According to the teaching of the Reformed Church do we contribute anything to our salvation or is it all of grace? According to Reformed Theology if we need to willingly desire salvation to be saved do we contribute willingness, or receive it?

The concept of contributing willingness to be saved as opposed to receiving willingness to be saved is a new one to me, and I have been unable to find any specific reference to that.  However, within reformed Protestant theology, there is a doctrine of Irresistible or Efficacious Grace that points to the office and work of the Holy Spirit in salvation.  The following quote from the 1646 Westminster Confession of Faith may shed some light on this matter:

The doctrine of Irresistible or Efficacious Grace is set forth in the Westminster Confession of Faith: “All those whom God hath predestinated unto life, and those only, he is pleased, in his appointed and accepted time, effectually to call, by his word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ; enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God; taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them an heart of flesh; renewing their wills, and by his almighty power determining them to that which is good, and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ; yet so as they come most freely, being made willing by his grace.” (Chapter X, Section 1)
This effectual call is of God's free and special grace alone, not from anything at all foreseen in man; who is altogether passive therein, until, being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit, he is thereby enabled to answer this call, and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed in it. (Chapter X, Section 2)

http://crowncovenantchurch.org/confessions/WestminsterCOF.aspx?QuestionID=10&pageid=0&confession=true&q=Chapter+10+-+Of+Effectual+Calling.
Another article on the Westminster Confession of Faith, partially quoted below, points to the Holy Spirit and the preaching of the Word as the means whereby God draws sinners unto salvation:

The Westminster Confession of Faith is a Reformed confession of faith. Drawn up by the 1646 Westminster Assembly as part of the Westminster Standards to be a confession of the Church of England, it became and remains the "subordinate standard" of doctrine in the Church of Scotland and has been influential within Presbyterian churches worldwide.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westminster_Confession_of_Faith
Chapters 10 through 18 describe various phases or aspects of salvation. The confession teaches that—by the Holy Spirit and the preaching of the word—God effectually calls the elect out of the state of sin and death toward faith in Jesus Christ and spiritual life.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westminster_Confession_of_Faith#Salvation

Nothing I have read suggests that the sinner actively contributes to their salvation by being willing.  It is the power of the Holy Spirit that draws, by convicting the individual of their sinful state and then by that irresistible inner call.  The following quote sums it up:

The doctrine of Irresistible or Efficacious Grace “asserts that the Holy Spirit never fails to bring to salvation those sinners whom He personally calls to Christ.  He inevitably applies salvation to every sinner whom He intends to save, and it is His intention to save all the elect.” (Source: The Five Points of Calvinism by David N. Steele and Curtis C. Thomas (1963) p. 48)

Salvation is by Grace: “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith – and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God” (Romans 2:8).
Edit: I found an article that discusses the meaning of the term “effectual call”, as related to salvation, from Chapter X of the 1647 Westminster Confession of Faith. Here is a partial quote:

The effectual call is understood as God’s sovereign drawing of a sinner to salvation. The effectual call to a sinner so overwhelms his natural inclination to rebel that he willingly places faith in Jesus Christ. The apostle Paul refers to the effectual call when he writes, “It is God who works in you to will and to act in order to fulfill His good purpose” (Philippians 2:13). The necessity of the effectual call is emphasized in Jesus’ words, “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them” (John 6:44).  https://www.gotquestions.org/effectual-calling-call.html

The rest of the article will shed light on how salvation is the work of God.


Do Southern Baptist traditionalists agree with the Arminian view of prevenient grace? Part of the "Arminian" position (as I understand it) is essentially as follows:

Fallen people are of such a morally corrupted nature that, when hearing the gospel of how they can and must be saved by the finished work of Christ through repentance and faith, they would never respond in repentance and faith unless the Holy Spirit was also working in their hearts to help persuade them. Only when the hearing of the gospel is accompanied by the gracious and powerful wooing of the Spirit ("prevenient/enabling grace") are they then faced with a choice that has the capacity to go either way - namely, the choice to yield to or to resist the gracious calling of the Spirit to accept the gospel message.

[That is, for example, how Arminians would typically understand John 6:44,65.]

My question is:

  Do Southern Baptist traditionalists agree with this viewpoint? Are there significant differences among Souther Baptist traditionalists on this matter?

From listening to Prof Leighton Flowers (a leading apologist of Southern Baptist traditionalist soteriology), I get the impression that he and other traditionalists would disagree with this viewpoint. It seems that instead, traditionalists believe that the will of fallen people is, in and of itself, of sufficient libertarian freedom to be able to respond positively to the message of the gospel (though this belief is by no means to the negation of the fact that God does help persuade people's free will in the direction towards accepting the gospel).

From this, one might assume that traditionalists are (on these particular matters) a form of semipelagian. But Prof Flowers strongly refutes this, stating firmly that traditionists reject the idea that fallen people would ever take an initiative step in seeking God.

To me, this is quite an interesting and subtle distinction that is being raised here: Why would people's will be sufficiently libertarian to be able to respond positively to the gospel message without the necessity for additional help, and yet not sufficiently libertarian to be able to initiate, prior to hearing the gospel message, a search for a means of reconciliation with God such as would be answered in the gospel? This makes me wonder whether I have misunderstood something.

[Regarding John 6:44,65, I think Prof Flowers understands these verses specifically in connection with a judgmental hardening of the Jews.]

The statement made that established "Traditionalism" as a term for this long-held belief is here, and I believe accurately reflects the views of most (Southern and Independent) Baptists who hold this point of view: http://connect316.net/the-statement/

You are right in that they don't hold the same view of prevenient grace as a Methodist does. Methodists/Arminians actually commonly accept Total Depravity, but many Baptists do not. The other way that Traditionalists would explain things is by agreeing with the necessity of something like "prevenient grace", and that God has given such to everyone, and that it still may be resisted.


What is the Catholic understanding of "the thousand-year reign of Christ and his people"? What is the Catholic understanding of the thousand-year reign of Christ and his people?

What is the Catholic biblical interpretation and what have the Church Fathers said on the matter?

A caveat about my answer below is that I'm a Lutheran (LCMS) pastor and am trying to do justice to the Catholic view on this.  Lutherans, Catholics, Orthodox and others actually share the same view on the "thousand-year reign."

The Catholic view of the thousand-year reign is termed amillennialism.  As I mentioned, this view is shared by Lutherans, Orthodox, and others.  What it basically means is that the thousand-year reign is symbolic of the period from Christ's ascension to his return.  That is to say, Christ and his people reign now in the New Testament Church, since Christ has already defeated sin, death, and the devil through his death and resurrection.  When Christ returns, these enemies of creation will be cast out and God will again dwell directly with his people.  In the current reign, God dwells among his people through His Sacraments; at Christ's return, God will dwell directly with His people "immediately" (that is, not "mediated" through the Sacraments - the exact definition and number of Sacraments varies among the Catholic, Lutheran, and Orthodox views).

One implication of this view is that the Book of Revelation covers the entire span from Christ's ascension to his return and is not specifically about "the end."  For example, Revelation 5 is often seen as "heaven's view" of Christ's ascension, whereas Acts 1 is "earth's view."  The point of Revelation is that the Lord is with His Church, even as it is battered and killed on earth, and he is returning to resurrect His people to dwell with Him on the restored, new heaven and earth (see, for example, Pope Francis' remarks at: http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/audiences/2014/documents/papa-francesco_20141126_udienza-generale.html )

A good Wikipedia article comparing views of the millennium is at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amillennialism

A Catholic discussion of millennialism (as opposed to amillennialism), with some historical notes concerning the Church Fathers, is at: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10307a.htm


Catholic Exegesis: The Cleansing of the Temple 13 When it was almost time for the Jewish Passover, Jesus went up to Jerusalem. 14 In the temple courts he found people selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money. 15 So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple courts, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. 16 To those who sold doves he said, “Get these out of here! Stop turning my Father’s house into a market!” John 2:13-16

My Questions:

Is this passage a "call to action" for Catholics?
Should Catholics be on alert for those who may hijack and corrupt the Church for unsavory purposes?
And should Catholics feel compelled or obligated to eradicate such individuals from the Church?

One of the comments:

"This is too long. Please try to make it more concise."

Is this passage a "call to action" for Catholics?

Not especially, we are sinners and Jesus was not.

Should Catholics be on alert for those who may hijack and corrupt the Church for unsavory purposes?

Yes, see Acts IV.

And should Catholics feel compelled or obligated to eradicate such individuals from the Church?

Yes, within reason.  See Matthew 18.

Why?  Well...

==================================================================

While this an open question, my advice would be to follow a passage latter on in John 8:7 that is more clearly directed toward us (as sinners):

  ... “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a
  stone at her.”

As sinners in a fallen world, we must be exceedingly careful when interacting with others for the purposes of pointing out their sin.

From Matthew 7:3, also a quote from Jesus:

  Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?

Remember, Jesus was living a perfect life, which we, most likely, are all failing to do (Matthew 19:21):

  ...If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to
  the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.

While everyone is in a different position, I find it fairly unlikely that any of us are without sin.

==================================================================

Now, let's not use that as an excuse to be complacent.  There is something we can do, and that is show love (John 15:12):

  My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you.

Unfortunately I have to get back to work now, but I'll try to flesh this out a bit later.  The point is, there is a call to action for all people (Catholics included), but it is first and foremost to love.

==================================================================

Before I got to flesh out my answer I got some further questions I'd like to address in the main body.  I'll use the Church to refer to the specific Church and the church to refer to any or all churches that are right with God.

