What is the Reformed Protestant understanding of God's Permissive Will, His Sovereign or Decretive Will and Efficacious Will? I have an assignment to explain the Reformed Protestant view of the differences between the Permissive, Sovereign (Decretive) and Efficacious Wills of God.  My initial exploration into this subject has left me confused, mainly because there are so many different terms applied to the Will of God in its various forms.
From what I've read, there is a view that the sovereign or decretive will of God can be divided into His efficacious will and His permissive will. Also, that in both the decretive and efficacious wills, God is directly responsible for causing His will to come to pass.
I have already seen this Christianity Stack article, but it does not help me: How are the Decretive, Preceptive, and Permissive wills of God defined?
One short article I found exposed some difficulties with the Permissive Will of God:

The distinction between the sovereign will of God and the permissive will of God is fraught with peril and tends to generate untold confusion.
In ordinary language, the term permission suggests some sort of positive sanction. To say that God “allows” or “permits” evil does not mean that He sanctions it in the sense that He approves of it. It is easy to discern that God never permits sin in the sense that He sanctions it in His creatures.
What is usually meant by divine permission is that God simply lets it happen. That is, He does not directly intervene to prevent its happening. Here is where grave dangers lurk. Some theologies view this drama as if God were impotent to do anything about human sin.
This view makes man sovereign, not God. God is reduced to the role of spectator or cheerleader, by which God’s exercise in providence is that of a helpless Father who, having done all He can do, must now sit back and simply hope for the best. He permits what He cannot help but permit because He has no sovereign power over it. This ghastly view is not merely a defective view of theism; it is unvarnished atheism. - Exposing the Permissive Will of God

The more I read the more confused I become. Frankly, I'm out of my depth. I would be grateful if someone could at least point me in the right direction to find a straightforward and readily understood Reformed Protestant perspective on the relationship between the various aspects of God's will.

Your quote source is part of R.C. Sproul's explanation of Permissive Will, so you will find the context by reading the complete article titled "Discerning God’s Will: The Three Wills of God".  After a quick and relatively straightforward definitions of Decretive and Prescriptive wills, he then warns us of "the faulty distinction between willing and permitting" by quoting Calvin along with the Biblical support Calvin used for his thesis.  Sproul then ends with a quote from St. Augustine.

A related resource I found is a free book by R.C. Sproul "Can I Know God's Will" which I could also find the PDF here where he also discussed Decretive and Preceptive Will of God but introduced "God's Will of Disposition" as roughly equivalent to his "permissive" will, similar to how this article also divide God's will into the same 3 categories.  That's in chapter 1 ("The Meaning of God's Will") to which he adds chapter 2 ("The Meaning of Man's Will") followed by 2 application chapters on job and marriage.

Other related resources I think you'll find valuable are:

Nathaniel's answer to a related question which gives you the relevant Biblical verses for the Decretive and Preceptive Will of God based on R.C. Sproul and Charles Hodge
Charles Hodge's treatment of The Will of God in his famous (although dated) 1871 Systematic Theology Volume 1 Chapter V Section 9
Blog article "A Theology Of the Will of God by Adam Setser, a Southern Baptist theology student, surveying different ways (other than decretive vs. preceptive) to view the two sides of the will of God within the Reformed tradition, nicely paraphrasing some of Hodge's treatment in 2015 English.

I found Adam Setser's treatment to be the most helpful to address your confusion because he goes into the Latin words of 5 different pairings of tensions that Reformed theologians have identified over the centuries.  I put in bold the terms you are including in your question.  From the analysis below, I think the confusion comes from mixing terms from different pairings.

The backbone: voluntas beneplaciti (will of desire) / voluntas decreti (will of decree) / voluntas occulta (secret will)  VS.  voluntas signi (signifying will) / voluntas revelata (revealed will) / voluntas praecepti (will of precept) (see subsection C in Hodge)
Choice: voluntas absoluta VS. voluntas conditionalis (see subsection E in Hodge)
Causation: voluntas antecedens VS. voluntas consequens (see subsection D in Hodge)
Theodicy: voluntas efficiens (efficient will) VS. voluntas permittens (permitted will)

  If God’s will must account for all creation, what about evil, Satan, and hell?

  Voluntas efficiens: the “efficient will” refers to those aspects of His will who receive His full affirmation. Efficiens also means to create, cause, or produce. So this is the product of His creation which obeys Him perfectly and gets his affirmation.

  Voluntas permittens: the “permitted will” refers to the part of creation which doesn’t get His affirmation. He still has willed its existence, but He isn’t pleased with it. He permits it to exist because it serves His purposes (e.g., Satan).

Efficacy: voluntas efficax (effective will, efficacious) VS. *voluntas inefficax** (ineffective, HERETICAL!)

If the above terms are not enough, there are a few more distinctions in the famous Reformed Systematic Theology textbook (1938) by Louis Berkhof: Part One (Doctrine of God), THE BEING OF GOD Chapter VII (The Communicable Attributes), Section D (Attributes of Sovereignty), pages 82-87, HTML version here, PDF here.  These 6 pages I think will be the best resource to integrate all the above distinctions into a coherent whole within the Reformed tradition where Dr. Berkhof said how the antecedent/consequent and absolute/condition pairings found little favor in Reformed theology while the decretive/preceptive, eudokia/eurestia, beneplacitum/signum, and secret/revealed pairings were more generally accepted. He discusses the issue of "permissive will" in a subsection titled "God's will in relation to sin".  Finally by necessity of its being a textbook Dr. Berkhof's treatment also adds contrast between Reformed understanding of the sovereign power of God to some modern non-Reformed positions (Strauss, Schleiermacher).

While the above resources are "certifiably" Reformed in the theology (despite different theologians, e.g. Dr. Berkhof and Dr. Hodge, organizing the discussion of God's will differently), I think the following article titled "Providence of God" from the 1997 Baker's Evangelical Dictionary of Theology should provide you with a larger context to place the will of God in a broader as well as more ancient perspective, contrasting how in OT, 2nd Temple, and NT traditions Jewish and Christian believers view God's will in PERSONAL terms rather than IMPERSONAL fate / deterministic way that the Greco-Roman philosophy adherents (such as Stoics) view God's will.

One way to consider God's will in an even larger context is of course by studying Louis Berkhof's textbook treatment of THE WORKS OF GOD where he begins by discussing The Divine Decrees in General (Chapter I), Predestination (Chapter II), Creation (Chapters III to V), and ends with Providence (Chapter VI).


Do the "Anathemas" Pronounced in the Council of Trent still stand today? My understanding, is that in response to the protestant reformation, Luther in particular, the Catholic Church convened the council of Trent, and put their official doctrines on the issues into writing.
One section was a list of 33 "canons" which I believe are like church laws.

Many of these canons ended with an "Anathema" being pronounced on anyone who would say such a thing. Anathema is a "curse", here's a quick dictionary lookup for it on dictionary.com:

  1.a person or thing detested or loathed
  2.a person or thing accursed or consigned to damnation or destruction.
  3.a formal ecclesiastical curse involving excommunication.
  4.any imprecation of divine punishment.
  5.a curse; execration.

These are often cited by protestants to show how the Catholic church feels about the idea of being "Saved by Faith alone".

This is the source I used for the canons "https://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct06.html"

Here are examples of some Canons for clarity, and the anathemas at the end:

  CANON IX.-If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.

  CANON XII.-If any one saith, that justifying faith is nothing else but confidence in the divine mercy which remits sins for Christ's sake; or, that this confidence alone is that whereby we are justified; let him be anathema.

  CANON XV.-If any one saith, that a man, who is born again and justified, is bound of faith to believe that he is assuredly in the number of the predestinate; let him be anathema

I feel like there are a lot of directions this could go, so I want to be pretty specific about the answer.

The question is Does the Catholic Church still pronounce these anathemas on protestants who believe as such?

So I feel like answers should clearly have a Yes, or a No.

If you so choose, I am also interested in, what the church means by anathema, how this plays out in the Catholic view of protestant churches, etc etc. I don't really want to get into why these canons are or are not theologically sound (I would love to, but for the sake of the scope of this question let's not).

To say of a person, "Anathema sit"—"Let him be anathema"—means simply that the person is excommunicated: regarded as having separated themselves from the body of the True Church. It appears that at an early time it corresponded to a more formal act and a more serious punishment than excommunication:

At a late period, Gregory IX (1227-41), bk. V, tit. xxxix, ch. lix, Si quem, distinguishes minor excommunication, or that implying exclusion only from the sacraments, from major excommunication, implying exclusion from the society of the faithful. He declares that it is major excommunication which is meant in all texts in which mention is made of excommunication.
("Anathema", The Catholic Encyclopedia)

But its later meaning was essentially the same as excommunication.
To say, then, with Canon IX,

If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification ... let him be anathema.

is simply to mean that anyone who does in fact hold this belief is considered to be outside the body of the Church. And similarly for any other use of the phrase.
The phrase "let him be anathema" has fallen out of use in the last several centuries; but the concept still appears. For example, in the 1950 encyclical Munificentissimus Deus, promulgating the dogma of the Assumption of Mary, Pope Pius XII closes with

Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith. ... It is forbidden to any man to change this, our declaration, pronouncement, and definition or, by rash attempt, to oppose and counter it. If any man should presume to make such an attempt, let him know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.

Therefore, in brief: The anathemas of the Council of Trent still stand; but they are not formal curses or condemnations pronounced on individual Protestants. Rather, they are formal declarations that Protestants who hold these particular beliefs are not in communion with the True Church.


