According to Calvinists, what does "looking back" refer to in Luke 9:62? Luke 9:62 (DRB) Jesus said to him: No man putting his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.

Question

According to Calvinists, what does "looking back" refer to?

From the Calvinist perspective, there is an emphasis on the "Perseverance of the Saints" the idea that if you are genuinely born again. A.K.A saved by God's sovereign Grace. God will not "fail" in his attempt to save you. He will carry out the act of bringing you through this earthly life, having maintained faith in Christ throughout the whole time.

This idea can be bolstered with scriptures such as these

  Romans 8:29-30
   29 For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. 30 Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.

The idea that God from the beginning is the "Author and Finisher of our Faith" (Heb 12:2)

  jude 24  KNJV - Now to Him who is able to keep you from stumbling,
  And to present you faultless
  Before the presence of His glory with exceeding joy,

From the earthly perspective, this looks like the individual keeping the faith, but from the Calvinist vantage, it's God who keeps the true Believers.

Now that we have this framework to understand, we can answer the question at hand. What does it mean to "Look back".

The looking back is abandoning the working of the field, which hopefully we can easily see is the mission of spreading the Gospel/Word of God. (John 4:34-38). (Matt 13 parable of sower etc)

Well to look back is to stray away from the faith in some manner. We can see examples of this with Paul in 2 Timothy

    2 Tim 4 9 Be diligent to come to me quickly; 10 for Demas has forsaken me, having loved this present world, and has departed for Thessalonica—Crescens for Galatia, Titus for Dalmatia

Here we see an example of one previously called a "Co-worker" in Philemon 24.

So from the Calvinist perspective, one who does not persevere, or who "Looks back" is one who is "Not Fit for the Kingdom of God".

1 John 2:19 speaking of those who "look back".

  19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us.

So the Idea being that those who look back, were never fit for the kingdom of God, and their looking back, just reveals that they were not fit from the beginning.

Because if they were fit, they would persevere, by God's grace. And it is God who makes us fit, not ourselves. It is not the looking back that Makes them unfit but rather the looking back which is outward evidence of their being unfit.

Similar to the idea that you will know a tree by its fruit. The tree is the same all along, but when it produces fruit, then you have evidence of what type of tree it was.

John 6:64-65

  But there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who would betray Him. 65 And He said, “Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father.”


Where does one draw the line between spritiual attack and spiritual defense? I recently uploaded a picture to Facebook in the style of the KEEP CALM posters, which said "KEEP CALM, JESUS IS COMING". I knew before I posted it that I would likely receive spiritual attack from this, however it was something that I wanted to share, so I went ahead.

Pretty soon after this, I was involved in a debate between a Buddhist believer, and my best friend, who is an Atheist, who, from where I was concerned both seemed intent on attacking my faith trough argument that "there is no proof of Jesus", and claimed that even the picture I uploaded was offensive and meant for provoking spiritual attack. When I spoke of truth being a part of the spiritual armor, I was again attacked claiming that this was like "Islamic Jihad"...

I stated that the aim of uploading this picture was to share the love of Christ, regardless of their acceptance of it, and to be fair, if they didn't want to accept it, they could have just ignored it, right?

The debate is so far unresolved, but I feel angered, and disappointed that I have come under such scrutiny, in as far as I'm concerned, a spriritual conflict, which my best friend said: "didn't exist".

But just how far should I go to resolve this, and make my point clear? should I perhaps just walk away, and resolve this at least in my own mind, with prayer?

I'm coming from a United Methodist tradition, if that makes a difference

The disciples asked Jesus why he spoke in parables.  He replied in Matthew 13:11-13 (NRSV)

  [Jesus] answered, ‘To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. For to those who have, more will be given, and they will have an abundance; but from those who have nothing, even what they have will be taken away. The reason I speak to them in parables is that “seeing they do not perceive, and hearing they do not listen, nor do they understand.”

Jesus didn't want to take away from those who have nothing.

In other words, Jesus kept his audience in mind when he spoke about spiritual things.

Now, I'm assuming you have more than 2 Facebook friends.  I would say that you could post spiritual thoughts on Facebook, and you gave the justification.

  I stated that the aim of uploading this picture was to share the love of Christ, regardless of their acceptance of it, and to be fair, if they didn't want to accept it, they could have just ignored it, right?

Right, except that you also confessed this thought.

  I knew before I posted it that I would likely receive spiritual attack from this...

I don't mean this as personal spiritual guidance, but the question you (all of you) have to ask yourselves is, "Am I taking away from those who have nothing?"

Edited to add TRIG's comment (which I believe goes to the "heart" of posting):

  If the thought foremost in your mind as you uploaded that picture was other people's negative reactions to it, then you weren't actually doing it to "show your love of Jesus". You're just fooling yourself. On the other hand, if you uploaded it joyfully, with other people's negative reactions very much in the back of your mind, then you're probably okay.


Is there a doctrine that God grants revelation in layers? I've heard my school religion teachers say that God didn't reveal his true intent to humans all at once.

The Old Testament doesn't talk about heaven or hell.
The Trinity concept is not revealed in Old Testament--at least,
not prominently.
Polygamy and slavery are against God's will, but are not prohibited
in the Old Testament.

The idea is that humans were not yet ready to accept the greater truth, so God did not reveal the more correct idea.

Is this a standard Christian doctrine?

If so, what is its name? Gradual revelation?

Picking up on the comment by @curiousdannii, progressive revelation within the Bible itself is widely accepted among Christian denominations.

The Bible contains many indications of it, though most supporting passages quoted in Christian articles explaining the idea are found in the New Testament. See What Is Progressive Revelation? by Don Stewart for a solid presentation of the idea and its biblical basis from a fairly representative Christian perspective.

Progressive revelation beyond the Bible, called "continuous revelation," is more controversial among Christians, and is rejected by many mainstream Christian denominations. However, the LDS church believes that the Book of Mormon is a written revelation from God subsequent to the Bible, and some Christian groups, such as Quakers, Pentecostals, and Charismatics believe that God gives personal revelations to believers through the Holy Spirit.


Why does only one person "teach" during a church meeting? Consider these scriptures:

  "And don’t get drunk with wine, which leads to reckless actions, but
  be filled by the Spirit: speaking to one another in psalms, hymns, and
  spiritual songs, singing and making music from your heart to the Lord,
  giving thanks always for everything to God the Father in the name of
  our Lord Jesus Christ, submitting to one another in the fear of
  Christ." Ephesians 5:18-21

  "Let the message about the Messiah dwell richly among you, teaching
  and admonishing one another in all wisdom, and singing psalms, hymns,
  and spiritual songs, with gratitude in your hearts to God." Colossians
  3:16

  "What then is the conclusion, brothers? Whenever you come together,
  each one has a psalm, a teaching, a revelation, another language, or
  an interpretation. All things must be done for edification." 1
  Corinthians 14:26

  "For you can all prophesy one by one, so that everyone may learn and
  everyone may be encouraged." 1 Corinthians 14:31

Why is it that only one person teaches during the meeting of the saints (the church meeting)? Isn't this contrary to what scripture is teaching? If it is not contrary to scripture, is there any evidence in the New Testament for having a "single teacher" in the church meeting?

I can't seem to find any evidence for this church practice in Scripture, so I'm wondering if this is a church tradition that is perhaps against the teachings of Scripture.

What I understand from the above passages (even read in context), is that everyone in the church has a responsibility to exercise the gifts that have been imparted to them by the Holy Spirit. If we are not participating in the active leadership of this meeting (by teaching, prophesying, and singing, for example), then we aren't we being passive and not fulfilling the call of the church?

I attended meetings of the Vineyard for a period of a year and the members there exercised the gifts of the Spirit, with multiple people, one at a time, giving revelation and prophesying, tongues and interpretations. Then they bunched together and prayed for healings for the afflicted.

I attended a Brethren-inspired gathering for about 8 years. There, they encouraged multiple brothers to get up and speak on the same Sunday morning. The one with little experience spoke for 10 minutes; those with more ability, 15-20 minutes; those with gift, 30 minutes. (So when I say that I have preached for 8 years, people think I'm a pastor!) In this same church, the singing was not led by a choir or worship leader, but members of the body spoke out a hymn number between individual bouts of verbal worship, and we sang that.

Because these settings are outside of any traditional settings I've witnessed in mainline denominations, I can only conclude that historical tradition has dictated the idea of a single speaker. Also, it makes sense for the pastor to do all the speaking because he is paid to do so and (generally) has the ability to communicate the things of God well. In a regular church service where many are present, it certainly makes for a more controlled environment when the message isn't interrupted with questions or comments (I've attended one of those, too!)


What is the origin and basis of the idea of spending an hour each day in prayer? In my society there is this odd thing being discussed or requested of people to pray i.e to spend one hour a day praying.
I do not understand why one needs to pray for one hour.  The closest is the time Jesus asked if his disciples can not stay watch for one hour but this does not translate to one hour pray.
Can any one explain the notion of one hour prayer and where in the Bible does it teach us how long to pray?

When asked to teach his disciples how to pray, Jesus responds by saying 'when ye pray' but does not specify when, or how often or how long, Luke 11:1.
He then gives an example of prayer (and advises not to use it as mere repetition for he warns against such a thing elsewhere Matthew 6:7) and the example takes but a minute or two to actually voice.
There are many examples of prayer in scripture but I have never yet found a rule or a requirement about time or frequency.

