Do churches host distinctive, special services on Christmas, Christmas eve, and Easter? I have read before that some (nominal) Christians only attend worship services on Christmas and Easter. Are there anything special about those two holidays that compel them to attend church during Christmas and Easter? What do the churches do exactly that might convince people to attend church on only those days?

I know that stores hold big sales on those days, which may attract people to go shopping and buy merchandise.

Typically, yes, most denominations how special services on Christmas eve, and some, possibly, on Christmas day.  (More details coming.)

In Catholic Churches, there is the Midnight Mass.  There's also Christmas Vespers for several denominations including the Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox, Lutheran, and Anglican Churches.

The LDS Church has some unique Christmas traditions, including visting Templa Square at Christmas, and watching the Church's annual "First Presidency Christmas Devotional" which is broadcast from the Conference Center (at Temple Square) to church buildings worldwide.

Other denominations have special services as well.  Typical Baptist Christmas services, for example, involve plays and singing by the kids in the Church.  It tends to draw family members that do not attend.

Christmas is the celebration of the Lord and Savior - the entire reason for the existence of the Church in the first place, so it kind of makes sense that there would be some special pomp and circumstance surrounding the celebration.  The same can be said for Easter.

As for why people visit church on Christmas, that's far more personal and individual.  As such it's probably not on-topic to speculate, but reasons I've heard and my own reasons when I wasn't' a Christian included:

It helps you get into the Christmas spirit.
Tradition
From an atheist perspective: It's a nice thing to do to show support for that Christian relative of yours that's always bugging you to get saved and turn your life over to Jesus.  it's only an hour or so and it tends to seem to make them happy to have you there, so why not?
Maybe people already are in the Christmas spirit, and therefore are more willing to go.

I'm sure there are dozens of other reasons.  Again, that's all unique and individual, and hard to answer.


Are there any documented cases of "Acts 2 type" tongue speaking (i.e. understood by a foreigner) in recent history (19th century on)? I'm aware of the existence of many Pentecostal and Charistmatic groups that believe in the gift of tongues and claim to be able to exercise it. In fact, one can very easily find lots of videos of people who claim to be able to speak in tongues on platforms such as YouTube and others. Of course, that's not my question. What I'm asking is if there are any examples in history of tongue speaking a la Acts 2, namely, someone suddenly speaks in a foreign language that they do not understand and a native listener who does speak the language understands what they say (with both speaker and listener in shock because of what just happened). Are there any documented cases of tongue speaking a la Acts 2 in recent history (19th century on)? By documented case, I mean for example a missionary reporting this experience and then making it public via a missionary magazine or anything of that sort.
Below Acts 2:1-13 (ESV) for reference:

1 When the day of Pentecost arrived, they were all together in one place. 2 And suddenly there came from heaven a sound like a mighty rushing wind, and it filled the entire house where they were sitting. 3 And divided tongues as of fire appeared to them and rested on each one of them. 4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance.
5 Now there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men from every nation under heaven. 6 And at this sound the multitude came together, and they were bewildered, because each one was hearing them speak in his own language. 7 And they were amazed and astonished, saying, “Are not all these who are speaking Galileans? 8 And how is it that we hear, each of us in his own native language? 9 Parthians and Medes and Elamites and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10 Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya belonging to Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, 11 both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabians—we hear them telling in our own tongues the mighty works of God.” 12 And all were amazed and perplexed, saying to one another, “What does this mean?” 13 But others mocking said, “They are filled with new wine.”

Are there any documented cases of “Acts 2 type” tongue speaking (i.e. understood by a foreigner) in history (apart from Acts 2, of course)?
I have not heard of this being done in modern times, say from the 19th century on, but that does not mean that it has not been done. I am simply not aware of any modern cases of it.
This seems to be a gift from God that is truly rare.
First of all, it is interesting to note that the Church Fathers only associated this real languages.

Dr. Nathan Busenitz wrote a very detailed paper comparing what the Church Fathers believed and wrote regarding glossolalia with contemporary Pentecostal beliefs. His conclusion was that there was no evidence that any Church Fathers ever held that glossolalia involved anything other than real human language.
One of the key "proof texts" that has been cited for use of unintelligible languages while speaking in tongues is 1 Corinthians 14:14-15:

For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays but my mind is unfruitful.What am I to do? I will pray with the spirit and I will pray with the mind also; I will sing with the spirit and I will sing with the mind also.

