Do Jehovah Witnesses believe that Jesus Christ returned to Earth in 1914, or has this teaching now been abandoned? I would be interested in having some clarification on this topic.
I once had a poster displayed in my house with the text, "The coming of the Lord draws near." James 5:8. Two very sincere and concerned Jehovah Witnesses knocked on my door and explained you can't say that (James 5:8) as it already happened in 1914. I am informed that this is a doctrine that has now been abandoned or revised. I am curious as to which is true?

Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe Jesus returned to Earth in 1914. Rather, they believe Jesus began ruling from Heaven in 1914. There haven't been any adjustments regarding 1914 in recent years.

The significance of 1914 is pretty well known among all JWs. It marks the beginning of Jesus' kingship in heaven over God's Kingdom. The book, What Does the Bible Really Teach? says:

  At that time, “the appointed times of the nations” ended, and Jesus
  Christ was installed as God’s heavenly King. —Psalm 2:1-6; Daniel
  7:13, 14.

  Just as Jesus predicted, his “presence” as heavenly King has been
  marked by dramatic world developments—war, famine, earthquakes,
  pestilences. (Matthew 24:3-8; Luke 21:11) Such developments bear
  powerful testimony to the fact that 1914 indeed marked the birth of
  God’s heavenly Kingdom and the beginning of “the last days” of this
  present wicked system of things.—2 Timothy 3:1-5.

This book is used very commonly to aid in conducting Bible studies, so you can be sure that these are the current beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses.

In regard to James 5:8, this "coming" is discussed in more detail at  Matthew 24:3-14. It's clear from this scripture that it represents a period of time, not a single event. The word translated as "coming" is also commonly translated as "presence".

In regard to your comment which mentions that "every eye shall see him" (Revelation 1:7), Jehovah's Witnesses believe there will be a supernatural sign of Jesus' presence as well. It's described in Matthew 24:30 as an event that will occur very shortly before Armageddon. This is an event that didn't occur in 1914. It's still in the future.

For more information see: What Is the Coming of Christ?


Do not Judge others, or do we Judge others? I hear so much about "Do not judge others, lest you be judged." I know that there's more scripture out there that gives us a better insight into our responsibilities.

Can you please answer this question. Are we allowed to judge others? Are we called to Judge others? Are there certain groups of people that we can and cannot judge? Are there prerequisites to judging others?

Please start off with a simple Yes or No to the title question and then follow up by explaining the ins and outs of this confusing topic.

Yes, you can judge others... once you're perfect. There's more to that passage than just that.

  Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. -- Matthew 7:1-2

The idea here is that we're going to be held accountable to keep the same standard as we measure others against. When you think about being judged by the standard you hold for others, it makes you want to put that standard very, very low, just in case you mess up for a while.

The rest of the passage goes on:

  And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye. -- Matthew 7:3-5

Meaning that before you even begin to look at someone else's life, you need to make sure you're ALREADY measuring up to the standard you're holding for others. Since we can never attain perfection here on earth, I think it's pretty safe to say that we won't ever be able to say, "I've taken care of everything in my life now, and so I'm ready to start pointing out the flaws in yours."


What did CS Lewis think didn't reflect God? Lewis followed Plato's notion of the Forms. He believed everything on Earth reflected the all-perfect, all-joyous God.
Or did he?
I asked a Christian recently if he thought CS Lewis thought 'all' (books, films, footballs, Frankenstein, Snow White and the Seven Dwarves...even termites or earthworms....EVERYTHING) things reflected God. He said no.
But surely this is incorrect? Lewis (I would have thought) felt evil was negation of good, not existing, created forms...Therefore all 'things' cannot be entirely ungodly (in so much as something exists of them!) and, therefore, nothing existing is 'unqualified' to reflect Him?- particularly pleasurable things for He created pleasures...
But am I missing something and is there 'something' Lewis would have felt unreflective?

I think your friend either misunderstands you or Lewis. You will find a nice essay by David Allred, comparing C.S. Lewis and Plato, at "Into the Wardrobe".

Things in themselves

It is perfectly Christian to reflect that all things in themselves are good. Indeed, Paul asserted the idea just as clearly: "I am convinced, being fully persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean in itself." (Romans 14)

Thoughts in themselves

Now, you do muddy the waters a bit when you bring creative works into the picture. By "creative works", I means things to which humans have added meaning, such as "Snow White and the Seven Dwarves" or "The Jerry Springer Show". The things in themselves, certainly, are not unclean. But it is difficult for us to dissociate the things themselves from the meaning we ascribe to them or the meaning intended by them by their authors. And there we have reason for reservation.

Jesus said, "Whoever shall speak a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whoever shall speak against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him." I bring up this quote only to highlight this fine distinction. In light of Paul, we would say that merely uttering the sounds of a blaspheme against the Holy Spirit is not what Jesus is warning against — otherwise, quoting someone else blaspheming the Holy Spirit would be equally condemnatory, which would place the verbalization itself on the order of an incantation. Of course, this isn't the point. As Jesus said elsewhere, "Out of the heart come evil thoughts, [etc.].... These are what make a man 'unclean'."

The subtlest evil thoughts contain a good deal of truth (which is why they are so deceptive); and it is to these fragments of truth we can cling, and by which we can grow, if we are vigilant, humble, prayerful, and earnest. This, in fact, is how any of us grow at all: we swim submerged in a sea of deceptions, venturing to breath only the bubbles of truth as we find them.

And the plainest evil thoughts serve as inversions of the good — negatives images of true things and true colors. These don't deceive us much, and though they may contain scant (if any) fragments of truth, we can still use them for growth, because they repel us to the truth, to goodness, and to beauty. (Though, indeed, it is impossible to speak for long without saying something true.)

Thus, a God-hearted individual can use any thought to draw nearer to God, no matter what the intended meaning was. But, to say that God can make good out of any thought or meaning is not to say that all thoughts therefore are good in themselves.

It is not possible to speak of the inherent goodness of thoughts with the same quick affirmation with which we speak of the inherent goodness of things. We have a habit of conflating the thing with the thought in the case of creative works — and here, I think, is where your primary objection will be found.

The meanings which viewers make

But as I said before, it is impossible to speak long without saying something true (and, likewise, I expect, something false), and so in this sense, and with this optimism, I can, with a faithful heart, find God reflected in any creative work. But this idea of "reflection" depends more upon me, the viewer, than it does upon the work itself. That is to say, the good viewer can find good where it is scarce and make good where it is absent. I have seen the Spirit in me make good of films I would recommend burned and never seen by any human being evermore (and this is important to remember). But to say that therefore the work is good in itself because I could find good in it — I cannot affirm that, and I am not sure where to draw the distinction between the thing and the thought.

Perhaps, in the case of creative works, the things can be said to be good (the ink and the shapes on the paper, and the light and sound waves which compose the video and audio), in the same sense that all other things are good, but the thoughts can be said to be amoral, and thus their moral status depends upon our relationship to them (the author and the audience), so that, as Paul says, "if anyone regards something as unclean, then for that person it is unclean."


Can a male Catholic and a female Non Catholic have their marriage blessed at the Sacristy? I had my customary (traditional marriage in Ghana witnessed by the two families) marriage ceremony about seven months ago with a baptized Christian who is not a Catholic. The marriage was held at her family home and was led by pastors from her church without any official approval from my priest. We intend to have our marriage blessed soon, but not in the presence of the entire congregation as a matter of making every thing very simple. Can it therefore be held at the Sacristy or the priest's office?

Cathy Caridi, JCL, is a canon lawyer who has a blog, and she commented on a very similar situation to yours. Let me try to paraphrase what she has written about it:
According to Canon 1108, a valid marriage where at least one of the parties is a Catholic must be officiated by the local Ordinary, parish priest, or a priest or deacon appointed by them:

1108
§1. Only those marriages are valid which are contracted before the local ordinary, pastor, or a priest or deacon delegated by either of them, who assist, and before two witnesses according to the rules expressed in the following canons and without prejudice to the exceptions mentioned in cann. 144, 1112, §1, 1116, and 1127, §§1-2.
§2. The person who assists at a marriage is understood to be only that person who is present, asks for the manifestation of the consent of the contracting parties, and receives it in the name of the Church.

This is referred to as the marriage having canonical form. Since your marriage was officiated by a non-Catholic priest, then it lacked the relevant canonical form, and thus its validity hinges on you getting a previous dispensation from canonical form, as per Canons 1124–1126:

1124 Without express permission of the competent authority, a marriage is prohibited between two baptized persons of whom one is baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it after baptism and has not defected from it by a formal act and the other of whom is enrolled in a Church or ecclesial community not in full communion with the Catholic Church.
1125 The local ordinary can grant a permission of this kind if there is a just and reasonable cause. He is not to grant it unless the following conditions have been fulfilled:
1/ the Catholic party is to declare that he or she is prepared to remove dangers of defecting from the faith and is to make a sincere promise to do all in his or her power so that all offspring are baptized and brought up in the Catholic Church;
2/ the other party is to be informed at an appropriate time about the promises which the Catholic party is to make, in such a way that it is certain that he or she is truly aware of the promise and obligation of the Catholic party;
3/ both parties are to be instructed about the purposes and essential properties of marriage which neither of the contracting parties is to exclude.
1126 It is for the conference of bishops to establish the method in which these declarations and promises, which are always required, must be made and to define the manner in which they are to be established in the external forum and the non-Catholic party informed about them.