And it came to pass, that, as he was praying in a certain place, when he ceased, one of his disciples said unto him, Lord, teach us to pray, as John also taught his disciples. And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth. Give us day by day our daily bread. And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil. [Luke 11:1-4 KJV]

Daniel (for example) used to pray three times a day but this was only discovered when he was put under constant surveillance so that some fault might be discovered whereby he could be prosecuted as prayer was forbidden at the time to any but the king, see Daniel 6:10-28.
But Daniel never commands anybody else to pray three times a day. It was just what he chose to do. Similar examples may be found in the psalms where psalmists promise (to God) to pray or give thanks. But this is between them and God himself. They do not demand it of others.
In the garden of Gethsemane, Jesus was in an extremity. He wanted company and support. But the disciples were weary and could not stay awake to watch during the hours of the night.
In the end God, the Father, sent an angel to strengthen Jesus in answer to his prayer, see Luke 22:43.


Do the Jehovah's Witnesses believe the new covenant is for gentiles? My understanding of the new covenant is that it was made ONLY with the houses of Israel, not with gentiles:

[Jer 31:31 KJV] 31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
[Heb 8:8 KJV] 8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

It seems to me that they ascribe to the "anointed class" features of the "great army" of the new covenant Jews:

[Eze 37:10 KJV] 10 So I prophesied as he commanded me, and the breath came into them [IE: the regathered Israel in Jerusalem 33AD], and they lived, and stood up upon their feet, an exceeding great army.

Do they believe that the new covenant is in force today among them (gentile JWs) in any way?

Yes, Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that the New Covenant is open to Gentiles.  However, they believe that only 144,000 persons since the time of Jesus can be sealed and anointed by Jehovah’s spirit, enter into the New Covenant and have Christ Jesus as their mediator.  They believe that since 1919, when they were chosen as Jehovah’s earthly representatives, the “anointed remnant” of the 144,000 have replaced Israel as Jehovah’s chosen people.  They see this small number of anointed Jehovah’s Witnesses as being “spiritual Israel.”

Insight on the Scriptures, Volume 1 Great Crowd: On the other hand, the view that here Christians of Jewish stock are being distinguished from Gentile Christians runs counter to the apostle Paul’s inspired statement that fleshly distinctions are of no consideration in the Christian congregation, its members being all one in union with Christ Jesus. (Ro 10:12; Ga 3:28)...  It thus seems clear that the 144,000 sealed ones are of spiritual Israel, not fleshly Israel—hence include both Jewish and Gentile Christians.—Galatians 6:16.  Source: https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200001762

Prior to 1919 they acknowledge that the first Christians (mainly Jews) were members of the New Covenant, who belonged to the 144,000 who will rule, in heaven, alongside Christ Jesus.  After the first century, apostasy set in and it wasn’t until the start of the 20th century that “true worship” was restored.  That means most of the “anointed remnant” of the 144,000 who are in the New Covenant must now be Gentile Jehovah’s Witnesses.  They alone can partake of the bread at wine at the annual memorial of Christ’s death.  That’s because they alone have a heavenly hope and they alone are in the New Covenant.  The other Jehovah’s Witnesses (8 million or so) are not in the New Covenant, they do not have Christ Jesus as their mediator, and they do not have a heavenly hope. They come under the category of “the other sheep”:

Watchtower 1998 2/1 pp. 18-23 The Other Sheep and the New Covenant: 3 For the 144,000, the blessing of the Abrahamic covenant is administered through the new covenant. As participants in this covenant, they come “under undeserved kindness” and “under law toward Christ.” (Romans 6:15; 1 Corinthians 9:21) Hence, only the 144,000 members of the Israel of God have properly partaken of the emblems during the Memorial of Jesus’ death, and only with them did Jesus make his covenant for a Kingdom. (Luke 22:19, 20, 29) Members of the great crowd are not participants in the new covenant. However, they associate with the Israel of God and live with them in their “land.” (Isaiah 66:8) So it is reasonable to say that they too come under Jehovah’s undeserved kindness and under the law toward Christ. While not participants in the new covenant, they are beneficiaries of it. Source: https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1998085?q=beneficiaries+new+covenant&p=par
Watchtower 2010 3/15 pp. 24-28 One Flock, One Shepherd: 13 Jesus referred to this new covenant on the night before his death when he said: “This cup means the new covenant by virtue of my blood, which is to be poured out in your behalf.” (Luke 22:20; 1 Cor. 11:25) Are all Christians included in this new covenant? No. Some, like the apostles who drank of that cup that evening, are participants in the new covenant.* Jesus made another covenant with them to rule together with him in his Kingdom. (Luke 22:28-30) They will share with Jesus in his Kingdom.—Luke 22:15, 16.  Source: https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2010202?q=beneficiaries+new+covenant&p=par

Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that the New Covenant is still in force today for Jews and for Gentiles who are part of ‘spiritual Israel’, not ‘fleshly Israel’.  However, they say the new covenant is now only open to Jehovah’s Witnesses who are part of the “anointed remnant” of the 144,000.


Modern Hesychasm in Christianity There is a hindu contemplative tradition called self-inquiry, where a seeker of God asks "who am I?" to expose the person as unreal (a collection of self-image, body, identification, etc.) The experience of witnessing the person exposes the true witness as beyond the person, beyond quality, and as absolute knowing itself. God alone is, and the person is but an imaginary extension.

I'm looking for Christian traditions that follow a similar path toward an experiential discovery of God. I found that the term is Hesychasm (going into one's "self"), but it looks like outside of Eastern Orthodox it's a dead tradition.

The closest work I've found to this understanding is the Cloud of Unknowing  The Philokalia has also been recommended (written by the "watchful" saints).

I've also been looking at the Franciscans ("What we are looking for is what is looking" St Francis) and the Trappist Centering Prayer. Also someone pointed me to this scripture: "I am who I am" (Exodus 3:14): Moses asks what he is to say to the Israelites when they ask what god has sent him to them, and Yahweh replies, "I am who I am," adding, "Say this to the people of Israel, 'I am has sent me to you.'"

Hesychasm is foundational to Eastern Orthodox Christianity and is one of the things that distinguishes it from Roman Catholicism and the Protestant confessions that arose out of Roman Catholicism.

The watershed event in Orthodoxy regarding hesychasm was the so-called "Hesychastic Controversy", that occurred on Mt. Athos in the early 14th century.  Gregory Palamas, a monk originally from Constantinople, helped define the Orthodox tradition as a result of the controversy.

The Orthodoxwiki entry on Gregory Palamas describes the event as follows:

  [Gregory] He was initially asked by his fellow monks on Mount Athos to defend them from the charges of Barlaam. Barlaam believed that philosophers had better knowledge of God than did the prophets, and he valued education and learning more than contemplative prayer. He stated the unknowability of God in an extreme form, having been influenced by a reductionist interpretation of the writings of St. Dionysius the Areopagite. As such, he believed the monks on Mount Athos were wasting their time in contemplative prayer when they should instead be studying to gain intellectual knowledge.

  When St. Gregory criticized Barlaam's rationalism, Barlaam replied with a vicious attack on the hesychastic life of the Athonite monks. Gregory's rebuttal was the Triads in defense of the Holy Hesychasts (c. 1338), a brilliant work whose teaching was affirmed by his fellow Hagiorites, who met together in a council during 1340-1341, issuing a statement known as the Hagioritic Tome, which supported Gregory's theology.

  A synod held in Constantinople in 1341 also supported St. Gregory's views, condemning Barlaam. Later, in 1344, the opponents of hesychasm secured a condemnation for heresy and excommunication for Gregory, the saint's theology was reaffirmed at two further synods held in Constantinople in 1347 and 1351. Collectively, these three synods in Constantinople are held by many Orthodox Christians and several prominent theologians to constitute the Ninth Ecumenical Council. Between the latter two synods, Gregory composed the One Hundred and Fifty Chapters, a concise exposition of his theology.

This latter work - One Hundred and Fifty Chapters - can be found in English translation in Volume 4 of the Faber and Faber edition of The Philokalia.

The Orthodoxwiki entry gives some additional background on Gregory's hesychastic theology:

  Contrary to Barlaam, Gregory asserted that the prophets in fact had greater knowledge of God, because they had actually seen or heard God himself. Addressing the question of how it is possible for humans to have knowledge of a transcendent and unknowable God, he drew a distinction between knowing God in his essence (in Greek, ουσία) and knowing God in his energies (in Greek, ενέργειαι). He maintained the Orthodox doctrine that it remains impossible to know God in his essence (God in himself), but possible to know God in his energies (to know what God does, and who he is in relation to the creation and to man), as God reveals himself to humanity. In doing so, he made reference to the Cappadocian Fathers [Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory of Nazianzus] and other early Christian writers.

  Gregory further asserted that when the Apostles Peter, James and John witnessed the Transfiguration of Jesus Christ on Mount Tabor, that they were in fact seeing the uncreated light of God; and that it is possible for others to be granted to see that same uncreated light of God with the help of repentance, spiritual discipline and contemplative prayer, although not in any automatic or mechanistic fashion.

  He continually stressed the Biblical vision of the human person as a united whole, both body and soul. Thus, he argued that the physical side of hesychastic prayer was an integral part of the contemplative monastic way, and that the claim by some of the monks of seeing the uncreated light was indeed legitimate. Like St. Simeon the New Theologian, he also laid great stress in his spiritual teaching on the vision of the divine light.

Gregory Palamas is such an important figure in Eastern Orthodoxy that the 2nd Sunday of Great Lent every year is reserved for his commemoration.


In light of grace, How does a Christian consider the devotedness of Muslims and Jews? This question is somewhat triggered by this question. I felt a plethora of emotions when I thought about the right way to approach answering it, and I felt it would be better to express these sentiments in another question rather than as an answer to that question.

