Do non-Christians go to hell? What is the official stance of various Christian denominations on whether or not non-believers go to hell?   How do denominations which preach that they do, reconcile the damnation of people who grow up in other religions with a just and loving God? To be clear, I'm not asking for individual opinion or biblical interpretation but for sources of the official doctrine.

The Apostles Creed was written at least 150 years after the apostles had all died. It is called the Apostles’ Creed because it is supposed to be a record of what the apostles taught.  It makes this declaration about the resurrected Christ and future judgement:

He ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty, whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.

Although the Apostles Creed does not mention hell, it acknowledges a judgement to come.
The Athanasian Creed (known in Latin as Quicumque vult) is an early summary of Christian doctrine. It is traditionally believed to have been written by Athanasius, archbishop of Alexandria, who lived in the 4th century A.D.  Section 39 to 44 says this about Christ after his resurrection:

“He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again to judge the living and the dead. At his coming all people shall rise bodily to give an account of their own deeds. Those who have done good will enter eternal life, those who have done evil will enter eternal fire. This is the catholic faith. One cannot be saved without believing this firmly and faithfully.”  Source: https://www.gotquestions.org/Athanasian-creed.html

NOTE: The word 'catholic' (lower case letter c) means universal.  The final point relates to accepting and believing all points in the Creed.  In other words, if you don’t accept it all then you are not saved.  Those who are saved enter eternal life.  The unsaved enter eternal fire.
I don’t know if this is the earliest doctrinal statement on hell, but I believe it is accepted by the Catholic Church.  However, a lot of Christians are now saying that hell is not real, but is a metaphor for eternal separation from God.
The Westminster Confession of Faith (1646) represents the doctrinal views of the Church of England, the Church of Scotland and Presbyterian churches throughout the world.  Chapter 33 deals with the last judgment:

God hath appointed a day, wherein he will judge the world, in righteousness, by Jesus Christ, to whom all power and judgment is given of the Father. In which day, not only the apostate angels shall be judged, but likewise all persons that have lived upon earth shall appear before the tribunal of Christ, to give an account of their thoughts, words, and deeds; and to receive according to what they have done in the body, whether good or evil.

The end of God's appointing this day is for the manifestation of the glory of his mercy, in the eternal salvation of the elect; and of his justice, in the damnation of the reprobate, who are wicked and disobedient. For then shall the righteous go into everlasting life, and receive that fullness of joy and refreshing, which shall come from the presence of the Lord; but the wicked who know not God, and obey not the gospel of Jesus Christ, shall be cast into eternal torments, and be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power.

As Christ would have us to be certainly persuaded that there shall be a day of judgment, both to deter all men from sin; and for the greater consolation of the godly in their adversity: so will he have that day unknown to men, that they may shake off all carnal security, and be always watchful, because they know not at what hour the Lord will come; and may be ever prepared to say, Come Lord Jesus, come quickly, Amen.

This article provides useful and interesting information on the history of this doctrinal statement of faith that still holds good for most mainstream Protestant denominations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westminster_Confession_of_Faith
The two partial quotes below come from an evangelical Protestant ministry – not a denomination.  Although not “official doctrine” they may address your points on reconciling hell with a just and loving God.  It’s the “just” part that a lot of people overlook.

John 3:18 explains in the simplest terms who will go to heaven and who will go to hell: “Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.” So, those who go to hell are specifically those who do not believe in Jesus’ name. To “believe” goes beyond a mental recognition of the truth. To believe in Christ for salvation requires a transfer of allegiance. We stop worshiping ourselves, we forsake our sin, and we begin to worship God with our heart, soul, mind, and strength (Matthew 22:36–37; Mark 12:30).  Source: https://www.gotquestions.org/who-will-go-to-hell.html
“How can a loving God send someone to hell?” The entire question is wrong. A better wording is “If God is love, then why do some people go to hell?” Romans 1:18–20 lays the foundation for the answer: “The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse” (emphasis added).
When answering the question “how can a loving God send someone to hell?” another facet of God’s nature comes into play. God is not only love, but He is perfect justice as well. Justice requires adequate payment for crimes committed. The only just punishment for high treason against our perfect Creator is eternal separation from Him. That separation means the absence of goodness, light, relationship, and joy, which are all facets of God’s nature. To excuse our sin would require God to be less than just, and to allow sin-tainted humans into His perfect heaven would render that place less than perfect. That’s why only the perfect Son of God could go to the cross in our place. Only His perfect blood was an acceptable payment for the debt we each owe God (Colossians 2:14). When we refuse Jesus as our substitute, we must pay the price ourselves (Romans 6:23).
God gave us the freedom to choose how we respond to Him. If He forced us to love Him, we would be robots. To give us no option but obedience would be a violation of our free will. Love is only love when it is voluntary. We cannot love God unless we have the option of not loving Him. Because God honors our autonomy, He will never force surrender or loyalty. However, there are consequences for either choice. C. S. Lewis summarizes this truth in his classic work, The Great Divorce: “There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, ‘Thy will be done,’ and those to whom God says, in the end, ‘Thy will be done.’ All that are in Hell, choose it.”  Source: https://www.gotquestions.org/loving-God-send-someone-hell.html

Many denominations reject the concept of a literal place of eternal punishment.  Seventh Day Adventists, Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormons) to mention just three.  It would be difficult to find official doctrines on all Christian denomination.


What is Thomas Aquinas' perspective on salvation for baptized heretics who believe in the Trinity? St. Thomas Aquinas is praised globally for his intellect, and such has gained him the merit of being a 'Doctor of the Church'. I am curious about several things though:

What are Aquinas's views on what is necessary for the attainment of salvation for the individual?
What are Aquinas's views on the nature of moral accountability for heretical opinion and action?
How do these views correspond to his view on heretics who are like-minded and like-spirited to the Church in more central matters, such as belief in the Trinity and the upholding of the Sacrament of Baptism? Modern heretics nowadays akin to this category would include the Roman Catholic Church's separated brethren, being Protestants and even more so Orthodox Christians. If Aquinas is silent about this matter, what would be the logical deduction one could make about his views regarding the salvation for baptized heretics who accept the Trinity taking into account his views on the two previous topics?

*Note that I am not using the word 'heretic' here in a malicious way but rather in the way that is most useful given the context. The Roman Catholic Church, along with Aquinas, considers those outside of her to be 'heretics', and that is the intended meaning here. This language was used in order to better qualify the views of he who this question is about, being Thomas Aquinas.

As far as what's necessary for salvation, we'd have to start with Baptism:

  Men are bound to that without which they cannot obtain salvation. Now it is manifest that no one can obtain salvation but through Christ; wherefore the Apostle says (Rom. 5:18): "As by the offense of one unto all men unto condemnation; so also by the justice of one, unto all men unto justification of life." But for this end is Baptism conferred on a man, that being regenerated thereby, he may be incorporated in Christ, by becoming His member: wherefore it is written (Gal. 3:27): "As many of you as have been baptized in Christ, have put on Christ." Consequently it is manifest that all are bound to be baptized: and that without Baptism there is no salvation for men.

(Summa Theologica, Third Part, Question 68 Article 1)

Note, however, that Aquinas recognizes the possibility of "baptism by desire":

  the sacrament of Baptism may be wanting to anyone in reality but not in desire: for instance, when a man wishes to be baptized, but by some ill-chance he is forestalled by death before receiving Baptism. And such a man can obtain salvation without being actually baptized, on account of his desire for Baptism, which desire is the outcome of "faith that worketh by charity," whereby God, Whose power is not tied to visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly.

(Summa Theologica, Third Part, Question 68 Article 2)

The other Sacraments, Aquinas says, are necessary in certain situations, but not absolutely necessary to salvation.

The biggie, however, which interferes here is that Aquinas does state specifically that "there is no entering into salvation outside the Church" (S.T. Third Part, Question 73, Article 3). This will be a big problem, considering that heretics are ipso facto cut off from the Church.

In fact Aquinas is quite severe on heretics. He does believe that they should be allowed one opportunity to repent—but only one; and if they don't repent, or if they fall away a second time, they should be put to death:

  On the part of the Church ... there is mercy which looks to the conversion of the wanderer, wherefore she condemns not at once, but "after the first and second admonition," as the Apostle directs: after that, if he is yet stubborn, the Church no longer hoping for his conversion, looks to the salvation of others, by excommunicating him and separating him from the Church, and furthermore delivers him to the secular tribunal to be exterminated thereby from the world by death.

(S.T., Second Part of the Second Part, Question 11, Article 3)

Aquinas says nothing that I can find to indicate that he considers any particular heresies less noxious than others; I'd have to conclude that Aquinas believes that any heretic (and he would probably count those professing Protestant beliefs as heretics) should be given an opportunity to recant; but failing that, they should be handed over to the State to be put to death.


Did God create Jesus' soul? This is one of a series of questions I have regarding the Christian notion of the Trinity.  Assuming Jesus soul was created, and that Jesus has a free will of his own, then any God-like attributes Jesus possesses would be the gifts given by a Father to a dutiful Son.  If Jesus soul was not created, then presumably "Jesus" would just be another name for "God", being one and the same identically.  Presumably.  Is there a consistent Trinitarian view on this, or are opinions widely varied?

This was a controversy in the early 1800s and provoked William Huntington to write one of the most spiritual books I ever read (outside of scripture) 'The Soul of Christ' wherein he states :

... divinity is not made, nor created ; much less created out of earth (p5)

where Huntington counters the error of a 'divine soul' saying that no such thing exists and that it is a contradiction in terms.

