea of a loving God to place His children in such circumstances and then condemn them for it?

The doctrine of baptism for the dead by proxy (and also of the laying on of hands to confer the gift of the Holy Ghost, by proxy, which is part of the same process) is the resolution to this problem.  It allows Latter-Day Saints who can obtain proof that a certain person existed, and that they lived and died without receiving the benefits of the Gospel, to receive the ordinances of salvation on their behalf, by proxy.

The doctrine is that this allows (but does not compel) the departed to accept the work that has been done for them, and progress in their understanding of Gospel principles, which are being taught to them (1 Peter 4:6), that they might gain salvation alongside those who were able to accept the Gospel in the flesh.

So in response to the question above, these ordinances are not performed for people who were Mormon, but for people who lived and died without accepting the restored Gospel.  With regard to point #5, I'm not sure what the doctrine is on performing proxy work on behalf of people who chose to leave the church.  If anyone does know, feel free to edit it in here, with a citation.


Where are Gog and Magog located? Eze 38:2 Son of man, set thy face against Gog, the land of Magog, the chief prince of Meshech and Tubal, and prophesy against him

Which are the countries/locations mentioned here in this verse?
When I heard some sermon long back, the preacher was comparing it with some countries. What is the authenticity of that? What present day countries are where Gog and Mogag are/were/will be, and how can we verify this?

I am a professional archeologist.  Many end times aficionados believe that Magog represents Russia and that Russia will soon come to invade Israel.  However, the ancient Assyrians had dealings with Magog, which was also called Lydia, and their Court records clearly identify Magog and it is not Russia.  For decades Christians have been deceived and have been unwittingly deceiving others about who is to be involved in the prophesied invasion of Israel.  Russia has absolutely nothing to do with Magog and being the nation that will lead an invasion of Israel.

The Assyrian Royal Court dealt with each of these nations directly about 100 years before Ezekiel wrote, and their records are reliable, clear and detailed. These are the same records that are referred to in Ezra 4:15 and the same records used to verify the historical events written about in scripture from circa 800 B.C. to 400 B.C. These records represent the primary source on this subject as opposed to secondary sources which are often not based on facts and very often the product of mischief, bias or lack of study.

Any reference to Josephus is of no avail because historians and archeologists know from a multitude of written records, that the Greeks (such as Herodotus) did not call Magog the Scythians.  All of our earliest copies of Josephus come from eleventh century Monks and the passage that is often referred to is clearly a forgery for several reasons obvious to historians and archeologists who study the ancient Near East.

Please consider taking the time to read my report Debunking the Russia/War of Gog and Magog Myth on this important subject that recently appeared in the Christian Post Blogs on March 15, 2012. This report can also be found on my blog site for 2/9/12.


What is the signficance of the Prince of Persia delaying the Archangel Michael coming to Daniels aid? A writer on Rumor mill news .com recently posted the idea that the Prince of Persia is a substitute (Satanic) god that some Christians worship as God and become deluded in the process.  I cannot at this stage see any way to support this reasoning so I ask:  who exactly does the Prince of Persia represent in a spiritual sense today?  Is it a reference to a historical individual powerful enough to prevent the ongoing work of an archangel in history only, or is there a contemporary meaning also?

I have quoted this answer partly from St. Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theology (1, 113, 8) and the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible. For me" this makes sense.

I hope it may be of help:

  "Prince: An angel who has spiritual oversight and influence over an
  earthly nation. Reference is made in Daniel to the angelic patrons of
  Persia (10:13), Greece (10:20), and Israel (12:1). Jewish tradition
  traces this idea to the Greek LXX translation of Deut 32:8, which
  states that nations are divided "according to the number of the angels
  of God" (Deut 32:8 LXX). Christian tradition also teaches that God
  exercises his providential government over nations through the
  ministry of angels. They serve as helpers and protectors who are
  tasked with preserving some knowledge of God and his truth among those
  who are ignorant of supernatural revelation (e.g. St. Clement of
  Alexandria, Stromata 7, 2; St Basil, Against Eunomius 3, 1)."