The sentiments are as follows: Judaism and Islam are two religions whose devotees display (quite frankly) an incredible and exceptional level of devotion to God, a level of devotion which I could not personally dare to imagine myself undergoing. When I think of the number of commandments which adherents of Judaism have to follow, and think of the common image of adherents of Islam bowing to God in humble submission, I feel nothing but utter respect. From the point of view of Christianity, this level of devotion might appear misguided, as salvation is through Jesus Christ and nothing else. Agreed.

But with all the above mentioned factors in play, how does one go about even thinking about this issue? How does one go about approaching it? Is there a balance that can be sought in discussions on the topic? How can one aptly say, "yes, salvation is through Jesus Christ, but the amount of devotion to God which adherents of Judaism and Islam display is frankly admirable, even to (certain) Christian eyes"?

Apologies if the presentation of the question is a little unclear, but I hope you get what I mean. Thanks.

Find the most dedicated Jew or Muslim and you probably won’t find anyone more dedicated to God under his moral Laws than the Apostle Paul before he became a Christian.  Paul said he was blamelessly devoted to God before knowing Christ but after becoming a Christian he counted all that devotion as mere rubbish:

If someone else thinks they have reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more:  circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for righteousness based on the law, faultless. But whatever were gains to me I now consider loss for the sake of Christ.
But whatever were gains to me I now consider loss for the sake of Christ.  What is more, I consider everything a loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them garbage, that I may gain Christ (NIV Philippians 3:4-9 Bold mine)

Pharisees in the Bible were precisely known for the ‘incredible and exceptional level of devotion to God’, a level of devotion which most could not personally dare to imagine or undergo.
We sometime forget how dedicated they were and how much respect they obtained from the general population for that 'holy behaviour'. We forget this wisely, because Jesus said doing holy things for God for the respect that man will provide is evil. This respect you have is what a self-righteous person works for, so they would be very happy to hear you speak this way. However, Jesus looked at it quit differently. If good works are not done by faith in Messiah, they are not done by faith in God. Also anything that is not done by faith is sin, therefore all good deeds done in unbelief is not good at all -- it is sin -- and the deadliest kind -- for it makes a person self-righteous.

everything that does not come from faith is sin. (NIV Romans 14:23)
And without faith it is impossible to please God (NIV Hebrews 11:6)

Jesus took a different view to those 'committed to God', but were not committed to faith in Him, for the forgiveness of their terrible and huge sins.
Religious people without faith in Christ can be very dedicated in converting others to their zeal for God:

“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when you have succeeded, you make them twice as much a child of hell as you are. (NIV Mathew 23:15)

Religious people without faith in Christ can sacrifice many material things in their devotion to God:

“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cumin. (NIV Mathew 23:23)

Religious people without faith in Christ can sacrifice impress others by outwards commitments to God, but their unrepentant hearts by rejecting Christ shows the true state of their inwards perversity:

“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. (NIV Mathew 23:25)

Religious people without faith in Christ seem like very good people and its sometime hard to tell what is going on inside but Christ shocked everyone by having a fiery discernment:

“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of the bones of the dead and everything unclean. (NIV Mathew 23:27)

I could keep going and going but I think you get the point.
Some of these highly impressive people who were extremely dedicated to God at the times of the Apostles had doubts whether Jesus was the Messiah, or not. Some had converted to Christianity but not with real sincere faith yet. Their religious convictions and how they perceived the faith of their holy forefathers made them seriously doubt the gospel. There were struggling with a deadly poison - unbelief. It was a heaven, or hell, tuype of decicision.
The Epistle to the Hebrews (Jewish people) was written to them, to ensure they do not get confused. In that Epistle we find some of the most severe warnings in all of scripture, because turning away from Christ to Judaism is exposing your soul to the danger of hell – with a sort of 'fast track' direction. For having been exposed to the truth anf grace of Christ and then rejecting it! and turning to another religion is possibly the greatest sin a man can commit.

If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth (i.e. turn away from faith in Christ and return to Judaism), no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God. Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much more severely do you think someone deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified them (i.e. disrespecting the blood that brought them into an external knowledge of the gospel, offering them eternal life which they were about to possibly reject!!), and who has insulted the Spirit of grace?  For we know him who said, “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” and again, “The Lord will judge his people. ”It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. (NIV Hebrews 10:26-31 Italics mine)

So you see there is nothing here but a disappointing answer. The Bible does not just sprinkle sugar on all our fears and worries. Sometimes it says something pretty tough, and I know this can be very hard at times. The Bible has knocked me down many times, but God’s love pulls me back up! The Bible wants us to 'hang in there' and 'do not get discouraged' about all this. Gods grace is much bigger than our sins, whether they are ‘white’ sins of self-righteousness like those in religion, or those lesser evils, those ‘black’ sins of sexual perversity, drunkenness, greed for money, etc.


When Meister Eckhart deliniates the "ground" and "powers" of the soul, what is he differentiating? I'd like to know where to look for scholarly articles that could help elucidate unclear points in ancient writings. For instance, Desert Fathers speak a lot about "heart", "spirit", "mind", "thoughts", etc., and consider all to be different.

Specifically, I fail at mapping those notions to something more understandable in modern terms. Meister Eckhart, in particular, clearly separates "ground" of the soul ("spark", "castle") from "powers" of the soul (higher intellect, will, lower intellect, emotions, etc.). I don't clearly understand the difference.

Moreover, I sometimes fear that the difference cannot be grasped in verbal terms, because analytical thinking might be constricted to "powers" of the soul in Eckhart's terms. That said, any direction in helping to describe these otherwise ineffable concepts would be useful.

One thing I like to point out in discussions like this one is that we are often talking in English about words and ideas from languages that we do not speak. For example where the word SPIRIT is used in the new testament passages and in the writings of many early Writers after that time it is the Greek word Pneumos which literally means air but also breath, vital essence, mind-set and a few other things dependant on context. So for example the Holy Spirit is literally renderable as The Fearsome Breath of God. When they spoke of evil spirits this was sometimes a reference to the bad smell on the breath of a sick person (literally bad breath).

My point here is that it is helpful to understand the word usage from the original language and where these ideas have come from as we hold them today. Some ideas like Spirit and Thoughts might well have been seen as synonyms or something close to that back when they were first penned and definitely the word choice in many cases would have been to underscore a particular aspect of what the writer was saying.

It might be easier to try and understand these ideas in terms of the gist of what the writer was trying to convey first and then drill down to the specifics later. Of course that is only my own approach.


What is the origin of a stole? Most priests wear a stole, a vestment that appears to be similiar to a long scarf, although it is flat and worn against the chest, rather than 'round the neck.

Reading through the wikipedia article, the suggestion is that the stole is derived from Roman aristocracy - but of that is true, it completely conflicts with the notion that priests wear robes with rope belts because they were the clothing of the poor.

So, the question is, where did the stole come from? What is the theological statement that is implied by this vestment?

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Stole

According to my understanding, it is a Roman adaptation of the Epitrachelion and Orarion - essentially priestly neck-garments. I wouldn't read too much into the clothing style itself, as it changes infrequently and often erratically and illogically. But the garment itself, functionally, is simply the symbol of the priesthood or diaconate, but styled differently. It's also important to note how simple they can be, so it is likely that they were adapted as priestly garments some time after they were in common use by aristocracy.

The interesting part is that while in the Orthodox tradition the stole is two different garments for the priest and deacon, in the West it is almost the same garment simply worn differently, albeit with the final effect being identical: the priest's is symmetrical and comes down like a beard, and the deacon's is asymmetrical and worn like a sash.

This suggests a common origin to all of the stoles, but does not tell us what the proto-garment was, or if one of the two was the proto-garment. I would be inclined to assume the Orthodox garments, partly because of the Oriental Churches (Non-Chalcedonians):

http://sor.cua.edu/Vestments/index.html

http://www.ethiopianorthodox.org/english/miscellaneous/sacramental.html

etc... the naming is Western (stole) but it seems like the garment is mostly unchanged and similar to the Eastern Orthodox one.


In Rev 9:4 What grass was left for them to not hurt? When the first angel sounds all green grass is burnt up.

The first angel sounded, and there followed hail and fire mingled with blood, and they were cast upon the earth: and the third part of trees was burnt up, and all green grass was burnt up.
-Rev 8:7

When the 5th angel sounds it is commanded not to hurt the grass or the earth.

And it was commanded them that they should not hurt the grass of the earth, neither any green thing, neither any tree; but only those men which have not the seal of God in their foreheads.
-Rev 9:4

What grass was left for them not to hurt?

Cecil is very correct in that the book of revelation was written with heavy use of symbolism. You really have to study the scriptures around the one you are confused about in order to understand them.

There is also the translation to consider. My New World Translation renders the scripture in Revelation 8:7 as:

  "The first one blew his trumpet. And there was hail and fire mingled with blood, and it was hurled to the earth; and a third of the earth was burned up, and a third of the trees were burned up, and all the green vegetation was burned up."

However those scriptures are talking about the same thing whether it be grass or vegetation. I have the book, but it is not currently on the website. I will be using the book Revelation-ITS GRAND CLIMAX AT HAND! chapters 21 and 22 as my source for gleaning more from the book of revelation. The book itself is very well researched and breaks down each scripture and explains it. So on the topic's we are looking at in chapters 8 and 9 it says this.

