Is *infallibilitas in credendo* a new or established doctrine within the Roman Catholic Church? In Pope Francis' recent interview, he says:

  Thinking with the church, therefore, is my way of being a part of this people. And all the faithful, considered as a whole, are infallible in matters of belief, and the people display this infallibilitas in credendo, this infallibility in believing, through a supernatural sense of the faith of all the people walking together. This is what I understand today as the ‘thinking with the church’ of which St. Ignatius speaks. When the dialogue among the people and the bishops and the pope goes down this road and is genuine, then it is assisted by the Holy Spirit. So this thinking with the church does not concern theologians only. ... This is how it is with Mary: If you want to know who she is, you ask theologians; if you want to know how to love her, you have to ask the people.

He even goes on to explain it a little bit, saying:

  and, of course, we must be very careful not to think that this infallibilitas of all the faithful I am talking about in the light of Vatican II is a form of populism. No; it is the experience of ‘holy mother the hierarchical church,’ as St. Ignatius called it, the church as the people of God, pastors and people together. The church is the totality of God’s people.

Thing is (and I almost hate to admit this), but I've never heard of that before.  "People Infallibility", if you will, seems rather novel. (And yes, I get that its not really that, but I can see it being misinterpreted as such).  Is this a new term, or one that I just missed out on being of from the heretic arm of the church? :)

This doctrine is taught in The Dogmatic Constitution of the Church of the Second Vatican Council, paragraph #12 as follows:

  "The holy people of God shares also in Christ's prophetic office; it spreads abroad a living witness to Him, especially by means of a life of faith and charity and by offering to God a sacrifice of praise, the tribute of lips which give praise to His name.(110) The entire body of the faithful, anointed as they are by the Holy One,(111) cannot err in matters of belief. They manifest this special property by means of the whole peoples' supernatural discernment in matters of faith when "from the Bishops down to the last of the lay faithful" (8*) they show universal agreement in matters of faith and morals. That discernment in matters of faith is aroused and sustained by the Spirit of truth. It is exercised under the guidance of the sacred teaching authority, in faithful and respectful obedience to which the people of God accepts that which is not just the word of men but truly the word of God.(112) Through it, the people of God adheres unwaveringly to the faith given once and for all to the saints,(113) penetrates it more deeply with right thinking, and applies it more fully in its life."


How does one reconcile the sinlessness of Mary with her sin offering in Luke 2:24? In Luke 2:22-24, it is written,

  22 And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord; 23 (As it is written in the law of the Lord, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord;) 24 And to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the Lord, A pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons. (KJV)

Then, in Lev. 12:8, it is written,

  8 And if she be not able to bring a lamb, then she shall bring two turtles, or two young pigeons; the one for the burnt offering, and the other for a sin offering: and the priest shall make an atonement for her, and she shall be clean. (KJV)

If Mary was sinless, why did she offer a sin offering (one of the turtledoves or pigeons)? I'm looking for a Catholic perspective.

There are two facets to the answer, one regarding the nature of the sin offering itself, and one regarding Mary’s motivations for making the offering.

In summary, in Israel, so-called “sin” offerings were offered for transgressions agains the ritual law, not so much for offenses against the moral law.

Moreover, just as Jesus submitted himself to the baptism of John, even though he did not need to repent of any sins, Mary wished to fulfill the requirements of the Jewish law out of loving obedience to God.

There is, thereore, no contradiction between Mary’s sinlessness (in the moral sense) and her offering a sacrifice to remove the merely ritual impurity associated with childbirth.

Regarding the sin offering itself

The sin offering for women after childbirth, as the O.P. points out, is spelled out in chapter 12 of Leviticus.

In ancient Israel, women were considered ritually unclean for a few weeks after the birth of her child. (It varied according to the sex of the child; a total of 40 days for a boy, and 80 days for a girl. See vv. 2-6.) That essentially meant that they were unable to partake of the liturgical celebrations until their uncleanliness was over, at which time they were to make a sin offering, or either a lamb or a pair of pigeous or turtledoves (vv. 6-8).

But it is important to note that ritual uncleanliness had nothing to do with moral uncleanliness. Leviticus chapter 4 introduces the concept of sin offerings in this way:

  And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, “Speak to the people of Israel, saying, If anyone sins unintentionally in any of the Lord’s commandments about things not to be done, and does any one of them, if it is the anointed priest who sins … [and it goes on to spell out what each group should do] (Lev. 4:1-3).

Sin offering could only be offered for unintentional transgressions and, in general for the removal of ritual uncleanliness. There was, in fact, no provision in the Law for the forgiveness of moral offenses—and this lack was one of the constant sufferings of the People of Israel.

(The problem of the forgiveness of sin, in the proper sense of the term, is the topic of the second half of 2 Samuel, for example: King David commits some grave moral offenses—his adultery with Bathsheeba, the murder of Uriah, and his taking of the census against God’s orders—and yet the Law offers no provisions for reconciliation with God. Although God makes his forgiveness known through the prophets, he is extremely stern by our standards.)

In the words of the Letter to the Hebrews, “it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins [in this case, moral offenses]” (Heb. 10:4). For that, says Hebrews, the Blood of Jesus Christ is necessary.

Hence, even though Mary herself was completely endowed with grace (kecharitomene, Lk 1:28) at the birth of Jesus, and even though her son was, evidently, perfectly pure, she still incurred ritual uncleanliness under the Law of Moses.

It should be observed that the Law did not make any exceptions. The moral character of the woman was never considered; all women had to make the sin offering after childbirth.

Why Mary chose to fulfull the Law

Was Mary strictly obliged to make the offering? No, because she was already full of grace and, in fact, already redeemed. Mary, however, fulfilled the prescriptions of the Law out of loving obedience to God. (It probably never occurred to her to ask whether she was “exempt” from the Law or not.)

Jesus did something similar when he received the baptism of John. Jesus was also sinless and (unlike Mary) incapable of sinning; and yet he received the baptism of repentence, because it was “fitting … to fulfill all righteousness” (Mt. 3:15).


What does Tertullian mean by the Son being a "portion of the Father's substance"? What does Tertullian mean by the Son being a "portion of the Father's substance"?

  "For the Father is the entire substance, but the Son is a derivation
  and portion of the whole" (Against Praxeas, Chapter 9).

Tetullian seemed to contradict the Scriptures:

  For the entire fullness of God's nature dwells bodily in Christ,

  Colossians 2:9 (HCSB)

If not, what does he mean by the Son being a derivation and portion of the whole substance?

This phrase is commonly seen to indicate Tertullian's belief in ontological subordinationism, that is, that God the Son is subordinate to God the Father in both his nature and role.  Views like this were later declared heretical at the Council of Nicaea; now, only a relational or functional subordinationism, in which Jesus is subordinate in role only, is normally considered orthodox.

Tertullian's concept of Jesus being a "portion" of God is perhaps best seen in the analogies he used to argue that God and Jesus had a common substance:

  For God sent forth the Word, as the Paraclete also declares, just as the root puts forth the tree, and the fountain the river, and the sun the ray. For these are προβολαί, or emanations, of the substances from which they proceed. I should not hesitate, indeed, to call the tree the son or offspring of the root, and the river of the fountain, and the ray of the sun; because every original source is a parent, and everything which issues from the origin is an offspring. (Against Praxeas, 8)

From an orthodox trinitarian perspective, however, this is problematic, because it only affirms that Jesus and God have a common nature, like a human son has the same "nature" as his father.  This is likely the sense in which he would understand Colossians 2:9, but it's very different from the "numerical unity of essence" understanding of trinitarianism.   Alvan Lamson extensively quotes from Tertullian's writings to show that "he regarded the Son as inferior," and concludes:

  We might multiply our quotations without number, but it is unnecessary.  Judged according to any received explanation of the Trinity at the present day, the attempt to save Tertullian from condemnation would be hopeless. (The Church of the First Three Centuries, 106–9)

Ontological subordinationism is also associated with Origen, but the challenge of Arianism led the church to look at these views more critically.  Placher and Nelson explain:

  The difficulties of [Tertullian's subordinationism] became clear only in the theories of Arius, a priest living in Alexandria around 300, whom tradition has cast as the villain of this story.  Arius wanted to make it absolutely clear that the Son is not identical with the Father. (A History of Christian Theology, 60)

Ultimately Arianism, and, by extension, ontological subordinationism, was rejected as heresy in the Council of Nicaea.  The fact that Tertullian died before that Council is usually considered a point in his favor, since he never had the opportunity to submit himself to the Church on this point.  But these views, along with his association with another heretical movement, Montanism, have diminished his status as an orthodox theologian in Nicene Christianity.


What is the point Jesus is trying to make by comparing Pharisees with several objects? I was reflecting on Matthew 23:23-28 .

And came across Jesus comparing the Pharisees with several objects: filthy cups, whitewashed tombs.

What is the point Jesus is trying to make here?

The point is that outward appearances of righteousness do not fool God.  The Pharisees, who were sticklers for the Law, their traditions and rituals for purification, added to the Word of God by imposing additional rules and regulations.  This resulted in placing a heavy burden on the people.  Jesus condemned their teachings as being merely human rules (Mark 7:7).
On the outside, the Pharisees presented themselves as pious, holy and pleasing to God.  The illustration of a whitewashed tomb shows how the external appearance may have been pleasing to the eye but the reality was disgusting to a holy and righteous God.
At first glance, the appearance of the Pharisees projected an image of spiritual holiness and cleanliness, but a closer look exposed their sinful, proud and self-righteous attitudes.  Hence the similarity with a cup and plate that might be externally clean and pleasing to the eye, but held disgusting and unclean contents.