What does Lutheranism teaches about demon possession? What do various Lutheran Churches from today teach about demon possession? Did Martin Luther, or early Lutheran writers said something about this?

What strikes me the most, is the fact that in the Eastern Orthodox and Catholic Churches, one hears of such cases and knows about various rites of exorcism and so on. But I have never heard of such thing in the mainline protestant realm, only in the evangelical one, even though the Bible talks of such events. Same things about miracle workers.

For more information, let me recommend the following resources:
1.  Robert Bennett, CPH, "I Am Not Afraid: Demon Possession and Spiritual Warfare"
2.  Robert Bennett, CPH, "Afraid: Demon Possession and Spiritual Warfare in America"
3.  Darrell McCulley, "The house swept clean : a biblically balanced pattern for the diagnosis, exorcism, and pastoral care of the victims of demonic possession," available here:  https://scholar.csl.edu/osp/1/

In brief, the Lutheran church has been a bit lax and lazy in this area, but these resources were written with the aim of awakening our pastorate and seminaries to the realities of demonic possession.  I'd recommend starting with #2 or #3.

Coincidentally, I'm still working out whether or not Christians can be demon-possessed.  Bennett believes so, while McCulley doesn't.  But since CFW Walther, Martin Luther, and Franz Pieper also did, I'll go with Bennett's conclusion!


Does the Catholic Church teach that humans are superior to all other creations on Earth? Does the Catholic Church teach that humans are superior to all other creations on Earth, or does it teach that each creation is equally precious and that not one type of creation is better than the other?

The Catechism of the Catholic Church has this to say on the Image of Man:

355 "God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him, male and female he created them."218 Man occupies a unique place in creation: (I) he is "in the image of God"; (II) in his own nature he unites the spiritual and material worlds; (III) he is created "male and female"; (IV) God established him in his friendship.
I. "IN THE IMAGE OF GOD"
356 Of all visible creatures only man is "able to know and love his creator".219 He is "the only creature on earth that God has willed for its own sake",220 and he alone is called to share, by knowledge and love, in God's own life. It was for this end that he was created, and this is the fundamental reason for his dignity:
What made you establish man in so great a dignity? Certainly the incalculable love by which you have looked on your creature in yourself! You are taken with love for her; for by love indeed you created her, by love you have given her a being capable of tasting your eternal Good.221
357 Being in the image of God the human individual possesses the dignity of a person, who is not just something, but someone. He is capable of self-knowledge, of self-possession and of freely giving himself and entering into communion with other persons. And he is called by grace to a covenant with his Creator, to offer him a response of faith and love that no other creature can give in his stead.
358 God created everything for man,222 but man in turn was created to serve and love God and to offer all creation back to him:
What is it that is about to be created, that enjoys such honor? It is man that great and wonderful living creature, more precious in the eyes of God than all other creatures! For him the heavens and the earth, the sea and all the rest of creation exist. God attached so much importance to his salvation that he did not spare his own Son for the sake of man. Nor does he ever cease to work, trying every possible means, until he has raised man up to himself and made him sit at his right hand.223
359 "In reality it is only in the mystery of the Word made flesh that the mystery of man truly becomes clear."224
St. Paul tells us that the human race takes its origin from two men: Adam and Christ. . . The first man, Adam, he says, became a living soul, the last Adam a life-giving spirit. The first Adam was made by the last Adam, from whom he also received his soul, to give him life. . . The second Adam stamped his image on the first Adam when he created him. That is why he took on himself the role and the name of the first Adam, in order that he might not lose what he had made in his own image. The first Adam, the last Adam: the first had a beginning, the last knows no end. The last Adam is indeed the first; as he himself says: "I am the first and the last."225
360 Because of its common origin the human race forms a unity, for "from one ancestor [God] made all nations to inhabit the whole earth":226
O wondrous vision, which makes us contemplate the human race in the unity of its origin in God. . . in the unity of its nature, composed equally in all men of a material body and a spiritual soul; in the unity of its immediate end and its mission in the world; in the unity of its dwelling, the earth, whose benefits all men, by right of nature, may use to sustain and develop life; in the unity of its supernatural end: God himself, to whom all ought to tend; in the unity of the means for attaining this end;. . . in the unity of the redemption wrought by Christ for all.227
361 "This law of human solidarity and charity",228 without excluding the rich variety of persons, cultures and peoples, assures us that all men are truly brethren.

Allow me to add another source, other than the Catechism to help give a better answer to your question, which is taken from A Tour or the Summa:

The image of God in man makes him superior to other earthly creatures. St. Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. vi12), "Man's excellence consists in the fact that God made him to His own image by giving him an intellectual soul which raises him above the beasts of the field." It is true that all creatures have a likeness to God, some by the fact that they exist, some by the further fact that they live, some by the still further fact that they have knowledge. But only intellectual creatures(angels and men) have a close likeness to God; only such creatures have the spiritual operations of understanding and willing. Of earthly creatures, man has a true likeness to God; other creature shave a trace or vestige of God rather than an image.


Did the early Church fathers see a distinction between Matthias' and Paul's apostleship appointment, considering Paul's peculiar verbiage choice? When reading the appointment of Matthias, you come across very specific actions and precise language. Consider, of course:

Acts 1:21-26 ESV

  21 So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 22 beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us—one of these men must become with us a witness to his resurrection.” 23 And they put forward two, Joseph called Barsabbas, who was also called Justus, and Matthias. 24 And they prayed and said, “You, Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which one of these two you have chosen 25 to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place.” 26 And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthias, and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

Here we see the apostles themselves (namely Peter) create a criteria for the position of apostle, narrow down candidates, then cast lots in order to decide upon the right suitor.

Now let us consider a succession of texts from Paul, who uses his own peculiarly specific word choice:

Romans 1 ESV

  1 Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle, set apart
  for the gospel of God, 2which he promised beforehand through his
  prophets in the holy Scriptures,

Nothing too extraordinary there other than Paul saying he was called to be an apostle. Called by whom? It isn't quite clear here yet, but let's read on, shall we?

1 Corinthians 1 ESV

  1 Paul, called by the will of God to be an apostle of Christ
  Jesus, and our brother Sosthenes,

Here, I think, we can begin to see Paul making a statement about his election / calling to be an apostle, by God Himself, rather than by men as Matthias was chosen.

2 Corinthians 1 ESV

  1 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and Timothy our
  brother,

Once again, Paul makes mention of "the will of God."

Galatians 1 ESV

  1 Paul, an apostle—not from men nor through man, but through Jesus
  Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead— 2and all
  the brothers who are with me,

This is where I see Paul drawing the biggest distinction in the appointments of Matthias and of himself. He outright states, "no man chose me, I was chosen by God Himself."

So my question simply follows on the natural reading of the texts: Did the early church fathers see the appointment of Matthias, perhaps, to be hasty and contrary to God's will, especially when considered in the light of Saul's election, conversion, and choice of words? Do we have any thoughts from the fathers regarding the election of these two apostles?

Of course, as an aside, we also have the Lord's words recorded in Acts 9:15

  15 But the Lord said to Ananias, “Go! This man (Paul) is my chosen instrument
  to proclaim my name to the Gentiles and their kings and to the people
  of Israel. 16 I will show him how much he must suffer for my name.”

[I have edited my previous reply to address the question more directly.]

The very earliest Church Fathers were the Apostles themselves, so I think it is worthwhile first to consider what is stated in the Acts of the Apostles.

I think we must also carefully consider how Paul's ministry began.  I think it is fair to say that everyone who serves Christ does so according to His will and not their own.  This is not to say, however, that the fact that Paul became an Apostle by God's will means that the Church had no role whatsoever.

When the Lord first revealed Himself to Paul and blinded him and responded to his question, What wilt Thou have me do? by telling him to see a certain disciple of the Church and receive further instructions (Acts 9:5-6).  Thenceforth, Paul received all of his direction from the Church, except at the very beginning when, in typical new convert fashion, he went directly to the Jews to point out their errors and had to be rescued in a basket lowered down the city wall (Acts 9:20-26).   I am not completely sure, but I do not think we ever see Paul acting completely on his own in Acts.  He is usually directed where to go and with whom to go.

As you point out, how Matthias is called is much different from how Paul is called, but what the two have in common I think is that when they are called, they serve the Church and do not set out to establish some sort of independent ministry.

Regarding the thoughts of the Church Fathers who followed the Apostles, you ask, in part:

  Did the early church fathers see the appointment of Matthias, perhaps,
  to be hasty and contrary to God's will?

