Where did the Roman Catholic denomination in India originate, and why are there differences amongst Indian Christians? I would like to know from where Roman Catholic denomination originated. Why does we have many groups like CSI, Jacobites, Orthodox, Evangelist, etc? Is it because of the believes people divide among themselves?

If you're talking caste, I'm assuming your talking about the Christian caste in India. Within castes, there are denominational differences, which this answer will discuss.

Legend says that St. Thomas - one of the original 12 apostles -  made it to India in 52 AD.  That's the official origin story of Christianity in India.  The Christians of Nagaland and Assam, on the other hand, tend to come from the missionary efforts of Protestants in the 1800s.  They both originate from the same place and actually don't differ very much on key issues like salvation, the nature of God, and how one should live. Typically, they recognize each other as Christian.

In the intervening 1750 years, the biggest question that divided the two sects of Christians was the question of papal authority. In the 1500s, Martin Luther became the figurehead of what is often called the Protestant Reformation. There was fighting and war between them, too. He railed against corrupt practices of the Roman church that even the Roman Church today agrees were bad. Protestants basically said, there shouldn't be a Pope. Roman Catholics believe in apostolic succession and do.

That's your difference.

Within Catholicism, there are different "orders" of Christians - people like Jesuits, Benedictines, etc... who subscribe to slightly different rules about how one should practice, but these are almost entirely organizational matters, and they all are in theory in submission to the Bishop of Rome.

For a more comprehensive answer on Thomatic Christians, consult this article on Christianity in India. Note, the focus there will be on "Catholics" - which could mean Oriental Orthodox (e.g. Syriac and other Nestorian) or Roman churches. Oriental Orthodox branched off in 451 AD, mostly over Christology. When it comes to philosophically understanding how Jesus was fully God, fully man, these churches all rejected the consensus in the West.

This graphic in particular shows the denominational lineages:

Within Protestantism, there are different groups that also have different interpretations of communion, baptism and other rites - and most importantly they don't submit to any other earthly authority, but again, the differences aren't all that great in the grand scheme of things.


They will see but will remain blind There's a verse in the Quran saying that the unbelievers will always be unbelievers because they can see the miracles, but even in this case, they won't believe.

I'm pretty sure I already read that in Christian verses, but I can't find again where I saw that.

Something like, they will see, but their eyes will be blind, they will hear, but will remain deaf.

Where did I read something like that? Which verse or text?

Acts 28:27  (Matt 13:15 is almost identical)

  For the heart of this people is waxed gross, and their ears are dull
  of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they should see with
  their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart,
  and should be converted, and I should heal them.

Romans 11:8

  (According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of
  slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not
  hear;) unto this day.

Isaiah 6:9

  And he said, Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand
  not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not.

Deut. 29:4

  Yet the LORD hath not given you an heart to perceive, and eyes to see,
  and ears to hear, unto this day.


Why are the Vatican archives kept secret? Other than a few documents, most of the Vatican archives are kept secret from the public. What is the official explanation for this? As an outside observer, it seems like the secrecy might be to hide evidence for mistakes committed within the church, but I imagine the church would explain it differently.

"Secret" is probably about the worst possible translation I can think of for the original term. The "Archivio Segreto Vaticano" is the current term in Italian, as documented on the Archive's website. This translates the Latin "Archivium Secretum Vaticanum" (see for example the references here). Secretum in Latin, however, does not necessarily mean "secret". It can; but it can also mean "separate", "set apart", "private": see especially the II (β) entries in the Lewis & Short dictionary entry for the main verb form (secerno). The Archive itself, on its website, interprets segreto as meaning private, that is, personal to the Pope.
The documents themselves are not secret; they are indexed, with a publicly accessible index available in the Leo XIII index room, and documents in the index (organized by the man who was Pope at the time) are freely available for research by scholars, until (as it appears) the end of the papacy ending about 80 years ago; currently this allows access to documents issued in or before 1939, during the papacy of Pope Pius XI. (One can always speculate, of course, that there are deliberately un-indexed works present in the Archives which are indeed secret, in that there's no way for the public to request them; but I'm aware of no evidence that such might reasonably be the case.)
Pope St. John Paul II described the work of those staffing the Archivio Segreto as being fundamentally a public work, part of the overall work of the Vatican Library:

Your work is not confined to your efforts to preserve the books and manuscripts, the Acts of the Supreme Pontiffs and of the Offices of the Roman Curia, and to handing them on down the centuries, but above all it aims to make available to the Holy See and all the world's scholars the treasures of culture and art kept in the Archives and the Library. For this very reason it is also your duty to carry out attentive and detailed studies of these treasures, often with the help of other experts, so that they can be published with scholarly precision.
It is easy to understand the interest and care taken by my venerable Predecessors, especially in recent centuries, to create, promote and oversee the Apostolic Library, and later, as a fully-fledged branch of it, the Papal Archives. I am thinking of Nicholas V, Sixtus IV, Sixtus V, Paul V and many other Pontiffs, down to Leo XIII, who decided to open the Archives to scholarly research, and Pius XI, who was himself personally involved in this noble field of interest as Prefect of the Apostolic Library.

("Address to the Superiors and Staff of the Vatican Secret Archives and theVatican Apostolic Library", 15 January 1999; emphasis added)
There is no "secrecy", then, involved in the "secret archives" of the Vatican; all the documents are available from roughly before any living person's lifetime (and many since their lifetime; for example, all the Vatican's documents on the Second Vatican Council and on the Vatican's "Information Office on Prisoners of War" from World War II have been made public). The word "secret" is merely an unfortunate mistranslation.


What does "the old is better" mean in Luke 5:36–39? 36 "No one tears a piece out of a new garment to patch an old one... 37 No one puts New wine in old wineskins ...   39 no one wants the new ... THE OLD IS BETTER." (NIV)

What is this referring to?  Seems that Jesus is saying the old is better, but the OLD what?

Luke 5:33 is a reference to the past, in which we are told that Jewish tradition required frequent fasting:

  Luke 5:33: And they said unto him, Why do the disciples of John fast often, and make prayers, and likewise the disciples of the Pharisees; but thine eat and drink?

Then verses 34-35 takes us to the new, and to what is to come:

  Luke 5:34-35: And he said unto them, Can ye make the children of the bridechamber fast, while the bridegroom is with them? But the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken away from them, and then shall they fast in those days.

Finally, Jesus explains that the old does not belong with the new: the old must be discarded and. allegorically, new garments or new wine belong with the new. This teaches that the traditions and laws of the Old Testament will not be part of the Jesus' new Testament.

The earliest version of this parable is in Mark 2:21-22, which makes this point and then proceeds to another passage about the corn fields. However, Luke elaborates on the parable, before proceeding to the passage about the corn fields:

  Luke 5:37-39: And no man putteth new wine into old bottles; else the new wine will burst the bottles, and be spilled, and the bottles shall perish. But new wine must be put into new bottles; and both are preserved. No man also having drunk old wine straightway desireth new: for he saith, The old is better.

In verse 39, the author of Luke appears to demonstrate that he misunderstood the parable as it appears in Mark, saying "The old is better".  Joseph F. Mali (Two Sayings on the "New" and the "Old", page 263) discusses some differing views on why Luke makes this strange addition, with a general consensus that it is an ironic comment on the Jews, who reject the new gospel.


In what sense was Mary born without original sin in Roman Catholic dogma? Is the following quotation an accurate explanation of Roman Catholic dogma regarding Mary?

  The reason that Mary is “full of grace,” the Church has said, is because of Ephesians 1:3-6 (Redemptoris Mater, no. 7-11). Here is how John Henry Newman puts it:

    "Does not the objector consider that Eve was created, or born, without original sin? Why does not this shock him? Would he have been inclined to worship Eve in that first estate of hers? Why, then, Mary?

    "Does he [the objector] not believe that St. John Baptist had the grace of God—i.e., was regenerated, even before his birth? What do we believe of Mary, but that grace was given her at a still earlier period? All we say is, that grace was given her from the first moment of her existence.

    “We do not say that she did not owe her salvation to the death of her son.”"

(Source: Catholic Integral Complementarity, by Aimee Byrd)

The most authoritative explanation of the Immaculate Conception comes from Pope Pius IX's dogmatic definition of it in Ineffabilis Deus (1854):

  We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.

The answer to your question of "In what sense was she born without Original Sin?" is:

from "the first instance of her conception."


Was Paul ever accused of lying? I have always found it odd that Paul seems to have the need to emphasize the fact  that he isn't lying. It is almost like he is insecure about  his credibility. In Romans 3:7 he seems to imply that lying is acceptable if the glory of God is enhanced, I don't ever recall reading Jesus or any other Apostle having to lie to enhance the glory of God. Paul then wonders why someone might judge him as a sinner?

Ro. 9:1 I speak the truth in Christ — I am not lying,

1Ti. 2:7 And for this purpose I was appointed a herald and an apostle
— I am telling the truth, I am not lying — and a teacher of
the true faith to the Gentiles.

Ro. 3:7 Someone might argue, “If my falsehood enhances God’s
truthfulness and so increases his glory, why am I still
condemned as a sinner?”

My question is : Was Paul ever accused of lying directly or indirectly by someone?

For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
I speak the truth in Christ--I am not lying, my conscience confirms it in the Holy Spirit
rom 8:38-39 + rom 9:1

Paul is making a big claim, and is answering in his own head, "How can I claim such a thing?" And he is not appealing to scripture for this conviction, but
only to the Holy Spirit and his conscience. He is not saying he knows this to be true in a flash, like a revelation, but over time has become convinced of its truth.
Paul uses similar language in regard to women speaking in the
church.