However, since the marriage has already happened, and its only reason for invalidity is the lack of dispensation of canonical form, you can petition your Ordinary to receive a retroactive dispensation, called a radical sanation, as described in Canons 1161–1163:

1161
§1. The radical sanation of an invalid marriage is its convalidation without the renewal of consent, which is granted by competent authority and entails the dispensation from an impediment, if there is one, and from canonical form, if it was not observed, and the retroactivity of canonical effects.
§2. Convalidation occurs at the moment of the granting of the favor. Retroactivity, however, is understood to extend to the moment of the celebration of the marriage unless other provision is expressly made.
§3. A radical sanation is not to be granted unless it is probable that the parties wish to persevere in conjugal life.
1162
§1. A marriage cannot be radically sanated if consent is lacking in either or both of the parties, whether the consent was lacking from the beginning or, though present in the beginning, was revoked afterwards.
§2. If this consent was indeed lacking from the beginning but was given afterwards, the sanation can be granted from the moment the consent was given.
1163
§1. A marriage which is invalid because of an impediment or a defect of legitimate form can be sanated provided that the consent of each party perseveres.
§2. A marriage which is invalid because of an impediment of natural law or of divine positive law can be sanated only after the impediment has ceased.

It is this radical sanation, or else another procedure called a simple convalidation, which is canonically meant when people speak of having marriages blessed. This means it is not a ceremony, but a canonical procedure. Therefore any ceremonies that might take place in addition can be done anywhere your parish priest and you two think prudent.
Therefore, I would talk to him about the issue; I'm sure you will be able to work out something which is acceptable to all parties.


How could Cain have built Enoch? God cursed Cain to be an eternal wanderer:

  Genesis 4:12 King James Version

  When thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee
  her strength; a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth.

So he went to a (probably figure-of-speech) land of wandering, the land of Nod, this much I understand. But then he builds the first city, Enoch. How is it compatible with being an eternal wanderer?

Here's the problem.  The translation you're using is not a very good translation.  This is the verse you're referring to (in a translation that actually supports your argument):

In Genesis 4:12 (NIV), God tells Cain

  When you work the ground, it will no longer yield its crops for you. You will be a restless wanderer on the earth.

The phrase here, "then in moaning and trembling you will be upon the earth".  That is what is often translated as "restless wanderer" or "fugitive and vagabond"

Why?  Well, let's dig in:

  stenochōria Strongs 2532 dire calamity, extreme affliction

  kaiv Strongs 2532 and etc

  tremō Strongs 5141 tremble, to fear, be afraid

  eimi Strongs 1510 to be, to exist, to happen, to be present

  epi Strongs 1909 upon, on, at etc

  ho Strong 3588 this, that, these

  gē Strongs 1093 arable land, ground, the earth as a whole, a country, region, etc

So, the idea is with "[dire calamity/extreme affliction] and [trembling/fear] you [will exist/be present] upon [the earth/the land/the region]".

That doesn't really say anywhere that he will wander or that he will never stop wandering.  However, if you combine these two concepts:  fear and affliction, it's understandable that the translators could interpret that as someone who would wander.

If I was full of fear and troubled with distress, I would probably wander as well.

However, having said this, I have no idea why they chose that translation.  It seems to be a poor translation of this phrase.

Given a decent understanding of the curse, it should be easier to see that building a city and being fearful and in distress do not conflict.


If Jesus was God, then why did he pray? I don't know much about Christianity so I was watching this video:
Is Jesus God?

I was stunned by the following things:

At the start of the debate Stanley Sjoberg says Jesus is the Son of God.
Near the 21:30 mark, the pastor mentions, "you see Jesus is not the son of God". At the beginning he said "Jesus is the son of God". After that he said "Jesus is the God" and then "Jesus is equal to God". Is he equivocating here or what is going on?
If Jesus was God, then why/to whom did he pray? How many Gods are there?
How many gods are there in Christianity? If there is a god superior/bigger than Jesus, then why are there no Church/temple for those gods? Why do people not worship them?

There is one God who has revealed himself in three persons.

The vast majority of Christians across all major sects agree that Jesus is both the Son of God and God. This has been articulated many mays, but is not easy to explain in the confines of language. He is not the "son" as is a physical offspring as the result of sexual relations, but in another sense of being "begotten". Not created (as he always existed), and not lesser than (as they are one God) but having a defined relationship in himself. This is the classic issue knows as the "Trinity"—one God in three persons, all fully God not separate beings.

We don't know (because we aren't told) exactly why God is this way, just that he is and this is how he has revealed himself to us. God himself chose to become a man, to reveal himself to us in human flesh, the God-man Jesus Christ—100% God, 100% man.

One famous articulation of this can be found in the Athanasian Creed:

  Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.

  For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit.

  But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal.

  Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit.

  The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated.

  The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.

  The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.

  And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal.

  As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible.

  So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty.

  And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty.

  So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God;

  And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.

  So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord;

  And yet they are not three Lords but one Lord.

Having listened to Pastor Stanley's address, he seems quite clear. You may not like or fully understand what he is saying, but he isn't equivocating or being irrational. His representation of what the Bible says about Jesus is rather accurate and would be agreeable to most Christians of every major sect.

The statement at 21:30 is quite plain but you have taken it out of context. He says "Jesus is not the son of God in the same way that I am the son of my Father". In this section he is defining his terms and making it what he does or does not mean. He goes on to explain how God's existence transcends the physical creation and we only exist in him. Therefor our physical relationship to our fathers is just a small aspect of a son/father relationship and what God means when he says that Jesus is his son is much more than that. All the way up to minute 28 he expands on the idea of God's "begetting" a son transcending our understanding of the physical world.

On a few minor points unrelated to the person of Jesus he wanders a little bit from broadly accepted teachings. For example his theology seems to be dispensational and pre-millenial. His eschatology is not important for this question whether those views are correct or not, but you should be aware that there are differences between major Christian sects on those issues. Likewise the bit in minute 43 about no-cost would be disputed by a number of Christian perspectives.
As for why Jesus prayed, there are several explanations. One is simply that as a man he demonstrated how to live in a proper relationship with God. He was a perfect role model for men and therefore did what men should do. Additionally as one of the persons of the God-head he was in fellowship with his Father.

Of course there are no other superior beings nor churches or temples dedicated to any other in true Christianity because we believe in only one God.


Why do the majority of Protestants celebrate Easter on the same day as the Catholic Church? There are likely some Protestants that either refuse to celebrate Easter or with Jehovah witnesses that celebrate on a different day to the Catholic Church.

But the vast majority of Protestant ecclesial communities can be caught celebrating Easter at the same time as the Catholic Church. Every single year since 1518.

Protestants have not used the same date for Easter as Catholics for every year since 1518. They did until 1582, but in 1583 the Pope introduced the Gregorian Calendar. From then on Protestants generally calculated Easter in the traditional way, using the Julian Calendar, still used in most Orthodox churches.

The original principle related Easter to the Full Moon after the Equinox and ruled the equinox was March 21. By the sixteenth century the rule was out of kilter with the principle. From 1583 to 1752 Easter was usually celebrated by Protestants, in the British Empire, later than Catholics. In some parts of Germany a different method was used from 1700 and it survived in  Sweden into the 19th century.  It was astronomically based.

Sir Isaac Newton tried to introduce an astronomically fairly accurate method in England,  but eventually gave up saying the English would rather disagree with the sun and moon than agree with the pope. In 1752 the British Parliament decided to align the calendar generally with the Gregorian Calendar, though calling it the Georgian Calendar, and tables for Easter were produced on the Roman basis, though differently presented. This applied throughout the British Empire although it was binding only on the Church of England,  Church of Scotland and Church of Ireland, as regards religious observance.


How does Catholic Church differentiate between the presence of Jesus and that of the Holy Spirit on the earth? We see Jesus telling His disciples at John 14:15-16 (NRSVCE):

  If you love me, you will keep my commandments.  And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate, to be with you forever

In the first appearance, Jesus is promising the Holy Spirit to the disciples as a replacement for His physical presence with them. But, we also see Him telling the disciples at Matt 28:19-20 (NRSVCE):

  Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,   and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age.

My question therefore is: How does the catholic Church differentiate between the presence of the Holy Spirit on the earth as promised by Jesus at John 14:16 vis-a-vis His own presence as mentioned at Mtt 28:20?

The sending of the Holy Spirit is one of the means by which Christ fulfills his promise to be with us always.
The Haydock Catholic Bible Commentary enumerates additional ways in which Christ remains with us:

by always dwelling in the hearts of the faithful;
by his sacramental presence in the holy Eucharist;
by his providential care, and constant protection to his holy Catholic Church.


From whom or what Jesus was hiding (afraid of) in the given cases during his ministry? We know Jesus is not afraid of anybody or anything, but let us consider these scenarios during His ministry.

Jesus healing a leper- Mark 1:43-44

  "Jesus sent him away at once with a strong warning: “See that you don’t tell this to anyone. But go, show yourself to the priest and offer the sacrifices that Moses commanded for your cleansing, as a testimony to them.”

Jesus Heals a deaf and mute man"- Mark 7:36

  "And He gave them orders not to tell anyone; but the more He ordered them, the more widely they continued to proclaim it. "

Jesus warns disciples- Mark 8:29-30

  “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”
  Peter answered, “You are the Messiah.”
  Jesus warned them not to tell anyone about him.

So here is my question -  To whom or what Jesus was hiding/afraid of in these cases?

Jesus was totally aware of the future, and he was also aware of all of the possibilities of people making differing decisions. In other words God will not interfere with our free will, and so the future depends heavily on all our decisions and each decision will set into motion a different course for the future.

Although Jesus was afraid of nothing, the plan of Salvation was based on all of those decisions happening in a specific order.

  Matthew 26:18 KJV  And he said, Go into the city to such a man, and say unto him, The Master saith, My time is at hand; I will keep the passover at thy house with my disciples.

Jesus had to follow the plan God had determined, and every step along that path was necessary to fulfill the prophesies of the Old Testament. As for instance the Scripture cited above, was necessary not only to show that he was diligently following a specific course, but that by knowing the specifics of the plan; he was of necessity, showing his disciples the proper reactions to God.

