How does Catholic Church explain the reference to Christ at 1 Cor. 10? We read at 1 Corinthians 10:

1 Corinthians 10:1-5, 9 (NRSVCE): I do not want you to be unaware, brothers and sisters, that our ancestors were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea,  and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea,  and all ate the same spiritual food,  and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ.  Nevertheless, God was not pleased with most of them, and they were struck down in the wilderness... We must not put Christ to the test, as some of them did, and were destroyed by serpents.

If one puts oneself, by imagination, at the time of the Exodus,  one would  hear of Yahweh and not Jesus Christ. As such, Paul's way of interpolating the redemptive role of Christ to the time of Exodus, calls for elucidation. My question therefore is:  How does the Catholic Church explain the reference made by St Paul to Christ while discussing the irresponsible behavior of the ancestors during Exodus?

they drank from the spiritual rock that followed them

This follows immediately after:

all drank the same spiritual drink

which itself follows after:

all ate the same spiritual food

which is preceded by:

all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea

Now, if the latter is to be taken as a figure of (Christian) baptism, then the two in the middle are most likely a type of the Eucharist (John 6 : 31-35, 41-42, 48-58); in which case, whether the water stemming from the rock is meant to symbolize baptism (in Christ's name : see Matthew 28:19; John 4:1-2; Acts 2:38, 8:12-16, 19:4-5; Romans 6:3-4; 1 Corinthians 1:12-15; Galatians 3:27) or the water and blood that poured forth from his side at the crucifixion on Golgotha (John 19:34; 1 John 5:6-8), it stands to reason that, even from this perspective alone, the rock in question is a symbol of Christ.

at the time of the Exodus, one would hear of Yahweh

Furthermore, throughout both Testaments, various metaphors expressing solidity and stability are applied to God Himself, one of them being the word rock (1, 2); then, since sons resemble their fathers, the same should logically hold for Christ as well, since he is the son of God (Matthew 16:15-18). In fact, let us analyze the latter passage a bit: Why is Peter called a rock in the first place ? Because of the profession of faith coming from his lips. That profession of faith constitutes the (bed)rock of the entire Christian faith, which is why the person uttering it was granted that specific title or surname to begin with. Thus, to summarize, God the Father is the ultimate Rock; Christ, his only-begotten son, is then also a Rock, since He was born of the Father; faith in Him, by extension, is also a rock; as is the person uttering this statement, Simon.

Chrysostom wrote a commentary on almost every New Testament book, including Corinthians, so it would only be common sense to consult him on this matter as well:
(Note that, in the Christian East, sacraments are called mysteries).

And wherefore says he these things? To point out that as they were nothing profited by the enjoyment of so great a gift, so neither these by obtaining Baptism and partaking of spiritual Mysteries [Sacraments], except they go on and show forth a life worthy of this grace. Wherefore also he introduces the types both of Baptism and of the Mysteries [Sacraments].
But what is, "They were baptized into Moses?" Like as we, on our belief in Christ and His resurrection, are baptized, as being destined in our own persons to partake in the same mysteries [sacraments]; for, "we are baptized," says he, "for the dead," i.e., for our own bodies; even so they putting confidence in Moses, i.e., having seen him cross first, ventured also themselves into the waters. But because he wishes to bring the Type near the Truth; he speaks it not thus, but uses the terms of the Truth even concerning the Type.
Further: this was a symbol of the Font, and that which follows, of the Holy Table. For as you eat the Lord's Body, so they the manna: and as you drink the Blood, so they water from a rock. For though they were things of sense which were produced, yet were they spiritually exhibited, not according to the order of nature, but according to the gracious intention of the gift, and together with the body nourished also the soul, leading it unto faith. On this account, you see, touching the food he made no remark, for it was entirely different, not in mode only but in nature also; (for it was manna;) but respecting the drink, since the manner only of the supply was extraordinary and required proof, therefore having said that "they drank the same spiritual drink," he added, "for they drank of a spiritual Rock that followed them," and he subjoined, "and the Rock was Christ." For it was not the nature of the rock which sent forth the water, (such is his meaning,) else would it as well have gushed out before this time: but another sort of Rock, a spiritual One, performed the whole, even Christ who was every where with them and wrought all the wonders. For on this account he said, "that followed them."
Do you perceive the wisdom of Paul, how in both cases he points cut Him as the Giver, and thereby brings the Type near to the Truth? "For He who set those things before them," says he, "the same also has prepared this our Table: and the same Person both brought them through the sea and you through Baptism; and before them set manna, but before you His Body and Blood."


Did God create man to be gods themselves? Genesis 1:26-28 says:

  26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

  27 So God created mankind in his own image,
      in the image of God he created them;
      male and female he created them.

  28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”

If God created man not only in his image, but in his likeness, and in order to rule over the rest of Earth, did he intend for them to be gods themselves?

The answer to this depends very much on the concept of who God is in the first place.  If God is, as evangelical Christians believe, pre-existent, self-existent, omnipotent, omniscient, infinite and eternal, then it would be impossible for there to ever be multiple gods that share all those attributes.

A created being cannot become uncreated.  A mortal being, or even an immortal being (that had a beginning but will live forever), cannot become eternal (without a beginning).

So, to whatever level of authority and power God would ever endow to mankind, we could never attain equality with God Himself.

In theology, we understand that there are communicable attributes and incommnicable attributes.  The likeness of God within us contains His communicable atrributes.  We are moral beings, intellectual beings, spiritual beings, etc.  Yet, we are not uncreated, eternal, self-existent beings.


What were Martin Luther's main disagreements with the Catholic Church? What were Martin Luther's main disagreements with the Catholic Church? Were these beliefs of Luther's and his disagreements with the Catholic Church the origin of the Lutheran Church?

The Fundamental Change

So the question is: How did Luther change from a Catholic theologian to a Protstant theologian? Or to highlight more the historical aspect: How did he change from a late-scholastic to a reformer? Or a last variation: How did the early Luther change to the "old Luther"?

This leads us to a certain happening, to a conversion-like radical change in his life. What I'm talking about is the so called tower experience of Luther.

The Luther before this experience is the Luther of the monastery-struggles. With increasing progress he can not find inner peace – neither by the sacramental means of grace nor by monastic pastoral care. In light of the coming angry justice of God, that he was taught, he despairs.

Now Luther insists on trying to understand what that righteousness is. According to the doctrine of the Catholic Church at that time, this righteousness must be understood as a philosophical, formal and active righteousness. This means: God is righteous and punishes the sinner and unrighteous. Luther not only despairs, but even hates this doctrine.

In that situation, the above-mentioned tower experience can take place, since Luther discovers, that Romans 1:17, doesn't only say

  For therein is the righteousness of God revealed

But rather has to be read in its context:

  For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.

This makes Luther understand: The righteousness of God is this righteousness, which lets the just live by faith through God's gift. According to that Luther builds his understanding of righteousness inspired by Paul: it's passive and makes the sinner righteous by faith and not by any good work.

This is, what changes Luther from a Catholic theologian to a Protestant theologian.

From that point on, the Lutheran doctrine starts to grow.

Against Sale of Indulgence

He starts critisizing the sale of indulgences since they imply that righteousness can be reached by a good human work. According to Luther it can only by reached by faith in God, who makes the sinner righteous.

Against the Communion as a Sacrifice

For Luther the communion is a promise of God and not a sacrifice, like the Papacy has taught, as he says in his book The Misuse of the Mass (1521):

  Sacrifice and promise are more apart from each other than east and west, rise and decline. A sacrifice is a work, that we give God, whereas the promise is God's word, which gives us God's grace and mercy. It is inconceivable how Gods promise could become a human sacrifice. [...] They give, but Christ promises the people.
  (WA 8, 512, 12 and 28)

And much more …

Against the Papacy
Against the free will (See one of his main works "De servo arbitrio")

A final word …

Luther was misused by some European principalities in the 16th century to shrink the popes and the Kaiser's influence. Against Luther's will it came to a schism, building of the Lutheran church and other confessions of Protestantism.


What is the process of conversion to Orthodoxy from Anglicanism/Catholicism I require information for a fiction piece that I am writing, due to the fact that I've never converted to Orthodoxy, as I was baptized Orthodox
What is the process of conversion from Anglicanism or Catholicism to Orthodoxy?  Is it as simple as the priest anointing the new member?  Or is it classes and such, then Chrismation.
Note: The people in my fiction piece would have been originally baptized in the name of the Trinity
Also note, the Orthodox Church that the people will be converting to is Ukrainian Orthodox or ROCOR

When I converted to Orthodoxy (from Roman Catholicism) at the age of 27, the following process took place:

As part of a special service created for this kind of thing, I had to renounce the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church (thrice if I remember correctly).
Then I had to state the acceptance of the teachings of the Eastern Orthodox Church.
Side note: There was no need for a godfather or an immersion into water as the Roman Catholic baptism is recognized as being Trinitarian (I was baptized in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit).
And lastly, I was annointed with the Holy Myrrh on my hands, feet, back, chest and forehead, the same as babies are after the baptism itself. This annointment is not performed in Roman Catholic baptisms.

With Anglicans being Trinitarian as well, I would expect the same procedure to take place.

If you want minute details of the conversion service, I think it's public on the Web. In Romanian it is for sure, and most probably in other Orthodox majority languages. Not sure though if you can easily find it in English. Good luck!