Based on the resources I have access to (Logos, ANF, NPNF, etc.), it seems that none of the Apostolic Fathers nor did any other Church Father up to the 4th century discuss this passage.  The first discussion I found of Matthias appointment was in John Chrysostom's Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles, where he makes no indication that he views the appointment of Matthias as something contrary to God's will, but is rather very much in concord with God's will:

  Then after the event [the Ascension], he appositely brings in the
  Prophet, saying, For it is written in the Book of Psalms, Let his
  habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein” [Acts 1:20;
  Psalm 68:25 LXX]; this is said of the field and the dwelling: And his
  bishopric let another take; that is, his office, his priesthood. So
  that this, he says, is not my counsel, but His who hath foretold these
  things. For, that he may not seem to be undertaking a great thing, and
  just such as Christ had done, he adduces the Prophet as a witness.
  Wherefore it behooves of these men which have companied with us all the time. (v. 21.) Why does he make it their business too? That the
  matter might not become an object of strife, and they might not fall
  into contention about it. For if the Apostles themselves once did
  this, much more might those. This he ever avoids. Wherefore at the
  beginning he said, Men and brethren. It behooves to choose from
  among you. He [Peter] defers the decision to the whole body, thereby
  both making the elected objects of reverence and himself keeping clear
  of all invidiousness with regard to the rest. For such occasions
  always give rise to great evils. Now that some one must needs be
  appointed, he adduces the prophet as witness: but from among what
  persons: Of these,”\ he says, which have companied with us all the
  time. To have said, the worthy must present themselves, would have
  been to insult the others; but now he refers the matter to length of
  time; for he says not simply, These who have companied with us, but,
  all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John unto that same day that He was taken up from
  us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of His resurrection
  (v. 22): that their college (ὁ χορὸς) might not be left mutilated.
  Then why did it not rest with Peter to make the election himself? What
  was the motive? This; that he might not seem to bestow it of favor.
  And besides, he was not yet endowed with the spirit. And they
  appointed two, Joseph called Barsabus, who was surnamed Justus, and
  Matthias (v. 23.). Not he appointed them: but it was he that
  introduced the proposition to that effect, at the same time pointing
  out that even this was not his own, but from old time by prophecy; so
  that he acted as expositor, not as preceptor (Homily III).

Chrysostom seems to maintain that Matthias appointment was not only proper, but was in a sense extraordinary in that one of the reasons he was appointed was that he had been a personal witness to Jesus, along with the rest of the Apostles


How many languages had the Hebrew Bible been translated into by 30 CE? I had thought that the Old Testament had two versions: Greek and Hebrew. Today, from this link I've found that before the Greek Bible, there was another version, the Aramaic Bible.

During Jesus time, did the Jews use versions of the Old Testament in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek? Did they use versions in other languages?

I'm sorry as I have misunderstood the link above.
After searching the internet, I found another link :

  The writings of the Old Testament of the Bible were preserved in three
  languages - Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, and have been passed on to us ...//cut

And this

  The originality and the importance of Aramaic Old Testament (known as
  Peshitta Tanakh) can be seen through its consistency by solivng the
  contradiction between  Septuagint and Hebrew Masoretic Text (Hebrew
  Old Testament written several centuries after Jesus Christ)

I'm unable to find out about on what year the Aramaic Old Testament began to be used or translated.

Today I search more about my question, and this link say :

  Jesus was quoting Aramaic. Not Septuagint. Aramaic was the spoken
  language of first century Israel.

From the sentence above, then there were three version Bible language in that time. But it seems still not clear as in Wiki I found out :

What Theodore of Mopsuestia says of the Old Testament is true of
both: "These Scriptures were translated into the tongue of the
Syriacs by someone indeed at some time, but who on earth this was
has not been made known down to our day".
F. Crawford Burkitt concluded that the translation of the Old
Testament was probably the work of Jews, of whom there was a colony
in Edessa about the commencement of the Christian era.
The older view was that the translators were Christians, and that
the work was done late in the 1st century or early in the 2nd.

Today I've also read this link which I get from this link

  The Peshitta Tanakh is the ancient Scriptures translated into Lishana
  Aramaya (Aramaic language) from the original Hebrew text which
  pre-dated the Greek Septuagint text (LXX).

It might be helpful for you to research the Septuagint, which is also referred to as LXX being the Roman numeral for seventy as it is traditionally believed that seventy Jewish elders performed the Hebrew to Greek translation in about 300 B.C.

Many Jews, in the days of Christ on earth, would have read this Greek translation of the Hebrew scripture. It is probable that both Jesus and his apostles are quoting from the Septuagint when we read their references to the Old Testament writings in the Greek New Testament writings of the first century.

I think you may have misunderstood the article in your link. It is referring only to Daniel and Ezra, which were written during the captivity, when Judah was carried off to Babylon, and parts of which are written in the Chaldee (Aramaic) dialect, not pure Hebrew. But there is not a huge amount of difference between Chaldee (Aramaic) and Hebrew.

My understanding is that Aramaic is not, exactly, Babylonian Chaldee. Upon the return to Israel, some Jews who had been influenced during the seventy years of captivity (particularly those growing up in Babylon) would have adapted Chaldee to Aramaic upon their return. They developed another dialect once they were back in their homeland, partly influenced by their exile in Babylon.

Scholars, scribes and Pharisees would have studied the scripture in the original Hebrew as the Jews carefully preserved what had been delivered to them by Moses and the prophets. But in parts of Israel, particularly Galilee in the north, both Aramaic and Greek were spoken.

No scripture was written in the Aramaic dialect, however. Daniel and Ezra were retained in their original form. There was an Aramaic translation (the Peshita, as is mentioned in your new link) and, later, there was Jerome's Latin Vulgate.

I would be very interested if anyone else were to post an answer containing more detail.

Like many things, there is some modern dispute about some of the details of the manuscripts available during that period.

During the days of Christ on earth there were two main scriptures being used in Israel, the pure Hebrew scripture (within the canon of which were Daniel and Ezra partly in Chaldee) and the Greek Septuagint. It was a time of great change and the Greek language had become the lingua franca of the Mediterranean region.


Do any Protestant denominations recognize Latter Day Saints as Christians? Correct me if I'm wrong but I think the Catholic, Anglican, and Orthodox churches do not so that leaves the Protestants.

By Protestant, I mean the 'mainstream' Protestant denominations, with minimal (if any) reference to the more obscure sects. This is because I think the term 'Protestant' belongs to those who accept a handful of certain beliefs (trinity, faith-centered outlook, etc) that are often not present in the more rare denominations.

Do any Protestant denominations (not Latter Day Saints themselves) believe that Mormonism is an acceptable permutation of the "true faith" or whatever the essence of Christianity is or do they only respect their right to self-identify as whatever they want?

I am not interested in potential opinions of individual Protestant believers.

Multiple definitions of Christian

Despite meaning "those who belong to Christ" word Christian is often regarded to mean "Christ-like". On some level, this means that any religious movement or group which seeks to be "like Christ" and claims to follow Christ can make a case for being "Christian".

While mainstream Protestantism often defines "Christian" in this manner, it often uses the word very differently. For example, most denominations will provide adherents and congregants with instructions on how to "become a Christian." This then implies that there are specific criteria which are required to be Christian, and it is not merely being "Christ-like".

Further clouding this issue however is the common belief that in order to be "saved" one must only believe that Christ died for your sins and rose again.

Because this belief is professed by Latter Day Saint (LDS) doctrine, many Protestants often believe that followers of the LDS church are saved.

Significance of the the Trinity in Protestantism

Within Protestantism, the trinity is nearly universally professed. For example, This doctrine was extremely important in the theology of Martin Luther, the initator of the Protestant movement. In his dissertation, "The doctrine of the Trinity in the hymns of Martin Luther" Dr. Paul John Grime explores Martin Luther's views on the Trinity vis-a-vis his hymns. From the Abstract:

  While the doctrine of the Trinity was central to Luther's whole theological system, little attention has been paid to it. Most significantly, much of the research on Luther's theology has failed to note that Luther's well-known teaching on justification by faith was firmly grounded in his trinitarian thought. In order to investigate this matter, I chose to examine Luther's Trinity doctrine as it is presented in his hymns.

  ...

  My examination of Luther's Trinity doctrine revealed a teaching that had much in common with the early church's dogma, especially its strong soteriological slant. Luther had a strong desire, however, to present the reformation teachings in a simplified form that could be grasped by the common person. This was clearly evident in his hymns, where Luther used simple language to convey a rich and vibrant teaching on the doctrine of the Trinity.

  ...

  My conclusion affirmed my thesis, namely, that Luther's hymns do contain a doctrine of the Trinity that faithfully reflects that doctrine as presented in his other writings. Furthermore, I concluded that the hymns served well as a vehicle for proclaiming the reformation teachings, including the doctrine of the Trinity.

As such, Article I of the Augsburg Confession of the Lutheran Church states

  Our Churches, with common consent, do teach that the decree of the Council of Nicaea concerning the Unity of the Divine Essence and concerning the Three Persons, is true and to be believed without any doubting; that is to say, there is one Divine Essence which is called and which is God: eternal, without body, without parts, of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness, the Maker and Preserver of all things, visible and invisible; and yet there are three Persons, of the same essence and power, who also are coeternal, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. And the term "person" they use as the Fathers have used it, to signify, not a part or quality in another, but that which subsists of itself.

Similarly, the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith states in Chapter 2.

  In this divine and infinite Being there are three subsistences, the Father, the Word or Son, and the Holy Spirit. All are one in substance, power, and eternity; each having the whole divine essence, yet this essence being undivided. The Father was not derived from any other being; He was neither brought into being by, nor did He issue from any other being. The Son is eternally begotten of the Father. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. All three are infinite, without beginning, and are therefore only one God, Who is not to be divided in nature and being, but distinguished by several peculiar relative properties, and also their personal relations. This doctrine of the Trinity is the foundation of all our communion with God, and our comfortable dependence on Him.

Furthermore, the Westminster Confession of Faith states in Chapter 2.

  In the unity of the Godhead there be three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost: the Father is of none, neither begotten, nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son.