... if Christ hath not a human soul, every scripture which declares him to be man is absolutely false.

God is the 'Father of spirits' (Heb 12:9). His [Christ's] body was made of the woman's substance. his soul was made by God. His flesh was of the virgin, his human spirit of the Almighty.

Huntington further quotes Jesus himself, saying,

Now is my soul troubled [John 12:27 KJV]

My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death ... [Matt 26:38 KJV]

WH also quotes from the prophets and the prophetic psalms :

thou wilt not leave my soul in hell [Psalm 16:10 KJV]

When thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin [Isaiah 53:12 KJV]

I recommend the whole of this very short book, twenty-eight pages. But I have no link, as yet to it. If I find one, I will add it, in due course.


Have any ante-Nicene writings been discovered in the past 20 years? Have any writings or fragments of ante-Nicene Church Fathers previously unknown (that is the actual words were not known, not necessarily that the name of the work was also previously unknown) to modern readers been discovered within the last 20 years or so?  If not, when was the last time such a writing was discovered?

Yes.  29 homilies of Origen were discovered in 2012 in the Bavarian State Library in Germany.  Some of them were already available in Latin translation, but others were completely new discoveries.  Origen scholar Lorenzo Perrone judged them to be genuine.

In 2015 the homilies were published in a critical edition, the front matter of which is available on academia.edu.

Several years prior, in 2008, six sermons of Augustine were discovered at Erfurt, in a 12th century manuscript.  Larger groups of Augustine's writings had also been discovered in 1974 and 1990.


What does heaven look like for Protestant vs LDS? What does heaven look like for Protestants and the LDS church? What will be our purpose in heaven and what do both faiths believe will be the reward for their work on Earth?

This is a Partial Answer, because I know absolutely nothing about what the Protestant heaven looks like, but I can explain what the LDS church believes.

Our spirits are children of a father, who lives in heaven, and sent us down here to find out who's worthy to have his glory. We believe that according to our faithfulness in this life, we will find ourselves in one of three kingdoms, or outer darkness (hell).

Telestial Kingdom

The Lowest of the three kingdoms of glory (Hell has no glory), is the Telestial Kingdom. A scriptural (D&C, so scripture for us) explanation of this kingdom can be found here. We really don't know what happens to these people throughout all eternity, but they have the Holy Ghost with them, but not Christ or the Father, and can be visited by those in the Celestial Kingdom. Whether they will again go to earth, stay there forever, set up society, etc, we don't know. What we do know is that those in this kingdom have no families, regardless or earthly "marriages". This will be all those who did not accept the gospel, but also did not rebel openly against God, or deny the Holy Ghost after knowing God.

Terrestrial Kingdom

This kingdom is basically for those who accepted and were part of the church but were halfheartedly in it, and were deceived by the world (riches, power, hate, greed, etc) and were thus not valiant in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. A detailed explanation can be found here. Again we do not know what they do, and whether, or when they can progress, but we do know again that they cannot have families, marriage, etc. and that they can be visited by thos from the Celestial Kingdom.

Celestial Kingdom

A Detailed explaination can be found here and here, but basically we believe that this is the best, and this is what we are all looking towards. Those who make it here, will recieve the Glory of the Father (our Heavenly Father, or God) and become like him. We will become Gods like him, and we will be able to continue onward with eternal families. We believe that we will eventually be the Gods of our own worlds and have our own spirit children. Although we become Gods, we believe that he will still be our Father, and that we will still respect and worship him as a father.

Ultimately we believe that Family is at the center, and that our eternal Goal is to be fathers, and mothers.


Are there Old Testament references to the length of Jesus earthly ministry? The Old Testament references Jesus death and resurrection.

I've always wondered why did Jesus have only 3 years of time (or 3 1/2 ) as a preacher and teacher. I suppose you could say the time was enough to spread God's message.

Is this duration predicted in the OT ?

Yes the duration of Christ’s ministry was prophesied under the Old Testament to be 3.5 years

  25 “Know and understand this: From the time the word goes out to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One, g the ruler, comes, there will be seven ‘sevens,’ and sixty-two ‘sevens.’ It will be rebuilt with streets and a trench, but in times of trouble. 26 After the sixty-two ‘sevens,’ the Anointed One will be put to death and will have nothing. The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed. 27 He will confirm a covenant with many for one ‘seven.’ In the middle of the ‘seven’ he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And at the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him.”  (Daniel 9:25–27, NIV).

This question is related to this post: Does the Old Testament foretell the time in history in which the Messiah would come (the first time)?

There are many possible interpretations according to the seventy weeks of Daniel followed by one half of a week where Messiah would be ‘cut off. I prefer the view that each day of the weeks are 1 year and the basic idea is this:

The period is 490 years ending 3½ years after Christ’s death. The 490 years begin with the decree by Artaxerxes I. (Ezra 7) The appearance of Messiah at the end of the 483 years is when Christ is baptized. This is where his ministry begins at which point ½ a week later (3.5 years) he is ‘cut off’ through his crucifixion. Therefore Christ put an end to sacrifice and offering as the inner curtain of the temple as torn top-to-bottom.  Through the Holy Spirit for another 3½ years after His crucifixion Christ offers salvation principally to the Jews but having generally rejected him thereby sealing the cause of the future destruction of Jerusalem [abomination of desolation], which occurred several years later. This final destruction of Jerusalem as a result is also a final ending of the sacrifices and offering but the true end was in Christ's death, the second part of it is more penal and judiciary against those who rejected him.

There are many variants and debates about the exact years, some even think the 3.5 years is the last of the ½ week. However in either case it does seem that Jesus came around the time he should have and his ministry lasted for around the 3.5 years that it should have. Regardless of the view you take it is compelling and believable.


Looking for a passage in the Old Testament There's this person who prays and begs God to kill him but instead an angel comes and gives him water or something like that. I think it's in one of the first readings from April to July 2015, but I couldn't find it.

You are probably thinking of Elijah, as recounted in 1 Kings 19. It occurs right after Elijah's 'competition' with the prophets of Baal, and also includes the "still small voice" of God.

The Catholic Church prescribes this passage, 1 Kings 19:4–8, as the first reading for the 19th Sunday in Ordinary Time, Cycle B, which in 2015 fell on August 9th—you were nearly, but not quite, correct in identifying the date.


Did it ever happen that a Christian died simply because he had no food at his disposal? This question can be restated as: how to interpret Matt 6:25-34 where Jesus tells us not to worry about food and clothes. Is it a promise that a Christian will never die for lack of food? Or is it not?

The Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) is 95% Christian. The recent conflicts have killed as much as 5.4 million people. A summary of the details states,

  more than 90% were not killed in combat, dying instead from malaria,
  diarrhea, pneumonia and malnutrition, aggravated by displaced
  populations living in unsanitary and over-crowded conditions that
  lacked access to shelter, water, food and medicine.

One could argue that the death toll is wrong, and some people have done so. Or, one could argue that for the deaths that were due to malnutrition and starvation were only among the remaining 5% who weren't Christian. One could also argue that the statistic is inaccurate by saying that those who died weren't real Christians. None of that seems convincing to me. At least one Christian died from hunger-related causes in that conflict.

For individual, anecdotal cases, you may refer to this list. Perhaps none were Christian. Thomas Johnson seems like one, but maybe forced starvation doesn't count? Granted, one can explain away individual cases all day, so I prefer the statistical answer, but sometimes both are useful.

My tongue-in-cheek comment, "Has a Christian ever stubbed his toe?" is intended as a joke (for which I meant no offense), but it's related to this issue. Coming from the same chapter as my glib (and probably bad) joke, Psalm 91:3 states,

  Surely he will save you from the fowler’s snare and from the deadly pestilence.

If you interpret verses that insist on God's protection and provision as being for our physical needs, you will only be right some of the time. Christians die from car accidents; Christians die from cancer; Christians die from starvation.

What did Jesus mean in Matthew 6? I'll suggest emphasis on his question in the last part of verse 25, "Is not life more than food?" Surely food is required for life, yes? He is not referring to physical food. In John 6:35, I think this is more clear:

  Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty.

Jesus did not claim that those who follow him would never go (physically) hungry.


What is the emotional appeal of the trinity? I have spoken to many who believe in the Trinity. I many times try to present the view the Jesus is the second greatest being in the universe and that he was created by his father Jehovah God. I also say that we should have faith in Jesus and his ransom sacrifice. He deserves our love and utmost respect, but that we should only worship Jehovah the God that Jesus prayed to.

I understand why someone wouldn't believe this is true, but I am less sure why someone would get upset about it. I get the feeling people love the trinity. Is there something about the trinity that has an emotional appeal to it?

Sometimes I try to pose a hypothetical and say "Imagine it were true that the trinity is false." Even if they consider it as a hypothetical truth, they prefer the trinity over the alternative. It is this preference that I am interested in. Why the preference? For instance, some have the preference of believing in hellfire because they want there to be punishment for evil. So if they had a choice, in a hypothetical situation, to choose hell over no hell, they choose hell.

p.s. - I don't want to debate the trinity, I just want to understand more the emotion involved.

The simplest answer is that denying the Trinity diminishes the person of Jesus.  There is an enormous gap between saying that Jesus is the Almighty God and saying that he is one of God's creations.  Even if Jesus was God's first and greatest creation, he would still be much less awesome than if he were God himself.  So, it is understandable that trinitarians would be offended by someone who degrades Jesus from God to a mere creation.  The person of Jesus Christ is, obviously, central to the Christian faith, so to differ in such a large way on such a central belief is, in the mind of many, the height of heresy.