"I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent"
1 Tim 2:12

Paul is not allowing something.  Elsewhere Paul says

"To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband."
1 Cor 7:10

Paul is saying he personally has authority as an apostle to give
guidance in the present situation.
Paul is not Jesus, and the guidance or views need to be balanced.
He says some were teaching from bad motives, and so where lying.

"For the appeal we make does not spring from error or impure motives, nor are we trying to trick you."
1 Thess 2:3
"It is true that some preach Christ out of envy and rivalry, but others out of goodwill."
Phil 1:15

So Paul's reference to "lying" is in the context of other teachers
who he would say are false teachers, which he would distinguish
himself from.


How would Mormon christology be classified? Is Mormon christology Trinitarian in the sense of seeing Jesus as having always existed? Or is it Arian as seeing him as the first being created by God and used as the agent in creation of everything else? Is it adoptionist in viewing Jesus as being born a mere man and exalted or "deified" at some later point?  Or is it a type of Sabelianism (i.e. Jesus being a man but with the Father dwelling in him)?  Does it accept him as the Platonic logos?

None of the above, Mormon christology is Mormonism.

Although this wikipedia article names The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints as a modern Christian group which may be seen as espousing some of the principles of Arianism.

Latter-day Saints believe God the Eternal Father to be our literal father in Heaven, the father of the spirits of all mankind, just as literally as our fathers on earth are the fathers of our bodies. Jesus Christ is the eldest spirit child of our father in heaven, and only begotten in the flesh, chosen before the creation of the universe to be the saviour and redeemer of all mankind.

Below is an excerpt from chapter 4 of the LDS Sunday school doctrines of the gospel student manual.

  Jesus Christ, the Son of God

  Jesus Christ is literally the son of God the Eternal Father.

  Jesus Christ is the firstborn spirit son of God (see D&C 93:21; Colossians 1:13–15; Hebrews 1:5–6).
  Jesus Christ is the only begotten son of God in the flesh (see JST, John 1:1, 13–14; 1 Nephi 11:14–22; Jacob 4:5, 11;
  Alma 5:48; D&C 20:21; 76:22–24).

  Jesus Christ is a being of glory, might, and majesty.

  Jesus Christ has a resurrected body of flesh and bones (see D&C 130:22; Luke 24:36–39; 3 Nephi 11:12–15).
  Jesus Christ possesses all power in heaven and on earth (see D&C 93:17; 100:1; Matthew 28:18; 1 Peter 3:21–22).
  Jesus Christ possesses a fulness of the perfection, attributes, and glory of the Father (see 3 Nephi 12:48; D&C 38:1–3;
  Colossians 1:19; 2:9–10; D&C 93:4, 12–17).
  Jesus Christ is the light and the life of the world (see D&C 88:5–13; 93:2, 9; John 1:4; 8:12; 3
  Nephi 9:18).


Are Christians supposed to suffer? Consider the following scriptures:

  James 1:2 Count it all joy, my brothers, when you meet trials of various kinds, 3 for you know that the testing of your faith produces steadfastness. 4 And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.

  Hebrews 11:24 By faith Moses, when he was grown up, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter, 25 choosing rather to be mistreated with the people of God than to enjoy the fleeting pleasures of sin. 26 He considered the reproach of Christ greater wealth than the treasures of Egypt, for he was looking to the reward.

  Matthew 5:11 “Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. 12 Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

I could add more to the list, but the point is probably clear enough in these. In many cases, the Bible seems to expect that not only will Christians suffer, but that we need to be suffering.

During the NT period Christians were  "stoned, they were sawn in two, they were killed with the sword. They went about in skins of sheep and goats, destitute, afflicted, mistreated." We know it was a time of persecution - but was that merely descriptive and written for them, or is it perspective, meaning that if one is living an authentic Christian life, we should be expecting these things? Is it accurate to suggest that a wealthy Christian living a life of ease is circumventing the prescribed ordered?

In other words, looking at the whole of Scripture* is it accurate to say that a Christian who is not or has not been experiencing trials, persecution, and other sorts of things that can be called "Suffering," is not actually experiencing the Christian life? Specifically, are there other portions of Scripture I am not properly taking into account, or doctrinal perspectives that would be highly resitant to this claim?

*A good answer to this question would reference other Scripture to either support this as a standard "across the Bible" kind of thing, or present Scripture that would seem to be in opposition. Specifically, I am looking to see if this statement is fairly consistent across Scripture, or if, perhaps, I have qutoed these out of context.  I also would like to know what doctrinal perspectives would be resistant to this.

Yes...

A majority of Christian traditions recognize on some level that we will and even must suffer. The author and perfecter of our faith was hung on a tree. As his followers, we can expect pretty much more of the same.

  1 Peter 4:12-14 (ESV)
  12  Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery trial when it comes upon you to test you, as though something strange were happening to you. 13  But rejoice insofar as you share Christ's sufferings, that you may also rejoice and be glad when his glory is revealed. 14  If you are insulted for the name of Christ, you are blessed, because the Spirit of glory and of God rests upon you.

In fact if you comb through the rest of Scripture you will find a huge amount of material covering not only how to deal with suffering, but more warning to expect it and even detailed analysis of how it helps us.

The view that current suffering is a necessary part of our Christian walk in so far as it is aspect of how we are united with our Savior is particularly emphasized in the Reformed tradition. More generic Evangelicals also tend to hold generally to the idea that suffering is not without purpose but see it as so much of a requirement so much as probability.

There's a wrong way to do it...

For every truth, there is a perversion. The obvious perversion of a "yes" answer here is the idea of needing to go out and find trouble. Some flog themselves, others stick their necks out on issues that do not further the cause of the Gospel just because they know it will garner a reaction and bring on the suffering. Although I am caricaturizing, these fallacies often require nuanced rebuttals to show how they are bringing trouble on themselves in a way that isn't what Scripture would direct us to even if it promises that trouble will come and is even for our good.

We aren't told to seek suffering for suffering's sake, we're told to seek the Kingdom and how to respond to suffering when it does come.

There are those who say "No"...

A relatively modern movement, but one that has actually popped it's head up a few times before, is the idea of what is sometimes labeled "health and wealth" gospel. They build a case on excerpted passages that God doesn't want his children to suffer and the only reason we do is our own weakness/lack of faith/etc. You generally won't find espousers of this view even acknowledge verses such as the ones in your question at all.


Who were Agur and Lemuel? The book of Proverbs lists different authors.  Some are given names (Like Solomon - Proverbs 1:1) while some have no names like "Sayings of the Wise (Proverbs 22:17, 24:23).  We also read in Proverbs 25:1 that more proverbs were added to the book, copied over by King Hezekiah (300 years after Solomon).  What I am most interested in though - are the two other names added as authors.  Augur (Proverbs 30:1) and King Lemuel of Massa (Proverbs 31:1 - who is actually just repeating what his mom told him.).  Who were these people; Augur and Lemuel?  Note, the best website explaining King Lemuel I found was from an article by Dr. Claude Mariottini.

Would love more insight, ideas, connections.

Agur was a compiler (not the actual Sacred Author) of part of the collection of Proverbs in the book of Proverbs, which forms part of the Old Testament. His contribution to this book is mainly in Chapter 30 of the book. His name could suggest that he is free from earthly transgressions. It could also mean 'He who understood the will of the Lord'.

Lemuel is only mentioned in Chapter 31 of the book of Proverbs, as a King of Israel, most probably referring to King Solomon, son of King David. Still, there is no clear evidence of this. The meaning of his name in Hebrew suggests the he was the one who "belongs to God". This could imply that he was a Spiritual leader, and not an actual king of the Jews, but this remains pure speculation. Some modern studies have also linked Lemuel to the King of Assyria.


Why should a sinner suffer forever in hell fire? In my little knowledge I believe any form of punishment is a way of curbing crimes or wrong doings and for others to learn not to do wrong. When this life ends some would be in heaven and the rest in hell fire as punishment for their wrong doings.

My question is why should there be punishment forever since there is no one to learn from these people any more and they cannot even repent? Why not just annihilate them and be remembered no more?

What am I missing? Is my understanding of punishment different? How does Christian doctrine approach the issue of the duration of hell? What purpose do they see it serving that makes it an eternal necessity? What basis do they cite for their understanding?

I immediately thought of C.S. Lewis' "The Great Divorce" upon reading this question. In the book, he puts forth the idea that separation from God is what sinners desire, and God gives them what they desire. I did some digging and found this blog (written by Bird) on the topic:

"The idea of Hell being something of a choice for the damned fits hand-in-glove with the idea represented by C. S. Lewis who said that the damned souls are in some sense successful rebels to the end, and, as Lewis' character George MacDonald says in The Great Divorce,

  "There are two types of people in the world. Those who say to God,
  'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, in the end, 'Thy will
  be done.'"

I'll end with another Keller quotation from...(The Reason For God):

  "All God does in the end with people is give them what they most want,
  including freedom from himself. What could be more fair than that?"

Source: "Hope all things about your brethren"


Is the Trinity, particularly Jesus, considered Homoousios in spirit only or also in matter? Is the Trinity considered Homoousios in spirit only or also in matter?  We are taught that matter cannot be created nor destroyed.  That would be a problem if Jesus was Homoousios physically.

The Bible specifically reveals God as spirit, that is, not physical (John 4:23).  So, Jesus took on flesh (the physical dimension), but this was something new.  God--the Father, Son, and Spirit0--exist outside of the physical universe.  God created the physical universe, so He cannot be inside the physical universe.

So, no, Jesus took on flesh, but neither the Father nor the Spirit did so.

It should also be noted that the law that states matter can be neither created nor destroyed is a natural law and applies to natural things.  Obviously, when God created the heavens and the earth, matter was created.  This was done supernaturally.  So, we have to make sure we apply natural laws only to natural processes and not force them upon God.  Jesus certainly was not bound by natural law when He fed the 5,000, raised the dead, healed the blind and many other things.