In the Gospels, the Pharisees are often presented as hypocritical and proud opponents of Jesus. The Lord stated it bluntly: “They do not practice what they preach” (Matthew 23:3). As a general rule, the Pharisees were self-righteousness and smug in their delusion that they were pleasing to God because they kept the Law—or parts of it, at least. As Jesus pointed out to them, however scrupulous they were in following the finer points of ritualism, they failed to measure up to God’s standard of holiness: “You have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness” (verse 23).
The apostle Paul was trained as a Pharisee, and his credentials in that group were sterling (Acts 26:5). Paul called himself “a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for righteousness based on the law, faultless” (Philippians 3:5–6). But Paul found that his performance of the Law could not produce true righteousness. After he placed his trust in Christ’s finished work on the cross, he desired to “be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ—the righteousness that comes from God on the basis of faith” (verse 9). No one, not even the strictest Pharisee, is justified by keeping the Law (Galatians 3:11).  Source: https://www.gotquestions.org/Pharisees.html

God looks for mercy, not sacrifice, and is pleased by a contrite heart, opposing a proud heart.  God knows what’s going on in the inside, our motives and secret thoughts.  Jesus could see the Pharisees for what they really were, outwardly religious but spiritually dead on the inside.


According to Catholicism, is the Body of Christ the same as the Bride of Christ? Are there any Catholic teaching that differentiates between the “Body of Christ” (Church) and the “Bride of Christ”?

Eve was taken from the Body of the First Adam, will the Bride of Christ be taken from the body (Church) of the Second Adam (Jesus Christ)?

In a word, No: there is no Catholic teaching which differentiates the Body of Christ and the Bride of Christ. The Catechism of the Catholic Church holds that the Church is the Body of Christ and the Bride of Christ.
Adam prefigures Jesus, the "second Adam". Just as Adam was perfect and became sinful, so Christ took on sin and conquered the death which Adam brought upon humanity. Just as woman was taken out of man, so the Bride of Christ is united to him in one Body which is the Church. This is the doctrine expounded by St Augustine and quoted in the Catechism:

CCC 788 When his visible presence was taken from them, Jesus did not leave his disciples orphans. He promised to remain with them until the end of time; he sent them his Spirit.218 As a result communion with Jesus has become, in a way, more intense: "By communicating his Spirit, Christ mystically constitutes as his body those brothers of his who are called together from every nation."219
CCC 789 The comparison of the Church with the body casts light on the intimate bond between Christ and his Church. Not only is she gathered around him; she is united in him, in his body. Three aspects of the Church as the Body of Christ are to be more specifically noted: the unity of all her members with each other as a result of their union with Christ; Christ as head of the Body; and the Church as bride of Christ.
CCC 796 The unity of Christ and the Church, head and members of one Body, also implies the distinction of the two within a personal relationship. This aspect is often expressed by the image of bridegroom and bride. The theme of Christ as Bridegroom of the Church was prepared for by the prophets and announced by John the Baptist.234 The Lord referred to himself as the "bridegroom."235 The Apostle speaks of the whole Church and of each of the faithful, members of his Body, as a bride "betrothed" to Christ the Lord so as to become but one spirit with him.236 The Church is the spotless bride of the spotless Lamb.237 "Christ loved the Church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her."238 He has joined her with himself in an everlasting covenant and never stops caring for her as for his own body:239

This is the whole Christ, head and body, one formed from many . . . whether the head or members speak, it is Christ who speaks. He speaks in his role as the head (ex persona capitis) and in his role as body (ex persona corporis). What does this mean? "The two will become one flesh. This is a great mystery, and I am applying it to Christ and the Church."240 And the Lord himself says in the Gospel: "So they are no longer two, but one flesh."241 They are, in fact, two different persons, yet they are one in the conjugal union, . . . as head, he calls himself the bridegroom, as body, he calls himself "bride."242

218 Cf. Jn 14:18; 20:22; Mt 28:20; Acts 2:33.
219 Lumen Gentium 7.
234 Jn 3:29.
235 Mk 2:19.
236 Cf. Mt 22:1-14; 25:1-13; 1 Cor 6:15-17; 2 Cor 11:2.
237 Cf. Rev 22:17; Eph 1:4; 5:27.
238 Eph 5:25-26.
239 Cf. Eph 5:29.
240 Eph 5:31-32.
241 Mt 19:6.
242 St. Augustine, Enarrationes in Psalmos 74:4:PL 36,948-949.


In the Catholic Church, what are the options for a person whose spouse abandons them? In the Catholic Church, a marriage is considered a life-long state that can't be dissolved. However, it sometimes happens that one spouse abandons the other.
For example, let's assume Alice is married to Ben. Their marriage is valid, but some years later Ben leaves her. Alice tries to reconcile, but Ben refuses contact with her.

According to the Catholic Church, Alice definitely can't get married again. How is she supposed to live her life? Could she join a religious order? Or does she have to be alone until she dies?

Also, Catholics widely claim that a child has a right to a mother and a father. Assuming Alice has children, how does the church justify that she now has to raise them alone, rather than finding a new husband? From her perspective, the situation is more similar to the death of a spouse than to a normal separation, since she did not consent to the separation and cannot do anything about it.

In this hypothetical, Alice did nothing to "make" Ben leave her and he refuses any attempt to reconcile. I think reasonably similar situations are quite common in practice.

There's not a lot that can be done in this particular instance. One possibility is for Alice to argue that if Ben saw fit to leave, he didn't seem to be taking the marriage vows very seriously, and perhaps the marriage wasn't valid after all.
Catholicism regards marriage as including a permanent state of fidelity to one's spouse; Ben's leaving might be used to support an argument that at the time of the marriage, he didn't subscribe to this understanding of marriage. And canon law states that if one of the parties "marries" while intentionally meaning by marriage something different than the Church means, the relationship isn't a marriage:

If, however, either or both of the parties by a positive act of the will exclude marriage itself, some essential element of marriage, or some essential property of marriage, the party contracts invalidly.
(Canon 1102 sec. 2)

If Alice chooses to go this route and request a declaration of nullity in the marriage, the marriage tribunal is under the obligation to notify Ben and summon him to the ecclesiastical court within 20 days (canon 1507 sect. 2). If Alice has no idea of where Ben is—which may be the case; you don't specify—then it won't be possible to summon him. In this case it's possible for the judge to try and contact him, and, failing, issue a decree stating that all reasonable efforts to summon Ben have been made, and ordering the marriage tribunal to proceed.
If Ann does know where Ben lives (but simply can't communicate with him), a citation can be delivered to the address he's reasonably believed to live at. If Ben refuses to respond, but there is reasonable proof that the citation was delivered to him, the judge can declare Ben absent. This may allow the case to proceed without him. I don't know whether the law allows a declaration of nullity to be granted with Ben absent, much less whether it would be granted in the specific case. If it is, of course, Alice was never married and is free to if she desires.
If Alice chooses not to seek such a declaration, or if for whatever reason the declaration is not granted, then Alice is indeed married. She is unable to validly marry again, at least until Ben dies (canon 1085); nor can she enter a religious institute (canon 643, sec. 1, note 2).
However, she can request the local bishop to try to mediate in the affair:

Whenever there is hope of a favorable outcome, the judge is to use pastoral means to reconcile the spouses and persuade them to restore conjugal living.
(Canon 1695)

Indeed, this process should have started even before the annulment process:

Whenever the judge perceives some hope of a favorable outcome at the start of litigation or even at any other time, the judge is not to neglect to encourage and assist the parties to collaborate in seeking an equitable solution to the controversy and to indicate to them suitable means to this end, even by using reputable persons for mediation.
(Canon 1446 sec. 2, emphasis added)

If this is not successful, Alice can request an ecclesiastical decree of separation. There are a few situations in which the Church recognizes that abandonment of a spouse is the right of the other spouse: if the one spouse has committed adultery (canon 1152, sec. 1) or if  "either of the spouses causes grave mental or physical danger to the other spouse or to the offspring or otherwise renders common life too difficult" (canon 1153 sec. 1). But if neither of these is the case (as appears in this instance), then Ben has wrongfully and maliciously abandoned Alice. If the bishop issues a decree of separation, it will account for the care of their children as well (canon 1154). It will require them to live out their lives in fidelity to the absent other, and to hope and pray for, and possibly try to work towards, reunification.


Were the children of an annulled marriage planned by God? In the Catholic Church, a declaration of nullity, commonly called an
  annulment and less commonly a decree of nullity, is a judgement on the
  part of an ecclesiastical tribunal determining that a marriage was
  invalidly contracted, or less commonly, a judgement determining that
  sacred ordination was invalidly conferred.

If the Catholic Church is saying that the marriage has never been intended by God, does this also mean that the children who were born out of this marriage were never been meant to be born? If not, what is the Catholic Church's understanding/teaching about the children to be born this way?  What is their legal and spiritual status?

It's not clear that there is any sense in which we created beings can "know" God's plan—for the universe, or for any being or group of beings. What we can know generally is that God wills good, and salvation, for all beings:

  God, who "dwells in unapproachable light," [cf. 1 Timothy 6:16] wants to communicate his own divine life to the men he freely created, in order to adopt them as his sons in his only-begotten Son.

(Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 52; emphasis added)

It is not we, but God, who creates each human being, body and soul. Having created each being, it seems apparent that He certainly wished for them to be. Whether God planned for them to be born this way?—now we're getting into questions of foreknowledge and God's interaction with time, always a rough area given that God is outside of time. The very least, and perhaps the most, that we can say, is that children are a gift from God, regardless of the circumstances in which they are conceived, born, and raised:

  Children are really the supreme gift of marriage and contribute very substantially to the welfare of their parents.

(Gaudium et Spes, section 50)

As far as their legal status (by which I assume you mean their status in canon law, as their civil status might vary by jurisdiction) and spiritual status, canon law is very clear on this:

  The children conceived or born of a valid or putative marriage [that is, a marriage which is thought to be valid by at least one of the parties] are legitimate.

(Code of Canon Law, Canon 1137; emphasis added)

Both parents have an obligation to care for the children:

  [If a decree of nullity is issued]  the parties are to be reminded of the moral and even civil obligations which may bind them ... toward their children to furnish support and education.

(Canon 1689)

The Catechism has a section on the duties of parents towards their children (paragraphs 2221–31). Nowhere in that text is it stated, or even implied, that parents do not have these responsibilities if they did not have a valid marriage.

In short, though we can't know, in any sense, what God's plan is with respect to the children of these people, the Church treats them in all senses the same as children of a valid marriage.


Is a word [letter] and [scripture] in 2 Peter 3:16 the same meaning? 2 Peter 3:16

  He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in
  them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard
  to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do
  the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

I mean, when Peter said "his letters" ---> Did Peter mean [his Scriptures] ?

As I'm from a non-English speaking country, this is quite confusing for me. Because in our language words, a Scripture is a Bible - while a letter is not a Bible. And of course, in this modern time - no one will say "I'm writing a Bible" :).

Illustration :
Suppose Peter is writing for his fellow Christians.
Someone phone him "Hi Peter, what are you doing ?".
Peter answer "I'm writing a scripture".

What will be in the caller's mind ?
A. Peter is writing a Bible
B. Peter is writing a letter (not a Bible)

Thank you.

In English, the literal meaning of the noun "scripture" is "something written". When Peter uses the word in the passage you cite, he probably is using "Scripture" to refer to a specific set of writings accorded esteem as "holy", but in Peter's case, he is not referring to the Christian Bible, but to the books considered Holy by the Jews, that is, the Word and the Prophets. In your illustration, Peter would be more likely, if someone came to his door and asked what he was doing, to answer simply "I'm writing."

Now in the case of the passage you cite, "letter" refers to a particular type of writing, a written message intended to communicate a message to a person or group of people, in the same sense that one today might write a letter to an individual who is distant, and for whom communication by other methods is not desired or feasible. Paul's letters are particular kinds of writing, but are still scripture. Peter here is drawing a particular kind of equivalence between the letters Paul wrote, with the Hebrew Bible.


What are some countries where you can be imprisoned for reading or owning a Bible? Growing up Christian, I would always hear of far away countries where people would be imprisoned for reading the Bible. Today I wondered about that. Are there really any countries that imprison people for reading the Bible, or is it perhaps groups religious groups within these countries that will persecute Christians?

I found a similar question about countries where the Bible is banned, but it seems like there is not a single country that has a total ban, other than North Korea, which bans all religious texts, not just the Bible.

Countries which ban the possession of the bible include:

Saudi Arabia

  At present, the Bible has been banned in Saudi Arabia. In a number of countries, bible translation, distribution, sale or promotion is prohibited or made difficult, and the Bible may be considered extremist materials. Historically, some countries banned the Bible in certain languages or versions. The Bible in Spanish was prohibited in Spain from the sixteenth until the nineteenth century. In 1234, King James I of Aragon ordered the burning of Bibles in the vernacular. In 2015, Russia banned import of the Jehovah's Witnesses' New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures. - List of books banned by governments

North Korea

  People found with Christian Bibles, which are considered to be a symbol of the west can be executed or tortured. Refugees and defectors continued to allege that they witnessed the arrests and execution of members of underground Christian churches by the regime in prior years. Due to the country's inaccessibility and the inability to gain timely information, this activity remains difficult to verify. - Freedom of religion in North Korea

More on North Korea:

  In this totalitarian state, the only thing that North Koreans are permitted to worship is the nation's leader, Kim Jong-un. Bibles are banned and those found in possession of one, face imprisonment, torture and even death – as do up to three generations of their family. - Source

Somalia

  Christians residing in Somalia face constant persecution from radical Islamists and government officials. The prevalence of the Islamic extremist group, al-Shabaab means that believers often practise their faith in extreme secrecy and cannot own Bibles. - Source

Maldives

  The Maldives have a reputation for being a luxurious idyll but a Bible can get you into trouble in this paradise. Under the country's strict Islamic laws, importing a Bible is forbidden. There is currently no complete translation of the Bible into Dhivehi, the official language of the tropical nation. - Source

Morocco

  It's against the law to carry a Bible translated into Arabic in Morocco. Reports of overt Christian persecution are few but Christian children are not given a religious education. - Source

Libya

  Like Morocco, Libya has laws against bringing Bibles in the Arabic language into the country. The distribution of Bibles and evangelism is illegal. - Source

Uzbekistan

  In this Central Asian dictatorship, high penalties are imposed on those who own Bibles. Authorities are known to detain Christians found in possession of the holy book for "keeping and storing extremist materials with the purpose of further distribution." - Source

Christian Persecution On The Rise In Uzbekistan Where Just Owning A Bible Is Illegal

Open Doors profiles annually 50 countries “where Christians face the most extreme persecution.”


Justification for Marriage without State This is the opposite of https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/34496/justification-for-involvement-of-state-in-marriage

On what biblical basis can one argue that: "marriage is a covenant before God between a man and a woman -- and has nothing to do with the state" ?

Justification for Marriage without State

The first marriage in the Bible involved a man, a woman, and God.

  Genesis 2:23  And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh
  of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of
  Man.

This might be seen as the minimum requirement. Various cultures at various times have added layers of family, friends, church, village, wedding planners, caterer, photographers, musicians, etc.

The government started to get involved when things that might be actionable in court began to come into play like property rights, inheritance, child custody, etc.

There are many people who not only do not have the government involved, but also do not want God involved. For people like this, governments often pass "common law" legislation so that rights can be adjudicated in court in case of death, divorce, or other changes in legal status.

The precept of "obey the law" could be applied to marriage unless the law extended into areas such as forcing you to marry someone or telling you you could not marry someone.

  Romans 13:1  Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For
  there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

I can understand the desirability of being free of government influence. However, I am not aware of any Biblical basis to reject legal requirements such as taxing through licensing or registering a marriage.


On what grounds does the Catholic church reject sacraments of protestant denominations? While there is a wide range of opinion among adult-baptism protestants as to whether a Catholic (or other infant) baptism is or can be considered valid, there seems to be (at least in my experience) a general attitude that Catholic communion and marriage are considered valid by protestants.  That is to say, if a protestant were to visit a Catholic church and participate in the Eucharist (communion), most protestants would not have a problem with this (whether the Catholic church would allow this is another question). And certainly if a couple got married in the Catholic church, and later became protestant, no protestant church (that I'm aware of) would require a re-marriage (then again, if a couple gets married before they are Christian at all, I've never heard of any protestant churches requiring a re-marriage in this case, either).

However, if a protestant couple gets married, then later becomes Catholic, they must be re-married in the Catholic church (or at least this is my understanding!).  And Catholics are not permitted (by the Catholic church) to participate in a non-Catholic communion (with a few possible exceptions?). I don't know if Catholics recognize a protestant baptism, or require re-baptism when a protestant becomes a Catholic. (Related question here)

So my question is:  On what grounds does the Catholic church reject communion, marriage, and (possibly) baptism of protestants?

I believe that @Justin Y's answer to an earlier question of mine has the key to the answer to your question as well.  My question was "What is the doctrinal or Scriptural basis for a central Church authority"

In his answer, Justin stated this:

  A central church authority is a necessary byproduct of believing that
  certain ordinances are necessary for salvation. Ordinances often have
  rules for who can be administered to as well as how it must be done.
  Church authority is a very orderly and efficient way to regulate those
  requirements. The Old Testament is an excellent example of this.
  Notice that churches who put more emphasis on ordinances also have
  more structure (Catholic, Orthodox, and LDS churches, as well as the
  Jewish faith). And it's not just a good way to regulate the
  ordinances, but also a good way to regulate doctrine.

The simple answer is that the Catholic Church, like Orthodoxy, as well as some other denominations, teaches that authority must be ordained, or passed along from someone who has the authority to do so. The entire governing structure of the church is based upon these concepts.  Therefore, ordinances performed by someone who is not authorized to perform them  would be deemed invalid.

In a secular comparison, only accredited schools have the authority to hand out diplomas that are seen as valid.  If I were to hand you a diploma for a Computer Science degree, I doubt anyone would accept it as valid because I don't have the authority to hand out college degrees.  If you were to apply for a job that required such a degree, they would likely require you to get it from an accredited school, because mine is invalid.


Does the Catholic Church have a written rule on the depth of a grave in a cemetery? There is an old saying which goes like this : "A dead man is the landlord of six feet ! " It most probably owes its origin to the custom of burying the dead under six feet of land. I am curious to know if the Catholic Church has a written rule or protocol governing the depth of the grave in a cemetery that a grown-up dead faithful can be buried in.

As far as universal rules are concerned, Canon 1243 is relevant:

  Appropriate norms are to be enacted by particular law for the management of cemeteries, especially in what concerns the protection and fostering of their sacred character.

