God | The Shepherd That "Breaks Legs"? The title of this question has an element of humor but is very real.

On my way home, I was listening to a pastor's sermon on KWAVE.

This pastor stated that God is like a Shepherd and that we are His sheep...

More specifically, that in the old days, if the Shepherd had a sheep that was prone to wandering off from the herd or out of the protection of the pen, the Shepherd would actually break the sheep's leg and reset it, so that it would not wander and be killed by a prowling predator. So, because the Shepherd so loved His sheep, He would break their legs to keep them alive.

Next, the pastor stated that this is what God does with us because He loves us.

Now, he did not go into detail or give examples, so my question is:

Does God inhibit us in ways that are to keep us from going to Hell?

If so, does He do this for some people or for everyone?

Lastly, what would be some examples of this? Would God try to keep someone humble and alive for eternity by giving them depression? Or if God knew someone could not control their lust make them unattractive, to preserve them?

Any info on how this works is greatly appreciated. In addition, if this pastor's message is wrong, please do explain.

Thank You.

I would be wary of a sermon which develops it's doctrines concerning God's occasionally harsh treatment of man from the interpretation of a supposed ancient practice. As well-meaning as it is, from a standpoint of pastoral guidance and discipleship, it's not very helpful for a disciple to look upon human suffering and remember the alleged practices of ancient near-east shepherds.

From a Biblical theology standpoint, the most notable passage is:

  And we know that for those who love God all things work together for
  good, for those who are called according to his purpose. (Romans 8:28
  ESV)

So there is a promise, all things work together for good of the object of that promise. Who is the object of that promise? Those who love God AND are called according to His purpose.

Generally speaking, being called according to the purposes of God is synonymous with being the elect of God. Various theological camps have different beliefs on what it means to be elect, but the reformed tradition of which I am a part believes that the Bible teaches that the elect are those whom God has predestined from before the foundation of the world by grace to be granted the gift of faith, unto salvation.

In practice, applying this idea to suffering is a good mindset but only in the most general sense that a Christian can know themselves to be loved and not abandoned in the midst of suffering, not that they can deduce the special reasons that make particular instances of suffering ultimately good for them. It is something to take God at his word for, even when it is not directly seen or experienced.


What is transubstantiation? According to Wikipedia:

  When at his Last Supper, Jesus said: "This is my body", what he held in his hands still had all the appearances of bread: these "accidents" remained unchanged. However, the Roman Catholic Church believes that, when Jesus made that declaration, the underlying reality (the "substance") of the bread was converted to that of his body. In other words, it actually was his body, while all the appearances open to the senses or to scientific investigation were still those of bread, exactly as before.

and also

  The Catholic Church holds that the same change of the substance of the bread and of the wine occurs at the consecration of the Eucharist

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation

So, how can the Eucharist change from bread to body if it is not measurably altered in any way? How is it different from saying that it doesn't change at all? Is it an allegory? If not, how does it change in practical terms?

Transubstantiation relies on the Aristotelian distinction between essence and accidents. From the linked Wikipedia article:

  Catholic theologians such as Thomas Aquinas have employed the
  Aristotelian concepts of substance and accident in articulating the
  theology of the Eucharist, particularly the transubstantiation of
  bread and wine into body and blood. According to this tradition, the
  accidents of the bread and wine do not change, but their substances
  change from bread and wine to the Body and Blood of Christ.

The "measurable" properties you are referring to (taste, feel, etc.) are accidental properties, not the substance of the bread/wine.


If we receive infinite grace through bread and wine as the Catholic theology say, why does a person still sin against God? If we receive infinite grace through bread and wine as the Catholic theology say, why does a person still sin against God?

Because during transubstantiation doesn't infinite grace bestowed on each bread and wine?

If we receive infinite grace through bread and wine as the Catholic theology say, why does a person still sin against God?
Answer
While it is true that all faithfuls or members of the Catholic Church can avail of the infinite graces through participation in the Holy Mass and by receiving the Holy Communion.
Catholic Church also teaches that one must received the Holy Communion in a "state of grace", meaning if one is aware that he/she had committed mortal sins or simply bothered by his/her conscience, the Church Sacraments of Confession must be availed first by the faithfuls before receiving Holy Communion.
Also, let us not forget that the "Holy Eucharist" is the means a faithful can be with intimate union with Christ by eating his "Flesh & Blood" as Jesus teaches in John Gospel.
John 6:50-58 New International Version (NIV)

"But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”
Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.  Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.  For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.  Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them.  Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. (John6:50-58)

Catholics eventhough received plenty or as you said infinite graces through the Holy Eucharist still has to persevere in his daily Christian Life.As St.Paul teaches in his letter to the Hebrews;
Hebrews 12:1-3 New International Version (NIV)

Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, let us throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles. And let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us, fixing our eyes on Jesus, the pioneer and perfecter of faith. For the joy set before him he endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God. Consider him who endured such opposition from sinners, so that you will not grow weary and lose heart.(Hebrews12:1-3)

St.Paul teaches us that we must not grow weary & lose heart as our battle with the enemy of our salvation does not end until we expiate our last breathe.
And we also reminded by St.Peter with regards to the enemy of our salvation;
1 Peter 5:8-11 New International Version (NIV)

Be alert and of sober mind. Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour. Resist him, standing firm in the faith, because you know that the family of believers throughout the world is undergoing the same kind of sufferings.
And the God of all grace, who called you to his eternal glory in Christ, after you have suffered a little while, will himself restore you and make you strong, firm and steadfast. 11 To him be the power for ever and ever. Amen.(!Peter5:8-11)

With Apostles Peter & Paul teaching Catholics who received the Holy Eucharist must therefore, always stay vigilant and sober because satan is just around the corner waiting for a perfect time for us to let down our guard.


Do Western Christians confuse Mysticism with Emotionalism? I repeatedly hear Western Christians repudiate mysticism. This post is NOT about the merits or dangers of Christian mysticism. Another question addresses that sufficiently. This question deals with whether or not Western Christians are accurately defining mysticism.

It seems that what is often called 'mysticism' by Western Christians is actually what might be better called 'emotionalism.' This is evidenced by the fact that mysticism always seems to be presented as the opposite extreme of rationalism (which implies that mysticism must be irrational). It seems that the trend of creating this dichotomy began historically in Western culture in the Romantic period. But is mysticism the same thing as emotionalism or is this a false dichotomy that we have inherited from Romanticism? Why or why not? If not, what definition would you offer for it?

Any sources from Christian history (east or west) would also be appreciated when addressing this question.

I can tell you what Catholicism has to say about it, for the most part. Though, if you're looking for some survey of western Christians to get some sense of what all of them think mysticism is, this isn't the forum for that. But, even without a poll, I can say with high confidence that most Christians, especially those from larger denominations like Catholicism, don't know their own doctrines sufficiently. And they likely have no idea what what we mean when we call one of our saints a mystic.

That said, proper mysticism is not emotionalism, and it's not anti-rational; it's superrational.

Christian mysticism is the "quest" to come into an intimate, unitive relationship with God, God willing. And since God is well-beyond comprehension, mystical experiences and practices are necessarily "foggy" and "mysterious."  However, the fruits of a mystical experience (the fruits of contemplation) can always be verified rationally by comparing their message with that of Word of God and the Church.

But, the best way to see that proper mysticism is not an emotionalism, I think, is to examine some mystics, their experiences, and their insights. You'll definitely find some emotional experiences in their bios. And, you should expect to find emotion in a relationship. But, these aren't the highlights of their stories. The highlights are the ecstatic, confusing climaxes of their contemplative experiences, and the fruits that follow. Unlike what an emotional experience can yield, these experiences yield prophetic and/or genius-like insight, transcendent peace, and profound love (in the sense of willing the good of others as other).

Two very notable Catholic mystics.
 - St. Theresa of Avila (on Wikipedia and Catholic Encyclopedia)
 - St. John of the Cross, Doctor of mystic theology (on Wikipedia and Catholic Encyclopedia)

And I think it has been well-argued that John the Apostle and St. Paul were mystics. And you can refer to their NT writings. The Gospel of John, in particular, has a pretty heavy mystical feel to it.

I think it's also important to point out that Christianity -- Catholicism and Orthodoxy in the least -- are highly mystical religions. We don't necessarily call every Christian a mystic, but the practices (even basic prayer) have an end-goal that is ultimately mystical. That is, we're trying to unite with God in whatever manner God desires. And, we acknowledge that this relationship is beyond understanding (it's a mystery),but we work with God to attain (receive) that unity anyway -- that's mysticism.

But again, if you're looking for an answer that represent what most Christians believe, regardless of the dogma to which they subscribe, I'd wager most of them have little to no idea what mysticism is.


Does any one know about this painting? Can some one let me know about the picture?

Doing a reverse image search on Google, it appears to be a painting by Navya Davis, who claims portraying Mary and Jesus smiling is an innovation, and that the Bible 'doesn't say they didn't smile' (according to the article by Sachin Sunny).


Do any other denominations agree with the Jehovah Witnesses that Satan was cast to earth in 1914? In my discussion with some Jehovah Witnesses, they claimed 1914 was the year referred to in revelation and that Satan came to earth. According to their belief, this is why from 1914 the world has never known peace: thus the world wars, famine escalated, and so on...

  Revelation 12:9-12

  9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the
  Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out
  into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

  12 Therefore rejoice, ye heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe to
  the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down
  unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a
  short time

Are there other traditions that agree with this claim?