Secondarily, trinitarians often believe that the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross for our sins was only effective because he was God.  People holding to this view would argue that salvation for the world could not be achieved by the death of a mere man, even if he was a sinless man.  People holding to this view would therefore be further offended by a unitarian* because, in their mind, the unitarian would be endangering the souls of anyone that he might convince with his heresy.

* In the lower-case, historical sense of the word (i.e. non-trinitarian)


Would men have ever sinned if Satan did not tempt Eve in the garden in the first place? I talked with one of our fellowship members who had not been attending services recently. I then asked him how his spiritual life is. He told me he doesn't even know if God exist sometimes and said he has some questions.

One of his questions was that "Why didn't God destroy Satan before he could ever tempt Eve? If God destroyed evil (Satan), we wouldn't be evil right now. Why would God not destroy Satan at the cost of many innocent lives?"

He holds the view that:
1) Evil in men would not have existed if Satan had not tempted Eve.

2) Satan could not have tempted Eve if God had destroyed Satan before.

3) Would-be-innocent lives have been lost.
If God would have killed Satan, Eve would not have been tempted, hence we would not be evil and we would be innocent.

MY VIEWS

https://youtu.be/s8Mv1pcyGlo

From this video, I have understood that the essence of every sin from the beginning is when we desire something more than God.

Also, I know God is not destroying Satan yet for His own Glory.

But I think we have to deal with this question.

*Would Adam and Eve have eaten the apple if Satan wasn't there to tempt them?

*Would sin be in men if Satan was not in the picture?

*Would man be capable of coming up with sinful thoughts without Satan?

(I am a Baptist I guess.Bit of charismatic. I never really identified to any denomination. I am not a Mormon or Catholic.)

There is a basic concept that you appear to be overlooking. Satan is eternal. God never totally destroys any of his creations, which have life given by him. He only destroys Heaven and Earth in Revelation Chapter 21 verse one.

That Heaven that is destroyed is the heaven we know as our atmosphere. The Heaven we aspire to is eternal, and all things that were created for that Heaven are also eternal, whether or not they end up there.

Consider the following verses from the Revelation:

  Revelation 19:20 KJV And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.

Note that it says that they were cast alive. that tells us two important things. That both beast and the false prophet have life. A large part of God's punishment is eternal pain and suffering, as we see in the following verse:

  Revelation 20:10 KJV And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

Here we find that Satan is also going to be tormented forever. There will be no lessening of that torture and there will be no end to it. And they will never be completely destroyed, since death will have been eradicated.

  Revelation 20:14 KJV And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

Now as to whether or not man would have sinned if Satan were not there to tempt Adam and Eve. The only Angels left in Heaven are those who chose to reject Satan and his Dominion. When God created mankind he gave us that same choice that the Angels had, that of choosing between two eternal destinations. Satan and the fallen Angels could have chosen to remain in Heaven under God's rule, instead of rebelling, and we have that same choice. It was not Satan who made them sin, it was the choice they made to disobey God. That within itself is the sin which doomed all who followed them.

Would they have eaten from the tree had Satan not tempted them, we cannot know the answer to that question, but God knew that unless they were in some way tempted they would not exercise their free will. Satan was only doing God's will, in tempting them even if he did not know it at the time.

And there is one more thing to consider, that being that unless we make the right choice, we will suffer that same punishment that God initiated for Satan and his minions.

  Revelation 20:15 KJV And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

The Book of Life is a list of those who have chosen God as their King rather than Satan. At this point I would like to say that living a life in worship of God; whether or not God actually does exist (of which I personally have no doubt) only makes sense in light of the probability that Every Word of the Bible, is actually the word of a living God. Believing in God in that case is far more desirable than the alternative.


If God is unable to change, why did he (after the Flood)? If God is All-Knowing (as I've heard) and unable to change, then why did he change his mind after the Flood?

  And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said
  in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's
  sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth;
  neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have
  done. (KJV, Genesis 8.21)

When we talk about God's attributes we can't assume He has the same characteristics as the human beings, because we have mortal bodies, limited languages and understanding and a sinful nature, while God is infinite, has a 100% sinless nature, infinite understanding, etc. So, when the bible talks about God's changes of mind, is probably because the author (Moses, for instance) couldn't express in a better way what he was receiving from God, using a limited language as the Hebrew.

It is an interesting question anyway.


Did God create Adam and Eve with free will and knowledge of right and wrong (good and evil)? I just want to confirm based on scripture if God made Adam and Eve with both free will and knowledge of good and evil (right and wrong) or if one came after the other when they ate the forbidden fruit?

Genesis 3 answers this question pretty definitively:

  Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever”  Genesis 3:22 NASB

Adam and Eve were not created with the knowledge of good and evil.  They were innocent--not righteous, but innocent.  After they sinned, they knew both good and evil.

God knows good and evil, but not from the same perspective, as He has never committed any sin or done anything unholy.


Jesus rejects equality with God - How does this statement reconcile with traditional teachings? What does this mean Jesus rejects equality with God? I was always taught Jesus and the Father where separate but equal?  Did they mean to say separate but both God but not equal?
Well I know of at least two places in the scripture where Jesus rejects equality with God.

John 14:28 "The Father is Greater then I"
Philippians 2:6 (NAS) "although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped"

Granted the second verse is translated with much liberty in many version that if you where to compare them they all seem to be saying different things. So I chose to stick to a good word for word translation.
But those two verses are not the only proof about who is greater.

Hebrews 7:7 But without any dispute the lesser is blessed by the greater.

Did God not bless Jesus, Did he not give him answers to his prayers. Did not God put all things in subjection to Jesus?

Acts 3:13 "The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified his servant Jesus"
John 3:34 "For He whom God has sent speaks the words of God" [ referring to Jesus ]

Jesus is clearly God's servant and was sent by God.

John 13:16 "Truly, truly, I say to you, a slave (or servant) is not greater than his master, nor is one who is sent greater than the one who sent him.

The Question behind the question is:
How does Trinitarian Christianity reconcile Jesus "lesser" status with the claim that he is God?

Your question seems to be in some degree to be based on the hypostatic union.

  Hypostatic union is a technical term in Christian theology employed in mainstream Christology to describe the union of Christ's humanity and divinity in one hypostasis, or individual existence. - Wikipedia.

Since Jesus is by nature both divine and human (both God and man) it should not be surprising that Our Lord spoke in ways that reflected one nature at one time and then in a way that reflected the another nature. When Jesus said that the "Father is greater than I", he was speaking through his human nature.

  Jesus is the most important person who has ever lived since he is the Savior, God in human flesh.  He is not half God and half man.  He is fully divine and fully man.  In other words, Jesus has two distinct natures: divine and human.  Jesus is the Word who was God and was with God and was made flesh (John 1:1, 14).  This means that in the single person of Jesus he has both a human and divine nature, God and man.  The divine nature was not changed when the Word became flesh (John 1:1, 14).  Instead, the Word was joined with humanity (Col. 2:9).  Jesus' divine nature was not altered.  Also, Jesus is not merely a man who "had God within Him," nor is he a man who "manifested the God principle."  He is God in flesh, second person of the Trinity.  "The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word." (Heb. 1:3).  Jesus' two natures are not "mixed together" (Eutychianism), nor are they combined into a new God-man nature (Monophysitism).  They are separate yet act as a unit in the one person of Jesus.  This is called the Hypostatic Union.

  The following chart should help you see the two natures of Jesus "in action":

  GOD
  He is worshiped (Matt. 2:2, 11; 14:33)

  He was called God (John 20:28; Heb. 1:8)

  He was called Son of God (Mark 1:1)

  He is prayed to (Acts 7:59)

  He is sinless (1 Pet. 2:22; Heb. 4:15)

  He knows all things (John 21:17)

  He gives eternal life (John 10:28)

  All the fullness of deity dwells in Him (Col. 2:9)

  MAN
  He worshiped the Father (John 17)

  He was called man (Mark 15:39; John 19:5)

  He was called Son of Man (John 9:35-37)

  He prayed to the Father (John 17)

  He was tempted (Matt. 4:1)

  He grew in wisdom (Luke 2:52)

  He died (Rom. 5:8)

  He has a body of flesh and bones (Luke 24:39)

  The Communicatio Idiomatum

  A doctrine that is related to the Hypostatic Union is the communicatio idiomatum (Latin for "communication of properties").  This is the teaching that the attributes of both the divine and human natures are ascribed to the one person of Jesus.  This means that the man Jesus could lay claim to the glory He had with the Father before the world was made (John 17:5), claim that He descended from heaven (John 3:13), and also claim omnipresence (Matt. 28:20).  All of these are divine qualities that are laid claim to by Jesus; therefore, the attributes of the divine properties were claimed by the person of Jesus.

  For a proper understanding of Jesus and, therefore, all other doctrines that relate to Him, His two natures must be properly understood and defined.  Jesus is one person with two natures.  This is why He would grow in wisdom and stature (Luke 2:52) and yet know all things (John 21:17).  He is the Divine Word that became flesh (John 1:1, 14). - Jesus' Two Natures: God and Man.


Was Onan really struck dead by God for masturbating? Historically, Onan in Genesis 38 has been accused of masturbation, and for this supposed transgression was struck dead.  The term Onanism (or in German Onanie) is still used to describe this practice.