The depth of a grave is part of the cemetery's management, and is governed by “particular law” — which might be a civil law or a ruling in a particular territory (Conference or even diocese).

My translation is prepared by the Canon Law Society of Great Britain and Ireland, 1983


Is having a moment of silence for someone anti-Christian? In our school, in one of my periods, one of my teachers told us the important things late Steve Jobs has done for the world and encouraged us to have a moment of silence for him for about 10 seconds. When I got home and told Dad about it, he said that it was a good thing. However when I told my Mom, she flipped out and said that it was anti-Christian and basically in the line of idol worshiping and told me to ask for forgiveness.
I do not get it. How is having a moment of silence for someone a bad thing? IS it a bad thing?

P.S. our family is Puritanish.

I don't think there's anything religious at all about a moment of silence for somebody who died. It is supposed to be a moment to remember those persons and to show our respect for them.. If someone wishes to use the opportunity to pray, then that is their own business.

The political issues brought up in David Stratton's answer seem to be more concerned with a moment of silence where it is not held in connection to some deceased person or tragic event. For example, a daily moment of silence in schools are seen by some as an endorsement of prayer in conflict with the separation between church and state, but that is a different matter and not really relevant to this question.

However, I agree that it would be best to ask her once she has cooled down.


When was the acronym ACTS first used to refer to components of prayer? When was the mnemonic acronym ACTS, standing for Adoration, Confession, Thanksgiving, and Supplication, first used to refer to the components of prayer?

1883.  The earliest printed example I have found specifically referring to the acronym ACTS is from a serial story by "Marion Harland" (Mary Virginia Terhune) that was printed in an August 8, 1883 publication of the periodical The Continent:

  Our Mr. Burgess once informed a youthful theologue in my hearing that "the monosyllable 'ACTS' formed an excellent epitomical guide in the composition of the principal prayer offered in public worship.  This should begin with Adoration, proceed to Confession, rise into Thanksgiving and close with Supplication."

Mr. Burgess here is the name of the pastor in the story, and apparently not a historical figure.  However, the author's husband was a Presbyterian minister, Edward Payson Terhune, so if the acronym was not original to her, it's possible that she picked it up from him.

Earlier authors referred to the same four elements in the same sequence, but did not mention an acronym.  For example, the Principles of Christian Philosophy (1836) includes:

  Generally speaking, prayer may be arranged under the heads of adoration, confession, thanksgiving, and supplication.

These four components, however, were recognized long before this, but not always in the same order, and sometimes tantalizingly close to an unrelated use of the word "acts."  For example, The Evangelical Magazine, in 1807, printed:

  Many ministers whom I have attended, have seemed forgetful of the nature and design of social worship, so as to fail of introducing those acts of adoration, confession, supplication, and thanksgiving, which constitute the principal parts of prayer.

The online dictionary of Christianese provides some other early examples, but nothing as early as the ones I've provided here.  Still, I wouldn't be surprised if an example earlier than 1883 is out there somewhere.


Who is "Samuel" in the story of Saul, Samuel, and the Medium? In 1st Samuel 28, Saul gets the witch of Endor to summon Samuel back from the dead.  Is this really Samuel or some demon impersonating Samuel?

If it is the real Samuel here, how does this woman have the power to pull Samuel from Abraham's bosom (re: the story of Lazarus) back into this world?

This is a very tricky set of verses to interpret. Some think it is the Devil taunting Saul, but others think God used the very vices that Saul sought in his guilt to reprove him and prophecy against him.

I prefer the second option, that is this apparition is not of the Devil, but quite contrary to the woman’s satanic powers God used the occasion to overwhelm Saul so that wherever Saul turned God’s frown would follow him as a horrid curse.

To wonder whether Samuel appeared objectively or by a vision, I would lean towards merely a vision because his soul appears to have come out of the earth in the vision.  Naturally there was a belief that holy disembodied souls lived in heaven and if the vision was meant to be assumed as objective, the real soul of Samuel would probably have come from the sky down to the earth as that would have been more in keeping with how Enoch, Elijah and Jesus left the earth.

Addition

Contrary to what one might think today there were some Jewish beliefs before Christ of the soul going to paradise, or the Bosom of Abraham. The Sadducess did not probably hold this view but Jesus mentioning the Bosom of Abraham was probably in line with some of the views held in the traditios of the Pharisees.  In any case the famous Jewish historian says:

  the carrying up of the soul of the righteous by Angels is certainly in accordance with Jewish teaching, though stripped of all legendary details, such as about the number and the greetings of the Angels. (Alfred Edersheim Life and Times of Jesus, P858)

As another sample, in the Hebrew writings of the Maccabess we have similar ideas in accordance with the jokes that people have today about Peter meeting us at the pearly gates:

  For if we so die, Abraham and Isaac and Jacob will welcome us, and all the fathers will praise us. (4 Maccabees 13:17)

Although it may be difficult to prove when the Hebrews started to beleive in paradise as recording in ancient rabbinic literature, there seems to be logical grounds for assuming very early on. It is plausable that before Isaac was born Abraham had faith that his soul would go to his ancestors when his body was burried. His belief that God could raise Isaac from the dead is described in the New Tetament as the reason why he was willing to kill him.

  You, however, will go to your ancestors in peace and be buried at a good old age. (NIV Genesis 15:15)


What is the role of the Holy Spirit in the Thomistic understanding of vocation? What is the role of the Holy Spirit in the Thomistic understanding of vocation and how is the action of the Holy Spirit manifest when one is being called to religious state?

Related questions:

History of the doctrine of religious vocation in Catholic Church

Catholic doctrine on spiritual vocation

Whether Ignatian spiritual exercises are good for the discernment of vocation according to Thomistic understanding of vocation?

St. Thomas Aquinas discusses the role of the Holy Spirit in leading one into religious life in his Contra doctrinam retrahentium a religione (Refutation of the Pernicious Teaching of Those Who Would Deter Men from Entering Religious Life) ch. 9, "Answers to the Arguments Used to Prove That Before Entering Religious Life a Man Ought to Deliberate for a Long Time, and Take Counsel of Many":

[…] there is another way [besides Holy Scripture] whereby God speaks interiorly to men, viz. the way alluded to in Ps. 84:9: “I will hear what the Lord God will speak in me.” Now this interior voice is to be preferred to any external speech. St. Gregory says (Homil. Pentecostes):

The Creator does not speak to the understanding of a man, unless He speak to that same man by the unction of the Holy Spirit. Before Cain slew his brother he heard a voice saying, “You have sinned; stop.” But as, on account of his sin, he was admonished by a voice alone, and not by the unction of the Spirit, he was indeed able to hear the word of God, but refused to obey it.

If then we are bound to obey immediately the audible voice of our Creator, how much more ought we not, unhesitatingly and unresistingly, to obey the interior whisper, whereby the Holy Spirit changes the heart of man. Hence, in Is 50:5, it is said by the mouth of the Prophet, or rather of Christ Himself: “The Lord God has opened my ear (i.e. by interior inspiration), and I do not resist. I have not gone back.” “Forgetting the things that are behind, and stretching forth myself to those that are before,” as we read in the Epistle to the Philippians (3:13). St. Paul, again, says (Rom 8:14), “Whoever are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.” The Gloss of St. Augustine has the following comment: “Such men do not perform anything, but act under the impulse of grace.” But he who resists or hesitates, does not act by the impulse of the Holy Spirit.
It is then the distinguishing mark of the sons of to be carried forward by grace to better things, without waiting for counsel. This impulse of grace is alluded to in the Prophet Isaiah (59:59), “When he comes as a violent stream, which the spirit of the Lord drives on.” St. Paul teaches us that this impulse of grace is to be obeyed: “Walk in the Spirit” (Gal 5:16), and again (5:25), “If you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.” St. Stephen thus reproached certain men, “You always resist the Holy Spirit” (Acts 7:51). St. Paul says (1 Thes 5:19), “Do not extinguish the Spirit.” On which words, the Gloss comments: “If the Holy Spirit should at any time reveal something to a certain man, do not forbid him to make known what he has heard.” Now, the Holy Spirit gives His revelations not only by teaching man what he ought to speak, but by suggesting to him what he ought to do (John 14). When, therefore, a man is inspired by this Holy Spirit to enter religious life, it is his duty to follow the inspiration at once, without waiting to take counsel of human advisers. This is shown us by the words of the Prophet Ezekiel (1:20), “Wherever the spirit went, they went, and the wheels rose along with them.”
[…]
Interior inspiration has efficacy to enable those to whom it is given to accomplish great deeds. We read in the Acts of the Apostles [2:11] that when the disciples were gathered together, the Holy Spirit came upon them and made them speak of the wonders of God. The Gloss says on this passage: “The grace of the Holy Spirit of God knows no obstacles.” Again, the Book of Sirach (11:23) has these words: “It is easy in the eyes of God suddenly to make a poor man rich.” St. Augustine speaks of the efficacy of internal inspiration in his book De praedestinatione Sanctorum [ch. 13]. He quotes the words recorded in St. John (6[:45]), “Everyone who has heard of the Father and has learned, comes to Me.” On these words he says, “This school where the Father is heard and teaches, in order that men may come to the Son, is far removed from the senses; for in it we hear not with ears of flesh, but with the hearing of the heart.” Again he says: “The grace which, by the Divine munificence, is secretly bestowed is not rejected by any hard heart; for it is given in order that hardness may be entirely taken away.” St. Gregory, in his Homilia Pentecostes, treats of the efficacy of interior inspiration: “Oh, how cunning a workman is this Spirit. He makes no delay in teaching what He wishes. As soon as He touches the heart, He teaches it. His touch is teaching. He changes the human mind as soon as He enlightens it; and the man taught by Him at once forsakes what he was, in order to show what he was not.” He who hesitates to obey the impulse of the Holy Spirit for the sake of taking counsel either knows not this impulse, or else resists it.