What Place was Jesus going to prepare In John 14 Jesus tells the disciples that he was going to prepare a place for them. Isn't it that heaven was already founded from creation?  So, what place was he referring to? Was this just a figure of speech?

Technically, I don't know of any place in the Bible that says that the saved go to Heaven when they die. It says they go to "paradise", that they go to be "with Jesus", etc, but I don't know any verse that says this is Heaven. Exactly what the place where the saved go is called is not entirely clear.

Perhaps the place that Jesus went to prepare is the New Jerusalem of Revelation.

Or if it is the same Heaven mentioned throughout the Bible, this would not really cause a problem with this verse. To "prepare" a place does not necessarily mean that you are creating it from nothing. He might have meant that he was preparing Heaven to receive the saved. Like someone might say, "Oh, I have to get home to prepare the house for the party tonight." They don't mean that they're building a new house, but that they are going to decorate their existing house, arrange furniture, put out clean towels, etc.


Are all confessions protected from being used in criminal court as evidence against someone? Catholic doctrine and law prohibit a Catholic priest from testifying in criminal court against someone, solely on the basis of a 'heard' confession: there is never an instance when a priest can divulge information received through confession. My question is: are there other denominations which have this codified in there canons or laws? Catholic priests are trained to respond in a short and sweet answer when pressed by police or prosecutors to divulge confessional information - even if that information could prevent a new crime; "We are in the business of saving souls, not lives."

To my knowledge the Catholic Church is the only denomination to reject mandatory reporting laws. Most Protestant churches now strongly emphasise training related to child safety and disclosures, and anyone confessing sexual abuse crimes will be told that those they are confessing to have a civil duty to report the confession to police. Most Protestants would probably also believe they have a moral duty to report these confessions. I know less about the Orthodox churches, but I did see that the Orthodox Church in America also accepts mandatory reporting laws.

Where the crimes confessed are not of a child abuse or sexual nature mandatory reporting usually does not apply, and other laws may protect or require the confidentiality of confessions. But the fact that mandatory reporting laws are accepted is enough to answer your question: no, other denominations do not protect all confessions.

And just personally, I do not think the Catholic Church's argument is remotely convincing. Of course we are in the business of saving souls. Most of the time being made to face civil justice is a good thing for someone's spirituality. The church should not intentionally be standing in the way of that.


What parts of Protestantism accept that there are some on earth who 'smite the earth with plagues' till the end of time (Revelation 11:6)? And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth. These are the two olive trees, and the two candlesticks standing before the God of the earth. And if any man will hurt them, fire proceedeth out of their mouth, and devoureth their enemies: and if any man will hurt them, he must in this manner be killed. These have power to shut heaven, that it rain not in the days of their prophecy: and have power over waters to turn them to blood, and to smite the earth with all plagues, as often as they will.
[Revelation 11:3-5, KJV]

This passage makes reference to Moses turning the waters of Egypt to blood, to Elijah deliberately praying for an extensive three and a half year long drought in the Mediterranean region and to Elijah also calling down fire from heaven to consume troops of soldiers sent by a king to apprehend him.
What parts of Protestantism accept that such men still walk the earth, perhaps not in every generation, but from century to century and that these 'have power ... to smite the earth with plagues' ?
And what parts of Protestantism accept that such men will continue to be seen to the end of time, since their duration is 1,260 days which is three and an half years ( or 'weeks' in the prophetic aspect) and since that length of time prophetically indicates the duration of the Church Age from the ascension of Christ until his triumphant return ?

When it comes to interpreting Revelation in general, and those 4 verses in particular, I consulted a book where the Protestant author classifies 4 main ‘types’ of interpretation. He explains what he means by those ‘types’ at the start of his book, summarized on the cover jacket as: “PRETERISM: most prophecies were fulfilled during the time of the Roman empire.  HISTORICIST: the prophecies have been fulfilled throughout history and are still being fulfilled today.   FUTURIST: most prophecies are yet to be fulfilled.  SPIRITUAL (or Symbolic or Idealist): most prophecies portray ongoing cosmic conflict of spiritual realities and may have many fulfilments throughout history.”

For the various Christian authors he quotes and their sources, please consult the book “Revelation – Four Views – A Parallel Commentary” edited by Steve Gregg, page xiii (Nelson, 1997).  My compilation comes from pages 226 to 233. But as it really is the Futurist and Spiritual interpretation groups of Protestants who hold largely (though not entirely) to the views you ask about, I will only state some of their views.  If you would like to have similar notes I compiled on the other two groups, please just let me know and I will e-mail them to you.

“The Futurist” view taken by Walvoord claims that the 1,260 days of verse 3 says that as “the two witnesses pour out divine judgments upon the earth and need divine protection lest they be killed, it implies that they are in the latter half of the seven years when awful persecution will afflict the people of God… The punishments and judgments the witnesses inflict on the world also seem to fit better in the great tribulation period.”  Others with that general view (Lindsey, Morris and Ryrie) differ regarding the time period, thinking it is the first one, adding that it seems to be the coming of the beast onto the scene in power that terminates their witness.

Most Futurists take the 2 witnesses to be actual men who will arise to prophesy in Jerusalem in the Tribulation.  Some think they will be Moses and Elijah themselves.  Others think that it is Elijah and Enoch (the view of the earliest apocryphal writers and the early exegetes of the church, a view shared by modern writer Henry Morris.)  On the other hand, Mounce writes, “It seems more likely… that they are not two individuals but a symbol of the witnessing church in the last tumultuous days before the end of the age.”

Others think that two individuals are the principal interpretation of the expression, but also leave room for the possibility of including a larger group of witnesses in the picture, including Gaebelein: “Perhaps the leaders would be two great instruments, manifesting the spirit of Moses and Elijah, endowed with supernatural power, but a larger number of witnesses is unquestionably in view here.”  Ladd takes this approach as well, allowing that Possibly there is a blending of the symbolic and the specific in the passage. He believes the witnesses to be two “actual historical eschatological personages who will be sent to Israel to bring about her conversion.” He elaborates that the two witnesses may indeed represent the witness of the church to Israel throughout the age. This witness, however, will be consummated in the end time by the appearance of two Christian prophets, who will come in the spirit of Moses and Elijah, even as John the Baptist came in the spirit of Elijah.

This is apparently Ironside’s position as summarized by Charles Ryrie thus, “…this much is certain (1) They are persons, for all the other times that the word ‘witness’ is used in the NT it is used of persons. They are not movements or powers, but individual persons. (2) It is also certain that they are not named in the text, and this writer feels that the case should be left there. These are two exceptional witnesses raised up by God during the Tribulation and preserved by Him until their ministry is completed.” Walvoord comes to a position similar to Ryrie: “It seems far preferable to regard these two witnesses as two prophets who will be raised up from among those who turn to Christ in the time following the rapture.”

“The Spiritual” view holds that the two witnesses represent the witnessing church throughout its entire career. Hendriksen says, “These witnesses symbolize the Church militant bearing testimony through its ministers and missionaries throughout the present dispensation.”  Regarding the miracles, Leon Morris writes, “God’s servants in the new dispensation have just as great resources as did Moses and Elijah in the old.” The deadly fire pictures those setting out to destroy them being undone.  Lenski writes that “the word in the mouth of the Lord’s prophet-witnesses may be scorned but it is not an empty sound. Its judgments are fire that devours its enemies.” The failure of Julian the Apostate to reimpose paganism in the ‘christianized’ Roman Empire is cited as an example.

I have not sorted out any particular denominations these various authors belong to, and it might be fair to say that within all the denominations they represent, there will be some people with differing views.


What is life in Heaven going to be like? How is life going to be once you get to Heaven?

ie: What activities are you going to perform every day, for all eternity?

I am interested in responses that are backed up by verses from the Bible, of course.

(question inspired by this video: Why Would Anyone Want To Go To Heaven?)

I'm reminded of the story of two twins inside a mother's womb.  They are discussing what things might be like on the other side of "birth".  One wonders if there really is a "Mom".  Neither can conceive of what life will be like, though, since neither has ever been there.  They've heard that it's a painful trip, but that there's a wonderful world of adventure and excitement beyond their wildest dreams just waiting for them.  After birth, they find that what they were told was, indeed, true.

There are parallels as we discuss what things could be like after "death".  We know it may be a painful trip, and we read of wonderful things on the other side.  Some may wonder if there really is a "God".  However, none of us can really perceive what heaven will be like.

Still, we are told a few things in the Scriptures.

We will reign with Christ (2 Timothy 2:12)
We will have eternal pleasures (Psalm 16:11)
We will have eternal possessions (Matthew 6:19-21)
We will live in perfect communion and relationship with God, no longer separated (1 Thessalonians 4:17)

To be sure, the effects of the Fall will be destroyed as well.

No more death (1 Corinthians 15:26)
No more tears (Revelation 21:4)
No more shame (2 Corinthians 5:1-4)

So, eternal pleasures (beauty and joy), possessions (joint heirs with Christ), prominence (a kingdom of priests, sons and daughters of the King).

Finally, "No eye has seen, no ear has heard, no mind has conceived what God has prepared for those who love him."  1 Corinthians 2:9


Do any Protestant groups teach that Paul founded the Church and not Peter? I have always been told that Peter was the head of the entire Church at the time of Christ.  However, James was apparently leader of the Church in Jerusalem, and Paul started a number of churches outside the Holy Land. Who is considered to be the first leader of the Church established by Jesus according to the various Protestant denominations?

Protestants do not recognize the necessity of a single worldwide leader other than Christ. So it is not as if Peter is dethroned so that Paul can take his place. Both are recognized as important leaders, but not one over the other.