  Should Catholics be on alert for those who may hijack and corrupt the Church for unsavory purposes?

The great thing about this question is that it applies to more than just Catholics and more than just the Church.  However, as direct descendant of the earlier church and almost unarguably the most theologically sound denomination, Catholics certainly serve as a powerful example.

The answer is, of course, yes!

However, this is somewhat difficult to get at directly, as I believe the most compelling arguments in favor of vigilance within the church are derived from the broader moral context of our faith.  However, there are a few Biblical examples, the foremost being Ananias and Sapphira (Acts IV):

During the Acts of the Apostles, many believers liquidated assets to fund the ministry.  The early church, of course, rejoiced in this sacrifice of worldly possession.  However, one couple sold a field but kept some of the money for themselves.

Now this sounds like a fairly straight forward instance of corruption and unsavory purposes to me.  First, this couple claimed to do what they were doing for the church, then they claimed some of what should have been the church's funds for themselves.  Definately not okay.  However, the important part of the story for this discussion isn't that what they did wasn't okay, but rather what happened afterwards.

As soon as the couple brought the partial sum of money to the Apostles, Peter accused them of deceit before God and church, and while the consequences (sudden death) certainly came from God, Peter's vigilance plays a key role in the story.

From this tale, I interpret, such as I am able, that the burden of vigilance is upon everyone (including Catholics) to watch for corruption everywhere (including the Church).  But also, I learn that imposition of consequences, such as they are, are within the sole purvey of God's role within the church, and not of any other sinners.

  Vengence is [the Lord's]...

as per Deuteronomy 32:35, Romans 12:19, and Hebrews 10:30.  Three times, that might be important.

  And should Catholics feel compelled or obligated to eradicate such individuals from the Church?

This is perhaps a more difficult question, because my own, as well as many other's, natural instinct is to cast anyone from the church that may not reach some arbitrary degree of morality.  I do not, however, believe that this is a Biblical position.  After all:

  ... all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God

Romans 3:23 (emphasis added)

  There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the one who is able to save and
  destroy. But you--who are you to judge your neighbor?

James 4:12

  For Christ's love compels us, because we are convinced that one died
  for all, and therefore all died.

2 Corinthians 5:14

All of this is a lot of Biblical text to say we aren't perfect, God is, only God gets to decide who's perfect and who isn't, salvation is for all people, and if it somehow isn't for someone, that is God's decision and not ours.  We probably are all familiar with this concept.

So why would we not apply this to the church?

There certainly are crimes that can be held as grounds for removal from the church, such as apostasy, as in 2 John, where individuals renouncing the resurrection are excluded from the homes of believers.

However, in any case involving disputes within the church, there is an established procedure to follow (Matthew 18:15-17):

  If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just
  between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over.
  But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that
  ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three
  witnesses.‘ If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and
  if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a
  pagan or a tax collector.

And just so we're all clear on how we treat tax collectors (from the story of Zacchaeus in Luke 19):

  Jesus said to [the tax collector], “Today salvation has come to this house, because this man, too, is a son of Abraham.

Now, of course, Zacchaeus did take actions toward his salvation, but let us just rememer that:

  ...the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost.

So...

In cases of clear and unrepentant apostasy in the opinion of the entire church, there is a Biblical mandate for expulsion on the condition that repentance may immediately be met with a welcoming return.  In all other cases, follow the established procedure for addressing sin but prioritize above all else love (1 Corinthians 13:13).

  And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of
  these is love.


What's the level of the teaching that we can't be sure someone is in Hell? As far as I know, according to Catholic doctrine we can't be sure that any particular soul is in Hell. I understand the reasons (one can repent in the last moment, which is not observable by others), and I found some related doctrines (existence of Hell and whether it could be empty), but nothing indicating where in the levels of Catholic teaching the prohibition of proclaiming people to be condemned stands. I am almost sure it is not a dogma, but I've heard there are some canons against proclaiming that someone is in Hell, so it seems to be on some of the higher levels. If there really are such canons, I would like the answer to point to them.

EDIT: is it part of the infallible doctrine? If not, how strong is the view that calling someone condemned is a sin among Catholic moral theologians?

In Catholicism, we learn the teachings of Christ in the Mass as part of our Liturgy. We pray for all peoples, not just Catholics but all, that they find their way to fullness of the faith. Even at the highest positions of the church, or the lowest depending on your perspective, the authorities, those who watch over our souls (Heb 13:17) have a responsibility not to pronounce judgement, but to guide. There is only one who can pronounce judgement.

Be humbled in the sight of the Lord: and he will exalt you.
11 Detract not one another, my brethren. He that detracteth his brother, or he that judgeth his brother, detracteth the law and judgeth the law. But if thou judge the law, thou art not a doer of the law, but a judge.
12 There is one lawgiver and judge, that is able to destroy and to deliver.
13 But who art thou that judgest thy neighbour?
(James 4:10–13).

The Catechism of the Catholic Church defines presumption this way.

PRESUMPTION: An act or attitude opposed to the theological virtue of hope. Presumption can take the form of trust in self without recognizing that salvation comes from God, or of an over-confidence in divine mercy. (CCC Glossary)

Paul also makes his position very clear concerning even his own security.

LET a man so account of us as of the ministers of Christ and the dispensers of the mysteries of God.
Here now it is required among the dispensers that a man be found faithful.
But to me it is a very small thing to be judged by you or by man’s day. But neither do I judge my own self.
For I am not conscious to myself of anything. Yet am I not hereby justified: but he that judgeth me is the Lord. 1 Corinthians 4

This is a far cry from suggesting that he is justified once by the cross, he continues..

Therefore, judge not before the time: until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts. And then shall EVERY man have praise from God.

As for dogma:

God, by His eternal resolve of Will, has predetermined certain men to eternal blessedness.
God, by an eternal resolve of His Will, predestines certain men, on account of their foreseen sins, to eternal rejection.
From the work of Dr. Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma

Now, it is different to say that if you sin, and continue to sin, you are in danger of being separated from God's love. That is an example of teaching. Stating that a person is in hell or will go to hell, is pronouncing judgement, a thing reserved only to God. A priest can teach you what actions are condemnable and guide you to repentance; he cannot, however, condemn your soul.


According to the Catholicism, what was the marital status of Gomer, the woman chosen to be Prophet Hosea's wife? We read at  Hosea 3: 1-2 ( NRSVCE) of the Lord's direction to him to marry a woman:

The Lord said to me again, “Go, love a woman who has a lover and is an adulteress, just as the Lord loves the people of Israel, though they turn to other gods and love raisin cakes.” So I bought her for fifteen shekels of silver and a homer of barley and a measure of wine.”

But the same verses of  NIV read like this:

The Lord said to me, “Go, show your love to your wife again, though she is loved by another man and is an adulteress. Love her as the Lord loves the Israelites, though they turn to other gods and love the sacred raisin cakes. So I bought her for fifteen shekels of silver and about a homer and a lethek of barley.”

While the NRSVCE depicts Gomer, who would later become Hosea's wife, as a stranger, NIV pictures her as his own former  wife , who had deserted him for another man. Of course, there is a lot of symbolic meaning to the whole incident. My question therefore is: How does the Catholic Church explain the difference of marital status in respect of Gomer, the woman whom Prophet Hosea was ordered to marry, as narrated in  different versions of the Old Testament?

As I understand the verse: “Go, love a woman who has a lover and is an adulteress..." It says there, "adulteress" and so she was married. The question is, "To whom?" The answer is to Hosea.
In Good News Translation it says, "The Lord said to me, "Go again and show your love for a woman who is committing adultery with a lover." It says, "AGAIN," which means she was with Hosea and therefore his wife who was an adulteress.
So, what we can learn from this is we should use a Bible translation, which is easier for us to understand. I also struggled understanding God's word because of the Bible translation I was using. Good News Translation (GNT) is just about right (for me, with the Lord's guidance).


Why do Christians believe Christ's death applies to future sins? One of the points that different Christian denominations and movements generally agree on is that Christ died on the cross to atone for our sins, and his death was the ultimate sacrifice. This sacrifice can apply to anyone, both before and after his death.

My understanding of the sin offering and guilt offering in the Old Testament, which Jesus' death rendered no longer necessary, was that a person or nation committed an act, and subsequently a sacrifice was made to atone for that act.

Why do Christians believe that Jesus' sacrifice is different to those of the Old Testament? That is, what is the Biblical basis for believing Jesus' sacrifice can apply to sins committed after his death?

My understanding of the sin offering and guilt offering which Jesus' death rendered no longer necessary was that a person or nation committed an act, and subsequently a sacrifice was made to atone for that act.

I'm going to focus on this bit in particular. It seems that you're suggesting that Jesus' death is a direct replacement for the Old Testament sacrifices, where one (past) sin was atoned for by one sacrifice - and therefore Jesus' sacrifice must work the same way. However, this the New Testament teaches that Jesus' death is completely different to this sacrifice system, and it not a direct replacement but God's plan from the beginning.
Why does Jesus' sacrifice work different the Old Testament sacrifices?
The apostle Paul, on several occasions, describes how Jesus starts of a new line of people who are saved, just as Adam was the first in a line of people who are not saved. Through faith, people are brought from one group into the other.