According to Catholicism, why did the robbers strip the traveler to Jericho? At Luke 10:30 (NRSVCE) we meet the traveler to Jericho who was saved by the Good Samaritan,  in a vivid narrative given by Jesus:

" Jesus replied, “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell into the hands of robbers, who stripped him, beat him, and went away, leaving him half dead.""

One is eager to know why Jesus made a mention of robbers stripping the traveler. They would have done it to search for hidden purses. Or, Jesus perhaps wanted to give a benefit of doubt to  the priest who would naturally  take the traveler  for naked and dead, therefore `double-unclean'. I therefore, wish to know the importance of Jesus' mention of the stripping and beating of the traveler to Jericho. Do the  teachings of Catholic Church say anything about it ?

The robbers represent the demons, the fallen angels, who take advantage of man fallen into sin:

From the Catena Aurea on Luke 10:

  AMBROSE: But who are those robbers but the Angels of night and darkness, among whom he had not fallen, unless by deviating from the divine command he had placed himself in their way.

and

  AUGUSTINE: He fell then among robbers, that is, the devil and his angels, who through the disobedience of the first man, stripped the race of mankind of the ornaments of virtue, and wounded him, that is, by ruining the gift of the power of free will. Hence it follows, who stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, for to that man sinning he gave a wound, but to us many wounds since to one sin which we contract we add many.

The priest and Levite signify the Law of Moses, which cannot free man from sin:

Explaining Luke 10:30, the 1582 Rheims New Testament commentary says:

  Half Dead.] Here is signified man wounded very sore in his understanding and free will,
  and all other powers of soul and body, by the sin of Adam: but yet that neither understanding, nor free
  will, nor the rest, were extinguished in man or taken away. The Priest and Levite, signify the Law of
  Moses: this Samaritan, is Christ the Priest of the New Testament: the oil and wine, his Sacraments: the
  host, the priests his ministers. Whereby is signified, that the [Old] Law could not recover the spiritual life of
  mankind from the death of sin, that is, justify man: but Christ only, who by his passion and the grace
  and virtue thereof ministered in and by his Sacraments, justifieth, and increaseth the justice of man,
  healing and abling free will to do all good works.


What's the difference between the Judgment Seat of Christ and the Great White Throne Judgment? The Bible speaks of the "Judgment Seat of Christ" as well as the "Great White Throne" judgment.  What is the difference between these two judgments and who will be at each?

  For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that
  each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body,
  whether good or evil.  2 Corinthians 5:10 ESV

  "And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from
  whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no
  place for them. And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God;
  and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is [the
  book] of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were
  written in the books, according to their works. And the sea gave up
  the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead
  which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their
  works. And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the
  second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life
  was cast into the lake of fire".  Revelation 20:11-15 ESV

They are both speaking of the same thing, it is just that the "Judgment Seat of Christ" is how Paul refers to it while the "Great White Throne" is how John the Revelator refers to it!

NT scholar Craig Keener says of 2 Corinthians 5:10:

  Paul's allusion here is directly to the standard OT and Jewish image of the day of judgment, in which GOD's throne became the ultimate judgment seat.

And of Revelation 20:11:

  Although many writers also stressed a judgment of souls at death, Judaism had much to say about the day of judgment before GOD's throne at the end of the age.

Thus meaning that both Paul and John the Revelator were heavily influenced by their own Jewish understanding of the throne of GOD being where judgment would happen but also influenced by their belief in Christ being that GOD AND KING who sits on the throne!


The seven churches that were condemned; did any of them repent? In Revelation, there were seven churches that were told of their actions and were told to repent of their sins or there will be consequenes. Are there any written words that told whether the seven churches actually repented?

First, of the seven churches in Revelation individually addressed, not all are condemned/rebuked.

The church in Smyrna (Rev 2:8-11) is not condemned. Likewise, the church in Philadelphia is not rebuked (Rev 3:7-13).

We do know that those churches no longer exist today, so at some point their candlestick was removed. Whether or not the 5 did repent at least to some degree, we are not told.


Under what circumstances may female Jehovah's Witnesses teach doctrine to men in an evangelistic setting? I will apologize at the outset as this question stems more from anecdote than from research.
Anecdote 1 - Some years ago, while at the local dump, I was approached by a woman for help unloading the trunk of her car.  By way of thanks (after a brief conversation) she offered me some Jehovah's Witness material, notably a booklet called "What Does The Bible Really Teach?".  I gladly accepted and offered to read the book and then reunite with her to discuss the contents.  She declined and instead offered to have one of the deacons (male) from the local Kingdom Hall contact me if I was interested in studying the booklet together.  The reason she gave for declining my offer was that JW women were not allowed to instruct men.
Anecdote 2 - Much to my wife's chagrin I have always invited JW into my home to discuss the scriptures when they come knocking at the door.  My wife was homeschooling our children at the time and would send JW visitors away if I was off at work.  As these visits were concurrent with a year long bible study via telephone (the result of anecdote 1) I requested of the JW deacon with whom I was speaking that visits during my away hours cease.  What occurred is that male visits during my away hours ceased but small groups of females periodically stopped by (more spousal chagrin).  As my work schedule became apparent so did this pattern:  When I was known to be home it was men who came and never women.
I found some relevant information in Watchtower online which seems to indicate that women may witness to and teach men in an evangelistic setting but may not teach doctrine or preside over a congregation wherein there are baptized male believers.
My question is:  Was the woman from anecdote 1 just being extra cautious in declining to undertake bible study with me or was my it baptism in a Protestant denomination that was enough to disqualify her as my teacher?
A corollary question is:  How does this affect a JW woman's ability to answer questions on a site such as this Christianity Stack where an OP's gender is often unknown and an OP's baptism into Christianity is often unknown but is likely to have occurred?

There is no issue with a female Jehovah’s Witness evangelizing to a male.
Within the congregation women do not generally teach from the stage. Exceptions would be in isolated groups where a man is not available. When this becomes necessary a sister wears a head covering.
Head covering protocols are explained  here
Your baptism would not effect this since head covering protocols relate to baptized Jehovah’s Witnesses and within a family where the wife is taking on a role that is usually the responsibility of the head of the household (husband).
Since you have not been baptized as a JW nor are you married to her this would not be an issue.
As for your anecdotal observation this is a matter of propriety and safety.
When a sister comes upon a man who expresses interest in learning more about Jehovah’s Witnesses beliefs she will engage in a discussion with him. If this occurs at the mans home and she is invited into the home a sister will use good judgement to avoid putting herself in danger or giving an appearance of impropriety.
She would not enter the mans home if it would mean she and he would be alone in the house.
A brother would exercise the same good judgement if invited in by a female.
Most of the time we don’t go to doors alone and that goes a long way toward preventing this from becoming a problem.
If a sister determines that the man is genuinely interested in learning more she will arrange to return with a brother on the next visit if possible.
If not possible two sisters may return and the evangelizing session could resume.
Generally when a sister finds a man who wishes to learn more she will turn this over to a brother for future visits, not because there is a problem with a female JW evangelizing or teaching a man who may be baptized into a different denomination but for the avoidance of any impropriety or appearance there of.


Does Christianity as described in the Bible support dualism of the mind and body? Certain passages in the Bible seem to support Dualism, while others seem to support Materialism.

Definitions of Dualism and Materialism: I do not know where I pasted this from, but as curiousdanni says it is word for word the same as Wikipedia, which I do not use since it is open to editing by anyone.

  Dualism is the concept that our mind is more than just our brain. This concept
      entails that our mind has a non-material, spiritual dimension that includes
      consciousness and possibly an eternal attribute.

  Materialism holds that everything in our universe is made from physical materials
      including the human mind or brain and that spiritual attributes do not exist in the
      universe. This concept holds that our mind and brain are one and the same.

Examples in Scripture:

For Dualism:

John 9:39  KJV

  And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not
  might see; and that they which see might be made blind.

Matthew 13:13  KJV

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

Matthew 13:14  KJV

  And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall
  hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:

Matthew 13:15  KJV

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

As I read these Scriptures Jesus is using parables to awaken the Spiritual consciousness of those he is addressing.

And in the following Scriptures he is telling his disciples that they have all of the material evidence they need, Since everyone knows how the human body processes food, and since he took a small amount and fed a multitude. Thus he was proving his deity with all of the material evidence necessary and there was no need for Spiritual understanding.

Matthew 15:17  KJV

  Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?

Matthew 16:9  KJV

  Do ye not yet understand, neither remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets ye took up?

In John  9:39 and Matthew chapter 13 it appears to me that Jesus is hinting that there is a Spiritual component to Understanding Heavenly things, yet in Chapters 15 and 16 of Matthew it appears that he is saying that they should know from just what they have seen.

Is it possible that materialism is for Earthly knowledge, and Dualism is necessary for Heavenly knowledge?

Of course, in philosophy, all of these terms are contested. That is what philosophers do. Philosophically, there is a problem about what exactly is meant by "physical" or "material". If the intention is to exclude the soul, God, etc., then it is certainly incompatible with Christianity, however the definition is made. Still, it's a tricky business to actually write the definition.