It need be noted here that this also led to his teaching them servitude by his washing their feet, an action normally assigned to the lowest of servants.

Jesus was afraid of no man but did fear not completely following the plans of God. Unless every facet of Jesus life were to take place exactly as planned some important part of the plan would be incomplete. Therefore, Jesus was warning them that there was a danger in not completing the plan completely.

  John 7:8 KJV  Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up yet unto this feast; for my time is not yet full come.

John 7:8 is indicative of just how critical the timing was in Jesus life since Jesus did go to Jerusalem, but not at the minute that the others did, so it was not going to the feast Jesus was avoiding, but the timing. Had Jesus gone with them it is possible that when he got to the Temple the Sanhedrin might have been there with their Temple guards and could even have prevented his display of anger at the commercialization of the Temple.

Were not every jot and tittle of his life in the exact timing of God's plan, we must wonder how it would have effected the plan of Salvation.

Jesus was born, lived, and died in total consonance with God's plan to save you and me.

In short the only thing Jesus feared was not being totally obedient to the Father, that is not to say that he desired all of the pain and suffering he encountered, but knew that every pain was necessary to Save us from our sin


What is a priest of Rome? While writing a paper for school, I looked back at this answer so I could use that passage as a reference. In doing so, I got a good look at the title of the book, which I never had before. It’s called In Reply to a Letter by W. A. Anderson, Sometime Vicar of St. Margaret's, Leicester—Now Priest of Rome. It was written by “a layman,” but it was published in London in mdccclii (1852 in Arabic numerals).

I thought the Pope was the Bishop of Rome and that when there’s a bishop there isn’t a priest. Is this book talking about the priest of a normal parish somewhere in Rome as opposed to the Vatican? The man wasn’t the pope. I’d look in the book to see if I could find what it says, but Google Books won’t let me read any more than I have.

Ideally I’m looking for an answer that provides possible explanations for what office this W. A. Anderson held. Even better would be a source mentioning Father Anderson by name*. When it comes down to it, though, I’ll take any sourced answer I can get. Thanks for your time.

*Does the RCC keep a database of priests somewhere?

The priest referred to is actually William Henry Anderdon. Here is what the Catholic Encylopedia (via Wikipedia) has to say about him:

  William Henry Anderdon (26 December 1816 – 28 July 1890) was an English Jesuit and writer, born in London.1

  After three years at King's College London, he matriculated at Oxford, when about nineteen, and entered Balliol College. Soon after, he won a scholarship at University College, Oxford, and took a degree in 1840. He received Anglican ordination, became vicar of Withyam, and in 1846 of St Margaret's Church, Leicester. In 1850 he was received into the Catholic Church in Paris by Father Gustave Delacroix de Ravignan. Ordained at Oscott by Bishop Ullathorne in 1853, he was appointed a lecturer at Ushaw College and afterwards a preacher and confessor at University Church in Dublin. During his stay in Ireland the Franciscan convent of Drumshambo was founded, mainly through his efforts. In 1856, he was called to London by his uncle, Cardinal Henry Edward Manning, whose secretary he remained until he joined the Jesuits in 1872. From 1875 to 1889 he lived in Manchester, working as preacher, spiritual guide, and writer.

  Father Anderdon began his literary apostolate by writing Catholic tales: "Bonneval, the Story of the Fronde" (1857); "Owen Evans, the Catholic Crusoe" (1862); "Afternoons with the Saints" (1863), "In the Snow, Tales of Mt. St. Bernard" (1866). All these stories, save the first, went through nine or ten editions, and were translated into German and French. Other valuable works from his pen are "Fasti Apostolici" (1882), "Evening with the Saints" (1883) and "Britain's Early Faith" (1887). His method in his writings was to understand rather than to exaggerate. Among his works, the best known are "Is Ritualism Honest?", "Controversial Papers" (1878), "Luther's Words and the Word of God" (8th thousand, 1883), "Luther at Table", "What sort of man was Luther?" (13th thousand, 1883). What do Catholics Really Believe?", "Confession to a Priest" (1881).

  His newspaper work displayed a fine sense of irony in treating the polemics of the day. He was ever busy writing for the Weekly Register, the (English) Messenger of the Sacred Heart, the Xaverian, Merry England, the Month, the Irish Monthly, and other serial publications. His last works were The Old Religion of Taunton (1890); and Five Minutes' Sermons, the latter completed only in part at his death.

  References

  Herbermann, Charles, ed. (1913). "William Henry Anderdon". Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company.

  This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Herbermann, Charles, ed. (1913). "William Henry Anderdon". Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton.

A "priest of Rome" is, of course, not a Catholic designation, but a common period English designation for any Roman Catholic priest. The "layman" is certainly not Roman Catholic - the work referred to is an anti-Catholic diatribe and its author is most likely an Anglican.


When did the massacre of the innocents happen? When the Magi had gone, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a
  dream. Get up, he said, take the child and his mother and escape to
  Egypt. Stay there until I tell you, for Herod is going to search for
  the child to kill him. So he got up, took the child and his mother
  during the night and left for Egypt, where he stayed until the death
  of Herod. And so was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the
  prophet: "Out of Egypt I called my son."[9] When Herod realised that
  he had been outwitted by the Magi, he was furious, and he gave orders
  to kill all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity who were two years
  old or under, in accordance with the time he had learned from the
  Magi. Then what was said through the prophet Jeremiah was fulfilled:
  "A voice is heard in Ramah, weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping
  for her children and refusing to be comforted, because they are no
  more.

The thing is Herod the Great was born 74/73 BCE and died in 4 BCE (aged 70),  according to Wikipedia. I know that Wiki is not a credible source at all and that's exactly why I'm asking this question.

Assuming that he died 4 BCE, that means he died 4 years before Jesus was born so he couldn't have committed the massacre. I must be missing something, what is it? If Herod the great didn't commit the massacre, who did? If he did commit the massacre, when did he die?

The first question is what year Jesus was born in.  The people who devised the Christian calendar reckoned that Jesus was born in 1CE, aka 1AD.  (There was no year zero CE).  However, there is a lot of scholarship that concludes that Jesus was born sometime between 6-4BCE.

You can consult Wikipedia on this.  They also have an article on Nativity of Jesus.  One of the estimates they use is to conclude from the gospel texts that Jesus was about 31 years old in the fifteenth year of the Reign of Tiberius.  They then count backwards to 6-4BCE.  That would place Jesus' birth before Herod's death.

Two events occur between Jesus' birth and the massacre of of the innocents, if the gospels are to be relied on.  The first is the visit of the Magi and the second is the flight of Joseph and Mary, with the infant child, to Egypt.  There is enough time between 6BCE and Herod's death for all of these events to take place in the only sequence that makes sense.

Assessment of what various groups of Christians believe in this regard is complicated by the fact that many Christians believe in scriptural inerrancy.  Some Christians hold that inerrancy implies chronological accuracy.  Others don't.

This means that some groups will treat scholarship done from a neutral point of view as a challenge to the faith, while others will view it as a genuine search for truth.


Are there any other books, divined by God, regarding Christianity? To my understanding, the bible is divinely inspired by God? However is this the only book that has been inspired or developed through this method? Are there other books equivalent or near equal to the bible in regards to Christianity?

Prerequisite: Before giving a straight answer, we need to deal with the canonization of the Bible which is a subject of endless debate. Therefore, let us assume that the Bible in this context means the complete Bible including the Apocryphal Books as well.

Are there other books equivalent or nearly equal to the bible in regards to Christianity?

Answer: Yes!.

There are some books nearly equivalent to the books in New Testament Canon but not equal.

Epistles of Clement:
This epistle was included in many of the oldest surviving copies of NT.

Epistle of Barnabas:
Very important epistle written by Barnabas who was a companion of Saint Paul.

The Shepherd of Hermas: Less important but found in many old codices.

Dialogue with Trypho:
A good book which defends the early Christian Faith and theology. Trinity concept is well explained here.

Didache:
A book which explains the ordinances of the early Christian church. Method of Baptism is well described.

Still there are some authentic books which are of far less importance, written by the Church Fathers, but I don't think they are worth mentioning.

Conclusion: As mentioned, these books are not equivalent to the NT Canons but are very close. There is no need of reading them because they speak the same thing what the Canons are saying. They are useful only to defend the authenticity of the NT Canons and to know the early Christian Faith.

Note: Only the NT Canons are regarded as Divinely Inspired by God. Other books like the ones mentioned here may or may not be inspired by God. Even, how the Book of Revelation was selected instead of The Apocalypse of Peter in the NT Canon is also something which we don't really understand.


What is the Biblical basis for using the names "Yeshua" and "Yehoshua" (Joshua) for Jesus? Messianic Jews commonly refer to Jesus as "Yeshua" or "Yehoshua," which are forms of the Hebrew (and Aramaic) name commonly translated into English as "Joshua."

What is the Biblical basis for using these names for Jesus?

This is, as noted, primarily a question about Semitic languages in the First Century. However, as it happens, there is a Biblical record of the relationship between the Semitic name yĕhôšūaʿ and the Greek Iēsous, the diachronic shift that produced yēšûaʿ, and the equation of yēšûaʿ with Iēsous.1

Background

The New Testament is in Koine Greek. Jesus's name here is written as Ἰησοῦς (Iēsous).1 However, it is generally accepted that Jesus spoke primarily Aramaic and/or Hebrew. Determining the precise sounds that Jesus and his friends used to pronounce his name (which is, I suppose, the basis of the preference of the group described in the question) entails speculation about the Hebrew or Aramaic name that corresponds to the Greek name recorded in the Gospels. In this case, whether they were speaking Hebrew or Aramaic is probably not so important. (See below.)