An example of this thinking can be found from John Calvin in the Institutes. In Book 4, Chapter 6, he writes:

  And yet, in truth, none can solve this question better than
     Scripture, if we compare all the passages in which it shows what office
     and power Peter held among the apostles, how he acted among them, how
     he was received by them (Acts 15:7). Run over all these passages, and
     the utmost you will find is, that Peter was one of twelve, their equal
     and colleague, not their master. He indeed brings the matter before the
     council when anything is to be done, and advises as to what is
     necessary, but he, at the same time, listens to the others, not only
     conceding to them an opportunity of expressing their sentiments, but
     allowing them to decide; and when they have decided, he follows and
     obeys. [...]

After a number of scriptural examples, Calvin concludes:

  All these things make it manifest, either that
     there was an equality between Paul and Peter, or, at least, that Peter
     had no more authority over the rest than they had over him. This point,
     as I have said, Paul handles professedly, in order that no one might
     give a preference over him, in respect of apostleship, to Peter or
     John, who were colleagues, not masters.


What is the basis for anointing of physical objects and who practices this? It's been a tradition of my family and friends to anoint a home with oil when a family moves in.  I understand the significance of praying and dedicating the space as God's, used for His purposes and will - and my interpretation of anointing has mostly been along the lines of prayer in this manor.

However is there a biblical reason or basis for the practice of anointing a physical object? Were does this originate and what Christian traditions practice it?

Anointing an object certainly appears in the Bible, and is part of ancient Jewish practice:

Then the Lord said to Moses, ‘Take the following fine spices: 500 shekels of liquid myrrh, half as much (that is, 250 shekels) of fragrant cinnamon, 250 shekels of fragrant calamus, 500 shekels of cassia – all according to the sanctuary shekel – and a hin of olive oil. Make these into a sacred anointing oil, a fragrant blend, the work of a perfumer. It will be the sacred anointing oil. Then use it to anoint the tent of meeting, the ark of the covenant law, the table and all its articles, the lampstand and its accessories, the altar of incense, the altar of burnt offering and all its utensils, and the basin with its stand. You shall consecrate them so they will be most holy, and whatever touches them will be holy.
Exodus 30:22–29 [NIV]

It's also part of the Catholic liturgy for consecrating an altar Reference. The oil of chrism which is used is a fragrant oil rather like that described in Exodus.
However this use of oil is part of the consecration, the setting-apart, of the object to God's use. The objects would not be put to any other use whatsoever. Whether a house is set apart in quite the same way may be open to question, and most house-blessings (such as the one I was involved with recently) would involve sprinkling1 holy water.

1 Sprinkling is a technical term, which refers to splashing water around with a brush or some sort of shaker. It's not usually a delicate operation!


Why are there so many translations of the Bible? It seems confusing to have so many translations of the Bible.  Why isn't there just a single (English) one?  Or maybe a single "modern" one (given that KJV is hard to understand these days).

Being a speaker of a minority language, I can state one good reason and many -- well, not so good ones.
The good reason
Language changes. In some languages, you only have different Bible translations for this reason: the translations are temporally spaced maybe a hundred years apart.
Look at 2 Timothy 2:15 in different English translations:

The Wycliffe Bible, 1395
Bisili kepe to yyue thi silf a preued preisable werkman to God, with oute schame, riytli tretinge the word of treuthe.
Tyndale New Testament, 1526
Study to shewe thy silfe laudable vnto god a workman yt nedeth not to be a shamed dividynge the worde of trueth iustly
King James Version, 1611
Studie to shewe thy selfe approued vnto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly diuiding the word of trueth.
King James Version, 1769
Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
Young's Literal Translation, 1862
be diligent to present thyself approved to God -- a workman irreproachable, rightly dividing the word of the truth;
The New American Standard Bible, 1995
Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth.

It's quite necessary to renew the Bible translation time to time, so that people can understand it. The 1769 KJV is still quite understandable for the most part, but the reasons are cultural. The huge popularity of the KJV has kept its language alive.
The not-so-good reasons
Translation philosophy
There are other reasons, which vary from good to bad in different instances. First, there are the different translation philosophies already discussed in another question -- this amounts to multiple reasons.  Note that there are benefits to having different types of translations.
Doctrinal reasons
Then there are the doctrinal reasons -- in my opinion, bad reasons. I'll show just one example, the New World Translation's take on John 8:58.

New World Translation
Jesus said to them: “Most truly I say to YOU, Before Abraham came into existence, I have been.”
New American Standard Bible
Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am."

Looking at other English translations of John 8:58, every one of them translates the end as "I am." Looking at an interlinear version, one can be quite sure that the NWT translates the passage on a purely doctrinal basis.

What's very interesting is that the Watchtower Society has an interlinear of their own, and even that translates the phrase as "I am" while also showing the NWT "I have been":

The bad reason turned good reason
If the NWT was the only available translation in English, it would almost force a new translation to be made. Take a bunch of errors such as the one shown above, and the translation gets too unreliable.
Of course, the errors need not be especially crafted to suit some doctrine; they can be made of ignorance, disbelief in the original, etc. First translations in a new language (e.g. what the Wycliffe Bible Translators are doing) almost necessarily contain errors, as many needed terms are very hard to find for a non-native speaker. Whatever the reasons are, a large amount of errors is a good reason to create a new translation.


How novel is John Paul II's theology of the family as "ecclesia domestica"? The Second Vatican Council wrote in Lumen gentium 11 (English, Latin):

The family is, so to speak, the domestic church. In it parents should, by their word and example, be the first preachers of the faith to their children; they should encourage them in the vocation which is proper to each of them, fostering with special care vocation to a sacred state.
In hac velut Ecclesia domestica parentes verbo et exemplo sint pro filiis suis primi fidei praecones, et vocationem unicuique propriam, sacram vero peculiari cura, foveant oportet.

In The Splendor of Faith: The Theological Vision of Pope John Paul II (Crossroad, 1999; 2nd ed. 2003), Cardinal Avery Dulles writes (p146 of the 2003 edition, which I have read only on Google snippet view):

John Paul II has frequently repeated the term ecclesia domestica without adding the qualifier veluti ("as it were") used by the council.

Dulles' cited examples are Catechesi tradendae 68 (1979), Familiaris consortio 49-52 (1981), and Evangelium vitae 92 (1995). John Paul II's homily Expedit ut laborem (26 Sept 1980) also speaks of the family's place as "ecclesiola" seu ecclesia domestica; and his statement in Familiaris consortio 21 that

The Christian family constitutes a specific revelation and realization of ecclesial communion, and for this reason too it can and should be called "the domestic Church."

can now be found in the Catechism (s. 2204). A footnote in FC refers to Lumen gentium and to Paul VI's Apostolicam actuositatem 11 (1965) - which says that the family fulfils its mission "if it appears as the domestic sanctuary of the Church" (my emphasis; the Latin is tamquam domesticum sanctuarium Ecclesiae se exhibeat).
It's not hard to find bundles of sources for the family being a good thing, and support for its special role in education. But it seems, especially in FC, that John Paul II gives the family a theologically elevated position, as an explicit Church-in-miniature, and that this is a novel development - whereas previous authorities used the phrase more cautiously. Is this actually novel? I would be interested in finding earlier (pre-Council) sources for this theology, or alternatively an explanation of how it differs from prior explanations of the ecclesial role of the family.
(I should say that I don't have a problem with novelty, so this isn't intended to be a criticism! I'm just interested in the history of the idea.)

Please consider this only the start of an answer, I don't know too much about it and the Internet isn't much help.

My wife and I participated in a Marriage Encounter Weekend, part of Worldwide Marriage Encounter (WWME) this weekend and it was mentioned the idea of "Little Churches". In the back of the booklet there was a timeline that gave the progression of events that led to the creation of the WWME community.

It's very beginning is traced back to the conferences given by Spanish Priest, Fr. Gabriel Calvo starting in 1952 as part of the "Marriage teams of Pope Pius XII".

There was a teaching, which for your benefit although it made me sound like a know-it-all doorknob Catholic. I specifically asked one of the facilitators about one of the ideas in the weekend called "Little Churches", where it is specifically mentioned, although not attributed to any pope or council, the idea that the family is a little church.  I asked him if it came from John Paul II, and he said yeah, the Theology of the Body has a lot to do with the ideas WWME incorporates into the presentations (although certainly not explicitly), but the Little Church idea was present in his first encounter, which was 30 years ago.

So, that doesn't particularly help since the time-line puts it at the same time.  But I'd be hard-pressed to assume that particular theological point (as pertinent was it is) would get incorporated into WWME that quickly, which was clearly a product of the 1960's.  I almost think the Pope was more influenced by them than the other way around!


What is the biblical basis for a one world religion in the end times? I was just reading about eschatology and somebody was stating that this verse suggests that there will be a one world religion, a false religion:

  Revelation 17:1–18 (ESV)

  1 Then one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls came and said
  to me, “Come, I will show you the judgment of the great prostitute who
  is seated on many waters, 2 with whom the kings of the earth have
  committed sexual immorality ...

Where is support for this concept found in other scriptures?

There's a lot of discussion and debate about this especially due to the nature of the end-time prophecies, but one verse that does back a one world religion at least implicitly.

  Rev 13:8

  And all the people who belong to this world worshiped the beast. They
  are the ones whose names were not written in the Book of Life before
  the world was made—the Book that belongs to the Lamb who was
  slaughtered

If everyone is worshiping the "beast" then in essence the religion is the same, whether it is actually one religion or not.


Have there been such an attempt made to make the comprehensive list of all New Testament scrolls ever found? Have there been any attempts made to make a comprehensive list of all scrolls or pieces of scrolls of the New Testament (in original languages) that have ever been discovered by archeologists?