How do Calvinists interpret 1 John 2:2 in light of Limited Atonement? 1 John 2:2 (ESV)

  He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.

Understanding the "ours" as referring to the universal church of believers, it would seem that John is saying that Christ "propitiated" for everyone's sins.

Calvinism, through the doctrine of limited, or definite, or particular, atonement, says that Christ died only for the elect.

How would a five-point Calvinist understand this passage?

Calvinists see the "whole world" in this passage as referring to the elect throughout the world, particularly emphasizing that Christ died for Gentiles as well as Jews.
Examples
Examples of this approach abound.  John Gill:

that is, not for the Jews only, for John was a Jew, and so were those he wrote unto, but for the Gentiles also (source)

Similarly, Matthew Poole writes:

i.e. for all that truly believe in him, all the world over. (source)

John MacArthur more thoroughly explains his view of John's intention here:

In the Jewish context, they understood Day of Atonement, they understood the language of propitiation. John is telling them that the sacrifice that Jesus offered is not just for the nation Israel, it's now for the world because the Lord is calling out a people for His name from every tribe and tongue and people and nation. (source; emphasis added)

Many other Reformed theologians take similar approaches, including John Frame (Systematic Theology, 907), the Reformed Study Bible, Louis Berkhof (3.3.6.B.4.a), and John Piper (source).
Exposition
We can dive a bit deeper into the analysis of one Reformed theologian to get a better understanding of the rationale for this view.  Simon Kistemaker (Exposition, 253–255), referring to the oft-cited "sufficient for the whole world but efficient for the elect" language, agrees with Calvin that while this is true, it is not in view here (see Calvin's commentary).  He argues:

The phrase the whole world relates not to every creature God has made, for then the fallen angels also would share in Christ's redemption.  The word whole describes the world in its totality, not necessarily in its individuality.

In defense of this idea, Kistemaker points to 1 John 3:16, where he sees John, after making a distinction between the "children of God" and the "children of the devil," saying that "Jesus Christ laid down his life for us" (emphasis added).  He also argues, citing A. T. Robertson, that a different Greek word could have been used if John meant to say that Christ died for every individual:

John chooses the adjective ολος (whole) instead of πας (every, all) to communicate the idea of universality.  The word ολος has "an indefinite meaning which πας does not have."


Who were Jannes and Jambres? 2 Timothy 3v8
"Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so also these teachers oppose the truth. They are men of depraved minds, who, as far as the faith is concerned, are rejected."

Who were they?

They seem to be of the magicians that worked against Moses in Egypt:

  They also appear in Pliny the Elder's Natural History, together with Moses, as famous magicians of antiquity; Pliny's citation is also referred to in Apuleius. Numerius, a Pythagorean philosopher, calls them sacred Egyptian scribes.

This has been taken from Wikipedia, and I don't know how much weight should be given it. However, they seems to be evidence backing it up:

  The Apocryphon of Jannes and Jambres the magicians is a manuscript among the Chester Beatty Papyri No XVI, which has been edited and translated by Albert Pietersma.

The Jews have long since known of them. Taken from a Jewish Encyclopedia:

  Names of two legendary wizards of Pharaoh "who withstood Moses" (II Tim. iii. 8) by imitating "with their enchantments" the works of Moses and Aaron, though they were defeated (Ex. vii. 11, viii. 7). According to rabbinical tradition they were the two chiefs of the magicians at the court of Pharaoh who foretold the birth of Moses, "the destroyer of the land of Egypt," thereby causing the cruel edicts of Pharaoh (Soṭah 11a; Sanh. 106a). They said to Moses when he performed his miracles with the water and the rod: "Dost thou wish to introduce magic into Egypt, the native land of the magic art?" (Men. 85a)


Do the religious figures leading a particular See of Christianity have a specific title(s) for that office? For instance:

Pope Francis, Bishop of Rome, _____ of the (Western) See

Emperor Claudius XI, last _____ of the (Eastern?) See

I've also seen the term "synod"; I'm not sure where that fits in either.

I'm not looking for other political distinctions.

Typically, in Catholicism, in Eastern or Oriental Orthodoxy, and in the Assyrian Church of the East, the highest-ranking bishops of a particular see are given the title Patriarch. The see itself can also be called a patriarchate.

Note however that this title of patriarch applies, within the Catholic Church, not only to the pope as head of the whole Catholic Church but also to the heads of the various Catholic Churches sui iuris, such as the Melkite and Maronite Catholic Churches. I'm not aware of any title that applies to (for example) only the pope within the Catholic Church and also to the heads of all other Orthodox and Eastern churches.


Somebody was born into a culture that has no knowledge of the Christ - could he still "find him"? If somebody

a) has no access to the Bible or any other written document on the Christ
and b) has no chance of hearing of "him" through the word of mouth either (because he lives in a culture that has no knowledge of the Christ, for instance), could he still "find the Christ"?

Is there any Christian denomination that would say "yes" and how such a person could "find the Christ"?

Mormons would be one to say yes. According to LDS belief, any who die without a complete or necessary knowledge of Jesus will be taught about Him in the Spirit World after this life, where they may choose to accept or reject the gospel. (This is why they build temples: to redeem the living and the dead.)

On a related note, they also believe that Christ came to more than just the Jews as in the Biblical record, citing John 10:16 and the Book of Mormon, indicating that there may be more people who know of Christ than we think.


What does being Born Again mean per Catholic teaching? What does being Born Again mean per Catholic teaching?

  Jesus answered and said to him, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” (John 3:3 NKJV)

No 1213 Catechism of the Catholic Church under THE SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM summarises what baptism is:

  1213 Holy Baptism is the basis of the whole Christian life, the
  gateway to life in the Spirit (vitae spiritualis ianua) [4 Cf.
  Council Of Florence: DS 1314: vitae spiritualis ianua.], and the
  door which gives access to the other sacraments. Through Baptism we
  are freed from sin and reborn as sons of
  God;
  we become members of Christ, are incorporated into the Church and made
  sharers in her mission: "Baptism is the sacrament of regeneration
  through water in the word." [Roman Catechism II,2,5; Cf. Council
  Of Florence: DS 1314; CIC, cann. 204 § 1; 849; CCEO, can. 675 § 1.]

The answer to the question is in bold.


What kinds of things are mutable in Latin Rite Catholic Liturgy? I got this email excerpt from the Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church emailed to me today.

Is everything immutable in the liturgy?

In the liturgy, particularly in that of the sacraments, there are unchangeable elements because they are of divine institution. The Church is the faithful guardian of them. There are also, however, elements subject to change which the Church has the power and on occasion also the duty to adapt to the cultures of diverse peoples.

What are some examples of the "elements which are subject to change" and how have they done so over the years?  Has this change increased or remained steady since Vatican II?

Reform of the mutable aspects of the liturgy* has occurred throughout the Church's history. Pope St. Pius V standardized the Roman Rite in his 1570 bull Quo Primum, and Pope St. Pius X reformed the breviary in his Divino afflatu. John XXIII was the first in 1½ millennia to change the Roman Canon prayers of the Mass when he added St. Joseph's name to it.

For there to be a valid Mass, the form of consecration ("For this is my body…" and "For this is the chalice of my Blood…") cannot ever change. Defects that occur in the Mass (which may or may not render the Mass invalid) are summarized in Pope St. Pius V's De defectibus.

That the liturgy must "adapt to the cultures of diverse peoples" is a novelty since Vatican II. Liturgical reform prior to Vatican II has always been about better conforming the liturgy to God's liturgical law, transmitted via tradition through the Church. Just as the Old Testament Jews had ceremonial precepts* in which God prescribed exactly how they are to worship Him, so too does the New Law include liturgical law.

*Ex. 32:17-19 (false worship of golden calf) shows how angry Moses got when the Jews violated liturgical law. They had good intentions (they thought the calf was a likeness of God and that they were honoring God by worshiping it), but they violated how God commanded they worship. They were so irreverent (shouting, singing, dancing) that Aaron thought there was a battle going on!

See:

Fr. Chad Ripperger's Topics in Tradition "Chapter 13: Modern Philosophy and the Liturgical Development"(cf. A Thomistic Perspective on Worship by Francisco J. Romero Carrasquillo of Ite ad Thomam blog, in which he shows that the virtue of religion, of which worship is the exterior expression, is grounded in the natural law)
Michael Davies's A Short History of the Roman Mass and Liturgical Time Bombs in Vatican II


What was the explanation for why Catharism identified the Old Testament God as Satan? According to the a Wikipedia article on Catharism (a Gnostic Christian movement in the 12th to 14th centuries):

  The idea of two Gods or principles, one being good and the other evil, was central to Cathar beliefs. The good God was the God of the New Testament and the creator of the spiritual realm, contrasted with the evil Old Testament God—the creator of the physical world whom many Cathars, and particularly their persecutors, identified as Satan.

I find the statement about the Old Testament God being identified as Satan to be really surprising. How was this explained? I'm especially interested how references to Satan were handled (e.g. the book of Job) and how any "good" actions from God were interpreted.

One point I would like clarification on is that modern Christians (say, Catholics) generally consider Satan a powerful being, but not a god. What was it in Cathar theology that "elevated" Satan to the level of an evil God? Was he just the most powerful evil being they knew of and so he must be the same Old Testament God that they viewed as evil?