For example:

Jerome write:

  But I wonder why he the heretic Jovinianus set Judah and Tamar before us for an example, unless perchance even harlots give him pleasure; or Onan, who was slain because he grudged his brother his seed. Does he imagine that we approve of any sexual intercourse except for the procreation of children?

Clement of Alexandria, while not making explicit reference to Onan, similarly reflects an early Christian view of the abhorrence of spilling seed:

  Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted. To have coitus other than to procreate children is to do injury to nature

Was Onan's sin really masturbation?

The story of Judah and Tamar is an interesting one, to say the least.  Judah and Tamar are both explicitly mentioned in Jesus' lineage (Matthew 1 - and Tamar is only one of four women mentioned, all of whom have sordid stories associated with them).  In the end, Tamar is going to trick her father-in-law into getting her pregnant, and then avoids death by proving Judah is the father.  But the question is about Onan, not Judah...

In the story, Tamar is first wed to Er, the eldest of Judah's sons.  Er dies for some unmentioned reason, and Tamar is left without children. Children in that time were important both for the social support for parents in their old age, and for continuance of the family line.  Being childless, the law calls for something called 'levirate marriage' - the next oldest brother is required to marry and give the widow the children.  This is how Judah's second child, Onan, enters the story.

  Then Judah said to Onan, “Sleep with your brother’s wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to raise up offspring for your brother.” But Onan knew that the child would not be his; so whenever he slept with his brother’s wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from providing offspring for his brother. What he did was wicked in the LORD’s sight; so the LORD put him to death also

As you can see, Onan was not masturbating.  If anything, you could accuse Onan of coitus interruptus, but not masturbation.

What Onan was doing, however, was using Tamar for sex, but not giving her the child she deserved.  One could call this theft - it isn't really the sex that is at issue at all. As the text clearly states, Onan did not want his deceased brother to have an heir. That would have negated his claim on the inheritance, and his new found status as eldest brother.

Interestingly, the story continues with this theme of theft - Judah refuses to allow his third son Shelah, to fufill this duty. (I mean, can you blame him? Two sons dead, and now looking at a third?)  Instead of Shelah taking from Tamar, Judah is "stealing" Tamar's due.  In the end, however, Tamar tricks Judah into securing her place in the line of Christ.

Just your typical Sunday School story, I know, but a fun one :)


How can Wisdom be Jesus if Wisdom was created? Proverbs 8:22 (KJV) The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old.

Even if you take the stance that Proverbs 8:22 means God possessed me at the beginning (i.e. as opposed to God created me at the beginning), what does one do with, for example, Sirach 1:4, which says:

  Sirach 1:4 (KJV) Wisdom hath been created before all things, and the understanding of prudence from everlasting.

I'd like to believe that Wisdom is Jesus; it makes a lot of sense to me. But it's very hard for me to believe Jesus was a created being, and just as hard to believe there are two Wisdoms.

Question

According to Christians who believe a) Christ was not created and b) is the Wisdom spoken of in the Wisdom books of the Old Testament, why is this Wisdom described in the Old Testament as having been created by God?

I actually read an article recently that mentions in passing this concept (that Wisdom is Jesus.)

The article first speaks of the Greek Concept of Logos and mentions,

  “Beginning at least as early as the apologist Justin Martyr (A.D. 125), Christians, almost without exception, identified Sophia (the Greek equivalent of Heb. ḥoḵmâ) in Proverbs 8 with Jesus Christ.”[17]

...

  In these verses the quality of wisdom is personified. As the gender of wisdom [in Hebrew: ח֗כְמַה: ḥoḵmah] is feminine, some claim that the agent I question is a feminine being. However, it should be remembered that there is a difference between sex and gender. This is also the case in other Semitic languages that Hebrew. For instance, the Arabic word for Caliph (خليفة: ḵalīfe) is a word in the feminine gender although it always refers to a male.[16]

https://antiochene.wordpress.com/2014/07/31/logos-and-memra/

Question
According to Christians who believe a) Christ was not created and b) is the Wisdom spoken of in the Wisdom books of the Old Testament, why is this Wisdom described in the Old Testament as having been created by God?

There are a number of different potential reasons for this:

1) Theological Development.   The bible is a work of revelation and theological development.   If you look in the Bible certain concepts like God's omnipresence, the afterlife are not understood in ancient times the way we understand them.   So I would contend that the same is true in regards to Nicene concepts of the persons of the Trinity etc.

2) The Limited Vocabulary of Hebrew.   Ancient Hebrew is a language with a very limited vocabulary.   I have to look up some official stats, but I recall that it has only a few thousand words compared to simple European languages that have 10,000 word Lexicons which in turn are only a fraction of the Lexican of modern English.   What this means practically speaking is that words are going to have to serve double duty, have multiple meanings and be less definite than a language like Greek.    But overall, I really believe the theological development reason is the best explanation.

But I will add a third one from the aforementioned article.

  The parallel to logos the Aramaic speaking Jews after the captivity in Babylon used the word memra. This concept was at times personified and used on a sort of representative of God. As we have seen above, “In Psalms 110 Jehovah addresses the first verse to the Memra.”[43]

  Consequently, when John uses the word logos on Jesus, it is either to say that this person, who was active at the creation the world, visible as well as invisible, is the embodiment of earlier prophecies and promises, or, even more likely, that he was called logos because he was the spokesman or representative of God.

  It would have been interesting to see what would have happened if second and third century Christians had based their interpretation of John 1:1, not on the connotations of the Word in Greek philosophy, but on those of the Word in Jewish Aramaic tradition.


How to conduct missionary work through literature It seems utterly superficial, but one of the most frequent methods of promulgating information about Christianity for fallen away folks or getting the word out to people who are teetering on the edge of this or that near occasion of sin is to give them a book.

Sometimes when I read a book, I have no trouble thinking of some poor sinner in my life who could benefit from it the same way this poor sinner did.  But when I hear that as advice on, say, a call in radio show,  I think it's a little lacking and doesn't do anything to actually fix the problem at hand.

How do you bridge the gap between giving a person a book and letting them make the most of it and giving a person a book with the expectation that it will do some good?

I'm seeking an answer akin to what one might be taught in a class on evangelization at a seminary, not just friendly advice.

I admittedly did not attend seminary; but ...

The general advice I've heard in homilies (and in at least a few videos by prominent Catholics online) was reminded to me a few weeks back at a Bible study when I mentioned to the group about the pitfalls of arguing God, religion, morality, etc. on Facebook. The advice, in brief, is that our main purpose in communicating with people is communion with them!

Hence, while it may be beneficial at times, under the whims and wisdom of the Holy Spirit, to lob a book at someone's head and walk away, this is not normal evangelization! The normal path entails knowing a person, being in communion with them, and building with them a common relationship with God.

So, unless instructed by the Holy Spirit, more important than lobbing a book at someone is having a beer with them and enjoying manly silence together. As you come to be in communion with that person, and by simply being in communion with that person, you can share your relationship with God with them. If you find a good book for them, it's ideally not a handoff; it's an awkward, metaphoric man-hug.

That is, it's worthwhile to say "I love you man" during the exchange and have a brief awkward conversation afterwards that ultimately ends in "That was awkward. Let's never do that again."

For reference: Dr. Scott Hahn talks about evangelization a good deal on Catholic radio. The general gist of his talks, and explicitly in some cases, talks about the personal, communal, and sometimes cultural connection we need to make with people when evangelizing. A few notables:

The Importance of Personal Sanctity in Evangelization
Avoiding arrogance while evangelizing.
How did Saint Paul Evangelize?


What influence did Greek philosophy have on the formation of orthodox Christian doctrine? What influence did Greek philosophy have on the formation of orthodox Christian doctrine?

Particularly, what Christian doctrines or paradigms of understanding God and reality can be traced to have been influenced by Greek thought?

There were a lot of things that Greeks taught and believed that resemble what mainstream Christianity has come to embrace. For example

  The concept of a soul within us that cannot die first became a ‘Christian’ doctrine at the end of the second century AD. Hell had been taught in Greek philosophy long before the time of Jesus, with Plato (427-347 BC) as the important leader in this thinking.
  The teaching of an everlasting place of punishment for the wicked is the natural consequence of a belief in an immortal soul. By the year AD 187, it was understood that life, once we have it, is compulsory; there is no end to it, either now or in a world to come. We have no choice as to its continuance, even if we were to commit suicide to end it.

More detail given at Truth According to Scripture


How should a Christian evaluate whether a particular action a sin or not? Since they are directly addressed in the Ten Commandments, most people agree that committing adultery or murder is sin; yet this world is a complicated place full of things that are not so clearly addressed. Some traditions believe using electricity or wearing pants are sins, others do not go so far.

What guidelines can a Christian use to evaluate whether a specific action is sinful or not?

Sin as a condition is separation from God. A sin as an action is an action that brings about such separation from God; such an action "misses the mark," which is the Greek word for the act of sinning. This is the general---very general---rule of thumb. The trick is to tell what separates us from God.

A good rubric, for those who already know in their heart of hearts what is right and wrong, is that given by Mississippi comedian Jerry Clower in his album Classic Clower Power, disc 2, track 25 "You're Fixin' to Mess Up" (cf. http://jacksonianlawyer.wordpress.com/2009/07/25/some-sage-words-of-advice-from-the-legendary-jerry-clower/). For the sake of those yet unable to endure heavy Southern accents, here is the rubric distilled:

  If you’re fixing to make a decision about what’s right and what’s wrong in your life, do you ask other people’s opinion about it? That’s a pretty good indication you're fixing to mess up.