In Jesus and the Father: Modern Evangelicals Reinvent the Doctrine of the Trinity Dr. Kevin Giles makes clear the importance the Trinity in Evangelicalism:

  In the past thirty years there has been an amazing resurgence of interest in the doctrine of the Trinity. Roman Catholics, mainline Protestants, and Eastern Orthodox theologians have published numerous studies and books on the Trinity, and they are continuing to appear. Evangelicals at first were not involved, but a change is under way, as this book and otherw written recently by evangelicals indicate.1 After a long period of neglect, this doctrine is now on center stage as it should be, because it is nothing less than our distinctive Christian doctrine of God.

  1 For example, Millard Erickson, God in Three Persons: A Contemprary Interpretation of the Trinity (Grand Rapids, Mich. Baker, 1995); Roger E. Olson and Christopher A. Hall, The Trinity (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2002); Stanley J. Grenz, Rediscovering the Triune God: The Trinity in Contemporary Theology (MinneapolisL Fortress, 2004); Brian Edgar, The Holy Trinity in Scripture, History, Theology, and Worship (Oillipsburgm N.J.: P&R, 2004).

And in The Rise of Evangelicalism: The Age of Edwards, Whitefield and the Wesleys Dr. Mark A. Noll tells his readers:

  In the context of the eighteenth century, Evangelicals stood with Arians, proto-liberals and anti-confessionalists in championing the Bible against tradition, but they stood with Christian traditionalists in affirming the Bible against reduced views of God, Christ and the Trinity.

  As it was with the Bible, so it was also with the other doctrines of classical Christianity. Evangelicalism colored and often invigorated and often invigorated doctrines like the divinity of Christ, the Trinity, the sinfulness of humanity and the human need for divine salvation.

In short, this doctrine is of extreme importance to Protestants and nearly every Protestant Denomination affirms the Trinity, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed.

Centrality of the Trinity to Salvation

The reason Protestants often adopt the benchmark of salvation as the determining factor as to the Christianity of an individual or group indicates the fact that there are in fact several criteria for salvation. Let us examine one such criteria.

Acts 16:31 states

  They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved, you and your household.”

This statement then makes it extremely important what you believe about who Christ said he was. In Knowledge of the Holy, A.W. Tozer frames it this way, (pg 5)

  Among the sins to which the human heart is prone, hardly any other is more hateful to God than idolatry, for idolatry is at bottom a libel on His character. The idolatrous heart assumes that God is other than He is - in itself a monstrous sin - and substitutes for the true God one made after its own likeness. Always this God will conform to the image of the one who created it...

  Not all who called themselves Christians through the centuries were Trinitarians, but as the presence of God in the fiery pillar glowed above the camp of Israel throughout the wilderness journey, saying to all the world, “These are My people,” so belief in the Trinity has since the days of the apostles shone above the Church of the Firstborn as she journeyed down the years. Purity and power have followed this faith. Under this banner have gone forth apostles, fathers, martyrs, mystics, hymnists, reformers, revivalists, and the seal of divine approval has rested on their lives and their labors. However they may
  have differed on minor matters, the doctrine of the Trinity bound them together.

  This, however, is the real Christian faith, that we honor one
  single God in three Persons and three Persons in one single Godhead..

  this tenet of the ancient creed has been held by the Eastern and
  Western branches of the Church and by all but a tiny minority of Christians.

And for this reason, belief in the Trinity is not just important, but is required for salvation. If one does not believe that Jesus was a member of the trinity, a part of the triune Godhead, then one does not actually believe in Jesus. Instead they believe in an idol of their own making, for it is clear in scripture and it has been clear throughout history to so many theologians that Jesus claimed to be God. As St. Thomas Aquinas said in Nature and Grace,

  Explicit belief in the Trinity has therefore been necessary for salvation from the very beginning. ...it is impossible to believe explicitly in the mystery of the incarnation of Christ without faith in the Trinity. For the mystery of the incarnation of Christ includes that the Son of God took flesh, that he made the world new through the grace of the Holy Spirit, and that he was conceived by the Holy Ghost.

Comparing doctrines of the Trinity

This then begs the question, "Do Latter-Day Saints believe in the Trinity?". Upon first glance it may seem so. If you were to ask any LDS missionary this question, they would state yes. They will frequently state that they believe that God is three persons with one purpose. For example,

  Each member of this trinity is called God, and together they constitute the Godhead. As indicated, they are three separate beings, but they are one in purpose, and Jesus repeatedly testified of the unity existing among the three.

During the October 1978 General Conference, First Counselor to the Presidency, Nathon Eldon Tanner stated:

  Each member of this trinity is called God, and together they constitute the Godhead. As indicated, they are three separate beings, but they are one in purpose, and Jesus repeatedly testified of the unity existing among the three.

And according to an FAQ on the LDS web site regarding LDS beliefs,

  What do Mormons believe about God ?

  God is often referred to in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as our Heavenly Father because He is the Father of all human spirits and they are created in His image (see Genesis 1:27). It is an appropriate term for God who is kind and just, all wise and all powerful. God the Father, His Son, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost constitute the Godhead or Trinity for Mormons. Latter-day Saints believe God is embodied, though His body is perfect and glorified.

  Do Mormons believe in the Trinity?

  Mormons most commonly use the term “Godhead” to refer to the Trinity. The first article of faith for the Latter-day Saints reads: “We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.” Latter-day Saints believe God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost are one in will and purpose...

Often the explanation will end there, however in this FAQ, the author continues

  Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost are one in will and purpose but are not literally the same being or substance, as conceptions of the Holy Trinity commonly imply.

And this distinction is important because the Nicene Creed states:

  We believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, begotten from the Father before all ages, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made; of the same essence as the Father. Through him all things were made. For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven; he became incarnate by the Holy Spirit and the virgin Mary, and was made human. He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate; he suffered and was buried. The third day he rose again, according to the Scriptures. He ascended to heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again with glory to judge the living and the dead. His kingdom will never end. And we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life. He proceeds from the Father and the Son, and with the Father and the Son is worshiped...

And the original creed ended:

  But those who say: 'There was a time when he was not;' and 'He was not before he was made;' and 'He was made out of nothing,' or 'He is of another substance' or 'essence,' or 'The Son of God is created,' or 'changeable,' or 'alterable'— they are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic Church.

The LDS Church however teaches this doctrine arose from the Great Apostasy

Conclusion

Because of this divergence in definition and understanding of the Trinity, Protestants do not believe that Latter-Day Saints are Christian. This is even acknowledged by the Latter Day Saint Church in the March 1988 issue of Ensign magazine in an article titled "Comparing LDS Beliefs with First-Century Christianity" By Daniel C. Peterson and Stephen D. Ricks:

  Since the inception of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, many critics have denied that it is Christian. Surprisingly, the basis for the claim has little to do with the standard definition of Christian: anyone or any group that believes in Jesus Christ as the Savior and Son of God. Rather, it has to do with Latter-day Saint doctrines that some feel are alien to “traditional Christianity,” where “traditional Christianity” means that body of beliefs held by most present-day Christian churches. The argument essentially goes that if the LDS church believes in certain doctrines not believed in by most present-day Christian churches, then the LDS church cannot be Christian.

  ...Latter-day Saints do reject the doctrines of the Trinity as taught by most Christian churches today. For the most part, these creeds—the most famous of which is the Nicene Creed—were canonized in the fourth and fifth centuries A.D. following centuries of debate about the nature of the Godhead.

Similarly in Lesson 136 of the Doctrine and Covenants and Church History Seminary  Teacher Manual, Elder Jeffrey R. Holland of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles staes

  I think it is accurate to say we believe They are one in every significant and eternal aspect imaginable except believing Them to be three persons combined in one substance, a Trinitarian notion never set forth in the scriptures because it is not true.

  Indeed no less a source than the stalwart Harper’s Bible Dictionary records that ‘the formal doctrine of the Trinity as it was defined by the great church councils of the fourth and fifth centuries is not to be found in the [New Testament]’ [Paul F. Achtemeier, ed. (1985), 1099; emphasis added].

  So any criticism that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not hold the contemporary Christian view of God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost is not a comment about our commitment to Christ but rather a recognition (accurate, I might add) that our view of the Godhead breaks with post–New Testament Christian history...

So in summary, both Protestant and Latter Day Saint Churches agree that Protestants to not regard Latter-Day Saints to be Christian, the disagreement is merely over whether that assessment is fair and accurate.

Thus the only Protestant groups that would agree would be any denomination which does not profess the Doctrine of the Trinity. To my Knowledge, the only "mainstream" protestant group are Unitarian Universalists.


How does one know if God is calling him to be a priest? According to Catholicism, How does one know if God is calling him to be a priest?

If one is contemplating being a diocesan priest, what is the normal way one should do things in order to determine his discernment towards this call?

Is there a different approach taken for those who are considered late vocations?

For example take my own circumstances:

Earlier in my life, I ran after the highest level of education and tried very hard to achieve it. But after 20 years of effort, I obtained a certificate. I ran after every secular thing that there is. Nothing seems to attract me. So I am just wondering how does one knows if God is calling him to be a priest and what steps does one normally take to find out in the Catholic Church? What should one do?

The question of whether you are called to be a priest, or really any other specific calling, is not one you make on your own. If you feel you might be called to such a thing you should follow a number of steps. Since we don't  give personal spiritual advice, this will be generic advice.

First, pray about it. Ask God to show you whether he is really calling you or not. Pray lots, and keep praying during all the remaining stages.