It's kind of a long shot in that this information may not exist, but I would love to know how they viewed God having Old Testament heroes of faith, like Enoch, Moses, and Elijah, not taste death. I figure having a soul be released without having to die would be very interesting to them.

A superb question Sir!

From my own studies into Catharism and the theology of Marcionism I have found that the Cathars came to identify the Old Testament God as an evil force in contrast to the Good God of Jesus in the New Testament due to their belief that the world and all matter was corrupt.  This belief in "Two principles" can be considered radical dualism in the sense that they believed:

That there is one realm of good/the soul/the True God
& another realm that is evil/all physical matter/the evil God

The Cathar's beloved book "two principles" outlines this theology in a very convincing manner.

http://www.gnosis.org/library/cathar-two-principles.htm

It is possible that (similar to Marcion of Sinopes theology years before Catharism) they considered the apparent contradictions between the loving God of the New testament and what they read to be the vengeful god of the Old testament to be two principle powers in opposition to one another; thus concluding, like Marcion before them, that the Old testament God is the evil principle who brought about this world along with all its pain and confusion.

I have questioned how the Cathers would have discerned which texts refer to the words of which principle power? (which I have asked here:If the premise for Marcion's Two Principles (Dualism) is correct; which words in the Bible belong to the Demiurge?) Because, like you say, Satan is referred to in Job as discussing a plan with God.

During my study into the Cathars, I felt that they could on the outset justify their theology as it is a rather neat package in solving the problem of evil which all generations and denominations have strived for; the Cathars saw themselves as "Sparks of Divine in Flesh" (Romans 7:23;8:5 & Job 5:7); they no doubt yearned to be away from the flesh of this evil world (Philippians 1:21).

I also questioned the actual Cathar premise that how could there be two principle powers? One evil and one good? The only way I can imagine it (within human limitations) is that the good principle is infinitely more powerful than the evil; however He is also infinitely merciful towards the evil (love thy enemies and all that) therefore the two can exist indefinitely in this sort of theology. How the two came about would be the Cathar's theological mystery.

With regards the question: What was the explanation for why Catharism identified the Old Testament God as Satan?  The answer is found in the Cathar's book of Two principles (Part IV. A Compendium for the Instruction of Beginners, section 7) which states the following about the evil principle/god and Satan/Devil:

  [7] On the Evil Principle.     For this reason, in the opinion of the wise it is firmly to be believed that there is another principle, one of evil, who is mighty in iniquity, from whom the power of Satan and of darkness and all other powers which are inimical to the true Lord God are exclusively and essentially derived, as was demonstrated above and will appear below, God willing.

Therefore it is evident from the above Cathar text that they saw Satan as a being who's power derived from the evil principle; therefore not the evil principle himself, but most certainly his agent...in contrast to Christ who is the True Lord's agent.

I hope this touches on answering your question.

All the best.


Who was the first person on record who was killed by a Christian or group of Christians for religious disagreements? I am trying to learn when did things start to go wrong in Christianity and when did it start to change from a peaceful, loving religious group into a movement that engaged in war and physical repression, including executions, in the Middle Ages. Therefore I was wondering who was the first person killed by a Christian, two Christians or a group of Christians due to religious disagreements.

Your question starts with a couple of assumptions that don't hold up.  First, the earliest Christians had plenty of heated disagreements, starting with doctrinal conflicts over the extent to which the Law of Moses was binding (or not) on Gentile believers.  Chapter 15 of Acts, and the whole of Paul's letter to the church at Galatia, record those issues.  Second, even at the peak of the Inquisitions, only a very small percentage of accused heretics were sentenced to death.

(Please note, I bring these up not to justify anything -- even one killing by the church for heresy was one too many.  I just want to correct some common misconceptions, ones that I used to share until I dug more deeply into the facts.)

That said, the specific you're seeking, THE first person to die for heresy, may be a detail lost to history.  Based on my own very limited research, the earliest major, fatal action against a heretical movement was the persecution of the Donatists during the time of Augustine: Donatism.

It seems there were strong political factors involved, not merely the suppression of a heresy.  And according to the article, even though Augustine argued that the use of force was justified, he later protested the extremes that the Roman authorities were going to.

So to sum it up, TL;DR style:  the use of violence against heresy seems to have come about in conjunction with the church becoming a political force rather than a strictly spiritual organization.


Are there any Christian sects that say salvation is based, in whole or in part, on your response to Jesus on Judgment Day? I recently had a conversation with a Christian who believes that our choices during this life are not the only factors affecting salvation. Rather, God will be very lenient about our Earthly behavior, given that many of us are prevented for various reasons from seeing him clearly. So God's final decision will be heavily influenced by the choice we make when we have formally met him in Heaven, and have understood everything we need to understand. At that point, we can decide whether to accept his lordship or not. If we do, we go to Heaven. If we don't, we don't.

This Christian said he does not claim any particular sect. Are there any sects of Christianity that teach anything like this? I've never heard any such salvation theory.

The various "New Church" denominations that follow the Christian teachings and Bible interpretations written by Emanuel Swedenborg (1688-1772) have a view of salvation that is partially, though not wholly, compatible with the salvation theory that your Christian friend describes.
Key points that are compatible:

Non-Christians and people with faulty or false conceptions of God can
be saved.
Those who are saved will accept God, and most of them will accept Jesus Christ as God, during their preparation for heaven in the afterlife.
In the afterlife we are not punished for any evil actions done on earth; only for evil actions we continue to commit in the spiritual world.

A key point that is probably incompatible:

It is through the decisions we make and the life we live on earth that we develop a character that either will or will not accept God's lordship in the afterlife, and that either will or will not continue to commit evil actions in the afterlife.

I should add that in Swedenborg's theology there is not a single Judgment Day on which all people are simultaneously judged, but rather each person faces his or her own particular "judgment day" as part of a step-by-step process that begins immediately after each individual's death.
Here are a few sample quotations from Swedenborg's writings in which he makes the above points.
About non-Christians and people with faulty ideas of God being saved:

It is an insane heresy to believe that only those born in the church are saved. People born outside the church are just as human as people born within it. They come from the same heavenly source. They are equally living and immortal souls. They have religions as well, religions that enable them to believe that God exists and that they should lead good lives; and all of them who do believe in God and lead good lives become spiritual on their own level and are saved, as already noted.
Someone could point out that they have not been baptized. But baptism saves only people who have been spiritually washed, that is, regenerated. Baptism serves as a symbol and reminder of this.
Someone could point out that they do not know the Lord, and that apart from the Lord there is no salvation. But no one is saved because of knowing about the Lord. We are saved because we live by his commandments. Further, the Lord is known to everyone who believes in God because the Lord is the God of heaven and earth, as he tells us in Matthew 28:18 and elsewhere.
Particularly, people outside the church have more of a concept of a personal God than Christians do; and people who have a concept of a personal God and lead good lives are accepted by the Lord. Unlike Christians, they believe in God as one in both person and essence. Further, they think about God as they lead their lives. They treat evils as sins against God; and people who do this are thinking about God as they lead their lives. (Divine Providence #330)

About people accepting God, and commonly accepting Jesus Christ ("the Lord," in Swedenborg's terminology) as God in the afterlife if they had not been Christians or had not had a clear idea of God in their earthly life—provided that they had lived a reasonably good and thoughtful life on earth:

I have been taught by a great many instances that if non-Christians have lived decent lives, intent on obedience and appropriate deference and in mutual thoughtfulness as their religion requires so that they have acquired a measure of conscience, they are accepted in the other life and are taught by angels about matters of goodness and truth with most sensitive care. Once they have been taught, they behave unpretentiously, intelligently, and wisely and readily accept and absorb truths. This is because no false principles have taken form to oppose truths of faith, principles that would need to be ousted, let alone slanders against the Lord, as is the case for many Christians whose treasured concept of the Lord is simply of an ordinary human being. It is different for non-Christians. When they hear that God became a person here and made himself known in the world, they acknowledge it immediately and revere the Lord. They say that of course God made himself known; after all, he is the God of heaven and earth, and the human race belongs to him.
It is a divine truth that there is no salvation apart from the Lord, but this needs to be understood as meaning that there is no salvation that does not come from the Lord. (Heaven and Hell #321)

About our not being punished for evil actions done on earth, but only for evil actions we continue to do in the afterlife—and yet that the choices we make on earth, and the life we live pursuant to those choices, determines whether we will continue to commit evils in the afterlife ("the world of spirits" is Swedenborg's term for the region of the spiritual world that everyone enters after death before going to his or her final home in either heaven or hell):

Since evil spirits plunge into all kinds of evils when they are in this second state [after death], it is normal for them to be punished often and severely. There are many kinds of punishments in the world of spirits, and there is no respect for rank, for whether someone was a king or a servant in the world. Every evil brings its own punishment with it. They are united; so whoever is involved in something evil is involved in the punishment of the evil as well. Still, no one suffers any punishment for evil things done in the world, only for current evil deeds. It boils down to the same thing, though, and makes no difference whether you say that we suffer punishments because of our evil deeds in the world or that we suffer punishments because of our evil deeds in the other life, because after death we all return to our life, which means that we are involved in the same kinds of evil. This is because our nature is determined by the kind of physical life we led.
The reason they are punished is that fear of punishment is the only means of taming their evils in that state. Encouragement does not work anymore, or teaching or fear of the law or fear for their reputation, because they are acting from their nature, which cannot be compelled or broken by anything but punishments.
Good spirits are never punished, though, even though they have done bad things in the world. This is because their evils do not come back. I have also been granted a knowledge that their evils are of a different kind or nature. They do not stem from any deliberate resistance to what is true, and they are not from any evil heart except the one they acquired by heredity from their parents, which blind pleasure drove them into when they were involved in outward concerns separated from inner ones. (Heaven and Hell #509)