Church Father John Chrysostom (4th cent.) clearly understood that even here, Paul was speaking of real language:

Ask accordingly not to have the gift of tongues only, but also of interpretation, that thou mayest become useful unto all, and not shut up thy gift in thyself alone. “For if I pray in a tongue,” saith he, “my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.” Seest thou how by degrees bringing his argument to a point, he signifies that not to others only is such an one useless, but also to himself; if at least “his understanding is unfruitful?” For if a man should speak only in the Persian, or any other foreign tongue, and not understand what he saith, then of course to himself also will he be thenceforth a barbarian, not to another only, from not knowing the meaning of the sound. For there were of old many who had also a gift of prayer, together with a tongue; and they prayed, and the tongue spake, praying either in the Persian or Latin language, but their understanding knew not what was spoken. Wherefore also he said, “I’ll pray in a tongue, my spirit prayeth,” i.e., the gift which is given me and which moves my tongue, “but my understanding is unfruitful.”

What then may that be which is best in itself, and doth good? And how ought one to act, or what request of God? To pray, “both with the spirit,” i.e., the gift, and “with the understanding.” Wherefore also he said, “I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.” He signifieth the same thing here also, that both the tongue may speak, and the understanding may not be ignorant of the things spoken (Homilies on First Corinthians, XXXV) - Do any church fathers directly connect “speaking in tongues” with anything other than existing human languages?

Has anyone been known to speak in an unknown language in missionary activities? Yes
Of coarse there are.
Here are a few that may fit the bill:
St. Vincent Ferrer

St. Vincent Ferrer was a Dominican missionary in the 14th century (1350 to 1419 AD). Legend has it that his native tongue was Valencian, a dialect of Catalan spoken in Spain. He didn’t know any other language. This did not stop his audience from miraculously hearing him in their language.
This is a historic variant of the miracle of speaking in tongues.
As an itinerant missionary whose travels brought him throughout western Europe, the lack of language preparation would have been a severe hindrance. To make matters worse, he knew only Valencian, which was a localized language. Very few within Europe had the ability to understand his native tongue. According to the account found in Acta Sanctorum this was overcome by the miracle of those hearing. He spoke in Valencian and the people understood his words perfectly in their own language.
Valencian was part of the Catalan group of languages distinct from Spanish, French, or German.

“Catalan is not, as some believe, a dialect of Spanish, but a language that developed independently out of the vulgar Latin spoken by the Romans who colonised the Tarragona area. It is spoken by 9 million people in Catalonia, Valencia, the Balearic Isles, Andorra and the town of Alghero in Sardinia. - Vincent Ferrer and the Gift of Tongues

St. Anthony of Padua

St. Anthony and the Gift of Tongues
The book “The Little Flowers of St Francis” was written by Brother Ugolino about 100 years after the life of St Francis of Assisi and St Anthony of Padua, the details of which are based on original documents of the Franciscan Order. In Chapter 39 of this book we read:
"St Anthony of Padua, one of the chosen disciples and companions of St Francis, whom the latter called his Vicar, was preaching one day before the Pope and the Cardinals in Consistory, there were therefore present at that moment men of different countries- Greeks and Latins, French and Germans, Slavs and English and men of many other different languages and dialects.
"And being inflamed by the Holy Spirit and inspired with apostolic eloquence, he preached and explained the word of God so effectively, devoutly, subtly, clearly and understandably that all who were assembled at that Consistory, although they spoke different languages, clearly and distinctly heard and understood everyone of his words as if he had spoken in each of their languages. Therefore they were all astounded and filled with devotion, for it seemed to them that the former miracle of the Apostles at the time of Pentecost had been renewed, when by the power of the Holy Spirit they spoke in different languages.
"And in amazement, just like in the Acts of the Apostles they said to one another: "Is he not a Spaniard?' How then are we all hearing him in the language of the country where we were born-we Greeks and Latins, French and Germans, Slavs and English, Lombards and foreigners?"
It was not only at this consistory that St. Anthony's gift of tongues was utilized. It is written that while preaching in Italy he spoke in perfect Italian, and while in France he preached in French, although he had never studied these languages. Also remarkable is the fact that "the simple-minded and the most ignorant listeners were capable of fully comprehending all he said; and his voice, though gentle and sweet, was distinctly heard at a very extraordinary distance from the speaker."