But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! 16 Nor can the gift of God be compared with the result of one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. 17 For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!
Romans 5:15-17 (NIV®)

Paul specifically highlights that Jesus death is able to cover over many sins. That Old Testament pattern of one sacrifice for one sin isn't required, because Jesus' death can cover many sins.
The writer to the Hebrews expands on this idea even further, claiming that the Old Testament sacrifices were merely a teaching aide, and didn't have any power to atone for sin at all.

The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming—not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship. 2 Otherwise, would they not have stopped being offered? For the worshipers would have been cleansed once for all, and would no longer have felt guilty for their sins. 3 But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins. 4 It is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.
Hebrews 10:1-4 (NIV®)

However, when Jesus comes he does away with OT sacrifices, because he himself is the true sacrifice they pointed towards.

First [Jesus] said, “Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not desire, nor were you pleased with them”—though they were offered in accordance with the law. 9 Then he said, “Here I am, I have come to do your will.” He sets aside the first to establish the second. 10 And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
Hebrews 10:8-10 (NIV®)

Instead Jesus sacrifice applies to all people at all times, if they have faith in him.

Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12 But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, 13 and since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool. 14 For by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.
Hebrew 10:11-14 (NIV®)

And

And where these have been forgiven, sacrifice for sin is no longer necessary.
Hebrews 10:18 (NIV®)


Why is globalization the mark of the beast? Was listening to a sermon on K-WAVE from Calvary Chapel on the radio.

The pastor stated that "globalization" was a mark of the beast and that it signifies Jesus will be returning soon.

What's the biblical definition of globalization and why is it the mark of the beast?

Good questions I think we can glean two questions here

what is globalization and 2 - is it the mark of the beast

The Bible says

  "Then a third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, “If
  anyone worships the beast and his image, and receives his mark on his
  forehead or on his hand, he himself shall also drink of the wine of
  the wrath of God, which is poured out full strength into the cup of
  His indignation. He shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the
  presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb."
  Revelation 14:9-10

Here I think anyone can agree that if anyone receives this mark, whatever it is, they would be lost, for that is what the Bible says.  So based on what that pastor was saying if you receive globalization, you would be lost, eternally separated from God.  Based on Revelation 14:9-10 it is clear that whoever receives this mark would be separated from God, but that begs the question, what separates us from God, Biblically?  The Bible gives us the answer when it says

  "Behold, the Lord’s hand is not shortened, That it cannot save; Nor
  His ear heavy, That it cannot hear. But your iniquities have separated
  you from your God; And your sins have hidden His face from you, So
  that He will not hear." (Isaiah 59:1-2)

There is one thing that separates us from God, sin.  Therefore to receive this mark of the beast must be a sin.  That begs the question what is sin as defined not by man but by the Bible?  The Bible gives us a definition when it says

  Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the
  transgression of the law. (1 John 3:4)

The mark of the beast, is something that separates us from God, it is a sin, and sin is defined as breaking one of God's ten commandments, which are still binding up Christians (see Matthew 5:17-20).  Is globalization itself a sin, that would earn us a spot in hell?  Perhaps more realistically what the pastor meant to say was that globalization is preparing the way for the mark of the beast for it is written

  He causes all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to
  receive a mark on their right hand or on their foreheads,  and that no
  one may buy or sell except one who has the mark or the name of the
  beast, or the number of his name. (Revelation 13:16-17)

So there will be a worldwide commandment regarding worship, which breaks one of God's commandments that will be enforced using the economy (no buying or selling).  Do we know of a law like that now?  No.  But globalization is preparing the way for a law like that.  For a more in-depth study and to know exactly who the beast is and what is his mark may I recommend this great Christian website - http://www.666truth.org/ .  God bless!

Regarding your questions in the comments, it can be confusing because so many people break the 10 commandments constantly, but for those who love Jesus it should not be so for Jesus said "He who has My commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves Me. And he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and manifest Myself to him." (John 14:21)  In fact while we know that those who receive the mark of the beast break one of God's commandments during a time of economic persecution, right after the warning about the mark of the beast the next verse says

  "Here is the patience of the saints; here are those who keep the
  commandments of God and the faith of Jesus." (Revelation 14:12)

This brings us hope, for while it will appear that the whole world will follow the beast, John saw a small class "who have the victory over the beast, over his image and over his mark and over the number of his name, standing on the sea of glass, having harps of God." (Revelation 15:2)  Could it be that John saw you?  You can be one of those individuals, redeemed and saved from sin by the power of the blood of Jesus Christ.  All the promises of the word of God are yours.

  "Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that
  by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped
  the corruption that is in the world through lust." (2 Peter 1:4)

I have no hesitancy in telling you that in order to obtain the immortal inheritance and the eternal substance, you must be overcomers in this probationary life. Everything that blots and stains the soul must be removed, must be cleansed from the heart. We must know what it means to be a partaker of the divine nature, having escaped the corruptions that are in the world through lust. Are you willing to wage war against the lusts of the flesh? Are you ready to battle against the enemy of God and man? Satan is determined to enslave every soul if he can; for he is playing a desperate game to win the souls of men from Christ and eternal life. Will you permit him to steal from you the graces of the Spirit of God, and plant in you his own corrupt nature? or will you accept the great provision of salvation, and through the merits of the Infinite Sacrifice made in your behalf, become a partaker of the divine nature? God has given His only-begotten Son, that through His shame, suffering, and death, you might have glory, honor, and immortality.

Satan claims this world as his own, but Christ has redeemed it through His sacrifice.  Revelation 13 tells us that during the final crisis Satan will attempt to get every individual on the planet to break the commandments of God at the same time.  Some may ask which commandment would Satan attempt to force individuals to break?  The Bible gives us a clue when it says

  "If anyone worships the beast and his image" (Revelation 14:9)

Satan will give a counterfeit commandment regarding worship.  If you look at the 10 commandments, the first four commandments, thou shall have no other gods before me, no idols, do not take the name of the Lord in vain, remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy, these four commandments deal with worship.  The last six, honor your father and your mother, you shall not murder, commit adultery, steal, bear false witness and covet, these deal with our relationship between men. Therefore the mark of the beast must deal with one of the first four commandments.  There is much more to share, but I have to go to work at the moment, this resource has more information - http://www.666truth.org/history/666-and-the-mark.aspx

May the Lord bless you as you follow Him!


How do LDS know that Brigham Young and his successors are true prophets? Many LDS have a testimony that Joseph Smith Jr was a true prophet. Let us suppose someone studies the life and teachings of Joseph Smith, and reaches the conclusion that he is a true prophet. But, to accept the present day mainstream LDS church, surely it is not just necessary to accept Joseph Smith as a true prophet, but that also Brigham Young was the correct successor of Joseph Smith (as opposed to say Joseph Smith III - as the RLDS/Community of Christ believe, or James Strang, or Sidney Rigdon, or Granville Hedrick, or Alpheus Cutler.)

Furthermore, in addition to accepting Brigham Young as Joseph Smith's rightful successor, one must also accept that all the subsequent successors of Brigham Young as President of the LDS Church are his rightful successors, rather than any of them having fallen into apostasy (as many of those who practice plural marriage claim.)

So my question then is, do you agree, that to become LDS, it is not enough to just have a testimony about the prophecy of Joseph Smith, but also about Brigham Young and successors?
How in practice do LDS members go beyond a testimony about Joseph Smith to a testimony about Brigham Young and his successors also?
How does one know that the LDS church headquartered in Salt Lake City is the true successor to the church founded by Joseph Smith Jr, as opposed to say the Community of Christ or the Church of Christ Temple Lot?

Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints are encouraged to get a testimony of each of those prophets.

1.I don't disagree with you. However, I would think that a testimony of the current prophet, would be enough. If you know the first to be true, and today's to be true that should be enough. If you decide that one in the middle isn't a true prophet, but you have a testimony of the current one, does that mean the entire church is now wrong but led by a true prophet? No, that wouldn't make sense. Personally, I would Look at Joseph Smith Jr. and the current prophet before joining, and look at the others after joining. If you change your mind latter, you could always leave.

It boils down to a question of what do you think is the bigger sin, ignoring a prompting from the holy spirit, or following a prompting before studying it out? and I don't think I can answer that here.

EDIT So I was pointed to a Statement by a previous president, I would think this is a shortcut, gain a testimony of this and they you can not worry about the other prophets.

  “The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as
  President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the
  programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that,
  the Lord would remove me out of my place” (Teachings of Presidents of
  the Church: Wilford Woodruff [2004], 199).

2.They do encourage this from what I understand. There is even a manual about this. It is an "institute" manual which I believe means it is a college level course. The introduction states:

  The purpose of the Teachings of the Living Prophets Student Manual is
  to help you strengthen your testimony of living prophets and their
  teachings. It discusses our need for living prophets, the role of the
  President of the Church, the divine order of succession in the
  Presidency, the Quorum of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the
  Twelve Apostles, and the importance of general conferences. President
  Harold B. Lee (1899–1973) taught, “It is not alone sufficient for us
  as Latter-day Saints to follow our leaders and to accept their
  counsel, but we have the greater obligation to gain for ourselves the
  unshakable testimony of the divine appointment of these men and the
  witness that what they have told us is the will of our Heavenly
  Father” (in Conference Report, Oct. 1950, 130). A witness of the
  divine appointment of the living prophets is promised to each of us as
  we study the counsel of the Brethren and resolve to sustain them
  through our obedience. This manual will assist you in your study of
  the living prophets.

They also have a manual with the teachings from each prophet and it is another institute manual. Meaning, I think, They study all of them. They also have a larger book on each prophet (I think it's all of them), Scroll to the bottom of this page for the list of links.