In other words, according to Swedenborg, regardless of what religion people had belonged to or what they had believed about God here on earth, they will be given the opportunity in the afterlife to learn the true nature of God, and what it truly means to live a good and heavenly life. If at that point they are willing to learn, to accept God, and to live a good, moral, and spiritual life, then they are accepted into heaven. No faulty beliefs held or wrongful actions done on earth will be held against them, since their intent was and is to live a good and thoughtful life, which they now recognize comes from God.
This much is compatible with your Christian friend's belief.
However, according to Swedenborg it ultimately is the choices people make on earth, and the life they live according to their own choices and beliefs, that will determine whether in the afterlife they are willing and able to accept true teachings about God and spiritual life, and therefore go to heaven. If they are ultimately more interested in their own self-interest, pleasure, power, and so on than they are in loving and serving God and their fellow human beings, then they will reject God, the truth, and spiritual life when it is offered to them, and will choose instead to spend eternity in hell.
For more on these points based on Swedenborg's theology, please see these articles:

If there’s One God, Why All the Different Religions?
Is Jesus Christ the Only Way to Heaven?
What Happens To Us When We Die?
Is There Really a Hell? What is it Like?


Did John Bunyan really dream the Pilgrim's Progress? Had he memorized all the verses? This is the beginning of Pilgrim's Progress by John Bunyan:

  As I walked through the wilderness of this world, I lighted on a certain place where was a den, and laid me down in that place to sleep; and as I slept, I dreamed a dream. I dreamed, and behold, I saw a man clothed with rags, standing in a certain place, with his face from his own house, a book in his hand, and a great burden upon his back.
  I'm referring to the story Pilgrim's Progress.

I believe it was written while he was imprisoned. My question is, did he really literally dream this dream, and write it down, or was it like he had written "in a land far far away ... ?"

Secondly, Pilgrim's Progress is just filled with Bible verses everywhere (one of the things that impresses me most about the book.) If this book was written while in prison for preaching, how did he have access to a Bible in order to cite all these verses? Or did he have them all memorized?

Part 1 I think could only be answered by speculation. Personally I would speculate it is simply creative story-telling, but that is just opinion.

For part 2; if we look at his earlier 1666 imprisonment, he is documented (see Wikipedia) as having:

  two books, John Foxe's Book of Martyrs, the Bible, a violin he had made out of tin, a flute he'd made from a chair leg and a supply of pen and paper

So it seems clear that having a bible in jail (gaol) was no issue. Indeed, at this time it was compulsory to attend church (his crime was preaching without a license, as the C of E was aggressively controlling).

If anything, I would imagine a bible would be easily accessible, even in prison. Additionally, the writing was only started while in prison - it was only a 6 month imprisonment.


Does Hebron means Hebrew? Is Hebron referred to Hebrew?

In Genesis 39:17 → The Hebrew Servant →
Here Joseph is called as a Hebrew.
So this is my understanding that → Joseph's great grandfather Abraham was from Hebron → referred to Hebrews → often used with Israelites.
It's usually refers to the descents of Abraham.

Hebrew is → geographical reference whereas Israelite is → lineage reference

Please correct me if I am wrong.

If I understand your question properly, you want to know if the word "Hebrew" applied to Joseph in Gen 39:17 derives from Joseph's ancestral city, Hebron.  This would distinguish "Hebrew" as a reference to a geographic place of origin, whereas "Israelite" refers to the ancestral person.

You are correct that Abraham did live near Hebron in Canaan.  He purchased land there (Gen 23:17-18), including a burial cave.  In that cave were buried Abraham's wife Sara (Gen 23:19), Abraham (Gen 25:9-10), Isaac and his wives Rebekah and Leah (Gen 49:29-33), and Jacob (Gen 50:12-13).  We also have Abraham described as a "Hebrew" in Gen 14:13, which occurred while Abraham was living near Hebron. However, I don't know of any basis to say that the word "Hebrew" and "Hebron" are related (despite their similarities).

From this Wikipedia article the name "Hebron" refers (in the Hebrew and Amorite languages) to a friendship or alliance.  It is also a basis for an Arabic epithet for Abraham, which means "friend."  This is a very different meaning from the ones we see for "Hebrew."

According to a response on Linguistics StackExchange the etymology of "Hebrew" is "from the other side" presumably meaning the Euphrates river, since Abraham came to Canaan from Ur on the other side of the Euphrates.  However, there are other theories that trace "Hebrew" to Eber, the great-grandson of Shem and great-great-great-great-grandfather of Abraham (Gen 11:10-26).  Take your pick, but none of these relate to the city of Hebron where Abraham lived in Canaan.


According to the LDS faith, did Noah build the Ark in America? According to Mormon Doctrine, Adam and Eve lived in Adam-ondi-Ahman. Which was revealed to Joseph Smith to be located in Missouri (see D&C 116:1).

This would mean that unless Adam's posterity went on some epic intercontinental journey between Adam and Noah's time, that Noah likely built the ark not too far from Missouri, and sailed it from America all the way to the Eastern Continent.

Do Mormons believe the ark was built on the American continent? And that everyone who lived before Noah dwelt in America?

The belief that the Ark could have been "made in America" isn't restricted to the LDS.  Not that a claim is typically made that Noah was "mericun", but from a strict reading of Genesis, there is no hard and fast place where the ark would have been constructed, because for many strict creationists, the flood irrevocably altered the earth's entire geography, under a theory known as "catastrophic plate tectonics."

A hard-core creationist, such as Ken Hamm or the Institute for Creation Research, would have very little problem with the notion of the Ark being built in Missouri.

Genesis 7:11 describes the beginning of the flood this way:

  11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of the heavens were opened.

Traditionally many young-earthers like to ascribe great violence to these fountains.  Both Answers In Genesis and the ICR have written papers reconciling plate tectonics with the flood, suggesting that the flood completely rearranged the planet.

To wit:

  In 1859 Antonio Snider proposed that rapid, horizontal divergence of crustal plates occurred during Noah’s Flood. Modern plate tectonics theory is now conflated with assumptions of uniformity of rate and ideas of continental “drift.” Catastrophic plate tectonics theories, such as Snider proposed more than a century ago, appear capable of explaining a wide variety of data—including biblical and geologic data which the slow tectonics theories are incapable of explaining. We would like to propose a catastrophic plate tectonics theory as a framework for Earth history. ... The Flood was initiated as slabs of oceanic floor broke loose and subducted along thousands of kilometers of pre-Flood continental margins

and

  Because of the scientific community’s commitment to the uniformitarian assumptions and framework for earth history, most geologists take for granted that the movement of the earth’s plates has been slow and gradual over long eons.  ... On the other hand, many other observations are incompatible with slow-and-gradual plate tectonics. While the seafloor surface is relatively smooth, zebra-stripe magnetic patterns are obtained when the ship-towed instrument (magnetometer) observations average over mile-sized patches

While the ark is believed to have rested on Mount Ararat in Turkey, its beginning point is never pointed out in the text. A pre-Flood Pangaea would, for the above groups, be rather irrelevant to the modern globe. (In particular, Snider pointed to the fact in Genesis 1:9-10 that the dry land was gathered into a single place.)

Under a "fast-tectonic action,"  where Noah lived before the Flood could have been Missouri or Madras just as easily as Mount Ararat.


Gregorian Chant - Is it merely a form of music, like Hymns, or is there a deeper meaning? The title says it all.  Is Gregorian Chant merely a style of music, or is there some deeper meaning behind it?  Does it serve some special purpose, or have a usage beyond being a form of worshiping God through song?

During the St. Gregory I papacy (590–604) this form of music was collected and codified, and was (and still is) strictly linked to the liturgy.

In this sense, this is not just a style of music, but it goes together with the Mass and the prayer of "The canonical hours", consisting of eight prayer services: Matins, Lauds, Prime, Terce, Sext, None, Vespers, and Compline.

Gregorian Chant purpose was hence to accompaign the liturgy, but the liturgy itself was build together with the chant. In this sense it has a deeper meaning. It's part of the liturgy.

There are the following good links you could view, which give more detail about the chant.

Gregorian Chant @Britannica
Gregorian Chant @catholic encyclopedia

In general, Gregorian Chant is part of the longlasting Church tradition. It is now still commonly used by Order of Saint Benedict and other monastic orders. In this sense you can find a deeper meaning, because it recalls all the monastic tradition ellements: the silence, the prayer of the hearth.. and others.

I hope this answers to your question.