Insights from Septuagint Joshua

As noted in this question and another related question, the name yĕhôšūaʿ is used most frequently in the Bible to the man who served as Moses's "assistant" during the wilderness period and subsequently led the Israelite people into Canaan, as recorded in the eponymous book. This name is transliterated consistently into the Greek of the Septuagint as Ἰησοῦς (Iēsous). Yĕhôšūaʿ, though, has an additional syllable compared to yēšûaʿ, so we remain one step away from a full explanation.

Insights from Late Biblical Hebrew

The Biblical books of Ezra, Nehemiah, and Chronicles provide the link we need. These books were composed during the Persian period (539 - 332 BCE) and so occasionally provide information about the transition between the language of the earlier portions of the Hebrew Bible and the dialect spoken in the first century. In these books, the name yĕhôšūaʿ is used only once, in reference to Moses's assistant (1 Chr 7:27). Otherwise, the name yēšûaʿ is used, most often (only?) to refer to the son of Jozadak, a man referred to in Haggai and Zechariah as yĕhôšūaʿ. This occurs both in Hebrew and in the Aramaic portion of Ezra.2

Starting with Ezra 2:2:

  ESV: They came with Zerubbabel, Jeshua, Nehemiah...
  Hebrew: ʾăšer-bāʾû ʿim-zĕrubbāḇel yēšûaʿ nĕḥemyāh...
  Greek: hoi ēlthon meta Zorobabel; Iēsous, Neemias...

Yēšûaʿ, then, is a shortened form of yĕhôšūaʿ that was more commonly used later periods. In addition to being capable of an identical referent, both are translated identically into Greek: Iēsous.3

Notes

1. I use throughout the technical transliteration style set out by the Society for Biblical Literature. The transliterations in "normal" Latin characters offered in this question and others are no less "correct" (š = sh), but this system has the advantage of precisely representing each Hebrew consonant and vowel with 1:1 correspondence.

2. In Hebrew: Ezra 2:2, 6, 36, 40; 3:2, 8-9; 4:3; 8:33; 10:18; Neh 3:19; 7:7, 11, 39, 43; 8:7, 17; 9:4-5; 10:10; 12:1, 7-8, 10, 24, 26; 1 Chr 24:11; 2 Chr 31:15. In Aramaic: Ezra 5:2.

3. As it happens, in the Septuagint the Greek translation of yēšûaʿ (Iēsous) behaves slightly more like the New Testament's Iēsous than does the Greek translation of yĕhôšūaʿ. Although identical in the nominative case, the Greek term is only partly declinable in the NT: the dative and genitive share the form Iēsou. This is also true in the Greek translations of yēšûaʿ in Chronicles, etc. On the other hand, the dative is (usually) distinguished in the book of Joshua (yĕhôšūaʿ) as Iēsoî.


What does the Emerging church see itself as emerging from? Despite the fact that the emergent/emerging Church is a fairly nebulous and relatively undefined concept, without a centralized organization or structure, they chose the term terms emergent/emerging to describe the movement.

What does that the Emerging church see itself as emerging from?

Evangelicalism. The early leaders of the Emergent church were members of a special project of Leadership Network, a non-denominational parachurch organization designed to help implement church growth/creativity projects for evangelical leaders. Originally, it was a special project aiming at the millennial demographic, which at the time was roughly college aged and showed signed of being a major demographic gap in large evangelical churches. As many of these leaders began to grow in size and popularity they became less affiliated with their traditional churches and more influenced by postmodern theology and philosophy. Though they typically receive harsh criticism from evangelicals for being difficult to pin down, there seems to be a self identity that the Emergent Church is a progressive development of Evangelicalism.


Crucifixion -- torture stake or cross? The Jehovah's Witnesses state that Jesus was not nailed on a cross, but on a torture stake. The New World Translation of the Bible is phrased accordingly. For example:

Matthew 10:38 (NWT)
And whoever does not accept his torture stake and follow after me is not worthy of me.

(All the other translations (that I know of) translate cross instead.)
What is significant about the difference between a torture stake and a cross, and on which one was Jesus crucified?

An illustration of what might be a torture stake:

Crux Simplex by Justus Lipsius (1547-1606). Wikimedia Commons.

There is comparatively little evidence in the NT for the shape of the object. There is not much etymological help from the Greek words σταυρός or ξύλον, which do not clearly indicate either shape.
Some of the textual hints we do have are:

  But [Thomas] said to them, “Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.” (John 20:25, NIV)

This suggests that there was more than one nail placed through the hands, which is more likely on a cross than on a stake - though I could imagine a nail through each hand, with the hands side by side. But the JWs assert that the plural is referring to two nails, one through both hands and the other through both feet. The Greek reads "ἐν ταῖς χερσὶν αὐτοῦ τὸν τύπον τῶν ἥλων", which is "in his hands the imprint of the nails", clearly linking multiple nails to the hands specifically.

  Above his head they placed the written charge against him: THIS IS JESUS, THE KING OF THE  JEWS. (Matthew 27:37, NIV)

If Jesus were crucified as in the picture, the sign would be obscured by his arms. If it were also placed above his hands, Matthew could have written "Above his hands..." - but he didn't.

  Carrying his own cross, he went out to the place of the Skull, which in Aramaic is called Golgotha. (John 19:17, NIV)

Several different crucifixion methods were used by the Romans, including the traditional cross and the simple vertical stake. But the reference to carrying suggests that Jesus carried the crossbeam or patibulum of his cross - contemporary sources indicated that condemned people could be made to carry their own patibulum, but not the entire cross or stake, and of course a stake has no crossbeam at all. (Now-familiar depictions of Jesus carrying the whole cross come along later.)

It is common ground between Jehovah's Witnesses and the rest of us that for most of Christian history, Christ's crucifixion has almost always been regarded as being on a cross. The problem that the JWs have with it is that they think that the cross is a pagan symbol which was mistakenly (or maliciously) adopted early on in Christian history, as Christian belief and practice departed from its original form. As a restorationist group, they believe that in rejecting the cross shape they are returning to Christianity as it was meant to be. Insistence on the 'torture stake' is not particularly important in itself, but it is a prominent reminder of their distinctiveness, and of the error into which they think others have fallen.


How real is Matthew 4:1-2 in terms of physical realities? Then Jesus was led by the Spirit out into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. He fasted for forty days and forty nights after which he was very hungry, and the tempter came to Him (Matt. 4:1-2).

The forty days and forty nights of fasting how exhaustive and physically weak would a man can endure. The way I understand it, we can live with no food for three days but definitely we must have water to sustain our physical energy. But for Jesus to be still standing for forty days and had the strength to face Satan, is truly an amazing narrative if taken into reality.

Is this passages a metaphor of forty days or strictly speaking this is forty calendar days in our time?

It is humanly possible to fast food for 40 days, though it is generally recommended to be very cautious about making such a decision due to the pressure it will put on your body's health and fitness. That said, several Christian teachers and writers both past and present recommend and teach about the benefits of 40-day fasting as a way to draw closer to God.

It's also noted that Christianity traditionally marks the 40 days of Lent as a period of fasting. While we find that some denominations ease the requirements (or make it purely optional), it can be expected that in earlier times 'pure' fasting would have taken place much more commonly especially within the Catholic church.

Given the above, one can expect it to have been very physically possible for Jesus to have fasted for 40 days, though doubtful that it would have been an easy, enjoyable experience!!


How can one have eternal life by the death of Jesus or by Jesus teachings? Before the death of Jesus, Jesus was teaching the birth of eternal life(birth of the Spirit) which steps are not completely describe by the four gospel (Matthew, mark, Luke, and john). On several note he ask them to believe in him and his teachings.  Now what was he teaching in terms of procedure so that one can follow and learn, secondly are people granted eternal live by his teaching or by his death on the cross? This is my question. I believed he was killed because of what he thought which contradict their believes and as a result he was killed for his teachings. This teaching is what will save man from sin or second death, and not the death of Jesus which only came as a consequence of his teachings.
The Buddha also went in his time about teaching enlightenment (birth of the Spirit) but what he taught is not found in most book except the word "he went about teaching them) but later on we learn he was teaching them a meditation technique for seekers of truth/enlightenment but these technique is only known to few masters and devotees.
Now could Jesus be teaching similar knowledge? On a certain occasion Jesus told Nicodemus how to receive eternal life, which he said Nicodemus must be born of the Spirit, and not believing that he Jesus will die and rise again. But how to be born of the Spirit the bible didn't say in the four gospel after he spoke with Nicodemus. He told the Samaritan women that he will give her the living water(Teach her the birth of the  Spirit) and she will taste nor more(die no more) again the bible didn't let us know how or if Jesus gave the woman the living water. He told a certain rich man to renounce his earthly desire and follow him. On these note he was given the teachings of eternal life. Now why does the church say by just confession that Jesus died on the cross and rose from the grave and repentance (Church ideal of burn) man will be save? Is that what Jesus taught the people about eternal life before he died?

Christians have different views about salvation, but there is one thing that is believed by virtually every denomination - salvation does not come about simply through the teachings of Jesus. Hearing Jesus teaching and putting it into practice may lead you to salvation, but salvation comes through the death and resurrection of Jesus. If this were not so there would have been no need for Jesus to die.

Going into more detail would lead us to disagreement within this forum.


When and where does the statement, "Christ paid the penalty for our sins" first appear? The statement, "Christ paid the penalty for our sins" does not appear in the Bible.

When in the history of Christian theology did this specific statement first appear? Who said it?

Please provide the actual text (and source) from the writings of the Christian theologians or teachers who first said it—or at least, the earliest ones you can document.

If that is clear to you, there is no need to read the rest of this question.

Please note:

This question is specifically about the statement that Christ paid
the penalty for our sins. Equivalent wordings, such as "Christ paid
the price for our sins" or "Jesus paid the penalty for our sins,"
are on-topic. However, "Christ died for our sins" or "Christ suffered
for our sins" or even "Christ was punished for our sins" are
off-topic. I am looking for statements specifically about Christ paying the
penalty, or paying the price, for our sins.
"Paying the price" in the context of Ransom Theory is also
off-topic. A ransom is not a penalty or punishment for sin.
I am not looking for antecedents for this idea, nor am I looking
for passages quoted as the biblical basis for this idea. I am looking
for the earliest explicit statements of the idea itself.
For reference: the Wikipedia article on Penal Substitution.
Please do not just quote from or refer to the Wikipedia article,
which seems rather murky and disorganized.

Edit in response to comments:

My hypothesis is that the Penal Substitution theory of atonement is closely tied to the phrase "paid the penalty." This is a history of doctrine question rather than simply an English phrase question.

However, it is common for proponents of Penal Substitution to see this theory of atonement in phrases representing ideas that are not necessarily the same. For example:

"Christ died for our sins." If a drunk driver hits you and kills you, you have died for (due to) the sins of the drunk driver, but you have not paid the penalty for the sins of the drunk driver. S/he remains guilty of the crime, and subject to punishment.
"Christ suffered for our sins." If a drunk driver hits you and injures you, you have suffered for the sins of the drunk driver, but you have not paid the penalty for the sins of the drunk driver. S/he remains guilty of the crime, and subject to punishment.
"Christ was punished for our sins." If a drunk driver hits you, and you are wrongfully accused and put in jail instead of the drunk driver, you have still not paid the penalty for the drunk driver's sins. The drunk driver remains guilty of the crime, and subject to its penalty if and when it is discovered that there was a miscarriage of justice. Or if you were to voluntarily go to jail with the drunk driver, taking the same punishment even though you didn't commit the crime, you would still not have paid the penalty for the drunk driver's sins.  S/he would still remain guilty of the crime, and subject to punishment.

The point is, every one of these statements can easily and very reasonably be read as meaning something other than Christ paying the penalty for our sins. (And I happen to think that they do mean something other than Christ paying the penalty for our sins.)

That is why I am insisting on the precise language that most specifically expresses the Penal Substitution theory of atonement: that Christ paid the penalty for our sins.

Protestant tracts are full of the statement, "Christ paid the penalty for our sins." That phrase is not in the Bible. It must have come from somewhere. I want to know where it came from.

I suspect this will also provide the origin point of the Penal Substitution theory of atonement in the history of Christian doctrine.

If none of that works for you, just repeat over and over again before writing an answer:

Where did the precise phrase "Christ paid the penalty for our sins" come from?

The theological term for the concept you are thinking of, namely that Christ was payment for our sins and so took upon Himself the fullness of punishment due to sin, is known as penal substitution (as you identify). Penal substitution is largely originated in the Reform Movement. It is generally agreed that no Church father taught penal substitution, but rather favored the ransom theory of atonement intermixed with the moral influence view. Several Reform movement thinkers and those applying to the penal substitution theory have attempted to attribute the source of their thinking to certain Church fathers, though they have been unsuccessful in doing so. It could be said that the roots for penal substitution were birthed by St. Anselm (though the theory itself can hardly be attributed to him.) St. Anselm sought to modify the traditional ransom theory of atonement. St. Anselm ultimately contributed what is known as Anselmian satisfaction, which is the theory that the satisfaction that God the Father saw in Christ as an honorable and perfect man compensated for the due punishment that man deserved.

  The honor taken away must be repaid, or punishment must follow.

This sense of atonement illuminated upon the ransom theory of atonement; Anselm held that Christ's sacrifice was not appeasing as a ransom to Satan (as traditional ransom theory held) but rather to God. And upon this theory St. Thomas Aquinas only further modified the kinks. In progression from this, according to St. Thomas Aquinas, Christ not only fulfilled a debt of honor but also a debt of moral justice. Mankind not only fell in their honor, but also offended God by disobeying Him. So it is that Aquinas concludes the following;

  Christ bore a satisfactory punishment, not for His sins, but for ours.

Aquinas does not intend this to mean that Christ bears upon Himself a penal punishment for sin (punishment that serves a lawful purpose accorded to certain individuals, an example being eternal damnation), but rather that He bears upon Himself a satisfactory punishment (punishment that serves a restorative purpose due to its penitent nature, and that's merits can be shared).

  If we speak of that satisfactory punishment, which one takes upon oneself voluntarily, one may bear another's punishment... If however, we speak of punishment inflicted on account of sin, inasmuch as it is penal, then each one is punished for his own sin only, because the sinful act is something personal. But if we speak of a punishment that is medicinal, in this way it does happen that one is punished for another's sin.

It is generally understood that the punishment Christ went through, the satisfactory punishment, was death and suffering, the immediate and unavoidable consequences of original sin. For Aquinas recognized that Christ could not merely become perfect and eternal man in order to justify man, but rather that the completion of salvation had to include, because of fallen man's evils, some sort of necessary punishment of a penitent nature for original sin itself (similar to the penitent punishment that believers go through in order to be purified of personal sin). Christ's justifying man through the indwelling perfection of His being had to include submitting in perfect penance for the original sin of man (and to do so Christ entered the satisfactory punishment of original sin, being death). Notice that this punishment is not an appeasement of an angry God, but rather a part of Christ perfecting man. Aquinas firmly believed that the nature of such punishment was medicinal, working for a Higher Purpose of Salvation, and not the motivation or origin of Salvation itself, which was always essentially a mystery and certainly not 'legalistic'.

Nevertheless, following this strain of thought Martin Luther held that Christ not only satisfies God the Father in His perfection but also bears mankind's penal punishment on the cross.

  When the merciful Father saw that we were being oppressed through the Law, that we were being held under a curse, and that we could not be liberated from it by anything, He sent His Son into the world, heaped all the sins of men upon Him, and said to Him: "Be Peter the denier; Paul the persecutor, blasphemer, and assaulter; David the adulterer; the sinner who ate the apple in Paradise; the thief on the cross. In short, be the person of all men. And see to it that You pay and make satisfaction for them.

Similar thinker John Calvin states the following:

  God in his capacity as judge is angry toward us. Hence as expiation must intervene in order that Christ as priest may obtain God's favor for us and appease his wrath.

  We must, above all, remember this substitution, lest we tremble and remain anxious throughout life — as if God’s righteous vengeance, which the Son of God has taken upon himself, still hung over us.

And in like manner, Puritan John Owen states

  For to make satisfaction to God for our sins, is is required only that He undergo the punishment due to them; for that is the satisfaction required where sin is the debt.

John MacArthur even more radically states

  God was punishing his own Son as if He had committed every wicked deed done by every sinner who would ever believe.

Note that the concentration has moved from the focus being on Christ perfecting mankind and facing consequentially a necessary punishment to Christ solely becoming man to appease the wrath of God, and implicitly taking upon Himself not only satisfactory punishment but penal punishment also. This is because the Reform thinkers conjoined the distinct types of punishment that Aquinas rather firmly tried to keep separate. It is in light of this Reformed theology that penal substitution supporters live today. Predominant denominations that use the catchphrases 'Jesus died as payment for our sin' include most Protestant denominations, most heavily among them being Lutherans and Methodists.


Why does Jesus speak of himself in the third person? There are a number of places where Jesus refers to himself in the third person.  The most common is when he uses the title 'Son of Man' (by my count, there are some 78 times Jesus uses that title in the gospels!).  For example Matthew 16:13 (NIV):

  When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his
  disciples, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?"

I understand the significance of that title (e.g. Daniel 7:13-14) but why does Jesus use it so often to describe himself?  Complicating matters in my mind is the fact that the various gospels seem to use 'Son of Man' and 'I' interchangably.  For example, Mark 8:27 is a parallel passage to the one above but it says:

  Jesus and his disciples went on to the villages around Caesarea
  Philippi. On the way he asked them, "Who do people say I am?"

One other major case of third person titles that intrigues me is in John 17 where Jesus is praying and refers to himself as God's son and 'Jesus Christ':

  1After Jesus said this, he looked toward heaven and prayed:

    "Father, the hour has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may
  glorify you. 2For you granted him authority over all people that he
  might give eternal life to all those you have given him. 3Now this is
  eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ,
  whom you have sent. 4I have brought you glory on earth by finishing
  the work you gave me to do. 5And now, Father, glorify me in your
  presence with the glory I had with you before the world began."

Why does he suddenly refer to himself as Jesus Christ here but nowhere else?

I think a large part of His reason for doing this is to make shed more light on His identity. The title used reflects additional information about the person using it. So, to look at a few of Jesus's many titles:

"son of man" -> associates Jesus with the glorious figure seen in Daniel 7
"son of David" -> associates Jesus with the promise God made to David about a descendant who would sit on the throne forever
"son of God" -> describes Jesus as a king (since some of the kings of Israel were called "sons of God") although it is sometimes used in other ways by other people ("Son of the living God", "the Son of God") to refer to Jesus's divine nature.
"messiah" / "Christ" -> associates Jesus with prophecies about a prophet from God who would rescue Israel

So when Jesus used a particular title, it would evoke a particular image and bring to mind different ideas, even though they were all correct.

Short example of how this makes a difference. Say I'm trying to get into a fancy restaurant and the guy at the front is looking doubtful that I "fit in". I could say (assuming it was true):

I'm Richard, let me in.
I'm the son of the owner of this restaurant, let me in.
I'm cousin to the President, let me in.

They might all be true, but I'd be gaining something from the use of different titles.

Likewise, Jesus used different titles to show different aspects of Himself. Here is a great article on some of them (although it does miss a bit theologically).