  1 October 1957 Watchtower: “Satan the Devil failed to prove his false accusation against the chief Son of God. ... That is why, when the kingdom was born in heaven in 1914 and war broke out in heaven and the victorious King Jesus Christ hurled Satan down from heaven to our earth, a loud voice in heaven said: “Now have come to pass the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God and the authority of his Christ, because the accuser of our brothers has been hurled down, who accuses them day and night before our God!” (Rev. 12:7-10) https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1957725?q=satan+1914&p=par

Yes, if you consider dissident groups of JW tradition.
In my research I have found at least 3 groups that share this belief to a greater or lesser degree.

These are:

As Testemunhas dos Deuses Santos - Holy Gods Witnesses
The Herald of Christ's Kingdom (Bible Students)
The Dawn Bible Students Association

There are many other JW dissident groups but I could not verify if they still share this belief. Even because some of them doesn't exist anymore.

They are:
Laymen's Home Missionary Movement
Epiphany Bible Students Association
Laodicean Home Missionary Movement  (1957-1990)
Pastoral Bible Institute
Watchers of the Morning  (1937-1957)
The Christian Millennial Fellowship
The Standfast Bible Students Association
The Elijah Voice Society
The Servants of Yah
New Jerusalem Fellowship (1922-1992)
Old Paths Publications (1925-1961)
Forest Gate Church (1920-1979)
Goshen Fellowship
The Institute of Pyramidology
The Angel of Jehovah Bible and Tract Society
Berean Bible Institute
The New Covenant Believers (Berean Bible Students Church)
Associated Bible Students
Association of Free Bible Students of France
German Bible Students Association
Greek Bible Students Association
International Bible Students of India
Polish Bible Students Association

The year 1914 is used as a basis by Jehovah's Witnesses due to a calculation created by William Miller. As far as I know, William Miller used the same calculation currently used by the Jehovah's Witnesses, but it came to 1843/1844 not 1914.
See the chart below

On the 2520 website you can see more details about the prophecy and Miller's charts.

Seventh-day Adventists use the verse of Daniel 8:14 to get to the year 1844 but no longer use the 2520 year count.

Both Wiliam Miller and Seventh-Day Adventists do not believe that Satan was cast to earth in 1914/1844. William Miller Believe that Christ would come in 1844 and Seventh-Day Adventist believe that in this year Christ started his work as a High Priest on the Heavenly Santuary.


Can a priest give a Mass in American Sign Language (ASL)? What does he do when he is supposed to lift up the Eucharist while speaking in ASL? Part of the mass involves the priest lifting up the Eucharist and saying the following aloud:

  Behold the Lamb of God, behold him who takes away the sins of the world. Blessed are those called to the supper of the Lamb.

In the event that the priest is saying the mass using English
sign language (as opposed to saying it in a verbal language and having an interpreter repeating his words in sign language), what does he do? He can't both hold up the Eucharist and say the words with his hands. Does he lift up the Eucharist, set it down, and then say those words? Does he do the opposite? Is there some other way this situation is to be handled?

(I'm guessing that there's an answer somewhere in canon law, since surely someone has run into this situation).

Yes, a priest can give a mass in American Sign Language (ASL)

Fr. Edward McNamara wrote an extensive article for the organization ZENIT about the validity of sign language at mass, specifically using sign language during the consecration and not vocally pronouncing the words.

Sign language is certainly permitted for the liturgy

First, Fr. McNamara first answers the general question of whether or not sign language can be used in liturgy, and he cites Notitiae, the official magazine of the Vatican Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments.

  Whether the language that is called « gestural » (sign-language) can be employed in the celebration of the liturgy for the deaf?

  In the affirmative. For it is the only system by which the deaf can truly actively participate in the sacred liturgy. As a matter of fact, to certain Conferences of Bishops that asked, the Most Blessed Father recently (14 Dec. 1965) kindly granted that the language that is called « gestural » can be employed in the celebration of the liturgy for the deaf, whenever a pastoral reason suggests it, in all the parts which are said in the vernacular language. The celebration can be ordered like this:

  The readings are conveyed to the congregation through signs.
  With respect to participation in the other parts which regard the people:

  a) what is pronounced by the celebrant alone, he himself at the same time pronounces the words and likewise conveys them by gestures; the people respond with gestures;
  b) in the parts which are to be said together by the celebrant and the people, e.g., the Gloria, the Credo, the Sanctus-Benedictus, the Agnus Dei, etc., the faithful follow the signs of the celebrant through gestures.

  —Notitiae 2 (1966): 30-31 no. 95

There does not appear to be an official statement explicitly addressing validity during consecration, but consensus among canonists is that it is valid

  However, it does not answer our reader’s precise question regarding validity, and, although there have been some good theological reflections on this topic and some serious canonical studies, I have been unable to find a definitive official declaration that would close the debate.

  Renowned canonist Dr. Edward Peters has published several studies on this topic and proposes a positive conclusion with respect to the sacramental validity of sign language. There are other theological studies which reach similar conclusions from the dogmatic standpoint. Unfortunately, most of these studies do not appear to be available online.

The Dr. Edward Peters he mentions maintains "A Bibliography of Deaf Catholic Sources and Studies", which include some of his own works that I believe Fr. McNamara is referencing.

What other evidence is there that this is permitted?

Fr. McNamara states that dioceses in the United States have dedicated Deaf Ministries that celebrate mass in American Sign Language, and defers to their authority in being able to do so. Beyond that, he gives several reasons that he concurs with Dr. Edward Peters' opinion:

Deaf priests have been ordained since 1977, and some of them are unable to verbally speak

I personally reached out to the coordinator of the Deaf Ministry in the Archdiocese of Baltimore about this question, and he cited this point as one of the pieces of evidence that it was valid:

  For your information, there are more than 10 Deaf men who have been ordained priests. In fact, one was ordained by St. John Paul II himself. I am not a canon lawyer and cannot address all of the fine details related to canon law. However, I think we would have to assume that priests would not be ordained if it was known that they would be unable to celebrate the Mass.

Indeed, if the Pope himself has ordained a deaf priest, it's hard to argue that it's invalid to do so.

Various forms of sign language are considered true languagess

This argument declares that sign language is essentially a vernacular language. Fr. McNamara explains:

  A second argument stems from the nature of sign language as a true language. Although obviously connected to the language of the country where the person lives, sign language is not just a paraphrase of the local spoken tongue but a true language with its own grammar, structure, and syntax. Many thousands of people use it as their ordinary means of communication and are capable of expressing the full range of human intercourse.

Assertions against giving the mass nonverbally appear to be exhortations against “verbum mentis”

Expanding on this point, Fr. McNamara writes:

  It is true that traditional sacramental theology required vocalization for the sacramental form. This was one reason why deafness, along with many other physical impairments, was considered as an impediment to ordination. This would be the position found in most theological manuals.

  However, the closest we can come to an official pronouncement that vocalization is essential to validity is an assertion of Pope Pius XII who, with remarkable foresight, affirms the necessity for a concelebrant to speak the words of consecration.

  However, in this case, the Pope was asserting the invalidity of the “verbum mentis,” the simple mental or interior repetition of the sacramental form with no exterior sign. Thus a celebration by a priest who does not open his mouth but only reads interiorly the prayers would be invalid.

  This is not the case of the use of sign language which is not “verbum mentis.” In this case, the deaf priest is truly pronouncing the words of consecration, even though he is using visible and not audible words.

There is no official translation of the Latin Missal into sign language

Due to sign language being a relatively recent invention, and there not being a standardized way to write it down in print, an official translation has not been developed. However, he contrasts using unofficial translations with a priest paraphrasing prayers (something that is forbidden).

  Even though the use of sign language is approved, there is still no official translation of the Latin Missal into sign language. Since sign language is such a recent phenomenon in the liturgy it will probably require some years to develop some of the more technical vocabulary and incorporate it into worship. A formal missal is probably even further away as there is not yet a fully standardized method for writing sign language, even if such a book is deemed necessary at all.

  Since sign language is a different language it cannot be compared to the situation of a priest who commits the abuse of paraphrasing the official prayers. A possible, albeit admittedly unsatisfactory, analogy for simultaneous speaking and signing would be the situation of observing a papal Mass on television in which the commentator reads the prayers from the English missal while the Holy Father is celebrating in Italian.

So how does the priest raise lift up the Eucharist while performing the mass in sign language?

In this video of an ASL mass, the priest holds up the Eucharist and says the words one-handed if able to.

When needing to hold both the Body and Blood, it appears that he says the the words before elevating it (you will notice that he changes the page of the liturgy book afterwards).

It seems like there is an alternative method if there is more than one priest. This mass (described in a news article here) involved the celebrant (i.e. primary priest) signing the words while the other priest elevated the Body and Blood.

I imagine that most other sign language masses are performed in this way, although given how these are relatively new, I imagine that this might be formally clarified in the future.


What is consumerism and what does the Pope see wrong with it? In the most recent encyclical Laudato si', Pope Francis condemns consumerism. What does he mean by the word consumerism? And what does he see wrong with it?

  To blame population growth instead of extreme and selective consumerism on the part of some, is one way of refusing to face the issues

When someone consumes something, it means that the consumer enjoys and benefits from it. Why is it wrong?

"The problem" with consumerism, says a Christianity Today article, is "living to consume." Consumerism "defines our relationships and actions primarily through a matrix of consumption."

In the encyclical, Pope Francis says that consumerism "prioritizes short-term gain and private interest."

Similarly, this blog post by a Lutheran pastor states that consumerism taken to its logical extreme is "being in love with an abundance of 'stuff,' buying goods as a solution for joy, and caring more about material possessions than our neighbor."