For the New Testament, yes. Though Wikipedia may not be a "scholarly" source I find it good for this sort of thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_manuscript#Listings

Also, in at least the UBS and NA, there is a list of manuscripts used to compile the "Greek New Testament." I think that the BHS contains something somewhat similar for the Hebrew Bible.


How do the Personal Ordinariates differ from Anglicanism? In 2009 Pope Benedict published an Apostolic Constitution called Anglicanorum Coetibus providing for the creation of Personal Ordinariates  for Anglicans who wished to join the Roman Catholic Church.

This, it says, was to maintain the liturgical, spiritual and pastoral tradition of the Anglican Communion within the Catholic Church as a precious gift ... a treasure to be shared.

As far as I know there are now three of these Personal Ordinariates, one for Great Britain, one for North America and one for Australia and Japan.

In 1906 when some members of the Russian Orthodox Church formed an Eastern Rite
church, the Russian Greek Catholic Church, and asked Pope Pius IX what they needed to change in their Rite he said "nec plus, nec minus, nec altera" -  add nothing, subtract nothing, change nothing.

I understand that a different approach was adopted with the Anglican (ex-Angllican?) Ordinarates than with the Eastern Rite Churches, but how does the doctrine or practice differ in the Ordinariates from in the Church of England (for example)? What has been added, what has been taken away and what has been changed?

(I have looked at the Ordinariate website and can't find anything specific.)

In terms of what has been added, subtracted or changed: either “not a great deal” or “a huge amount”.
What has happened is that members of the Anglican Church have been received into the Catholic Church and become Catholic. That means that they have subscribed to the entirety of the doctrine of the Church, including the Real Presence and other things that Protestants might find difficult such as the dogmata concerning the Virgin Mary.
In most cases, those who left the Church of England would have believed all those things anyway, so not much has changed pragmatically. In all cases, they are believing them in a Catholic context, so a huge amount has changed: not least that if the Eucharist is the Real Presence now, what was it then?
This is the principal reason why “Anglican Ordinariate” is an egregious misnomer. We are not Anglicans, and the Ordinariate is not an extension of the Anglican Church; it’s not an exclave of Anglicanism within the Catholic Church. We are Catholic, and the Ordinariates are Catholic.
In terms of externals, because the Ordinariates were formed from the “high” end of the Church of England, on the whole, you will generally find in Ordinariate worship compared to diocesan Catholics a higher level of ceremonial and greater use of music (and more participation in congregational singing). The Ordinariates’ founding documents stipulate a greater lay involvement in governance than in diocesan parishes. The Anglican ethos of caring for the soul of everyone in a territorial parish seems to be more to the fore than in diocesan parishes, where the focus is more [but certainly not exclusively] on the congregation. These are all the “treasures to be shared” that the founding documents mention.
To turn to specifics, the Ordinariates now have their own Missal as part of a planned series of worship books called Divine Worship; the Missal bears the title Divine Worship: The Missal*. It’s very similar to the 1662 Book of Common Prayer and the American prayer books, particularly those of the Pastoral Provision. Needless to say, it doesn’t contain the Protestant material introduced by Cranmer — but the Mass does have a large number of Cranmerisms, including the confession. In my case, we use it three times a week and even sing Merbecke on Sundays.
The Ordinariates were enjoined to be distinctive but not isolated; to integrate without becoming assimilated. Drawing on the “distinctive patrimony” was one method by which that could be achieved, and there was debate about what patrimony actually meant, especially in practice. The general conclusion is that it means heritage, and there is an enormous amount of heritage on which to draw, especially as what has come to us via the Reformation draws on earlier liturgy and practice. That pre-Reformation heritage is now available to the Catholic Church in three forms: the strand that has come through the Second Vatican Council; the “Extraordinary” strand which came through the counter-Reformation of the Council of Trent and culminated in the Missal of 1962; and the strand which preserved certain aspects differently, within the Anglican Church. What the Anglican Church rejected has often been restored; what it added to express its protestantism has been removed.
I wrote a blog post in 2016.

Needless to say, Divine Worship: The Missal is the treasury at the centre of the worship and liturgy in the Ordinariate. It unites us with the Church of the earliest English saints and it draws on the work of past liturgists in which the Holy Spirit can be discerned. The language, the structure and the options available show the heritage of our Mass and, despite what people may think are its roots, how it is firmly set in the Western Rite of the Church, just as the English Uses of Sarum, York and the others were before it.
Perhaps we are fortunate that the Reformation liturgists faithfully translated a great deal of the Latin they inherited. While the defective form of the Communion service had to be corrected — and this was attempted even within the Church of England well before Series Two in 1965 — the resonant words they created have served Christians in this land and others well for 450 years, and continue to do so.
But it is absolutely necessary not to wallow in the past! Many of the Ordinariate may remember Series Two, Merbecke and Shaw, and many diocesan Catholics will remember the Interim Rite, but this isn’t an exercise in comfortable nostalgia. Every celebration of the Eucharist is a re-creation of the Sacrifice of the Mass: Christ’s One Sacrifice united through space, time and eternity for all believers. Although modern language is certainly easily understood and relevant to today, using language which is out of time can help to show the eternal too. It is the calling of the Church to teach the unchanging Faith anew to every generation, and the Use we have been given for the celebration of the Mass is — perhaps counter-intuitively — a Fresh Expression of worship.

* That link shows the small edition suitable for the bookshelf in the study. There is a huge altar edition as well and a middle-size one too. All are identical in content, including the colour illustrations. There’s a People’s Edition which has the propers and readings and Martin Travers’ illustrations from the English Missal.


How does the LDS doctrine of assurance compare to the Methodist doctrine of assurance? The LDS Bible Dictionary entry on faith states that one of the effects of true faith in Christ is "an assurance of personal salvation in the world to come." How does this assurance compare to the Methodist doctrine on assurance? What do they have in common and what is distinct?

I was a member of the LDS church for 20 years.  I've been a Methodist for 2 years.

LDS Assurance

The sentence from the LDS Bible Dictionary:

  The effects of true faith in Jesus Christ include (1) an actual knowledge that the course of life one is pursuing is acceptable to the Lord (see Heb. 11:4); (2) a reception of the blessings of the Lord that are available to man in this life; and (3) an assurance of personal salvation in the world to come.

In LDS church doctrine, all people will be saved.  What this means is that all people will be resurrected, and as spirits, regain a perfected body.

However, your place in the kingdoms of God is determined by how you lived your life.  Mormons work so that they will be worthy of the highest kingdom of God, the celestial kingdom.

The LDS church has an obscure ordinance called the second anointing.

  In the Latter Day Saint movement, the second anointing, also known historically and in Latter Day Saint scripture as the fulness of the priesthood, is an obscure and relatively rare ordinance usually conducted in temples as extension of the Nauvoo Endowment ceremony. Founder Joseph Smith, Jr. cited the "fulness of the priesthood" as one of the reasons for building the Nauvoo Temple (D&C 124:28). In the ordinance, a participant is anointed as a "priest and king" or a "priestess and queen", and is sealed to the highest degree of salvation available in Mormon theology. Those who participate in this ordinance are said to have their "calling and election made sure",...

So yes, according to LDS doctrine, you can have an assurance of personal salvation.  However, a member of the LDS church has to work very hard to be worthy of a second anointing.

The LDS church doctrine is based on salvation by works.  Many, many works.

Methodist Assurance

The sentence from the Methodist doctrine of assurance:

  John Wesley believed that all Christians have a faith which implies an assurance of God's forgiving love, and that one would feel that assurance, or the "witness of the Spirit"

This comes from Romans 8:16:

  The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God.

John Wesley delivered a sermon entitled "The Witness of the Spirit".

Here's the pertinent line from the sermon:

  The testimony of the Spirit is an inward impression on the soul, whereby the Spirit of God directly witnesses to my spirit, that I am a child of God; that Jesus Christ hath loved me, and given himself for me; and that all my sins are blotted out, and I, even I, am reconciled to God.

Basically, it's God assuring us that God loves us and is with us, no matter what we did or didn't do.

Methodist doctrine is based on salvation by grace.  Works do not earn you a place in heaven, but rather strengthen our character and serve others through God.


Calvinism: How does Limited Atonement Work in View of the Universality of Christ's Work? Issues, Etc. has a post on Lutheranism vs. Calvinism. I'm more or less in total agreement with the pastor on the first two of the five Calvinistic points. However, he loses me when talking about limited atonement.

At 29:37 in the audio, he begins to tell a story about a friend from seminary who was a Calvinist, and this Calvinist's need for assurance of absolution following a grievous sin. The pastor goes on to explain from 31:40 - 32:46 that because Christ has taken the form of man, that he represents all men. Every sin has been paid for, for every man. Obviously a Calvinist would disagree with taking the atonement to this extent.

In the scriptures, Christ was spoken of as the last Adam, a title which confers universality (in the same way that the first Adam did). They also say that Christ is the atoning sacrifice for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2). How is it that if Christ is the last Adam and is the atoning sacrifice for the sins of the whole world that we still speak in terms of particular redemption and also limits as to who the atonement covers?

Edit:
As an example of what I'm asking, please consider John Owen's argument for Limited Atonement that if Christ has paid for the sins of all people and some still end up paying for their sins in Hell, then we have two realities that appear unthinkable:

Christ's precious, perfect blood was shed in vain for some people.
God's justice was satisfied in Christ, and now he's also executing his justice on those in hell. How can this be justice, then?

These points make the case for Limited Atonement in the Calvinistic sense, but it seems to stand in opposition to the scriptures I cited above. It makes the 2nd Adam less effectual than the first and it means that Christ is not the propitiation for the sins of the whole world. 1 John 2:2 leaves no room for a "potential" propitiation. So how does Limited Atonement harmonize with scriptures such as these?