St. Paul of the Cross (1694-1775)

The gift of Tongues in the preaching of St Paul of the Cross
The grace of being heard at great distances was also documented on at least three occasions in the life of St. Paul of the Cross (1694-1775), the holy founder of the Passionist Order. Because of his extraordinary reputation for holiness, people would come from great distances to hear the man of God preach his missions, and to witness the remarkable miracles and cures that often accompanied his preaching. Therfore the crowds that gathered during his missions were often immense. On at least three documented occasions, his voice could be heard by all those present, even amdst the usual noises of such a great crowd, extending even those who were literally several miles away. This extraordinary grace took place in the three locations of La Tolfa, at Civitacastellana, and on the Isle of Elba, where he was heard a full five miles away.
Also, as stated above with the Apostles and also St Anthony, it was also documented on several occasions that his Italian language was understood by members of different foreign nationalities and languages who had come to listen to him.

St. Dominic (1170-1221)

The gift of speaking in Tongues in the life of St Dominic
And then there is also another holy Founder, St. Dominic (1170-1221), the founder of the Dominican Order and the great promoter of the Holy Rosary, who was given the gift of tongues when he was one day on a journey to Paris with his companion, Bertrand of Garrega, and a number of other friends and disciples.
While on the road they visited the sanctuary of Rocamadour, where they spent the night praying before a miraculous image of Our Lady. The next day, as they journeyed along, they sang litanies and recited psalms and the divine office, which attracted the attention of two German pilgrims, who began to follow them. When they came to the next village the two German pilgrims, being greatly attracted by the devotion of the little band, made motions to them indicating that they should sit down and dine with them. It was somewhat of an awkward situation since the Germans could not understand the Dominicans, nor could the Dominicans understand the Germans. This continued for four days, with the Germans sharing their food with the Dominicans.
On the fifth day St. Dominic addressed Bertrand in this manner: "Brother Bertrand, it grieves me to reap the temporal things of these pilgrims without sowing for them spiritual things: let us kneel down and ask God to grant us the understanding of their language, that we may speak to them of Christ." Accordingly, they knelt down and prayed. When they rose up, they were able to converse with the Germans in their own language and did so without difficulty for the rest of the journey.
As they drew near Paris, the Germans, now filled with spiritual consolations, departed from them. The earthly food which the Germans had provided had been exchanged by Dominic for spiritual food which nourished their spirits and was beneficial to their eternal salvation. St. Dominic, for his part, charged Bertrand to keep silent about the matter and to keep it secret until his death, "lest the people should take us for Saints who are but sinners.'"

St. Pachomius the Great

Among many miracles wrought by him, the author of his life assures us, that though he had never learned the Greek or Latin tongues, he sometimes miraculously spoke them; he cured the sick and persons possessed by devils with blessed oil. - St. Pachomius, Abbot (292-348)

The closest account in modern times that I can find is the opposite of what you seem to be asking. Therese Neumann of Germany did not speak in foreign languages, but she did have the gift of understanding them.
The German Stigmatic Therese Neumann of Germany (1898-1962) was gifted with gift of understanding foreign and ancient languages.