The problems with it can probably be most starkly seen when contrasted with its alternatives. The main Christian alternatives to consumerism would be sustainability and charity (in the sense of giving).

Consumerism in contrast to sustainability is the bigger concern for Pope Francis in Laudato si', simply because it's all about care for creation. Consumerist tendencies are not sustainable because natural resources that become the raw materials for consumer products are limited and running out, and in many cases their byproducts pollute the planet. Case in point when Pope Francis identifies consumerism as the "present model of distribution, where a minority believes that it has the right to consume in a way which can never be universalized, since the planet could not even contain the waste products of such consumption."

But charity also comes into play for Francis (unsurprisingly), even in this particular encyclical, for example when he says, "approximately a third of all food produced is discarded, and 'whenever food is thrown out it is as if it were stolen from the table of the poor.'" quoting an address he previously gave in 2013.


What is the significance of the Bible to Christianity? What exactly is the significance of the Bible to Christianity?

Is Christianity defined by the Bible?

If so, is belief in the Bible the most important (or foundational) belief in Christianity?  Is it the basis of Christianity?
If not, what is it defined by, exactly?

Can you be a Christian and not believe in the Bible?
Can you be a Christian without ever having been taught from the Bible?

If so, why is the Bible important to Christianity?

If the answer is dependent upon tradition (I don't know if it is), please answer from a Protestant perspective.

This may be redundant, but from a Sola Scriptura/Biblical Literalist/Protestant/Evangelical/Fundamentalist view...

  Is Christianity defined by the Bible?

  If so, is belief in the Bible the most important (or foundational) belief in Christianity?  Is it the basis of Christianity?

Yes.  Christianity is the faith in the God of the Bible.  If we believe in a god, any God other than the God defined in the Bible, then by definition, we are following a god that either we made up to suit ourselves, or one made up by men. Either way it's called idolatry.

  If not, what is it exactly that makes a person a "Christian"?  (Can an Atheist call himself a Christian and be counted as a Christian?)

According to the rules of this site, anyone can call themselves a Christian, and we act as if that is the case.  So for the purposes of this site, yes.

But: Scripture says otherwise.  It teaches of false brethren, false converts - people who think they're Christian but aren't.  It speaks of false teachers.  It defines Christians as those who have accepted the free gift of salvation through faith in Christ alone.

  Can you be a Christian and not believe in the Bible?

Again, per the rules of this site, yes, but in reality, I don't think so.  See the first portion of my answer.  Further, if God is who the Bible says He is, and if the Bible is truly God's word, then to disbelieve the Bible is to disbelieve God - to think that he is either mistaken (and therefore not worthy to be called God) or a liar (also not worthy of the title.)

  Can you be a Christian without ever having been taught from the Bible?

The people saved in the New testament didn't have the Bible.  It wasn't completely written yet.  They were taught what would later become Scripture. So it is possible to become a Christian without having someone physically open the Book.

But:  the people who were saved in the early Church were told about Christ, they were told the gospel message (as described in the book of Acts) so in essence, they were taught what the bible teaches.  They were just taught it before it was recorded.

  If so, why is the Bible important to Christianity?

N/A.  "If so" clearly isn't the case.  The Bible is essential to Christianity today.  The events described in it happened thousands of years ago, and if we didn't have this Book of history, recorded exactly the way God intended, and preserved to the present day, we'd have no solid foundation for our faith.  We'd have a million different views on God (as we do today) without the one source of Truth that the Scriptures provide, as a plumb-line against which to measure the truth of the various teachings.

In other words, without the Bible, we could know nothing about God.  We would have no basis for our faith, other than to base it on our own suppositions and the suppositions of those in authority who came before us.


Can Only A Priest Give Confession? Or can someone who has been blessed by a priest do so? What if someone were stranded on an island and unable to hear confession?

Can Only A Priest Give Confession?
What I think you mean is whether only a priest can give absolutions for confessed sins? The short answer is yes.
There could be situations of doubt in certain situations though.
I remember reading about the atrocities committed during the French Revolution.
As it happened one day, that one of the revolutionaries was grievously wounded and knew he was dying. Three elderly woman were at his side and seeing that he desired to have a priest present, he asked that two of them go a search out a priest.
The oldest woman remained at his side. He then confessed his sins to the old woman, in the case he went unconscious before a priest arrived to hear his confession.
As it turned out, he went unconscious by the time the pastor of the local church arrived. Having been told of the sins committed by the elderly woman by this revolutionary decided to absolving him conditionally, leaving it to God if the confession was valid or not.
In the history of the Church, there are many strange situations that have happened.
Of course in the absence of a possible confession Catholics are taught to make a perfect act of contrition.


Catholic restricted from Communion (Note: This is in Holland)

A Catholic Charismatic woman desired to have her baptism blessed by immersion in water (she had been baptized as a child in the Catholic church).

She presumed that it was not possible for the blessing of her baptism by immersion by the Catholic Church. (This is not the problem)

Problem: So she went to a Evangelical church and they did baptized her by immersion; she not being aware of the consequences of her actions.

When the local Catholic priest found out about her action, he told her, in front of the whole congregation, that she was not allowed to receive Communion anymore. She, being a daily communicant, was of course devastated to tears.

Is this a correct answer?

As far as I have researched: She, having no knowledge of the law and of the
penalty means that she did not defy the authority of the Church. Through the sacrament of confession, if she repents for not knowing the penalty of her action, then she would be welcomed back to full communion in the Church and can receive Communion again. It is best to do this with the priest who first gave her the restriction. Is this a god response to send the woman? See the code of Canon Law 1312, 1358.

Is this a correct opinion?

In my opinion, the priest should also ask her forgiveness for his public tactlessness baptism for forbidding her to receive Communion during the Liturgy. He should have first talked to her in private.

Given that the woman had already been baptized in the Catholic Church, there was no need for her to "bless" her baptism in any sense. Deliberately participating in the rites of another ecclesial community likely constitutes what canon 1365 of the Code of Canon Law calls "prohibited participation in sacred rites". According to the canon, this is to be punished with "a just penalty".
What constitutes a just penalty, then, and how is it imposed, and who has the authority to impose it? First of all, a "just penalty" is one that matches the severity of the crime—so it would have to be determined by the judge (i.e. the one imposing the penalty) that it is a reasonable response to the crime; neither too harsh nor too lax. Forbidding someone from receiving communion is rather harsh, but has been imposed by some bishops (for example, on politicians who vote in favor of bills supporting freer availability of abortion).
This brings us to the last question: Who has the authority to impose such a penalty? It is, in fact, only the ordinary who has authority to do this. It is certainly possible that the ordinary has issued a letter to each parish stating that exclusion from Communion is the standard response for deliberately participating in the sacred rites of another ecclesial community. Absent such a general rule, though, the priest has no authority to do this on his own.
If the bishop did not impose such a general penalty for the diocese, then (given that the priest had no authority to impose it in her case specifically) is the woman excluded from Communion? ABSOLUTELY AND CERTAINLY NOT. Canon law is very clear about this. If the woman is not under any sort of censure or penalty, she must be allowed Communion at a reasonable time.

Sacred ministers cannot deny the sacraments to those who seek them at appropriate times, are properly disposed, and are not prohibited by law from receiving them.
Canon 843, Section 1

As far as telling her this in front of the whole congregation: There's nothing in Church law prohibiting the priest from doing this, but it certainly seems out of keeping with his pastoral responsibilities. Even the ordinary, apparently, is obliged to warn the person before imposing a penalty (Canon 1347 section 1).
Thus:

It is not clear whether the bishop had created a general penalty of this sort. This can be discovered by inquiring at the chancery (the administrative office of the diocese).
If he had not, the priest had no authority to forbid the woman to receive Communion, and she is not in fact forbidden. One ought to report the priest's action to the bishop or his representative.
The priest was tactless in his treatment of the woman, regardless; if there is a concern over this it should be taken to the pastor of the parish (if the priest is not the pastor) or to the bishop.
She did, however, commit wrongdoing, and should go to confession. Whether this is with the priest involved or not makes no difference.


The Bible seems to allow polygamy. Why doesn't the church? In Exodus 21:10 and Deuteronomy 21:15-16 (among many other passages), it talks about polygamy as if it were acceptable.

Indeed, there are several holy men (Abraham and Solomon come to mind offhand) that had multiple wives.

It seems pretty clear that God doesn't mind polygamy and that it is allowed.

Why is there a modern-day restriction on such practices?

Edit
As has been pointed out, I'm using "polygamy" in the modern/popular sense (such as "polygamy camps" of the FLDS group).  Truly, the actual word is "polygyny", which is a man marrying multiple wives.  Other forms of polygamy (polyandry and such) seem pretty clearly against God's word.

Edit 2
Per a comment, I'm seeking any answer from any denomination/doctrine that does not support polygamy.  Although there are a few denominations that do, I'm not interested in their history so much.

Note: Throughout, I use the word "polygamy" in place of "polygyny", even though I explicitly mean to polygyny.

In short:
Polygamy is a sin because it goes against the law.  The law is in place because it is a carryover from the paganistic societies of ancient Rome.  Preventing polygamy was not a biblical concept, but one that came after Jesus, after authorship of the bible, and after the genesis of Christianity.
Why Polygamy is a sin
The reason that polygamy is no longer allowed by the church is because it's no longer allowed by society and is, therefore, against the law.
We Christians are told to uphold the law and subject ourselves to the law
Romans 13:1-2 (NIV)

1 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.