  Number two: do you argue with yourself? ...if you’re arguing with yourself, [that's a] pretty good indication you should not do it.

  Number three: do you feel uneasy when you do it?

  Number four: Can you give thanks and say ‘Lord, I thank You for providing this for me.’? The Bible says, give thanks for all things. So when you do it, can you say ‘Lord, thank You for providing this for me. [Indeed, I thank You] for [making things the way they are, so that] I can commit to what it is I’m doing.'?

  What is right or wrong? Do you ask other people? Do you argue with yourself? Do you feel uneasy when you do it? Can you give thanks and say ‘Lord, I thank You for providing this for me.’? If you can’t, you [had] better watch out…you’re fixin’ to mess up.

N.B. in Southern dialect, to be fixing to do something is to be about to do something.

At the root of sin is self-will and insistence upon our own way at the expense of submitting ourselves to our Father in heaven Who knows better. The resulting cognitive dissonance brings about the signs 1--3 above.

Edit: as @Jürgen A. Erhard has pointed out, this rubric is insufficient on several counts. In my opinion, this is because it displays the signs of cognitive dissonance, which (thank God) accompany a struggle with temptation. These signs are useful in a sort of basic triage to call oneself to attention: if experiencing the signs in this triage (or quadriage), mustering all your dispassion, immediately ask yourself, "Have I committed to doing something wrong, and am I now only trying to justify myself and my wrong actions?"

However, cognitive dissonance may also accompany any difficult decision, which is not necessarily a result of wrongdoing. Also, weighing both sides of a difficult decision is, presumably, an attempt at wisdom and not an attempt at self-justification; and furthermore, asking someone else (whom you respect as someone following the truth, not just someone whom you know will agree with you) is a manifestation of humility. So perhaps at the root of Clower's observation is that one must flee all appearance of sin: in particular, the self-justification that accompanies an assent to sin.

This is a way to tell if you are doing wrong. It is another story to tell what is right, i.e. what is best.


What are the origins and history of the practice of holding massive healing crusades in large stadiums or arenas? For some time I've been interested in the topic of Christian revivals throughout history. In particular, Argentina stands out in my opinion during the second half of the 20th century with a track record of very notable revivals involving massive healing crusades. The one that amazes me the most is the one that took place in 1954 with Tommy Hicks, which I only knew about from informal sources until very recently. What I find fascinating about this revival is the fact that Tommy Hicks managed to convince Argentine president Juan Peron to grant him free access to the press, the radio and the permission to hold a massive healing crusade in the Atlanta and Huracán soccer stadiums, which several sources affirm were full to overflow with people (see the previous link for details). Another example is Carlos Annacondia, a very popular Argentine revivalist preacher who was very active during the 80s and 90s in Argentina first, and abroad later. In this video you can see him preaching to a whole stadium in what appears to be a healing crusade in China. Lastly, Claudio Freidzon had his fair share of soccer stadium renting and massive healing crusades during the 90s in Argentina, as evidenced by these videos.
My question: How did the practice of holding massive healing crusades in large stadiums, arenas or similar spaces begin? How has it evolved over the course of history? What are the denominations most frequently involved in this practice?

If spiritual healing, being translated from death to life, is acceptable within the scope of OP's question parameter regarding healing crusades then I would say that Peter's first sermon in Acts 2, in which 3,000 were saved, should qualify as the earliest example of an open air evangelism campaign:

Now there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men from every nation under heaven. And at this sound the multitude came together, and they were bewildered, because each one was hearing them speak in his own language. - Acts 2:5-6

Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.” Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” And with many other words he bore witness and continued to exhort them, saying, “Save yourselves from this crooked generation.” So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls. - Acts 2:36-41

Missing from this, I suppose, is the element of pre-planning and coordination necessary to both rent and advertise an arena style crusade but this is really just from a human standpoint.  If the Argentinian crusaders mentioned in the question, as well as Billy Graham and others pointed to in various answers, were asked they probably would indicate that they were led to plan and prepare by the Holy Spirit.
Peter's sermon appears impromptu from a human standpoint but, as he was filled with the Holy Spirit (v.2:4), this incident can be understood just as planned as any crusade from God's position.


What is the meaning of creeds? What are creeds and how they came about. Is there a Biblical basis for them and how many creeds are there till date?

The 3 major creeds that every good Catholic knows about are

The Apostles Creed

The Nicene Creed (aka the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed)

The Athanasian Creed

There are definitely others, but if you want the 3 most oft repeated ones, you can see the rest of them here seems to me that wiki article is lacking a few creeds.
Now, to find their meaning consider whether the following commandments are in the Bible.

Did Our Lord want His followers to keep the teaching that He entrusted to them?

If you love me, you will keep my commandments
John 14:15 (NABRE)

Did Our Lord want His followers to defend the faith he left with them?

Always be ready to give an explanation to anyone who asks you for a reason for your hope
1 Peter 3:15 (NABRE)

Were we instructed to hand down the truths that we were given?

And what you heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well.
2 Timothy 2:2 (NABRE)

So, that is why there are creeds.  So that we may keep the faith, so that we can defend the faith and so that we can pass it down.


Looking for source for quote from Christian author Some years ago I read in a book about Christianity an attempt to explain the apparent paradox between predestination and free will.

I have forgotten the name of the book and its author (it could be C.S. Lewis, but I am far from certain).

The explanation (if that is the correct word) went something like this:

  Events that happened yesterday cannot be changed. The actions we took then cannot be altered. Nevertheless, the choices we made then were made out of our own free will.

  We see no conflict between unalterable actions and free will when we look into the past. Why, then, should there be a conflict when we look into the future? God, presumably, is outside time.

This is by no means a verbatim quote. No doubt, it has changed in my mind over the years.

Can anybody tell me where I may have read that explanation?

The quote is from C.S.Lewis in "Mere christianity", book 4, chapter 3 "Time And Beyond Time".


Why does the apostle John write far more clearly about the deity of Christ than seems to be the case in the other gospel accounts? He starts with a most powerful declaration of the One who became Jesus in the flesh as having being God in the beginning, see John 1:1-14. But from there on in, similar expressions of deity come thick and fast, and with a clarity that seems to be crisper than in the other accounts.
I am not asking for a comparison between John’s gospel and the others, but to seek from Trinitarians of the Protestant group how they would respond to a non-trinitarian accusing John of portraying Jesus differently to the others, perhaps due to an unwarranted bias.
A linked question The statements of the early Church Fathers regarding the doctrine of the Trinity (pre-Nicea) does allude to John calling the Word 'God' but it enquires about the early Church Fathers and the formation of the formal Trinity doctrine, not about why the apostle John had his particular emphasis in his gospel. I am not searching out the history of the formation of the doctrine but sticking to why John wrote the way he did.
Nor do I want answers majoring on disagreement with my claim that John writes far more clearly about the deity of Christ than do other New Testament writers. That has been dealt with elsewhere on here. Surely nobody will disagree that his first 14 verses are immensely more attention-grabbing as to the deity of Christ than elsewhere in the N.T?
If we can take that as understood, can answers suggest whether or not John’s emphasis on the deity of Christ is too much, or perhaps understood in light of what he wrote in his epistles and in the Revelation of Jesus Christ?  This should not end up as a mere argument about manuscripts (as if John's strong claims can be diluted by questioning the veracity of ancient manuscripts). I hope answerers will grasp that we view the biblical gospel of John as taken, because that is what Protestant Trinitarians do. If anyone disagrees, please post your own question on that!

"I am not asking for a comparison between John’s gospel and the others"; nevertheless, a brief comparison is necessary:

Tax collector Matthew's Gospel is very organized (e.g. written in 5 sections).
Its intended audience is Jews (expectations of the biblical messiah), and Jesus is presented as a Ruler, to lead them.

Servant by tradition Mark's Gospel is very concise (it's the shortest).
Its intended audience is Romans (very practical and efficient), and Jesus is presented as a Servant, to get the job done.

Physician Luke's Gospel is emotional (includes nativity and other non-doctrinal events).
Its intended audience is Greeks (art and beauty), and Jesus is presented as Human, to be one of them.

John's Gospel is precise (detailed and told in chronological order).
Its intended audience is everyone, and Jesus is presented as God, to save them.

The first three Gospels were written to make it easier for Jews, Romans, and Greeks to understand and be converted to Christianity.
They told the story in ways that were best suited for their specific audiences, stressing what would be important to them, and glossing over details that wouldn't.
If Matthew had lead with "Jesus is God", the Jews would have literally killed him, so he had to present Jesus as the promised Messiah.
If Mark and Luke had lead with "Jesus is God", the Romans and Greeks would have thought: "Oh, not another one".
John's Gospel was written well after the others, for the benefit of all Christians.
The Christian community was growing, and was ready to accept the concept of Jesus as God.
By providing missing details and chronology, John complements what the other Gospels say and makes them easier to understand in context.
Even though written last, John's Gospel is the one that should be read and understood first; then the others can be better understood in his context.
The real question should have been: "Why did the other gospels write less clearly than John?".