Note: At this point in time, I would call myself a Calvinist. I've done so for about 10 years. I'm not new to this, but I'm not as willing to accept the "L" in "TULIP" any longer on ground of logical proceedings that seem to contradict scripture. Thus, I'm seeking to learn what I may be missing.

Both versions of the atonement here considered are limited -- Calvinists limit it in scope (or recipients), while non-Calvinists limit it in power (or efficacy). It's not a matter of whether it is limited, but rather how it is limited.

  In the scriptures, Christ was spoken of as the last Adam, a title
  which confers universality (in the same way that the first Adam did).

Is that a valid inference from the title? One way to think of it is in terms of the "tree of salvation" imagery in Romans 11:1-24. God had a chosen people, a subset of humanity, and Gentiles were added into that tree, while some of the natural branches were broken off and excluded from the tree. Only those in the tree are saved. Note here how the scope is explicitly limited.

Hence, I don't think universality is properly applied to Christ in this way. There is an analogy to Adam, but not an identical role in every respect. He is the federal head or representative only those who belong to him (John 10, the locus classicus for the Calvinist view of the atonement, though there are others).


The Fig Tree of Matthew 24 and prophecy The subject of question concerns the Fig Tree of Matthew 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21. I understand very well that statistically it has not been fruitful to speculate on exact timings for prophetic events and I'd like to emphasize that I'm not trying to promote any particular eschatological interpretations. I would simply like to ask for opinions on the viewpoint of the following article, which seems thoughtfully-written and reasonable (if one accepts all the necessary premises): The Parable of the Fig Tree.

The viewpoint of the article is hardly isolated in the Christian community (I can give other sources saying the same thing), so maybe some/many here would already be familiar with it. In general, it seems difficult to find prophetic discussions that are both very specific in date-setting and reasonably argued at the same time. Any comments? Below, a brief summary of this particular eschatological interpretation has been added.

Brief Summary of this particular Eschatological Interpretation

It is clearly Premillennial and adheres to a literal return of Jesus Christ.
It relies on an identification of the Fig Tree in Matthew 24 with the inhabited land of Israel. (Compare with Joel 1:7)
It posits that essentially the parable can be interpreted in a highly rigorous way. (Fig Tree = Israel, Generation = certain length of time, Budding of Fig Tree = certain historical event)

One probably dosen't have to go much further with this summary to see that the implications of this sort of thing are that very concrete predictions are being made. Since the predictions are so concrete, one may even make a rigorous discussion surrounding the idea. Here are some "axioms" for consideration, which I ask for opinions on:

A) The statements in the Bible, while at first glance might have meanings that are difficult to interpret, ultimately do in the final analysis have specific, objective meanings. While different groups of people might differ on the interpretations, some interpretations are correct and some are wrong. Discerning which interpretations are correct is a different story, but the notion of a "correct" interpretation exists.

B) In the matter of the Fig Tree of Matthew 24, the ONLY reasonable explanation is that it refers to the nation/inhabited land of Israel, that the Budding of the Fig Tree refers to a certain event in modern times, and that the generation refers to a specific lenght of time.

Please bear with me. If (A) if false, I can hardly see how studying the Bible could be inspiring or profitable since everything would be murky and nothing could be known with certainty. But if (A) is true, then (B) is almost certainly true. If (B) is true, then Jesus will be back by roughly the dates specified in the article, or there is something wrong with the law of the excluded middle. It may be the case that (B) dosen't follow from (A) as easily as I think. But the kind of reasoning in the article is far more sound than Harold Camping's types of predictions, hence it is not obviously false that (B) does not follow easily from (A).

Exegesis (sort of)
I think you are spot-on with your analysis of what you call "axiom A".  There is objective truth, the Bible is a message from God with specific meaning, and it is possible to learn about objective truth through studying scripture.  Consider the following examples:

Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, "And to seeds," as referring to many, but rather to one, "And to your seed," that is, Christ. -Galatians 3:16
Jesus said to them, "Is this not the reason you are mistaken, that you do not understand the Scriptures or the power of God?" -Mark 12:24

It is helpful to recognize that in both of these passages concerning specific, objective truth, the vast majority of the people studying the relevant scriptures missed the true meaning - and it wasn't for a lack of study!  Let's be honest - it was for a lack of relationship with God.  (See John 3:3, 1 Cor 2:14, Matt 13:11, etc.)  We should be cautious of hermeneutical approaches that are so impersonal that they can be followed by anyone of any spiritual condition.
This is tricky to articulate, but I once heard a Pastor say, "Words don't have meaning - people have meaning."  Honestly, I don't know if I have ever heard a statement more helpful in hermeneutics!  In the case of scripture, it is essential to recognize that it is God who has meaning, and not merely the text, or the author.  (See, for instance 1 Peter 1:10-11 or Hebrews 9:6-9.)
The Lion
Let me start by justifying the first part of the claim - "Words don't have meaning..."  (Bear with me in a little foolishness.)  Who (or what) does a "lion" symbolize in scripture?  Jesus, obviously!

and one of the elders said to me, "Stop weeping; behold, the Lion that is from the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has overcome . . ." And I saw . . . a Lamb standing, as if slain -Revelation 5:5-6

Sadly, David killed Jesus, as we can see from this next passage, but it was the Lord's doing.

Your servant [David] has killed both the lion and the bear . . . The LORD who delivered me from the paw of the lion and from the paw of the bear, He will deliver me from the hand of this Philistine -1 Samuel 17:36-37

OK, we're on to something - David obviously represents Israel, who slew Jesus, and Jesus brought about His own death... right?  But there are two lions, so there is another Jesus:

There were six steps to the throne and a round top to the throne at its rear, and arms on each side of the seat, and two lions standing beside the arms. -1 Kings 10:19

...this must represent His resurrection!  But wait... resurrection to what?  This next passage was written after the resurrection and talks about the "other lion".

Be of sober spirit, be on the alert. Your adversary, the devil, prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour. -1 Peter 5:8

OK, I'll stop.  Hopefully it is clear, the "symbolic lion hermeneutic" led us down the wrong path.  You can do this with just about any "symbol" in scripture. My point is, it is extremely dangerous to assume that if a word is used symbolically in one context, that it must be a symbol everywhere else in Scripture as well. This is called "illegitimate totality transfer" in hermeneutics. This is essentially what people are doing when they interpret the fig tree of Matthew 24 as "Israel."
"Objection!"
I am sure someone will object on the grounds that we have clear evidence from other passages of symbols being used in scripture, for instance in the Parable of the Sower in Matthew 13:3-9, the seed represents the word of God.  I will quickly address this objection:

Jesus was trying to explain something.  He was using symbols which had specific meaning relative to His message.  There is no indication anywhere in scripture that His use of these symbols carry across all of scripture.  (v.18-23)
Jesus explained His meaning to those closest to Him (v.18-23), which I think is a pretty good illustration of how sound exegesis happens.
Jesus was not trying to be understood by the rest of the folks!  (v.10-17)
In the next parable (v.24-30), the seed represents people - some righteous and some wicked! (v.36-43)
In the third parable, the seed represents the Kingdom of Heaven! (v.31-32)

Clearly "seed" doesn't equal "word" everywhere in Scripture, even when "seed" is being used symbolically.
What Jesus meant
Words don't have meaning; people have meaning. When Jesus referenced "the fig tree" He meant something by it. To discover what He meant, let's start by looking at why Jesus was talking.  Matthew 24 is all about the "end times" and starts with a request from His disciples (which He has no reservation in answering.)

His disciples came up to point out the temple buildings to Him. And He said to them, "Do you not see all these things? Truly I say to you, not one stone here will be left upon another, which will not be torn down." . . . the disciples came to Him privately, saying, "Tell us, when will these things happen, and what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?"  (from v.1-3)

Jesus proceeds to explain that a lot of troubling stuff is going to happen, but that this is not yet the end. (v.4-8)  He then says that tribulation will come on His people and many will fall away, but the gospel will go out to all of the nations before the end comes. (v.9-14)  Jesus then explains that the abomination of desolation will mark the beginning of the Great Tribulation. (v.15-28)  And then immediately after the Tribulation, He will return (v.29-31)  And in this context, Jesus says the following:

Now learn the parable from the fig tree: when its branch has already become tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near; so, you too, when you see all these things, recognize that He is near, right at the door. Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place. -Matthew 24:32-34

This isn't a mystical story about a fig tree nation... what Jesus is doing is answering His disciples' question about what the signs of His coming and of the end of the age will be, and then urging them to recognize it when it happens, just as they would recognize that summer is near by the leafy tree.
Also, for what it's worth, a "generation" can mean a number of things scripturally, and the claim that it means a particular length of time may be correct for some passages, but is clearly not for others.  (I'll save the full explanation for another question.)


What do Quakers believe about war and serving in the military? It seems that I once heard that Quakers are pacifists, but I'm not sure if that's just a rumor or not.

What is the Quaker doctrine regarding war and killing people as a soldier in the military?  If they think it is wrong, what is the biblical basis for this belief?

Also, do their beliefs extend to being a soldier in the military under any capacity (such as a chaplain, for example)?

Quakers are considered one of the "peace churches" who oppose war of any kind, and typically refuse to participate in it. However they are also not a denomination which expects everyone in it to do exactly what the church says. See this article for more information. The biblical basis for pacifism is discussed here.

I believe that some Quakers have indeed served in the military as medics. I've never heard of one serving as a chaplain.


Why did Paul say "I am pure from the blood of all men"? In Acts 20 Paul is saying his farewell to the elders of Ephesus. He is bringing to their memory the manner, in which he had spent all that time with them - in humility (Acts 20:19).

Then he says:

  Acts 20:26 (KJV)
  Wherefore I take you to record this day, that I am pure from the blood
  of all men

Why on earth did Paul need to mention this?  Was there a possibility that during his ministry he might've killed someone?  Was it not clear that Paul didn't kill anyone and didn't even intend to kill anyone?