Can other "scripture" (such as the Quran) be used as ultimate authority in presuppositional apologetics? I've been impressed lately with the presuppositional apologetic work of Sye Ten Bruggencate and how his arguments seem to be irrefutable by those he debates.

The only problem I have is that he claims the Bible is the only ultimate authority that can be used in this argument. (See Bruggencate's site, question 4)

Other religions have their own scripture which are held in the same regard as the Bible (for example the Quran in Islam, the Book of Mormon for Mormons, the Jehovah's Witness translation of the Bible). These other scriptures, though they may be dismissed by non-believers, seem to be of equal value in the presuppositional apologetic argument.

Can anyone explain why the Bible is seen to be the only "scripture" that holds true in the presuppositional apologetic argument?

One argument of the Christian presuppositional apologists is that only the Bible is self-authenticating.  Other sacred texts, like the Quran, are not.

Consider the way Ten Bruggencate's tract on Islam addresses the issue.  To Muslims who claim that they could not be wrong, he presents "contradictions in [their] source of knowledge"; that is, he claims that there are contradictions inherent in Islam and the Quran.

John Frame and Steve Hays deal with the issue similarly, in a response to a similar challenge:

  As a matter of public record, Muhammad did not, in fact, claim that his message was self-attesting. To the contrary, when confronted with doubters, Muhammad appeals to the People of the Book—the Jews and Christians—to validate his message. In the event, then, of conflict between the Bible and the Koran, Muhammad’s prophetic pretensions are thereby invalidated by his own appointed standard of judgment. Case closed.

Steve Hays provides more detail in a subsequent response, calling the Quran's textual history "checkered" and expounding on contradictions between the early (Meccan) verses of the Quran and later (Medinan) ones:

  In the earlier—Meccan—verses, Christians are accorded the right to judge the Koran. Muhammad appeals to the People of the Book (Jews & Christians) to vouch for his prophetic credentials. So he sets up the Bible and its Judeo-Christian interpreters as the standard of reference.  By the time we get to the Medinan verses, there's a dramatic about-face. This is one of the major hurdles in Islamic apologetics.

Thus, the argument goes, the Quran is contradictory and therefore not self-authenticating, and thus that it cannot serve as the basis for knowledge.


Who were the 'synagogue of Satan'? In the letter to the Church of Philadelphia in Revelation 3, John writes concerning the synagogue of Satan and those who claim to be Jews, but are not.

  Behold, I will make those of the synagogue of Satan who say that they are Jews and are not, but lie—behold, I will make them come and bow down before your feet, and they will learn that I have loved you. (Revelation 3:9 ESV)

What group was it that claimed to be Jews and were not?  What was it about them that made them the synagogue of Satan?

I would guess that the reference to the synagogue of Satan is not to some local synagogue of Satanists that were pretending to be Jews, but instead to all those everywhere who claimed to be Jews but were not really, spiritually, Jews.  Consider Jesus' words in John 8:

  They answered him, “Abraham is our father.” Jesus said to them, “If you were Abraham's children, you would be doing the works Abraham did, but now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. This is not what Abraham did. ... You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. John 8:39,40,44

In other words: "your actions show you aren't Abraham's children (i.e. you aren't Jews); you're children of Satan."

And then, also consider this passage, which divides everyone into two groups: children of God and children of the devil:

  By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother. 1 John 3:10

Also, consider Galatians 3:7-10:

  Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham. And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “In you shall all the nations be blessed.” So then, those who are of faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith."

Finally, Romans 9:6-8:

  ... not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring.

So we see that the true sons of Abraham, the true Jews, are those who are "of faith".  Thus, I would conclude that the passage you quoted is simply referring to Jews who rejected Jesus as Messiah.


What is the significance of Jesus' spitting on the ground in the book of John? Why does Jesus spit on the ground and make clay to anoint the blind man's eyes?  What does this represent?  Is the need to wash the anointing off significant?

John 9:6-7 NIV

  After saying this, he spit on the ground, made some mud with the
  saliva, and put it on the man’s eyes. “Go,” he told him, “wash in the
  Pool of Siloam” (this word means “Sent”). So the man went and washed,
  and came home seeing.

I will represent the Roman Catholic position on the verse.

Historically, St. Thomas Aquinas noted that this verse provided an example of Jesus' healing of sin. He cites St. Augustine for the interpretation that the blind man represents the human race. Sin is the spiritual blindness. When Jesus heals the blind man and allows him to see the light, he literally sees, which can be taken as a sign that he sees the error of his ways and wants to correct them by following the ways of God.1

Additionally, St. Augustine, the early church father, wrote that the clay represented the anointing, and the blind man represented the catechumen, because he was anointed but not yet washed. So, I wouldn't really say that it's washing off the anointment, because it may be the effect of the anointment that healed the blindness or sinfulness. The washing is to emphasize that the blind man is no longer a catechumen, or that he is a baptized believer.2 Meanwhile, the physical clay-and-spit is washed off, probably because that would be an eye irritant.

Source:

http://dhspriory.org/thomas/John9.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1701044.htm


What symbols are preferred among certain denominations more than others? I am compiling a list of common themes or symbols to be used for decoration around the different denominations or to be given as gifts for members of that church.  I am in the USA and only interested in local norms (Oklahoma).

For example, I know for Catholics, one would use the crucifix.
I would like the preferred symbol for the following churches:

Baptist
Methodist
Lutheran
Presbyterian
Nazarene

Examples: Christian cross, dove, open bible, lamb, fish, folded hands, etc.

I am not looking for obscure symbols.  I want a generic but still acceptable symbol to use as a basis for keeping in mind while shopping for gifts or decorating for an event.

What symbols are preferred amoung certain demonimations more than others?

Christian Liturgical Colours vary somewhat amongst the various Christian denominations, yet most are relatively the same for the most part.

For example:

  Methodist churches

  Methodists use a colour scheme similar to those used by Lutherans and Catholics, although the practice is not universally followed. The United Methodist Church, prior to the early-1990s, used red solely for Pentecost, even including the Sundays after Pentecost Sunday, with the use of green being reserved for the season of Kingdomtide, which usually lasted from late August/early September until Christ the King (the last Sunday in Kingdomtide). Since the publication of the 1992 Book of Worship, the UMC has followed the ELCA practice of wearing red only for Pentecost and Reformation Sunday and green for the rest of the Pentecost season.

  Reformed Churches

  The Presbyterian Church (USA), or its predecessor denominations, has sanctioned the use of liturgical colours and promoted their use in The Worshipbook of 1970, the 1993 Book of Common Worship and the 2018 Book of Common Worship. Advent and Lent are periods of preparation and repentance and are represented by the colour purple. The feasts of Christmas Day and Christmastide, Epiphany Sunday, Baptism of the Lord Sunday, Transfiguration Sunday, Easter Season, Trinity Sunday, and Christ the King Sunday are represented by white. Green is the colour for periods of Ordinary Time. Red is for Pentecost Sunday, but may also be used for ordinations, church anniversaries, and memorial services for ordained clergy. Red or purple are appropriate for Palm Sunday. During Holy Week, purple is used until the church is stripped bare on Maundy Thursday; the church remains stripped bare on Good Friday and Holy Saturday, though in some places black might be used on those days.

  Similarly, the United Church of Christ includes indications of which liturgical colour to use for each Sunday in its annual calendar. The general Western pattern is followed, with either purple or blue recommended for Advent.

More on colour symbolism within Christianity can be found here: Color Symbolism in Christianity.

Crossed Keys are a Catholic symbol of papal authority.

  According to Catholic teaching, Jesus promised the keys to heaven to Saint Peter, empowering him to take binding actions. In the Gospel of Matthew 16:19, Jesus says to Peter, "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on Earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on Earth shall be loosed in heaven." Saint Peter is often depicted in Catholic and Eastern Orthodox paintings and other artwork as holding a key or a set of keys.

  The keys of heaven or keys of Saint Peter are seen as a symbol of papal authority and are seen on papal coats of arms (those of individual popes) and those of the Holy See and Vatican City State: "Behold he [Peter] received the keys of the kingdom of heaven, the power of binding and loosing is committed to him, the care of the whole Church and its government is given to him [cura ei totius Ecclesiae et principatus committitur (Epist., lib. V, ep. xx, in P.L., LXXVII, 745)]". - Keys of Heaven

The Phoenix was a symbol of the resurrection according to some Early Church writers. This is also a recognized Catholic symbol for the resurrection, but many would not recognize it as such.

  Several writings have been attributed to Clement, though most are believed to be spurious. However, he did leave one epistle that is widely considered to be genuine, a letter to a church in Corinth. It begins by saying that the delay in its sending from Rome was due to “sudden and successive calamitous events,” which appears to be a reference to the persecutions of the emperor Domitian. The date of the message is open to some debate, but if we make the assumption that Domitian’s persecutions ended with the emperor’s death, then it seems likely that it was written somewhere around 96 C.E.

  The letter seems to have been a response to a situation in which some members of the Corinthian church rose up and deposed certain of their elders. Clement’s exhortations to return to former behavior are derived from both the Old Testament and examples drawn from the early church. This places him in an era when the Hebrew Scriptures were still providing definitive instruction for the conduct of the church, rather than being relegated to secondary status as they were by later generations. The letter is also concerned with reinforcing the truth of Jesus Christ’s resurrection and the hope of a future resurrection for human beings.