Second, talk to someone about this. Someone who both knows you and knows something about the position you believe you are being called to. Not necessarily someone in that position, but who is not ignorant about it. Alternatively proceed straight to the next step.

Third, talk to your church leader, presumably your own priest. They will obviously know something about the position you think you are called to and a bit about you. They will pray with you and for you, and will give advice and their discernment of the situation. They also know the process, and if they agree that you may be called they will set the next steps in motion.

If after this these people, and you, agree that you might be called to a position then the next stage will be some sort of official discernment process. Part of this process is for the church to decide, with you, whether you are in fact called to a specific role. The details of the process will vary from church to church so there is no point in me describing it.

Note that this assumes you are in a church with a formalized clergy, which the word 'priest' would seem to imply. If your church is more congregation-based any official process will be very different. But praying about it yourself, and then praying with others, is almost always the best first step.


What is the Roman Catholic position on the validity of the marriage between an infertile man and infertile woman? What is the Roman Catholic position on the validity of the marriage between an infertile man and infertile woman? Also, from this standpoint, what is the difference between a marriage in which both partners are opposing sexes but infertile and a marriage in which both partners are the same sex?

I assume you are asking about the validity of a marriage between people who cannot conceive children. The position is summed up in this paper. To summarize:

  Infertility does not prevent a person from validly entering into marriage. The Code of Canon Law affirms, “Sterility neither prohibits nor invalidates marriage” (No. 1084.3). Appreciating the suffering of an infertile couple, the Catechism states, “Spouses to whom God has not granted children can nevertheless have a conjugal life full of meaning, in both human and Christian terms. Their marriage can radiate a fruitfulness of charity, of hospitality, and of sacrifice” (No. 1654). In this case, a couple can consummate the marriage, but they just cannot conceive children.

Your last point, about marriage between partners of the same sex, is an entirely different question and I suggest you ask it separately.


What's the point of the second commandment? If the first commandment, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" means that God, and God alone is to be worshipped, why do we have the Second Commandment?

Aren't idols covered in the First Commandment? Worshiping an idol would be "having another god" before the Lord, and we don't have extra commandments covering lust (just the one general one on adultery) so why the extra commandment?

Note: I've answered this myself from a Protestant/Reformed view, but I'd love to hear what other traditions have to say and my answer is by no means an exhaustive one

The First Commandment covers who to worship, but the Second Commandment covers how.

Often when the Israelites worshiped idols they were actually trying to worship Yahweh[citation needed] and were going about it all wrong. In the Second Commandment, God was giving a clear explanation on what kind of worship was acceptable, and idolatrous worship was out.

From a reformed protestant point of view, I understand this to be forbidding prayer to or worship of images of God or Jesus.

Neil Postman, author of Amusing Ourselves to Death (and also Jewish, I believe) comments:

  I wondered...why the God of these people would have included
  instructions on how they were to symbolize, or not symbolize, their
  experience. It is a strange injunction to include as part of an
  ethical system unless its author assumed a connection between forms
  of human communication and the quality of a culture. We may hazard a
  guess that a people who are being asked to embrace an abstract,
  universal deity would be rendered unfit to do so by the habit of
  drawing pictures or making statues or depicting their ideas in any
  concrete, iconographic forms. The God of the Jews was to exist in the
  Word and through the Word, an unprecedented conception required the
  highest order of abstract thinking.

While Postman is using this as example of how different media affect their cultures, it's interesting to think about it in light of the New Testament and Paul's statements about faith and sight.

  For we walk by faith, not by sight. - 2. Cor. 5:7

and also

  For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at
  all. Who hopes for what they already have? - Romans 8:24

The idea seems to be that we are to walk by faith, trusting in the Word of God and not in the tangible images we might construct. We are to worship God by faith, not by sight.


If we are to think good things(Phil 4:8) why are there seemingly pointless sinful things in the Bible? 8 Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.

Phil 4:8 (KJV)

This is a fairly well known verse that deals with not dwelling on things that are, in a general term, bad. If God didn't want us to think of bad things, why did He put seemingly useless bad things in His Bible? 2nd Samuel 16:20-22 seems to not have a point except for showing how wicked Absalom is. Surely we get the idea that he was really bad because of the way he overthrew his father's kingdom and tried to kill him; is there a different point of this passage?

The call to think about good things is not a proposal of turning a blind eye to the wickedness of men but to see it under the light of the gospel which makes even darkness praise God's grace. It may be worth noting that the exhortation starts with thinking about what is 'true'. This in practical terms means think about whatever is in the Bible, including all the dark and evil things that it exposes under its marvelous light.  The difference though is that the scripture does not dwell on evil in and of itself as men do because we have a wicked curiosity in evil, rather through the truth the scripture unveils a clear picture if the evil of men as part of a grand scheme of saving them through the gospel.  This means that the 'truth' includes making known sin and through the law.   For unless a man knows the wickedness of human nature and includes himself in that wickedness he will have no interest in the gospel, for it is the sick that need a doctor not the healthy:

  On hearing this, Jesus said to them, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.” (Mark 2:17, NIV)

One can see the gospel rests upon a knowledge of evil and on the sense of guilt and condemnation produced from that offers forgiveness and eternal life.  This essentially paints the order: it is 'truth' to see our great sins, it is 'honest' to admit them and yearn for help, it is 'just' to know that we deserve eternal punishment.  Furthermore it is a revealed 'justice' previously unknown to the church God would punish his own Son that we might be made righteous through grace. The righteousness revealed in the gospel is 'pure' and 'lovely' and of a very 'good report'.  Those who believe it not only see the virtue of God's love but love one another and praise God for the endless favor he has freely given the elect forever to the praise of his grace. So we see all these things are reasonable and in accordance with both the horror of sin and death manifest and condemned by God's law as well as the  meek and mild savior who presented himself as a sacrifice to atone and satisfy that law in order to present a redeemed people bathed in love and the glory of God's grace for all of creation to stand in awe of now and forever more.    The little stories of various people and their sins throughout the bible are a very important part of the glorious truth which it developed until the full glory of the gospel was made known.


How is the LDS churches belief on a pre-mortal existence different than other Christian religions? A document published by the church Of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints titled the proclamation to the family  refers to a premortal identity and purpose or a premortal realm.

How is the LDS churches belief on a pre-mortal existence different than other Christian religions?

Most Christians believe that your spirit is created the same time as your body when you are conceived (or sometimes born depending on who you ask). LDS believe that before the Earth was even created, everyone's spirit was already created and we all lived together with heavenly father as spirit children. When we are conceived on Earth, our spirits enter the body. LDS also believe that we are literally spirit children of God the Father and are literally spiritually related to each other. LDS also believe that Jesus Christ is our oldest spirit brother (the first born of God) and that even Lucifer (Satan) was also our brother. There are a lot more. If you really want to know more, tackle one of those missionaries as they ride past on their 10 speeds and ask more. It really is an interesting concept even if you don't believe in other Mormon doctrine.


Who nurtured Adam when he was an infant? Assuming that Adam was placed on Earth as an infant...

  Who nurtured Adam when he was an infant?

Here's the relevant text:

  When no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up—for the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the land, and there was no man to work the ground, and a mist was going up from the land and was watering the whole face of the ground—then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature. And the LORD God planted a garden in Eden, in the east, and there he put the man whom he had formed.—Genesis 2:5-8 (ESV)

Thus, either:

God created Adam fully formed or
God created Adam as an infant and placed him a garden where he was able to live safely.

In both cases, it is God who made sure that Adam lived.

A subsequent text suggests that option #1 is correct:

  The LORD God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it. And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”—Genesis 2:15-17 (ESV)

Otherwise, how could God expect the man to work and keep the garden, and how could he understand God's commands?


What is the gist of CARM's criticism of Joyce Meyer? Joyce Meyer was accused of false teaching by CARM. I can find no response from Joyce Meyer ministries as to misrepresentation, and CARM refer to some poor audio tapes and her book written in 1993. I'm confused, because she appears to me to be on point, but is accused of heresy and other non biblical teachings.

CARM has said a few things about Joyce Meyer and has called some of her teachings heresy.

  [CARM was] glad to see an affirmation [in Meyer's teachings] of the Trinity, that man is a sinner, that without Jesus we can have no relationship with God, that salvation is a free gift, and eternal hell of conscious damnation.

Some things Meyer has said that CARM has labeled as misguided or heresy are:

"Jesus stopped being the Son of God on the cross." CARM calls this heresy and dangerous and urges Meyer to repent.
"Jesus was the first person to be born again." CARM calls this "a serious error since it implies that Jesus needed to be changed"
"Jesus paid for our sins in Hell." CARM says Jesus paid for our sins on the cross.
"Jesus went to Hell in our place and suffered and was tormented." CARM says there is no reason to believe that Jesus suffered in Hell to finish atonement for the sins of the World.
"If you don't believe that Jesus went to Hell you cannot be saved." CARM calls this heresy.
Joyce Meyer describes her Christ given righteousness in a way that CARM finds unbiblical and motivated by pride.
"Demons literally stood on Jesus in Hell and laughed." CARM calls this completely made up and part of the same heresy that Jesus was tormented in Hell.
Meyer claims to have a gift of revelation from God, but CARM argues that must be impossible because some of her teachings stand in contrast to what the Bible says.

It seems that most of CARM's objections relate to Meyer's teaching that the cross was not sufficient and required Jesus to be tormented in Hell too.

Additionally, CARM takes objection that Meyer has taken the proper role of a preacher which CARM believes is a position that should only be held by men.