Did the Church Fathers ever reference the six jars of wine at the Wedding in Cana as symbolising the six followers of Jesus at the wedding? John 1 describes in some detail Jesus calling his first five disciples - Andrew, Simon, Philip, Nathanael and presumably John.
John 2 1-2 says that Jesus' mother was at the wedding and Jesus was there with his disciples. So there were six followers of Jesus at the wedding (his mother and five disciples), and six jars filled with the new wine.
The passage here forms a beautiful contrast with Jeremiah 13; 12-14 where people are also referred to as jars of wine. In the Jeremiah passage the people described were the prophets, priests and the kings who sat on David's throne, as well as all the people of Jerusalem. They were all sentenced to destruction.
At the wedding at Cana one man, who was a prophet, priest and the king who would sit on David's throne, filled jars with a wine of blessing instead of destruction. It was as if the old wine of God's judgement a ran out at the wedding, and was replaced with the new wine of His blessing.
I wonder if this, the first sign that Jesus did, set the pattern for the rest of Jesus' ministry - he filled the 12, then the 70, then the 3,000 at Pentecost. And these people, like the jars of new wine filled to the brim at the wedding, (John 2:7) went on to share the new wine they carried with others, spreading the gospel of the Kingdom far and wide.
Incidentally the amount of wine Jesus created (approximately 150 gallons) was enough to give 3,000 people a good measure. Could it be that Jesus was looking all the way to Pentecost when he created the wine?
This all makes sense to me, but I've not seen this referenced anywhere else, so I would be curious to know if other people have found anything in church history like this?

The question was edited after my answer. But I have been unable to find any support for your own thesis among either the Church Fathers, the Reformers, the Strict Baptist movement or the early Plymouth Brethren Movement. Nor among the writings of William Huntington, the forerunner of the Strict baptist movement.
But I continue to look for any other examples . . . . . .

The three other gospel accounts mention the primary parable which Jesus tells us must be appreciated or we will not understand any other parable, that of the preparation of the ground prior to the sowing of the word. Wayside, stones and weeds must be cultivated, first, or nothing will grow to fruition.
John does not have this parable but instead he gives us a very detailed account of the preparatory ministry of John the baptist and the result of John's ministry, that disciples leave John and follow Jesus.
This is the ministry spoken of by Malachi, and highlighted in his first verses by Mark, denoting John the baptist as the messenger of preparation : the messenger of the covenant being the Lord himself.
Genesis 25 also gives a prophetic account of the filling up of camels with water by a servant (the imagery moving between two individuals) and a remarkable account of eleven men having their feet washed. Truly remarkable.
Six in scripture often refers to man (short of perfection which is seven). Stone often relates to the tables of stone. The small measure of water in the vessels (the human vessel is to be filled with Spirit) indicates that a legal progress within a legal background is better than nothing (the law is a schoolmaster to bring to Christ) but it does not fill to the brim.
This account (as elsewhere) demonstrates that the baptism of repentance is not on a legal basis. It goes much deeper than law.
It is Christ who stands by as water is provided (the ministry of word by the baptist) to fill the vessels up. Everything within is to be filled with the words of John until all else is displaced. This is a baptism of repentance. It is entire, nothing short.
Only then, and only when Jesus acts, himself, (John stood and Jesus walked) does the water become wine and is taken to the archetricline (the chief of three who recline) and he is gratified with the wine that results, the wine from the vessel.

You asked 'whether other people see the same things'. And this is what I, personally, see.


What power do spirits have that resurrected beings do not? According to Mormon doctrine, Resurrected beings have physical bodies that can only be in one place at one time, which is why the Holy Ghost remains a spirit, so that he can dwell in the hearts of men:

  "The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son
  also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a
  personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in
  us." (D&C 130:22, emphasis added)

It appears to me that some form of power or ability is lost at the resurrection. An essential power that only spirits have, which resurrected beings do not, hence the necessity of the Holy Ghost remaining a spirit.

It seems somewhat paradoxical to me that we would have anything to lose at the resurrection–if anyone understands what I'm trying to communicate by phrasing it that way... Obviously the Holy Ghost is going to be resurrected at some point (I feel it's safe to assume so at least), at which point in time he will forfeit the power that makes his role in the Godhead essential, and receive a resurrected body. My question is, what exactly is this power that the Father and Christ cannot wield as resurrected beings? Or where do I err in my pondering or phrasing of my question?

What an excellent question, as it forced me to really think it through.

I think the disconnect is in the very first lines.  You make two assumptions that Mormons would not agree with.  The first is that without a physical body a spirit is able to be in more than one place at a time.

  Doctrine and Covenants 131:7-8
   7 There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter,
  but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes;

  8 We cannot see it; but when our bodies are purified we shall see that
  it is all matter.

the second assumption you made with which Mormons would disagree would be to lump the Holy Ghost in with 'Spirits'.  We do have doctrine that states that He is a personage of Spirit without a body of flesh and bone but we know very little about Him.  We don't know if He is yet to be born into mortality, already passed through a mortal state, or never to be born at all.  We don't know how He accomplishes His divine mission but we don't assume that because the Holy Ghost is capable of it, then all spirits must be equally endowed.

What we do know (what we have doctrines declaring) is that we can become joint heirs with Christ, receiving all that the Father hath.  We can become like Him and part of the process includes being resurrected into a glorified physical body.  We saw an example of such a body in Jesus Christ and we saw that it (His glorified body) was capable of things which ours are not (see John 20:19).

There is no regression in resurrection.


What is the difference between "love one another" and "love your neighbour"? How have “love one another” and “love your neighbour” been traditionally compared or harmonized? The former occurs in the Gospel and Epistles of John, which never say “love your neighbour”.  The latter is in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and James, which do not refer to “love each other”.

According to John 13:34, Christ said:

  A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.

If this is a new commandment, it must encompass something different from the old commandment in Leviticus 19:18:

  Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.

In the early post-apostolic literature, only “love one another” appears in Second Clement, Minucius Felix, Aristides, and the Epistle of the Apostles, while the Didache, Justin Martyr, and Barnabas exclusively say “neighbour”.

Both expressions are found in the Pauline Epistles, in Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian.  The two appear closely together, in adjoining sentences, only in Romans 13.8-9 and Clement’s Stromata 2.15.

Complicating the issue were Polycarp, Irenaeus, and the Gospel of Thomas, who used neither expression, but say only “love your brother”.  First John 2.10, 3.14, and 4.21 also say “love your brother” while other verses in the Epistle exhort “love one another”.

With such a wide usage of both phrases, how have they been traditionally compared and contrasted? Do they find harmony or are they different phrases commanding different things?

Wikipedia gives a brief overview of how the commandment has generally been seen as "new." It accords with what I've heard through the years:

  The "New Commandment", the Wycliffe Bible Commentary states, "was new in that the love was to be exercised toward others not because they belonged to the same nation, but because they belonged to Christ...and the love of Christ which the disciples had seen...would be a testimony to the world".

  One of the novelties introduced by this commandment – perhaps justifying its designation as New – is that Jesus "introduces himself as a standard for love". The usual criterion had been "as you love yourself". However, the New Commandment goes beyond "as you love yourself" as found in the ethic of reciprocity and states "as I have loved you", using the Love of Christ for his disciples as the new model.

The idea that Jews were only commanded to love one another, and not to love outsiders, doesn't seem to hold water. Sixteen verses after "love your neighbor," we read:

  The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God. (Leviticus 19:34 NIV)

Not to mention the fact that according to Luke's gospel, Jesus had already claimed that "my neighbor" in the context of the commandment is whomever you can show mercy to. So if you believe that John and Luke report the same Jesus, as Christianity has traditionally taught, that can't be what's "new" about Jesus' New Commandment.

John Piper helpfully expounds on what makes the New Commandment new in a sermon on John 13:

  First, the command is new because it is a command to live out the love of Jesus. Second, the command is new because it is a command to live on the love of Jesus. The words “as I have loved you” contain a pattern for our love for each other, and they contain a power for our love for each other.

  Loving each other is not a new command per se. It was already there in the Old Testament (Leviticus 19:18, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself”). What’s new is that Jesus is now the pattern we live by and the power we live on. Let’s look at these two kinds of newness.

Piper quotes Jesus' words from earlier in John 13:

  Do you understand what I have done to you? You call me Teacher and Lord, and you are right, for so I am. If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet. For I have given you an example, that you also should do just as I have done to you.

What this seems to mean is that Jesus' disciples are to serve one another, regardless of their social status. Piper thus says that the "pattern we live by" according to the New Commandment is to "lay aside status and rank and prestige and privilege and take the form of a servant" and engage in "practical deeds of helpfulness."

So, "Love your neighbor as yourself" seems to involve loving everyone. "Love one another as I have loved you" seems to involve loving fellow believers. Obviously this is a subset of the old command, but it raises the standard, from "as you love yourself" to "as I (Jesus) have loved you," and it gives a new purpose, that "by this everyone will know that you are my disciples." This purpose is reminiscent of Jesus' words in the Sermon on the Mount: "Let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven."

It doesn't appear that the old command was done away with either, since Paul says in a discourse on love:

  Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord. On the contrary: “If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.” Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

So both commands are in effect, but they have different scopes and different purposes.