3.From what I understand, they just ask you to pray about it and ask God. Seems pretty simple and straight forward. I would guess, that if the holy spirit already helped you out with a testimony of the current prophet, Joseph Smith Jr. and the Book of Mormon, this wouldn't be much more to ask.

EDIT After talking to a few more members I know, I was pointed to a "seminary" manual, which I believe is used with high school students. Page 158 of this manual. I would recommend you read the entire page about succession. The part below talks about the first conference that Brigham Young held:

  “Brigham Young then spoke briefly, comforting the hearts of the
  Saints. As Brigham spoke, George Q. Cannon remembered, ‘it was the
  voice of Joseph himself,’ and ‘it seemed in the eyes of the people as
  if it were the very person of Joseph which stood before them.’ William
  C. Staines testified that Brigham Young spoke like the voice of the
  Prophet Joseph. ‘I thought it was he,’ Staines said, ‘and so did
  thousands who heard it.’ Wilford Woodruff also recalled that wonderful
  moment and wrote, ‘If I had not seen him with my own eyes, there is no
  one that could have convinced me that it was not Joseph Smith, and
  anyone can testify to this who was acquainted with these two men.’
  [Quotations in History of the Church 7:236.] This miraculous
  manifestation, seen by many, made clear to the Saints that the Lord
  had chosen Brigham Young to succeed Joseph Smith as leader of the
  Church.


What does the story of Noah's Ark foreshadow in the New Testament? I have seen Noah's Ark listed one of the "types" in Scripture -- something that occurred, but that also foreshadowed something else that would come later.

What exactly, then, does the story of Noah's Ark foreshadow?

The flood is explicitly used typologically twice in the New Testament.

Jesus, speaking of the final judgment (Matthew 24:37-41), says it will be like "the days of Noah".

  For as the days of Noah were, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day Noah entered the ark, and they knew nothing until the flood came and swept them all away, so too will be the coming of the Son of Man. Then two will be in the field; one will be taken and one will be left. Two women will be grinding meal together; one will be taken and one will be left.

1 Peter 3:20b-22 says that the flood prefigured the sacrament of baptism.

  God waited patiently in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water. And baptism, which this prefigured, now saves you—not as a removal of dirt from the body, but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers made subject to him.

Over the centuries Christians have found additional typology in this story:

The ark has "rooms" for the animals (Genesis 6:14); Jesus says that his father's house has "many rooms" (John 14:2).
The ark had one door (Genesis 6:16); Jesus claimed to be "the door" to salvation (John 10:9).
God invited Noah to come into the ark (Genesis 7:1); Jesus said, "Come to me, all you that  are weary" (Matthew 11:28).
The ark was made of wood (Genesis 6:14) just as the cross was.
Because God saved him, Noah "remained alive" (Genesis 7:23); Jesus gives us eternal life (John 10:28).

This is only a sample; you can find longer lists here and here. Some of the connections are more explicit in the King James Bible; newer translations use different phrases that don't always match up, but the similarity should still be apparent.


Who will judge the 12th tribe of Israel? I was reading the Last Supper passage in Luke the other day and came across this verse:

  Luke 22:30 (KJV)
  30 That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Jesus tells the 12 disciples that they will judge the 12 tribes of Israel. Since I assume Judas Iscariot will not have this privilege, who will judge the 12th tribe of Israel?

Why are you assuming a one to one correspondence? The Greek here says "y'all" will judge them. The idea is that collectively you will bear witness against all of Israel.

In Greek, the verse is:

  ἵνα ἔσθητε καὶ πίνητε ἐπὶ τῆς τραπέζης μου ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ μου, * καὶ καθήσεσθε ἐπὶ θρόνων τὰς δώδεκα φυλὰς κρίνοντες τοῦ Ἰσραήλ.

κρίνοντες is a verb (to judge - from which we get 'criminal') which is in the 2nd person plural, meaning that "You" is "y'all" (aka plural) and not singular.

If you need a one to one correspondence, take your pick between Matthais or (my personal bet as the real 12th apostle) Paul. But there's no reason too.

One person can judge multiple people, and multiple people can judge one.


Are the books known as the "Book of the Covenant" and the "Book of the Law" the same book or two separate books? Exodus 24:7 (verse-A)

  Then he took the Book of the Covenant and read it in the hearing of the people. And they said, “All that the LORD has spoken we will do, and we will be obedient.”

That event is before God give the stone-tablets to Moses. (I think it's the early years of the Exodus ??) and before 40 days Moses in Mt. Sinai.

Deuteronomy 29:21 (verse-B)

  And the LORD will single him out from all the tribes of Israel for calamity, in accordance with all the curses of the covenant written in this Book of the Law.

That event is after 40 years of the exodus.

It seems to me that the Book of the Covenant (BoC) is different than the Book of the Law (BoL), because in the verse-A leads me to think that BoC already done/finish/complete that time when Moses took the blood and threw it on the people and said, “Behold the blood of the covenant that the LORD has made with you in accordance with all these words.”

On the other hand, BoL is still being written - it's the book where Moses is writing verse-B. So then there are two books, the BoC and the BoL.

But since I'm not sure of my own conclusion, that's why I ask here. Thank you.

According to Jeffrey Tigay, Professor of Hebrew and Semitic Languages and Literatures at the University of Pennsylvania, Book of the Covenant refers specifically to what was given in Exodus 20:19-23:33, which begins The Lord said to Moses: Thus shall you say to the Israelites ....1

The word translated in the ESV as "Law" in Deuteronomy 29:21 is "torah", which also means "teaching".  The Jewish Publication Society Tanakh version of Deuteronomy translates this verse as:

  The LORD will single them out from all the tribes of Israel for misfortune, in accordance with all the sanctions of the covenant
  recorded in this book of Teaching.

As such, it would refer to all the books that Moses was in the process of writing (i.e. the Pentateuch) and which today are referred to collectively as the "Torah" by Jews.

So in a sense I think you are right, although the Book of the Covenant is not really a separate book, but rather a subsection of the greater Torah (Book of Law/Teaching).

1  The Oxford Jewish Study Bible (1st ed.), p.162n


What did Jesus mean by his apparent racial taunt to the Canaanite woman in Matt 15 when he inferred that they were "dogs"? In Christs encounter with A woman from Canaan in Matthew 15, why does He infer that the Canaanites are "dogs" and why does the woman apparently accept this racial slur?

There are actually two different Greek words for the English term “dog” that was used in the New Testament. One word is “κύων” (“kýōn”). The actual definition of this word is: “a man of impure mind, an impudent man.” This word would be the word a Jew would use if they were really calling someone else (Jew or Gentile) an “unclean” or unspiritual animal (Matthew 7:6; Luke 16:21; Philippians 3:2). This word was not the word used by Jesus in Matthew 15:26, however.

The word Jesus used was “κυνάριον” (“kynárion”), which simply means “a little dog.” If Jesus truly wanted to insult the Canaanite woman (or Gentiles in general), He would have used the word “κύων,” not “κυνάριον.”

Also, let’s use a little bit of logic here: if the woman had taken what Jesus said as an insult, her faith would have been damaged and her daughter would not have been healed. She clearly understood Jesus’s reference as nothing more than a harmless metaphor. It’s the same thing as when people are commonly described as “sheep” in the Bible.

Ultimately, Jesus frequently tested people to prove their intentions, often through response questions or challenges (see John 4:16–18; and 4:50–53). His response to the Canaanite woman is similar. In testing her, Jesus declined her request and explained that she had no legitimate expectation of His help. The woman, however, lived out the principle Jesus Himself taught in the parable of the persistent widow (Luke 18:1–8). Her response proved that she understood fully what Jesus was saying, yet had enough conviction to ask anyway (Matthew 15:27). Jesus acknowledged her faith—calling it “great”—and granted her request (Matthew 15:28). In the end, Jesus happily granted the woman’s request due to her faith.

So, according to both the context and language involved, Jesus wasn’t referring to the Canaanite woman as a “dog,” either directly or indirectly. He wasn’t using an epithet or racial slur but making a point about the priorities He’d been given by God. He was also testing the faith of the woman and teaching an important lesson to His disciples.


Apart from any claim related to antiquity, does the modern Roman Catholic Church claim to be ‘The Body of Christ'? An argument to be the Universal Church (made by any organisation) might be the argument of continuity and antiquity, that an organisation can trace its existence back to antiquity such that it can trace a continuous presence in the world back to the time of the Apostles.

Laying that argument aside, does the present day Church of Rome have any claim or argument to make that it can be genuinely called 'The Body of Christ'?

Apart from any claim related to antiquity, does the modern Roman Catholic Church claim to be" The Body of Christ"?

The short answer is: Yes.

Pope Pius XII's encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi (Mystical Body of Christ) (June 29, 1943) should count as being on topic for this post? And, if so, keep reading.

Although Pope Pius XII states in his encyclical states that the true Church is which is the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church as being the Mystical body of Christ; he also states that the Universal Church comprises of the Latin and Eastern Rites.

  If we would define and describe this true Church of Jesus Christ - which is the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church - we shall find nothing more noble, more sublime, or more divine than the expression "the Mystical Body of Christ" - an expression which springs from and is, as it were, the fair flowering of the repeated teaching of the Sacred Scriptures and the Holy Fathers.