The extraordinary gift of understanding* foreign languages, especially ancient Biblical languages has been given to numerous Saints, especially the Mystics. Most notably in recent times this gift was given to a remarkable 20th century mystic and stigmatic named Therese Neumann of Germany (1898-1962).
During the ecstasies of the Passion in which Therese not only saw, but physically participated in in a mystical way, she heard the four languages which were in common use during the time of Christ: Latin, Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic; the Aramaic was spoken in a dialect mixed with Greek words. Therese recognized and repeated them after she returned to normal life. The fact that this humble country girl could master such languages is a miracle in itself. Therese had a seventh grade education and did not speak or understand any other language but German; to her personal friends she spoke in the dialect of the Oberpfalz, the particular region of Bavaria in which Konnersreuth is located.
Many eminent scholars of Oriental languages and of the Old Testament visited Therese in order to check the authenticity of Therese's knowledge of languages. Nevertheless, it was indeed difficult to find scholars who were qualified to interview Therese. It is not an exaggeration to say that in many instances she knew more about these ancient languages and many other details than the scholars did!
Some of the noted men who helped extensively in the verifi¬cation and clarification of the 2,OOO-year-old practices were: Rev. Prof. Dr. Wutz (a priest), professor of Oriental languages and the Old Testament at Catholic College, Eichstatt, Bavaria; Prof. Bauer, of Halle, a non-Catholic expert in Oriental lan¬guages; and Prof. Wessely, of Vienna, a non-Christian, who was also a scholar of these languages. All of the results of their investigations were made public. - Gift of understanding foreign and ancient languages


Did Casting Crowns ever say why they chose their name? To put it another way, did Casting Crowns ever say what the inspiration for their name was? A friend thought "casting" meant making, as in pouring metal into a mold and casting crowns that way. I've always thought it was "casting" in the sense of throwing it, as in casting crowns away. The only support I have for my idea is

  Revelation 4:10-11
  10 the twenty-four elders fall down before him who sits on the throne and worship him who lives for ever and ever. They lay their crowns before the throne and say:

  11 “You are worthy, our Lord and God, \
      to receive glory and honor and power, \
  for you created all things, \
      and by your will they were created \
      and have their being.”

I took a look at Wikipedia's page, but they don't say anything about how or why the name was chosen. So, how and/or why did they choose that particular name?

A little Googling turned up a list of 15 questions that fans asked the band. Within, there is this exchange:

4. MyGodIsEnough asks: What does the name "Casting Crowns" mean, and why did you decide to use it as the band name?
Mark: The Scripture is Revelation 4 where it talks about the 24 elders around the throne, putting their crowns before Him. For me, as a believer, if you’re not careful, little things will rise up in your life and become important. And it will create distance between you and God; and these little kingdoms don’t have to be bad things, sometimes they can be good things. They just take our focus away, and we have to let these kingdoms fall and fall before Him and make sure that we are setting apart Christ as Lord in our lives.

Indeed, the inspiration was Revelation 4:10-11, as suspected.


Why did Clement and Eusebius believe that Paul was married? In an answer to a related question (What is the evidence that suggests that the Apostle Paul was married?), I encountered the following quote from Eusebius:

  Clement, indeed, whose words we have just quoted, after the above-mentioned facts gives a statement, on account of those who rejected marriage, of the apostles that had wives. "Or will they," says he, "reject even the apostles? For Peter and Philip begot children; and Philip also gave his daughters in marriage. And Paul does not hesitate, in one of his epistles, to greet his wife, whom he did not take about with him, that he might not be inconvenienced in his ministry." (Church History, 3.30, emphasis added)

I'm not aware of any biblical passage where Paul greets his wife.  The closest thing I can see, given the context, is 1 Corinthians 9:5:

  Do we not have the right to take along a believing wife, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas? (ESV)

But there's nothing here about greeting a wife, or having one at all.  Plus, two chapters earlier, he writes:

  To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single as I am. (1 Co 7:8, ESV)

So what gives?  What could Clement/Eusebius have been referring to?  A biblical text of which I am unaware?  Some early apocryphal work?

Is there any tradition, or scholarly opinion, of what text Clement of Alexandria is referring to?

Clement of Alexander likely was referring to Philippians 4:3

  Yes, I ask you also, true companion (σύζυγε), help these women, who have labored side by side with me in the gospel together with Clement and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the book of life. (ESV)

The word σύζυγε (lexical form σύζυγος) is a hapax legomenon within the New Testament.  Outside the New Testament, it is used as a term of flattery by Julius Caesar and other emperors.  It is also used to describe competing gladiators (the opponent being the σύζυγος).  The phrase ἡ σύζυγος is well attested to mean wife, so it is not hard to see how Clement could have taken the passage to likewise mean wife from the grammar alone.  Additionally, the context of 4:2 where Paul greets two other women and asks (in 4:3) another person to counsel them makes a woman a possible target of "true companion" (the grammar is ambiguous as the word has the same form for masculine and feminine cases).