  "On the contrary, It is written (Daniel 10:13): "The prince of the
  kingdom of the Persians resisted me one and twenty days." But this
  prince of the Persians was the angel deputed to the guardianship of
  the kingdom of the Persians. Therefore one good angel resists the
  others; and thus there is strife among them.

  I answer that, The raising of this question is occasioned by this
  passage of Daniel. Jerome explains it by saying that the prince of the
  kingdom of the Persians is the angel who opposed the setting free of
  the people of Israel, for whom Daniel was praying, his prayers being
  offered to God by Gabriel. And this resistance of his may have been
  caused by some prince of the demons having led the Jewish captives in
  Persia into sin; which sin was an impediment to the efficacy of the
  prayer which Daniel put up for that same people.

  But according to Gregory (Moral. xvii), the prince of the kingdom of
  Persia was a good angel appointed to the guardianship of that kingdom.
  To see therefore how one angel can be said to resist another, we must
  note that the Divine judgments in regard to various kingdoms and
  various men are executed by the angels. Now in their actions, the
  angels are ruled by the Divine decree. But it happens at times in
  various kingdoms or various men there are contrary merits or demerits,
  so that one of them is subject to or placed over another. As to what
  is the ordering of Divine wisdom on such matters, the angels cannot
  know it unless God reveal it to them: and so they need to consult
  Divine wisdom thereupon. Wherefore forasmuch as they consult the
  Divine will concerning various contrary and opposing merits, they are
  said to resist one another: not that their wills are in opposition,
  since they are all of one mind as to the fulfillment of the Divine
  decree; but that the things about which they seek knowledge are in
  opposition."

Kind regards, have a nice day!


Does Christianity provide the right elements for democracy? I understand that Christianity does not enforce any way of governing. And that democracy was invented by the Greeks before Jesus. But my question is this: Does Christianity teach the values for democracy to work?

As an example, the United States Declaration of Independence states that all humans have rights because they were created equal by God :

  We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. (source)

The idea of religious liberty has been defended from Calvin onwards.

Also the book of Acts contains examples that could be understood as democracy at work in the church. Acts 13 presents the whole church sending Paul and Barnabas.

Therefore are Christian values the reason democracy became a viable way of governing?

I tend to agree with Marc Gravell's answer on this, but I would like to add that I don't think that any religious influence or moral framework could make a true democracy work.  True democracy, history has shown, always degenerates into what Lord Acton described as "the tyranny of the majority" in which the rights of the minority get trampled by the opinion of the majority.

I'd also like to point out that the quote that you used was not intended by the founding fathers of the United States to support a democracy.  It was used to state that they felt that the government of Britain had trampled certain rights.

The idea of unalienable rights was an important part of providing the form of government that was eventually established here - not a democracy, but a Constitutional Republic with some democratic elements: A form of government in which the Constitution is the rule of law, and the protection of freedoms established in the Constitution were designed, specifically, to limit what the government is able to do, and thereby protect the country from the pitfalls of a true Democracy.

As Marc pointed out, The U.S. is now fractured and divided among many lines, which is, in my opinion, a result of the fact that we've lost sight of the fact that we're not a democracy.

People on all sides seem to have forgotten the fact that we're not a democracy, that might (whether in strength, or in numbers) doesn't make right, and that there's a reason we are supposed to have a limited government.  The fact that we've forgotten the idea of unalienable rights is allowing us to slip into the "tyranny of the Majority" and it's only the fact that both sides have approximately equal support that we're not there already.

Also agreeing with other's sentiments, Christianity itself is split among too many lines.  This site is a small representation of Christianity as a whole, but even among the Christians here we're split.  Even on this site, there is a concern about the tyranny of the majority, and I think it's a valid concern.

So, in summary, I believe the answer is "no".  Christianity might be able to provide some good moral foundations, and certain teachings that coincide with what's best in us, but no religion can form as the basis of a government.  I personally believe that the idea of unalienable rights, endowed by our Creator is a very good starting point, but that's something that could have come from other sources than Christianity.


Origin of the Reformed "Marks of the True Church" In Reformed Theology, "the marks of a true church" are often delineated, to the effect of:

Church discipline
Teaching/preaching
Administration of the sacraments

(These are the marks often denoted in systematic theology, but let it be noted that they are not intended to exclude other important marks such as suffering and love.)