To recap:

Love your neighbor as yourself

a. Command: love all people

b. Standard: love as you love yourself

c. Purpose: to pursue peace on earth

d. In effect: yes
Love one another as I have loved you

a. Command: love and serve fellow believers

b. Standard: love in the ways that Jesus demonstrated

c. Purpose: that non-believers will take notice

d. In effect: yes


How is the Trinity compatible with divine simplicity? Divine simplicity is the doctrine that God has no parts/composition. It implies that God is equivalent to his attributes and his attributes are equivalent to each other. So God is love and God is Justice and God's love is the same thing as God's Justice.

How does the doctrine of the Trinity mesh with this? There seems to be some distinction within God: three unique hypostases.

Perhaps the relations between the hypostases of the Trinity do not constitute "parts" or "composition" but are instead just "distinctions". If so that's a really "semantic" technical answer and I don't get it, some elaboration would be appreciated.

Perhaps it has something to do with the doctrine of interpenetration, aka circumincession aka perichoresis aka co-inherence. This being the doctrine that "the father fully contains the son and the spirit, the son fully contains the father and the spirit, and the spirit fully contains the father and the son." In this way, if you take any single member of the trinity, you get the entire trinity; it is impossible to separate one hypostasis from the others because whenever you take one hypostasis it always comes with the other two as well. In this way the trinity is inseparable and indivisible, just as the divine simplicity doctrine implies. Nevertheless it still looks sketchy because as mentioned, there is distinction between the hypostases.

How is divine simplicity reconciled with the doctrine of the Trinity?

The following is a paraphrase of "The Trinity: Divine Simplicity & the Trinity."

The Trinity is not three separate people.  The Trinity (tri-unity) of God is an attribute of His essence.  Therefore, it is in direct alignment with Divine (God) Simplicity (His essence).

When we read in the Bible of the persons of the God-Head (that is Father, Son and Holy Spirit), we learn they each have certain characteristics, but those characteristics do not add to the essence of who God is.


In what sense are angels elect? In 1 Timothy 5:21 we read:

  I charge you, in the sight of God and Christ Jesus and the elect angels, to keep these instructions without partiality, and to do nothing out of favoritism. 1 Timothy 5:21 (NIV)

My understanding is that a Reformed Protestant would use the word "elect" to describe Christians predestined by God to be saved from their sin, and brought into His kingdom . I'm not aware of any biblical evidence that angels have gone through that process, so it seems odd for Paul to use that word here.

How would a Reformed Protestant understand Paul describing angels as elect?

The 1657 Westminster Confession of Faith, which the Reformed Tradition subscribes to, indeed explicitly understand some angels as elect.
Quote from Chapter III (Of God's Eternal Decree) points 3 and 4:

III. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angelsf are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others fore-ordained to everlasting death.g
f I Tim. 5:21; Matt. 25:41.
g Rom. 9:22, 23; Eph. 1:5, 6; Prov. 16:4.
IV. These angels and men, thus predestinated, and fore-ordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed, and their number so certain and definite, that it cannot be either increased or diminished.h
h II Tim. 2:19; John 13:18.

There is a Reformed article on 1 Tim 5:21 which addressed these 2 questions:

Who are the “chosen angels” and what does their title imply?
Although the Westminster Confession of Faith includes a reference to “angels,” most Calvinists are unwilling to draw comparisons with men and angels in terms of Election and Reprobation. Why is that?

The article quoted John Calvin to conclude that

“because they were elect,” the angels were prevented from falling, perhaps by an Irresistible Grace, rather than being declared Elect on account of not falling.

To reconcile the difference in that "elect" humans are Totally Depraved (which cannot be for angels), the article quoted from a book Commonly Misunderstood Bible Verses: Clear Explanations for the Difficult Passages by a 4-point Calvinist Ron Rhodes (pp.255-256, emphasis mine):

“All the angels were originally created good and holy, just as God made and pronounced all His creation good (Genesis 1:31; 2:3). For God to create anything wicked would be inconsistent with His holy character. Jude 6 affirms that originally all the angels were holy creatures. God did not create Satan and the fallen angels (demons) in a state of wickedness. Though all the angels were originally created in a state of holiness, Scripture indicates that they were subjected to a period of probation. Some of the angels remained holy. Others did not--following Lucifer’s lead, they rebelled against God and fell into great sin. Once the angels were put to the test to remain loyal to God or to rebel with Lucifer, their decision seems to have been made permanent in its effect. Those angels that passed the probationary test will now always remain holy. Those who failed the probationary test are now confirmed in their evil state. This is the reason the good angels are called elect angels in 1 Timothy 5:21. They are not called elect because they sinned and then were elected unto redemption (they never sinned during the probationary period). Rather, they are called elect because God intervened to permanently confirm (elect) them in their holiness so they could not sin in the future. Good angels are now incapable of sinning. The lines have been drawn, and the lines are now absolute.”


How does one "leave his wife" for the Kingdom of God? What is an overview of doctrinal statements made by Christian theologians regarding Jesus' statements in Luke 18:

  Luke 18:29-30 ESV  And he said to them, “Truly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or wife or brothers or parents or children, for the sake of the kingdom of God, who will not receive many times more in this time, and in the age to come eternal life.”

I'm especially interested to know how one can leave his wife for the Kingdom of God when Paul tells us to love our wives the way Christ loved the church.

  Ephesians 5:25-28 ESV Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.

Jesus made it clear at his ascension that he would never leave his church.

  Matthew 28:20b ESV ...And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.

How does one “leave his wife” for the Kingdom of God?

  Luke 18:28-30  Then Peter said, Lo, we have left all, and followed
  thee.   And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, There is no man
  that hath left house, or parents, or brethren, or wife, or children,
  for the kingdom of God's sake,   Who shall not receive manifold more
  in this present time, and in the world to come life everlasting.

In context, Peter was making his statement in contrast to the statement by Jesus that it was easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter the kingdom. After which the disciples asked, who then could be saved, to which Jesus replied that what was impossible with man was possible for God. It is at this point that Peter remarks about their having left all for Jesus.

We see in context that “house, or parents, or brethren, or wife, or children” are equated with the power of riches to keep the heart of someone from following Jesus.

Another example of this is seen earlier in Luke;

  Luke 14:15-27  And when one of them that sat at meat with him heard
  these things, he said unto him, Blessed is he that shall eat bread in
  the kingdom of God.   Then said he unto him, A certain man made a
  great supper, and bade many:   And sent his servant at supper time to
  say to them that were bidden, Come; for all things are now ready.
  And they all with one consent began to make excuse. The first said
  unto him, I have bought a piece of ground, and I must needs go and see
  it: I pray thee have me excused.   And another said, I have bought
  five yoke of oxen, and I go to prove them: I pray thee have me
  excused.   And another said, I have married a wife, and therefore I
  cannot come.   So that servant came, and shewed his lord these things.
  Then the master of the house being angry said to his servant, Go out
  quickly into the streets and lanes of the city, and bring in hither
  the poor, and the maimed, and the halt, and the blind.  And the
  servant said, Lord, it is done as thou hast commanded, and yet there
  is room.   And the lord said unto the servant, Go out into the
  highways and hedges, and compel them to come in, that my house may be
  filled.   For I say unto you, That none of those men which were bidden
  shall taste of my supper.   And there went great multitudes with him:
  and he turned, and said unto them,   If any man come to me, and hate
  not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and
  sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.   And
  whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my
  disciple.

In this context Jesus uses the apparently pious statement of a man regarding the kingdom as an opportunity to illustrate that entry into the kingdom was not as automatic as many supposed.

Here we see the illustration that our interest in Jesus has to be more than cursory. If we value family or even our own life more, we fall short of being a disciple.

It is this totality of self that is to be given to Jesus. The “leaving” of a wife is not a physical departure, but the insertion of Jesus as being of greater importance.


How much time did medieval Christians devote to prayer? I was critiqued on this answer concerning it taking less time out of the day for someone to be a Muslim than a Christian, and that may be untrue for a majority of Christians today.

But how much time did an Christians between the 600's and the 1200's spend in prayer each day?  Were there novenas, rosaries, the divine office, the angelus, chaplets etc... back then and if so how did they come to be fairly ubiquitous?

How would anyone even begin to research what kinds of devotions one's own ancestors may have practiced?

Some early forms of Rosary were known before 1200, although they were probably not as popular as from 13th century on. Jesus prayer popular in Orthodox church was definitely known. Angelus is prayed outside monasteries since 13th century. Way of the Cross is even younger. Wikipedia article on novena is a stub and brief search didn't find anything much better, but novenas could be known and prayed even in early Middle Ages.

We don't know very well how laymen prayed before 1200 - we can be sure they prayed, but most of the forms have not been recorded. I would guess that  devout Christians could pray a lot, but there was no prayer practice everyone (including the less devout) was supposed to join except for Holy Mass, which was not so common in some parts of Europe (in Western Europe there could be a net of churches, but in newly evangelized lands this was hardly the case).


Holiness of Mary and Joseph Often in stain glass and other art, both Mary and Joseph are seen to have the 'halo' around them that also surround those of saints.

I was once told (by I think my religion teacher) that for Jesus, the son of God, to be born, he had to be born of parents possessing the holiness of God. Other than Jesus having to be of the house of David, were they any other requirements (preferably with a reference)? Or is this a distortion?

Also, if this was true, that only those with the holiness of God could parent His son, would that not require that all their parents before them have the same requirements to birth them?