Because of this, polygamy is a sin if (and only if) it breaks the law.  Similarly, it is a sin in the same manner and degree that breaking a speed limit is a sin: it's something not forbidden by God and solely forbidden by the law.
Why it's illegal
Polygamy was not uncommon among the Jews in biblical times.  It wasn't until the the Romans came in that polygamy became outlawed.  Even then, it was still allowed; Josephus made notes explaining that polygamy was permitted to Herod because it was permitted by Jewish custom.
Polygamy modelled by Jesus's parable
We can see that polygamy was commonly accepted in the New Testament from the Parable of the Ten Virgins (Matthew 25:1-13).  In this parable, Jesus tells of a bridegroom that is preparing to marry ten women.  This parable was used by Jesus to describes himself.  The polygamous bridegroom in the parable is a reference to Jesus.
Fall of polygamy
It was, in fact, the Greek and Roman rules against polygamy that spread (along with the Grecian and Roman empires) and became the culture, forcing out the practice of polygamy.
Monogomy and polygyny by Walter Scheidel, Stanford University (2009)

Thus, even though Greeks and Romans need not have been the first cultures to prescribe monogamy, these are the earliest securely attested cases and, moreover, established a paradigm for subsequent periods that eventually attained global dominance.
...
The true historical significance of Greco-Roman [monogamy] may well lie in its impact on the
Christian tradition.

It was these two huge historical forces that established monogamy in our society--not something born of God, but something born of Pagan societies.
Modern Society and Law
Christianity tied itself to the banner of the Roman empire 300 years after Christ (when Constantine established what would become the Roman Catholic church).  This organization spread Christianity by using the power and authority of the Roman empire.  It was this Roman concept of monogamy (predating Christianity) that carried over from its paganistic roots into the Christian society.  It was at that time (and not before) that Christianity became intertwined with the idea of monogamy.
This pagan idea of monogamy from Rome slowly infused into the Christian culture (source); and it was because association with Christianity (and the Roman Catholic Church) that the paganistic, Roman practice remains today.
This Roman practice has tangled itself into the Christian culture (via the early Roman Catholic church) and therefore all "Christian" nations since (founded under Western culture) have adopted the laws prohibiting polygamy from their outset.
Because of this, polygamy is illegal in most parts of the world.  Because it's illegal, it is a sin.
Catholicism Today
It should be noted that Catholicism today still carries over this idea from ancient Rome.  In the Catechism of the Catholic Church, it states "However polygamy is not in accord with the moral law."
Because of this, polygamy is solidly outlawed within Catholicism.  Granted, if you read the last section, this should not surprise anyone.

Answering Aguments Against Polygamy
God tolerated the sin for the time being
Malachi 3:6 says The Lord does not change.
To presume that he would accept something during one time in history that he detests at a different point is crazy--heretical even.  It goes against the nature of God (both in the Old Testament and New)
The bible shows it only causes trouble in marriage
This is really a weak argument.  The problem is that the Bible only tells us stories that are either edifying or interesting.  Yeah, it's going to talk about Abraham's difficulty with his wife and taking up a handmaiden as a wife.  But that story is both interesting and edifying.  The lesson here isn't against polygamy, but rather that we shouldn't marry a woman unless we marry her properly and with the right intentions.
Jacob's wives competed.  But the story there isn't to avoid polygamy, but to focus on God and make your marriages holy and godly.  If your marriages are focused on God instead of on selfish ambition, this won't happen!
Etc.
Each argument that says "polygamy is wrong because it leads to dischord" can also be used to say "marriage is wrong" for the same reasons.  Those are the marriages not focused on God--that is the source of their dischord.
On the contrary, if we look at the life of David, we see that he was a man highly loved by God and yet had multiple wives.  Some, however, use this very example to show how polygamy is wrong because his children fought (with each other and their parents).  However, can we blame this on David or his wives?  Absolutely not.
God only created one Eve for Adam
Note that this was written by Moses, who had (at least) two wives
This is also a weak argument.  When God created Eve, he created her as a helper.  Whether or not he intended for this to be a marriage situation is of secondary concern and something that we cannot know 1 2.
On the contrary, though, God has given us a pattern to follow for marriage:
Ephesians 5:22-25

22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her

We are to model our marriages after the the relationship that Jesus has with the church, not after the helper relationship that Adam had with Eve.
Furthermore, in the Parable of the Ten Virgins (Matthew 25:1-13), Jesus describes himself using an analogy of a bridegroom that is preparing to marry ten women.  Why would Jesus really compare himself to a polygamist if it were detestable to him?
"Elders should be men of one wife"
Many use Titus 1:6 and 1 Timothy 3:2,12 against polygamy.  They say that these verses talk about how deacons, overseers, and elders should be men of "one wife".
Point 1:  Simply because elders should be a "man of one wife", does not prevent polygamy among everyone else in the church.
Point 2: translation of this "one wife" is not as cut-and-dry as it may seem
To fully understand point 2, I want to compare these three passages to 1 Timothy 5:9:

A widow is to be put on the list only if she is not less than sixty years old, having been the wife of one man

The greek for the word "one" here is heis. From Strongs Concordance 1520, this word is translated as one, single.
However, if we look at Titus 1:6 and 1 Timothy 3:2,12, the word we see for "one" is mias.  This is the same word used in Matthew 28:1 for "first".
While it's not definitive that mias should be translated as "first" instead of "one", it definitely shows that "a man of one wife" can have multiple translations.
In fact, let's look at the NIV version of this:
Titus 1:6 (NIV)

An elder must be blameless, faithful to his wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient.

"faithful to his wife"?  Why did they translate it that way?  Is it because they're trying to "please the polygamy crowd"?  Absolutely not!
The purpose of this passage is to indicate that the elders should be above reproach, faithful to his wife.  If you accept the mias as "first", it changes the translation of this passage to "man of his first wife", which means someone who's never been divorced!
That is the purpose of this passage: not to exclude polygamist, but to find men who should be held up as models for the community.  Men who are faithful and can maintain a marriage faithfully.
Two become one flesh
Note that this was written by Moses, who had (at least) two wives
Genesis 2:24

That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.

There are several passages that show that a man becomes "one flesh" with a woman regardless if it is his wife or a prostitute.
The idea of "one flesh" does not mean that the man is exclusive to that woman.  It means that they join themselves as if married.  This is true regardless of who the man does this with.
This is also clear in Ephisians 6:16-17 (NIV)

16 Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, “The two will become one flesh.” 17 But whoever is united with the Lord is one with him in spirit.

It is clear that many believers can unite with the Lord as many prostitutes can unite with one man.
Furthermore, in John Skinner's Genesis: International Critical Commentary (T & T Clarke, Edinburgh, 1930) p. 70, Skinner notes that the word for "flesh" here is synonymous for "clan" or "family group"--both in the Hebrew and Arabic.  This word for "flesh", in fact, is the same word used here in Leviticus 25:49

An uncle or a cousin or any blood relative in their clan may redeem them. Or if they prosper, they may redeem themselves.

Clearly, there is no restriction of one man becoming an exclusive single flesh with a woman.
Other Arguments
There are many other arguments that can be heard and answered at BiblicalPolygamy.com


In whose name was Jesus baptized? I know that people are baptized now in either:

The name of Jesus (Acts 2:38)
The name of Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost (Matthew 28:19)

But according to scripture, in whose name was Jesus baptized? Thus indirectly, in whose name did John the Baptist baptize?

Scripture doesn't say.

However, what does it mean to "baptize in someone's name"? It means baptizing, having the authority of that person to do so. If we baptize in the name of Jesus, it is as though Jesus had baptized.

John the baptist was son of a priest, so it is safe to assume that he had priestly authority from God to baptize. Thus he baptized in God's name (no matter what he said when he did it).


How do those who reject both predestination and purgatory justify their beliefs? For the sake of this question:

Predestination = from the foundations of the universe, God chose who will be saved.

Purgatory = a place where people suffer / are purified, and afterwards, they go to heaven.

Now, the difference between heaven and hell is quite large (positive infinity and negative infinity). In the predestination case, the gap between those that go to heaven and those who go to hell is justified as follows: God chose to save some, and Jesus's blood was paid for their debt. In this case, salvation is a binary choice by God.

In the purgatory case, everything looks more continuous: the gap also makes sense in that: depending on how "sinful" one was, one spends less or more time in purgatory.

Now, what I don't understand about the Armenian case is as follows:

*) there lacks a binary choice by God (since there was no predestination)

*) yet, the suffering/punishment after death is not continuous -- there's no purgatory

Thus it seems very weird that on a continuous scale of human sinfulness, in the absence of a binary choice by God, the gain/loss after death is so different.

Note

Suggestions / clarifications to this question welcome.

There is still a binary choice, but it's not God who makes the decision. He leaves it to each of us to choose for ourselves one way or the other, and gives us our whole lifetime to make that decision. God could make the decision for us — He has that power — and He knows in advance — if concepts like "in advance" even have any meaning for a being that exists outside of time — what choice each of us will make. After all, He made us. What He desires is for each of us to choose Him of our own will. It is not interesting to Him if the choice is forced upon us.

There is an interesting philosophical question here of whether there is really any difference at all between determining an outcome and merely knowing an outcome with absolute certainty, when those outcomes are produced by a system that one designed, set in motion, and directs for oneself, as God does with us and our environment. God gives us something akin to free will, but is it really free will as we know it if He made each of us in the first place, knows what our choices will be in any situation, and has absolute power over all situations? This is especially interesting when you look at psychology studies that show how human behavior is much more about programmed responses and brain chemicals than any of us want to acknowledge.