Who if any Evangelicals still believe that Adam was created with "a perfect knowledge of God" and everything else? I was just reading a little bit of a book by British academic Jonathan Edwards (note: not the famous one) called "A Preservative Against Socinianism" published in 1698. On page 16 Edwards says something that elicits my question:

  For tho Socinus acknowledges that God at first made man after his own Image: yet he tells us that that Image, as we shewed before, consisted only in the Dominion which God gave him over the whole Creation: and that all other notions of similitude, whereby he may be thought to resemble God, are but Commenta Humana, the inventions of men; not any part of the Revelation contained in the Holy Scriptures. In short, that Adam was born a frail, mortal Creature, having only the bare faculties of understanding and will, but without the accomplishments of either; being neither endued with wisdom nor holiness: a pure rasa Tabula, capable indeed of any impressions, but having no characters either of wisdom or Righteousness, engraven upon his mind, by the finger of God, when he first dropped out of his hands.

He goes on to say in the next paragraph that the orthodox belief is that Adam was created with:

  a perfect knowledge of God, himself, his duty, and all parts of creation: [but] Socinus will tell you that all this is a great mistake.

Was Jonathan Edwards unique in holding this position or was it a common one in his day? Does this particular point of theology have a name? Is this belief still held amongst any Evangelical groups today the same as Edwards did then, or has the general trend in Evangelicalism been in a more Socinian direction on this point?

(By the way, if someone wants to verify the quote, the book is on Google Books. I don't know how to link directly to the page number, so you'll have to scroll down to page 16.)

Edward's view is more or less the traditional view. To give an earlier example, St. Thomas Aquinas says the following of the knowledge of Adam.

  And man was made right by God in this sense, that in him the lower powers were subjected to the higher, and the higher naturewas made so as not to be impeded by the lower. Wherefore the first man was not impeded by exterior things from a clear and steady contemplation of the intelligible effects which he perceived by the radiation of the first truth, whether by a natural or by a gratuitous knowledge. Hence Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. xi, 33) that, "perhaps God used to speak to the first man as He speaks to the angels; by shedding on his mind a ray of the unchangeable truth, yet without bestowing on him the experience of which the angels are capable in the participation of the Divine Essence." Therefore, through these intelligible effects of God, man knew God then more clearly than we know Him now.

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1094.htm#article1

  Man named the animals (Genesis 2:20). But names should be adapted to the nature of things. Therefore Adam knew the animals' natures; and in like manner he was possessed of the knowledge of all other things.

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1094.htm#article3

However, it should be noted that "perfect knowledge" could only be attributed to Adam in a qualified sense.

Among modern Evangelicals, I don't think this is a very popular question in comparison to others, but I will leave it to another to catalog the individual opinions.


Which Lent should someone Baptized in an Eastern Roman Catholic rite follow? Issue

Lent is treated slightly differently across the Catholic Rites.

In the Melkite Rite, the Great Lent begins on the Vespers of Clean Monday, which is the Monday after Ash Wednesday (Feb 19th this year), and ends on the Friday after the 5th Sunday of Lent.  This is precisely 40 days, counts Sundays and has stricter a stricter abstinence obligation than the Latin Rite form of Lent. Namely, that abstinence be practiced on all days of Lent except for Palm Sunday and the Feast of the Annunciation.

In the Roman Catholic Rite, lent begins on Ash Wednesday and ends on Holy Thursday.  This includes Sundays only as far as our conscience dictates.

Question

If someone is baptized, given first communion, and confirmed as a Melkite Catholic, but has otherwise grown up in the Western Rite, does Melkite doctrine state that there can be a choice in which Lent a believer chooses to follow?

The Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches codifies common portions of the canon law of all the Eastern Catholic Churches within the (Roman) Catholic Church.

Canon 883 says

  The Christian faithful who are outside the territorial boundaries of their own Church sui juris can adopt fully for themselves the feast days and days of penance which are in force where they are staying.

This shows that someone whose own Church is an Eastern Rite Church,  but who lives in a Western country, is free to observe Lent according to the Latin rite instead of the rite of his own Church.

The question is about someone attending a Latin rite Church, rather than living in  Latin rite territory,  but in practice most Eastern Rite Catholics regularly attending a Latin Rite parish will do so because of where they live, and so I offer this answer.

In years when Easter is the same East and West, Clean Monday  is 2 days prior to Western Ash Wednesday and Eastern Lent ends 2 days before Palm Sunday. This year Eastern Easter is one eeek later. There are obvious disadvantages in fasting according to one calendar but  using the liturgy of another as one could be fasting in preparation for Easter even while celebrating it in church.

Source


Reason for rise in evangelical observance of Lent in the United States I grew up and continue to live in the United States.  Maybe it's just me, but I was always been under the impression that Ash Wednesday and Lent were celebrated by Catholics and not really by anyone else.  Apparently I was wrong and some Protestant denominations do and have always celebrated it.  Even so, it does seem like within the low-church denominations (e.g. Baptists, Methodists, Pentecostals) the practice has always been eschewed.  Again, maybe I'm wrong, but it just seems like evangelicals observing these holy days has been becoming more and more popular.  Firstly, am I mistaken?  Secondly, if I'm not mistaken, is there some documented reason for this?

While observance of lent is definitely on the rise; this is especially true of Denominations closely related to the Catholic and Orthodox Denominations, as is commonly known both in the Christian and non Christian societies. I can only speak for my Southern Baptist faith.

In most of our churches fasting is being more emphasized, as a strengthening factor for prayer. And that precept is based on:

  Matthew 17:20 and 21 NKJV  So Jesus said to them, "Because of your unbelief; for assuredly, I say to you, if you have faith as a mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move; and nothing will be impossible for you. 21  However, this kind does not go out except by prayer and fasting."

and:

  Mark 9:25 through 29 NKJV  When Jesus saw that the people came running together, He rebuked the unclean spirit, saying to it, "Deaf and dumb spirit, I command you, come out of him and enter him no more!" 26  Then the spirit cried out, convulsed him greatly, and came out of him. And he became as one dead, so that many said, "He is dead." 27  But Jesus took him by the hand and lifted him up, and he arose. 28  And when He had come into the house, His disciples asked Him privately, "Why could we not cast it out?" 29  So He said to them, "This kind can come out by nothing but prayer and fasting."

My personal opinion is that as the World as a whole becomes more and more evil, while Christian attitude among the general public wanes, and God is increasingly being removed from Society more and more Christians are adding fasting to their prayer vigil. This is the prevalent attitude among my co-members.


Slavery verses on the bible (1 Peter 2:18-20) Is it ok to have slavery according to bible?

  Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the
  good and gentle, but also to the froward.

  For this is thankworthy, if a man for conscience toward God endure
  grief, suffering wrongfully.

  For what glory is it, if, when ye be buffeted for your faults, ye
  shall take it patiently? but if, when ye do well, and suffer for it,
  ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with God.

It was certainly "okay." The Israelites owned slaves purchased with money (Exo. 12:44). No explicit prohibition is ever declared of this practice in the NT. In fact, servants are commanded to obey their masters (Col. 3:22).

Slavery is not inherently evil but it can be abused like most things. The Bible explicitly prohibits abusing slaves (Exo. 21:20), for all men are made in God's image.

However, it is no longer "okay" because civil law prohibts it, and Christians are commanded to obey the authorities under which they live.


What is the minimum amount of action required to get in to heaven? I've had this discussion with a number of my Christian friends, and have never managed to get a definitive answer. There may not be just one, but I'd like some scriptural backings for each opinion, please. (This is my first question on here, and apologies if it's a bit too broad a topic without a definitive answer. I really hope there is one.)

Some friends say that you need to be attending church regularly, praying, repenting, and being seen to "make an effort" to practice the Christian teachings every day, in every decision, etc.

Whereas others say that all you need to do is accept Christ as your saviour, and believe that the way to heaven is through him, whether or not you choose to then live your life in a "Christian manner" after that.

Are the former being too strict on themselves?
Are the latter looking for an "easy way out" in allowing them to lead a life of sin?

The basic issue is this:

If you don't share the nature of God, going to heaven will be impossible.  But just imagine that it was, and you went to heaven without sharing God's nature, then it would actually be torture: God revealed to you in all His power, Glory and Holiness would be an unbearable terror - seeing eternal realities with clarity would necessitate the greatest of apprehension as you would know that your existence is anti-thetical to the most powerful being in existence whose merest breath could shred you to sub-atomic particles - you would not experience joy in any measure, only the most fearful apprehension possible.

You might say: "But, but... isn't God loving and merciful??"
Yes he is, but He is also Holy - so Holy that anything of sin cannot withstand his presence.

So the minimum action required is that you become a partaker of the divine nature.  Perhaps if your friends are kind enough to share the gospel with you again, you will realize how it important it is that you listen carefully.

If you don't want to wait that long, perhaps you could avail yourself of resources like this: http://peacewithgod.jesus.net/

  Are the former being too strict on themselves? Are the latter looking for an "easy way out" in allowing them to lead a life of sin?

Without knowing specifics, it would not pay to be dogmatic, but in regard to the former - probably not, and the latter - almost certainly.


What is the basis for the position that the woman of Revelation 17 refers to Rome? Revelation 17 speaks about a woman, but it seems likely that it is figurative rather than literal.  She is attributed with the name "Babylon the Great".  However, Matthew Henry and other commentators suggest that this is actually referring to Rome rather than Babylon.

What is the reasoning behind considering the woman to represent Rome?

The basis of this identification comes from Revelation 17:9-10.

  This calls for a mind with wisdom: the seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman is seated; they are also seven kings, five of whom have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come, and when he does come he must remain only a little while.