Since first approaching her in 2011, CARM claims that Joyce Meyer has not responded to their inquiries or accusations.

Sources:

Joyce Meyer by Matt Slick - CARM.org
Did Jesus die spiritually? by Matt Slick - CARM.org


What is Christus Victor? According to several internet sites (for example, here and here), C.S. Lewis' book The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe expresses a particular understanding of the Atonement, known as Christus Victor.

What are the key points of the Christus Victor understanding of the atonement, and what distinguishes it from other perspectives?

There are several ideas about the atonement that can come under the heading of Christus Victor. Ultimately, the term could apply to any account of the atonement that accords with:

  The work of Christ is first and foremost a victory over the powers which hold mankind in bondage: sin, death and the devil. 1

One of the reasons why it is a bit hard to pin down is that it is basically a narrative viewpoint  - it's a way of telling the story of the atonement, in order to bring people to Christ, and it doesn't necessarily propose a coherent, propositional account of the "mechanics" of atonement. It therefore contrasts, both in style and content, with the satisfaction viewpoints: these not only paint a different picture of the atonement, but they're also more driven by the attempt to give an account that is both rationally justifiable and theologically defensible.

Under the general Christus Victor theme, the Aslan story follows the Ransom Theory of the atonement. This can be traced to the early Fathers, including Origen and Augustine in particular. There is some historical doubt about whether the ransom theory came first, and alternative Christus Victor explanations accreted around it in response to its flaws, or whether ransom theory is one particular systematization of an earlier, more nebulous collection of Christus Victor ideas. In any case, the theory proceeds something like this:

Due to sin, human beings were in bondage to Satan.
Jesus offered himself as a substitute. Since Jesus would be a better prize, Satan accepted; we then become free of his domination. Jesus is the ransom paid to Satan.
But Jesus could not be held by Satan - he escapes death and is resurrected to eternal life.

In Narnia, we see step 1 by the Witch's statement,

  "You know that every traitor belongs to me as my lawful prey, and that for every treachery I have a right to a  kill." 2

and step 3, as told by Aslan, is

  "Though the Witch knew the Deep Magic, there is a magic deeper still which she did not know. [...] when a willing victim who had committed no treachery was killed in a traitor's stead, the Table would crack and death itself would start working backwards." 2

There are some points to criticize about ransom theory in particular (without necessarily invalidating the Christus Victor view in general).

It puts some sort of legitimacy on Satan's claim to us: God appears to be required to pay the ransom. Anselm objected to this.
God wins through trickery, like offering fairy gold that disappears in the morning. This is also hard to square with the legitimacy point: if Satan isn't going to be truly paid, then why bother with the charade of paying the ransom?
Augustine used the metaphor: "The cross of the Lord was the Devil's mousetrap; the bait by which he was caught was the Lord's death" 3, which to some sounds rather impious.
The resurrection is no longer an essential part of the atonement, but more like an added bonus. We are freed as soon as Christ is accepted as a substitute, so he doesn't need to come back to life in order to complete the atonement.

The standard contrasting view is the satisfaction doctrine. Here, the debt is due not to Satan, but to God himself, and it is God's justice (demanding a penalty for sin) that must be met. Christ is the perfect sacrifice, substituted for us, and so justice can be satisfied. This theory has its drawbacks, too. It can make God look tyrannical and bloodthirsty, and there's no obvious link to the life and teaching of Christ - it's all about his death and resurrection. A Christus Victor account places the gospel as part of the victory, according with the central idea of Christ's defeat of sin.

1. Gustaf Aulen, Christus Victor, 1931 (trans. by A. G. Hebert from the Swedish Den kristna försoningstanken, 1930).
2. C. S. Lewis, The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, 1950.
3. Muscipula diaboli, crux domini; esca qui caperetur, mors domini. - Augustine, Sermon 263, beginning On the fortieth day, the ascension of the Lord.


What is the history of Irish Catholic resentment toward Protestantism? In the Pulitzer Prize-winning book, Angela's Ashes, the author depicts several instances of Irish Catholic animosity toward Protestants, especially those from America. What is the background of this rift, and does it persist today?

The history of religious conflict in Ireland is far too complex to tear down in a single answer, but this should provide some clues for further reading. For background what you need to read up on is not actually anything specific to Christianity so much as the overall political history of Ireland. For example Wikipedia says the following in its introduction to the topic:

  The Crown did not attempt to assert full control of the island until
  after Henry VIII's repudiation of papal authority over the Church in
  England and subsequent rebellion of the Earl of Kildare in Ireland
  threatened English hegemony there. Henry proclaimed himself King of
  Ireland and also tried to introduce the English Reformation, which
  failed in Ireland. Attempts to either conquer or assimilate the Irish
  lordships into the Kingdom of Ireland provided the initial impetus for
  a series of Irish military campaigns between 1534 and 1603. This
  period was marked by a Crown policy of plantation, involving the
  arrival of thousands of English and Scottish Protestant settlers, and
  the consequent displacement of the pre-plantation Catholic
  landholders. As the military and political defeat of Gaelic Ireland
  became more pronounced in the early seventeenth century, sectarian
  conflict became a recurrent theme in Irish history.

  The 1613 overthrow of the Catholic majority in the Irish Parliament
  was realised principally through the creation of numerous new boroughs
  which were dominated by the new settlers. By the end of the
  seventeenth century, recusant Roman Catholics, as adherents to the old
  religion were now termed, representing some 85% of Ireland's
  population, were then banned from the Irish Parliament. Protestant
  domination of Ireland was confirmed after two periods of war between
  Catholics and Protestants in 1641-52 and 1689-91. Political power
  thereafter rested entirely in the hands of a Protestant Ascendancy
  minority, while Catholics and members of dissenting Protestant
  denominations suffered severe political and economic privations at the
  hands of the Penal Laws.

The context in which religion is mentioned in that article should give you a pretty good clue but let me spell it out. Ireland was torn apart for centuries by an ongoing struggle for domination by various monarchies or other political powers. (e.g. War of the Roses, Hundred Years' War, and others). The various parties involved in the struggle each brought with them their own religious affiliation, and the one-to-one pairing with political positions and religious traditions meant each successive party's struggle for power became strongly associate with that party's religious affiliation. In fact those identities were often conflated.

Does this animosity persist today? Yes, but not universally. Many many Irish individuals from both religious camps have individually worked out their issues. Many many churches and larger groups have waded in to turn the tide on the animosity. Yet still pockets of animosity persist.

The best summary of the problem I know of is found in a ballad called There Were Roses written by Tommy Sands. If you've never heard it, it's worth a listen. There are a thousand covers to suit most musical tastes, but the lyrics are a poignant summary of the problem.

  […]

  Now Isaac he was Protestant and Sean was Catholic born
  But it never made a difference, for the friendship it was strong
  And sometimes in the evening when we heard the sound of drums
  We said it won't divide us, we always will be one

  […]

  Now fear it filled the countryside there was fear in every home
  When late at night a car came prowling round the Ryan Road
  A Catholic would be killed tonight to even up the score
  Oh Christ it's young McDonald they've taken from the door

  Isaac was my friend! he cried, he begged them with his tears
  But centuries of hatred have ears that do not hear
  An eye for an eye, it was all that filled their minds
  And another eye for another eye till everyone is blind

  […]


What is the definition of 'free will' as explained in the Bible? Reading a question on this site I suddenly realized that I do not know what 'free will' means. I cannot find a definition in other questions asked and my philosophy books clouded the whole issue. Augustine says a lot but also seem to think I already know what it means. So I thought I would look in the Bible but can't find the term.

Where in the Bible can I find a definition or explanation?

In "An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith" (ἔκδοσις ἀκριβὴς τῆς ὀρθοδόξου πίστεως), Book II, Ch. XXX (§44), John of Damascus wrote,

  Χρὴ γινώσκειν, ὡς πάντα μὲν προγινώσκει ὁ θεός, οὐ πάντα δὲ προορίζει· προγινώσκει γὰρ καὶ τὰ ἐφ' ἡμῖν, οὐ προορίζει δὲ αὐτά· οὐ γὰρ θέλει τὴν κακίαν γενέσθαι οὐδὲ βιάζεται τὴν ἀρετήν. Ὥστε τῆς θείας προγνωστικῆς κελεύσεως ἔργον ἐστὶν ὁ προορισμός. Προορίζει δὲ τὰ οὐκ ἐφ' ἡμῖν κατὰ τὴν πρόγνωσιν αὐτοῦ· ἤδη γὰρ κατὰ τὴν πρόγνωσιν αὐτοῦ προέκρινε πάντα ὁ θεὸς κατὰ τὴν ἀγαθότητα καὶ τὴν δικαιοσύνην αὐτοῦ.

which I translated as,

  It is necessary to understand, while God foreknows everything, yet He does not predetermine everything. For He even foreknows those things that are dependent on us, but He does not predetermine them. For He neither wills evil to occur nor forces virtue, so that predetermination is the work of the divine command of foreknowledge. On the other hand, God predetermines those things which are not dependent on us, according to His foreknowledge. For according to His foreknowledge, God has already forejudged all things according to His goodness and righteousness.


What is the meaning of the question Luther's companions shouted on his deathbed? In Martin Luther's Biography, In his final hour, Justus Jonas and Michael Coelius who were his companions shouted loudly and asked this question:

  "Reverend father, are you ready to die trusting in your Lord Jesus Christ and to confess the doctrine which you have taught in his name?"