Also, another thing I find interesting is I believe (as do my parents) is that we all possess the holiness of God, as we are all God's children with no favorites. While our decisions in this life effect our outcome in the after life, if not this one, does it in any way effect how God effects our lives other than our lack of letting him?

Sorry if I went off topic a bit with some additional questions, but if any of these are possible duplicate would love the link.

The Catholic Church has a uniquely developed perspective on this question. It is a dogma of the Catholic faith that Mary was immaculately conceived -- or in the words of Pope Pius IX:

  We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that
  the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception,
  by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of
  the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was
  preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed
  by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the
  faithful

The Pope lays out the arguments from Scripture and Tradition in the 1854 document from which that quote is drawn, Ineffabilis Deus. But to briefly address your questions from a Catholic perspective:

Yes, Mary is uniquely holy among mere human beings -- and I use the word "mere" to distinguish her from Jesus, who is human but also divine and so uniquely holy among human beings in a different way.
By the same token Mary is uniquely favored. See especially Luke 1:28, 1:30, 1:42 and 1:48, which all seem to indicate fairly clearly (whatever one thinks about the dogma of the Immaculate Conception) that Mary holds a special place in God's providence and is worthy of our special attention.1
No, there is not an infinite regress of ancestors of Mary who would themselves have needed to be just as holy -- she was personally and individually given a unique grace.
St. Joseph, being the spouse of Mary and the adoptive father of Jesus, is held in greet esteem in the Catholic Church -- Scripture attests his righteousness unequivocally, and after Mary he would have known the Lord more intimately than anyone else, at least in an earthly sense.
But Joseph is not on the same level as Mary, who is called in a true sense the mother of God. As the Wikipedia article nicely explains it, summarizing what the Council of Ephesus taught in the year 431 (principally to combat the error of Nestorius about the person of Jesus): "her son Jesus is one person who is both God and man".

1 For less clear but still evocative indications of Mary's special role, see Luke 2:35, John 2:5, and Acts 1:14. And then there are texts that have additional significance if one already accepts the Catholic perspective, such as John 19:26-27 and Revelation 12:1-6.


How does Christianity view participation in dangerous sports? Many of the sports we play today expose the participants to physical dangers they would not otherwise have been subject to. Examples could be skiing, surfing, high speed car races or stunt biking. Other sports even put the lives of opponents at risk at the hands of the players as a direct result of the nature of the sport. Boxing would be one example.

How do Christians tend to view participation in these sports? Are there any current or historical statements where a particular Christian tradition has taken a stand one way or the other on participation in such sports? If so what traditions and what did they base their belief on?

Are there any other doctrines that play into this? Does holding a particular belief on a different issue tend to correlate with a particular stance on this one?

I have tried to answer this question by showing some Christian teaching on the "extreme sports" of previous centuries, which are pretty extreme by modern standards too.

Jousting was very dangerous and many people were killed and injured; other tournament sports such as the melee also had a high casualty rate. In the twelfth through fourteenth centuries, the Catholic Church tried to discourage jousting, partly because of the possibility of these sportsmen killing themselves or others. The following is typical - Canon 14 of the Second Lateran Council (1139):

  We entirely forbid, moreover, those abominable jousts and tournaments in which knights come together by agreement and rashly engage in showing off their physical prowess and daring, and which often result in human deaths and danger to souls. If any of them dies on these occasions, although penance and viaticum are not to be denied him when he requests them, he is to be deprived of a church burial.

Similar prohibitions were stated in the Council of Clermont (1130), of Rheims (1131), Lateran III (1179), and Lateran IV (1215), and in Papal decrees (eg of Clement V, Pope from 1305 to 1314). They were annulled by Pope John XXII (reigned 1316-1334) because the penalties were felt to be too harsh, and were catching too many people. Some effort had also been made, in terms of technique, better armour, etc., to make the sport safer for the participants. (Jousting in medieval and renaissance Iberia, Noel Fallows, Boydell Press 2010, p173-4.)

This is certainly in line with Catholic / general Christian thinking on the value of human life, including one's own life; deprivation of church burial was also characteristic for suicides. However, these decrees do not impose a penalty of, say, excommunication; and it was accepted that jousting was legal under the civil law. So this attitude towards jousting doesn't seem to me to be so "strong" - it's just that the particular way the sport was practiced at the time was felt to be excessively dangerous, and a later pope ultimately rescinded the decrees. Modern sports, even the ones you mention, are far, far less risky. There is also a strong ethos for safety and responsibility among the participants in extreme sports, including use of proper equipment, having plenty of training, and so on. This reduces the danger and the moral objection.

Other considerations might include the frivolous nature of these events. Football, for example, was banned by the Puritans in England for this reason, in addition to the violent way the game was played, and its connection with betting. The objection on the grounds of danger is basically similar to the jousting case. Philip Stubbes wrote (Anatomy of Abuses, 1581):

  As concerning football playing, I protest unto you it may rather be called a freendly kinde of fight, then a play or recreation; a bloody and murthering practise, then a felowly sport or pastime. [...] hereof groweth enuie, malice, rancour, cholor, hatred, displeasure, enmitie, and what not els; and sometimes fighting, brawling, contention, quarrel picking, murther, homicide, and great effusion of blood, as experience daily teacheth. Is this murthering play, now, an exercise for the Sabaoth day? is this a christian dealing, for one brother to mayme and hurt another, and that vpon prepensed malice, or set purpose? is this to do to another as we would wish another to do to vs?

Again, modern sports are a bit better at avoiding brawling and homicide. It's true that the objections other than danger still apply - on that basis, someone could argue against tiddlywinks - but if participants are being responsible about threats to life and limb, it's harder to say that a sport should be considered immoral in itself.


Was the virgin conception of Jesus known to the people at the time? In the Bible, it seems that Mary consulted with Elizabeth after the Annunciation but from the people's reaction to Jesus at ministry, it occurs to me that they are not aware of the surrounding story about the birth of Jesus at all.

  Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? [Matthew 13:55, NIV]

So, is it that Elizabeth (maybe Zacharias as well), Mary, Joseph concealed the Annunciation to protect Jesus until the Passion?

Is there any biblical lines that indicate any of Apostles or Disciples or people aware of the Annunciation or Virgin Conception of Jesus before the Scripture telling so?

If Mary withheld this mystery from Joseph her spouse, it is more than reasonable to believe that those who knew of it [Joseph, Elizabeth, Mary's parents] left it to God to reveal it at his appointed time.

To the General Public, no! as the following passages reveal:

  Mt 13:55
  (RSVCE)
  55 Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And
  are not his brethren[a] James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?

  Lk 4:22
  (RSVCE)
  22 And all spoke well of him, and wondered at the gracious words which
  proceeded out of his mouth; and they said, “Is not this Joseph’s son?”

  Jn 1:45
  (RSVCE)
  45 Philip found Nathan′a-el, and said to him, “We have found him of
  whom Moses in the law and also the prophets wrote, Jesus of Nazareth,
  the son of Joseph.”

It required divine revelation for Elizabeth and Joseph to know.

Why wasn't it scandalous for Mary to be pregnant while betrothed to Joseph?

This is answered by the two-stage process in marriage among the Jews. The betrothed were considered husband and wife and could have marital relations [cf. Tb 7:9 (RSVCE) - Tb 8 and Mt 1:20 (RSVCE): Before God, Mary is considered Joseph's wife].

This is another example of the interplay in human [salvation] history between God's will and free human actions.


Anglo-Catholics and the Ordinariate How many Anglo-Catholics (I.e. members of the Traditional Anglican Communion or derived churches) are there in the world today and how many have joined the Ordinariate set up by the Roman Catholic Church?

Numbers in the three current Personal Ordinariates are the easy part of the question:

UK (Our Lady of Walsingham): about 90 clergy and 1300 lay people;
US (Chair of S Peter): about 100 clergy and 1400 lay people;
Australia (Our Lady of the Southern Cross): single figures.

The Australian Ordinariate was only set up a month ago. It appears not even to have a website of its own yet.

As DJClayworth has written, gauging the number of Anglo-Catholics is not really possible. The TAC doesn't have an enormous membership in England, for example.

As far as the Church of England is concerned, which has fairly well-defined metrics such as membership of Forward in Faith or the adoption of various Resolutions, even there those metrics double-count some and leave out others. And while one might count the 100-strong congregation of an "Anglo-Catholic" church as Anglo-Catholics, only 14 adults (and seven children) from mine joined the Ordinariate.


Curious re: Scientific evidence I read something recently from a highly regarded poster on a sister site, which states:

"I should extend the courtesy of allowing people to have evidence which they can't use to convince me, given that I'm asking others to extend the same courtesy towards me."

If I understand this correctly (and please correct me if I haven't), then this is advocating the deliberate ignoring of evidence.  The use of the word "evidence" is key here, as this indicates something which is provable.  Surely if something is provable, ignoring it is an act of deliberate ignorance?

Can this ever be a good thing?

Now, don't get me wrong.. This is not a trolling attempt (although I suspect you chaps may receive a few of those), I am just curious as to what you think.  I appreciate that the first response may be "Why not ask him?" but I've found that when you approach someone one-on-one about their beliefs they unsurprisingly tend to take it personally, which makes it much harder to have a proper discussion.

Regards,
Dave

This person kind of seems like they just bury their head in the sand when it comes to something they don't want to hear. To illustrate they could claim that the sky is purple. You know that it is blue. You offer that they look outside to see, but they refuse.