While the quote of Clement doesn't make his source clear, there is another extant commentary that makes the reference to Phil 4:3 explicit.  In his commentary on Romans, Origen (185-254) writes:

  Paul, then, if certain traditions are true, was called while in possession of a wife, concerning whom he writes in Philippians "I ask you also, my loyal mate, help these women."

Source: A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, Third edition


What was Augustine's soteriology? Can someone provide a summary of Augustine's soteriological views, and their differences from contemporary views?

I'm particularly interested in a comparison of Augustine's soteriology with the soteriologies of Calvinists, Arminians, and Catholics.

Upon examining the second book of Calvin's Institutes, I found that Calvin and Augustine are pretty much 100% on the same page.

  Calvin, Institues, 2.5.2

  Thus [Augustine] asks, "What is human merit? He who came to bestow not
  due recompense but free grace, though himself free from sin, and the
  giver of freedom, found all men sinners" (Augustine, In Psalmum 31).
  Again, "If you are to receive your due, you must be punished. What
  then is done? God has not rendered you due punishment, but bestows
  upon you unmerited grace. If you wish to be an alien from grace, boast
  your merits" (In Psalmum 70). Again, "You are nothing in yourself,
  sin is yours, merit God's. Punishment is your due; and when the reward
  shall come, God shall crown his own gifts, not yoru merits" (Epist.
  52) To the same effect he elsewhere says (De verb. Apost. serm. 15),
  that grace is not of merit, but merit of grace.

Considering the wealth of quotes, it's pretty obvious Calvin agrees with Augustine on God's grace. Considering the total shunning of any human merit, this at least distinguishes Calvin and Augustine from the Catholics.

Later, in 2.5.8, Calvin quotes Augustine again:

  As Augustine says, "What God promises, we ourselves do not through choice or nature, but he himself does by grace."

The mention of the inability of human choice (based, likely, on passages like Romans 9:16) separates Calvin and Augustine again from the Arminians.

The one disagreement I found was in 2.4.3, where Augustine appears to differ on the views of God's "hardening." Calvin believed that God "hardened the hearts" of those whom he did not choose. So here, perhaps, Calvin was even more "frozen-chosen-ish" than Augustine, but otherwise they are in agreement regarding God's grace as the sole means of salvation.


What is the Biblical definition of "prophecy"? In common parlance, prophecy is often considered to be "predicting the future." For some, it conjures up images of telephone psychics and the like. Others might envision a crystal ball. It generally has a mystical connotation of some type.

On the other hand, the "prophets" of Scripture (e.g. Malachi, Habakkuk, Jonah) seem to be doing something different. Making explicit predictions about the future seems to be a small part of their function as a "prophet."

So my question is: Biblically speaking, what exactly is prophecy? Is there a Biblical definition that matches the actual practices of the prophets?

If possible, please support your answers using the 66 books of Scripture that are found in the Protestant Bible.

Perhaps two of the most famous minor prophets will illustrate that prophecy is not so much about telling the future as the present.

Jonah, for example, only issues a single proclamation about the future:

  "Forty days, and Nineveh will be overturned," (Jonah: 3:2 RSV)

this does come to pass.  Nineveh was overturned.  They sat in sack cloth and ashes.  Their hearts were overturned.  If they had not been repented to God then they would have been destroyed but they were indeed overturned.  Amos, another prophet, makes very few predictions about the future, but again, the thrust of his message is that God's people need to shape up!  This is true of Hosea, Malachi, and many others.

The non-writing Prophets - Samuel, Elijah, and Elisha, share the same distinction.

Indeed, we say that Martin Luther King, Jr. was "prophetic" in many of his missives against segregation in the United States.

The point is that a prophet is one who is given a message by God.  (Indeed Malach-i means "My Messenger") The prophet is then told to deliver this message to His people, however God chooses.  When Jeremiah refuses, he says it burns in his bones.  When Ezekiel does what God says, his wife dies and he can't mourn, he ends up lying on his side for years at a time, and generally looking like a nut.  Indeed, when Jesus drives the moneychangers out of the Temple, he is simply called a "prophet" for the act.