In the NLT, it's quite straightforward:

  Acts 20:26 (NLT)

  26 I declare today that I have been faithful. If anyone suffers eternal death, it’s not my fault,

I was actually amused by the "it's not my fault" part; reminds me of a child. :P

Anyway, other more-literal translations give variations of the following:

  Acts 20:26 (NIV)

  26 Therefore, I declare to you today that I am innocent of the blood of any of you.

Okay, we can see where the "it's not my fault" part comes from; "innocent".

With more context, the meaning becomes clearer.

  Acts 20:25-27 (NIV)

   25 “Now I know that none of you among whom I have gone about preaching the kingdom will ever see me again. 26 Therefore, I declare to you today that I am innocent of the blood of any of you. 27 For I have not hesitated to proclaim to you the whole will of God.

Jews would have recognized the reference to (at least) Ezekiel:

  Ezekiel 33:8 (NIV)

  8 When I say to the wicked, ‘You wicked person, you will surely die,’ and you do not speak out to dissuade them from their ways, that wicked person will die for their sin, and I will hold you accountable for their blood.

Thus, Paul was saying that because he had been preaching God's word to everyone, he couldn't be held accountable for failing to warn someone about their sins and its consequences.


What precisely is the sacramental "economy"? In which sense it is an economy? I have always been puzzled by the use of the word "economy" linked to the sacraments, or in other expressions like "economy of salvation", "economy of creation", Divine "economy" (see full list of its uses in the Catechism here). As an economist, I don't see why such word is linked there.

The definition of the sacramental economy in the Catechism is:

  1076 The Church was made manifest to the world on the day of Pentecost by the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. The gift of the Spirit ushers in a new era in the "dispensation of the mystery" the age of the Church, during which Christ manifests, makes present, and communicates his work of salvation through the liturgy of his Church, "until he comes." In this age of the Church Christ now lives and acts in and with his Church, in a new way appropriate to this new age. He acts through the sacraments in what the common Tradition of the East and the West calls "the sacramental economy"; this is the communication (or "dispensation") of the fruits of Christ's Paschal mystery in the celebration of the Church's "sacramental" liturgy.

So, the use of "economy" here seems to imply a "system" related to the "administration" of grace via sacraments, implemented through a communication between God and the faithful, mediated through a presbyter or deacon or so, and effected via a liturgical rite. How this relates to usual understandings of the word economy, I have no idea.

Why is this word used? How is it to be understood? The Catechisms speaks about its name coming from a "common Tradition of the East and the West". Maybe a reference to this tradition could clarify the original meaning of the word economy here.

PS: I hope this is on topic.

Oἰκονομία means "the management of a household" or "stewardship", as in the Septuagint's Is. 22:19 ("And I will…depose thee from thy ministry [οικονομίας].") or Lk. 16:2 ("give an account of thy stewardship [οἰκονομίας]: for now thou canst be steward [οἰκονομεῖν] no longer.").

The OED gives these theological definitions for "economy":

  a. The method of divine government of the world, or of a specific aspect or part of that government.The sense is used pre-eminently of God's dealings with mankind in the Incarnation, but also as these relate to creation and revelation through Scripture and the reconciling activity in the Sacraments.b. spec. A method or system of divine government suited to the needs of a particular nation or period of time, as Mosaic economy, Jewish economy, Christian economy, etc. Cf. dispensation n. 6.


What happened to the tribe of Dan in Revelation? Compare the twelve tribes of Israel, according to Genesis 35:23-26 (left column) and Revelation 7:5-8 (right):

Asher : Asher
Benjamin : Benjamin
Dan : Gad
Gad : Issachar
Issachar : Joseph
Joseph : Judah
Judah : Levi
Levi : Manasseh
Naphtali : Naphtali
Reuben : Reuben
Simeon : Simeon
Zebulun : Zebulun

(Sorted into alphabetical order.)

Why is Dan replaced by Manasseh?

Background info: I know that Manasseh and Ephraim were Joseph's sons. I also know that the tribe of Joseph was split into two half-tribes: Manasseh and Ephraim.

Note on answer: I know the topic of Revelation can easily turn speculative but if at all possible I'm looking for a fact based answer (e.g. the tribe of Dan no longer exists and Manasseh is now twice as big).

This is an excellent question! Consider the following argument, posited in the seventh chapter of An Exposition of the Seven Church Ages by William Marrion Branham.

The book of Exodus tells the story of how the tribe of Levi was separated to serve the Lord.

  Exodus 32:26-29 Then Moses stood in the gate of the camp, and said,
  Who is on the LORD'S side? let him come unto me. And all the sons of
  Levi gathered themselves together unto him. And he said unto them,
  Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his
  side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and
  slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man
  his neighbour. And the children of Levi did according to the word of
  Moses: and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men.

Because of their stand for God, God chose the Levites to serve Him.

  NUMBERS 18:6 And I, behold, I have taken your brethren the Levites
  from among the children of Israel: to you they are given as a gift for
  the LORD, to do the service of the tabernacle of the congregation.

Numbers 10:11-28 lists the twelve tribes as Reuben, Simeon, Issachar, Judah, Zebulun, Benjamin, Dan, Naphtali, Gad, Asher, Ephraim and Manasseh. Levi ministered to the twelve tribes, and so was treated separately. When the twelve tribes encamped, they always camped three tribes to a side, surrounding the Levites and the temple.

You'll notice that Ephraim, in Revelation, is also removed from this list of tribes in Numbers.

The answer to the question of "what happened to Dan and Ephraim?" lies in Deuteronomy 29:16-20.

  DEUTERONOMY 29:16 (For ye know how we have dwelt in the land of Egypt;
  and how we came through the nations which ye passed by; And ye have
  seen their abominations, and their idols, wood and stone, silver and
  gold, which were among them:) Lest there should be among you man, or
  woman, or family, or tribe, whose heart turneth away this day from the
  LORD our God, to go and serve the gods of these nations; lest there
  should be among you a root that beareth gall and wormwood; And it come
  to pass, when he heareth the words of this curse, that he bless
  himself in his heart, saying, I shall have peace, though I walk in the
  imagination of mine heart, to add drunkenness to thirst: The LORD will
  not spare him, but then the anger of the LORD and his jealousy shall
  smoke against that man, and all the curses that are written in this
  book shall lie upon him, and the LORD shall blot out his name from
  under heaven.

The curse of idolatry (or spiritual fornication) was to have your name blotted out.

Now, let's see how this applied to the tribe of Dan.

  I Kings 12:25-30 Then Jeroboam built Shechem in mount Ephraim, and
  dwelt therein; and went out from thence, and built Penuel. And
  Jeroboam said in his heart, Now shall the kingdom return to the house
  of David: If this people go up to do sacrifice in the house of the
  LORD at Jerusalem, then shall the heart of this people turn again unto
  their lord, even unto Rehoboam king of Judah, and they shall kill me,
  and go again to Rehoboam king of Judah. Whereupon the king took
  counsel, and made two calves of gold, and said unto them, It is too
  much for you to go up to Jerusalem: behold thy gods, O Israel, which
  brought thee up out of the land of Egypt. And he set the one in
  Bethel, and the other put he in Dan. And this thing became a sin: for
  the people went to worship before the one, even unto Dan.

And now Ephraim...

  Hosea 4:17 Ephraim is joined to idols: let him alone.

As Jesus said...

  MATTHEW 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not
  pass away.

God remembered His Word in Deuteronomy by removing Dan and Ephraim from the final list of the tribes sealed in the 144,000 of Revelation.


Where did people who lived in Jesus's time go to when they died? This sounds weird but when Jesus existed between approx. 6-3 BCE to 33 CE in Judea as a man (still retained His God nature) how were people living in this exact time frame judged after they died?

Did Jesus judge them, even as a man on Earth? I'm aware that He did
cast out demons and presumably sent them to hell during His exorcisms
and I'm wondering if this extended to the souls of wicked humans
Did His "God nature" perform the executions?
Or did God the Father (or possibly the Holy Spirit) do the job?

I seek an answer preferrably from a mainstream/orthodox (NOT Eastern Orthodox Christianity) Christian perspective.

As a Christian of the Reformed Protestant persuasion, I do not think there is anything in the New Testament to suggest that Jesus, when on earth, was personally or individually in the business of judging the dead, either Jew or Gentile, or of escorting them either to heaven or to hell.  We know that our eternal destination is decided at the point of death.  The basis of judgment is on how we lived our lives.  Daniel spoke of the Book of Life and so does Revelation, in which names are written.

Ecclesiastes 12:6-7 informs us that we must remember God “before the silver cord is severed, or the golden bowl is broken; before the pitcher is shattered at the spring, or the wheel broken at the well, and the dust returns to the ground it came from, and the spirit returns to God who gave it.”
Significantly, verse 14 says “God will bring every deed into judgment, including every hidden thing, whether it is good or evil.”