Also, "dualism" is a loaded term because it has often been used to refer to a very strict separation between mind and body. This detachment is not an essential feature of the Christian view. For example, life after death could be explained by saying that the body dies but the soul survives, or else by divine reconstruction of the consciousness in a new form. The latter version is not dualistic, but it is a decent match to, say, Paul's account of the raising of the spiritual body.

Materialism or physicalism has been held to be inherently atheistic, because God is understood to be a spiritual being, and therefore beyond the realm of material or physical inquiry. Moreover, Christianity asserts that God reveals truths to humans which were otherwise inaccessible1, whereas the whole point of physicalism is that every truth is deducible (in principle) from physical observation and reason, or else it is unknowable. (Here, I mean something less formal than "doing science" - I'm not saying that materialism is tied to any methodology, but that it's a metaphysical position about how we come to know things. Hence it is basically the same thing as asserting the materiality of the mind: our consciousness being purely physical means that everything about the mind can be explained by the material conditions of the world.) As an axiom of metaphysics, this does not find Biblical support.

As your examples show, the Bible does support the idea that knowledge can be obtained as a result of observation and reason. God is forever saying "look at this!". But that doesn't mean that's all there is to it. Even if we can explain certain things by physics - the way that light enters the eye, and nerve signals reach the brain - the divine hand is not necessarily absent. We learn from Scripture all about the continuous divine command over the natural world. (Let's not worry about determinism, though! We have enough problems already.) So we may be able to form a world-view where the production of material knowledge is still due to God; the physical account ("it's all because of quantum") does not destroy the spiritual version ("God did it"). Natural law theories are a good example.

1. Actually, I suppose this might be a contested point. Certainly there are things we don't know (1 Cor 13:12 is as good a proof-text as any) and things which have been revealed (the Bible, passim). Perhaps John 6:44-46, quoting Isaiah 54:13, is enough to show that certain things taught by God could not have been known to us without the action of God. Longer example passages include Hebrews 11 (faith in things not seen) and 1 Corinthians 2 (God reveals things we have not imagined) quoting Isaiah 64:4 (nobody has heard or seen).


What were the main arguments put forth at the Fifth ecumenical council against the preexistence of human souls? As far as I know, the idea of the preexistence of human souls was condemned on the Fifth ecumenical council (the Second Council of Constantinople). The Wikipedia page on the decrees of that council says much about the condemnation of The Three chapters, but nothing about the condemnation of the preexistence of human souls.

What were the main arguments put forth at that council against the preexistence of human souls?

Just to be clear, the pre-existence of souls discussed in the Second Council of Constantinople is a teaching specifically put forth by Origen of Alexandria which said a bit more than "human souls existed prior to their human bodies." The following teaching is what was condemned at the council.

In its fullness, the teaching stated that all intelligent souls were created before any of the physical world; furthermore, they were created in union with God. Some souls grew weary of loving God and became demons; some grew to love God moderately less and became humans; some remained in God and became angels.

In the First of the Anathemas of the Emperor Justinian Against Origen, he states:

  Whoever says or thinks that human souls pre-existed, i.e., that they had previously been spirits and holy powers, but that, satiated with the vision of God, they had turned to evil, and in this way the divine love in them had died out ... let him be anathema.

Essentially, Origen's teaching states something that is not possible: for a soul to know and love God fully and to turn away. God's glory and goodness means that any soul/spirit that truly knows and loves God would never choose anything else. Hence, a soul cannot grow weary of God.

In addition to the source quoted above, the Anathemas Against Origen (in the same document) give some more things that were found particularly objectionable in Origen's teaching such as:

Jesus' human soul was not always united with God the Word (contradicts teachings on the Trinity)
The sun, moon, and stars have rational souls (they are just physical objects)
At the end of the time, there will be no material world (contradicts the physical resurrection of the human body)

There are many other things in there to be read, but I will not cover all of them here. Generally, it seems in the document that they state the particular parts of teaching of the pre-existence of souls that are in conflict with doctrine without offering specific arguments against them. This leads me to believe that the arguments against Origen's teaching are simply the arguments in favor of the doctrines of the Church which would be located elsewhere.

Sources: Wikipedia: Origen, Second Council Constantinople.


Did Jesus visit India? Some traditions state that Jesus visited India between the ages of 12 and 33, in order to study and learn. What evidence is there that he did or did not visit India?

Where was Jesus from his age 12 to 33?

From age 12 to 30 he was in Nazareth. And from age 30 to 33 he was in and around Jerusalem. Where else? And no, he was not in India.

Why does scripture not mention this period in Jesus' life?

Because scriptures are not biographies of Christ. Their intention and purpose was different. They wanted to record the story of salvation. And from a Christian perspective, by divine providence, the hidden life of Christ (age 12 to 30) is not necessary for that.

India as a hub of knowledge

If assuming that Jesus traveled to gain knowledge, rather than India, a more convenient and feasible destination would be Rome. Rome was connected by road to Jerusalem and by extension to Nazareth too. Think about the dangers of crossing all those countries to reach India. Also, India was not a single country at that time. A host of kingdoms ruled over India in those days. (All of this is under the assumption of ignoring Jerusalem, which was the center for Jewish studies, and the assumption that Jesus needed to travel to gain knowledge, which he never preached about or talked about in his later years.)

Other problems with this hypothesis

There are many other problems in this hypothesis. Some of them are:

There is absolutely no concrete evidence. Absolutely none!! Those people who claim that he went to India say that there are scrolls hidden deep in some monastery. But that is not evidence. It is just fables. Anyone could claim anything like this. These are not mentioned in any reliable sources, nor can they be verified at all.
Being a devout Jew, Jesus would not have studied in a polytheistic religion. If he had, at least it should have been reflected in his teaching, which it is not.
We know from his public life that just like every other devout Jew, Jesus made a pilgrimage to Jerusalem every year. The last recorded event of Jesus' childhood was a pilgrimage to Jerusalem. From this we can reasonably assume that he made the pilgrimage during his hidden life too. Even a single trip to and from India that time would be extremely dangerous and difficult no matter what the means of transportation. Also, the trip would be very costly, and Jesus' family was poor.
Jesus was known in his community as a carpenter, since it was a Jewish tradition for young boys to learn their father's trade. His parables were even influenced by his job. He told of building a house on a rock as opposed to sand (Matthew 7:24-27). This is a great indication that Jesus has spent his adolescent years in his own community.
There are numerous passages in the Bible stating that people recognized him and refused to believe in him because he was just a carpenter and they knew him too well to accept him. This implies that Jesus was very well known in his community, which would not have been possible if he had been in India for most of his life. (See Matthew 2:23; 13:54-56; Luke 2:51-52; 4:22.)
Why did Jesus not talk about India to his disciples? None of the early records mention such a journey. The Jewish leaders did not like Jesus. So when they condemned him, they would certainly have said that he had learned heretical things in a foreign land. They knew who he was, and the people knew who he was. So this going to India hypothesis does not hold water.

There is a similar theory called the Swoon hypothesis, which claims that Jesus went to India after his death but before the ascension. Covering this would be beyond the scope of the question, but Wikipedia does a decent job of explaining the problems with it.


Is there a good overview of Christian denominations/churches and their mapping between countries There seem to be a confusingly large number of Christian churches (Catholic, Lutheran, baptists, evangelicals, Presbyterians). Could someone point me to a good overview that lists the mainstream ones, shows the main doctrinal differences, and also how they map between different countries. For example the German "Evangelische Kirche" seems quite different from the what in the US is called "evangelical".

You can find a fairly comprehensive history of Christian Denominations and their origins on the Wikipedia article for "Christian denomination."

This chart, written by Wendell Holmes Rone from a distinctly Landmarkist perspective, maps out some of the key denominational differences. (Click to enlarge images)

If don't mind excessive advertising, a more comprehensive chart can be found here: Denominations Beliefs

As far as maps go, here's a fairly current source (2010) that maps distinct denominations within the US and broader categories of Christianity throughout the world based on internet presence.

From Britanica (1995)

Find out more here:

Mapping Religious Cyberscapes

New Technologies and Interdisciplinary Research on Religion

Mapping Christianity


In Romans 3:1-8, what is God being faithful towards? Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? Much, in every way. For in the first place the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God. What if some were unfaithful? Will their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God?
  By no means! Although everyone is a liar, let God be proved true, as it is written,
  “So that you may be justified in your words,
  and prevail in your judging.”
  But if our injustice serves to confirm the justice of God, what should we say? That God is unjust to inflict wrath on us? (I speak in a human way.) By no means! For then how could God judge the world? But if through my falsehood God’s truthfulness abounds to his glory, why am I still being condemned as a sinner? And why not say (as some people slander us by saying that we say), “Let us do evil so that good may come”? Their condemnation is deserved! (Romans 3:1-8, NRSV)

This passage tells us that although some Jews were unfaithful, their faithlessness does not nullify the faithfulness of God. What does it mean for God to remain faithful? Faithful towards what?

Also, in

  So that you may be justified in your words,
  and prevail in your judging.

Which words and which judging is referred to?

Thank you, brothers and sisters!

The unfaithfulness of the Jews in no way hinders or nullifies God's promises to Abraham and his seed.

"What I am saying is this: the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise."
(Galatians 3:17 NASB)

Despite their unfaithfulness, God has confirmed and fulfilled the promises made to Abraham by sending Jesus, the promised offspring of Abraham (Romans 15:8) so that what was promised might be given to those who believe (Galatians 3:22), not to those who work the works of the law.  Failure to keep the law does not negate God's faithfulness to his promise--the word of his oath--given to Abraham and his offspring.