For this reason, I don't really find the question of predestination vs free choice very interesting... I tend to think of it as two sides of the same coin. Do we have free choice? Yes! You can say we do. Are we predestined? You can say that as well, and not be entirely wrong about it. This question has historically caused a huge split in Christiandom, but I ultimately see it as more about philosophy than theology. Your answer has implications for how your view soteriology, but either way you still look to Jesus. Does it really matter how you view soteriology as long as you're looking at the right source? I think also that Jesus would find the question uninteresting... at least in a relative sense. He is far more concerned that look at Him as Lord, and with how you treat your fellow man.


Why did Magdalena use her hair to dry Jesus' feet? I don't really understand this part of the story in Luke 7:38. Why would Mary Magdalena use her hair to dry Jesus' feet? I have some clues, but I don't want to guide the replies.
I'd like to know both, the symbolism, and the spiritual meaning (what does it teach to us).

As she stood behind him at his feet weeping, she began to wet his feet with her tears. Then she wiped them with her hair, kissed them and poured perfume on them.
(NIV)

.

There are a number of possible meanings to help us understand this event, though none seem particularly compelling. It's possible that the full import of the event was clear to people living in the Levant 2,000 years ago, but are obscure to use today.

One of the most obvious meanings is that Jesus is a great King. The Hebrew Bible itself has many examples of the anointing of kings (1 Samuel 16). According to Keifer, the large amount and description of nard as "pure" implies kingly status (Oxford Commentary, 2001).

Many scholars recognize that Jesus is the "ultra" or "ultimate" in all His roles - if Moses and Elijah fasted for 40 days, Jesus spent 40 days without food or drink, making Him the "ultimate prophet." So while it's unusual to anoint the feet rather than the head of a king, the amount of nard (far too much for one person's feet), purity, and location of the anointing elevate Jesus to an ultimate status.

This also fits the cosmogony of ancient Israelites. The head is the highest and most respected part of the body, the feet the dirtiest and lowest (Hanson and Oakman, 1998).  A woman's hair is her "glory" (1 Cor 11:15).   When Mary used her hair to wipe Jesus' feet it may have been a shocking tribute.

It's already somewhat scandalous that Mary entered a room where men are dining, since that was a shameful violation of male space that implied she had no self-respect (Fiorenza, 1983).  To lower herself by using her hair on Jesus' feet might be even more disturbing.  It points to Jesus' heavenly status, a challenge to male status that might have led Judas to speak - as he couldn't wait to initiate a final showdown between Jesus and the Jerusalem authorities later, so Judas couldn't keep silent as all cultural mores were upended.

The anointing of Jesus' feet also echoes the "sinful woman's" (was her sin that she merely violated male space?) anointing of Jesus' feet with tears in Luke 7. John is considered the latest-written of the four gospels and seems to have included elements from the three earlier (Perkins, 2012). So some of the symbolism may foreshadow Jesus' death as atonement for others' sins, as that meaning was paramount in Luke 7.

Further symbolism includes the intimate nature of Mary's hair caressing Jesus' feet. Some point out that "feet" was a euphimsim for sexual organs, but that doesn't seem to make much sense here - it would be extremely strange for Judas to then object to the cost of nard!  Only unqualified scholars stretching to impute sexual overtones in John's largely asexual depiction of Jesus could waste time on that possibility.

Instead, there's a stunning intimacy about stroking another's feet with hair that is in itself disruptive. Numerous scholars and anthropologists point out that outside of blood relations and marriage, male and female spaces were highly divided (for some of the best scholarship on distinct spaces, see Douglas, 1999).  To allow this intimate gesture was taboo, and probably even more rare for a religious teacher. The Lukan account (probably of a separate anointing) more explicitly captures this aspect, as the host objects to the nature of the touching. Again, this points to Jesus' heavenly status - it's no problem for Jesus to accept the woman's ministrations, since they are only His due.

It's also notable that only in John does Nicodemus offer spices for the burial anointing. So the anointing by Mary of Jesus' feet is clear foreshadowing, a basic literary tool. But this particular foreshadowing helps John share his Christology: Jesus was already the fully-realized Son of God even prior to the Resurrection, which seems to be in slight tension with Mark. Since in John, Jesus' glory is fully realized on the Cross (when He is "lifted up") rather than after risen, the book-ends of royal anointings - Mary before death (right after the Sanhedrin formally decides to kill Jesus) and Nicodemus (at least in intent) after His death, helps maintain the Crucifixion as the high point of Jesus' influence.

Each of these paragraphs can lead to a lot more detailed consideration. It's worth saying that while all of these interpretations are solid not only because they make sense but also because they fit John's narrative arc very well, none of them alone seems to warrant including such an odd and potentially scandalous scene in this or any gospel.


What does the word Glory mean in the Bible? Does it mean Might, majesty, light, happiness or power? Or all those things ( in which case, how to tell what context it's being used in?

Have you ever used Strong's Concordance with Hebrew and Greek? I often come here with questions on the meanings of words.

Paul said that man is the image and glory of God, and that woman is the glory of the man; also that the man is not without the woman, neither the woman without the man in the Lord. -- Man as we know was created first. Jehovah was asked if it was good for man to be alone, "No" he replied. So He and God created woman. Man was created after God's image, Woman was created after Man's image.

Here is what glory means in 1 Cor 11:7 according to this site. Out of the definitions I am not sure which one fits the best.

Take a look, use Strong's Concordance, it is a wonderful tool.  It is for both Greek and Hebrew.


Does extreme use of capital punishment in ANE & Mosaic laws attest to a universal recognition of God's wrath, or God's tolerance of universal cruelty? If you read any of the ancient near east (ANE) codes such as Hammurabi's Code of Laws there is a strikingly similiar severity in the widespread use of capital punishment. This gives a similiar feel to reading the Mosaic laws.

Although the Mosaic laws differ substantially in their higher status and justice, for example rights given to slaves, the Mosaic laws still use capital punishment equally, if not more severely, than the ANE laws. For example, what would seem as a small religious infraction in a post-New Testament influenced culture, such as 'gathering sticks on the Sabbath', the Old Testament strictly mandated group stoning of the criminal (Numbers 15:32)! This might even seem 'severe' and even raise an eyebrow from Hammurabi's people.

The question I ask then is: 'Under an infallabillity of scripture belief, does this widespread and frequent use of capital punishment in ANE & Mosaic laws attest to an innate recognition of God's wrath under the Old Testament economy, or God's tolerance of cruel societies that coincidentally happened to steer towards a more merciful paradigm after the New Covenant? Or something else?'

Related more general question: Mosaic Laws derived/related to ANE laws?

Here are some interpretive options that are valid in Catholicism as well as many other, but not all, Christian denominations.

Firstly, we don't need to rule out the possibility that the OT laws in question are perfectly just. But, we also know that God prefers mercy to justice; justice is the bare minimum. And, we can see this concept in Jesus' explanation of the similarly questionable OT divorce law:

  1 He set out from there and went into the district of Judea
  [and] across the Jordan. Again crowds gathered around him and, as was
  his custom, he again taught them. 2 The Pharisees
  approached and asked, “Is it lawful for a husband to divorce his
  wife?” They were testing him. 3 He said to them in reply,
  “What did Moses command you?” 4 They replied, “Moses
  permitted him to write a bill of divorce and dismiss her.”
  5 But Jesus told them, “Because of the hardness of your
  hearts he wrote you this commandment. 6 But from the
  beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female. 7
  For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother [and be joined
  to his wife], 8 and the two shall become one flesh.’ So
  they are no longer two but one flesh. 9 Therefore what God
  has joined together, no human being must separate.” 10 In
  the house the disciples again questioned him about this. 11
  He said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another
  commits adultery against her; 12 and if she divorces her
  husband and marries another, she commits adultery.” (Mark 10:1-12)

In brief, God's OT commandments favored justice over mercy to accommodate the spiritual deficiencies of the culture. However, mercy is better than justice. And even in the NT, the OT law is still affirmed and accepted to some extent, but living according to the Holy Spirit, which is governed more by mercy than justice, is strongly preferred.

In the case of particular instances wherein God commands something that is seemingly harsh, wrathful, or less than the NT ideal of mercy, we approach one of two ways.

Option one. Recognizing that God's general commands (Mosaic Law) "meet people where they are" and allows for our hardness of hearts, we can reasonably assume that God's individual commands are likewise. When God speaks, he always meets us at our current spiritual state and will always mandate something better than we'd do on our own, but not so great than we'll think God is a joke and ignore Him. (More or less.)

Option two. We recognize that understanding written scripture requires a contextual lens, a basic understanding that Christ crucified is the heart of scripture, and the guidance of the Holy Spirit. With the contextual lens in particular, you don't need to assume a precisely historical read in these cases. And the relation of all scripture to Christ crucified then sheds light on the intended meaning of these types of passages. So you can assume one of a few basic scenarios (two of which I can recall!):

When Person X is recognized to be a sinner and can be rightfully put to death according to the law, God commands their death in that specific case. The literal account may not be, "according to the law" but rather "God said." And while this may seem dishonest to us, it's not necessarily untruthful either. It's simply "connecting the dots" in a sense.
God calls Person or Persons X "abhorrently sinful." God says, "have nothing to do with Person or Persons X on account of their behavior. Remove them from your presence." In OT contemporary literature, this might have been recorded is a more extreme and graphic retelling -- "God said, kill the sinner." And it's important to note, this isn't an infringement on the infallibility of scripture, which is not always, if ever, meant to fit into the genre of history. Rather, when the OT says, "God said kill sinner X," it often doesn't matter whether this is a literal retelling; the point is, the sin of sinner X is extremely terrible, and probably damning if serious action isn't taken.