  (42) What we have thus far said of the Universal Church must be understood also of the individual Christian communities, whether Oriental or Latin, which go to makeup the one Catholic Church. For they, too, are ruled by Jesus Christ through the voice of their respective Bishops.

Of all the Eastern Rites Churches, the Maronite Catholic Church has never been separated from unity with the See of St. Peter. Thus indicating a small flaw in the title of this question as it is presented at this moment in time.

  The Maronite Church is considered the only one of the Eastern Catholic Churches to have always remained in full communion with the Holy See, while most of the other churches unified from the 16th century onwards.

Before going on any further, I believe the word "Roman" should be used with caution. The reason being is that the first three centuries the liturgical language in Rome was Greek, not Latin. Some believe that it was St. Augustine who first brought in Latin in to the liturgy while in Africa. The Church has from her very foundation worshiped in several languages and still does. This is not an historical claim, but an historical fact and as such is permitted in this response.

The following is not an historical claim from antiquity, but an historical fact dating back to antiquity.

  The first language of Christian liturgy was Aramaic, the common language of the first Christians, who were Palestinian Jews. While Hebrew was the language of scripture and formal worship, Christian worship occurred in the home where Aramaic was spoken. The words Abba and maranatha are Aramaic.

  Christianity quickly spread from Palestine to the rest of the world, and the Eucharist came to be celebrated in many languages, including Syriac, Coptic, and Armenian. In most of the Mediterranean world, the common language was Greek, which became the language of liturgy in that region and remained so until the early third century.

  Eucharist itself is a Greek word, meaning thanksgiving. The phrase Kyrie eleison and the words liturgy, baptism, evangelize, martyr, and catechumen, among other familiar church words, are also Greek in origin.

  From around the third century B.C., what we call “classical” Latin was the language of the Roman aristocracy and the educated classes. Around the time Jesus was born, during the reign of Augustus Caesar, the language began to change. The Roman aristocracy was destroyed by war and political infighting; when they disappeared, their language went with them. Classical Latin was replaced by a less refined version of the language.

  In the third and fourth centuries A.D. this form of Latin began to replace Greek as the common language of the Roman world and soon became the language of the liturgy.

  Exactly how this change in the liturgy came about is uncertain. In the early church the liturgy was led extemporaneously by the bishop, according to a pattern. There were written examples of Eucharistic Prayers, but they were models, not prescribed prayers. The last such document in Greek was written around the year 215. By the sixth century, the Roman Canon (which is still in use, also called Eucharistic Prayer I) appears, completely in Latin and prescribed for use exactly as written. - When did we start celebrating Mass in Latin?

Now for responding to the question at hand: Apart from any claim related to antiquity, does the modern Roman Catholic Church claim to be "The Body of Christ"?

Yes.

Well it so happens that Pope Pius XII in his encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi (29 June 1943) affirms that the Catholic Church is in fact the Mystical Body of Christ. The pope is the head of the Catholic Church on earth whether of the Roman Rite or Eastern Rite Catholics. We are still one Church in Christ.

  The Maronite Church is considered the only one of the Eastern Catholic Churches to have always remained in full communion with the Holy See, while most of the other churches unified from the 16th century onwards. However, the Melkite Catholic Church and the Italo-Albanian Greek Catholic Church also claim perpetual communion. Eastern Catholic Churches (Wikipedia)

Pope Pius XII boldly asserts that the Universal Church is made up of the Roman Rite and those of the Eastern Rites united to the See of St. Peter.

  Mystici corporis Christi (29 June 1943) is a papal encyclical issued by Pope Pius XII during World War II, on the Church as the Mystical Body of Christ.2 It is one of the more important encyclicals of Pope Pius XII, because of its topic, the Church, and because its Church concept was fully included in Lumen gentium but also strongly debated during and after Vatican II. The Church is called body, because it is a living entity; it is called the body of Christ, because Christ is its Head and Founder; it is called mystical body, because it is neither a purely physical nor a purely spiritual unity, but supernatural.

The actual encyclical has much to say and here follows just a small sampling. One may peruse the entire encyclical at one's leisure (Mystici Corporis Christi):

  The doctrine of the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Church, was first taught us by the Redeemer Himself. Illustrating as it does the great and inestimable privilege of our intimate union with so exalted a Head, this doctrine by its sublime dignity invites all those who are drawn by the Holy Spirit to study it, and gives them, in the truths of which it proposes to the mind, a strong incentive to the performance of such good works as are conformable to its teaching.

  (14) That the Church is a body is frequently asserted in the Sacred Scriptures. "Christ," says the Apostle, "is the Head of the Body of the Church." If the Church is a body, it must be an unbroken unity, according to those words of Paul: "Though many we are one body in Christ." But it is not enough that the Body of the Church should be an unbroken unity; it must also be something definite and perceptible to the senses as Our predecessor of happy memory, Leo XIII, in his Encyclical Satis Cognitum asserts: "the Church is visible because she is a body. Hence they err in a matter of divine truth, who imagine the Church to be invisible, intangible, a something merely "pneumatological" as they say, by which many Christian communities, though they differ from each other in their profession of faith, are untied by an invisible bond.

  (15) But a body calls also for a multiplicity of members, which are linked together in such a way as to help one another. And as in the body when one member suffers, all the other members share its pain, and the healthy members come to the assistance of the ailing, so in the Church the individual members do not live for themselves alone, but also help their fellows, and all work in mutual collaboration for the common comfort and for the more perfect building up of the whole Body.

  (22) Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. "For in one spirit" says the Apostle, "were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free." As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith. And therefore, if a man refuse to hear the Church, let him be considered - so the Lord commands - as a heathen and a publican. It follows that those who are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit.

  (34) That this Mystical Body which is the Church should be called Christ's is proved in the second place from the fact that He must be universally acknowledged as its actual Head. "He," as St. Paul says, "is the Head of the Body, the Church." He is the Head from whom the whole body perfectly organized, "groweth and maketh increase unto the edifying of itself."

  (42) What we have thus far said of the Universal Church must be understood also of the individual Christian communities, whether Oriental or Latin, which go to makeup the one Catholic Church. For they, too, are ruled by Jesus Christ through the voice of their respective Bishops. Consequently, Bishops must be considered as the more illustrious members of the Universal Church, for they are united by a very special bond to the divine Head of the whole Body and so are rightly called "principal parts of the members of the Lord;" moreover, as far as his own diocese is concerned, each one as a true Shepherd feeds the flock entrusted to him and rules it in the name of Christ. Yet in exercising this office they are not altogether independent, but are subordinate to the lawful authority of the Roman Pontiff, although enjoying the ordinary power of jurisdiction which they receive directly from the same Supreme Pontiff. Therefore, Bishops should be revered by the faithful as divinely appointed successors of the Apostles, and to them, even more than to the highest civil authorities should be applied the words: "Touch not my anointed one!" For Bishops have been anointed with the chrism of the Holy Spirit.

  (66) And if at times there appears in the Church something that indicates the weakness of our human nature, it should not be attributed to her juridical constitution, but rather to that regrettable inclination to evil found in each individual, which its Divine Founder permits even at times in the most exalted members of His Mystical Body, for the purpose of testing the virtue of the Shepherds no less than of the flocks, and that all may increase the merit of their Christian faith. For, as We said above, Christ did not wish to exclude sinners from His Church; hence if some of her members are suffering from spiritual maladies, that is no reason why we should lessen our love for the Church, but rather a reason why we should increase our devotion to her members. Certainly the loving Mother is spotless in the Sacraments by which she gives birth to and nourishes her children; in the faith which she has always preserved inviolate; in her sacred laws imposed on all; in the evangelical counsels which she recommends; in those heavenly gifts and extraordinary grace through which with inexhaustible fecundity she generates hosts of martyrs, virgins and confessors. But it cannot be laid to her charge if some members fall, weak or wounded. In their name she prays to God daily: "Forgive us our trespasses;" and with the brave heart of a mother she applies herself at once to the work of nursing them back to spiritual health. When, therefore, we call the Body of Jesus Christ "mystical," the very meaning of the word conveys a solemn warning. It is a warning that echoes in these words of St. Leo: "Recognize, O Christian, your dignity, and being made a sharer of the divine nature go not back to your former worthlessness along the way of unseemly conduct. Keep in mind of what Head and of what Body you are a member."

Then there is the fact that the Church claims of Apostolic Succession; but because this question overtly refuses to allow such legitimate claims (in Antiquity) shows yet another flaw on the subject (wording in the title of this post) of the true Universal Body of Christ which is the Church.

The Pope is the Supreme Pontiff of the entire Catholic Church (Latin or Oriental) which is called the Mystical Body of Christ, yesterday and today.


What Conservative Catholic publication am I looking for? Some months ago, I stumbled on an online publication, whose name I cannot remember - and I  believe they also offer a printed subscription.  In spite of multiple google and wiki searches, I have been unable to restumble on it.  What I remember about it is this: It had a rather arch, playfully academic tone. For example, in one of it own blurbs, it quoted a well known, liberal Catholic bishop, referring to the publication as a defamatory screed.  In other words, the condemnation of this person was held up as an encomium by the editors.

The other thing that comes to mind is that it used a seraphed font.

There is the New Oxford Review, which is available online or in print.  I can imagine it being described by a liberal bishop as a 'defamatory screed,' but I can find no evidence of it on the site.

The National Catholic Register (U.S.) is a kind of conservative/orthodox counterbalance to the lamentably heterodox National Catholic Reporter.  Again, print edition offered.

It might help if you could remember what kind of publication it was -- news, commentary, etc.