  It is in this regard that we encounter a puzzling passage. In chapter 25, Clement writes: “Let us consider the strange sign which takes place in the East, that is in the districts near Arabia. There is a bird which is called the Phoenix. This is the only one of its kind, and lives 500 years; and when the time of its dissolution in death is at hand, it makes itself a sepulchre of frankincense and myrrh and other spices, and when the time is fulfilled it enters into it and dies. Now, from the corruption of its flesh there springs a worm, which is nourished by the juices of the dead bird, and puts forth wings. Then, when it has become strong, it takes up that sepulchre, in which are the bones of its predecessor, and carries them from the country of Arabia as far as Egypt until it reaches the city called Heliopolis, and in the daylight in the sight of all it flies to the altar of the Sun, places them there, and then starts back to its former home. Then the priests inspect the registers of dates, and they find that it has come at the fulfilment of the 500th year.” - The Phoenix and the Early Church

  Herodotus, Lucan, Pliny the Elder, Pope Clement I, Lactantius, Ovid, and Isidore of Seville are among those who have contributed to the retelling and transmission of the phoenix motif. The phoenix symbolized renewal in general, as well as entities and concepts such as the Sun, time, the Roman Empire, Christ, Mary, and virginity. - Phoenix (mythology)

Many more Catholic symbols can be perused at the Catholic website: Fish Eaters.


Does the Catholic Church consider not administering a feeding tube passive euthanasia? If a person was near death due to a severe head injury, but now only completely incapacitated (as in, unable to respond to stimuli; eyes open, but not tracking; not able to speak or swallow), is it OK to withhold giving that person a feeding tube?  Does it matter what the odds for improved health are? And, if it is not OK, how does anyone benefit from the person's continued survival?

Yes, in your example, it would be passive euthanasia.
Food and water are not extraordinary means of life support, so withholding those from someone is as immoral as starving or dehydrating any other person to death. However, there are situations where administering food and water may be difficult and actually hasten death, in which case it would be immoral.
From the 2009 Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Services p. 31:

A person may forgo extraordinary or disproportionate means of preserving life.  Disproportionate means are those that in the patient’s judgment do not offer a reasonable hope of benefit or entail an excessive burden, or impose excessive expense on the family or the community.

In principle, there is an obligation to provide patients with food and water, including medically assisted nutrition and hydration for those who cannot take food orally. This obligation extends to patients in chronic and presumably irreversible conditions (e.g., the “persistent vegetative state”) who can reasonably be expected to live indefinitely if given such care.40 Medically assisted nutrition and hydration become morally optional when they cannot reasonably be expected to prolong life or when they would be “excessively burdensome for the patient or [would] cause significant physical discomfort, for example resulting from complications in the use of the means employed.”41 For instance, as a patient draws close to inevitable death from an underlying progressive and fatal condition, certain measures to provide nutrition and hydration may become excessively burdensome and therefore not obligatory in light of their very limited ability to prolong life or provide comfort.

For ordinary vs. extraordinary means of life support, see §6.7 of Health Care Ethics by Benedict Ashley, O.P.


Was there ever a "Martin Luther" or a reformation in the Eastern Orthodox Church? The protestant reformation had a large impact on the Catholic Church, but even know much of the reformers concerns apply to the Eastern Orthodox Church as well, it seems that there never was a reformation in this Church. How so?

I don’t know if the Council of Chalcedon (AD 451) is relevant, but it’s worth mentioning that the at this meeting, equal honour was assigned to the Church of Constantinople and the Church of Rome. The council gave the title “patriarch” to the most prominent bishops and concluded that the church of Constantinople (“New Rome”) held a position of authority similar to that of “Old Rome.” The Pope rejected that particular article, while accepting the rest of the Chalcedonian Creed. Eventually, the rift between Rome and Constantinople led to the Great Schism when the Oriental Orthodox split off from Catholic and Eastern Orthodox alike as a consequence of the Council of Chalcedon.

Perhaps the events of the 16th century are more relevant because they have to do with the events surrounding Luther and the Protestant Reformation.  Here is a partial quote from an article I found:

  Philipp Melanchthon worked with Demetrios Mysos, a deacon sent by the patriarch of Constantinople to find out about the new religious movement in Germany, to complete a Greek translation/paraphrase of the Augsburg Confession, called the Augustana Graeca. Mysos was supposed to take the document back to Constantinople, but he died on the journey.  Some Lutheran theologians at Tubingen tried to establish an even closer connection. The "Eastern Orthodoxy" entry in The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Reformation, edited by Hans J. Hillerbrand, reports: In 1575 the Lutherans sent the Augustana Graeca to Patriarch Jeremias II (d. 1595), asking his opinion. There ensued over the next six years a friendly but candid exchange of extensive doctrinal ...   Source: What did the reformers think about the Eastern Orthodox Church?

I found this reference to events that took place during the 17th century:

  In Eastern Orthodox Church history, the Old Believers or Old Ritualists are Eastern Orthodox Christians who maintain the liturgical and ritual practices of the Eastern Orthodox Church as they existed prior to the reforms of Patriarch Nikon of Moscow between 1652 and 1666. Resisting the accommodation of Russian piety to the contemporary forms of Greek Orthodox worship, these Christians were anathematized, together with their ritual, in a Synod of 1666–1667, producing a division in Eastern Europe between the Old Believers and those who followed the state church in its condemnation of the Old Rite.  Source: Old Believers (Wikipeia)

Then we have the Greek Old Calendarist schism within the Greek Orthodox Church which occurred in the early 20th century.  Both sides of this schism refused to recognize each other’s baptisms as a consequence of this dogmatization of the calendar. Source: Why did the Orthodox Church never suffer through a Protestant Reformation like the Catholic Church?

Finally, I found this article, but it must be noted that there are no sources identified to back up the claims being made:

  There are four Reformed Orthodox Churches in Eastern Christianity. The term "Reformed Orthodox" is given to an attempted Protestant Reformation of the Orthodox Christian beliefs and practices of the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches. Presently the Ukrainian Lutheran Church, the Malankara Mar Thoma Syrian Church, St. Thomas Evangelical Church of India, Evangelical Baptist Union of Georgia, Ukrainian Reformed Orthodox Church (ru), Evangelical Orthodox Church and the Nihon Christ Kyodan Miyakojima Church (ja) are revised according to Lutheran, Anglican, Baptists and Pentecostal Protestant reforms, respectively. Another term applied primarily to the reformation of Non-Chalcedonianism is Protestant Oriental.  Source: Reformed Orthodoxy (Wikipedia)

I do so hope someone with expertise in this subject will post an answer.  I simply did a bit of research because I wanted to find out more about the history of the Eastern Orthodox Church.


Identifying a source for this C S Lewis quote (reflecting St Augustine and St Paul) There is a C. S. Lewis quote from The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe that resembles a famous quote by St Augustine.

Here is St. Augustine:

  The very thing which is now called the Christian religion was with the
  ancients, and it was with the ancients, and it was with the human race
  from its beginning to the time when Christ appeared in the flesh: From
  then on the true religion, which already existed, began to be called
  the Christian

That quote comes from St. Augustine’s Retractations I.1.2.3.

There is scriptural support for Augustine’s assertion. St Paul in his mission to the Greeks famously instructed the Athenians (in Acts 17.23) declaring, “for as I was passing through and considering the objects of your worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: “To the unknown god.” Therefore, the One whom you worship without knowing, Him I proclaim to you.”

I very clearly recall encountering a meme some time ago citing C. S. Lewis’ The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe which captured the above sentiment perfectly.

C. S. Lewis wrote something to the effect of (trying to recall in my own words):

  “You worship another deity but it is the Christian God in disguise.”

Or:

  “We worship the same God, just a different name.”

My question for all of you: Is any one familiar enough with C. S. Lewis’ material (fiction or even non-fiction) to find an actual reference to this quote by C. S. Lewis that I am trying to describe?

I’ve spent hours combing through Google search terms trying to find this quote / meme by C.S.Lewis. No dice.

I actually have more than one potential answer to my initial question now, although I'm not sure that they are exactly the original quote I’m looking for. These are the best answers so far:

The first lead comes from @DJClayworth in his comment to my original question who suggested:

  At the end of one character who has been good but a
  worshiper of Tash meets Aslan and throws himself down expecting to be
  killed. Aslan picks him up saying "Many worshiped Tash thinking him to
  be me. Many also worship me, thinking me to be Tash.

Of course I haven’t read the Narnia series so I am not very well informed about the character development or context. Here is my valiant but feeble interpretation of @DJClayworth’s comment: Perhaps CSL is conveying that the conflict between worshippers of two adversarial characters (perhaps with Aslan being Yeshua-like and Tash being Lucifer-like) are somehow worshiping the same deity. That’s the best I can possibly extrapolate so far. I don’t know what else to infer from this?

I found the actual page reference from the book providing a little more context. Here is the full paragraph from Lewis’ (1956) The Last Battle:

  Then I fell at his feet and thought, Surely this is the hour of death, for the Lion (who is worthy of all honour) will know that I have served Tash all my days and not him. Nevertheless, it is better to see the Lion and die than to be Tisroc of the world and live and not to have seen him. But the Glorious One bent down his golden head and touched my forehead with his tongue and said, Son, thou art welcome. But I said, Alas Lord, I am no son of thine but the servant of Tash. He answered, Child, all the service thou hast done to Tash, I account as service done to me. Then by reasons of my great desire for wisdom and understanding, I overcame my fear and questioned the Glorious One and said, Lord, is it then true, as the Ape said, that thou and Tash are one? The Lion growled so that the earth shook (but his wrath was not against me) and said, It is false. Not because he and I are one, but because we are opposites, I take to me the services which thou hast done to him. For I and he are of such different kinds that no service which is vile can be done to me, and none which is not vile can be done to him. Therefore if any man swear by Tash and keep his oath for the oath’s sake, it is by me that he has truly sworn, though he know it not, and it is I who reward him. And if any man do a cruelty in my name, then, though he says the name Aslan, it is Tash whom he serves and by Tash his deed is accepted. Dost thou understand, Child? I said, Lord, thou knowest how much I understand. But I said also (for the truth constrained me), Yet I have been seeking Tash all my days. Beloved, said the Glorious One, unless thy desire had been for me thou wouldst not have sought so long and so truly. For all find what they truly seek.