  "In the Bible, the word “earth” often refers to mankind. (Genesis 11:1; Psalm 96:1) Since the second plague is on the sea, which also has to do with mankind, “the earth” must refer to the seemingly stable human society that Satan has built up and that is due to be destroyed. (2 Peter 3:7; Revelation 21:1) The plague scenario reveals that false religion's third of the earth is scorched by the searing heat of Jehovah’s disapproval. Her prominent ones—standing like trees in the midst of her—are burned up by the proclaiming of Jehovah’s adverse judgment. All her hundreds of millions of members, if they continue to support false religion, become like scorched blades of grass, spiritually wilted in God’s eyes.—Compare Psalm 37:1, 2."

Really then false religion is not being literally burned up, but spiritually. They are at that point experiencing God's full disapproval of them.

Later in chapter 9 of revelations that book again elaborates as to what those symbols mean.

  "First, though, let us examine other scriptures that will help us to understand this plague better.
  The Bible book of Joel, written during the ninth century B.C.E., describes a plague of insects, including locusts, that is similar to the one that John sees. (Joel 2:1-11, 25) It was to cause much discomfort for apostate Israel but would also result in individual Jews’ repenting and returning to Jehovah’s favor. (Joel 2:6, 12-14) When that time arrived, Jehovah would pour out his spirit upon “every sort of flesh,” while fearful signs and alarming portents would precede “the coming of the great and fear-inspiring day of Jehovah.”—Joel 2:11, 28-32.

  "There was a fulfillment of Joel chapter 2 in the first century. It was then, at Pentecost 33 C.E., that holy spirit was poured out, anointing the first Christians and empowering them to speak “the magnificent things of God” in many tongues. As a result, a large crowd assembled. The apostle Peter addressed those astonished onlookers, quoting Joel 2:28, 29 and explaining that they were witnessing its fulfillment. (Acts 2:1-21) But there is no record of a literal insect plague at that time, causing discomfort to some and leading others to repentance."

  "Was there a figurative plague during those days? Yes, indeed! It came as a result of the relentless preaching of the newly anointed Christians. Through them, Jehovah invited those Jews who would listen to repent and enjoy blessings from him. (Acts 2:38-40; 3:19) The individuals who responded received his favor to a remarkable degree. But to the ones who refused the invitation, the first-century Christians became like a devastating swarm of locusts. Starting in Jerusalem, they spread through all Judaea and Samaria. Soon they were everywhere, tormenting the unbelieving Jews by publicly proclaiming Jesus’ resurrection, with all that this implied. (Acts 1:8; 4:18-20; 5:17-21, 28, 29, 40-42; 17:5, 6; 21:27-30) That plaguing continued until the “fear-inspiring day,” in 70 C.E., when Jehovah brought the Roman armies against Jerusalem to destroy it. Only those Christians who in faith called on the name of Jehovah were saved.—Joel 2:32; Acts 2:20, 21; Proverbs 18:10."

So something very similar was prophesied about locusts tormenting people and an outcome is given in the bible. So what about the modern time fulfillment of revelations locusts? Revelation 9:4-6

  "They were told not to harm the vegetation of the earth or any green plant or any tree, but only those people who do not have the seal of God on their foreheads. And it was granted the locusts, not to kill them, but to torment them five months, and their torment was like torment by a scorpion when it strikes a person. In those days people will seek death but will by no means find it, and they will long to die, but death will flee from them."

And the books explanation:

  "Notice that this plague is not directed first against the people or prominent ones among them—the ‘vegetation and trees of the earth.’ (Compare Revelation 8:7.) The locusts are to harm only those men who do not have the seal of God on their foreheads, those of false religion who claim to be sealed but whose record belies that claim. (Ephesians 1:13, 14) Thus, the tormenting utterances of these modern-day locusts were directed first against the false religious leaders. How these self-assuming men must have been tormented at hearing it publicly announced that not only were they failing to lead their flocks to heaven but they themselves would not get there! Truly, it has been a case of ‘the blind leading the blind’!
  "

So now that we know what those passages mean we can analyze your question better. The green vegetation or grass mentioned in chapter 9 are the men that are not in a leadership position be it government or religious. They are the common people.

Because revelations is very symbolic is is tough to say what portion of mankind is included in the grass/vegetation or what it means for them to be burnt up. That could mean a spiritual burning or withering. Thus they are spiritually weakened, but they can be hurt or weakened further.


Why do high-church people call their personalized Bible study exercises "devotionals"? Why do high-church people call their personalized Bible study exercises "devotionals", as in the Catholic and high-church Anglican traditions?

The name 'devotionals' is actually fairly common, not just among high-church Christians. I've heard it used by Baptists, Mennonites, Anglicans of different persuasions and all sorts of people. There's nothing special about the name. "Our Daily Bread" describes itself as a 'daily devotional' and is certainly not 'high church'. The same applies to devotionals produced by crosstalk.com, biblegateway.org and Joyce Meyer.

However most important is that a 'devotional' is much more than just Bible study. 'Devotionals' may include prayer, worship, and possibly meditation, journaling or reflection. 'Devotionals' also applies to short homilies, which are again more than simple Bible study. Those that practice 'devotionals' will also do plain Bible study, which they call 'Bible study'. If it's more than that, they call it 'devotionals'.


What are the main differences between Anglicanism and Catholicism? The Anglican Church came from the Roman Catholic Church about the same time as the Reformation was starting, but that doesn't answer how they are different on a practical level.  How is the Anglican Church different from the Catholic Church in practice?  What doctine(s) distinguish them as a separate denomination from Catholicism?

The 39 Articles are the foundational document of Anglicanism (though not all Anglicans accept them now). The major points of difference with Catholicism which are explained in the Articles are:

Anglicanism does not accept the books of the Apocrypha as inspired. (Article 6)
Anglicanism says that our righteousness before God is based only on the merit of Christ, and not on the basis of our works. (Article 11)
Anglicanism rejects the Catholic idea of supererogation, that we can perform works above and beyond what God requires. (Article 14)
Article 20 essentially states that the Church is subservient to scripture, rather than its traditions being of equal authority to scripture.
Article 22 rejects purgatory.
Article 24 says that the liturgy of a church must be in the language of the people. Catholicism has varied about this over the years, but there have been many times when the mass must be performed in Latin.
Anglicans believe in only 2 of the 7 sacraments which Catholicism recognises (though this isn't universal, and Anglo-Catholics recognise all 7.) (Article 25)
Anglicans reject the concept of transubstantiation, that communion is in any way a sacrifice, or that the cup can be denied to the laity. (Articles 28, 30, 31)
Anglican ministers are allowed to be married. (Article 32)
And for what really started the English reformation off, Anglicans say that the Bishop of Rome has no authority in England. (Article 37)

In addition, I would add that

Devotion to Mary is generally uncommon in Anglicanism, at least compared to the extent of Catholocism.
Many dioceses ordain women as deacons, priests and even bishops.
As a result of the distributed authority structures of Anglicanism, there is a much greater diversity of beliefs than in Catholicism. Some dioceses for example endorse homosexuality, while others do not. This is a major issue in the Anglican Communion today, and will most likely result in a broken communion in the next few years.


What's the right terminology here for what God's allowing something, but not blessing it? What's the right terminology here for when God's allowing something, but not blessing it?
I once had it, but now I forgot. It's something about two different types of God's will. One is kind of "allowing" will, for example, in such things like earthquakes, in which children die, and the other one is a "good-pleasure" will, for example, in such things like preaching the gospel and saving people. So, what are the correct words here?

I think that's considered His passive will as opposed to His active will

  ...the will is the intellectual appetite. But in the intellect there are two powers--the active and the passive.

Summa Theologica Question 83 article 4 objection 3


How does the Catholic Church explain the addition of the word “died” in the Nicene Creed The Nicene Creed professed during the Sunday mass  contain these words :

For our sake He was crucified under Pontius Pilate. He suffered, died, and was buried.

Over the centuries, the Nicene Creed underwent certain changes, one of them being the addition of the word “died”. When the word "crucified” itself implies  death , one wonders why there was a need to add that the Lord died .
My question therefore is: How does the Catholic Church explain the addition of the word “died” in the Nicene Creed which is professed during the Sunday Mass?

the word "crucified” itself implies death

Not necessarily.
"Died" is in the creed to show that not only did He suffer the pains of crucifixion (a form of torture), but He also died from crucifixion.
The Catechism of the Council of Trent (Roman Catechism), "Article 4: Suffered under Pontius Pilate; was crucified, dead, and buried," explains this part of the creed thus:

Christ Really Died

The pastor should explain that these words present for our belief that Jesus Christ, after He was crucified, really died and was buried. It is not without just reason that this is proposed to the faithful as a separate object of belief, since there were some who denied His death upon the cross.3 The Apostles, therefore, were justly of opinion that to such an error should be opposed the doctrine of faith contained in this Article, the truth of which is placed beyond the possibility of doubt by the united testimony of all the Evangelists, who record that Jesus yielded up the ghost. (Matt. 27:50; Mark 15:37; Luke 23:46; John 19:30).

Moreover as Christ was true and perfect man, He of course was capable of dying. Now man dies when the soul is separated from the body. When, therefore, we say that Jesus died, we mean that His soul was disunited from His body. We do not admit, however, that the Divinity was separated from His body. On the contrary, we firmly believe and profess that when His soul was dissociated from His body, His Divinity continued always united both to His body in the sepulchre and to His soul in limbo. It became the Son of God to die, that, through death, he might destroy him who had the empire of death that is the devil, and might deliver them, who through the fear of death were all their lifetime subject to servitude. (Heb. 2:10, 14, 15).