What is the case that 1 Corinthians 15:7 refers to James the Just, relative of Jesus, rather than James, one of the Twelve? The following verses refer to "James," and most commentators identify him as the same James who is referred to as the "brother" of Jesus (though the exact meaning of that word is unclear). How do we know that it refers to him, rather than the son of Zebedee or of Alphaeus, two of the Twelve Apostles?

1 Corinthians 15:3-8

  For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures,
  that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures,
  and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.

  Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep.
  Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.

  Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.

It seems more likely that Paul was referring to James the Just (Christ's familial "brother" or possibly a "brother" in name only), but we have no definitive way of knowing this.

Some considerations:

There is no agreement on whether or not Christ had a familial brother named James. Below is an excerpt from a commentary, "The Brothers and Sisters of Jesus: Anything New?" from Francois Rossier, at the University of Dayton, in Ohio (pdf).

  "...it cannot be said that the New Testament identifies them without doubt as blood brothers and sisters and hence as children of Mary... It remains true that the word "brother," in Hebrew, also means "blood sibling." Since it is the most obvious--but by far not the exclusive--meaning, it cannot be simply dismissed. The use of the word adelphos remains, therefore, a challenge for those who uphold Mary's virginity post partum. Yet, reading this word as referring only to actual siblings may also raise some difficulties."

As your passage indicates, he appeared to "five hundred brothers" but Christ didn't have 500 familial brothers. This became even more apparent in our lifetimes when the James Ossuary was allegedly discovered and it created quite a bit of controversy. Below is the famous inscription found on the ossuary. According to a 2012 article in Biblical Archaeology Review (pdf), it reads: "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus."

There were two apostles named James, not one: James, the son of Zebedee and James, the son of Alphaeus (often referred to as James the Less or James the Younger).

  "Now the names of the twelve apostles are these; The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother; Philip, and Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew the publican; James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus; Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him." (Matthew 10:2-4, KJV)

Typically, James the Just is known as the familial "brother" of Christ but we don't have proof of this and these terms are debatable.

If Christ appeared to one of the apostles named James and not James -a familial brother of Christ- it's more likely that Paul would have specified which one since there were two.
Because of the way the passage reads, it's more likely that Paul meant a James that did have a familial relationship with Christ OR that he meant a James that was distinctive for another reason (there is none that we know of). I say this because he is setting apart James from "all of the apostles."

In 1 Corinthians 15:7, the Codex Sinaiticus, the oldest manuscript we have of Corinthians, shows their website translating this passage even more definitively.

  "After that he appeared to James, after that to all the apostles."

There is no record that I am aware of that links Paul to any James other than James the Just -head of the church at Jerusalem. If it was not James the Just (Christ's familial "brother"), this would have been a unique reference from Paul.

  "And when we were come to Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly. And the day following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present. And when he had saluted them, he declared particularly what things God had wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry." (Acts 21:17-19, KJV)

The son of Alphaeus is typically known as James the Less (or James the Younger.)

  "There were also women looking on afar off: among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome." (Mark 15:40, KJV)

In 2006, Pope Benedict addressed an audience in the Vatican city that, according to Catholic Online, was "Contributed to Integrate the Original Jewish Dimension of Christianity." His entire address is about James the Less and it can be found here: (pdf)

From Pope Benedict's address:

  "...another James appears in the gospel who is called James "the Less." He also forms part of the list of twelve apostles chosen personally by Jesus, and is always specified as "son of Alphaeus."


Is Jesus the reincarnation of Adam? Somewhere in my travels, I read that Jesus can be considered as Adam reincarnated. Is that a possibility? "First Adam flops, second Adam triumphs" - is that an idea some of you know?

No. Jesus may not be considered Adam re-incarnate.

Yet it's not hard to figure out where somebody might have gotten that idea. This is just a case of not understanding the terminology being used. Somebody got some of the words cross-wired¹ without understanding the concept.

In Christianity Jesus is known as the "Second Adam" or "Last Adam" but the naming has nothing to do with reincarnation! The title refers to a role rather than a personal ID. As far as personas go they are actually quite different. Adam was a man like you or me. He died and stayed dead. Jesus was God himself who had taken on human form. God and man at the same time.

Adam was given specific assignments, he had a role to play in the created order.

He failed it. Spectacularly.

  Romans 5:12 (ESV)
  12  Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—

The "Second Adam" Jesus came to set right what he first Adam messed up.

  1 Corinthians 15:22 (ESV)
  22  For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.

Jesus not only did what neither Adam nor of his descendants could do (live in perfect obedience to God) but by taking on himself Adam's guilt he also reversed the process Adam started and provided a way for those who had rebelled (Adam and all us after him) to be reconciled back to God.

  1 Corinthians 15:45 (ESV)
  45  Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.

When Christians talk about a  "Second Adam" it is not a reincarnation being talked about, but this principle of reversing the curse brought by the "First Adam".

¹ This could be intentional or accidental. History is full of deliberate miss-understandings of Christianity (e.g. the accusation of cannibalism in reference to communion) but I suspect this is simply a case of lack of knowledge. Rather that actually researching what is properly meant by various expressions, it is a natural tendency to run with them out of context. This tendency can not only result in very bad doctrine, it is the source of most of the worlds conspiracy theories.


Baking and cutting eucharistic bread in the Eastern Orthodox Churches What is the scriptural basis of the Eastern Orthodox Church to select a person in good standing to bake the bread in preparation for the Eucharist, and what is the scriptural basis for cutting the bread (as opposed to breaking the bread), and in which jurisdictions of the Eastern Orthodox churches does this occur?

Prolegomenon

There is an assumption that needs to be addressed before an answer can be given, namely that 'scripture' is the basis for practices and beliefs in the Eastern Orthodox Church. It is not. Scripture is a part of Holy Tradition (the preeminent portion indeed), but not everything comes from this. Most important is maintaining and passing on the Apostolic Tradition unaltered. So asking for a 'scriptural basis' for an Eastern Orthodox practice doesn't really make sense. It's sort of like asking for a Protestant justification of a Roman Catholic practice—you're using the wrong measuring stick for this context. With that said, I will proceed explaining the historical emergence of this practice.

The (Leavened) Bread

History shows that using leavened bread is the earliest practice of the Christian Church. The use of unleavened bread is a later development (8th or 9th century, depending on which scholar you cite):

  In the West, various ordinances appeared from the ninth century on,
  all demanding the exclusive use of unleavened bread for the Eucharist.
  A growing solicitude for the Blessed Sacrament and a desire to employ
  only the best and whitest bread, along with various scriptural
  considerations—all favored this development. Still, the new
  custom did not come into exclusive vogue until the middle of the
  eleventh century. Particularly in Rome it was not universally accepted
  till after the general infiltration of various usages from the North.
  In the Orient there were few objections to this usage during olden
  times. Not till the discussions that led to the schism of 1054 did it
  become one of the chief objections against the Latins. At the Council
  of Florence (1439), however, it was definitely established that the
  Sacrament could be confected in azymo sive fermentato pane.
  Therefore, as we well know, the various groups of Orientals who are
  united with Rome continue to use the type of bread traditional among
  them.1

The use of unleavened bread is partly due to the assumption that the Last Supper occurred during the Passover Seder (and numerous anachronistic assumptions about how this meal was practiced in first century Judaism). This assumption is problematic from a historical perspective, however, because John's Gospel presents a different timeline than the Synoptic Gospels for this meal.2

  The same baking method and ovens were used by the Christians for both
  their daily bread and that which was to be used in worship. It must be
  made clear that (contrary to practices today in the West) in the Early
  Christian centuries and in all eastern rites through the ages, except
  in the Armenian church, the bread used for the Church did not differ
  from ordinary bread in substance. From the beginning leavened bread
  was used. Even the Armenians before the seventh century and the
  Maronites before their union with Rome in the twelfth century used
  leavened bread. The practice of using unleavened bread for the
  Eucharist was introduced to the West much later. Among the earliest
  written accounts is that given by Alcuin (A.D. 798) and his disciple
  Rabanus Maurus. After this the altar bread took the light, wafer like
  form, achieved with pressing irons, so common today.3

Officially, according to the OCA,

  In the Christian East there is no concern for using the exact type of
  bread used at the Last Supper....

Even so, you will hear some Orthodox Christians refer to unleavened bread as 'dead bread' in a derogatory fashion, and some elaborate allegorical theologies were developed by the eleventh century in the East that commingled the theology of the bread used in the Mystical Supper with that of Christology (e.g. as the body without breath and soul is dead, so also is unleavened bread; Christ gave us a whole loaf, not just his body without a soul as Apollinaris claims, etc.).

The Eastern Orthodox Church continues to follow the earliest Christian practice which we believe was handed down from the apostles: the use of leavened bread.

Breaking vs. Cutting the Bread

This distinction is somewhat semantic and anachronistic (they probably didn't cut bread with knives in first century Judea). The phrase 'break(ing) the bread' (τῇ κλάσει τοῦ ἄρτου, κλῶντές/κλάσαι/κλάσας τὸν ἄρτον, etc.) appears numerous times in the New Testament,4 and simply refers to 'breaking' or 'fracturing'.5 Due to the anachronistic nature of this question I will comment no further.

Who Gets to Bake It?

The idea of it being baked by someone 'in good standing' is because it is viewed as an honor to serve in this way, and the bread is an offering (πρόσφορον, prosphoron) at the altar (cf. Matthew 5:23-24 and note that the Orthodox refer to the bread with the same Greek term used in this passage).

In What Jurisdictions Does This Practice Occur?

This practice is used virtually unanimously in all Eastern Orthodox churches, with the notable exception of the Oriental Orthodox Armenian Apostolic Church. As I've pointed out elsewhere,

  Concerning Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Christians, the
  difference is that the latter accept only the first three ecumenical
  councils (Nicaea I, Ephesus I & Chalcedon), while the former accept
  seven ecumenical councils. There are some Eastern Orthodox Christians
  who consider the controversy between Oriental Orthodox and themselves
  to be primarily semantic (and some dialogue has been made in the 20th
  century to reunite the churches, but full communion has not yet been
  restored), but officially they are not considered to be 'Orthodox'
  (despite their use of the title) as they were condemned as heretical
  for rejecting the fourth ecumenical council (Chalcedon).

Conclusion

I've explained the historical emergence of the Eastern Orthodox practices mentioned in the question (they are the earliest known practice in the Christian Church), and I've addressed some of the faulty underlying assumptions in the question as well.

1  Joseph A. Jungmann, The Mass Of The Roman Rite: Its Origins and Development, vol. 2. (Dublin, Ireland: Four Courts Press, 1986), 34.

2 cf. Jonathan Klawans, "Was Jesus’ Last Supper a Seder?" In Biblical Archaeology Review, Oct 2001, 24-33, 47.

3George Galavaris, "Bread and the Liturgy: The Symbolism of Early Christian and Byzantine Bread Stamps". In Speculum Vol. 46, No. 1 (Jan, 1971), 154. DOI link.

4 cf. Luke 24:35; Acts 2:42, 46; 20:7, 11; 27:35.

5 William Arndt, Frederick W. Danker, and Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 546-7. It is also noted that the use of this verb with the referent ἄρτος (bread) does not refer to cultic practices with any certainty (i.e. Eucharist/Communion/Mystical Supper or other cultic meals).


How do the Catholic and LDS views of what a prophet is differ? Answers can address either denomination or both. My most recent understanding on the subject was that a prophet loses awareness (a trance) and then receives the word or message of God. However, I don't know if these are the criteria per se, or if they are part of an overarching theme. (My follow-up question will be, what do we call people like King David or the sons of Korach - but please don't answer that here.)

How do the Catholic and LDS views of what a prophet is differ?
First of all, let us deal with what a prophet is within Catholic understanding.
Catholic generally only apply the title of prophet to those individuals named in Sacred Scriptures. Many Catholic Blesseds and Saints have received the genuine gift of prophecy as been given by the Holy Spirit, but the Church does not call them prophets. The word Prophet is traditional reserved for the Biblical Prophets of Old.

Prophet
Definition
The biblical term "nabi" means one who spoke, acted, or wrote under the extraordinary influence of God to make known the divine counsels and will. Yet commonly associated with this primary function to proclaim the word of God, a prophet also prophesied by foretelling future events. His role, then, was to both proclaim and to make the proclamation credible.

The Catholic Encyclopedia in its’ article entitled Prophecy, Prophet, and Prophetess, goes into much greater detail on the Catholic viewpoint as to what is a Prophet.

General idea and the Hebrew names
(1) General Idea — The Hebrew Prophet was not merely, as the word commonly implies, a man enlightened by God to foretell events; he was the interpreter and supernaturally enlightened herald sent by Yahweh to communicate His will and designs to Israel. His mission consisted in preaching as well as in foretelling. He had to maintain and develop the knowledge of the Old Law among the Chosen People, lead them back when they strayed, and gradually prepare the way for the new kingdom of God, which the messias was to establish on earth. Prophecy, in general, signifies the supernatural message of the Prophet, and more especially, from custom, the predictive element of the prophetic message.
(2) The Hebrew Names — The ordinary Hebrew for prophet is nabî'. Its etymology is uncertain. According to many recent critics, the root nabî, not employed in Hebrew, signified to speak enthusiastically, "to utter cries, and make more or less wild gestures", like the pagan mantics. Judging from a comparative examination of the cognate words in Hebrew and the other Semitic tongues, it is at least equally probable that the original meaning was merely: to speak, to utter words (cf. Laur, "Die Prophetennamen des A.T.", Fribourg, 1903, 14-38). The historic meaning of nabî' established by biblical usage is "interpreter and mouthpiece of God". This is forcibly illustrated by the passage, where Moses, excusing himself from speaking to Pharao on account of his embarrassment of speech, was answered by Yahweh: "Behold I have appointed thee the God of Pharao: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet. Thou shalt speak to him all that I command thee; and he shall speak to Pharao, that he let the children of Israel go out of his land" (Exodus 7:1-2). Moses plays towards the King of Egypt the role of God, inspiring what is to be uttered, and Aaron is the prophet, his mouthpiece, transmitting the inspired message he shall receive. The Greek prophetes (from pro-phanai, to speak for, or in the name of someone) translates the Hebrew accurately. The Greek prophet was the revealer of the future, and the interpreter of divine things, especially of the obscure oracles of the pythoness. Poets were the prophets of the muses: Inspire me, muse, thy prophet I shall be" (Pindar, Bergk, Fragm. 127).
The word nabî' expresses more especially a function. The two most usual synonyms ro'éeh and hozéh emphasize more clearly the special source of the prophetic knowledge, the vision, that is, the Divine revelation or inspiration. Both have almost the same meaning; hozéh is employed, however, much more frequently in poetical language and almost always in connexion with a supernatural vision, whereas râ'ah, of which ro'éh is the participle, is the usual word for to see in any manner.
Brief sketch of the history of prophecy
(1) The first person entitled nabî' in the Old Testament is Abraham, father of the elect, the friend of God, favoured with his personal communications (Genesis 20:7). The next is Moses, the founder and lawgiver of the theocratic nation, the mediator of the Old Covenant holding a degree of authority unequalled till the coming of Jesus Christ. "And there arose no more a prophet in Israel like unto Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face, in all the signs and wonders, which he sent by him, to do in the land of Egypt to Pharao, and to all his servants, and to his whole land, and all the mighty hand, and great miracles, which Moses did before all Israel" (Deuteronomy 34:10 sqq.). There were other Prophets with him, but only of the second rank, such as Aaron and Maria, Eldad and Medad, to whom Yahweh manifested himself in dreams and vision, but not in the audible voice with which He favoured him, who was most faithful in all His house (Numbers 12:7).
Of the four institutions concerning which Moses enacted laws according to Deuteronomy (14:18-18), one was prophecy (18:9-22; cf. 13:1-5, and Exodus 4:1 sqq.). Israel was to listen to the true Prophets, and not to heed the false but rather to extirpate them, even had they the appearance of miracle-workers. The former would speak in the name of Yahweh, the one God; and foretell things that would be accomplished or be confirmed by miracles. The latter were to come in the name of the false gods, or teach a doctrine evidently erroneous, or vainly endeavour to foretell events. Later prophetic writers added as other signs of the false Prophets, cupidity, flattery of the people or the nobles, or the promise of Divine favour for the nation weighed down with crime. Balaam is both a Prophet and a soothsayer; a professional soothsayer it would seem, of whom Yahweh makes use to proclaim even in Moab the glorious destiny of the Chosen People, when He was about to lead them into the Promised Land (Numbers 22-24).
But the two greatest figures of prophecy between Samuel and Isaiah are Elias and Eliseus. Yahweism was again endangered, especially by the Tyrian Jezabel, wife of Achab, who had introduced into Samaria the worship of her Phœnician gods, and Israel's faith was tottering, as it divided its worship between Baal and Yahweh. In Juda the danger was not less menacing, King Joram had married Athalia, a worthy daughter of Jezabel. At that moment Elias appeared like a mysterious giant, and by his preaching and his miracles led Israel back to the true God and suppressed, or at least moderated, their leaning towards the gods of Chanaan. At Carmel he won a magnificent and terrible victory over the Prophets of Baal; then he proceeded to Horeb to renew within him the spirit of the Covenant and to be present at a marvellous theophany; thence he returned to Samaria to proclaim to Achab the voice of justice calling out for vengeance for the murder of Naboth. When he disappeared in the fiery chariot, he left to his disciple Eliseus, with his mantle, a double share of his spirit. Eliseus continued the master's work against the Chanaanite idolatry with great success, and became such a bulwark to the Kingdom of the North, that King Joas wept for his death and took his farewell with these words: "My father! my father! chariot of Israel and its horsemen"! Not all the Prophets left their oracles in writing. Several of them, however, have written the history of their times. Gad and Nathan, for instance, the history of David; and Nathan that of Solomon; also Semeias and Addo the annals of Roboam; Jehu, son of Hanani those of Josaphat.....Is it possible that the historical books of Josue, Judges, Samuel, and Kings were called in the Jewish canon the "earlier Prophets" because of the belief that they were written by the Prophets or at least based on their writing? To this query there can be no solution.
(2) Prophetic Writers — The prophetic books were entitled in the same canon the "later Prophets". Gradually the custom of calling their authors the prophetic writers crept in. There are four Greater Prophets, that is those whose works are of considerable length. Isaias, Jeremias, Ezechiel, and Daniel, and twelve Minor Prophets, whose works are briefer—Osee, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Micheas, Nahum, Habacuc, Sophonias, Aggeus, Zacharias, and Malachias. The Book of Baruch, which is not included in the Hebrew canon, is united in our Bibles to the Book of Jeremias. The ministry of Amos, the most ancient perhaps of the prophetic writers, is placed about the years 760-50. Osee follows him immediately. Next comes Isaias (about 740-700), and his contemporary Micheas. Sophonias, Nahum, and Habacuc prophesied towards the last quarter of the seventh century. Jeremias about 626-586; Ezechiel between 592-70. The prophecy of Aggeus and in part that of Zacharias are dated exactly in 520 and 520-18. Malachias belongs to the middle of the fifth century. As for Daniel, Abdias, Joel, Baruch, as well as portions of Isaias, Jeremias, Zacharias, their dates being disputed, it is necessary to refer the reader to the special articles treating of them.
(3) The Prophetesses — The Old Testament gives the name nebî'ah, to three women gifted with prophetic charismata: Mary, the sister of Moses; Debbora; and Holda, a contemporary of Jeremias (2 Kings 22:14); also to the wife of Isaias meaning the spouse of a nabî'; finally to Noadia, a false Prophetess if the Hebrew text is accurate, for the Septuagint and Vulgate speak of a false Prophet (Nehemiah 6:14).
(4) Cessation of Israelitic Prophecy — The prophetic institution had ceased to exist in the time of the Machabees. Israel clearly recognized this, and was awaiting its reappearance. Its necessity had ceased. Religious revelation and the moral code expressed in Holy Writ were full and clear. The people were being instructed by the scribes and doctors—a living magistracy, fallible, it is true, and bound overmuch by letter of the law, but withal zealous and learned. There was a feeling that the promises were about to be fulfilled and the consequent apocalypse increased and intensified this feeling. It was not unfitting, therefore, for God to allow an interval to elapse between the prophets of the Old Covenant and Jesus Christ, who was to be the crown and consummation of their prophecies.

At the end of Public Revelation which ended with the death of the last Apostle prophecy will continue within the Church, but the Church does not accord the title of prophet to them.
Immediately after Paul’s oft-quoted 1 Corinthians 13 pericope on the importance of integrating love into every gift of the Spirit, he encourages his community, “Strive eagerly for the spiritual gifts, above all that you may prophesy” (14:1).
Prophecy is the normal biblical way of surfacing God’s will in one’s life. Though Catholics look to the hierarchy and Protestants open their Bibles to discover God’s plan for them, the people who gave us our Scriptures obviously had neither the Bible nor a hierarchical structure as we know it to fall back on.
They believed God had blessed certain individuals in their midst with a special gift of knowing God’s will in specific situations. People of faith were expected to find those insightful persons, listen to them and then carry out their message.
Paul was convinced that prophecy is essential for any Christian community. If you don’t have prophets, you’ll be walking in the dark, not knowing what direction to go.
The gift of prophecy is very much alive within the Catholic Church.

Father Michael Scanlan’s 1976 Prophecy and the Events of 2020
The Gift of Prophecy
Those who, like Father Scanlan, who died in 2017, speak such messages are believed to have the gift of prophecy, as described in the New Testament Book of Ephesians, Martin said. This gift and others are given for the building up of the Church, he continued, and, although associated with the Charismatic Renewal movement, they are supposed to be part of the normal life of Catholics.
Martin has given prophecies, as well, including one in 1975: “Days of darkness are coming on the world, days of tribulation. ... Buildings that are now standing will not be standing. Supports that are there for my people now will not be there.”
However, Martin said he considers Father Scanlan’s message to be more specific in its references to the crime and chaos that many Americans are seeing on their streets in the wake of the death of George Floyd and in the mention of churches here and in other countries being closed because of the coronavirus. Martin said the references in the prophecy to dependence on the institutions of schools and parishes also are significant, as dioceses across the country struggle financially.
But he said there are important lessons to be learned as Catholics and others experience the events cited in Father Scanlan’s prophecy. He said during the coronavirus shutdown, when his parish was having online Masses, his pastor pointed out the four ways Christ is present: in the Eucharist, in the person of the priest, in the word of God and in our souls.
When the first two aren’t available, Martin said, Catholics can develop an understanding of and appreciation for the other two. “Those are important things we could learn during this time, but a lot of us haven’t learned it yet. We’re so dependent on the structures of the church building that it will be hard if those are taken away again.”

More can be seen here:

Pope Benedict XVI Predictions for the Future of the Church (YouTube video)

As for the  teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the term Prophet is quite different.
The General idea of Prophets in Biblical times is somewhat (not exactly) similar to the views of Catholics in this regards. However the similarities end there.

As members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we are blessed to be led by living prophets—inspired men called to speak for the Lord, as did Moses, Isaiah, Peter, Paul, Nephi, Mormon, and other prophets of the scriptures. We sustain the President of the Church as prophet, seer, and revelator—the only person on the earth who receives revelation to guide the entire Church. We also sustain the counselors in the First Presidency and the members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as prophets, seers, and revelators.
Like the prophets of old, prophets today testify of Jesus Christ and teach His gospel. They make known God’s will and true character. They speak boldly and clearly, denouncing sin and warning of its consequences. At times, they may be inspired to prophesy of future events for our benefit.
We can always trust the living prophets. Their teachings reflect the will of the Lord, who declared: “What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same” (Doctrine and Covenants 1:38).
Our greatest safety lies in strictly following the word of the Lord given through His prophets, particularly the current President of the Church. The Lord warns that those who ignore the words of the living prophets will fall (see Doctrine and Covenants 1:14–16). He promises great blessings to those who follow the President of the Church:
“Thou shalt give heed unto all his words and commandments which he shall give unto you as he receiveth them, walking in all holiness before me;
“For his word ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith.
“For by doing these things the gates of hell shall not prevail against you; yea, and the Lord God will disperse the powers of darkness from before you, and cause the heavens to shake for your good, and his name’s glory” (Doctrine and Covenants 21:4–6). - Prophets

Every President from Joseph Smith to Russel M. Nelson is considered a Prophet in the viewpoint of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS).


Is it Biblical for a Christian to say that God is a tyrant? I’m new here and I would to ask something, even though some of may not like this question, I would like to here answers from only Christians. Atheist and such might come to this post and probably start ridiculing me or something and will not understand what’s going on here.

Now, the other day on Quora, I asked about how should a Christian talks about Gods wrath and such without making people think he is a tyrant, and user yesterday(who is obviously a Christian)answered me: “God is a tyrant. Why wouldn’t you want a perfect tyrant ruling over you?

Remember that Jesus tells us the ones who are meant to get it will get it.

  John 10:27-28 King James Version (KJV)

  27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:

  28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish,
  neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand”

I replied to him:“If you are suppose to be a Christian, let Me ask you, so you believe that God is a cruel oppressive ruler? Because that is what the definition of what a tyrant is, and a Christian saying that God is a tyrant, in a “deal with it” kind of way will totally NOT get ANYONE to want to come to him!”

He than replied to me: “Then go away. We can’t change His nature. We can only seek to understand its wisdom.”

What this person has said to me has been kinda bothering me, and I don’t want to see God as a cruel master!

From Brittanica.com:

  Tyrant, Greek tyrannos, a cruel and oppressive ruler or, in ancient Greece, a ruler who seized power unconstitutionally or
  inherited such power. In the 10th and 9th centuries BCE, monarchy was
  the usual form of government in the Greek states. The aristocratic
  regimes that replaced monarchy were by the 7th century BCE themselves
  unpopular. Thus, the opportunity arose for ambitious men to seize
  power in the name of the oppressed.

God did not usurp authority not righfully His. He created the universe and we belong to Him.
God is not the oppressor of mankind but its liberator. He set the Hebrew people free and gave them laws to keep them free, if they would only follow them.
When God performs miraculous events considered harsh or tyrranical, consider the objets of his wrath: murderers, adulterers, slave traders and harsh masters, empires and religions that command their people to offer child sacrifice, adult human sacrifice, etc.
God freely pardons all who confess their sins to Him.
A mark of the tyrant is to sacrifice others (or get them to sacrifice themselves in his service) for the sake of his power and self-aggrandizement. Jesus offered his life as a sacrifice for others.

I just don't see how the label of tyrant fits. The wrath of God could only be tyrannical if it was

undeserved
executed without warning
implemented with no recourse for the subject to appease
offered switftly, without permitting a reasonable chance for reflection and action

God is slow to anger and abounding in love. The Bible is filled with ample examples of God issuing warnings centuries in advance. The warning of the flood was given 969 years before it happened. One of the tribes wiped out by the Israelites as they entered the promised land was warned at least two hundred years before. Despite that, when Rahab helped the spies, she was spared by Joshua.

God also does not show favoritism. Has he not executed the same punishments against Israel that he did against her enemies when they rebelled?

These are not the marks of a tyrant. It is our vain belief that we are "basically good people" that blinds us (willfully!) to the fact that we deserve hellfire immediately, but every day are spared until we die.

What is the proper attitude to take? The most righteous man to ever live (apart from Jesus) was Job. He lost his oxen (used to produce crops), his sheep (for clothing), his camels (for transport), his children (for posterity and companinship), his health, his reputation, the respect of his wife, the loyalty of his servants, the compassion of his siblings, was persecuted by his friends, and then chastised by a young man. Finally, he was rebuked by his own creator. To all this, Job said,

My ears had heard of you
    but now my eyes have seen you.
Therefore I despise myself
    and repent in dust and ashes.

Job questioned God's justice and fairness until he met God face to face and understood why he was wrong. So, like Job, you can call God a tyrant. Just be sure that when you meet Him, that you take it back.