So it is God who does the judging.  Just because the third person of the Triune Godhead was temporarily on earth does not infer that the Father and the Holy Spirit were incapacitated in any way!
However, Jesus did have something to say about the condition of the dead and WHERE the soul went while awaiting the resurrection and the judgment to come.  It’s in Luke 16:19-31:

There was a rich man who was clothed in purple and fine linen and who feasted sumptuously every day.  And at his gate was laid a poor man named Lazarus, covered with sores, who desired to be fed with what fell from the rich man’s table.   Moreover, even the dogs came and licked his sores.  The poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham’s side [or bosom]. The rich man also died and was buried, and in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus at his side.  And he called out, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus to dip the end of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am in anguish in this flame.’  But Abraham said, ‘Child, remember that you in your lifetime received your good things, and Lazarus in like manner bad things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in anguish.  And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, in order that those who would pass from here to you may not be able, and none may cross from there to us.’  And he said, ‘Then I beg you, father, to send him to my father’s house—for I have five brothers—so that he may warn them, lest they also come into this place of torment.’  But Abraham said, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.’  And he said, ‘No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’  He said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.’  (English Standard Version)

The Greek word ‘kolpos’ is variously translated as “Abraham’s side” (NIV, ESV), “next to Abraham” (CEV), “with Abraham” (NLT), “the arms of Abraham” (NCV) and “Abraham’s bosom” (KJV).
“Abraham’s bosom” was used in the Talmud as a synonym for heaven.  The image in the story is of Lazarus reclining at a table leaning on Abraham’s breast at the heavenly banquet.  The point of the story is that wicked men will see the righteous in a happy state, while they themselves are in torment, and that a “great gulf” that can never be spanned exists between them (Luke 16:26).  Until the resurrection, the souls of those who have died are in an “interim holding place” – either in a state of bliss (paradise, or Abraham’s bosom) or in a state of torment.
It was at the cross that God pronounced judgment on the unbelieving world and on the enemy of our souls, Satan.  Jesus said, shortly before His arrest, “Now is the time for judgment on this world; now the prince of this world will be driven out” (John 12:31).  However, there are future judgments to come:

The judgments of the tribulation period (Revelation 6—16)
The judgment seat of Christ (2 Corinthians 5:10)
The judgment of the nations (Matthew 25:31–46)
The judgment of angels (1 Corinthians 6:2–3)
The Great White Throne Judgment (Revelation 20:11–15)

This final judgment of unbelievers occurs at the end of the Millennium, before the creation of the new heaven and earth.  At this judgment, unbelievers from all the ages are judged for their sins and consigned to the lake of fire (the permanent condition of those who reject Christ).
So, who judged all those persons who died while Jesus was on earth?  The Bible does not say, and I’m not about to guess.  It’s an interesting question but I suspect that the Father and the Holy Spirit had everything under their control (including sustaining the universe and all life) while the Logos, the Word of God, was on assignment for those few, short years when he dwelt with us.


How were the Vatican I and Vatican II councils related? What was the difference between The First Vatican Council and the Second? Was the Second Council a continuation of the first? What does a 'Pastoral' Council mean?

The First Vatican Council (8 December 1869 to 20 October 1870) defined dogmas on ecclesiology (incl. papal infallibility) and faith and reason in its two documents

Pastor Æternus (First Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ)
Dei Filius (Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith),

respectively. The council was cut short due to the outbreak of the Franco-Prussian war and invasion of Rome.
In 1923, Pope Pius XI considered it dangerous to reconvene the council because—as Cdl. Billot advised him, contrary to the counsel Pius XI sought from almost 40 other theologians—(from The Second Vatican Council: An Unwritten Story II 4. §b)

it would impossible to conceal the existence of profound differences, within the episcopacy itself, on social, political and economic questions, and their relations with morality and the rule of faith. Because of their complexity, these questions will be presented under different aspects depending on the country, and they will give rise to discussion that will run the risk of being extended and prolonged indefinitely.
So here we have the most important reason that would seem to me to militate absolutely against the idea. The resumption of the council is desired by the worst enemies of the Church, that is, by the modernists, who are already prepared—as the most certain information testifies—to take advantage of the general situations in the Church in order to start a revolution, the new French Revolution of their hopes and dreams. It is useless to say that they will not succeed, but we will relive the sorrowful days of the end of the reign of Leo XIII and the beginning of the pontificate of Pius X; we will see even worse, and it will be the total destruction of the happy fruits of the encylical Pascendi which had reduced them [i.e. the modernists] to silence.

Here is what Cdl. Ottaviani said about John XXIII's idea to convene Vatican II (ibid. §c):

He had spoken about it to me from the moment of his election. Or rather, to be more precise, it was I who visited him in his little room at the conclave on the eve of the election. Among other things I told him, “Your Eminence, it is necessary to think about a council.” Cardinal Ruffini, who was present at the conversation, was of the same mind. Cardinal Roncalli adopted this idea and later had this to say: “I have thought of a council from the moment when I became pope.” It’s true, he welcomed our suggestion.”

The nebulous term "pastoral" was used to describe how Vatican II refused to condemn errors and heresies.
For more info on Vatican II and how it differed from all the previous ecumenical councils, see the Little Catechism on the Second Vatican Council:

Part One

Part Two

Part Three

Part Four - The Four Constitutions: Lumen Gentium on the Church

Part Five - The Four Constitutions (continued):  Dei Verbum (on sources of Revelation)

Part Six - The Four Constitutions (continued):  Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium on the liturgy

Part Seven - The Four Constitutions (continued): Gaudium et Spes - The Place of the Church in the Modern World

Part Eight – The Nine Decrees (decrees 1-5)

Part Nine - The Nine Decrees (decrees 6-9)

Part Ten – The Three Declarations (first of three: Dignitatis Humanæ: on religious liberty)

Part Eleven – The Three Declarations (second and third of three): ‘Nostra ætate’ and ‘Gravissimum educationis’

Part Twelve – CONCLUSION


In The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, what is an Elder's Quorum meeting supposed to be? Two Sundays of each month, the adult men in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints meet as an Elder's Quorum. At each meeting they discuss one of the most recent General Conference talks.

I'm confused about what that meeting is supposed to be though. As a discussion meeting, it seems pointless. I haven't been to tons of different ones, but from the handful I've been to over the years I've learned:

-there's no format to the discussion. Some teach, some instruct, some facilitate, and more. Some lead the discussion, some follow the discussion.

-the point of each meeting seems to be left up to the local leaders. Some don't assign a point, some do. Some don't make a point, some do.

-there isn't necessarily a topic. Some assign a single topic from the assigned talk, some don't

-the room is usually set up like a class (one person up front, everyone facing that person), everyone acts like it's a class, yet we're told it's a discussion

-some of the discussion leaders are obviously more skilled because of experience or education as a some sort of school system teacher, but in general, that's not the case

Basically, the discussion is usually a mess of points that are hard to follow. That's not the issue though. Any religious discussion among a large group of members of any church can become that sort of a mess.

To compare to other churches I've seen. Often men have things like "men's breakfast" (for example), where the men meet for breakfast weekly or monthly or something and to discuss a Bible reading. I haven't been to many meetups like this, but it seems that the discussion probably tends to go the same way. The difference here though is that the purpose of the meeting is inherently clear: to casually spend time together, eat a meal, and discuss Christianity in some way. Whether or not the discussion is good, there's something clear that anyone can get from the meeting (food and fellowship).

Another comparison, I've been to a few 12-step meetings in my life including AA. They're usually full of Christians where I live, so it seems appropriate to mention as a comparison. Despite the shares there being relatively all over the map, there's always a topic to try and cover. The strictly facilitated format of the meetings makes it so that even if the shares are completely unconnected and you can't follow what anyone is talking about, you can walk away knowing that you aren't stupid or unspiritual for not being able to follow what people were discussing - because you know people are trying to authentically trying to share their story or recovery advice.

A last comparison, from the LDS Church, is the monthly testimony meeting. It has format and structure, and there's a definition for what a "testimony" should be. Again, even if the testimonies are weird, you know what you were supposed to hear, so you don't end up feeling out of place or like you're wasting time. Even if you don't connect with what anyone is sharing, you can connect with the fact that they're trying to share a testimony of something related to the Church's teachings.

So, back to an Elder's Quorum meeting, what is it?
And if I'm not connecting with the week's discussion, and don't have any comments to give to it, what am I supposed to get from the meeting?
It seems to have gotten less clear in the past couple of years.

Actually, due to the recent changes in how teaching and learning in the church is viewed generally in the church (to paraphrase, learning should happen at home, with church meetings supporting that learning), it has become more clear I think.

The point is this: It is expected that you get informed (by the Elder's quorum presidency) what conference talk is going to be talked about. You study it at home. Then you discuss what you learned/thought/felt at church with others so people can benefit from each other. There is a teacher that leads the discussion and is responsible that sane doctrine is taught.

If that is not what you experience, that is because we are all still learning how "home-centered, church-supported" should look like.

What it should NOT look like, but still often does because teachers aren't experienced or confident, or learners aren't prepared:

Trying to cover every point made in the talk. That often leads to unstructured lessons, and not too much discussion.
completely unstructured discussions - there is always someone that can and/or will derail a discussion if the teacher is not able to at least exert some control over the discussion. For example, the inevitable discussion about some diet when the subject is Word of Wisdom.

In addition, an Elder's Quorum meeting is an opportunity to talk about things that concern the priesthood holders. Maybe someone needs help with something that the Elder's Quorum can help with. While it doesn't exist anymore, in 2018 (I think?) the first sunday of the month was dedicated to counsel with each other. In our ward, we used this explicitely to find actively find out if any member of the Quorum could need some help with something. I think it was very successfull. But if there is such a need, the Elder's Quorum meeting can now still serve to address it.

From the handbook 2 (2020-01-28):

  Elders quorum meetings are held on the second and fourth Sundays of
  each month. They last 50 minutes. The purposes of these meetings are
  to conduct business, learn priesthood duties, strengthen individuals
  and families, study the gospel of Jesus Christ, counsel together, and
  organize to meet local needs. Leaders prayerfully plan the meetings to
  accomplish these purposes.

  [..]

  Quorum meetings begin with a brief welcome, a reminder of the Come,
  Follow Me—For Individuals and Families home study materials for that
  day and the following week, and any quorum business. The remainder of
  the meeting is used for gospel instruction and discussion.

  Lessons in quorum meetings focus on messages from the most recent
  general conference. Teaching suggestions are found in the May and
  November issues of the Ensign and Liahona, on ChurchofJesusChrist.org,
  and in the Gospel Library app.