The point is simple that a prophet is a messenger of God.  If that message says something about the future, then it is because God wishes to give a message about consequences.  (Indeed, John the Revelator is apocalyptic, not prophetic!).


Jehovah's Witness view on a potential member marrying a non-Witness What is the official Jehovah's Witness position regarding a woman who is studying with the Witnesses and who wants to marry a worldly man (a man who is not a Jehovah's Witness)?

We want to get married at a court house but she wants to make sure it’s ok from her elders.

Note that Are Jehovah's Witnesses allowed to marry outside the faith? is asking about members of the Jehovah's Witnesses, while this question asks about potential members.

A person who is studying while living with someone is usually encouraged to marry so that they are no longer living in sin.  If the person not studying (you in this case) is strongly opposed to the others becoming a JW both should evaluate if the relationship should continue. One cannot get baptized as a JW if they are living with a person without being legally married.

There are many Jehovah’s Witnesses who are married to non Jehovah’s Witness mates. They are encouraged to work hard at making the marriage a success.
1 Cor 7:12-16 (NWT)

  But to the others I say, yes, I, not the Lord:i If any brother has an unbelieving wife and she is agreeable to staying with him, let him not leave her; 13  and if a woman has an unbelieving husband and he is agreeable to staying with her, let her not leave her husband. 14  For the unbelieving husband is sanctified in relation to his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified in relation to the brother; otherwise, your children would be unclean, but now they are holy. 15  But if the unbelieving one chooses to depart,* let him depart; a brother or a sister is not bound under such circumstances, but God has called you to peace.j 16  For wife, how do you know whether you will save your husband?k Or, husband, how do you know whether you will save your wife?

As far as getting married in a court house that is perfectly acceptable and valid marriage.


What do Christianity and Judaism have in common? Most Christians relate to Judaism more than to Islam, Hinduism, or Buddhism, or any other religion. So, my question is, what do Christianity and Judaism have in common so as to make them so related to one another? Thanks.

Jesus Christ is Jewish. Therefore we are connected to the Jewish faith because it is our faith with the addition of the teachings of Christ.

Maybe better stated, the Jewish faith, is the history of Christianity by way of Christ's Jewish lineage. His faith and physical ancestors was Jewish.


Has the matter of salvation - whether it is by works or by faith alone - ever been considered on any councils of the Catholic and Orthodox churches? Prior to Luther's Reformation, has the matter of salvation - whether it is by works or by faith alone - ever been considered on any councils of the Catholic and Orthodox churches?

The first big controversy on this topic emerged with the teachings of Pelagius. His doctrine (about salvation from deeds and about Adam and Christ only "giving example") were condemned on local councils of Diopolis and Carthage and on the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus. Search the web for the term 'pelagianism' to learn more.


Does a literal reading of Romans 4:25 conflict with Reformed theology? In the NASB, Romans 4:25 (emphasis mine) reads:

  He who was delivered over because of our transgressions, and was
  raised because of our justification.

However, in the ESV (emphasis mine) it reads:

  ...who was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our
  justification.

The literal sense of the preposition διὰ in the Greek agrees with the NASB, but there are some alternate explanations that may favor the ESV reading. Textual and translation issues aside (those can be addressed over at BH.SE on this question), does the literal reading presented in the NASB present any theological difficulties in the Reformed tradition? I'm trying to determine why many Reformed-influenced translations wish to avoid this causal sense.

Yes, if you read "because" as indicating a causal relationship, no if it's just giving the reason or purpose.

"Because of our justification" might suggest that some action done by us is the cause of the resurrection. That's a problem for Reformed theology, and probably not just for us either, as it's a bit logically and temporally difficult.

If we read "our justification" more like "the justification that relates to us" or "is done to us" then there is no problem with the responsibility. Something like "for the sake of" instead of "because of" carries the same sort of meaning - indicating purpose rather than causality.

My knowledge of Greek isn't good enough to be sure about this, but from a cursory glance into Liddell-Scott-Jones it looks like dia can carry this meaning (sense B.III.3). Latin propter, as in the Vulgate for Romans 4:25, certainly can have a sense of "this was the reason" without necessarily also indicating logical cause. Compare the Nicene Creed's propter nos homines et propter nostram salutem.  (But prepositions are always difficult to translate.)

In Martin Luther's commentary (1515-1516, trans. J. Theodore Mueller 1954) on Romans 4:25, he says:

  Christ's death is the death of sin, and His resurrection is the raising up of righteousness. For by His death Christ has atoned for our sins, and through His resurrection He has procured for us righteousness. Christ's death does not merely signify, but has effected the remission of our sins. Christ's resurrection is not merely the pledge of our righteousness, but its cause.

The direction of the causal relationship he sees is obvious.
Likewise, in John Calvin's commentary (1540, trans. John Owen 1849), we find:

  Expiation depended on the eternal goodwill of God, who purposed to be in this way pacified. [...] The efficacy of justification is ascribed to his resurrection, by which death was overcome; not that the sacrifice of the cross, by which we are reconciled to God, contributes nothing towards our justification, but that the completeness of his favor appears more clear by his coming to life again.1

Calvin here adds the additional nuance of God's sovereign will. Like Luther, he sees the resurrection as both a sign and a cause, but in addition he emphasises that God is the ultimate cause. This helps the reading of "because of our transgressions" as well: God's grace is freely given, not procured as a necessary result of our sin. In both cases, our transgression and justification supply the reasons why God did what he did, without causing God's action.

1. expiato ab aeterno Dei beneplacito pendet, qui hoc modo placere voluit [...] resurrectioni, per quam mors absorpta est, vis iustificandi adscribitur: non quod sacrificium crucis, quo reconciliati sumus Deo, nihil ad iustitiam contulerit: sed quia in nova vita huius gratiae perfectio clarius apparet.


Why does the Pope include himself among the sinners? 'We are all sinners. But God heals us with an abundance of grace,
  mercy and tenderness.' (emp. mine)

the Holy Father, Pope Francis, said on Twitter.

Why does the Pope say 'We are all sinners' clearly including himself among the sinners?

As far as I know, it seems at least strange, if not absurd, that the Holy Father is a sinner, but I'm not an expert of these things and, perhaps, I'm not well aware about what sin is.

In fact, to the best of my knowledge, I think that a sin is something that is against one or more of the ten commandments. But, if so, I cannot think of the Pope make something in disagreement to the ten commandments.

Please, can anybody explain? (Peace be with you)

The doctrine of original sin says that every human being is a sinner.

Indeed, the Bible also says:

Romans 3:10

  As it is written: "There is no one righteous, not even one;

and

Isaiah 56:3

  All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned—every one—to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all.

and Isaiah 64:6

  We have all become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment. We all fade like a leaf, and our iniquities, like the wind, take us away.

Indeed, only Jesus escaped this sin - as Hebrews 4:15, in describing the uniqueness of Jesus writes:

  For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin.

Here, the obvious implication is that even High Priests (and their modern counterparts) sin.

Indeed, even the canons of the church explicitly clarify this point:

  Trent-Justification Canon 1. "If anyone says that man can be justified before God by his own works, whether done by his own natural powers or through the teaching of the law, without divine grace through Jesus Christ, let him be anathema."

With the possible exception of Pope Joan*, every Pope is man.  As man, he is subject to the same consideration.

The idea of total depravity and the universality of sin says that everyone (and that includes a Pope who knows his scripture well!) is both a sinner and under judgment.  Indeed, this idea gives birth to many popular sayings on the matter, such as:

A saint is just a sinner who falls down, and gets back up
Evangelism is just one beggar telling another where to find bread - D.T. Niles.

While it is tempting to chalk this up to humility the truth of the matter is that any priest worth his salt already knows this in his soul.

Oh, and finally, before you ask, yes, Pope Francis has his own confessor.

*The Pope Joan thing was a joke, in case you are wondering.


Different Bibles and Religions First of all I would like to state that this is not an attempt to disprove religion, or the existence of God. There is just a lot of confusion, due to many contradictions.

According to some people, God sends people to Hell because they were misinformed (believed in the wrong God/followed the wrong religion, etc).