A slightly altered formula is seen in Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 25 Of the Church, paragraph 4:

  This catholic Church hath been sometimes more, sometimes less visible. And particular Churches, which are members thereof, are more or less pure, according as the doctrine of the gospel is taught and embraced, ordinances administered, and public worship performed more or less purely in them.

I found something similar in Calvin's letter to Cardinal Sadoleto (available in Vol. III of Banner of Truth's Tracts and Letters Calvin volumes, and in a slim booklet edited by John Olin entitled A Reformation Debate, page 63):

  Since there are three things on which the safety of the Church is fonded, viz., doctrine, discipline, and the sacraments, and to these a fourth is added, viz., ceremonies, by which to exercise the people in offices of piety...

Calvin's letter of 1539 predates the Confession by a little over a hundred years, and is the earliest document that I have personally found this doctrine in. However, I find it unlikely that Calvin wrote any new doctrines in his letter to the Cardinal, so I'm wondering where the origin of this doctrine was.

Does Calvin have earlier writings on it? Did earlier Reformers such as Luther, Zwingli or Bucer discuss it? Were there pre-Reformation theologians who discussed it?

Calvin dedicates an entire Book of his Institutes (Book IV) to the Church, and Chapters 1-2 are about the "true church" in which he mentions the marks of a true church.

From 4.1.9:

  Wherever we see the word of God sincerely preached and heard, wherever
  we see the sacraments administered according to the institution of
  Christ, there we cannot have any doubt that the church of God has some
  existence, since his promise cannot fail,

    "Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them" (Matthew 18:20)

So here he lays out the first two points you mention - preaching and sacraments, but while he talks about discipline at length in 4.12 & 4.13, he doesn't include it in his "marks" in 4.1 and 4.2.

Since Calvin's Institutes were published in 1536, before the letter he mentioned, I suspect he had only recently begun to develop the marks in his mind. By the time he wrote the letter in 1539, he'd added the third mark.

However, I dug a little deeper and while browsing The Apostolic Fathers , a collection of letters and sermons by early church fathers, I found a document entitled The Didache, or The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles.  This is likely a composite document, pieced together by early church fathers, and the author is unknown, but it dates somewhere from A.D 50 to 300, so it's well before Calvin (and Augustine, assuming he had anything to say about it)

In Didache are three "marks" (though not declared as distinguishing points; they are given as instructions) of a church (emphasis mine):

  On the Lord's own day gather together and break bread and give
  thanks, having first confessed your sins so that your sacrifice may
  be pure. But let no one who has a quarrel with a companion join you
  until they have been reconciled, so that your sacrifice may not be
  defiled. For this is the sacrifice concerning which the Lord said, "In
  every place and time offer me a pure sacrifice, for I am a great king,
  says the Lord, and my name is marvelous among the nations" (Mal. 1:11,
  14)

  Therefore appoint for yourselves bishops and deacons worthy of the
  Lord, men who are humble and not avaricious and true and approved, for
  they too carry out for you the ministry of the prophets and
  teachers. You must not, therefore, despise them, for they are your
  honored men, along with the prophets and teachers.

  Furthermore, correct one another, not in anger but in peace, as
  you find in the Gospel; and if anyone wrongs his neighbor, let no one
  speak to him, nor let him hear a word from you, until he repents

The first paragraph, given the stipulation to repent sins before the sacrifice, seems to be talking about the Lord's Supper: sacraments.

The second paragraph speaks of establishing teachers: preaching the word.

The third paragraph gives instructions for how to treat a non-repentant sinner: discipline

Though it doesn't label them marks in so many words, I think this is the closest (and earliest) you'll find to the idea of the three distinguishing factors. I'm fairly certain, however, that Calvin was the one who called them "marks" first.

Ultimately, I think the general idea stems from Acts 2:42

  And they devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and fellowship,
  to the breaking of bread and the prayers.


Why is complete consent listed as a requirement for an act to be a mortal sin? What does the complete consent, when listed as a requirement for a mortal sin, mean?

Objection: It would seem that there are mortal sins without complete consent.

A woman goes to get an abortion because of fear from her husband.
Her consent is diminished because she does abortion through fear and therefore her act is not done with complete consent.
But still, her act is a mortal sin.