The "seven mountains on which the woman is seated" of verse 9 appears to be a reference to the Seven Hills of Rome, while the seven kings of verse 10—in particular the one currently in power when Revelation was written—appears to refer to the Roman Emperor.

Supporting this identification of Rome with Babylon is 1 Peter 5:13 in which Peter, writing from Rome, refers to his city as Babylon.

  Your sister church in Babylon, chosen together with you, sends you greetings; and so does my son Mark.


Where did Goliath come from? The popular story of David and Goliath describes Goliath as very tall ("six cubits and a span"--apparently roughly 9 feet 9 inches, or 297cm).  Most children are just told he was a "giant" in Sunday school.

Where did he come from?  Was he part of a now-extinct race of giants, or was it just some sort of genetic mutation?

In the beginning...

Genesis 6:4 (NIV)

  The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.

The descendants of these children of Nephilim were the giants that show up later in the bible.  When Moses sent the twelve spies into Canaan, the promised land (before the 40 years of wandering), they reported back of giants in the land:

Numbers 13:33

  We saw the Nephilim there (the descendants of Anak come from the Nephilim). We seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes, and we looked the same to them.”

There's another reference to them in 2 Samuel:

2 Samuel 21:20

  In still another battle, which took place at Gath, there was a huge man with six fingers on each hand and six toes on each foot—twenty-four in all. He also was descended from Rapha.

Goliath, himself, was a Philistine.  He was also known as the "Goliath of Gath".  Gath was one of the five city-states of Philistine.

1 Samuel 17:23 (NIV)

  As he was talking with them, Goliath, the Philistine champion from Gath, stepped out from his lines and shouted his usual defiance, and David heard it.

Because we know that Goliath was from Gath (from 1 Samuel) and that the giants in Gath were descendants of the Nephilim (from 2 Samuel) it's pretty safe to assume he was one of those.

It's also safe to assume some possible genetic issues (due to the six fingers and toes).


What positions with regard to epistemology exist in Catholicism? Mostly sparked by debates regarding evolution, I have become curious what epistemological positions exist in Catholicism.

I understand the doctrinal priority of biblical texts, so from a Christian point of view they take precedence over scientific ideas in case they clash. Once those central texts are accepted as revelation, this seems to be internally consistent to me.

My question is with regard to which specific methods are used to arrive at the conclusion that the central texts are divinely revealed. Usually talks about this are filled with words like "logical", "rational", or other terms of a similar nature. What I never saw is a description of what constitutes logical or rational methods, how they are derived, how they lead to acceptance of what Christianity considers revelation, and how they disqualify the validity of other methods in case of conflicting results. Also, how do those same methods applied to the claims of other religions lead to rejection of those claims while leading to acceptance of a Christian position?

I am interested in the epistemological methods that the school(s) of theology that exist(s) within Catholicism use(s) to arrive at the conclusion that the bible is revelation, which seem to me to be necessarily a priori to biblical texts, or in other words: they cannot come from commandments within the texts.

(I posted the same question with regard to Islam on islam.se. Strictly speaking I am interested in the epistemological positions of all major Christian traditions, but have been advised to focus on one.)

There is actually an encyclical devoted almost entirely to this topic, St. John Paul II’s Fides et ratio, published in 1998.

In that encyclical, John Paul sets down some essential principles for reconciling the truths known through natural reason alone (reason unaided by faith) and revealed truths (those that can only be known though faith).

These principles can be summarized as follows:

There is never a conflict between truths known through natural reason alone (hereafter, I will refer to these as “truths of reason”) and truths that require revelation by God (hereafter referred to as “revealed truths”). If something is true, then it can never contradict another truth, whether revealed or not. All truth, in the end, comes from the Holy Spirit. (That is the gist of numbers 36-42; this idea is also the topic of the Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius, from Vatican I.)
Although the Church does not endorse particular philosophical schools (including epistemological schools), the Church can say that those philosophies that fail to go beyond mere appearances, and do not seek their foundation, are not adequate tools for understanding the Faith (no 83). (The Pope is probably thinking of the philosophy of Immanuel Kant and his followers, who famously denied the knowability of the “noumenon,” or “thing-in-itself”. He is not saying that Kant has nothing good to contribute, but that agnosticism of the kind proposed by Kant is not helpful for understanding revealed truths.)
The Church should support the contribution of the empirical sciences. On the other hand, it should be recognized that the method employed by these sciences is not the only way to have access to the truth (nos. 83 and 88). Nor is there any fundamental contradiction between what the Faith teaches and what science proposes (no. 88). (Hence, as an example, if biology finds that all life forms have evolved ultimately from a single species, well and good; the perceived differences between this theory and what the Book of Genesis seems to propose can easily be overcome by understanding that the author of Genesis was not attempting to write a scientific treatise on the origin of species, nor are any of the truths actually asserted by Genesis in any way contradicted by the theory of evolution.)
The empirical sciences, philosophy, and theology—although all legitimate sources of truth—operate based on different principles and using different methods (no. 92). For example, the empirical sciences generally use the hypothetical-deductive method; philosophy (at least the kind advocated by the Pope) uses a method that deduces causes based on the observed effects (no. 83); theology begins with the truths that God has revealed and uses reason to draw out the logical conclusions (that is the gist of Chapter II, nos 16-20).

More à propos the O.P.’s particular questions:

Regarding the reliability (or inerrancy) of the Scriptures, the epistemological path is as follows: canonicity -> inspiration -> inerrancy. At the end of the day, the reliability of the Scriptures is a truth of faith, not a truth of reason. Although the Scriptures can be submitted to tests proposed by the modern sciences, those sciences cannot “prove,” as one proves a mathematical theorem, that the Scriptures are reliable. Rather, this truth depends epistemologically on revelation from God, which in turn, is mediated by the Church (which is to say, we have access to the truths revealed by God thanks to the Church, who has the authority to teach those truths).

The way the Church has shown the reliability of the Scriptures is by affirming their canonicity. In the fourth and fifth centuries, in various places but most notably in Carthage and Rome, synods of bishops sifted through the evidence and chose all those works, and only those works, that could be considered inspired by the Holy Spirit. Their criteria were (1) fidelity to accepted Catholic doctrine (2) continuous use in liturgical celebrations (3) for the New Testament, traceability to the authority of an Apostle. The lists produced in the synods of Carthage and Rome are identical in substance with the 73 books of the Catholic Bible. (These can by found in the Enchiridion Symbolorum edited by Denzinger and Hünnermann.) The canon was not, however, definitively or solemnly “closed” until the Council of Trent (in response to changes in the canon proposed by Protestant reformers).

Canonicity, or inclusion in the Canon of Scripture, is the Church’s judgment that a particular work is inspired—which means, essentially, that the Holy Spirit is to be understood as the primary author. If God is the primary author, it follows that everything affirmed as true by the human author (and the whole problem of exegesis hinges on what the author actually meant to affirm) must be considered as affirmed by God—hence, true. (See Catechism of the Catholic Church [CCC] nos. 105-108.)

That is the epistemological path that the Church proposes for the Scriptures, and if an epistemological school is to be compatible with the Catholic Faith, then it must fall within these parameters.

(One sees immediately, for instance, that Kantian agnosticism will make the passage from canonicity to inspiration very difficult. On the other hand, Platonic-inspired theories of knowledge based on recollection or the Augustinian_rationes seminales_, as well as Aristotle’s more experience-based approach, could be made to work.)

In fact, substantially the same epistemological path is to be used for any revealed truth: the Church has the authority to interpret (but not invent!) the truths revealed to it by God (keeping in mind that the definitive revelation was given in the person of Jesus Christ, and that there is no more “public” revelation beyond him, and nothing fundamental to be added to the deposit of faith after the age of the Apostles). These constitute the so-called deposit of faith (CCC no. 84), entrusted to the Church, especially to the Apostles and their successors the bishops. What the Church, through her teaching office, or Magisterium, after consulting the Scriptures and also the Church’s constant tradition, affirms to be an article of faith, the faithful are bound to believe with divine and catholic faith. (An excellent summary of how faithful Catholics are bound believe various Church teachings can be found by then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger’s commentary on the profession of faith required in various situations.)

In conclusion: the Church gives full liberty to adopt any epistemological theory, so long as it does not clearly deny the very possibility of gaining access to revealed truth.


Can Catholics or other Christians support ending abortion without making it illegal? I want to end abortion. I don't believe outlawing abortion will end abortion. I believe the best way to end abortion is to put in place a social safety net which encourages women keep their children knowing the government will provide pregnancy services, day care, etc. Statistics back me up here--countries where abortion is legal but the government provides services have the lowest abortion rates.
Can a Catholic or other Christian support ending abortion but not support outlawing abortion?

The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation:
"The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority.
These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin.
Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being's right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death
"The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law.
When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined....
As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child's rights.

CCC #2273
This seems to imply that a Catholic must support making abortion illegal, at least to be in good standing with the Catholic Church. Of course you can take a both and approach. I don't think Catholics are obliged not to support a social safety net for pregnant women. You can do that, while also supporting making abortion illegal.


Is this melody part of the French church mass? In this article, in the section entitled The “Great” Aleinu History, the author writes that a particular melody used in Jewish High Holiday prayers was added to the French Church Mass in the late 12th century by French crusaders, and can be heard to this very day. You can directly play the mp3 here.

My question is, is it true that this melody can still be heard in the mass to this very day? What part of the mass is it used for? Are there any audio recordings of it?