These kinds of people are either so convinced they are right that they won't look, or they are so afraid of being wrong they can't. I think a reason for this is that when they realize they are incorrect, they:

they A have to take responsibility
Then B have to adjust their knowledge base accordingly along with their actions

This is never a good thing. This is especially true when coming to a forum such as this. If you refuse to look at evidence contrary to what you believe, then what are you doing on a forum to exchange biblical views?
Matthew 7:12:

“All things, therefore, that you want men to do to you, you also must do to them. This, in fact, is what the Law and the Prophets mean."

If you are not willing to look at their evidence or beliefs, why should they in return look at yours? What if they are correct? It could indeed mean your life and being stubborn in not looking for knowledge is not an excuse. I look at and research everyone's evidence regardless of my own knowledge. It generally keeps me from making a fool of myself.


Why don't Catholics believe that Christ's atonement removed Original Sin? Original Sin is the Catholic doctrine that all human are born sinners due to the inheritance of the sin of Adam. However, Jesus Christ atoned for the sin of mankind.

Therefore, one would assume the sin of Adam which Man inherited would be included, and thus children would not need to be baptised in order to be saved as they would be innocent.

Why do Catholics believe original sin was not washed away along with other sins?

Original Sin is washed away through Baptism

The Church believes that Christ's atonement removes original sin precisely through baptism.  More generally, in baptism the power of Christ's paschal mystery comes to bear in the recipient, who also becomes a partaker in that paschal mystery and the life of God. For example, we are told that infants are baptized not because they have committed personal sins, but because their nature is tainted by original sin:

  Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all men are called. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1250)

The Catechism of the Council of Trent tells us that "Baptism is made obligatory after Christ's resurrection."  It goes on:

  This is inferred from the authority of the Prince of the Apostles when
  he says: Who hath regenerated us into a lively hope, by the
  resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead; and also from what Paul
  says of the Church: He delivered himself up for it: that he might
  sanctify it, cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life.
  (Catechism of the Council of Trent, Part II on baptism)

Catholic Encyclopedia also implies that the atonement is applied through baptism in a paragraph where it argues that baptism, like original sin and the atonement, ought to be applied to all people, even infants:

  Theologians also call attention to the fact that as God sincerely wishes all men to be saved, He does not exclude infants, for whom baptism of either water or blood is the only means possible. The doctrines also of the universality of original sin and of the all-comprehending atonement of Christ are stated so plainly and absolutely in Scripture as to leave no solid reason for denying that infants are included as well as adults. (Catholic Encyclopedia, Baptism)


Is the incarnation of Jesus permanent, according to reformers like Luther or Calvin? Before, I thought that by the time Jesus died, that's the end of His incarnation state after He fulfilled His role, spilling His blood for the forgiveness of sins.

Below is an article I found in this link about the purpose of the Incarnation :

  Second, it was necessary for the Savior to shed His blood for the
  forgiveness of sins (Hebrews 9:22). A blood sacrifice, of course,
  requires a body of flesh and blood.

So... from the article above (my own conclusion) :after the purpose of the Incarnation achieved – God return to His original/default state which is a spirit (without flesh) and has one nature only. This state doesn't mean that God cannot "flesh" Himself anymore.

But I just know it today from the internet that God incarnation is permanent. Just like if today there is someone say, then he say : "God in heaven now is not just a spirit but a spirit with a human flesh - God now is not only with one nature but two natures".

My question:
Is there any reading about this matter from Luther or Calvin or any other Reformed Church's father?

The idea of permanent incarnation has been most famously expressed in the Council of Chalcedon, long before the Reformation – there Christ's natures are said to exist "indivisibly, inseperably."
Reformers like Luther and Calvin upheld the Chalcedonian definition, and this can be seen in their writings.  For example, here's a brief quote from Calvin:

While our whole Mediator is everywhere, he is always present with his people, and in the Supper exhibits his presence in a special manner; yet so, that while he is wholly present, not everything which is in him [i.e., spirit and body] is present, because, as has been said, in his flesh he will remain in heaven till he come to judgment. (Calvin's Institutes, IV.18.30)

In context, Calvin clearly holds that Christ continues to have both a spirit and a body, and that his body is in heaven, while is spirit is everywhere.
Here are two more quotes that come from a foundational document of one branch of the Reformation, the Westminster Confession of Faith:

So that two whole, perfect, and distinct natures, the Godhead and the manhood, were inseparably joined together in one person (Westminster Confession of Faith 8.2)
On the third day He arose from the dead, with the same body in which He suffered, with which also he ascended into heaven, and there sits at the right hand of His Father (WCF 8.4)

So yes, leading reformers held that Christ still has two natures, both human and divine.


Did Jesus use non-believers to perform acts of community service on his behalf? I'm trying to answer this question, "What would Jesus do?"

An organizations I am involved with is a network of foster homes that is used for emergency placement. These are the families that take kids that have been very recently removed from their biological homes.  Foster homes are aggressively recruited from the local church community... but we, the church community, have failed to step up and meet the need.  There are families that are interested in being a part of our program, but they are not Christians.

So the question is.  Do we place kids with the non-Christian families that are stepping up and interested in participating in the program?

Opinions will vary widely and I can understand why people might say yes or no.  What I'm looking for is any biblical examples of where Jesus used a non-believer to do his good work.

Because your questions has a "What would Jesus do?" flavor, I'm going to answer in keeping:

In Matthew 25:31-46 we find there will be those who show up at the judgement and discover they were an outsider even though they did all sorts of work in the name of Jesus thinking they were an insider. Likewise, there will be outsiders who find out they are insiders.

It seems to me that Jesus is suggesting that kindness to those in need is more important than our sheep/goat categories. Believers should read this and get a gut-check. Are we outsiders thinking we are insiders? Are there people we think are outsiders who are really insiders? It sounds possible if you take the parable seriously. I think this can used to establish some priorities in regard to your question.

Additionally, it is possible that some of those outsiders just might come "inside" as they minister "alongside." What greater thing than to make some disciples along the way? It may be best to think of this a secondary aspect of this ministry.

And finally, there is no greater source on this than the Holy Spirit himself. Exercise sanctified discernment when selecting families. The Holy Spirit is able to discern the heart, also regardless of categories. Even Jesus turned some away who seemed like great candidates and accepted others who didn't.


Do Mormons view the LDS Church as a pure restoration of first century Christianity? Based on the accepted answer to this question, it looks like Mormons believe that

A wide-scale falling away from first century Christianity (the
"Great Apostasy") had happened before Joseph Smith's time, and that
Instead of directing Joseph Smith to join one of the denominations
available during his time, God directed him to found a church

Based on this, do Mormons believe that the LDS church is a pure restoration of first century Christian liturgy and beliefs?

(I want to emphasize "pure restoration" as I am curious if Mormons view the church as having the same liturgy and beliefs as the first century Christians.)

Or is the LDS church a modification of the first century Christianity because God wanted some things to be done differently?

Or has the LDS church accepted man-made additions (out of necessity, tradition, or other reasons) that were not part of first century Christianity?

Yes the LDS believe it is a pure restoration of first century Christian liturgy and beliefs.

True to the Faith specifies what was lost during the Apostasy:

  After His Crucifixion and the deaths of His Apostles, the fulness of the gospel was taken from the earth

About the restoration, the LDS specifically believe:

  When Jesus Christ was on the earth, He established His Church among His followers. After His Crucifixion and the deaths of His Apostles, the fulness of the gospel was taken from the earth because of widespread apostasy. Through the Prophet Joseph Smith, our Father in Heaven and His Son Jesus Christ restored the fulness of the gospel. The true Church of Jesus Christ is on the earth again. Because of the Restoration, the teachings and ordinances necessary for salvation are available to all people.

The 'fulness of the gospel' is defined in Mormon Doctrine (not an official LDS source) as:

  The phrase "fulness of the gospel" refers to the whole doctrine of redemption demonstrated and taught in the ministry and life of Jesus Christ. It "consists in those laws, doctrines, ordinances, powers, and authorities needed to enable men to gain the fulness of salvation"

This is reinforced in part from Joseph Smith History 1:34 in reference to the Book of Mormon:

  He said there was a book deposited, written upon gold plates, giving an account of the former inhabitants of this continent, and the source from whence they sprang. He also said that the fulness of the everlasting Gospel was contained in it, as delivered by the Savior to the ancient inhabitants;

President Ezra Taft Benson explained this by saying:

  That does not mean [The Book of Mormon] contains every teaching, every doctrine ever revealed. Rather, it means that in the Book of Mormon we will find the fulness of those doctrines required for our salvation. And they are taught plainly and simply so that even children can learn the ways of salvation and exaltation1

1 Benson, Ezra Taft. A Witness and a Warning.


Funeral Mass vs. Mass for the Deceased My mother is recently deceased. My siblings want just a Mass said for our recently deceased mother. Is there a Mass for the Deceased other than a funeral?

Yes, a Requiem Mass (Missa pro defunctis) can be said for the soul of a deceased person, and Requiem Masses needn't be accompanied by a funeral/burial.

Sometimes, Requiem Masses are said with a catafalque, which is something that looks like a coffin, but isn't; catafalques are to remind the faithful of the deceased person: