What is the biblical basis of the belief that Earth is the center of the universe? Giordano Bruno was considered heretic because he said that Earth is not the center of the universe, which was believed to be contrary to what is mentioned in the Bible. That is what some historians say, whereas others say he was executed because he held opinions contrary to the Catholic Church.

So, what is the biblical basis of the belief that Earth is the center of the universe?

The verses most commonly encountered during discussions of Bruno and especially of Galileo Galilei are included here.

  Josh. 10:13 "So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, till the nation avenged itself on its enemies, as it is written in the Book of Jashar. The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day."

If the sun and moon miraculously stood still, then the ordinary behavior of the sun and moon ought to be movement. The heliocentrists argued that the sun was motionless and it was the Earth that moved.

  Psalm 19:1-5 "The heavens declare the glory of God;
      the skies proclaim the work of his hands.
   Day after day they pour forth speech;
      night after night they reveal knowledge.
   They have no speech, they use no words;
      no sound is heard from them.
   Yet their voice goes out into all the earth,
      their words to the ends of the world.
  In the heavens God has pitched a tent for the sun.
       It is like a bridegroom coming out of his chamber,
  like a champion rejoicing to run his course."

  Psalm 93:1-2 "The Lord reigns, He is clothed with majesty;
  The Lord has clothed and girded Himself with strength;
  Indeed, the world is firmly established, it will not be moved.
  Your throne is established from of old;
  You are from everlasting."

  Psalm 104:5 "He established the earth upon its foundations,
  So that it will not totter forever and ever."

  Isaiah 40:22 "He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth,
      and its people are like grasshoppers.
  He stretches out the heavens like a canopy,
      and spreads them out like a tent to live in."

These verses in Psalms regard the motionlessness of the earth as a testimony of the steadfastness of God, or the movement of the sun as a sign of his power.

  Ecclesiastes 1:5 "The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises."

A literalist might argue that this verse implies that it is the sun that moves about the earth, which is apparently the position taken by the contemporary Church. An educational website about the trial of Galileo includes this offical statement:

  A decree of February 19, 1616, summoned Qualifiers of the Holy Office and required them to give their opinion on the two following propositions in Galileo's work on the solar spots.  (The assessment was made in Rome, on Wednesday, February 24, 1616.)
  Proposition to be assessed:

  (1) The sun is the center of the world and wholly immovable from its place.

  Assessment: This proposition was unanimously declared "foolish and absurd. philosophically and formally heretical inasmuch as it expressly contradicts the doctrine of the Holy Scripture in many passages, both in their literal meaning and according to the general interpretation of the Holy Fathers and the doctors of theology."

  (2) The earth is not the center of the world, nor immovable, but it moves as a whole, also with diurnal motion.

  Assessment: This proposition was unanimously declared "deserving of the like censure in philosophy, and as regards theological truth, to be at least errouneous in faith."

It appears that while this statement may reflect the official position of the Church at that time, it was not universally held among those educated in the scriptures, even among priests of the Cathoilic Church. The same educational website includes this 1616 announcement of suspension of the publication of certain books that contained teachings, theological, philosophical, or otherwise, that were contrary to their previous statement that heliocentrism was contradictory to the Holy Scriptures. (bold added)

  And whereas it has also come to the knowledge of the said Congregation that the Pythagorean doctrine—which is false and altogether opposed to the Holy Scripture—of the motion of the Earth, and the immobility of the Sun, which is also taught by Nicolaus Copernicus in De revolutionibus orbium coelestium, and by Diego de Zuniga [in his book] on Job, is not being spread abroad and accepted by many—as may be seen from a certain letter of a Carmelite Father, entitled Letter of the Rev. Father Paolo Antonio Foscarini, Carmelite, on the Opinion of the Pythagoreans and of Copernicus concerning the Motion of the Earth, and the Stability of the Sun, and the New Pythagorean System of the World, at Naples, Printed by Lazzaro Scoriggio, 1615: wherein the said Father attempts to show that the aforesaid doctrine of the immobility of the sun in the centre of the world, and of the Earth’s motion, is consonant with truth and is not opposed to Holy Scripture.

Modern positivists like to use heliocentrism as evidence that the Church is dogmatic and incapable of adopting empirical understanding. However, it is notable that the geocetric view was held by the vast majority of astronomers and educated people in general at that time- Galileo delayed publishing his own work on heliocentrism because he anticipated ridicule from his peers, not from the Church. The observable evidence that the sun is the center of the universe, stellar parallax, was not observable by instruments at that time and so most contemporary astronomers dismissed heliocentrism, at least initially, on scientific grounds. In fact, Galileo was guilty not only of insubordination to the Church authorities but of bad science- he was teaching that his theory that the sun was the center of the universe was true dispite the fact that he lacked the evidence to demonstrate such.

As far as the Catholic Church is concerned, these verses are not considered to be a valid Biblical basis for geocentrism. From Catholic Answers,

  Unfortunately, throughout Church history there have been those who insist on reading the Bible in a more literal sense than it was intended. They fail to appreciate, for example, instances in which Scripture uses what is called "phenomenological" language—that is, the language of appearances. Just as we today speak of the sun rising and setting to cause day and night, rather than the earth turning, so did the ancients. From an earthbound perspective, the sun does appear to rise and appear to set, and the earth appears to be immobile. When we describe these things according to their appearances, we are using phenomenological language.

  The phenomenological language concerning the motion of the heavens and the non-motion of the earth is obvious to us today, but was less so in previous centuries. Scripture scholars of the past were willing to consider whether particular statements were to be taken literally or phenomenologically, but they did not like being told by a non-Scripture scholar, such as Galileo, that the words of the sacred page must be taken in a particular sense.

According to Wikipedia, the Roman Catholic Church via Cardinal Giovanni Mercati made a statement regarding Bruno's condemnation in 1942, saying that the condemnation was just.


Not Tithing Is Stealing? (Baptist perspective) I'm told that not tithing is stealing from God. I agree we should tithe, but I don't feel I'm stealing if I don't tithe.

I'm really having a hard time with this.

I'm looking for a biblical answer to this.

My faith is based on the Bible, and I'm asking as a Baptist.

Tithing [or more generally "giving"] is as noted in another reply "encouraged" by most Baptists. It is interesting that in some of the earliest Baptist confessions tithe is not mentioned as an ordinance.  In fact any reference to money in regards to the church is incidental:

The 1644 London Confession, http://www.reformedreader.org/ccc/h.htm Article 38:

  That the due maintenance of the officers aforesaid, should be the free and voluntary communication of the Church, that according to Christ's ordinance, >
  they that preach the Gospel, should live on the Gospel and not by constraint to be compelled from the people by a forced law.

and The 1646 http://www.reformedreader.org/ccc/1646lbc.htm :

  The ministers of Christ ought to have whatsoever they shall need, supplied freely by the church, that according to Christ's ordinance they that preach the Gospel should live of the gospel by the law of Christ. 1 Cor. 9:7,14; Gal. 6:8; Phil. 4:15,16; 2 Cor. 10:4; 1 Tim. 1:2; Ps. 110:3.

More recent Baptist declarations seem to have no clear statement of tithe, but do speak of due stewardship.

Southern Baptist 2000 Faith and Message XIII:

  Stewardship
  God is the source of all blessings, temporal and spiritual; all that we have and are we owe to Him. Christians have a spiritual debtorship to the whole world, a holy trusteeship in the gospel, and a binding stewardship in their possessions. They are therefore under obligation to serve Him with their time, talents, and material possessions; and should recognize all these as entrusted to them to use for the glory of God and for helping others. According to the Scriptures, Christians should contribute of their means cheerfully, regularly, systematically, proportionately, and liberally for the advancement of the Redeemer's cause on earth.

It seems it is a matter of stewardship, not "tithe." "To give as you have been prospered."


Why was Lot "let off the hook" for offering his daughters to be raped? Genesis 19:1-20 tells the famous story of Soddom and Gomorrah.  In the story, the men of Sodom come to Lot's house, and demand that Lot release his visitors to be raped by the men of the town.  Lot refuses, and instead offers his virgin daughters (verse 8) to appease the crowd.

Nothing else is ever mentioned about Lot offering his daughters to be gang-raped by a crowd of men.

In light of this, why is Lot considered "righteous?" (See 2 Peter 2:7)

Can we draw any other conclusions from Lot's actions here?

I guess I don't really know what question to ask... I'm just kind of dumb-struck by the situation... What in the world?

I've heard a variety of theories on this topic:

He "knew" (or hoped) the crowd wouldn't accept them (they were asking for men, after all)
Females were considered a sub-class of society, and therefore were his "possession" wherewith to do as he pleased
It was the offer of a desperate man trying to save the guests whom he suspected of being more than just "visitors" (but did not know were messengers of God)

Lastly, the "righteousness of Lot" does not indicate he was perfect, or even the best representation of a God-truster of the day - Abraham was "righteous", and yet on two occasions tried to save his own skin by telling his wife to say she was his sister.

Lot elected to go towards the greener pastures near the cities when Abraham offered him the choice of land on which to graze his flocks - and he continually migrated closer and closer to sin until he was living in Sodom: a phenomenal shift from being with Abraham and away from such obviously-evil influences.


How can we understand Jesus's omniscience? According to the doctrine of the Trinity, Jesus is God. He thus is entitled to be described by the various attributes of God, such as omniscience.  However, the following passage  raises a tough question regarding this, because Jesus plainly refers to knowledge that he does not have:

  Matthew 24:36 (NASB)

  36  “But  of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.

Another issue is raised by the following passage, where we are told that Jesus gained wisdom as a child, which indicates that he was not omniscient, at least in his childhood incarnation:

  Luke 2:52 (NASB)

  52  And Jesus kept increasing in wisdom and stature, and in  favor with God and men.

How can Jesus's God nature, and specifically his omniscience be understood in light of these passages?  My initial inclination is that in becoming human, he temporarily emptied himself of the independent use of his power (Philippians 2:6-7), but I wonder if there is more to it.

Answers should assume that Jesus is God.

The theological term for what you are describing is called Kenosis- from "an emptying." As you suggest, Philippians 2, in which the Scripture says that "though He was God, he thought equality with God was not something to be grasped," so he emptied himself and became obedient unto death, even the death on a Cross.

That God himself would choose to empty himself of the privileges of divinity is both a mystery (in that the mechanics and even motivation could be some what obscured) and a reminder of how much God loved us.

John 1 says that he chose to dwell among us - Exodus 33 says that man cannot see God and live. In order to reconcile these two facts, some accommodation necessarily had to be made.

Likewise, the true fullness of the glory of God is something that is simply so awesome, that had he not emptied himself, we would have necessarily been overhwhelmed. Like Henry IV who famously dressed up us a commoner so that he could go out and speak with his men as one of his men, so too did God necessarily become like men in order to be with men.

For this reason, Jesus' human nature was thus the dress in which his fully Divine nature was "pleased to dwell." He gave up the powers of God in order to be with us.


Did God inadvertantly create evil? I am a Christian but I struggle with this question;

God knows everything past, present and future.  He knew us while we were still in the earth.  He picked the place, time and tree for Jesus to be crucified.

God created us, knew how we would act and what we will do in the future.  He knows we will sin against him and which of us will go to hell and which are preordained to go to Heaven...because he knows everything.  Why does he put us together that way knowing we will sin.  Why did he bother to create Satan?

I guess I would like to know why he didn't just create us with love like his.  He could have given us free will with the worst choice we would have to make is chocolate or vanilla.

Romans 9 points to some objections that Paul foresaw when speaking of the sovereign choices of God; in particular, look at verses 19-20:

"You will say to me then, 'Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?' But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, 'Why have you made me like this?'

Reading the entire context we see that there is no clear answer given, rather Paul lifts high the name of God and reminds us that finite beings cannot possibly understand all of the mysteries and ways of the LORD. I fully believe that God welcomes the humble questioning of His children, but ruminating on topics like this can lead to anger and suspicion towards God.

The Evil One has been using the same tactics since the beginning of time  ("Did God really say....?") tempting humans to doubt the word, character, wisdom, and goodness of God.

After years, literally years, of struggling with issues like this, I realized it was a fruitless struggle and simply had to ask God to change my heart, help my unbelief, and grant me a heart of trust and love for Him.

Isaiah 55:8-9 For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
    neither are your ways my ways, declares the Lord.
 For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
    so are my ways higher than your ways
    and my thoughts than your thoughts.

I don't think that anything God does can be described as inadvertent.

Isaiah 45:7 I form light and create darkness,
    I make well-being and create calamity,
    I am the Lord, who does all these things.

What an awesome God! We should tremble at His holiness and yet He became like one of us, born into a poor family and suffered at the hands of sinful man to redeem sinful man. We can trust Him!

May God bless you richly and draw you ever closer to Him.

Scripture references taken from https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah+45%3A7%2C+55%3A8-9%2C+Romans+9&version=ESV


Who is Augustine arguing against in his Confessions, book 12? In Augustine's Confessions, book XII, chapters xvi–xvii (23–24), he writes about his disagreements with others over the proper interpretation of the Creation account in Genesis 1. Augustine holds that Genesis 1:1 refers to the out-of-time creation of the spiritual realms and a formless "earth," while his opponents argue that "heaven and earth" refer only to the visible creation.
He quotes their views as follows:

They say: 'Although this may be true, yet Moses did not have these two things in mind when by the revelation of the Spirit he said: "In the beginning God made heaven and earth" (Gen. 1:1).  By the word "heaven" he did not mean the spiritual or intellectual creation which continually looks on God's face, nor by the word "earth" did he intend formless matter.'  What then?  They say: 'What that man had in mind was what we say he meant, and this is what he expressed in those words.' [...]
'By the phrase "heaven and earth"', they say, 'Moses meant to signify in general and concise terms the entire visible world, so that thereafter under the successive days he could arrange one by one each category which it pleased the Holy Spirit to list in this way.  The character of the people addressed was rough and carnal, and so he decided to present to them only the visible works of God.' (XII.xvii)

In the Confessions Augustine often argues against the Manicheans, but that's apparently not the case in this section.  The people in view here "honour your holy scripture written by that holy man Moses and agree with us that we should follow its supreme authority" (XII.xvi), and the Manicheans certainly didn't do that.
Do scholars have any idea who these opponents were?  Do their writings survive?

Quoted text here comes from Henry Chadwick's translation of the Confessions.  Other translations are freely available online, such as on CCEL (XII.xvi and XII.xvii).

My translation of Confessions doesn't have chapters in the books so it was a bit hard to find this.  (using Nelson's Royal Classics edition)

I beleive he is referring to other interpreters of the Pentatuech.

  But in the midst of so many truths which occur to the interpreters of these words.

I think this is meant as a hypothetical intepreter.

Later on the part you quoted, St. Augustine refers to a people who pluck words out of a thicket to justify their own ends.

  They see these things and they rejoice in the light of Thy truth to whatever degree they can

To me, as a Catholic in what I belive to be the tradition of St. Augustine, this sounds like a very generic heresy.  (whoops alsmost said St.) G.K. Chesterton always described heretics as people stuck on a particular truth.

The intro to my translation of confessions also says that Augustine went up against Donatists and (full-fledged) Pelegians.  The movie about St. Augustine, Restless Heart also shows his run-ins with the Donatists, who really seemed to have a good hold on what was then the official Church, but they disdained the organizational structure of the Church.

However, it doesn't sound much like Augustine has disdain for these hypothetical interpretations, and in the intro to Chapter Twelve the editor writes:

  He emphasizes the importance of tolerance where there are plural options, and confidence where basic Christian faith is concerned.

So, it would seem as though, Augustine would prefer people to stay "in tge nest" but if they stray and pluck from the thicket (i.e. Sacred Scriptural Truths)

the footnote says that “they" which in my book is translated "one of these men" refers to the "Thicket denizens mentioned above" which he later goes on to point out are 4 distinct viewpoints, making up the notes whuch must be played together, to make up the real song of creation.

For, as Chesterton says,  the Christian when confronted with two seemingly contradictory truths simply takes the two truths with the contradiction and adds it to the deposit of faith.

So these are simply men Augustine uses to illustrate one point about what might later be coined as "senses of scripture".  If he took the time to take any of their suppositions to their logical ends, he'd probably find some new heresy to squash, but that's not the goal of this book.


The word "raised" in Romans 9:17-18 and Exodus 9:16? NIV - Romans 9:17 (17) For Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised
  you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and
  that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.

  (18a) Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy,
  (18b) and he hardens whom he wants to harden."

Since I'm not from an English speaking country, I have a difficulty to know what it means by the time I read the word "raised". Almost all English versions of Romans 9:17 use the word "raised" but there are two version (Contemporary English Version and Good News Translation) which directly describe it as "made king".

Still I check the Exodus 9:16.

  NLT - Exodus 9:16 But I have spared you for a purpose--to show
  you my power and to spread my fame throughout the earth.

  Christian Standard Bible - Exodus 9:16 However, I have let you
  live for this purpose: to show you my power and to make my name known
  on the whole earth.

Between (A) "made king" and (B) "let you live", I choose B for "raised".
And by choosing B, I feel it goes well with the Romans 9:18a. So, God does not kill Pharaoh because He choose to give mercy (let him live) to Pharaoh.

But choosing B doesn't go well with Romans 9:18b. It's still also not connected if I choose A. The only thing which I think "connected" if I made a conclusion by myself about "raised" which is coming from Exodus 7:3

  NIV - Exodus 7:3   But I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and though I
  multiply my signs and wonders in Egypt

So Romans 9:17 become like this :
For Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I hardened you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.

From here, now I can separate that Romans 9:18a is referring to verse 15, and Romans 9:18b is referring to verse 17.

And if I still insist the meaning of "raised" in verse 17 is B, then (to me) in order verse 17 connect with verse 18, I need to use a chronology like this : "God has mercy (let him live) to Pharaoh in order He can harden Pharaoh's heart so then He might display His power". A bit awkward to me :).

My question is :
1. What did Paul mean on the word "raised" ?
2. Is there a connection between verse 17 and 18 ?

Read Romans 9 in the light of Romans 2:4-11.  Mercy is intended to lead to repentance, but in the case of Pharaoh, mercy hardened his heart.

Exodus 8:15

  When Pharaoh saw there was relief, however, he hardened his heart...

When God relented and showed mercy, Pharaoh hardened his own heart.


What is the distinction between Justification and Salvation? (Roman Catholic view) As a practicing Christian, my only hope is for salvation through Jesus Christ.  I note that scripture addresses salvation; in the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, the Bible is (among other things) a record of Man's salvation  history.  In Paul's letters, being justified is proclaimed to be of profound importance.

If I am to be saved, must I be justified?  I don't think that the two words mean the same thing.

What is the distinction between being saved and being justified?

Even reading well presented papers, such as this one by D.A. Carson, leaves me puzzled.

Justification
In the Catholic Church, justification (from the Latin iustus, righteous; and facio, to make) means what God does in order to render people righteous. (In theological lingo, justice means righteousness; a just person is right with God.) As the Catechism of the Catholic Church [CCC] puts it,

The grace of the Holy Spirit has the power to justify us, that is, to cleanse us from our sins and to communicate to us “the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ” and through Baptism (No. 1987).

Justification, therefore, is entirely the work of God (see also the Decree concerning Justification of the Council of Trent, Canon 1), although, of course, it requires a free acceptance on the part of the person:

Justification is at the same time the acceptance of God's righteousness through faith in Jesus Christ. Righteousness (or "justice") here means the rectitude of divine love. With justification, faith, hope, and charity are poured into our hearts, and obedience to the divine will is granted us (CCC 1991; see also the Decree concerning Justification Canon 4).

Justification is the work of grace:

Our justification comes from the grace of God. Grace is favor, the free and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call to become children of God, adoptive sons, partakers of the divine nature and of eternal life (CCC 1996).

Salvation
For most Catholic theologians, salvation refers to eternal salvation, that is, people’s full and definitive union with God. For example, that is the use given in the Decree concerning Justification.
Salvation does not, therefore, coincide perfectly with justification. Justification is absolutely necessary for (eternal) salvation; therefore, justification could be viewed as the beginning of salvation. (See CCC 1992.)
Justification, however, at least while people are here on earth, can never be considered definitive, since people can always lose their righteousness by deliberately committing grave sins. (See Canon 23 of the Decree concerning Justification.)
TL;DR
To sum up the difference: justification means what God does to make people righteous and right with Him; salvation means the full realization of that justification, when people reach their definitive union with Him.


What is the basis for saying Christians and Muslims worship the same God? Muslims claim that they worship the same god as Christians do.  (Similarly, Christians claim to worship the same God as the Jews do.)

Are there any Christian denominations that accept this claim?  If so, what is the biblical basis for this claim?

The correct answer to this question is clearly … <err, not so fast>

You see that's just the problem. Christianity doesn't have a clear unequivocal answer to this question that is broadly agreed on across traditions. Islam has now been around for about 1400 years promoting its ideas about the nature of God—who they usually claim is the same God as worshiped by Jews and Christians in times past now rightly understood with his proper name Allah. In all those 1400 years Christianity has not posited a definitive answer to this question.

There are no shortages of answers given. Some say "yes". Others chant "no". You'll see various groups take a stand on an answer—even rant and rave about it. Mind you all these groups profess to be Christian but end up arguing both sides.

The argument for "yes" generally boils down to some variant of "if there really is only one God as monotheistic religions claim, whether known by a wrong name or through corrupted scriptures it must be the same being". This position and its many variations is generally held by more liberal traditions, the far extreme end of which would be something like, "Muslims are our brothers in faith, call God whatever you like as long as you profess there is only one".
The argument for "no" generally boils down to some variant of "given a contradictory set of attributes ascribed to God, they must logically be describing different beings". This position and its many variations is historically more mainstream and is generally held by more conservative traditions, the far extreme of which would be very fundamentalist groups that would go so far as to say things like, "Muslims are the enemy, the god they worship is actually the devil in disguise".

Does this mean there is not a definitive answer?

No, actually it doesn't. There is a definitive answer but you have to ask the right question.

Interestingly, most major Christian traditions do not try to pronounce certain judgment on this issue. The notable exception are Catholics, who issued a statement in 1965 in the affirmative1. While identifying Islam as a non-Christian religion they go out of their way with wording to claim common ground in the person of God. Meanwhile most Protestant traditions and even many major Christian cults steer away from any official doctrine stating "The being worshiped by Muslims is/isn't the same being we worship."

However, the history of cross-tradition disagreement here is not to say that their position on the real issue isn't quite clear. The reason there isn't unanimity on whether to answer this question with "yes" or "no" is that it's the wrong question to be asking. Frankly the answer isn't meaningful. What all major Christian traditions do give us in spades are descriptions of who the true God is and how he is to be worshiped.

The core theological problem lurking here is not whether the beliefs and practices of the God of the Muslims is a different being altogether or just a bunch of misunderstandings about the same being. The question that matters to Christianity is: How has the true God made himself known and how is he to be worshiped? To this question, Christianity has definitive answers. This question, if asked and answered early, provides solid ground for not even needing to ask—much less answer—the question posited above. With the answers to the right question in hand, we can, in fact, outright condemn all other beliefs and systems of worship without even resolving the origins or natures of those other systems.

Now for a clear answer to the right question.

Regardless of the nature of any "other" religion—whether they have the wrong God or whether they have the right God but worship him wrongly—the end result is the same. Blasphemy.

For further study I highly recommend carefully reading a blog post from my friend Kevin Bywater entitled Do Muslims, Mormons, and Christians Worship the Same God? In it he makes the observation that "Worshiping God wrongly is tantamount to worshiping the wrong god(s)."2 Christianity doesn't concern itself so much with what beings other religions do or don't worship, but it does concern itself with correctly identifying the true God's character and with following his commands. Even inside of Christianity, presumably with the true God in mind, one can be guilty of blasphemy by misidentifying his character.

The most salient point to make in reference to any other religion is, I think, well summarized by this quote from the same article:

  Blasphemy is found in ascribing to the true God what is false and in falsely denying of God what is true.

1. Thanks to Peter Turner for pointing this out. I was previously unaware of this statement. (And am personally outraged by it as it is not an accurate representation of either Islam or historic Christianity, but my personal view isn't what this question is about.)

2. Ironically this is a concept that my Muslim friends usually don't usually have a problem accepting.


Do Mormons still eat meat only in "winter, cold or famine?" In the Doctrines and Covenants from which the Word of Wisdom comes (referring to abstinence from hot drinks, strong drinks/alcohol, and tobacco), it also states that meat should be used sparingly, specifically in times of winter, cold or famine.

  12 Yea, flesh also of beasts and of the fowls of the air, I, the
  Lord, have ordained for the use of man with thanksgiving; nevertheless
  they are to be used sparingly;

  13 And it is pleasing unto me that they should not be used, only in
  times of winter, or of cold, or famine.  D&C 89:12-13

Does this continue to be the practice of LDS members today or among any of the sects of Mormonism?

Some ambiguity in interpretation causes confusion. In addition to the passages you cited, I can think of one other in the Doctrine and Covenants with specific reference to meat:

  And whoso forbiddeth to abstain from meats, that man should not eat the same, is not ordained of God; For, behold, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, and that which cometh of the earth, is ordained for the use of man for food and for raiment, and that he might have in abundance
  D&C 49:18-19

Some argue that D&C 89 stipulates that meat should only be consumed in special circumstances such as emergencies or shortages, while others argue that D&C 49 specifically states that meat is ordained for man's use and should not be some extreme case.

The commas in verse 13 did not exist in the original text, and thus some have argued that the meaning of the passage is that it pleases the lord to use meat beyond the conditions outlined. Others argue that verse 12 specifically stipulates using meat sparingly, and thus the commas portray the true meaning.

While church leaders have given no specific official interpretation on meat in the Word of Wisdom, various leaders have offered their own interpretations, largely in favor of the latter interpretation above. Lorenzo Snow, the 5th successor to Joseph Smith, opined that members of the Church should become vegetarians. Heber J Grant offered his opinion that his longevity was in part due to his sparing use of meat. Many others emphasized that Latter-day Saints "eat little meat." I was unable to find any opinion supporting the former interpretation, however it is clear that meat is not prohibited based on the time of year or otherwise. Official church functions involving meals often include some meat as well.

Modern medical science has shown that, much like tobacco and alchohol, meat in excess causes a myriad of health problems, heart disease being perhaps the most common. This adds additional credence to the effectiveness of adhering to the Word of Wisdom, a health law predating modern science. Some meat, especially low fat and high protein meat, has shown to have positive health benefits. Perhaps it is for this reason that meat is not strictly prohibited, and indeed appears to be "ordained for the use of man."

Although there is much in Mormonism that is strictly defined, there is also much that is not; and it is left to each individual to determine the degree to which he or she must personally abstain from meat. Mormons believe that the Holy Spirit will guide individuals to know what God's will is for them specifically, not only in this matter, but also in any aspect of one's life.


What is meant by 'genuine affective' considering a homosexual relationship? In the Catechism of RCC #2357 is written that homosexuals can't have a true affective sexual relationship:

They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity
CCC - 2357

But what is meant by that? I know that it is a sin for them to have sex because there is no sexual complementarity. But why isn't it possible to have genuine affective complementarity?
In my understanding  affection is often associated with a feeling or type of love. But does RCC says that there can't be love between two persons of the same sex?

In traditional Catholic parlance, “affectivity” refers to the passions (in modern parlance: generally feelings or emotions) of love that one person might experience for another. It is roughly a synonym for the modern term “affection.”
We can see this usage, for example, in St. Thomas Aquinas’ Summa theologiae, I-IIae, q. 22, a. 2, sed contra:

Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, in IX de Civ. Dei, quod motus animi, quos Graeci pathe, nostri autem quidam, sicut Cicero, perturbationes, quidam affectiones vel affectus, quidam vero, sicut in Graeco habetur, expressius passiones vocant.
On the contrary, there is what Augustine said, in Book 9 of the City of God, that the movements of the soul, which the Greeks call pathe, some of our writers, such as Cicero, call disturbances; some call affections or emotions; whereas others, more accurately call them passions, as the Greeks would have it (my translation).

Affectivity includes the feelings that lovers have for one another, but also, for example, the feelings of children for their parents and parents for children, and so on.
The Catechism’s point is that there is no way to form a healthy emotional relationship based on same-sex attraction. Obviously, people who have same-sex attraction can have healthy friendships, but the friendships (and the emotions involved) would not be based on same-sex attraction as such (in particular, not in the way that the emotional relationship formed in marriage is based on the attraction to the opposite sex).


Why is this man free from guilt? Numbers 5:11-31 gives us an adultery test used by the Hebrew people in their early days.

11 Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 12 “Speak to the sons of Israel and say to them, ‘If any man’s wife goes astray and is unfaithful to him, 13 and a man has intercourse with her and it is hidden from the eyes of her husband and she is undetected, although she has defiled herself, and there is no witness against her and she has not been caught in the act, 14 if a spirit of jealousy comes over him and he is jealous of his wife when she has defiled herself, or if a spirit of jealousy comes over him and he is jealous of his wife when she has not defiled herself, 15 the man shall then bring his wife to the priest, and shall bring as an offering for her one-tenth of an ephah of barley meal; he shall not pour oil on it nor put frankincense on it, for it is a grain offering of jealousy, a grain offering of memorial, a reminder of iniquity.
...
29 ‘This is the law of jealousy: when a wife, being under the authority of her husband, goes astray and defiles herself, 30 or when a spirit of jealousy comes over a man and he is jealous of his wife, he shall then make the woman stand before the Lord, and the priest shall apply all this law to her. 31 Moreover, the man will be free from guilt, but that woman shall bear her guilt.'"

I think the "man" in v.31 is referring to the adulterous woman's husband. If so, what guilt is the man 'free' from? If all he has is a righteous jealousy for his wife, then why is there any mention of his guilt? If it's not him, then the verse must be talking about the man who committed adultery with this woman. If so, why is he free from guilt?

The part of the scripture you left out is pretty important to understanding this passage.  Basically, she has to drink some dusty water that will cause her to miscarry if she's guilty, but she'll be fine if she's not guilty.

I think it's simply making clear that the husband is not guilty for miscarriage and the harm that results from the actions of the priest applying the law to his wife.  That guilt lies with the woman, because it is her who slept around and lied about it.  According to scripture, she brought it on herself.  She can't come back and say, "This child would have lived had you not taken me to the priest."  In that situation, he could simply respond, "No, the child would have lived had you not had an affair and lied about it."

In other words, he is not held responsible when her actions conflict with God's law, and bring pain and suffering onto her own head, even if he was the one who brought her to the priest for the application of the law.

The spiritual point is this:

The application of the law doesn't bring guilt.  The transgression of the law does.


Mark 6:48 - Why was Jesus about to walk on water past the disciples? Mark 6:47-49 The Message (MSG):

  Late at night, the boat was far out at sea; Jesus was still by himself on land. He could see his men struggling with the oars, the wind having come up against them. At about four o’clock in the morning, Jesus came toward them, walking on the sea. He intended to go right by them. But when they saw him walking on the sea, they thought it was a ghost and screamed, scared out of their wits.

I often muse that Jesus must have had a sense of humor.  Mark 6:48 seems to be an example of this.  I understand that miracles were used by Jesus to demonstrate that God was with him, but nonchalantly walking on water passing the disciples?  That projects a sense of humor to me.  One could picture him snacking on an apple or whistling as he went by.  What other interpretations have published commentaries offered on this passage?

The conundrum is summarized by William Lane:

  Because the text stresses that Jesus' coming to the disciples was the direct result of his perceiving their distress, the explanation that "he meant to pass by them" seems enigmatic, if not alien to the context.1

There have been three major approaches taken by commentators:

Jesus' stated "intention to pass by" the disciples is an explanation of how the event seemed to the disciples. R.T. France2 takes this view:

  In the narrative context the clause is best seen not as a statement of what was in Jesus’ mind but of how his approach appeared from the disciples' point of view

In support of this, he finds similar language in Luke 24:28,  where Jesus "acted as if he was going further" (see a question on Heremeneutics.SE if interested in that one), which is more clearly about the disciples' impression.
Jesus' stated intention was an expression of his desire to reveal himself as God. In this view, "pass by" means "pass in view of" rather than focusing on ignoring them or "walking on by".1  This is one plausible sense of the verb παρερχομαι, which has a broad semantic range. If so, verses 48b-49a could be rendered:

  ...he came to them, walking on the sea, for he intended to pass their way. They saw him...

Here the clause "for he intended..." is dependent on the preceding and provides an explanation for it. This is not the most obvious meaning of the Greek καὶ, but it is possible. The following verse then begins a new sentence, where the "but" in most translations is not required by the Greek.3

The emphasis on theophany in this passage finds support in verse 50 when Jesus reassures the disciples using the emphatic ἐγώ εἰμι (egō eimi) that is part of the "divine formula of self-revelation"6. This focus on the event as revelation of divinity does not deny that there is a shift in Jesus's plan as he walks.

  Yet, precisely at this most "divine" moment...he also displays his humanness, for his will seems momentarily to be thwarted. He wishes to pass the disciples by for their own good, to give them a full revelation of his identity, but...he is called back to earth by the necessity of ministering to them.7

Regardless of whether they understand Mark 6:48 as expressing the disciples' viewpoint (#1) or Jesus’ intention (#2), commentators consistently identify a reference to several Old Testament theophanies.4  The notion of God "passing by" recalls Moses's experience at Sinai (Ex 33:19, 22) where this same verb – παρέρχομαι – is used in both verses in the LXX. Also, in 1 Kings 19:11, God "passes by" (παρέρχομαι) Elijah on Horeb (1 Kings 19:11). An even closer parallel to Mark 6 is found in the Septuagint of Job 9:8,11:

  [The Lord,] who alone stretched out the sky
         and walks on the sea as on dry ground
  ...
  If he passed over me, I would certainly not see him,
         and if he went by  me, I would not even know. (NETS)

Here the transcendent Lord is represented both walking on water and "passing by"  (again, παρέρχομαι) Job.

To summarize how Christian commentators have addressed the OP’s question:

  Why was Jesus about to walk on water past the disciples?

Either "walk past" was just the disciples’ impression, or the term was chosen to reflect Jesus' decision to reveal himself as divine. Regardless, the OT background of passages where God appears to men figures centrally into the meaning of Mark’s account of Jesus' nocturnal sea-stroll.

1. William L. Lane, The Gospel of Mark (NICNT), Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974. This commentary I also credit with the framework for this overview of exegetical approaches to this passage summarized here.

2. R. T. France, The Gospel of Mark: a Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC), Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002. Apparently also Cranfield, although I do not have access to that commentary at the moment.

3. An interlinear will show you that there is a word – δὲ – that corresponds to "but". However, in contexts such as this (immediately following a personal pronoun that changes the (grammatical and topical) subject from the preceding clause), the δὲ likely functions primarily to change the subject rather than to introduce a logical contrast. If so, it is appropriately left untranslated or, as proposed here, represented by the start of a new sentence. Note that this shift of (topical) subject is against the proposal in #1 which holds that the last part of verse 48 has the disciples primarily in view.

4. In addition to the two cited above, James A. Brooks, Mark (New American Commentary), Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1991; Joel Marcus, Mark 1-8 (The Anchor Yale Bible), New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974.

5. Brooks, ibid.

6. Lane, ibid.  This formula is known in the NT primarily in the Gospel of John, and this is one of the few "absolute" (i.e. without complement) uses of the phrase as a claim to divinity outside of that book. (The other two are also in Mark: vv 13:6 and 14:62.) The Old Testament background is frequently traced to Ex 3:14, although Deut 32:39 via the LXX, Isa 43:10, and 45:18 via the LXX, have been considered more likely in recent scholarship focused on the issue.

6. Marcus, ibid.


Funeral Reading - opening/closing I’ve been asked to read psalm 23 at a funeral next week. The service is being led by our Church of England vicar. Does anyone know what is traditionally said at the beginning and end of the reading? I’ve never given a reading during any kind of service before and want to make sure I get it right.
Many thanks.

The vicar will probably just invite you to come up to the lectern to read the Psalm.  If any words need to be said either directly before or after the reading, the vicar will deal with that.  In Protestant churches the reader might say words to the effect of "May God bless the reading of His Word" after the reading is finished.  That may not be deemed necessary at a funeral service, though.
I read from Ecclesiastes chapter 3 at my brother's funeral service, held in a very old and beautiful Church of England building.  It was an emotional experience and my main concern was to speak clearly and slowly, and to be heard.
Psalm 23 is a beautiful reading and I pray it will comfort you and everyone else there.


How do sola-scriptura adherents reconcile the role of the Holy Spirit as a teacher? The Bible teaches that one of the many roles of the Holy Spirit is that of a teacher:

Luke 12:11-12 (NIV)
John 14:26 (NIV)
1 Corinthians 2:11-15 (NIV)

Sola-scriptura is the belief that "that the Bible contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness."

How does sola-scriptura reconcile with the role of the Holy Spirit as a teacher?

We do not deny the role of the Holy Spirit as a teacher.  We believe that the Holy Spirit does serve to teach us, and to guide us.  The Holy Spirit also serves to convict sinners that they may come to repentance.

From the article you linked to:

  Consequently, sola scriptura demands that only those doctrines are to
  be admitted or confessed that are found directly within or indirectly
  by using valid logical deduction or valid deductive reasoning from
  scripture. However, sola scriptura is not a denial of other
  authorities governing Christian life and devotion. Rather, it simply
  demands that all other authorities are subordinate to, and are to be
  corrected by, the written word of God.

The problem lies in the fact that many false teachers have come into the world, and any of them can (and do) claim to have teachings from the Holy Spirit, from angels, from God the Father through divine revelation, or through personal encounters with Jesus Christ Himself. Likewise, our own hearts and thoughts are not trustworthy and can deceive us.(Jeremiah 17:9)  The Bible warns us not to trust every spirit, but to test them to see if they are false or true.  The test is simple.

  1 John 4:1-6 (KJV)

  1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they
  are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
  2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that
  Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: 3 And every spirit that
  confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God:
  and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it
  should come; and even now already is it in the world. 4 Ye are of God,
  little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is
  in you, than he that is in the world. 5 They are of the world:
  therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them. 6 We are
  of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth
  not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.

Based on this Scripture, as well as John 15:26, we believe that before believing the teaching of the Holy Spirit, we need to first test to ensure that what we perceive of as the Holy Spirit meets the test, and is the Holy Spirit.  The test is found in Scripture, which is unchanging, and serves as a plumb-line to ensure that the teaching of the Holy Spirit lines up.

Therefore, the Holy Spirit cannot teach anything that is not in accordance with God's Word, whether explicitly or implicitly.


Does Scientology claim to be Christian? L. Ron Hubbard started the Church of Scientology.  I was just wondering if they claim to be Christian in any event?

From Wikipedia:

  Scientology is a body of beliefs and related practices created by L.
  Ron Hubbard (1911–1986), starting in 1952, as a successor to his
  earlier self-help system, Dianetics. Hubbard characterized Scientology
  as a religion, and in 1953 incorporated the Church of Scientology in
  Camden, New Jersey.

Nothing about Christ here; I'll answer no.

From Scientology.org:

  DOES SCIENTOLOGY HAVE A CONCEPT OF GOD? Most definitely. In
  Scientology, the concept of God is expressed as the Eighth Dynamic—the
  urge toward existence as infinity. This is also identified as the
  Supreme Being.

Again, nothing about Christ.  I think the answer is no.

And for good measure, L. Ron Hubbard says:

  "The great religious civilizing forces of the past, Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity, and others, have all emphasized differentiation of good from evil and higher ethical values."

That sounds to me like someone speaking of Christianity as an outsider.


When is the first documented case of Christians praying to the dead saints? When is the first documented case of Christians praying to the dead saints?

(A point in comments was brought up that "asking the dead saints" does not mean "praying to the dead saints" as "prayer is always addressed to God only". For this case, the phrase "praying to the saints" in my question can be replaced then with "communicating to saints" or "addressing the saints" in hopes that those whom they address will somehow hear them.)

The earliest may not be easy to find, but I'll put a marker down.
St Ephraim the Syrian, who died in 373, prayed:

Ye victorious martyrs who endured torments gladly for the sake of the God and Saviour; ye who have boldness of speech towards the Lord Himself; ye saints, intercede for us who are timid and sinful men, full of sloth, that the grace of Christ may come upon us, and enlighten the hearts of all of us that so we may love him.
— Encomium in Martyres

Here he is clearly invoking the prayers of martyrs (who have died, rather by definition).


What does the Book with Seven Seals contains? We know what happens when each of the seven seals are broken. But there's no more mention of this book once the seals are broken.

What does this book contain?
Does the Lamb actually read it's content?
What happens to it afterwards, once the seals are broken?

This is difficult to understand.

@Allen Fuller's answer is a good summary of what people think is contained in the Seven Seals. The key is in the wording: they are called seals. The meaning is sealed up, hidden.

Consider what the angel told Daniel:

  “The vision of the evenings and mornings that has been given you is
  true, but seal up the vision, for it concerns the distant future.”
  (Daniel 8:26)

One commentator (Ellis Skolfield) believes that Daniel rearranged the chapters of his book to make the pattern more complicated, to deter others from gaining full understanding until God so wills.

Consider what another angel told John:

  And when the seven thunders spoke, I was about to write; but I heard a
  voice from heaven say, “Seal up what the seven thunders have said and
  do not write it down.” (Revelation 10:4)

In this case, John was told to not even write it down.

I believe that the Seven Seals are just that - messages that are not for our eyes. Until it is all over, we won't be told what is in them. At best, their contents will be revealed very close to the end, to guide believers when times are darkest.


Why is the KJV frequently said to be the "true" translation? This question actually centers on the KJV translation itself. It's not hard to find a church in America (particularly in the south) where they believe that the KJV is the one true translation and that all others are inferior. Why is it the KJV in particular that has achieved this status? Is it because it was the primary translation used for centuries?

The King James (KJV) was translated from a different Greek text than most modern translations. In the early 1500s, Desiderius Erasmus took the best copies of the Greek New Testament available to him, and compared and collated them to create the Textus Receptus (TR), the first Greek New Testament to be printed rather than hand-written.

The TR was the Greek text used by the translators of the KJV as well as other early translators such as William Tyndale and Martin Luther.

In more recent years, thousands of ancient Greek manuscripts—including fragmentary copies as old as the 2nd century and whole New Testaments as old as the 4th—have been rediscovered. Many of the oldest manuscripts consistently disagree with the TR in many places.

For example, the Lord's Prayer in Luke 11:2 begins simply with "Father" in the oldest manuscripts, but "Our Father in heaven" (matching the wording of Matthew 6:9) in the TR.

Most modern scholars agree that it is more likely that Luke 11:2 originally said "Father", and that later copyists substituted Matthew's more expanded phrase—either out of reverence or because Matthew's language is more memorable. It makes more sense that the language of the two passages would converge over time than that it would diverge.

There are many other similar examples. 1 Corinthians 9:1 says "Jesus" in the oldest manuscripts, but "Jesus Christ" in the TR. 2 Corinthians 5:18 says "Christ" in the oldest manuscripts, but "Jesus Christ" in the TR. Again, it's easier to understand how the language would converge on a standard phrase over time.

Furthermore, the age of the manuscripts is evidence of their being closer to the original.

But KJV-only proponents have a different view. To them, the fact that these manuscripts were lost in the first place is reason enough to reject them. KJV-only proponents argue that the manuscripts the TR was based on were preserved because they were the most faithful to the original. According to this view, there are no early manuscripts from this tradition because they were used until they wore out; the other, inferior manuscripts were discarded and have only survived by accident.

Proponents of this view hold that the TR is the preserved Word of God, and that the modern, scholarly Greek New Testaments are inferior due to their lack of words such as "Christ" in 1 Corinthians 9:1 or "Jesus" in 2 Corinthians 5:18. The KJV, being the most popular English translation from the TR, is held by this group to be the English version of God's preserved Word.


Does 'no more room in the Inn' mean spare room not big enough for a birth? In this article, the author says that 'no more room at the Inn' from Luke doesn't imply a Stable.

The big idea is that "there was no more room at the inn" from Luke is misread, and instead of Mary giving birth in an animal shelter – the text means "there wasn't enough room for a birth in the spare room, so they took over the main room". The author suggests that the reading of an animal shelter perhaps is a gnostic gloss.

My question is Is the stable essential? (The implication being, that if he was born in a Stable, then he is born as one of the poor, and if he was born 'in the main room not the spare room (Inn)' then Jesus is born as one of the middle class).

Since it is not in the Bible stable is not essential. But your implication of it is wrong. Just because Jesus was not born in a stable, it does not mean he was from middle class.

First, Middle class did not exist at Jesus's time.

Secondly Luke 2:7 says that he was laid in a manger. Some scholars claim that in those days families had animals inside their home to protect them in winter. It is very unlikely they were kept in the main room. So for Mary to have access to a manger she should have given birth in the portion where animals were kept (this may not necessarily be a stable).

It is not a usual practice to place new born in a manger. And that is why it is given as a sign for the shepherds. Also the host lives in the main room, so a pregnant women who is expected to go into labor anytime would not have any privacy in there.

It is very logical to assume that Jesus was not born in the main room but where animals stay.

Finally think about this: God has eternity to plan his birth. But he choose to be laid on a manger. That is enough sign on the importance he gave for poverty.


Jesus' quotation of Septuagint - Greek or Aramaic? Having read this and this, I am convinced now that Jesus spoke Aramaic. However, I also know that many times He was quoting Septuagint, which is a translation of the Old Testament into Koine Greek. I am a little bit confused now. Does it mean that when He was talking to His disciples or to the Jews and was quoting Septuagint, He was switching from Aramaic to Greek?

If yes, then it sounds a bit contradictory to me. Why would He need to switch to Greek while He was talking to the Hebrew people, not to the Greeks, about their own Holy Scripture (Jews' aversion toward the Greek is quite evident from the book of Acts)?

If no, then how can we say that He was quoting Septuagint (as I know Septuagint was written only in Greek)?

The normal explanation is that Jesus quoted the scriptures in Aramaic*, but as the LXX was the readily available translation of the Greek (and the Gospel writers probably had large portions of the Greek memorized), the Gospel writers would defer to its translation instead of translating directly.

*Because the authors of the LXX had different resources than those which are available today, it is possible that Christ would have used similar source documents to those in the LXX. I do not believe there is sufficient information to judge this matter.


When the child shall play at the hole of the asp, will it be newly created or re-created? The Bible tells us that the elements will melt to form the renewed earth. Since neither the physical world, nor this world's animals + plants can apprehend the Good News, but the eath is to be renewed, why would the animals and plants not be renewed? The verse that comes to mind is the one where "the lion will lie down with the lamb, and the child will play at the hole of the asp". So there will be animals in the renewed earth~  ~so my question is will we have this world's animals living in the new earth or will God create different animals?   ((and where would this world's animals go to, in either case, when we enter the renewed world?))

I think that this short explanation puts things in a whole new perspective: https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/questions/earth-destroyed/

It also answers the question "Doesn't the Bible teach that the earth will be burned in fire?"

The explanation does take some terms figuratively, so how can that be justified? Sometimes the context will show that a literal meaning doesn't fit. For example, where Noah by his faith "condemned the world" (Hebrews 11:7) and everyone who "wants to be a friend of the world is making himself an enemy of God (James 4:4).  Sometimes, the Bible gives a literal explanation. In Daniel 2:35,44-45 God's Kingdom is represented by a mountain. Therefore, you can take that sometimes, a "mountain" can mean "God's Kingdom", which is a specially arranged government as you'll see in those verses, that is in opposition to governments of this world, as explained through the dream.

It seems sensible, then, to conclude that the animals we know now will be there, because the destruction of the earth as Peter mentions it, is not aimed at the animals, but at the worldwide human society (see article). There may be a re-creation of animals that have gone extinct due to mankind's mismanagement of the earth, but the details will probably reveal themselves as and when that time comes.


Why did Jesus groan and use spit while healing the deaf man? (Mark 7) In today's reading Mark 7 says,

  He took him off by himself away from the crowd.  He put his finger
  into the man's ears and, spitting, touched his tongue; then he looked
  up to heaven and groaned, and said to him, "Ephphatha!" (that is, "Be
  opened!")

What's the significance of all this? In particular, if for God all things are equally easy, why the groan?

In the book “Draw Close to Jehovah” chapter nine entitled “Christ the Power of God” this particular miracle is discussed it makes the point that this was an example of how empathetic Jesus was toward this man who had been brought by others to be healed. Being deaf he may have known little of the talk surrounding the man Jesus who was performing miraculous powerful works. The spitting and sighing or groaning as he looked heavenward are explained as being for the benefit of the man who likely had to use some form of sign language to communicate.

Below is an excerpt from that discussion :

  On this occasion, great crowds found Jesus and brought to him many who were sick, and he cured them all. (Matthew 15:29, 30) But Jesus singled out one man for special consideration. The man was deaf and hardly able to talk. Jesus may have sensed this man’s particular nervousness or embarrassment. Thoughtfully, Jesus took the man aside—away from the crowd—to a private place. Then Jesus used some signs to convey to the man what he was about to do. He “put his fingers into the man’s ears and, after spitting, he touched his tongue.”(Mark 7:33
  2) {Spitting was a means or sign of healing accepted by both Jews and Gentiles, and the use of saliva in cures is reported in rabbinic writings. Jesus may have spit simply to convey to the man that he was about to be healed. Whatever the case, Jesus was not using his saliva as a natural healing.}

  Next, Jesus looked up to heaven and uttered a prayerful sigh. These actions would say to the man, ‘What I am about to do for you is due to power from God.’

  Finally, Jesus said: “Be opened.”
  (Mark 7:34) At that, the man’s hearing was restored, and he was able to speak normally.

  How touching to think that even when using his God-given power to heal the afflicted, Jesus showed a sympathetic regard for their feelings! Is it not reassuring to know that Jehovah has placed the Messianic Kingdom in the hands of such a caring, considerate Ruler?


Why do so many baptisms occur with regular clothes on and not swimwear? Why do so many baptisms occur with regular clothes on, and not in a swimsuit?

On my visit to a Southern Baptist church, I saw a little girl get baptized by immersion. That was the only time when I saw a live presentation of a baptism. I was surprised that she didn't wear her swimsuit either, because I thought the wet clothing was going to feel very uncomfortable.

Apparently, that behavior is normal practice. I watched a couple of videos online of baptisms by immersion, and many of them involved getting your clothes all wet. When I say clothes, I mean clothes that you would normally wear casually, not for swimming.

In most churches this is more a practical thing than a theological thing. Most people don't particularly want to appear in public in swimwear, and churches certainly don't want to leave open any possibility of being seen to be parading scantily clad people for baptism. Some traditions use baptismal robes, which are white and usually worn over regular clothing.

The uncomfortableness of wet clothes is often addressed by people actually wearing a swimsuit, and casual clothes over the top. In any case, it's absolutely normal to go and get changed as soon as the baptism is over. The amount of time you are in wet clothes is very small; and since baptism is at least in part about entering into the suffering of Jesus, it's not inappropriate.

As for damaging the clothes, baptism candidates do usually get choice in what to wear: they usually make sensible clothing choices, and get advice. Cotton shirts are popular clothing, and silk and wool unpopular. Dresses and skirts are unpopular because they float up. But its really about what makes the candidate and the rest of the congregation comfortable.

If you were asking why baptisms aren't conducted naked, all of the above applies double. Without a clear and incontrovertible biblical or theological reason, the downsides of naked baptism would clearly outweigh the positives.


What's "reciprocal subsidiarity"? I heard Pope Francis use the phrase "reciprocal subsidiarity" at his address to the U.S. Congress.

In recent centuries, millions of people came to this land to pursue their dream of building a future in freedom. We, the people of this continent, are not fearful of foreigners, because most of us were once foreigners. I say this to you as the son of immigrants, knowing that so many of you are also descended from immigrants. Tragically, the rights of those who were here long before us were not always respected. For those peoples and their nations, from the heart of American democracy, I wish to reaffirm my highest esteem and appreciation. Those first contacts were often turbulent and violent, but it is difficult to judge the past by the criteria of the present. Nonetheless, when the stranger in our midst appeals to us, we must not repeat the sins and the errors of the past. We must resolve now to live as nobly and as justly as possible, as we educate new generations not to turn their back on our “neighbors” and everything around us. Building a nation calls us to recognize that we must constantly relate to others, rejecting a mindset of hostility in order to adopt one of reciprocal subsidiarity, in a constant effort to do our best. I am confident that we can do this.
— Via the Catholic Herald

I'm just wondering what he meant by that and if the Holy Father has talked about that in the past.
It seems to me that reciprocal subsidiarity is at the very best a friendly amorphous blob and at the very worst the exact opposite of subsidiarity.

The principle of subsidiarity is restated from earlier documents in the Catechism:

1883. ... The teaching of the Church has elaborated the principle of subsidiarity, according to which "a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to co-ordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good."7
7 Centesimus annus 48 §4; cf. Pius X Quadragesimo anno I, 184–186

Reciprocal subsidiarity is — on the face of it — meaningless. While subsidiarity is asserting the independence of a lower order against the interference of a higher order, that higher order is immune to the lower order's interference simply by virtue of being the higher order.
But subsidiarity is not just protection from interference. It is the support and co-ordination of activities with the rest of society, always with a view to the common good. Subsidiarity commonly means that the government should guide lower communities to work together to the common good.
It is this which can be reciprocal. Governments should listen to their communities to understand what the common good actually is. Building a nation is not pure imposition (which directly goes against subsidiarity) or guiding/defining boundaries which allow local determination but which does not further the common good, pitting local governments against each other and the State*. The common good is the good of all. Everyone has to put themselves at the service of others, within their own sphere of responsibility.
The Pope was addressing both Houses of the Legislature in what is arguably the most powerful country in the world. He was saying that for a government to be a good government, it has to allow itself to be guided by its people in order that it can do as it must and serve the good of the people.

*State here means the top level of government: Federal in the US, Parliament in the UK, etc.


Does the Bible suggest that the earth is round? I've heard the term "flat earthers" mentioned in regards to Christians. Does the Bible suggest that the earth is flat or that the earth is round?

What scripture is there that suggest a round earth or flat earth?

In addition to Isaiah 40:22, which Ashansky pointed out, there's also Job 26: 7, which states that the earth is hung "upon nothing".  This is quite a difference from, for example, the Greek idea of Earth supported upon Atlas's shoulders, or the Hindu notion of Earth resting upon the back of an elephant which stands on the back of a turtle which swims in a vast ocean.

Also, Luke 17:31-36 speaks of people being taken away into heaven at (or before, but that's a matter for a different question) the time of the Second Coming, and states that some will be taken at night, and some in the daytime, even though it's supposed to happen all at once.  That's not possible on a flat earth model.

The idea of a flat earth is not found in the Bible or in ancient Christian thought.  The notion that people thought it was was invented almost simultaneously, but apparently independently, by two 19th-century authors. One came up with the idea for dramatic purposes; the other did so quite maliciously for the specific purpose of slandering and discrediting Christianity:

  No one before the 1830s believed that medieval people thought that the earth was flat.

  The idea was established, almost contemporaneously, by a Frenchman and an American, between whom I have not been able to establish a connection, though they were both in Paris at the same time. One was Antoine-Jean Letronne (1787-1848), an academic of strong antireligious prejudices who had studied both geography and patristics and who cleverly drew upon both to misrepresent the church fathers and their medieval successors as believing in a flat earth, in his On the Cosmographical Ideas of the Church Fathers (1834). The American was no other than our beloved storyteller Washington Irving (1783-1859), who loved to write historical fiction under the guise of history. His misrepresentations of the history of early New York City and of the life of Washington were topped by his history of Christopher Columbus (1828). It was he who invented the indelible picture of the young Columbus, a "simple mariner," appearing before a dark crowd of benighted inquisitors and hooded theologians at a council of Salamanca, all of whom believed, according to Irving, that the earth was flat like a plate. Well, yes, there was a meeting at Salamanca in 1491, but Irving's version of it, to quote a distinguished modern historian of Columbus, was "pure moonshine. Washington Irving, scenting his opportunity for a picturesque and moving scene," created a fictitious account of this "nonexistent university council" and "let his imagination go completely...the whole story is misleading and mischievous nonsense."

  -- Jeffrey Burton Russell, The Myth of the Flat Earth

Also, from an extrabliblical source, it seems that Clement, bishop of Rome from the early Christian period, had correct knowledge of the earth.  He spoke of antichthones (Greek, literally "people on the other side of the world") and stated that:

  The ocean is impassable to men; and those are worlds which are on the other side of it, which are governed by these same arrangements of the ruling God.

  -- cited here with the rather indecipherable "Clemens Rom., Ep. i., ad Cor., c. 20."


According to Catholicism, how did Jesus go in secret (disguise) to the Feast of Tabernacles? In John Chapter-7, we see  Jesus going to the Feast of Tabernacles in disguise:

" But when the Jewish Festival of Tabernacles was near,  Jesus’ brothers said to him, “Leave Galilee and go to Judea, so that your disciples there may see the works you do. ....... Jesus told them, “.........I am not going up to this festival, because my time has not yet fully come.”  After he had said this, he stayed in Galilee. However, after his brothers had left for the festival, he went also, not publicly, but in secret. "

One would be interested in knowing  as to what form Jesus took to make himself un-identifiable, even to his disciples,  in the temple . Did he put on some make-up, say, with  a clean-shaven head ; or did he just assume another face ? How  does  the Catholic Church explain the manner in which Jesus went in disguise to partake in the Festival ?

According to Catholicism, how did Jesus go in secret (disguise) to the Feast of Tabernacles?

  8 You go up to this feast. I am not yet going up to this feast, for My time has not yet fully come.” 9 When He had said these things to them, He remained in Galilee.

  10 But when His brothers had gone up, then He also went up to the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret.- John 7:8-10

It would seem plausible that the term secret in this passage of Scripture simply means some more or less by himself or privately or on his own. Sorry no disguise was needed or used by Our Lord.

Let the Church Fathers speak for the Church!

  Finally, after He had said these words, When His brethren had gone up; the Gospel declares it, attend, read what you have objected to me; see if the passage itself do not solve the difficulty, see if I have taken from anywhere else what to say. This then the Lord was waiting for, that they should go up first, that they might not announce beforehand that He was coming, When His brethren had gone up, then went He also up to the feast day, not openly, but as it were in secret. What is, as it were in secret? He acts there as if in secret. What is, as it were in secret? Because neither was this really in secret. For He did not really make an effort to be concealed, who had it in His Own power when He would be taken. But in that concealment, as I have said, He gave His weak disciples, who had not the power to prevent being taken when they would not, an example of being on their guard against the snares of enemies. For He went up afterwards even openly, and taught them in the temple; and some said, ' Lo, this is He; lo, He is teaching.' Certainly our rulers said that they wished to apprehend Him: 'Lo, He speaks openly, and no one lays hands on Him.' - Sermon 83 of St.Augustine on the New Testament

St. John Chrysostom adds this to your question:

  For, says the Evangelist, Jesus, when He had said these words, abode in Galilee; but when His brethren had gone up, then went He up also unto the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret. The expression, when His brethren had gone up, is that of one showing that He chose not to go up with them. On which account He abode where He was, and manifested not Himself, although they in a manner urged Him to do so. But why did He, who ever spoke openly, do so now as it were in secret? The writer says not secretly, but, as it were in secret. For thus, as I have said, He seemed to be instructing us how to manage matters. And, apart from this, it was not the same to come among them when heated and restive, as to do so afterwards when the feast was ended. - Homily 49 of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of John


Why is use of the phrase "for God's sake" often considered sinful? I often hear this on some people even in games, who use the phrase "for God's sake" or something similar ("for God's sakes," etc.)

I don't see how this can be considered sinful or blasphemous, considering passages like Isaiah 43:25 and Matthew 10:22:

  Isaiah 43:25
  "I, even I, am he who blots out your transgressions, For My [God] own sake, and remembers your sins no more.

  Matthew 10:22
  You will be hated for my name sake

Here's the meaning of Sake -

The no.3 definition used this phrase. My question is:

On what basis is it said that a sin is committed when using this phrase?  Why is it blasphemous?

I suspect that this will be considered "taking God's name in vain."  But how could that be distinguished from me saying "For His name sake I will repent or I will do this and that."  In the back of my mind, I know this depends on how strong the phrase is delivered and the context / circumstances. I just want to a little enlightenment to this.

Violating Commandments is commonly linked to sin

For an official teaching, the Catholic Church's teaching is that careless references to God violates the Second Commandment (Third Commandment in some other denominations).  Other denominations may have similar points of view, but to keep this answer concise I confine it to the Catholic view.

Exodus 20:7

  You shall not take the name of the LORD, your God, in vain. For the
  LORD will not leave unpunished him who takes his name in vain.

From the Catechism ...

  CCC 2143  "The Lord's name is holy." For this reason man must not
  abuse it. He must keep it in mind in silent, loving adoration. He will
  not introduce it into his own speech except to bless, praise, and
  glorify it.

See also Psalm 29:2 (KJV)

  Give unto the Lord the glory due unto his name; worship the Lord in
  the beauty of holiness.

And Psalm 113:2-3 (KJV)

  Blessed be the name of the Lord from this time forth and for evermore.
  From the rising of the sun unto the going down of the same the
  Lord's name is to be praised.

To use "For God's sake" per your definition 3 -- as a sign of annoyance, impatience, or urgency -- does not bless, praise or glorify God.  That usage also goes against the principle of Christian Charity1.

  CCC 2146 The second commandment forbids the abuse of God's name, i.e.,
  every improper use of the names of God, Jesus Christ, but also of the
  Virgin Mary and all the saints.

Pay respect where respect is due

In closing, St Augustine lays out the respect due to the Lord

  [God's] name is great when spoken with respect for the greatness of
  his majesty.  God's name is holy when said with veneration and fear of
  offending him.  ~ St. Augustine, De serm. Dom. in monte 2, 5, 19: PL 34, 1278.

1 388. What is charity?
From CCC 1822-1829, and 1844)

  Charity is the theological virtue by which we love God above all
  things and our neighbor as ourselves for the love of God. Jesus makes
  charity the new commandment, the fullness of the law. “It is the bond
  of perfection” (Colossians 3:14) and the foundation of the other
  virtues to which it gives life, inspiration, and order. Without
  charity “I am nothing” and “I gain nothing” (1 Corinthians 13:1-3).


How does the Church define reason? How does the Church define reason?
Does the Catechism of the Catholic Church give a definition? Fides et Ratio did not have a definition even if it is a encyclican on the subject.

I find this a bit strange.

It is not for the Catholic Church to define reason, but to teach how reason contributes or hinders our understanding of God, who is critical for our salvation:

When a philosophy (or science, which is properly below philosophy) devalues reason too much below what the Scripture or Tradition says, the church will re-establish the existence and competence of human reason.  For example, in light of Neural networks and Artificial Intelligence, some scientism position sees human being as nothing more than an animal with an advanced brain that one day can be completely simulated by a machine.
On the other hand, when Nietzsche dares people to "grow up" and make their own ethics and values, the Church will step in and say that reason has overstepped its authority because reason cannot supplant the natural law implanted in human conscience by God Himself.

Philosophy is free to define what reason and rationality is as long as certain aspects of human nature as taught by the Church stay intact.

Therefore Fides et Ratio's main purpose is to guide Catholics in the 20th century on how to make use or guard against modern philosophies in connection with applying the church doctrines in a believer's faith life:

It is a kind of re-establishing the boundary between the church's domain (charged with guarding the proper use of the revelation from God in Scripture and Tradition) and the philosophy's domain (charged with exploring everything that rationality can discover on its own)
It is a guide to reconcile the findings of both domain, because at the end of the day we cannot have parallel but contradictory truths that destroy each other's credibility.  There is only a single rationality and a single revelation to resolve a single matter.  Faith and Rationality must cooperate harmoniously to determine which sphere has the authority and if there is a conflict, which one takes precedence depending on the matter and the discipline.

Please see an excellent commentary on Fides et Ratio by Prof. Alfred J. Freddoso, a Catholic philosophy professor at Notre Dame who teaches courses on St. Thomas Aquinas as well.


Are there Protestants in Italy today? Are there Protestants in Italy today and what became of the Protestants reformers from the peninsula during the reformation?  The reason I ask is that I've never heard of any particular persecution either way in the old nations surrounding the Rome, all the fighting and carrying on seemed to happen in German nations or England, but the absence of hearing about something doesn't mean nothing happened, it just means worse things happened in other places so I'd just like to know what became of the Protestants in what is now Italy and how they're carrying on today.

Apparently, protestantism used to gather some heat there in Italy.  However, with the Vatican Council II, relations improved and protestants aren't as persecuted as much.

  That was two decades ago. These days, a more relaxed Vatican and an
  unprecedented influx of immigrants has nudged open the doors of acceptance
  for Protestant Christianity.
  Note #6186 from PCUSA NEWS to PRESBYNEWS

There are a total of about 725,000 protestants in Italy, most of whom are Assemblies of God (400,000).  There are also about 175,000 mainline Protestants, the largest and oldest of which are the Waldensians.

The Waldensian church has roots dating back to the 12th century, but they aligned themselves with Calvinism in the 16th, which transformed the denomination.

There is a fascinating article that I think you might find interesting.


According to Roman Catholicism, is it a sin to vote for pro-choice politicians? Let's not make this a debate about pro-life and pro-choice views of abortion. According to Roman Catholic teaching, would it be a sin if I voted for a pro-choice politician such as Bernie Sanders?

Yes, if the candidate was voted for because they were pro-abortion

Pope Benedict XVI (formerly Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger) succinctly summed up the Catholic Church's teachings in the memorandum "Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion: General Principles":

  A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion [due to being in a state of mortal sin], if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.

In other words:

Voting for a pro-abortion candidate because they are pro-abortion is a mortal sin
Voting for a pro-abortion candidate despite you not supporting that stance is remote material cooperation*, but may be permitted (i.e. not sinful or a venial sin) if you have proportionally strong reasons for doing so

* "Remote mediate material cooperation is cooperation by supplying the occasion or material for the commission of a morally wrong action, but is further removed from the immoral act itself. In the nursing home example above, the person who sells drugs to the nursing home would know the kind and quantity of drugs sold. She has no intention of providing the means for the nursing home to endanger patients by drugging them into a stupor to reduce staff requirements. She sells drugs to legitimate customers and provides any informational assistance necessary about the drugs. Her intention may be to earn a living in a field that can heal or reduce the suffering of others. Remoteness can vary by degrees, with one cooperative action being more remote than another." (Source)

So are Catholics obligated to vote for a pro-life candidate, regardless of their other positions?

Based on the above, a Catholic is not obligated to vote for a pro-life candidate if they have good reason not to, although that good reason should be weighed in proportion to abortion. So being pro-life does not automatically give the politician a free pass over any other moral failings or guarantee a Catholic vote.

To use an extreme example, say that a politician were against all forms of abortion, but planned to commit genocide against every minority ethnic group in their country. In that case, a Catholic would not be obligated to vote for them simply because they are pro-life, and would be permitted to vote for a pro-abortion candidate who does not advocate for such atrocities.  On the other end of the spectrum, if getting a tax break is your sole reason for voting for a pro-abortion candidate, it's unlikely to be considered a proportionate reason when compared to the killing of an unborn child, and the Church may consider that sinful.

What about voting or campaigning for a pro-abortion ballot initiative?

Voting specifically for a pro-abortion law on a ballot would be sinful, as would campaigning for such a position. From the same memorandum, which cites the encyclical Evangelium vitae:

  In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to 'take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law or vote for it' [...] This cooperation can never be justified either by invoking respect for the freedom of others or by appealing to the fact that civil law permits it or requires it


What is the biblical basis for the Dual Nature of Man as opposed to the Tripartite Nature? A common belief regarding the nature of mankind is that we have a body, a soul and a spirit. This is known as the Tripartite Nature of Man (or trichotomism).  Some, however, hold to only a Dual nature of man (also known as dichotomism).

What is the essential argument in favor of the Dual Nature of Man?  It would be interesting to see how the evidence for the Tripartite Nature of Man is explained as well, especially a verse like Hebrews 4:12.

  For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart.  Hebrews 4:12 ESV

Wayne Grudem's defense of dichotomism in his Systematic Theology, chapter 23 is particularly helpful in this regard.  He lays out several kinds of biblical evidence, cleanly organizing the arguments made by previous Reformed theologians.  His points are:

Scripture uses soul and spirit interchangeably

"Soul" departs and "spirit" departs
Man is "body and soul" as well as "body and spirit"
"Soul" can sin and "spirit" can sin

The actions of the soul are also the actions of the spirit, and vice versa

(All scripture cited is from the ESV unless otherwise noted)

Scripture uses soul and spirit interchangeably

Grudem points to a number of passages that he argues are examples of the interchangeable use of soul and spirit.  For example:

  John 12:27: "Now is my soul troubled"
  John 13:21: Jesus was troubled in his spirit

He sees Luke 1:46–47 as an example of Hebrew parallelism:

  "My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior"

And those who have died are described as both spirits (Hebrews 12:23, 1 Peter 3:19) and souls (Revelation 6:9, 20:4).

He makes a simmilar argument for three main areas: the departing of soul and spirit at death, the formula "body and soul/spirit," and how both soul and spirit can sin.

Departure at death

A number of passages use "soul" to describe what departs when man dies:

  Genesis 35:18: And as her soul was departing (for she was dying), she called his name Ben-oni
  1 Kings 17:21 (NKJV): “O Lord my God, I pray, let this child’s soul come back to him.”
  Isaiah 53:12: because he poured out his soul to death
  Luke 12:20: 'Fool! This night your soul is required of you’

But elsewhere, "spirit" is used similarly:

  Psalm 31:5: Into your hand I commit my spirit
  Ecclesiastes 12:7: the dust returns to the earth as it was, and the spirit returns to God who gave it.
  John 19:30: he bowed his head and gave up his spirit
  Acts 7:59: "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit."

In response to the argument that these passages refer to different entities, Grudem notes that the Bible never says that a person's "soul and spirit" departed; always one or the other.  Biblical writers don't seem concerned that one or the other might be left on earth with the body, suggesting that they are one and the same.

"Body and soul/spirit"

Grudem argues that biblical passages regularly refer to "body and soul" or "body and spirit" to describe the whole nature of man, not leaving out any parts.  For example, Matthew 10:28:

  And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

The same thing occurs with spirit, for example, 1 Corinthians 5:5:

  you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord.

Other passages along these lines include James 2:26, 1 Corinthians 7:34, and 2 Corinthians 7:1.

Both soul and spirit can sin

The sinfulness of the spirit is often denied by trichonomists, but Grudem points to scriptural evidence for the sinfulness of both soul and spirit.  Regarding the soul, he points to 1 Peter 1:22 and Revelation 18:14, while passages indicating the sins of the spirit include 2 Corinthians 7:1:

  let us cleanse ourselves from every defilement of body and spirit

Similarly, Deuteronomy 2:30 refers to the hardened spirit of the king of Heshbon, and Psalm 78:8 refers to the faithlessness of the spirits of the people of Israel.  Other passages like Proverbs 16:2, Psalm 32:2, Psalm 51:10, and Proverbs 16:32 suggest that our spirits can be sinful.

Identical capabilities

Grudem finally argues that the soul and spirit are shown to have the same capabilities in the Bible.  Trichonomists attempt to draw distinctions between the spirit's actions (such as worship and prayer) and the soul's actions (such as thinking, feeling, and deciding), but this distinction is not maintained by Scripture.

Feeling is described of the spirit in John 13:21 and Acts 17:16, the latter of which says:

  Now while Paul was waiting for them at Athens, his spirit was provoked within him as he saw that the city was full of idols.

Thinking too is a function of the spirit in Mark 2:8, Romans 8:16, and especially 1 Corinthians 2:11:

  For who knows a person's thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him?

On the other side of things, the soul is often said to worship God.  Among many examples are Psalm 103:1, 146:1, and Luke 1:46, and the Bible teaches that souls pray and long for God (1 Samuel 1:15, Psalm 42:1–2, Psalm 119:20).

Grudem concludes:

  Scripture does not seem to support any distinction between soul and spirit.  There does not seem to be a satisfactory answer to the questions that we may address to a trichotomist, "What can the spirit do that the soul cannot do?  What can the soul do that the spirit cannot do?"

Counterarguments

Grudem addresses a variety of trichonomist arguments, including that of Hebrews 4:12.  Full explanation of his counterarguments is beyond the scope of this answer, but in brief:

1 Thessalonians 5:23, "may your whole spirit and soul and body be kept blameless": Grudem argues that this is best understood as a "piling up" of synonyms, similar to Matthew 22:37's heart, soul, and mind.  Treating that passage and Mark 12:30 the same way would seem to indicate five or six parts of man.
Hebrews 4:12, "piercing to the division of soul and of spirit": Soul is not separated from spirit here, says Grudem, but both are said to be penetrated and divided.  For more on this, including other approaches, see How do proponents of the dual nature of man address Hebrews 4:12, “dividing soul and spirit”?

Summary

Grudem admits that arguments for trichotomism have "some force" but finds that:

  the wide testimony of Scripture [shows] that the terms soul and spirit are frequently interchangeable and are in many cases synonymous.