Christ Died Freely

It was the peculiar privilege of Christ the Lord to have died when He Himself decreed to die, and to have died not so much by external violence as by internal assent. Not only His death, but also its time and place, were ordained by Him. For thus Isaias wrote: He was offered because it was his own will. (Is. 53:7). The Lord before His Passion, declared the same of Himself: I lay down my life, that I may take it again. No man taketh it away from me: but I lay it down of myself, and I have power to lay it down: and I have power to take it up again. (John 10:17–18). As to the time and place of His death, He said, when Herod insidiously sought His life: Go and tell that fox: Behold I cast out devils, and do cures today and tomorrow, and the third day I am consummated. Nevertheless I must walk today and tomorrow, and the day following, because it cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem. (Luke 13:32–33). He therefore offered Himself not involuntarily or by compulsion but of His own free will. Going to meet His enemies He said: I am he (John 18:5); and all the punishments which injustice and cruelty inflicted on Him He endured voluntarily.


What were the original languages of the Nicene Creed? In what languages were the Nicene Creed originally written? I'm guessing it would have been Latin, the official language of the Roman Empire, but by the end of the Council of Nicea, would versions in other languages have also been created as parallel translations?

The lingua franca of the world during the early years of Christianity was Greek. Latin was the official language of Rome and used throughout the Empire for some official business, but even Rome used Greek in the Eastern parts of the empire by way of expediency. This was much more the case at the time of Christ and the early church (almost the entire New Testament being penned in Greek as a result) but it was also the case hundreds of years later. Even in the heyday of Roman cities in Asia minor, Greek was still heavily used. If you wander through ancient ruins in Turkey (where I live and the council of Nicaea was held), even the Roman era ruins are mostly covered with Greek inscriptions. A few official correspondence things with Rome appear in Latin, and not a few multi-lingual records appear, but local affairs were mostly in Greek.

Even after the Council of Nicaea would have been held and Constantinople gained prominence as the capital of the Eastern Roman Empire and Latin was the official language of government and military, most of the people in the region still used Greek and it was more common for church affairs (whether local preaching, theological writing, or church councils) to be conducted in Greek than Latin. In fact even during the rise of Constantinople, usage of Greek in education and common usage grew and Latin decreased.  It wasn't really until the East/West split much later and the rise of the Roman Catholic Church that things moved west and Latin became heavily used as a liturgical language and you start finding late Patristic era church fathers writing in Latin.

Following the fall of the Eastern Roman Empire, the Byzantine Empire took it's place and returned to using Greek for politics and government as well as local affairs.

The Council of Nicaea would have been conducted entirely in Greek, and the resulting creed drafted in Greek as well. In fact much of the theological debate of the era centered around nuances of Greek words and their former usage in Greek philosophy vs. intended Christian meanings. Our terminology for things like hypostatic union, perousia, etc. all come from Greek terms predominant in theological circles of this era. There would have been almost no need to translate the Nicaean Creed into any other languages initially, it wasn't until a lot of time passed or it was carried very far afield that other translations (including Latin) start cropping up.

Several clauses of what are popularly included in the Nicene Creed are in fact not part of the original Greek, they first appear in Latin translations some years later. There has been much debate about whether these bits added by the Roman church represent sound doctrine. See for example the Filioque controversy. Whether they do or don't accurately represent Christianity is out of the scope of this question, but there is little debate that some phrases only appear in the Latin versions that don't show up in the Greek ones circulated earlier in the east.


Is the Golden Rule really the Gold Standard? Does the Golden Rule, often stated as "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" originate from the Bible and the teachings of Jesus? If not where does it come from? If so how  was it originally used? How it is supposed to be applied today?

Consider a case where the thing somebody would want you to do for them is to sin. As a simple example, many people will lie to keep their friends out of trouble. They expect their friends to do the same for them. If the Golden Rule was the only rule employed between them, their sin would just continue to multiply. What's to prevent this?

Matthew 7:12 (NIV) sounds a lot like the Golden rule:

  So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

But it also says it's only a summary of the Law and Prophets, not that it's actually a hard-and-fast rule.

The problem with your example is it puts "others" at odds with each other... There are two "theys"--your friends, and those you would lie to.  The Golden Rule is not far-reaching enough to address these sorts of ethical situations.

I think the true "Gold Standard" is to love God and people (Luke 10:27). The Golden Rule is intended to provide a sort of definition of what it means to love others.  That doesn't mean it's air-tight in a logical sense.  But even so, if we all practiced the Golden Rule to the letter (even lying for our friends, as in your example), I suspect the world would be a much better place than it is now.


Can a priest add his own prayers to the Mass after the dismissal? Can a priest add other public prayers to the Mass after the dismissal? If so, are those assisting at the Mass obliged to stay and pray those prayers with him?

I think the answer is partly in this communication by the Office for the Liturgical Celebrations of the Supreme Pontiff, titled "The Priest in the Concluding Rites of the Mass", issued in 2010.

First, let us recall the Rite in the Ordinary Form. As the text says, this is:

  "The concluding rites consist of 1) Brief announcements, if they are necessary; 2) The priest's greeting and blessing, which on certain days and occasions is enriched and expressed in the prayer over the People or another more solemn formula; 3) The dismissal of the people by the deacon or the priest, so that each may go out to do good works, praising and blessing God; 4) The kissing of the altar by the priest and the deacon, followed by a profound bow to the altar by the priest, the deacon, and the other ministers"

Thus, the final blessing could be expanded with the Prayer over the People (e.g see prayers for Lent here), or other "more solemn" formula.

The same text then goes on to present the goal of such Rite, where it is clear that this is a brief one. Some quotes:

  Of what has been said, it turns out that the two columns that sustain the Rites of Conclusion of the Mass are the blessing and the dismissal. ... From these biblical elements stems the Christian liturgical use of blessing, which has the meaning of "asking God for his gifts on his creatures, and of thanking him for the gifts already received". ...

And:

  In the Rites of Conclusion of the Holy Mass the priest is still carrying out a priestly task, namely, of mediation between God and the faithful people. It is not only a question of greeting one another and agreeing to meet the next time, remembering the commitment perhaps during the week. The priest here invokes on the people the divine blessing, while in the name of the people he thanks God for the gifts already received by his kindness. Here also he acts "in persona Christi." Because of this, he does not say in the plural "may the omnipotent God bless us," or "the Mass is ended, let us go in peace." He speaks in the name of the Person of Christ and as minister of the Church, because of this he imparts the blessing, while invoking it, and he sends the faithful to the daily mission of life: "may God bless you" and "Go in peace." Through him, Christ and the Church charge the baptized with giving this daily witness of the Gospel.

From the above it is clear that after communion, the final rites are to be brief, and still in a very solemn mood, with the Priest acting as a mediator. Surely the priest has the capacity to insert "another more solemn formula", but this does not mean everything. For example, to insert here a rather long set of prayers like the Rosary or to perform the Stations of the Cross during Lent would, in my view, conflict with the solemnity and purpose of the rite. In fact, in my experience these rather long prayers are usually celebrated before the mass.

Now, when it comes to the Extraordinary Form of the mass, things might be slightly different. For example, it is common in this form to have, as part of the Concluding Rites, some rather long extra prayers. Blessing prayers are longer, and also the first verses of Gospel of John are read (see full prayers here). If the mass is a Low Mass, some final prayers to Mary and the Archangel Michael (known as Leonine prayers, and found here) can be added once the mass is finished. Whether more prayers can be added or not, I refer you to the 1962 missal (see in particular page 66, although text is in Latin).


Do any denominations believe in reincarnation? In discussion with others about God's will in situations that don't have any answers (i.e. - difficult prolonged situations) I hear a lot of (as also mentioned in this question and answer) that God is "teaching us lessons and preparing us for eternity".

However, when I put this together with the fact that humans are in all different stages of learning lessons (some almost barely getting by - to some here on vacation on this earth), sayings like "she is an old soul" and the fact that some people don't need to learn certain lessons, they just "have it" from birth, there is a chance after death for atonement - I logically, instinctively and intuitively get the feeling that souls are reincarnated and purified to be more like the light of Christ, through each human experience they occupy.

I have heard there are other religions that believe this but independently of them, are there any Chrisitian denominations that also believe this? Why or why not is it valid?

Source: Morse, D. R. (2006, April). Reincarnation: Yes, No or Maybe!. Journal of Spirituality & Paranormal Studies. p. 61.

  Although some sects of Christianity accept reincarnation, for some
  people (e.g., innocent infants, murder victims), generally,
  Christianity does not support reincarnation, because no matter how
  evil you might have been, if you repent and accept Jesus Christ as the
  Son of God and your savior, you will go on to Heaven.

Source: Davies, M. (2004). Should Christianity Embrace Mediumship, Healing and Reincarnation?. Journal Of Religion & Psychical Research, 27(3), 132-144.

  St Paul very plainly rejects reincarnation in his letter to the Hebrews. (Hebrews 9:27-28)

  The Gnostics did believe in reincarnation, but they were squashed
  after the Council at Nicaea in 325 AD.

  St. Jerome tells us that metempsychosis (reincarnation) was a secret
  doctrine of certain sects in his day, but it was too evidently opposed
  to the Catholic doctrine of Redemption ever to obtain a settled
  rooting.

  However some sects — particularly the early Gnostics and the later
  Cathars of 13th century France — did believe in reincarnation, and
  often paid the price.

  While some individual Christians believe in reincarnation, the only
  major push for reincarnation from within official Christian circles
  has been from the "Army of Mary," a Catholic sect that is based in
  Quebec, Canada.