Therefore, it is would seem that complete consent is not a requirement for an act to be a mortal sin.

To be clear, the definition of the mortal sin (from CCC 1856):

  When the will sets itself upon something that is of its nature
  incompatible with the charity that orients man toward his ultimate
  end, then the sin is mortal by its very object . . . whether it
  contradicts the love of God, such as blasphemy or perjury, or the love
  of neighbor, such as homicide or adultery. . . . But when the sinner's
  will is set upon something that of its nature involves a disorder, but
  is not opposed to the love of God and neighbor, such as thoughtless
  chatter or immoderate laughter and the like, such sins are venial.

The objection is irrelevant.

A decision on a matter that serious does not happen in isolation.

  CCC 1857 For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met:
  "Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent."

Put in the vernacular: so ya knew it was wrong and ya did it anyway.

As to complete consent.

  1859 Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent.  It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God's law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice.

This answer assumes that the person in question is a practicing Catholic in full communion with the Church at the time of this choice.   Any other case is irrelevant to the technical question you have on the matter of consent of the will.

A brief summary from the Catechism.

  1874 To choose deliberately - that is, both knowing it and willing it something gravely contrary to the divine law and to the ultimate end of man is to commit a mortal sin.  This destroys in us the charity without which eternal beatitude is impossible. Unrepented, it brings eternal death.

The choice for an abortion that you provide in your example was not the only choice available.  Any assertion of coercion or fear as being sufficient grounds to mitigate the act of the will is unfounded (at least in part if not in full) since the doctrine of free will presumes agency on the part of the sinner.  Beyond that, as a member of the faith community, there is available the counsel of the pastor and assistance from the rest of the faith community.  Choosing not to seek pastoral counselling is hardly a mortal sin, but it's certainly an error in judgment.  (Errors in judgment provide fertile ground for sin.  Don't I know it.)

As to imputability

(Ref: Catholic Encyclopedia)

  When the cause produces a twofold effect, one of which is directly willed, the other indirectly, the effect which follows indirectly is morally imputable to the sinner when these three conditions are verified:
  first, the sinner must foresee at least confusedly the evil effects which follow on the cause he places;
  second, he must be able to refrain from placing the cause;
  third, he must be under the obligation of preventing the evil effect.

He's on the hook, as is she.

Beyond that, Jesus taught us: Be not afraid.

About the role of the will in Mortal Sin

From St Augustine:  (Reply to Faustus XXII.27)

  ... something said, done or desired contrary to the eternal law, or a thought, word, or deed contrary to the eternal law.  This is a definition of sin as it is a voluntary act.  (Catholic Encyclopedia)

Lastly: the condition of being in mortal sin is not permanent.

The sacrament of confession and reconciliation is in place to return the pennitant into communion with the Church.  The help's there, take advantage of it.

The edge case ~ suicide

In recent years, the Church seems to have adjusted its hard line on the suicide as a mortal sin.

  2282 If suicide is committed with the intention of setting an example,
  especially to the young, it also takes on the gravity of scandal.
  Voluntary co-operation in suicide is contrary to the moral law. Grave
  psychological disturbances, anguish, or grave fear of hardship,
  suffering, or torture can diminish the responsibility of the one
  committing suicide.

It's not a get out of jail free card, but it opens the possibility of mitigation, or a conclusion that the consent of the will was significantly impaired.  With that said, the Church then leaves the fate of the suicide in God's hands:

  2283 We should not despair of the eternal salvation of persons who
  have taken their own lives. By ways known to him alone, God can
  provide the opportunity for salutary repentance. the Church prays for
  persons who have taken their own lives.

The Church will not condone suicide, but it need not condemn the suicide as a reflex.  This leaves open the provision that, in the case of suicide, a defect of the will may overwrite "complete consent" or even sufficient consent.  (per CC 1859)


At what point did the Roman See start self-identifying as the Catholic Church? The Great (East-West) Schism was a massive trainwreck centuries in the making and centuries in its outworking. At what point in the process did the Roman see start identifying itself as the Catholic Church in exclusion to the Eastern Churches?

I'm not interested in what event caused this to theoretically happen, but when the Roman Church started using this particular terminology to refer exclusively to itself.