Luther was known to say Yes to this question. How should I understand this situation?

Hard to be certain, but if I were to guess, I'd explain the reasoning like this:

Luther had done something unprecedented.  There was one Catholic (universal) Church, who claimed that they alone held the keys to salvation.  But Luther had dared to claim that salvation could be found outside the authority of the Catholic Church.

Obviously this gained him a great deal of notoriety, and some amount of power as well, as he ended up with followers and disciples.  And he could easily have imagined that this would end up happening when he started out.  This leaves the lingering question, did he do it all for the glory?  Or did he genuinely do it because he believed it was the right thing to do?

If he was a fraud, his disciples are in big trouble and they'd better get back on the path as quickly as they can, and go back to the Catholic Church and seek forgiveness.  Otherwise, they end up damned for eternity!  So they ask him on his deathbed, when he knows his time is over and he has no more reason to lie, (if it was a lie) whether the whole thing was genuine.  And he affirmed, with no reason to lie, that yes, it was.


Why First Epistle to St. John by St. Ignatius of Antioch is considered to be spurious? Why First Epistle to St. John by St. Ignatius of Antioch is considered to be spurious? Were there any valid reasons put forth to consider it as spurious? The wiki page and this Catholic source only state that this and other epistles by St. Ignatius of Antioch are considered to be spurious, but don't mention any reasons why.

Philip Schaff explained why in his preface to the spurious eight epistles (emphasis mine):

We formerly stated that eight out of the fifteen Epistles bearing the name of Ignatius are now universally admitted to be spurious. None of them are quoted or referred to by any ancient writer previous to the sixth century. The style, moreover, in which they are written, so different from that of the other Ignatian letters, and allusions which they contain to heresies and ecclesiastical arrangements of a much later date than that of their professed author, render it perfectly certain that they are not the authentic production of the illustrious bishop of Antioch.
We cannot tell when or by whom these Epistles were fabricated. They have been thought to betray the same hand as the longer and interpolated form of the seven Epistles which are generally regarded as genuine. And some have conceived that the writer who gave forth to the world the Apostolic Constitutions under the name of Clement, was probably the author of these letters falsely ascribed to Ignatius, as well as of the longer recension of the seven Epistles which are mentioned by Eusebius.
It was a considerable time before editors in modern times began to discriminate between the true and the false in the writings attributed to Ignatius. The letters first published under his name were those three which exist only in Latin. These came forth in 1495 at Paris, being appended to a life of Becket, Archbishop of Canterbury. Some three years later, eleven Epistles, comprising those mentioned by Eusebius, and four others, were published in Latin, and passed through four or five editions. In 1536, the whole of the professedly Ignatian letters were published at Cologne in a Latin version; and this collection also passed through several editions. It was not till 1557 that the Ignatian Epistles appeared for the first time in Greek at Dillingen. After this date many editions came forth, in which the probably genuine were still mixed up with the certainly spurious, the three Latin letters, only being rejected as destitute of authority. Vedelius of Geneva first made the distinction which is now universally accepted, in an edition of these Epistles which he published in 1623; and he was followed by Archbishop Usher and others, who entered more fully into that critical examination of these writings which has been continued down even to our own day.
The reader will have no difficulty in detecting the internal grounds on which these eight letters are set aside as spurious. The difference of style from the other Ignatian writings will strike him even in perusing the English version which we have given, while it is of course much more marked in the original. And other decisive proofs present themselves in every one of the Epistles. In that to the Tarsians there is found a plain allusion to the Sabellian heresy, which did not arise till after the middle of the third century. In the Epistle to the Antiochians there is an enumeration of various Church officers, who were certainly unknown at the period when Ignatius lived. The Epistle to Hero plainly alludes to Manichæan errors, and could not therefore have been written before the third century. There are equally decisive proofs of spuriousness to be found in the Epistle to the Philippians, such as the references it contains to the Patripassian heresy originated by Praxeas in the latter part of the second century, and the ecclesiastical feasts, etc., of which it makes mention. The letter to Maria Cassobolita is of a very peculiar style, utterly alien from that of the other Epistles ascribed to Ignatius. And it is sufficient simply to glance at the short Epistles to St. John and the Virgin Mary, in order to see that they carry the stamp of imposture on their front; and, indeed, no sooner were they published than by almost universal consent they were rejected.
But though the additional Ignatian letters here given are confessedly spurious, we have thought it not improper to present them to the English reader in an appendix to our first volume. We have done so, because they have been so closely connected with the name of the bishop of Antioch, and also because they are in themselves not destitute of interest. We have, moreover, the satisfaction of thus placing for the first time within the reach of one acquainted only with our language, all the materials that have entered into the protracted agitation of the famous Ignatian controversy.


Life is a Divine Test Is Divine Test a common notion among the Christians, so that they may regard life and its difficulties such as the Corona virus, earthquakes and plagues as divine tests by God to examine humans as to either purify them or specify their obedience?

For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.
[2 Corinthians 5:10 KJV]

The thought that life is a testing process is fundamental, I would say, to cultures and ideologies throughout the world in all generations.
And it is a fundamental thought, I would say, in every Christian mind.
To prove whether or not it is, however, would require a vast amount of research and documentation and citation.
Which is why I prefer to just quote the scripture and to add a paragraph from the Westminster Confession :

Good works, done in obedience to God’s commandments, are the fruits and evidences of a true and lively faith:c and by them believers manifest their thankfulness,d strengthen their assurance,e edify their brethren,f adorn the profession of the gospel,g stop the mouths of the adversaries,h and glorify God,i whose workmanship they are, created in Christ Jesus thereunto;k that, having their fruit unto holiness, they may have the end, eternal life.

Westminster Confession Chapter 16 - Good Works


Why aren't the two greatest commandments part of the Decalogue? In Matthew 22:36-40 (NIV) Jesus says:

36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” 37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

These two commandments are registered in the old testament, and can be specifically found in:
Deuteronomy 6:5 (NIV):

5 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength.

And Leviticus 19:18 (NIV):

18 “‘Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against anyone among your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the Lord.

However, none of these commandments can be found in the Decalogue (Exodus 20:1-17), which many claim to be the "moral law".
How come the two greatest commandments are not part of the Decalogue? Doesn't this show that all the other 603 non-decalogue commandments of the Old Testament shouldn't be dismissed, as the two greatest ones belong to them?

Jesus had a way of calling attention to that which underpinned the Law as the Jews were accustomed to viewing it.  For instance:

“You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.’ But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire. - Matthew 5:21-22

The letter (of the Law/Old Covenant) kills but the spirit (of the Law/New Covenant) gives life:

Not that we are sufficient in ourselves to claim anything as coming from us, but our sufficiency is from God, who has made us sufficient to be ministers of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit. For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. - 2 Corinthians 3:5-6

The first and greatest commandment, "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind", summarizes the Spirit of the first 4 commandments of the Decalogue in particular and, since all sin is against God, all 10 in general.  If a person truly loves God with everything that they have they will not be in violation of the first 4 commands which specifically have one's personal relationship with God in view.
The second commandment,  "Love your neighbor as yourself", summarizes the Spirit of the last 6 commandments in particular.  These commands have to do with one's personal relationship and responsibility under God to our fellow man.  If a person loves God in the fashion that produces righteousness under the first 4 commands they will be able, then, to love neighbors as self and not be in violation of the remaining 6 commands.
Some view the 5th command within the first grouping (vertical relationship), others as within the second grouping (horizontal relationship), and still others as a kind of a hinge between the two.  Regardless of where #5 falls, love for God is critical for it's fulfillment.
In this way all the Law and the Prophets hang on these two.  Thus it is said in 1 John 4:19-21 -

We love because he first loved us. If anyone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen. And this commandment we have from him: whoever loves God must also love his brother.

The only way to love our neighbor as ourselves (2nd greatest command) is to first love God with all we have (1st greatest command).  The only way to love God in this fashion is to receive the love that God first loved us with:

In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. - 1 John 4:10

The way to receive this love of God is to believe in the Son, to be born again/from above (John 3) and to be indwelt by the Holy Spirit, through whom the love of God is shed abroad in the heart's of men:

Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Through him we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in hope of the glory of God. Not only that, but we rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance, and endurance produces character, and character produces hope, and hope does not put us to shame, because God's love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us. - Romans 5:1-5

Therefore:

There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. - Romans 8:1-4


Was the covenant with Adam suspended or replaced by the covenant with Noah? I am a new Christian who just started reading the Bible and just read the first few books in one sitting, and I have a lot of questions.  Before I ask them all, I would like to ask just one question, but I will ask it in several ways, so that people understand me. I am a teenager.

Was the covenant with Adam suspended or replaced by the covenant with Noah?
What was basis for salvation under Adam?

Was the covenant with Noah likewise suspended or replaced by the covenant with Abraham?
What was basis for salvation under Noah?

Was the covenant with Abraham likewise suspended or replaced by the covenant with Israel?
What was basis for salvation under Abraham and Israel?

The Adamic Covenant is found in Genesis 3:16-19. As a result of Adam’s disobedience sin entered into the world, and death through sin.  Death is the inescapable fate of ALL of Adam and Eve’s descendants.  In other words, it applies to all humanity.  That covenant has not been revoked.

The Noahic Covenant, found in Genesis 9:8-17, is the promise that God made to Noah and his descendants after the flood which destroyed the world.  It is an unconditional covenant and it was made to Noah and ALL his descendants as well as “every living creature” and the earth in general (Genesis 9:8-10).  That covenant still applies, and the rainbow in the sky reminds us that God will never again destroy the world by water.