Option three. We recognize, particularly in a more literal interpretation, that God is omniscient and omnibenevolent. As such, God may sometimes recognize a person's or people's relationship with Himself has become so endangered that he must take or mandate seemingly wrathful or lethal action to communicate the severity of the situation. In such cases, one could assume that God, in his perfect knowledge, knows that such actions are absolutely necessarily to save some or all of those involved without infringing on their free will. (The inspiration for this option is from Mike's answer. And as Mike's answer reminds us, the orientation of Mosaic Law to God makes adherence to Mosaic highly special and important in the "legal" arena.)


What did Paul mean when he wrote 1 Corinthians 14:22 in the context of 1 Corinthians 14:23-25? We see in 1 Corinthians 14:22 that tongues are a sign for unbelievers and prophesy is a sign for believers, yet in the latter verses it appears to indicate the opposite, that tongues are  sign for believers and prophesy a sign for unbelievers. What did Paul mean when he said this?
I included verse 21 because it seems to indicate that the speaking in foreign tongues like what we see happen at Pentecost is descriptive of how tongues are a sign to unbelievers, naturally a foreigner speaking your tongue will serve as a sign from God. I've heard the interpretation that tongues means two different things in this passage but I don't see that as justifiable since it talking about tongues in such a close proximity without any distinction.

1 Corinthians 14:21-25
21 In the Law it is written, “By people of strange tongues and by the lips of foreigners will I speak to this people, and even then they will not listen to me, says the Lord.” 22 Thus tongues are a sign not for believers but for unbelievers, while prophecy is a sign not for unbelievers but for believers. 23 If, therefore, the whole church comes together and all speak in tongues, and outsiders or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are out of your minds? 24 But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or outsider enters, he is convicted by all, he is called to account by all, 25 the secrets of his heart are disclosed, and so, falling on his face, he will worship God and declare that God is really among you.

The context is that tongues are for a few individuals to demonstrate to a group of unbelievers of the same tongue the power of God. It is only a sign to the unbeliever if the unbeliever is of that tongue and can understand it.

(Acts 2:8) And how is it that we hear, each in our own language in which we were born?

But as verse 23 demonstrates, if the whole church comes together and speaks in tongues what benefit is it to anyone? It is highly unlikely the next unbeliever to walk in is of this tongue, unbelievers of all backgrounds could walk in, it may be that no one understands it.

23 ...will they not say that you are out of your minds?

If you read the entire chapter of 14, it becomes even clearer, speaking in tongues to those who do not understand it is of no use.

14 Pursue love, and desire spiritual gifts, but especially that you
may prophesy. 2 For he who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men
but to God, for no one understands him; however, in the spirit he
speaks mysteries. 3 But he who prophesies speaks edification and
exhortation and comfort to men...
18 I thank my God I speak with tongues more than you all; 19 yet in
the church I would rather speak five words with my understanding, that
I may teach others also, than ten thousand words in a tongue.


Did those feet in ancient time walk upon England's mountains green? (Origin of the story) William Blake's preface to Milton, commonly called Jerusalem and set to a famous hymn tune by Hubert Parry, questions whether the child Jesus might have visited England.

  And did those feet in ancient time
  Walk upon England's mountains green:
  And was the holy Lamb of God,
  On England's pleasant pastures seen!

This apparently refers to an old tradition, not originated by Blake, that Joseph of Arimathea took Jesus to Glastonbury; after the crucifixion, Joseph returned, possibly carrying the Holy Grail.

Whether this actually happened is not my question.

What I would like to know is: what is the origin of the story? According to Wikipedia, Robert de Boron wrote about Joseph and the Grail, but it does not mention if he wrote about an earlier visit by Jesus himself. So how and when did the story get started?

With reference to the story of Jesus' visit to England with Joseph of Arimathea, OP asks:

  So how and when did the story get started?

There is, so far as I know, one scholarly article on just this question which has recently had some scrutiny. The article is: A. W. Smith, "'And Did Those Feet...?': The 'Legend' of Christ's Visit to Britain", Folklore 100.1 (1989): 63-83. Smith works carefully, investigating a number of questions related to the central one, and so really needs to be read in full by anyone interested. The leading findings are these (citing Smith's own form of the questions, "it" refering to the legend of Jesus-in-England):

  What current form or forms does it take? How far back can it be traced?

Smith documents a wide variety of forms of the story, with many details differing based on locale. They share, minimally, Joseph (usually as a metal merchant) coming to England, and Jesus coming with him. Beyond that, Smith finds the welter of changing detail to indicate a "weak and fugitive" tradition that is "far from" unvarying.

  How far is it the creation of identifiable literary and clerical authors, and how far rooted in oral folk tradition?

Smith traces documentary evidence in sketchy form to the late 19th C, and much more from the 1920s, and attributed to a trio of energetic clerics who boosted the legend. One of these sources, H. A. Lewis, Christ in Cornwall? (3rd edition, 1948) is available online.

Beyond that, Smith argued, it was a matter of hazy oral tradition and local lore, and that demonstrable only into the 1890s.

  Is the assumption that it "was known to William Blake and is alluded to in his lyric 'Jerusalem'" in fact correct?

According to Smith, the short answer is "No" (see pp. 71-72). In his own words:

  [T]o return to our starting point, does Blake's lyric attest a knowledge of or a belief  in a literal visit by Jesus to Britain? I would suggest it does not. I have searched Blake's  poetry, prose and ephemera for any evidence that he knew this story and can find none.... (p. 72)

Moreover, not only is there no written documentary evidence to suggest it, but Smith goes on to adduce some positive considerations explaining why it would be unlikely that Blake should be read this way.

  Is there any historical context or religious system of thought which could account for its origin and its spread?

Smith thinks there is, and he locates it in the developing British Israel traditions of the growing Empire in the early and mid-nineteenth century. These, he suggests, picked up medieval hints along these lines (interestingly, associated with the apostle Paul), which mutated into the "legend" as we now see it (pp. 76-80).

I mentioned there was some "recent scrutiny" of Smith's article. It comes in a fascinating book: William John Lyons, Joseph of Arimathea: A Study in Reception History (Oxford: OUP, 2014). He devotes a chapter to "The 'Jerusalem' Joseph" which considers Smith's article at some length. Lyons writes cautiously of it, but (so far as I can see), is broadly approving. (Unlike his remarks on Dennis Price's fanciful The Missing Years of Jesus: The Extraordinary Evidence that Jesus Visited the British Isles [Hay House, 2010].)

But Lyons's work is ultimately pursuing a different agenda. Smith has assembled the data, sorted and sifted it, and considered the matter carefully -- whether he has placed the most compelling construction on the evidence he has uncovered may be up for debate, but it looks cogent to me.


How well supported is the generic interpretation Rublev's Icon as being a depiction of the Holy Trinity as portrayed in Genesis 18? This was produced in the 15th century by Andrei Rublev's icon of the Trinity, a highly regarded Russian orthodox artist:

It is generally taken to be depicting the three men of Genesis 18 as being physical visitations of the Godhead.

Are there any texts from authoritative commentaries, the early church fathers, theologians or research that support Rublev's depicted interpretation of this passage?

Different denominations may have differing views so please quote your source references.

Among church fathers, Ambrose is one supporter:

  Abraham, who was glad to receive strangers, faithful to God and tireless in his service and prompt in fulfilling his duty, saw the Trinity typified.  He added religious devotion to hospitality, for although he beheld three, he adored one, and while keeping a distinction of the persons, yet he called one Lord, thus giving honor to the three but signifying one power. (On His Brother, Satyrus 2.96)

Caesarius of Arles similarly writes:

  He received the three men and served them loaves out of three measures.  Why is this, brothers, unless it means the mystery of the Trinity? [...] In the fact that he saw three, as was already said, he understood the mystery of the Trinity, but since he adored them as one, he recognized that there is one God in three persons. (Sermon 83.4)

Origen actually finds images of the members of the Trinity in the food that is served.  The calf represents Christ (Homilies on Genesis 4.2), and the preparation of three equal measures of flour into bread is an image of the Trinity (On Abraham 1.5.38).

Other fathers are not so supportive of this idea.  Ephrem the Syrian believed just one of them was the Lord (Commentary on Genesis, 15.1), while Augustine called all three of them angels (City of God, 16.29).

See the Ancient Christian Commentary if you'd like to investigate further.


Through what procedure is canon law amended? The Code of Canon Law has undergone at least one other version since the first in 1917, and has received amendments since the 1983 version from what I've read.

What would warrant a new version of the Canon Law? How exactly are smaller amendments applied to the Code of Canon Law?

A pope is supreme legislator (albeit subject to the Supreme Legislator) in the Church; he, as Vatican I declared, "has primacy of jurisdiction over the universal Church of God".
The word "jurisdiction" etymologically has the sense of "[the right] to declare law" (ius law + dictio < dicere declare).
A pope promulgates Canon Law binding on the whole Church.

Can. 7 A law is established when it is promulgated.
Can. 8 §1. Universal ecclesiastical laws are promulgated by publication in the official commentary, Acta Apostolicae Sedis, unless another manner of promulgation has been prescribed in particular cases. They take force only after three months have elapsed from the date of that issue of the Acta unless they bind immediately from the very nature of the matter, or the law itself has specifically and expressly established a shorter or longer suspensive period (vacatio).

cf. canonist Dom Augustine on 1917 can. 8 ff.