How do Calvinists explain God's wanting no one to perish and electing some to judgement? I have two ideas that have support in the bible, but seem to contradict! Please help! I am looking for a Calvinist/Evangelical answer.

These two verses have the general effect that God does not want anybody to go to hell.

  The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance. (2 Peter 3:9, NIV)

and

  who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. (1 Timothy 2:4)

However, God clearly claims his sovereignty over souls going to heaven and hell. He decides who goes to heaven, and who doesn't.

  And the LORD said, "I will cause all my goodness to pass in front of you, and I will proclaim my name, the LORD, in your presence. I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. (Exodus 33:19)

and

  21 Does not the potter have the right to make from the same lump of clay one vessel for special occasions and another for common use? 22 What if God, intending to show His wrath and make His power known, bore with great patience the vessels of His wrath, prepared for destruction? (Romans 9:21–22)

So one 'will' of Seems to be, he doesn't want anyone to go to hell. On the other hand, he clearly says he sends people to hell according to... a different will?!

I think the same problem applies in 'God doesn't want anyone to commit murder in general, however he clearly wanted the Jews crucify the Son of God'

Can anybody explain to me how Calvinists resolve these tensions?

The typical Calvinist response to this question is captured well by Wayne Grudem in his Systematic Theology:

[1 Timothy 2:4 and 2 Peter 3:9] speak of God's revealed will (telling us what we should do), not his hidden will (his eternal plans for what will happen).  The verses simply tell us that God invites and commands every person to repent and come to Christ for salvation, but they do not tell us anything about God's secret decrees regarding who will be saved. (32.D.6)

It's true that some Calvinists take a different approach and suggest that "all" in 2 Peter 3:9 refers only to the elect, and the "all" in 1 Timothy 2:4 could be interpreted as "all sorts of people."  John Piper explains this in more detail in his article, "Are There Two Wills in God?," but like Grudem he too argues for "two ways of willing" in God.  Piper draws on one of the classic proof texts for this idea, Acts 2:23:

this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men. (ESV)

That is, the most heinous crime in all of history, the brutal murder of the Son of God, was part of God's "plan" (his "secret" or "decretive" will).  And despite that, it's clear that the men who killed him sinned – they violated the commandments of God (his "revealed" or "preceptive" will).
Let's look at a few more verses that are used to establish this idea.  First, here are some that describe God's will as fully independent and never failing:

Psalm 115:3: Our God is in the heavens; he does all that he pleases. [ESV]
Daniel 4:32: the Most High rules the kingdom of men and gives it to whom he will.
Romans 9:18: So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.

These verses above describe his "decretive" will.  But the following verses show that his "preceptive will" is regularly disobeyed:

Matthew 7:21: "Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven." [cf. Matthew 12:50]
Ephesians 5:17: Therefore do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is.

For more analysis of this and my answer to a similar question, see How can God be Sovereign (in the Reformed sense) if a man can ignore His call to repentance?  Piper's article also gives a thorough defense of this type of distinction.
One closing thought: it's worth noting that Calvinists argue that this difficulty also applies to Arminianism.  Arminians must also reconcile "God desires that every individual be saved" and their belief that not every individual is saved (at least those who reject universalism and affirm God's omnipotence).  Their explanation, Grudem says, is that God desires humans to have free will more than he wants them to be saved, and that this is a manifestation of the two aspects of his will.  How Arminians would say they deal with this issue is a subject for another question.


On which date was Christ born? Most Christians celebrate the birth of Christ (Christmas) on December 25. But was this really the day of Christ's birth? What was the actual date of Christ's birth?

As far as I know there is no proof of any certain date of Christ's birth. And it is only by tradition that we accept it as the 25th of December. Now I'm not one for following tradition for traditions sake, but according to this site a lot of the evidence that people provide to rule out December as Christ's birthday is not rooted in fact. I don't think the exact day is important to salvation myself, but the fact that He was born. According to the author of that site the movement to suggest he couldn't have been born in december was started by the Jehovah's Witnesses, I don't know if that's true but that's what he claims.

The author dosen't claim that Jesus definitely was born on Dec. 25th. But claims that we just can't rule that out. Here are a couple of his points:

Those against the December date claim that it was too cold for
shepherds to be out in the field in winter; However it didn't seem to
actually get that cold in Bethlehem in December, and even if it did
shepherds would in fact stay out in the fields even in colder
weather.
Claims are made that tradition puts it in December beacause of the
pegan winter solstice, the problem with that argument is that the
winter solstice is on the 21st to the 22nd, not the 25th, and there
are thousands of pegan holidays so ANY day is some pegan celebration
in some part of the world.

So can it be proved that it was the 25th of December? No. Can it be disproved? Probably not.

Does it matter more that it happened on a certain day or just the fact that it happened?


How does Jesus show love by suffering? I wonder, how does the suffering of Jesus/God show love?

I do not believe that Jesus suffered to forgive our sins. If God is love, God doesn't need to make a terrible sacrifice to forgive our sins. God can forgive without it. This explanation is really inconceivable to me.

It seems to me like part of the answer is to show that God suffers with us and that we don't suffer alone, but this answer doesn't completely satisfy me either.

Short answer:

The reason is, that Jesus' suffered and died in our place.

This is how the bible puts it in Romans 5:6-8 ESV:

  6 For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. 7 For one will scarcely die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die— 8 but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (emphasis added)

By way of further explanation:

The bible tells us that suffering and death entered the world (and persists in it) because of mankind's sin - that is, our deliberate rebellion against God's perfect way of doing what is right. Sin is massively problematic, not just in it's short term effects (immediate victims), but in it's long term consequences (for instance, our very identity becomes limited by our warped behaviour) and also the fact that, by it's nature, it excludes from (our) consideration the Great Source of Life, Truth and Healing who could remedy the situation - the loving Heavenly Father and Creator that we have rebelled against. Suffering (and ultimately death) is both a consequence of sin, but also a judgment against it - God uses it to discipline, restrain and ultimately stop us from multiplying sin and wickedness indefinitely.  If God were to 'just forgive us', it would not solve the underlying problem of the sin nature in us - we would continue to sin more and more and continue to suffer the consequences for doing so. The fundamental problems to solve, are our separation from God and our sinful nature.

Though we would not turn to God to solve our sin problem, God did not leave us to our devices without a remedy, but came in the person of His Son, to live amongst us - showing us what the Heavenly Father is like and also experiencing our humanity - including weakness, suffering and death.  The suffering and death that Jesus endured were not a consequence of His own sin, as He was perfect in all His ways and always did the things that please the Heavenly Father, rather, they were entered into willingly as a substitionary offering to take on the suffering and death that all mankind deserves.

As Isaiah puts it:

  4 Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows;
  yet we esteemed him stricken,
      smitten by God, and afflicted.
  5 But he was pierced for our transgressions;
      he was crushed for our iniquities;
  upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace,
      and with his wounds we are healed.
  6 All we like sheep have gone astray;
      we have turned—every one—to his own way;
  and the Lord has laid on him
      the iniquity of us all. - Isaiah 53:4-6 ESV

Since Jesus has paid this price, we now have the opportunity to renew a relationship with God and receive 'salvation' - this word contains many ideas, but it's essence is directed at the complete reversal of the problem of sin and the consequences of sin including suffering and death.  We can by faith, receive healing from God and eternal life.  Because of the long-term effects of sin on this world, we may still experience temporal suffering to a degree (though it's impact will be greatly lessened to the faith-filled salvation-receivers) and physical death, but we have a promise of resurrection to a new life completely free of suffering and death - all because of what Jesus has done.

An Illustration:

You may still be thinking, how does this 'show love'? perhaps the following will help -

Imagine being someone trying to pay a mortgage off on a house.  And through your own fault - even against the advice of those who love you, you spend way beyond your means to the point that you run up large amounts of other debts and can no longer afford to buy even food.  You will suffer in the short term as you haven't kept enough money for food.  You may experience further suffering as various items are repossessed that you cannot make payments for.  You will also suffer anxiety and apprehension that you will be evicted if you cannot make your mortgage payments.  Now imagine, that the one who loves you the most, sees your distress and pays all your debts including your mortgage - the cost (suffering) to them is large, they had no obligation to do this, they did it anyway. They further offer that if you sign over the deeds of your house, you can come and live with them permanently in a much better place that is entirely free of the consequences your mistakes.  There is a wing of their mansion already prepared for you, all you need to do is sign over the paperwork and do a bit of spring-cleaning before you move - the one who loves you will even come and help you do the cleaning! Of course, you are not forced to this, you could just re-mortgage your house to finance your previous lifestyle, and spurn their kind offer; You could conceivably even refuse their help in the first place and insist that you will (somehow!) pay your own debts. In both these latter cases, the end result will no doubt involve a great deal more suffering.

That is a very limited and inadequate picture of what Jesus has done in our place.

Disclaimer: though I am a Protestant, I seek to write not (merely) from that perspective, but from an orthodox (in the wider sense) Christian perspective that includes the Catholic view. (as well as Eastern Orthodox etc.)  If I have not faithfully done that, I welcome any correction.


Did Luther add a word to Romans 3? There are many who have pointed out that Luther added the word, "alone" to Romans 3:28 (you can read one such example in this question) so that the Luther Bible reads:

  for we reckon a man to be justified by faith alone without deeds of law

where the Greek reads:

  for we reckon a man to be justified by faith without deeds of law

Is this true?

Yes and no. Yes he added it, no it is not the atrocity that it necessarily implies.