The Abrahamic Covenant is God’s promise to bless Abraham (Genesis 12:2), that Abraham would have numerous descendants (Genesis 13:16), and that he would be the father of a multitude of nations (Genesis 17:4-5). God also made promises regarding a nation called Israel.  God promised that the families of the world will be blessed through the physical line of Abraham (Genesis 12:3; 22:18). This is a reference to the Messiah, who would come from the line of Abraham.  The Palestinian, or Land Covenant (Deuteronomy 30:1-10) expands on God’s promises to Abraham.

God has made four covenants with the nation of Israel: Abrahamic, Palestinian, Mosaic, Davidic.  Three of those covenants are unconditional, i.e., regardless of Israel’s obedience or disobedience, God will uphold his end of the covenant.  Only the Mosaic covenant is conditional, i.e., this covenant will bring either blessing or cursing depending on Israel’s obedience or disobedience.

Because it is impossible for imperfect people to keep God’s perfect laws, the Law (as handed down to Moses and the nation of Israel) condemns.  That is why God introduced a New Covenant.  It’s in Jeremiah 31:31-34. All who enter into the New Covenant will be set free from the penalty of the Law, which condemns.

The Christian perspective is that Christ Jesus has fulfilled the Law of Moses (Matthew 5:17) and the New Covenant provides the opportunity to receive salvation as a free and undeserved gift (Ephesians 2:8-9). Christians believe the New Covenant is not restricted to Israel but is open to Gentiles (non-Jews) who come to saving faith in Christ Jesus.

Edit: The basis for salvation from Adam till Jesus is faith in God and in God’s promises.  Hebrews chapter 11 lists many Old Testament characters who, because of their faith in God, were assured of being the recipients of God’s promises:

  ”All these people were still living by faith when they died.  They did not receive the things promised; they only saw them and welcomed them from a distance.  And they admitted that they were aliens and strangers on earth... Instead, they were longing for a better country – a heavenly one.  Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared a city for them” (Hebrews 11:13-16).

The Adamic Covenant is still in force as evidenced by the fact we still die.  It also points forward to the time when the last enemy, death, will be destroyed.  Jesus’ resurrection showed how death could be defeated and after the millennial reign of Christ, sin (and its consequences) will be no more.

The Noahic Covenant (that God will not destroy the world by flood) is still in force as evidenced by the rainbow in the sky.  It has nothing to do with our eternal salvation or with the Abrahamic Covenant and applies universally to peoples.

The Abrahamic Covenant embraces the promises made by God to Israel.  The promised blessings to Abraham’s descendants have been partially fulfilled in the coming of the Messiah (who came through the line of Abraham).  The full restoration of Israel awaits the second coming of Christ.

Three of the seven covenants (Adamic, Noahic, New) are made between God and mankind in general, and are not limited to the nation of Israel.  All of the Covenants God has established are integral to the ultimate fulfilment of God’s purposes which culminate after the millennial reign of Christ and the final conflict when He destroys Satan and all who follow him.  So, the answer to your question is no, in the sense that all those covenants are still in force, although they all point to the New Covenant.  And the basis for salvation always has been and always will be faith in God and in his promises to bless all who turn to Him.


200 Denarri sufficient for purchasing Bread? In Mark 6:37, some disciples comments and indicate that the 200 denarii would have been enough to purchase bread needed to feed the 5000.

But he answered them, “You give them something to eat.” They said to him, “Are we to go and buy two hundred denarii[a] worth of bread, and give it to them to eat?” (NRSV)
[a]Mark 6:37 The denarius was the usual day’s wage for a laborer

But in John 6:7, Philip says that 200 Denarii would not be enough to feed them.

Philip answered him, “Six months’ wages[a] would not buy enough bread for each of them to get a little.” (NRSV)
[a]John 6:7 Gk Two hundred denarii; the denarius was the usual day’s wage for a laborer

Is there a contradiction here?

I'm not sure that there is a contradiction. Using the NIV translation:

They said to him, “That would take more than half a year’s wages [200 denarii]! Are we to go and spend that much on bread and give it to them to eat?” — Mark 6:37
Philip answered him, “It would take more than half a year’s wages [200 denarii] to buy enough bread for each one to have a bite!” —John 6:7

The two verses are not mutually exclusive. Notably, the first doesn't specify how much each person would receive (just saying that the crowd would be given bread).
So putting these two verses together, buying half a year's wages worth of bread would:

Be shockingly expensive (Mark 6:37)
Only be enough for each person to have one bite (John 6:7)

There does not seem to be any contradiction between these two statements.


What does it mean that Jesus fulfilled the law but did not abolish it? We hear that we are no longer under the law.  It even says so in Galatians:

  Galatians 3:23-25
  Before the coming of this faith, we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed.  So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian.

It seems 1 Corinthians 10:23 also supports this.

But yet, Jesus said that he did not come to abolish the law:

  Matthew 5:17-18
  “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."

What did Jesus mean that he did not come to abolish the law, but fulfill it, especially since it seems from later in the Bible that he did abolish the law.

I think part of the difficulty comes as a bit of confusion as to what is meant by the law and its application.

When the law was introduced, it was never intended to be the instrument by which man would save himself, but it was the instrument through which man was to be saved.   In a very real sense, man is saved through the fulfilment (keeping) of the law.   When Christ fulfilled the law, he earned the privilege of life.  Those who are in Christ, likewise, share in his righteousness and are delcared righteous right along side him.   In that sense, the law has always stood and and will continue to stand.

That being said, though, it's important to realize that we basically choose whether the law applies to us individually or not -- through grace, we can choose to be in Christ, or we can choose to stand on our own merits when we're judged.   In that sense, too, the law still stands.

Paul talks a good deal about this in the book of Romans, and the whole book gives a much more complete (and competent :) ) version of an explanation that I'm about to...

I think it's important to realize the role of the law.  I'm going to jump arount a bit, but if we start with Romans 7:7-12, I think we can make a little more sense of this (emphasis mine):

  Romans 7:7What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means!
  Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. For I
  would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, "You
  shall not covet." 8But sin, seizing an opportunity through the
  commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness. For apart from
  the law, sin lies dead. 9I was once alive apart from the law, but when
  the commandment came, sin came alive and I died. 10The very
  commandment that promised life proved to be death to me. 11For sin,
  seizing an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and
  through it killed me. 12So the law is holy, and the commandment is
  holy and righteous and good.

There's a certain bit of irony when the law is introduced to human nature.   Being rebellious and sinful that we are, we latch on to the specifics as a means to found outlet for our repressed frustrated rebellions.   The law was never meant to save man, but rather was a contrast between the holiness of God and the depravity of man. The law offered life through its fulfilment and death through its violation.   This is a subtle but significant key, I think we somehow overlook when discussing grace, as this seems to be exactly how Jesus came to be our savior offering us hope for life...He earned that right by fulfiling the law.

That being said, there's still hope for us wretched sinners:

  Romans 7:4Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to the law through
  the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has
  been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God.
  5For while we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused
  by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death. 6But
  now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us
  captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the
  old way of the written code.

Looking at the block starting with v.7 we see that the law is not bad (in fact it's good) just because we use it as a springboard for badness.   The law is good, and it's been fulfilled by Christ.   He was the one who fulfilled it; not us.

When we look on the Romams 8, Paul clarifies a bit more (Emphasis mine):

  Romans 8: 1 There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are
  in Christ Jesus. 2For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free
  in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. 3For God has done what
  the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son
  in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the
  flesh, 4in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be
  fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to
  the Spirit. 5For those who live according to the flesh set their minds
  on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit
  set their minds on the things of the Spirit.

The righteous requirement of the law has been fulfilled in us (those who are in Christ Jesus) by virutue of us being in Christ.   The law has been fulfilled, there is, therefore no condemnation for those who are clothed with Christ's righteousness, but we should remember that those who live according to the spirit set their minds on spiritual things and will see to live in accordance with God's moral law.  Romans 6:15 reminds us of this, but note, (Paul does suggest again that we're not under the law, per se):

  Romans 6:15What then? Are we to sin because we are not under law but
  under grace? By no means! 16Do you not know that if you present
  yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one
  whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience,
  which leads to righteousness? 17But thanks be to God, that you who
  were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the
  standard of teaching to which you were committed, 18and, having been
  set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness. 19 I am
  speaking in human terms, because of your natural limitations. For just
  as you once presented your members as slaves to impurity and to
  lawlessness leading to more lawlessness, so now present your members
  as slaves to righteousness leading to sanctification.

With his blood, Jesus purchased us from death.   Jesus was the fulfilment of the law; not us.  Because of that, we are bound as slaves of righteousness.   We're not going to fulfill the law in our own lives, and we're not expected to; but lest we use this as an excuse to sin without rein, we are supposed to set our sights on righteousness out of gratitude and duty to our Savior.  Those who understand the Gospel (the goodness of God, the wickedness of sin, the graciousness of God to provide a savior) will, naturally seek to please the God who save them and whom they serve, and the best way we can know what this is it to look to the law He's given us.

ETA: TL;DR:

When Jesus came to fulfil the law (i.e. obedience leads to life; disobedience leads to death) he did just that.   Notice He didn't say, that old law's no good, don't worry about it (i.e. abolish it); what he did, instead, was to come saying the law is good, and he is the fulfulment of it.