What is the Catholic understanding of the first sin committed by Adam and Eve? I always used to consider the first sin committed by Adam and Eve as eating the forbidden fruit from a particular tree. But recently my husband commented that Adam and Eve had sex with each other which is the first sin. I had no substantial point to prove against his point.

Is sex considered to be the forbidden fruit? Is that thought prevalent among Catholics? What is the Catholic teaching on the first sin of Adam and Eve?

(Note that this question is asking about the first sin committed by Adam and Eve, not the doctrine of "original sin": that we all in some way have inherited a sinful nature from them.)

Sexual intercourse was not a sin at all (for Adam and Eve in the context of their marriage).  In fact, God commanded them to be fruitful and multiply:

  "And God blessed them. And God said to them, "Be fruitful and
  multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the
  fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every
  living thing that moves on the earth."  Genesis 1:28 ESV

While having sexual intercourse was not a direct command, it most certainly was an indirect command.  You can't be fruitful and multiply without it, unless God was merely encouraging them to garden and do arithmetic.

So, the original sin was eating of the fruit in direct violation of God's command.  However, it could be suggested that pride preceded that, because for them to defy God's command they had to exalt themselves as the authority over their own lives.  Pride would have been a sin of the heart whereas eating of the fruit was a sin of deed.


What are Andrew Wommack's most foundational truths? Andrew Wommack Audio Teachings
Andrew mentions in lesson 1 at around the 02:20 mark that the 'You've Already Got it!' revelation is ranked 2nd or 3rd in terms of the most foundational truths that Andrew draws from on a constant basis. Since I've not listened to many of his teachings, I wanted to ask if anyone else knows some other revelations/teachings from Andrew Wommack that he has ranked either 1st, 2nd, or 3rd?

Having never heard of Andrew Wommack, I had to do some research.  He is an American conservative charismatic TV evangelist and faith healer.  One foundational belief is that the Bible is inspired and empowered by God, is infallible and is authoritative.  It has to be the foundation of everything a Christian believes.  He says:

God's Word has to be the foundation of everything a Christian believes. Most problems that Christians have come from an ignorance of God's Word or wrong teachings from His Word.  https://www.awmi.net/audio/audio-teachings/?teaching=a-sure-foundation

He believes in the virgin birth, the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ and that Jesus Christ has accomplished all that is necessary for man’s salvation.  He also believes in the need to repent of sin and to confess Jesus as Lord.  This will result in regeneration by the Holy Spirit.  On the subject of the Holy Spirit, it is important to understand he believes in the gift of speaking in tongues and the gift of healing.  Womack teaches, “It’s never God’s will for us to be sick; He wants every person healed every time” and “Jesus told us to heal the sick, not pray for the sick.”  Again, this is not the biblical understanding of orthodox Christians.
Be aware that the teachings of this man incorporate “Word of Faith” theology and promotes a form of “Prosperity Gospel” which goes against biblical orthodox Christianity.
In order to discover the “rankings” of Andrew Womack’s “foundational truths” you will need to spend over six hours listening to his lessons.  Frankly, I would rather spend six hours just reading the Bible, a much more productive exercise.
Finally, a word with regard to the penultimate fundamental beliefs of Andrew Wommack:

We believe the true Church is composed of all born-again believers in Christ, regardless of denominational affiliation.  https://www.awmi.net/about-us/our-beliefs/

Jesus warned of false teachers during the last days.  You need to pick up your Bible and put your faith in the words of Jesus, not in the words of men who claim "special revelation".


Does the Bible stipulate priorities among personal allegiances? I think it would be fairly well agreed among this audience that one's allegiance to God comes before all others.  Aside from that, does the Bible have anything to say about "all others"?

Where, in relation to one another, does the Bible put one's duties to:

Family

Parents
Siblings
Spouse(s)
Child(ren)
Extended Family

Close Friends
Country

If you know enough about the rest of Scripture to know what kinds of things are NOT found, I think you can base an answer almost entirely on this passage:

  Mathew 22:34-40 (ESV)
  But when the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together. And one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question to test him. “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.”

The most important thing is loving, honoring and submitting to God. That trumps everything. As far as prioritizing things, that will always be at the top of the list.

Moving down on the list to number two, you find your "all others" lumped together in one big group. The other people and relations you mention are of course mentioned elsewhere in Scripture. You will find instructions to children to honor their parents, slaves to obey their masters, wives to submit to their husbands, citizens to obey the law, and a laundry list of other reminders. However all of these are summarized in this: "Love your neighbor as yourself."

What Scripture does not do is pit these other things against each other. I believe this is because if you really start digging, the only times they will be in conflict are also times when you would also have a conflict of interest with God, and then the choice again becomes clear.

Lets try a scenario where there is an apparent conflict. The country I live in has mandatory military service. Every male has to do their time. Yet many families aren't happy about their children being taken away to war or same other duty. It's generally understood that like it or not it's just a part of life that has to be dealt with and they celebrate that they are honorably serving their country. Every once in a while a child might run into a situation where family and friends advocate not going and doing something to hide from this law. At first glance this may seem like a conflict of interest where you have to prioritize honoring your parents wish for you to go underground or obeying the laws of your country.  However if you look at what is expected of you in God's eyes in both cases, it becomes clear that honoring your parents does not always mean obeying them. It would be a dishonor to the family to be dishonest even if that is their wish, so obeying the law is the best way to bring them honor even if they think they are not happy about it.

If you re-approach any apparent conflicts from a good understanding of what loving God requires, the need to prioritize them melts away in favor of the need to do the thing in any given scenario that best reflects your status as a child, servant and ambassador of Christ.


What is the difference in original sin and our nature to sin from a Reformed or Calvinist view? There is another question like this on the CSE but seems to be answered with the Catholic view in mind.  As a Calvinist, I have become quite confused or I am just not properly understanding the difference in my studies.  In other words I have been unable to grasp or get the whole concept of the differences of original sin and my sin nature.

My problem doesn't lie with original sin but how and when my sin nature fits.  It would seem that if I am a sinner at conception and I am bent towards sin or totally depraved from the beginning what is my sin nature?  Is there a difference?

I would like a reformed/Calvinist answers in simple terms that may give me a basic understanding.

I appreciate your time and consideration

The sin nature is an aspect of the doctrine of "original sin," but not the entire story.

Louis Berkhof's highly regarded Systematic Theology introduces the topic of Original Sin by calling it simply "the sinful state and condition in which men are born."

The Westminster Larger Catechism, answer 25, identifies three key components of original sin:

The guilt of Adam's sin
The lack of inherent righteousness
The corruption of man's nature

The first of these isn't normally part of what we consider to be the "sin nature."  Berkhof calls this original guilt, and distinguishes it from original pollution. The former expresses the state of mankind in relation to the law – guilty:

  The guilt of Adam's sin, committed by him as the federal head of the human race, is imputed to all his descendants.

The latter, original pollution, includes the concepts of total depravity and total inability, which typically come to mind when considering the "sin nature."  These refer to the inherent corruption of of man's nature, a lack of anything spiritually good in man, an inability to act in a way that meets the requirements of God's law, and an inability to come to love God on one's own.

So the simple answer to your question is that Original Sin is a broader term that includes the idea of the "sin nature," but it also includes the concept of "original guilt."  Thus they are not synonyms.

As an aside, sometimes the word "original" can be confusing and lead to incorrect assumptions that it exclusively refers to the sin of Adam and Eve.  Berkhof explains:

  This sin is called "original sin," (1) because it is derived from the original root of the human race; (2) because it is present in the life of every individual from the time of his birth, and therefore cannot be regarded as the result of imitation; and (3) because it is the inward root of all the actual sins that defile the life of man. (2.2.4)

Thus the word "original" here should not be exclusively understood as referring to the first sin in history, but also to the "original" state of post-fall individuals before they have committed any actual sins.


What is the biblical basis that we no longer need to confess and repent? Joseph Prince (Worldwide speaker and author of Destined to Reign) and Andrew Wommack (Andrew Wommack Ministries and author of many books) teaches this with the Grace (hyperGrace) message, as does my local Pastor. They say we are already forgiven for our past, present, and future sins, and because of that our sins are overlooked. So there's no need to confess our sins, ask forgiveness, and repent.

What is the Biblical basis for this belief?

This text declares exactly what one must believe to receive salvation.
I Corinthians 15:1-4 -- Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
The "if" is not conditional and could be translated " seeing that..."
Paul also said, "I did not come to baptize but to preach the gospel." ( I Corinthians 1:17).
The Gospel of the Circumcision requires repentance and water baptism, but the Gospel of the Uncircumcision ( I e. Romans) requires only belief.
I believe this verse sums it up for Christians today...
Ephesians 1:13b, 14 -- in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,
14 Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.
The exact moment one believes, he or she is sealed with The Holy Spirit. Nothing can add to that or take away from it, especially works if the flesh.


Is the concept of theurgy used in bible or any Christian scripture? Is the concept of theurgy, with the definition below, used in bible or any Christian scripture?

the art or technique of compelling or persuading a god or beneficent
or supernatural power to do or refrain from doing something

Any help is really appreciated.

And he said, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed. [Genesis 32:28 KJV]

I would suggest that prayer is a means of 'persuading' God. And this is one example.


Why did Elizabeth keep herself hidden while pregnant? In Luke 1:24-25 we read:

  24 After these days his wife Elizabeth conceived, and for five months she kept herself hidden, saying, 25 “Thus the Lord has done for me in the days when he looked on me, to take away my reproach among people.”

Why did she keep herself hidden? Certainly something to do with the fact that she was barren and isn't any more... But why would that cause her to hide this fact?

Note that she waited only for five months, not the full term. I'd speculate that perhaps her history of barrenness was full of miscarriages, and she wanted to be confident that she would carry this baby to term.

Calvin offers two alternate possibilities as to why:

  There might be two reasons for the delay. Until this extraordinary work of God was manifest, she might hesitate to expose it to the diversified opinions of men, for the world frequently indulges in light, rash, and irreverent talking about the works of God. Another reason might be that, when she was all at once discovered to be pregnant, men might be more powerfully excited to praise God.† It was not, therefore, on her own account, but rather with a view to others, that Elisabeth hid herself.

† This is from the Latin version. Calvin's French version says, "For, when the works of God show themselves gradually, in process of time we make less account of them than if the thing had been accomplished all at once, without our having ever heard of it."


What is the difference between "ransom theory" and "penal substitution"? Ransom theory and penal substitution are two (of many) views about the exact nature of Jesus' atoning death on the cross.  Both suggest that Jesus in some way paid a price on the cross for the benefit of humanity.  The terminology of the two theories is quite different, but it is not clear to me how much real difference there is and how much is just semantics. So, what exactly are the core differences between the two theories?

This question is a bit old, but there is an omission in the only answer. fi11222's answer states that both ransom and penal substitution theories of atonement view God as needing payment of some form. I agree with the description of penal substitution, but I believe the orthodox ransom theory generally teaches that the ransom was paid to death and not God the Father; this being a key difference between the two theories.

Wikipedia ("Ransom theory of atonement") says that the theory teaches the ransom was "paid to Satan or to death itself, in some views paid to God the Father".

The Eastern Orthodox church would teach that viewing the ransom paid to Satan or God the Father to satisfy him is wrong and perhaps heretical. I know that Protestants usually vigorously affirm that the debt was paid to God the Father, but I don't know how Catholics view it.

To give some historical perspective, let's hear from the church fathers themselves (taken from Christian Classics Ethereal Library, "De Inc. 4.20"):

St. Athanasius:

  He might offer the sacrifice on behalf of all, surrendering His own temple to death in place of all, to settle man's account with death and free him from the primal transgression.

I believe the above quote is from his work, "On the Incarnation": a great read if you are interested in this sort of thing.

St. Gregory of Nazianzus:

  To whom was that blood offered that was shed for us, and why was it shed? I mean the precious and glorious blood of God, the blood of the High Priest and of the Sacrifice. We were in bondage to the devil and sold under sin, having become corrupt through our concupiscence. Now, since a ransom is paid to him who holds us in his power, I ask to whom such a price was offered and why? If to the devil, it is outrageous! The robber receives the ransom, not only from God, but a ransom consisting of God himself. He demands so exorbitant a payment for his tyranny that it would have been right for him to have freed us altogether. But if the price is offered to the Father, I ask first of all, how? For it was not the Father who held us captive. Why then should be blood of His only begotten Son please the Father, who would not even receive Isaac when he was offered as a whole burnt offering by Abraham, but replaced the human sacrifice with a ram? Is it not evident that the Father accepts the sacrifice not because he demanded it or because He felt any need for it, but on account of economy: because man must be sanctified by the humanity of God, and God Himself must deliver us by overcoming the tyrant through His own power, and drawing us to Himself by the mediation of the Son who effects this all for the honor of God, to whom He was obedient in everything... What remains to be said shall be covered with a reverent silence. (In sanctum Pascha, or. XLV, 22', P.G., t 36, 653 AB, quoted in Lossky, Mystical Theology, p. 153.)

The important bit of St. Gregory's quote is where he says "the Father accepts the sacrifice not because he demanded it or because He felt any need for it, but on account of economy".


Why did Jesus not write any scripture himself? Did Jesus write any of His own scripture or contribute to the Bible directly?

If not, I do not understand why Jesus would not think to do that?

Is there a reason stated anywhere and what is the common Christian view of this?

Contrary to what we might think, Jesus did not put teaching at the center of his mission. In fact he spent a lot of effort concealing his message through the use of parables. In fact it was not until close to the end of his days in the flesh on this earth, that he promised to speak clearly by sending the Holy Ghost:

  “Though I have been speaking figuratively, a time is coming when I will no longer use this kind of language but will tell you plainly about my Father. In that day you will ask in my name. I am not saying that I will ask the Father on your behalf. (John 16:25-26, NIV)

One of the reasons for concealing his message was to keep his enemies in the dark, while giving some explanations to his disciples who would recall them later, after they had received the Spirit to understand. (Mark 4:33-34, John 14:25-26)

It seems that Jesus was more interested in dying and orchestrating the timing of his death than teaching.  His goal with regard to teaching was to be through the Spirit after his death and by the Apostles that he selected. Of couse this does not imply that his words recorded in the gospels are not filled with bottomless gold deposits of wisdom to mine from, but that his actions rather than parables are in the center.

Considering his mission was to die and resurrect and not primarily to teach, except through his Apostles by the Spirit, it seems suitable that he would not write anything.


Do Protestants accept the doctrine of free-will? Protestants accept the doctrine of faith alone. If they accept the doctrine of free-will, how do they reconcile James 2:20-24 faith is dead without works, since works to do good is a free- will of man.
James 2:20-24

But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

Was not Abraham our father justified by works, offering up Isaac his son upon the altar?

Seest thou that faith did cooperate with his works and by works faith was made perfect?

And the scripture was fulfilled, saying: Abraham believed God, and it was reputed to him to justice, and he was called the friend of God.

Do you see that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only?

I don't understand the problem here.
(Disclaimer: The following is spoken from a Protestant perspective.)
We are Justified through faith alone, and faith is the free gift of God. Good works are not necessary for faith, but they are the fruit of faith.
We also have free will, which means we can choose whether or not to do good works. (Note that an "evil" person — meaning, a person without faith — might still choose to do good works for various reasons.) So, we could choose to not do good works... but if we have faith, why would we make that choice?
What James 2:20 is saying is that faith without good works is (at best) suspect. I'm not being "forced" to do good works, but through faith, I want to do good works.
Perhaps what you're really asking is if a person can reject faith/grace? If so, then I would say the answer is "yes". The doctrines of Faith Alone and Grace Alone are not, at least so far as I know (YMMV depending on just what denomination you ask) do not mean that faith and grace are "forced" on us.


Calvinist Regeneration, Interpreting Colossians 2:12 I am convinced that the scriptures teach of a God who is completely sovereign in salvation. I am a monergist. I can cite several passages that make me think this way. I think if you look at some of my answers on this SE, you'll see that I'm a Calvinist. However, this does not mean that I'm a blind Calvinist. I arrived where I did by many years of study and internal deliberation. I am having another internal deliberation at this point.

If we examine passages like the first half of Ephesians 2, we see that it was our nature to sin, and that we had the spirit of Satan working within us. In the same place, Paul refers to us as being dead in our sins. By all accounts, it looks to me like plain support of a Reformed interpretation of the doctrine of regeneration. In the first two chapters, we see plainly that we have been unified with Christ: he in our death, and us in His life. Because of this unity we have with Christ, God made us to be alive as He made His Son to be alive (and now, being united with Christ, we are sons and co-heirs with Christ). This all paints a beautiful monergistic picture.

However...

In the course of my studies this past weekend, preparing for a Bible study that I lead, I happened upon this verse:

  In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.
  (Colossians 2:11-12 ESV)

I get it most of this. Most of it still even paints a monergistic picture, with the phrase "circumcision made without hands," and the whole idea of being "raised" from the dead (the imagery being that it doesn't really involve an act of man's will that he should become alive while he is already dead).

But I have a problem with the phrase "raised with him through faith." I see a logical contradiction that I need help working through (and a non-Calvinistic perspective on the passage does not solve the problem).

Dead men cannot have faith (again, read Ephesians 2). We need to be made alive. However, this passage cites that we are raised through faith. What should I make of this contradiction?

I can think of two options:

The reformed interpretation of regeneration is wrong. Men have the capacity to believe in God before they are regenerate (Wesley's idea of Prevenient Grace would therefore be inapplicable). This simply cannot be. Again, those with faith were once under Satan's influence. A house divided against itself cannot stand; we cannot serve two masters. There was nothing in us to make us want to believe.
Faith must be inherent in regeneration. Not tied to it, but faith would be regenerating. This would mean that predestination would be unto faith, and I've read Reformed authors who would quite disagree with this.

I hope I've made the problem clear. I would appreciate some insight.

Edit:

Please allow me to clarify, I welcome explanations from traditions other than Calvinistic/Reformed. However, I would like these to address the basic doctrinal problem I am discussing. Please see @Eric's comment and my answer to his comment to get an idea of what I mean regarding this.

My friend and bible study teacher Patricia Peterson has written 2 wonderful books about the order of salvation/redemption history, election and God's decree. The Ordo Salutis (her 1st book) & Whatsoever Comes to Pass ~ The Absolute Nature and Precious Comfort of God's Decree. I pulled some of this from her 1st book The Ordo Salutis.

Faith comes from hearing Rom 10:17. God calls His chosen ones through faith in the truth 2 Thess 2:13-14. Truth is the word of God John 17:17. The call is effectual because the elect sinner is "in Christ" FROM eternity.

We do not enter the "in Christ" relationship when we are called. God chose the elect sinner "in Christ" before the foundation of the world, in the covenant of redemption Eph 1:4; 2 Tim 1:9. The Father elected from eternity, but He elected in Christ. There was no election of the Father in eternity APART from Christ. There has never been a time when those "in Christ" were not "in Christ". Christ is the object of our faith. Maybe some food for thought? Patrictia Peterson's books have been a blessing to me.