This is one of a number of related questions I intend to ask regarding the Great (East-West) Schism, terminology and self-identication of the resulting Churches.

The others so far:

How do the Eastern Orthodox view using the term 'catholic', particularly in regard to Roman Catholicism?
What is the Roman Catholic view on using the term 'orthodox', particularly in regard to Eastern Orthodoxy?
At what point did the Eastern Church start self-identifying as the Orthodox Church?

Interestingly enough, it was not until about 50 years ago in the Sixties that the Roman Catholic Church renamed itself as the Catholic Church.  We will get to that, but first here’s a summary background on church terminology as it changed over the centuries from “wherever Christ is” to the self-identified Catholic Church with the Pope at its head.  Early dates are estimates.

  •  110 CE catholic church wherever Christ Jesus is

  •  110 CE catholic church in Smyrna and everywhere

  •  150 CE church of God at XYZ city, like Rome or Corinth

  •  200 CE catholic church everywhere

  •  400 CE Roman Church self identifies

  •  Centuries of Roman Church and catholic church and Roman Catholic terminology

  •  1950 Roman Catholic Church last usage

  •  1965 Catholic Church (those in communion with the Pope) first usage

CATHOLIC ABOUT THE WHOLE

To expand on these changes, the first mention of catholic church is in the Ignatian letters written about 110 CE.  Catholic means “about the whole” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_(term).  This first grouping is from roughly 110 CE to about 160 CE.

  [Ignatius] The Church of God which sojourns at Smyrna, to the Church of God sojourning in Philomelium, and to all the congregations of the Holy and Catholic Church in every place:
  http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.iv.iv.html

  [Polycarp’s martyrdom] all the people wondered that there should be such a difference between the unbelievers and the elect, of whom this most admirable Polycarp was one, having in our own times been an apostolic and prophetic teacher, and bishop of the Catholic Church which is in Smyrna.
  http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.iv.iv.xvi.html

  [Ignatius] wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.
  http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.v.vii.viii.html

  [Clement’s epistle] The Church of God which sojourns at Rome, to the Church of God sojourning at Corinth,
  http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ii.ii.i.html

  [Polycarp’s epistle] Polycarp, and the presbyters with him, to the Church of God sojourning at Philippi
  http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.iv.ii.html

  Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church of God which is at Philippi
  http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.v.xvii.html

ALL BUT

About 50 years later, during the debate on the validity of the baptism by heretic question, the reiteration of the idea that the whole church is catholic remains.  Oddly, it is alleged that every church is catholic, but not the one led by Pope Stephen!

Cyprian’s council in which everyone claims to be the Catholic Church.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf05.iv.vi.i.html

  And yet on this account there is no departure at all from the peace and unity of the Catholic Church, such as Stephen [of Rome] has now dared to make;
  http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf05.iv.iv.lxxiv.html

ROMAN CHURCH and ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH

Roughly another 200 years later to circa 400 CE the church at Rome begins to identify as the Roman Church.

  Gregory, a servant of God, presbyter and abbot of the monastery of Saint Theodore in the province of Sicily constituted in the territory of Panormus, has given us to understand that men of the farm of Fulloniacus, which belongs to the holy Roman Church,
  http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf212.iii.v.i.viii.html

  Then follow four books which I [Augustine] wrote to Boniface, bishop of the Roman Church,
  http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf105.xviii.ii.html

For the next 1,300 years, we continue to find that idea of the church at Rome, excepting the Schism, as the Roman Church.  And then it begins to show up again as the Roman Catholic Church.  For example in 1870 at the Second Session of the First Vatican Council, the Roman church uses that moniker to refer to itself as part of the overall catholic church.

  I, Pius, bishop of the catholic church, with firm faith believe and profess each and every article contained in the profession of faith which the holy Roman church uses, namely:
  http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum20.htm

Finally, in 1943 referring to an earlier institute, we find the idea that the Roman Church is positioning itself as the Catholic Church.

  … finally "in order that a center of higher biblical studies might be established in Rome, which in the best way possible might promote the study of the Bible and all cognate sciences in accordance with the mind of the Catholic Church" he [Pope Pius X] founded the Pontifical Biblical Institute,
  http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12DIVIN.HTM

Moreover in 1951, we find the idea that the Catholic Church in Rome is the mother of all.