EDIT:

Also, from the article linked in caseyr547's answer below:

  Another report adds that the Gentiles 'henceforth used the chant in their church,' and musicologist Eric Werner did in fact locate the melody in the Sanctus of the Ninth Mass of the Virgin.

I have recently taken few lesson of Gregorian Chant and we sung something from the Ninth Mass to Virgin Mary. Unfortunately, we stopped at Kyrie and I've heard its Sanctus just once or twice, so I can't tell whether some part of it is similar to that Aleinu record or not. I have notes for the Sanctus, so at the first opportunity I can scan the notes and link the picture, so that someone more competent can verify this theory. The guy who taught me the chant has been to France few times, so it should be what we are looking for, not "central-europian mutation" of the same chant. Unfortunately, I'm not really competent in reading (medieval) musical notation, so there might be some piece similar to this even though I didn't find any similarity.

Anyway, even if the two melodies were somewhat similar, still it is quite likely to be just an accident. There is limited (though big) set of possible melodies, and set of melodies used for sacral music is not-as-big. Provided there are some similarities between Jewish sacral music and Gregorian Chant, such occasional similarities are inevitable.

Such random similarities in music are often exaggerated by conspiracy theorist. In my nation (Czech) vague similarities between our and Irish folk music are often presented as a proof that we are more Celtic than Slavic, but I remember one of the proponents of this theory to admit that he have heard music from Tibet that sounded more similar to some kinds of Czech folk music than Irish music does.


What is the biblical meaning of "believe"? I know that the bible say that we should believe in the lord Jesus but I need someone to help me understand more about the original meaning of the word believe so I can fully believe in a proper way.

To start, it is instructive to understand that the words "faith", "trust" and "believe" in English translations all come from the same Greek root (pisteuo).
Charles Spurgeon describes it well in his book, All of Grace:

What is faith? It is made up of three things—knowledge, belief, and trust.
Knowledge comes first. "How shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard?  I want to be informed of a fact before I can possibly believe it..."
The mind goes on to believe that these things are true. The soul believes that God is, and that He hears the cries of sincere hearts; that the gospel is from God; that justification by faith is the grand truth which God hath revealed in these last days by His Spirit more clearly than before. Then the heart believes that Jesus is verily and in truth our God and Saviour, the Redeemer of men, the Prophet, Priest, and King of His people. All this is accepted as sure truth, not to be called in question...
So far you have made an advance toward faith; only one more ingredient is needed to complete it, which is trust. Commit yourself to the merciful God; rest your hope on the gracious gospel; trust your soul on the dying and living Saviour; wash away your sins in the atoning blood; accept His perfect righteousness, and all is well. Trust is the lifeblood of faith; there is no saving faith without it.

He later summarizes it this way:

Faith is believing that Christ is what He is said to be, and that He will do what He has promised to do, and then to expect this of Him.

In reality, the Greek word is not anything mysterious.  However, it does not mean intellectual assent, as the demons believe there is a God--and tremble in fear as a result.
So, the definition comes from understanding the Gospel--what is to be believed and why.


What is the New Testament argument against Gnosticism? I'm aware that the rise of Gnosticism was after the New Testament was written – but it would seem that a lot of the ideas on which it was built were floating around at the time. (Particularly Greek ideas about the uncleanness of the body contrasted with the purity of the mind/spirit).

Particularly in 1 Cor 15, but also more generally across the NT – how does the Bible rebut the ideas of Gnosticism? (i.e., that Jesus and subsequent resurrection was physical).

In 1 Timothy 6:20, Paul specifically exhorts Timothy

  Avoid the irreverent babble and contradictions of what is falsely called “knowledge,”

In doing so, Paul is specifically calling on Timothy not to engage those who claim a special "Gnosis" that somehow elevates them. As such, Paul is not going to take on that heresy himself, but he does still provide the basis for rejecting it.

1 Timothy makes claims that stand in opposition to the docetic beliefs of the Gnostics.

1 Timothy 3:16 makes clear that

  He was manifested in the flesh

and goes on to say in 1 Timothy 4

  Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, 2 through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared, 3 who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. 4 For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, 5 for it is made holy by the word of God and prayer

Gnostics believee that matter itself was evil (and as such could not believe that God would deign to become matter), and as such made anything fleshy out to be bad. Eventually, since everything tangible was bad, they started suggesting that it didn't matter what the flesh did, only the spirit, and so they became libertines, orgiastic, and the like. Paul undercuts the argument he by rejecting the premise.

As Bruce Alderman points out, John may have been reacting to the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas (really just a collection of sayings mores than a narrative as we expect Gospels to be)

It has been debated whether or not Gnosticism predates Christiainity or if in turn Gnosticism grew out of Christianity. In any event, however, the fact that Paul was only mentioning it in his later books (argued by some scholars to actually be written by Pauls followers after his death) shows that much of the NT was already in place before it became a real threat to the church.

John, by contrast, is typically considered to be one of the last books, so a back handed reference fits in perfectly with that assertion.

Later, in 2 John (and here I'll claim same authorship) he writes

  For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not confess the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh. Such a one is the deceiver and the antichrist.

Not a rebuttal, but at least you know where he stands.


Where was Jesus during the period from His death to resurruction? Possible Duplicate:
  Did Jesus spend time in Hell between the crucifixion and resurrection?

Jesus died and was raised from death on the third day.

Where did Jesus go during the period from His death to resurrection? Was He was with God or still on Earth?

What is the significance of three days?

Some believe that He was in purgatory. However, He died for our sins because He was sinless - in that case, this belief (regarding purgatory) is questionable.

Is there a biblical answer, or one within the realm of Christian faith?

Jesus' body was in the tomb (Matthew 27:59ff; cp Mark 15, Luke 23, John 19).

Jesus' spirit was in Paradise (Luke 23:42ff) - else He could not have truthfully promised the thief crucified with Him that "today you will be with Me in Paradise". See also Luke 16:19-31.

Jesus paid our debt in completion while on the cross - while He absorbed the full wrath of God to be our propitiation (Hebrews 2:16ff; cp Romans 3:24ff), He was not put into the Lake of Fire (Revelation 20:9ff) and pulled back out (Revelation 19:20), as that would have been a victory for the Devil whom Christ had already broken (Genesis 3:15) by becoming our atonement.

Three days is significant for a variety of reasons, both in foreshadowing, and in practicalities.

it is a finite period of time
the body won't begin to decay yet (Psalm 16:10)

compare to Lazarus in John 11:17 & 39:

"So when Jesus came, He found that he had already been in the tomb four days." &
"Jesus said, 'Remove the stone.' Martha, the sister of the deceased, said to Him, "Lord, by this time there will be a stench, for he has been dead four days.'"

it was presaged by Jonah (Matthew 12:38ff; cp Jonah 1:17)
it was how long the plague of darkness lasted in Egypt (Exodus 10:21ff)
Jesus said it would only be three days (Matthew 26:61; cp 27:63, Mark 8:31, John 2:19)


How do Catholics make sure that the supposed saint they are asking intercession of is truly saved? The doctrine of the intercession of saints states that deceased saints can be asked (via prayer) to intercede for the living. This assumes that there is:

A living Christian.
A deceased saint.
A one-way communication from the living Christian to the deceased saint. (*)
A two-way communication between the deceased saint and God.

(*) I say one-way and not two-way in point 3 because the deceased saint does not communicate back to the living Christian (or at least the doctrine doesn't state that possibility as far as I'm aware).
My question is regarding how Catholics make sure that points 2 and 3 are really taking place. I imagine that not everyone that one decides to pray to is necessarily a deceased saint. This is easy to see with an extreme example. Let's say someone decides to pray to Adolf Hitler. Most would agree that Hitler is very likely not saved. So praying to him would be a wasted prayer, because Hitler, though he meets the condition of being deceased, doesn't meet the condition of being a saint. So that's an easy one to tell, but what about other, more ambiguous cases? What if my uncle Bob, who passed away last year, was a believer, was very virtuous but also had his fair share of defects? How  can I tell if he was saved or lost at the moment of death? And what about deceased virtuous pagans who, though they were not strictly Christian, still had a chance to be saved and, therefore, to intercede for the living?
In other words, I would like to know if Catholics have a standard protocol in place to determine which deceased persons are trustable candidates to ask intercession of, to avoid false positive situations in which they accidently pray to someone who was not truly a deceased saint. Similarly, are there any negative consequences that might occur if someone accidently asks intercession of a deceased non-saint (e.g. someone prays to a deceased relative who is actually in Hell/not saved)? Is it possible that a demon could take advantage of the situation and answer the prayer instead, pretending to be the deceased non-saint?

Unless the saint has been canonized by the Church, one cannot know for sure whether he or she is truly a saint or is in purgatory or hell.
One must pray for the deceased (suffrages for the dead: "Masses, prayers, or acts of piety offered for the repose of the souls of the faithful departed"), in case they are in purgatory. Once they are in heaven, then they can pray for us.
Fr. Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P., Life Everlasting: A Theological Treatise on the Four Last Things: Death, Judgment, Heaven, Hell, ch. 26 "Charity for the poor souls [in purgatory]":

May we also pray to the poor souls [in purgatory]? The liturgy does not pray to them. But we are not forbidden to pray to them, though we must give preference to prayer for them. Here is a sentence from St. Thomas: "The souls in purgatory are not in the state of praying, but in the state of being prayed for." [Summa Theologica II-II q. 83 a. 11 ad 3]