Conclusion:

Although there are certainly Christian individuals and sects that accept reincarnation, reincarnation has always been an iffy issue, because it has long been perceived to undermine the significance of the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ. There are examples of such sects, as mentioned above. Sects who do believe in this reincarnation are often persecuted, and over the centuries, the non-heretics procreate non-heretic offspring, which is why the number of people who believes in reincarnation is in the minority.


Does the love of God fulfil the Law, or keep the Law, or both? (Reformed view) "If you love Me, you will keep My commandments." (John 14:15, ESV / NASB)

There seem to be at least two opposing interpretations of Jesus' above statement, and similar Scripture, namely the following:

"If you love me, you will [by nature] keep my commandments."
"If you love me, show it by doing what I’ve told you" (The Message, same verse)

To expound:

Regarding the first view, some hold the view that

  the whole Law is fulfilled in one word, in the statement, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." (Gal 5:14)

then go on to say that love is the fruit of the Spirit, and finally conclude that any Law that is not a result of '[treating] people the same way you want them to treat you' (Matt 7:12b) is without authority.
Regarding the second view, others say

  this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments (I John 5:3)

Stating that the Law defines love, and the Holy Spirit makes us willing to be obedient to those commandments, because we love God [and our neighbour.]

Both positions may affirm that the Holy Spirit causes us to have a genuine loving inclination to others. Yet people holding to the second position may impose commandments which people from the first position will label as 'ceremonial, hence not applicable.'

Based on the first position, commandments are only kept if this makes sense in the mind of the believer. To exemplify, a believer would only keep the weekly Sabbath day if he thinks that doing so is consequential to 'loving your neighbour.' This is then the measuring stick to define 'Ceremonial Law' and 'Moral Law.'

Based on the second position, commandments are kept whether they are being understood or not, because of a will to obey and please God by keeping His instructions. In this case, keeping of the commandments can be directly consequential to 'loving God.' The question then is not necessarily [only] if the commandment can be identified as being consequential to 'loving your neighbour', but rather if God requires the keeping of it.

Which of the two above views, if either of them, developed in Reformed Protestantism under the branch's inherent claim of Sola Scriptura?

(Above quotes NASB unless indicated)

This is a struggle that a great many people are experiencing, and is the same struggle that the first century AD churches had to contend with the Judaizers.
Christ's love fulfilled the law (Matt. 5:17).
Rom. 13:8,

"Owe no one anything except to love one another, for he who loves another has fulfilled the law." (NKJV)

Paul addresses the issue in Galatians of trying to keep the law while being in grace under Christ's law.  The Judaizers had come back through the churches after Paul and the apostles taught the gospel of Christ, and were telling the new born Christians that they had to be circumcised first and then had to keep certain other Mosaic laws before they could be in Christ.
Their attempt to exist in both the death of the law, and the living grace of Christ defeats Christ's sacrifice for sin which was under the law.
So, Gal. 5:14 is the answer as you have noted above.  Loving one another is the fulfillment of the law.
Paul got so angry with those that had tried to damage the congregation in Galatia for teaching they had to be circumcised that he said he would rather they had been cut off.
Gal. 5:12,

"I could wish that those who trouble you would even cut themselves off!" (NKJV)

Most people miss what Paul really meant.  Look at that verse in the ASV.

" I would that they that unsettle you would even [c]go beyond circumcision."

And, in the ESV:

"I wish those who unsettle you would emasculate themselves!"

In the Greek it meant to mutilate themselves.  In other words, Paul would rather the corrupting Judaizers had not only circumcised themselves, but had castrated themselves... cut it all off.
There is a very good analysis of Paul's letter to the Galatians, and this problem of today's Judaizers that are again teaching we have to keep the commandments of Moses' law.  See here.  It is a study in parts, one for each chapter.
Rom. 13:10,

"10 Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law." (NKJV)

Matt. 22:37-40,

"And Jesus said to him, `Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thine understanding --
38 this is a first and great command; 39 and the second [is] like to it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself;
40 on these -- the two commands -- all the law and the prophets do hang.'"  (YLT)

We do not have to keep the Mosaic commandments.  Christ fulfilled all of them with His death on the cross.


How did Jesus get heard by 5000 families at once? When I attend a meeting of more than about 100 people, the speaker's voice is normally amplified using a microphone and speaker.

Jesus spoke to 5000 families at once. And at other times he spoke to multitudes.

How did He get heard by so many without amplification?

Ideas that I've heard include that He could be heard when:

He was physically higher than His audience.
His voice could be projected across water.

Is there any other, general rule for how He could be heard?

Throughout the roman world, there are amphitheaters which could hold 20,000 people or more. I have personally been to ones in Ephesus (where Paul addressed a large crowd) Pergamum, and Pompeii.

Note that both the Sermon in the Mount and the Sermon on the Hill were delivered at landforms that formed natural amphitheaters. If Jesus was standing at the base, rather than at the top, the acoustics would have worked in his favor.

As a speaker who has learned to project, I can tell you that it isn't difficult to do- it is just that amplification helps make it louder. Amplification lets people spread out more and helps when people in the crowd are talking, but large crowds could hear Greek plays without it.

The point here is simple- a speaker has better range than you might imagine. The speaker would need to be loud, for sure, but people throughout the ages have addressed large crowds.

Finally, there is always the monty Python answer and it applies to any sort of dairy producer, really.


Why did the Pharisees need Judas to betray Jesus? I quite don't understand this whole thing. Jesus and his disciples are hanging around the city all the time. Why can't the Pharisees arrest him at their leisure? Why do they need Judas to tell the soldiers which one Jesus is?

It's something you probably don't think about much, but we have reason to believe that Jesus really wasn't all that distinctive in his appearance.

  John 8:58-59

  58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

  59 Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.

  Luke 4:28-30

  28 And all they in the synagogue, when they heard these things, were
  filled with wrath,

  29 And rose up, and thrust him out of the city, and led him unto the
  brow of the hill whereon their city was built, that they might cast
  him down headlong.

  30 But he passing through the midst of them went his way

This is the act of someone who is very ordinary-looking and able to blend in with a crowd at will.  See also Isaiah 53:2.  The context makes it clear that he's prophesying about the Messiah here, and he clearly states that he does not look like what you'd expect of a powerful, charismatic leader:

  ...he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.

As Dancek pointed out, Jesus reminded them that they could have come for him any time he was in the temple teaching.  It's not hard to find him then: look for the one who's the center of attention!  But looking for him at night, when you don't really know what he looks like and even if you did, that description might match any of thousands of Jews? (And this was Passover season, so there were a lot of extra Jews in Jerusalem at the moment.)  The only way to make sure you've got the right guy in a situation like that is to get someone who personally knows your target to identify him.  And so that's exactly what they did.


Was the Lord with whom Abraham negotiated material or Holistic? In Genesis chapter 18 Abraham negotiated with one of the three men who came to his tent.

Verse 18:20 refers to that individual as 'LORD' , and only two of those are called Angels and go on to Sodom.

Since all things material were created by God in Genesis chapter 1, using the word 'Lord' would seem to indicate that that being was non material.

And yet we know that Abraham saw three men, that leads me to wonder if that one with which Abraham negotiated were an apparition.

I was further intrigued by the fact the other two (who are referred to as Angels) continued to Sodom while the  'LORD' did not.

What do Theologians say about this?

It was the understanding of many Church Fathers from the early Christians that the LORD who appeared to Abraham, Jacob, Moses and the prophets was Jesus Christ, the word of God, who is distinct from God the Creator.

In "The Dialogue with Trypho" written by Justin Martyr(100-165 AD), Justin explained to Trypho the Jew that one of the three men who visited Abraham was God in human form, who is distinct from God the Creator. Justin said that it was Jesus Christ, who appeared to Abraham, Jacob and Moses, who is called "LORD" in the Scripture, and recorded by Moses in the Scripture.

  Dialogue with Trypho, CHAPTER LVI

  I replied again, "If I could not have proved to you from the
  Scriptures that one of those three is God, and is called Angel,
  because, as I already said, He brings messages to those to whom God
  the Maker of all things wishes[messages to be brought], then in regard
  to Him who appeared to Abraham on earth in human form in like manner
  as the two angels who came with Him, and who was God even before the
  creation of the world, it were reasonable for you to entertain the
  same belief as is entertained by the whole of your nation."

  "Assuredly," he said, "for up to this moment this has been our
  belief."

  Then I replied, "Reverting to the Scriptures, I shall endeavour to
  persuade you, that He who is said to have appeared to Abraham, and to
  Jacob, and to Moses, and who is called God, is distinct from Him who
  made all things,--numerically, I mean, not[distinct] in will. For I
  affirm that He has never at any time done anything which He who made
  the world--above whom there is no other God--has not wished Him both
  to do and to engage Himself with."


Exodus 25-27 Question Why would God want his people to build tabernacle and the sacred rooms, only to destroy them after Jesus dies on the cross? Does that mean God has changed his mind?

This is a really interesting concept in Christian theology, known as typology. Essentially, it is a method of interpreting the Old Testament as a long series of "types" that prefigure aspects of the revelation in Jesus Christ, which are known as "antitypes".

This is mentioned in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

  The Church, as early as apostolic times, and then constantly in her Tradition, has illuminated the unity of the divine plan in the two Testaments through typology, which discerns in God's works of the Old Covenant prefigurations of what he accomplished in the fullness of time in the person of his incarnate Son. (CCC 128)

For instance, we might look at the story of Jonah, which is commonly read in  Christianity (especially in mediaeval Catholic and Orthodox theology) as a prefiguring of Christ's death, three days in the tomb, and resurrection. Similarly, the serpent lifted up on a pole by Moses in the wilderness in order that those who look upon it might be saved (Numbers 21) is read as a type of Christ's being lifted up on the Cross.

However, the example you mention in your question is possibly the canonical example of typology. The Temple, the dwelling-place of God, is understood as a prefiguring "type" of Christ, in whom God dwells on earth. The sacrifices of the Old Covenant are considered types of the one great sacrifice of the New Covenant, that of Jesus Christ on the Cross. The priesthood of the Old Covenant is considered a type of Christ's eternal high priesthood. If you read the Epistle to the Hebrews, you will see this language used extensively.

So the Temple and the Tabernacle are not a case of God changing his mind, but giving a way off understanding the greater event that is to come in Christ. Their role is to explain what happens in Jesus Christ. But when Christ's death happens, the Old Covenant is fulfilled, so aspects such as the Temple can pass away.


Did Luther have any disagreements with the teachings of Augustine of Hippo? Did Luther have any disagreements with the teachings of Augustine of Hippo? The Wikipedia page on Luther doesn't mention any, and from my limited knowledge of Luther's books, I can't recall any either. However, there might have been some.

Luther and Augustine seem to have disagreed on:

Ecclesiology

Purgatory: Augustine believed it, though Luther claimed he "held nothing at all of purgatory."

Sacraments: Luther claimed three sacraments, but Augustine expressly called at least six of the seven Catholic sacraments a "sacrament."

The canon of scripture: even disregarding Luther's early zeal for purging the canon, Augustine believed the canon to be more expansive than Protestants do.

Justification (see below)

Justification
Luther believed Augustine to be, like himself and all people, prone to err. The only area where he acknowledged disagreement between himself and Augustine is on the nature of justification:

It was Augustine’s view that the law, fulfilled by the powers of reason, does not justify, even as works of the moral law do not justify the heathen, but that if the Holy Spirit assists, the works of the law do justify. The question is not whether the law or the works of reason justify, but whether the law, kept with the Spirit’s help, justifies.
I reply by saying No. Even if in the power of the Holy Spirit a man were to keep the law completely, he ought nevertheless to pray for divine mercy, for God has ordained that man should be saved not by the law but by Christ. Works never give us a peaceful heart. Christ would never have been sad in spirit unless he had been pressed hard by the law, to which he subjected himself for our sake.
Table Talk, no. 85 (found here)

Luther may here have in mind Augustine's The Spirit and the Letter.
For more on the history of the doctrine of justification, see Alister McGrath's Iustitia Dei. McGrath contends that Augustine agreed with Catholicism that "to be justified is to be made just" and that the idea of "imputed righteousness" originated with Luther.


Indications that Enoch and Elijah have never gone to Abraham's bosom? In the Old Testament we can see at least two people that didn't seem to ever die: Enoch (Gen. 5:24) and Elijah (2 Kings 2:11). The Scriptures say that the first one was taken by God, and the second one was taken to the heaven by a whirlwind. Besides this, are there any indications in the Bible that these two never went to Abraham's bosom (Luke 16:22)?

Because John 3:13 says, "And no man hath ascended into heaven, but he that descended from heaven" (Douay) I am inclined to believe that they went to Abraham's bosom. That is the easiest interpretation of that verse without going through some severe theological hoops.

Additionally, and this is admittedly out of the scope of the question directly, but there is general theological consensus that the death of Christ "opened the kingdom of heaven to all believers." And while this is in the Te Deum, you can also find similar notions in Luther and Matthew Henry's Commentary.


Why were the General Epistles written? The six New Testament epistles known as James; 1 and 2 Peter; 1 and 2 John; and Jude are not directed to any one person or specific branch of the Church. The first verse in each epistle indicates who the intended audience was:

  The General Epistle of James1. James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the
  twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting.

  The First Epistle General of Peter
  1. Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered
  throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,

  The Second Epistle General of Peter1. Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to
  them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the
  righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:

  The First Epistle General of John ?

  The Second Epistle of John1. The elder unto the elect lady and her children, whom I love
  in the truth; and not I only, but also all they that have known the
  truth;

  The General Epistle of Jude1. Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to
  them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus
  Christ, and called:

Besides the obvious answer that they were direction from God, for what purpose were they written? It would appear they were written as general counsel to everyone who may read them, but to whom were they delivered? Were the epistles copied and delivered to all of the churches? Were they carried by missionaries and delivered as sermons? Are there any records that tell us who these epistles were sent to, or where they were first read?

Introduction

From the excerpts below, the Letter of St. James was addressed to the Christians of the Diaspora, who lived outside Palestine among the Gentiles; the First Letter of St. Peter was addressed to Christian communities living in various parts of Asia Minor. the environment there was hostile, which meant that Christians' perseverance was at risk; the Second Letter of St. Peter is addressed to Christians in general; the First letter of St. John, the fact that addresses are not mentioned suggests that it was a kind of circular letter sent to a number of Christian communities; the Second letter of St. John is addressed to a local church, very probably one in Asia Minor. the Third Letter of St. John is addressed to a Christian called Gaius, and perhaps through him to a group of Christian faithful; and finally the letter of St. Jude does not specify whom it is addressed to, but it was probably written originally for Christians converts from Judaism.

While each letter has its own content and purpose and there is very little common to them all, St. Augustine says that they were written to refute errors which were beginning to raise their head.

Below follows the excerpts in detail.

  The Catholic Letters

  After the thirteen letters of St.Paul and the letter to the Hebrews
  come seven other letters (one by St. James, two by St. Peter, three by
  St. John and one by St. Jude) which since the time of Origen, Eusebius
  and St. Jerome have been known as the 'catholic' letters, letters to
  the Church at large, not directed to a particular church or
  individual: the second and third letters of St. John, even though they
  are addressed to a private individual are regarded as appendixes to
  his first letter and are also included in the 'catholic letters'
  category.

  Source: A GUIDE TO THE BIBLE | ANTONIO FUENTES

And also

  The Catholic Letters

  The canon of the books of the New Testament includes, along with the
  Pauline corpus (the thirteen letters of St. Paul and the letter of
  Hebrews), a group of seven others which Tradition usually calls the
  "Catholic Letters" - that written by St. James, two by St. Peter,
  three by St. John and one by St. Jude. Apparently the reason for
  grouping them together is not because they are similar in doctrine or
  style, but simply to distinguish them from the body of Pauline
  letters. This grouping already existed from around the end of the
  fourth century AD (cf. Eusebius of caesarea, Eccl. Hist., 3, 25,
  2-3). The books have not always been given this position in the New
  testament: the great Vatican and Siniatic codexes place them after the
  book of the Acts of the Apostles; from the time of St. Jerome onwards,
  all bibles place the immediately after the writings of St. Paul, just
  before the book of Revelation. Nor were they all in the same sequence
  as now: we often find St.Peter's two letters coming first; however,
  from St. Jetome onwards most manuscripts place them where they
  normally appear in printed bibles.

  The name "catholic" was applied by Origen to the First Letter of
  Peter, the first of John and that of Jude. Later Eusebius and St.
  Jerome extended the title to cover all seven letters. It seems that
  they were given this name because they were addressed to the whole
  Church and not to particular communities or persons, as St. Paul's
  letters were. By extension, the title was applied as to 1 and 2 John,
  even those letters were sent to specific individuals.

  Each letter has its own content and purpose and there is very little
  common to them all. St. Augustine says that they were written to
  refute errors which were beginning to raise their head (cf. De fide
  et operibus, 14, 21). Certainly, they all evidence the teaching and
  catechesis which was being given to the first communities of
  Christians. For most part, using pastoral tone, they deal with
  doctrinal instruction and moral teaching, all aimed at encouraging
  people to live deeply Christian lives.

  Source: THE NAVARRE BIBLE NEW TESTAMENT COMPACT EDITION

From the same Bible:

  The Letter of St. James

  Excerpt

  The letter is addressed to "the twelve tribes in the dispersion"
  (1:1), that is, the Christians of the Diaspora, who lived outside
  Palestine among the Gentiles. Anything we know about the circumstances
  in which it was written comes from the letter itself: that is, certain
  defects were beginning to appear which threatened the spiritual health
  of those communities. There is debate about the date of composition,
  but it was probably written in the 60s AD, although some scholars
  propose a later date.

  The First Letter of St. Peter

  Excerpt

  [...] the date of composition is usually put around the year 64 or 67,
  the possible years of Peter's martyrdom [...] It is addressed to
  Christian communities living in various parts of Asia Minor. the
  environment there was hostile, which meant that Christians'
  perseverance was at risk. many of them were converts from paganism,
  probably recent ones. Hence the constant reminders about Baptism [...]
  As we can see from the final greeting, the letter was written in
  "Babylon" (5:13), that is, Rome, the capital of the empire, as it used
  to be called symbolically [...]

  The main of the apostle seems to be to console Christians and exhort
  them to stay true to the faith in the midst of difficulties and
  persecution.

  The Second Letter of St. Peter

  Excerpt

  [...] internal analysis makes it more difficult to attribute the
  letter to Peter [...] the Tradition of the Church has associated the
  Second Letter of Peter with the person of the apostle.

  The letter is addressed to Christians in general, even though some
  expressions imply that it was originally addressed to Christian
  communities in Greece or Asia Minor. the dates of composition that
  have been suggested run from year 60 to the end of the first century.

  The letters of St. John

  Excerpt

  The First Letter of John [...] the fact that addresses are not
  mentioned suggests that it was a kind of circular letter sent to a
  number of Christian communities. It is likely that it was written,
  after the fourth Gospel, to the Christian communities of Asia Minor
  mentioned in the book of Revelation (Rev 2:1-3:22). [...]

  The Second and Third Letters of St. John [...] In both letters the writer introduces himself as the "elder" (2 Jn 1; 3 Jn 1). The Second letter is addressed to the "elect lady and her children" (v. 1), a figurative way of referring to a local church, very probably on in Asia Minor. The Third Letter is addressed to a Christian called Gaius (v. 1), and perhaps through him to a group of Christian faithful. [...]

  The second Letter was written as a word of warning at a time when the danger from heretics was not as great as that revealed in 1 John. the counsel the writer gives is along the same lines as that contained in the First Letter. the Third Letter, although it does not contain new teachings, is valuable testimony to the fidelity of the early Christian communities and a model of type of letters of commendation mentioned elsewhere in the New Testament [...]

  The letter of St. Jude

  Excerpt

  [...] The letter does not specify whom it is addressed to, but it was probably written originally for Christians converts from Judaism. We do not know when it was written; maybe around the year 70.

  The author seeks to exhort the faithful to put up a fight for the faith delivered to them (v. 3), reminding them that the apostles warned them in advance that ungodly people would appear on the scene, people given to licentiousness (vv. 17-18). maybe the author wrote the letter because he had learned that people like this had already wormed their way into those Christian communities (v. 4).


Can an Orthodox Christian of one diocese receive sacraments at a coterminous one, e.g. a Greek Orthodox at an OCA parish? I'm presently a confirmed Catholic but am considering conversion to the Orthodoxy. Something I understand of it is that there is no single diocese in America, but multiple overlapping ones for historical ethnic reasons. In my city, there are several OCA parishes, a few Russian Orthodox, a Serbian Orthodox, and the largest is the single Greek Orthodox.

Something I have become used to as a Catholic is that I can attend Mass at any Catholic church and make confession at any Catholic church; this allows me to be a regular parishioner at a small parish but avoid confessing to a priest with whom I have a rapport by going to the cathedral which has a random priest in the confessional daily.

Within the Catholic Church, I've learned, it is allowed for a Roman to receive Eastern Catholic sacraments despite the distinct jurisdictions, but I feel as though this is partly because they're all under the same hierarchy.

Would it be permissible, then, for an OCA parishioner to make confession at the Greek church, or a Serbian to confess at a Russian church, without having to change his affiliation to that diocese?

The short answer is yes. I converted into an OCA parish. When i had to move, the closest Orthodox parish was an Antiochian one. On occasion, I have also attended srevices in a Greek parish. The important thing for me was to establish a Parish as my home parish.


Why did Jesus not want people to talk about his healing? There are numerous instances in the gospels of Jesus healing someone, and then Jesus in some form or another instructing them to keep silent about it. One example, in Matthew 9:27-31

27 As Jesus went on from there, two blind men followed him, calling out, “Have mercy on us, Son of David!”
28 When he had gone indoors, the blind men came to him, and he asked them, “Do you believe that I am able to do this?”
“Yes, Lord,” they replied.
29 Then he touched their eyes and said, “According to your faith let it be done to you”; 30 and their sight was restored. Jesus warned them sternly, “See that no one knows about this.” 31 But they went out and spread the news about him all over that region. (emphasis mine)

Why did Jesus not want them to proclaim their healing? It doesn't make sense to me, as anyone who was healed of a lifelong malady would naturally want to tell all their friends & family. Was this just him making a point about how silly it would be not to share what God has done for us (e.g. the gospel) with others? Or is it something else?

When reading the gospels there seems to be two or three main problems Jesus always encountered in terms of ministry and politics. The most deadly was the jealousy and hatred of the religious leaders. Jesus often had to move away from any opportunity where they might be overly aroused and have easy access in apprehending him (Luke 20:20) Jesus seemed to manage the timing of his arrest. The second was crowd control (Matth 8:18).  As more and more flocked to Jesus the crowds became too large to effectively minister to them so he had to move away to less crowded areas and even leave to a new region to avoid crowds. The third problem is less obvious but quite clear in Jewish history, that of the zealots who wanted a Messiah to lead them in war against roman rule.

All three of these concerns might be involved in Jesus wanting to limit his fame depending on the situation , where the religious leaders and their 'spies' were, how big the crowd was and how the zealots might have used his fame for their own agenda.

Of course there is no way of hiding a miraculous healing to those who knew the man. To those who would know he was healed he would have to explain what happened. He was not asked to 'hide' his healing, just refrain from telling people who would not already know. Jesus seems to simply want to avoid sensationalism and some political hazards. He did not want the man to broadcast his exciting experience, until perhaps much later on. Jesus managed the political landscape on which he was drawing more and more attention from crowds of people with differing motives of interest.


Is there a specific purpose in placing a hot coal to your lips? I read the lyrics for Kutlass' song "Take Me In" and the particular lyrics:"take the coal, touch my lips, here I am". Was there a significant purpose for that action or was it symbolic?

That is a reference to the commission of Isaiah (Isaiah 6). When he suddenly found himself in the immediate presence of the exalted God (likely Jesus), he was undone and fully aware of the separation between himself and the LORD. The coal touching his lips was a sign of the purification Christ provides, after which Isaiah can say "Here I am, send me!"

  So I said: "Woe is me, for I am undone!
  Because I am a man of unclean lips,
  And I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips;
  For my eyes have seen the King,
  The Lord of hosts."  Then one of the seraphim flew to me, having in his hand a live coal which he had taken with the tongs from the altar.  And he touched my mouth with it, and said: "Behold, this has touched your lips;
  Your iniquity is taken away,
  And your sin purged." Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying: "Whom shall I send,
  And who will go for Us?"
  Then I said, "Here am I! Send me"
   [Isaiah 6:5-8]


What Are Biblical Arguments for Egalitarianism? I have been raised within the RPCNA and as such have had a very complementarian view of scripture. I do try to have an open mind in regards to scripture and it's interpretation, however, and as such I am open to hearing different points of view. Something I have never heard is a solid biblical argument for Egalitarianism.
Keeping in mind that all of scripture is inspired by a God outside of time and all words in scripture hold an equal weight (even today in our current culture), what is the biblical argument for being egalitarian?
EDIT
I am legitimately open to hearing from anyone with any interpretation of scripture. Ideally we could find common ground on Scripture's overall interpretation, but even if that's not the case, I would love to hear any and all arguments for Egalitarianism.

In the letter to the Galatians, it is written that in Christ, there is no distinction between Jew and Gentile, men and women, slave and free, because we are all one in Christ. That's generally what is quoted.
However we can also see this in Genesis, where God made man in His image, male and female.
God also tells his people Israel (e.g. in Deuteronomy) that they are to have one law for the native and the sojourner, that they are not to favour either the poor or the rich in a dispute but rather must seek justice, a man cannot simply accuse his wife of adultery and declare her guilty without evidence, etc.
The message conveyed in all this is that God does not want one gender or race or class, etc. to do injustice to / mistreat the others. He wants justice for all. That's because we are all His children and he loves us. This does not however mean that we have no difference in roles; e.g. priests must be men (see the letter to Timothy). St. Paul writes we are the body of Christ and each person is a member of that body; just like in a body, each member has a different role to play but each is vital for perfect function.
Hence the adage: we are all equal but different
Edit
I have checked once more and I see that the egalitarianism you've asked about is different from the definition I thought about. I thought you're referring to equality as in our value, but the one you've referred to is about equality in authority and responsibility. My apologies.
The texts written above are used as evidence and further arguments for egalitarianism include the existence of prophetesses like Deborah, and how Aquilla and Priscilla (husband and wife) are listed together as a couple with Aquilla being mentioned first sometimes and Priscilla being mentioned first other times.
However, it must be noted that this doesn't suggest a radical egalitarianism where there is absolutely no difference in authority or responsibility; that egalitarianism isn't supported. Instead it focuses on there being overlap in roles.


Does the Old Testament word Sheol have Greek or Hebrew origins? The word "Sheol" is a fairly modern word used in modern translations of the Old Testament to represent hell, Hades or The Grave or 'The Place of the Dead'.  It's the Hebrew's conception of the underworld.  For an example look up Deuteronomy 32.22 where "Sheol" is used in modern translations starting with Young's Literal Translation in 1862, and Darby's Translation in 1890.  Since then ASV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, NASB and the Catholic NJB and many others have continued it's use.   In 1844 Brenton made his famous personal translation of Greek Septuagint, and he uses the word "Hell" (not Sheol) but perhaps that was because the transliteration of the word Sheol had not yet been popularly coined.  Before that, the King James Version and the Catholic's Douay-Rheims Version had used "hell", as had the Geneva Bible.  The Latin Vulgate uses the word "inferni" (inferno).
My question is simple:  Was "Sheol" coined by the Greek Septuagint? Is the word "Sheol" in the "Hebrew's Messoretic Texts and "Hades" in the Greek Septuagint?  Right now I'm guessing that "Sheol" was in the Greek Septuagint and the word the Greek Jews used for The Graveland below, as opposed to the non-Jews use of "Hades".

The word "Sheol" was not coined by the scribes of the Greek Septuagint.  It is Hebrew.  One reference is Strong's Concordance and Lexicon, in which its rendering in Deuteronomy 32:22 has Hebrew word ID number 7585, shin aleph vav lamed (right to left):
שְׁאֹ֣ול
Phonology of the Hebrew "aleph" is variable, and "vav" changes too, but the first and last letters' pronunciation are ancient and Biblical Hebrew as discussed in Wikipedia's Hebrew consonant list.