(pp144-145).  This book cited here was republished in 2007 by HarperCollins.

I have difficulty extrapolating the christian metaphor or narrative that Lewis is trying to convey. It completely escapes me. The unusual language that is almost Shakespearean doesn't help either. I can’t imagine C S Lewis’ audience of children would understand this any better than I can.

Anyways, the quote I described in my original question sounded to me more like a pointed “maxim” or “axiom” about God’s universal nature drawing all religions and human cultures from a single origin. That is more what I was getting at in my question.

Moving onto the second lead that I am working with now, there is a popular meme in circulation attributed to C. S. Lewis without a proper citation (so this destroys its credibility - - it’s almost baseless) but I think it is much closer to my original question.

One meme reads:

  I am in your world,” said Aslan. “But there I have another name. You must learn to know me by that name. This was the very reason why you were brought to Narnia, that by knowing me here for a little, you may know me better there.

Another similar quote and even more axiomatic reads: “In your world, I have another name. You should know me by it.”

In this quote, I suppose it could be interpreted that the God who we know in Heaven goes by many names when humans walk the Earth and so we should come to get to know Him in the name of Christ.

At this point I suppose this meme is probably the one that I saw years ago that I can only remember vaguely today. This is as close as I’ve got to the answer to my original question but my memory is telling me that I am still missing something.

This ‘axiom’ (more like a vapid meme) is not only unsourced but it’s also way beyond the confines of Catholic doctrine which lends it even less credibility in my mind.

I checked C. S. Lewis’ Wikiquote page looking for a reference but didn’t find anything. If any of you people here on Stack Exchange have a reference, please feel free to update this answer with a correction.

I'll mark my question as answered.


The Epitome of the Formula of Concord- Free will in Lutheranism On "Free Will" The Epitome of the Formula of Concord, on negative (rejected) doctrines, first paragraph states:

The delirium [insane dogma] of philosophers who are called Stoics, as
also of the Manicheans, who taught that everything that happens must
so happen, and cannot happen otherwise, and that everything that man
does, even in outward things, he does by compulsion, and that he is
coerced to evil works and deeds, as inchastity, robbery, murder,
theft, and the like.

Does that mean Lutherans affirm free will? As I understanding it they reject free will in "divine" things, but affirm it in earthly things.
How is that consistent with Luther's own "On the Bondage of the Will", where he speaks about "necessity of consequence", or how things must come to past since God foreknows them.

First, it's important to realize that there are many shades of Stoicism and many shades of free will.  Within Christianity, the relevant topics are divine foreknowledge, divine plan, moral responsibility, grace, sin, and election, all of which need to be harmonized one way or the other.  So it's no wonder that different traditions will harmonize them differently, and even for a single tradition like Lutheranism, a single work like Luther's "Bondage of the Will" may emphasize different aspect of free will than later formulation of the Lutheran position (such as the Formula of Concord).

The Stoic position as defined in the Formula of Concord you quoted has to do with determinism that excludes free will which most Christians cannot accept because it excludes moral responsibility.

But Martin Luther in his "Bondage of the Will" was responding to Erasmus's understanding of free will vs. divine foreknowledge which had nothing to do with Stoicism where divine foreknowledge is not a factor.  So comparing the two is like comparing apple to orange.

Within Christianity there are different ways to balance affirming both free will and divine foreknowledge, so it's understandable that Luther disagreed with Erasmus.  The language "necessity of consequence" has to do with describing the relationship, which has to be distinguished with "necessity of consequent" described in the 2014 Oxford Handbook of Martin Luther's Theology, Chapter II (Luther as Late Medieval Theologian), Section IV (De Servo Arbitrio), pages 40 to 42.  This is a distinction maintained by the Scholastics (including Erasmus, I think) but denied by Luther (emphasis mine):

  Luther closely connects his distinction with the problem of 'whether God foreknows anything contingently, and whether we do everything of necessity'.  In doing so, he takes up a problem that was discussed by scholastic theologians and philosophers for centuries.  God is omniscient, he cannot be deceived, his knowledge is immutable, and since he is a necessary being, his knowledge is necessary, too.  Nevertheless, the problem is whether God who knows all and everything knows contingent entities and events as contingent or whether the necessity that he knows everything has the consequence that everything he knows is itself necessary. In this case, free will would not exist.  Scholastic theologians made many and very different attempts to avoid this consequence and demonstrate that God's necessary knowledge is compatible with the contingency of the created world and with free will.  Luther in fact broke with this tradition arguing: (a) God's will is immutable: thus his foreknowledge is immutable, too, and (b) if his foreknowledge is immutable, then 'God foreknows necessarily'

In another work discussing this issue, from 2018 book Luther's Outlaw God: Volume 1: Hiddenness, Evil, and Predestination:

  Consequence means God does something but consequent means God refrains from doing anything. Both are done in order to make God's eternal law the deciding factor in human lives.

It can be argued that Luther, in the heat of rhetoric, went too far (see Introduction of a translation of "On the Bondage of the Will"):

  Erasmus had found a way of dissociating himself from Luther without in any way repudiating that concern for reform which they shared in common. He could take issue with him on a point of doctrine, concerning divine grace and human freedom, on which he differed from him totally. For Luther in his Assertio, 9 published in 1520, had utterly denied the reality of human freedom and asserted that everything that happens, happens by absolute necessity.10 This was in fiat contradiction to the teaching of the church, which, however much room it had left for debate about its extent and efficacy, had always maintained the reality of human freedom. Here Luther was wrong; and he was wrong, not only in what he taught, but in publicizing it; for it could not but have effects deleterious to any reform—it provided the common herd with a perfect excuse for every kind of wickedness and ungodliness.

In a summary of Luther's Bondage of the Will the author also warns us that "necessarily does not mean compulsorily":

  I could wish, indeed, that a better term was available for our discussion than the accepted one, necessity, which cannot accurately be used of either man's will or God's. Its meaning is too harsh, and foreign to the subject; for it suggests some sort of compulsion, and something that is against one's will, which is no part of the view under debate. This will, whether it be God's or man's does what it does, good or bad, under no compulsion, but just as it wants or pleases, as if totally free.

Therefore, to properly interpret what Luther meant by "free will" it's very important to realize that in that work Luther focused on how we cannot have faith in Jesus apart from 100% God's grace, a kind of predestination, although different than the Calvinist flavor, as argued in a First Things magazine article by a Lutheran.

Therefore, the discussion of "necessity of consequence" in that work does not mean Luther abandoned free will totally, but has to be interpreted in light of divine foreknowledge of how certain humans (like Judas) will sin while maintaining Judas's "real" freedom to sin.  There is already a fine answer to a related question by Mike which tried to show how even within "Bondage of the Will" Luther still affirms free will, although it's free will to sin.

Luther's position in that work I think harmonizes well with the conclusion of the Formula of Concord Section II (Free Will), 3rd Affirmative Thesis:

  With these brief words He denies to the free will its powers, and ascribes everything to God's grace, in order that no one may boast before God.

It's important to remember that philosophical discussion of free will within moral philosophy (i.e. human agency) should be distinguished from theological discussion of free will within theology (where human will is corrupted by sin).  A good background and contrast can be found in Chapter 6: The Protestant Reformation of The Cambridge History of Moral Philosophy

Personal assessment (not necessarily the Lutheran position)

Luther rightly points out the danger, especially when we were not yet regenerated, that our free will is in bondage and in desperate need of God's grace, especially in coming to Jesus to be born again (where we need God's grace 100%, so we cannot boast).  While Luther may have gone too far in linking God's foreknowledge to human action (which I think could make God a party to our sinful actions), as regenerate Christians currently undergoing sanctification we should have a daily reminder that:

Our "free will" is still under the dark spell of evil tainting our desires and thus corrupting our reason which has the role to inform the will.  Therefore we still need a daily dose of God's grace to counter it, making us humble before God
Just because God has the foreknowledge of our sinful actions, we cannot waive responsibility and give up either, because God truly wants us healed, and I think the healing will culminates in the total recovery of our free will, if not on earth, but for sure in the new creation after the day of judgment.


What made Jesus question at Mt 21:25 a good example for Christians or was it a bad question because the Jews could not answer? What made Jesus question at Mt 21:25 a good example for Christians or was it a bad question because the Jews could not answer?

Jesus asked the question to the chief priests:

  Mt 21:25 The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men?..."

  25 And they argued with one another, “If we say, ‘From heaven,’ he will say to us, ‘Why then did you not believe him?’ 26 But if we say, ‘From men,’ we are afraid of the multitude; for all hold that John was a prophet.” 27 So they answered Jesus, “We do not know.” And he said to them, “Neither will I tell you by what authority I do these things."

Was it wrong for Jesus to ask what he knew they could not answer because of the parameters of his question?

Answers from a mainstream evangelical doctrinal perspective please.

The question was effective, because it highlighted the hypocrisy of the religious Jews in question. According to the Bible, John was sent from God, and they knew it. Their concern was how answering this question would affect their agenda.

  if we say, ‘From men,’ we are afraid of the multitude; for all hold that John was a prophet

Denying John's God-sentness would have resulted in some backlash and punishment from the general population, which could have even escalated to the point of stoning.

On the other hand, by admitting that John was sent from God, it would remove all surface of attack on the person of John, because the authority of God was with him. Since they religiously-politically opposed him, doing so would have worked against their agenda.

This left them no option but to give no answer, which some bystanders would have understood the reason for, and revealed the agenda and hypocrisy of the religious Jews in question.