Part of Luther's defense of the translation is that inclusion of the word "alone" is more grammatically correct than its exclusion. While I'm not an expert in German, I do speak enough of it to know that he does have a point.

His problem, though, is in the interpretation of the verse. If we're being true to the original Greek the passage is better understood, "of the set {faith, works of the law} man is only reconciled by faith."


What's the difference between predestination and predeterminism? Could someone please plainly spell out the differences between the following concepts?

Predestination
Predeterminism
Determinism
Theological determinism

There appears to be some debate over whether or not some of these terms are synonymous and interchangeable. Calvinists undoubtedly believe in predestination, but how does predestination differ from the other three concepts listed above?

From wikipedia (great source, I know):

Predestination

  Predestination, in theology, is the doctrine that all events have been
  willed by God.

Predeterminism

  Predeterminism is the idea that all events are determined in advance.
  Predeterminism is the philosophy that all events of history, past,
  present and future, have been already decided or are already known (by
  God, fate, or some other force), including human actions.

Determination (=Determinism, Predetermination)

  Determinism is the philosophical position that for every event,
  including human action, there exist conditions that could cause no
  other event. "There are many determinisms, depending upon what
  pre-conditions are considered to be determinative of an event."
  Deterministic theories throughout the history of philosophy have
  sprung from diverse and sometimes overlapping motives and
  considerations. Some forms of determinism can be empirically tested
  with ideas from physics and the philosophy of physics. The opposite of
  determinism is some kind of indeterminism (otherwise called
  nondeterminism). Determinism is often contrasted with free will.

  Determinism often is taken to mean causal determinism, which in
  physics is known as cause-and-effect. It is the concept that events
  within a given paradigm are bound by causality in such a way that any
  state (of an object or event) is completely determined by prior
  states. This meaning can be distinguished from other varieties of
  determinism mentioned below. [..] Determinism rarely requires that perfect prediction be practically possible.

Theological determination

  Theological determinism is a form of determinism which states that all
  events that happen are pre-ordained, or predestined to happen, by a
  monotheistic deity, or that they are destined to occur given its
  omniscience.
  [..]
  Two forms of theological determinism exist, here referenced as strong
  and weak theological determinism.

  The first one, strong theological determinism, is based on the concept
  of a creator deity dictating all events in history: "everything that
  happens has been predestined to happen by an omniscient, omnipotent
  divinity". The second form, weak theological determinism, is based
  on the concept of divine foreknowledge - "because God's omniscience is
  perfect, what God knows about the future will inevitably happen, which
  means, consequently, that the future is already fixed".

It's a difficult subject, and there exist many variants, some include free will and some don't. In general, I'd classify as follows:

Predestination = strong theological determinism
Predestination implies Predeterminism, but not the other way around.
Weak theological determinism implies Predeterminism as well, but not the other way around (because Predeterminism is more general).
Determinism is also a very broad term and encompasses many things, but as causal determinism, it is, in my opinion, independent of the other terms. Determinism works together with all above forms, in that God could just have created the "right" starting conditions at the beginning of the universe. Nondeterminism also works, then God can be seen to also influence a lot while the Universe is "running", so to say.


What bible translation did the Unitarians use in 19th century America? I have been recently reading a lot of Emerson and through this reading I came to know something about William Ellery Channing (the Elder), who was the main voice of American Unitarianism in the 19th century. A colleague asked me what bible traslation were people like Channing and Emerson (who was also educated in the Unitarian tradition) actually using and I started doing some research on the topic, finding only some infos on the New Testament, as it seems that Belsham's Unitarian New Testament (1808) was indeed popular among Unitarians. However, I could not find any informations on Channing, Emerson and the like. Were they referring to the KJV? Or some other translation? Thank you in advance.

Emerson used the KJV. It looks like Channing probably also used the KJV.

Ralph Waldo Emerson

All Scriptural references in this study, unless it is specifically stated otherwise, are based on the King James Version, not because it is considered the best version, but because it was the one  used by Emerson.

Source: Emerson's Use of the Bible by Harriet Rodgers Zink, January 1935 (page 4)

William Ellery Channing
I will base my for Channing upon the idea that the Bible translation that an author quotes is sufficient proof of "using" it. Therefore I will dissect tiny differences in translations. However, it is possible that these discrepancies could be unintentionally introduced by the author, e.g. from quoting by memory. Thank you to Nigel J for the Channing sources.
Letter on Catholicism: To the Editor of the "Western Messenger," Louisville, Kentucky (source):

Has not Jesus said, "When thou prayest, go into thy closet, and shut thy door, and pray to thy Father, who seeth in secret?"

This quotation is from Matthew 6:6, and when I search it in Google in quotation marks, the only thing that comes up is the letter from Channing himself! Perhaps, again, he was quoting from memory.
Belsham's Unitarian New Testament:

But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father that is in secret: and thy Father, that seeth in secret, shall reward thee [openly].

King James Bible (source includes many other translations):

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

Translation: Inconclusive
Christianity: A Rational Religion

For example, the famous passage on which the Trinity mainly rests, "There are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one," — this text, I say, though found at present in John's Epistle, and read in our churches, has been pronounced by the ablest critics a forgery; and a vast majority of the educated ministers of this country are satisfied that it is not a part of Scripture. Suffer no man, then, to select texts for you as decisive of religious controversies. Read the whole record for yourselves, and possess yourselves of its general import.

(Given the quotation and being a Unitarian, I wanted to give a bit of context!)
This quotation is from 1 John 5:7. I'll include verse 8 because the Belsham goes a bit off the goop on this one.
King James Bible (source includes many other translations):

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

In particular, that "bear record in heaven" distinguishes the KJV (though perhaps not completely uniquely).
Belsham's Unitarian New Testament:

And it is the spirit which beareth testimony; for the spirit is truth*. For there are three who bear testimony, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
* The received text reads, "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth."

The footnote in the Belsham then has 9 notes about why they believe that text to be illegitimate.
Translation: KJV for use of "Holy Ghost"?
But not a great example given the Unitarian slant.
Preaching Christ: Discourse at the Ordination of the Rev. John Emory Abbot, Salem, 1815 (excerpt):

"Christ, the hope of glory to the Gentiles," was the theme on which Paul, the Apostle of the Gentiles, delighted to expatiate.
Having spoken of Jesus in this character, he immediately adds, "Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom, that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus." [...]

The first quotation is actually a paraphrase of Colossians 1:27, but the second quotation is from Colossians 1:28.
Belsham's Unitarian New Testament:

whom we preach, admonishing every man, and teaching [every man,] with all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ

King James Bible (source includes many other translations):

Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus:

Translation: KJV


In light of Article of Religion XVII, why is teaching predestination a good thing? Article 17 of the Articles of Religion, on the topic of predestination, asserts that for the non-elect having the sentence of predestination before their eyes causes them to sin more and more.  So, why did the framers of this confession consider that a good thing?  Wouldn't this be a good reason to shut up about predestination? If it indeed causes people to sin more and more and thus do more damage to others? Does Anglicanism consider the moral meltdown of society which can result (according to this article) from dwelling on the "sentence" of predestination, to be a good thing?

XVII. Of Predestination and Election.
Predestination to Life is the everlasting purpose of God, whereby (before the foundations of the world were laid) he hath constantly decreed by his counsel secret to us, to deliver from curse and damnation those whom he hath chosen in Christ out of mankind, and to bring them by Christ to everlasting salvation, as vessels made to honour. Wherefore, they which be endued with so excellent a benefit of God, be called according to God's purpose by his Spirit working in due season: they through Grace obey the calling: they be justified freely: they be made sons of God by adoption: they be made like the image of his only-begotten Son Jesus Christ: they walk religiously in good works, and at length, by God's mercy, they attain to everlasting felicity.
As the godly consideration of Predestination, and our Election in Christ, is full of sweet, pleasant, and unspeakable comfort to godly persons, and such as feel in themselves the working of the Spirit of Christ, mortifying the works of the flesh, and their earthly members, and drawing up their mind to high and heavenly things, as well because it doth greatly establish and confirm their faith of eternal Salvation to be enjoyed through Christ as because it doth fervently kindle their love towards God: So, for curious and carnal persons, lacking the Spirit of Christ, to have continually before their eyes the sentence of God's Predestination, is a most dangerous downfall, whereby the Devil doth thrust them either into desperation, or into wretchlessness of most unclean living, no less perilous than desperation.
Furthermore, we must receive God's promises in such wise, as they be generally set forth to us in Holy Scripture: and, in our doings, that Will of God is to be followed, which we have expressly declared unto us in the Word of God.

First, note that the 39 Articles are a creation of the English reformation of the Sixteenth century, having been put into their present form in 1563, and while they have the force of Law in the Church of England, they have a lesser authority in other political jurisdictions, and have been controversial since the beginning. There have been articles to which various factions objected from the beginning, and I suspect that there would have been Anglicans from the 1500's who might have objected to the Calvinist tone of Article XVII.

Furthermore, in this consideration, the second paragraph (which was supplied in the original question, and which I have replaced with the entire article) should not be divorced from the first paragraph of the article as the context of the second paragraph depends very greatly on the first paragraph, and in particular the opening of that paragraph: "Predestination to life is the everlasting purpose of God,..."

Second, the question as posed by the original poster presumes that there is a universal Anglican position on this article. There was not at the time it was written, and there still is not today. One can without much difficulty find Anglican divines and theologians on both sides of the question. While there are undoubtedly some Anglicans who might answer in the affirmative, there are others (Arbishop Tutu comes to mind) who would deny that it is the case, and who would ascribe the moral meltdown of society to other influences.