  With all the more reason, then, does the Catholic Church, most loving mother of all men, call on all her children to be zealous in helping these intrepid missionaries by their offerings, by prayer and by fostering missionary vocations.
  http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12EVANG.HTM

CATHOLIC CHURCH with POPE AT HEAD

In fairly quick succession, the idea continues and forms.  In 1964 the idea that Rome is the Catholic Church appears to be first clearly promulgated

  We beg the separated brethren to consider the inconsistency of this position, not only in that, without the Pope the Catholic Church would no longer be Catholic, but also because, without the supreme, efficacious and decisive pastoral office of Peter the unity of the Church of Christ would utterly collapse.
  http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Paul06/p6eccles.htm

Lastly, according to this Wikipedia article,

  The use of "Catholic Church" is usually preferred by the Holy See and most of its adherents. The last official magisterium document to use "Roman Catholic Church" was issued by Pope Pius XII in 1950.[14] "Catholic Church" was used by Pope Paul VI when signing the documents of the Second Vatican Council.[15] [held 1962-1965] This preference also usually appears on the website of the Holy See. In the Catechism of the Catholic Church, only "Catholic Church" is used.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_(term)

SUMMARY

In sum, it has taken centuries of semantics and positioning to move from the first identification that the Catholic Church is where Christ Jesus is and identified in their numerous cities to the distinguishing of the Roman Church from the Catholic Church and then to the Roman Catholic Church and finally to the recent self-identification that the Catholic Church is headquartered at Rome with those in communion with her head.


Why doesn't faith heal like it did when Jesus was alive? Aka, "yes-no-wait" Throughout the Gospels, people suffering various ailments would come to Jesus to ask for healing. Almost always, Jesus responds by (1) praising their faith and (2) healing the person.

Of course, many Christians today (particularly in non-Western culture) believe God still heals. But the "Sunday school" response to how God answers prayer (at least my Southern Baptist Sunday school as a kid) is with either "yes, no, or wait". That answer sounds reasonable, but was that ever Jesus's response when He walked the Earth? Or is this the only explanation for people who don't have "faith as small as a mustard seed" and thus "can't move mountains?"

This assumes that the request is in God's will, which I think is a safe assumption for healing (?).

Bottom line: As long as a request is (1) made by one with faith and (2) in God's will, doesn't God promise to deliver on it?

"This assumes that the request is in God's will, which I think is a safe assumption for healing (?)."

This is a safe assumption based on the life and works of Jesus.  Jesus is the exact representation of the Father and as such revealed the Father's will to heal in never refusing to heal someone who came to Him and never suggesting that someone needs to wait for their healing.

Bill Johnson expresses this idea like this:  "Jesus is perfect theology".

This "healed all who came to Him" experience is not unique to Jesus. In Acts 5 we read of the Apostles performing many signs and wonders ... then in v16 we have " Crowds gathered also from the towns around Jerusalem, bringing their sick and those tormented by impure spirits, and all of them were healed."   Also later in Acts we see Paul heal all on Malta.

It has been said that you can't pray a prayer of faith unless the will of God is known.  So, knowing that it is God's will to heal in a specific healing prayer situation is important. All the healing evangelists that I have read about have this issue sorted - they believe it is God's will.

A prayer that says: "If it be Your will heal Bert ... "  is not a prayer of faith.

There is another dimension to healing - as well as faith and God's will is the idea of authority.  When Jesus sent the 12 and the 72 He gave them authority (not faith) before He sent them. At the Great Commission Jesus says "All authority is given to Me. Go, therefore ...".

So to answer your question, with a little modification: yes - if there is faith (which comes from knowing God's will to heal) and prayer is made in the authority that a believer has then God promises to deliver.

All that said, one of the first times I saw God heal when I prayed for someone I was rehearsing in my mind what I would say to explain why they hadn't got healed - and then the healing came.  Where was the faith in that situation?  I have heard that John Wimber had a similar experience - after praying for about 1000 people he was praying for another and rehearsing how to explain why the prayer didn't work when the healing came. (Not that I'm comparing myself to Wimber).