Is this true? And why? If God saw the future, he would know that
there would be many people, millions even, preaching the wrong
things. If God had the power to create us all, why didn't He write
The Bible, and just dump it somewhere on earth for us to find and
replicate? Thus helping to eliminate the chance of
mis-interpretation, which is seeming to be a never-ending problem.
What was wrong with the Old Testament? Apparently, the Bible is
revised because things are mis-interpreted and that's how the New
Testament came to be.
If God could see the future, why didn't he write a version for each
language that would be invented my man kind? So that there would be
no possibility of mis-interpretation in future generations?
How do you believe in God, without doubts, when there are so many
other religions and Gods? What is it about your religion that makes
you say "Yep. This is the real/only God."?

Now I will admit that I have not followed religion my whole life but I have never dismissed the idea that there was a God, either.

But I am so confused by everything, and when I read things online, I get even more confused because there are so many Christians out there who preach this, or that, and then I click away to a different website where another Christian will preach the complete opposite of what I just read.

How can one follow religion when we do not really know the real story? As far as I know, everything we read today about the Bible is just yet another revision of something we have not read yet.

Is there an original Bible? I.e. An unedited/authentic version of the Bible that still exists that is being sold, or given away around the world? Or is it merely an artefact preserved in some Museum now?

How can we believe in the right thing when there is more of a chance of us believing in the wrong thing, and never even knowing?

The only reason to believe something is because it is true.

  Rejoice always, pray without ceasing, give thanks in all
  circumstances; for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you. Do
  not quench the Spirit. Do not despise prophecies, but test everything;
  hold fast what is good. Abstain from every form of evil. (1
  Thessalonians 5:16-22 ESV)

How do we test if something is true/good?  By holding it in the light of what we already know to be true.

Some things are true by their very nature.  Some truths are derived through logic or widsom.  Some, we believe, cannot be deduced or induced from nature itself and so are revealed to us.

The reason there are so many disagreements about what is true regarding God and heaven, Jesus, religion, etc is because everyone has their own frame of reference and current baseline that they compare new information or ideas to.


Baptism in the Spirit I'm trying to find a certain sermon of Martyn Lloyd Jones.   It contains a passage which is often quoted, but I'd like to find out in which sermon (or volume of sermons published by Banner of Truth) it is.

In this sermon he is talks about the Baptism in the Spirit, and says that some Christians believe they don't have to seek anything, because they received it when they were born again.   In other words They've got it all - there is nothing else to seek.    And he continues,  "If you've got it all, where is it?   If you've got it all, why are you so unlike the New Testament Christians?"

It could be the sermon "Spirit Baptism and Sanctification."

Updated to add more information:

The reason I think this is the answer you are looking for is because I listened to it, and it appeared to be matching your criteria of:

Baptism in the Spirit
If you've got it all, where is it?
If you've got it all, why are you so unlike the New Testament Christians?


Cardinal Cajetan and Martin Luther Recently, I read (in this pamphlet) that Martin Luther had some disputes with prominent thomist and Cardinal Thomas Cajetan. why did these two intellignet man not come to an agreement and dispute honestly (or did they)?

In the pamphlet is the story from the side of Luther: are there any documents that speak from Cardinal Cajetan's perspective?

I am intrested in both versions of the story. Are there original texts of what they actually said during their dispute?

Since there are obviously some Protestants and Catholics on this site, I do not care from which "side" you write but I would appricate quotation from original texts from side of Luther and side of Cajetan.

Thank you for any help.

I found this paper "Cajetan and Luther: Revisiting the Roots of a Schism" written by Dr. Adam Cooper, a Lutheran pastor turned Catholic, who has a repository of his academic papers here.  The paper delves into how Cajetan became very alarmed as he detected (with prophetic insight) the far reaching consequences of Luther's view during the October 1518 conversations.  The Extravagante Papal teaching mentioned by the pamphlet is covered in this academic paper along with technical discussion of the treasury of merits.  The purpose of the paper is precisely what you are looking for.

From the Introduction:

  Like most non-specialist students of the Reformation, my access to the
  exchange between Martin Luther and Cardinal Cajetan in the city of
  Augsburg, October 1518, has by and large been limited to Luther’s own
  account of the event, or else to secondary sources understandably
  writing with a Protestant bias. Recently, however, I made it my
  business to read Cajetan himself, who, like other Catholic
  polemicists, has suffered virtual demonisation in Lutheran folklore.
  This essay is an attempt to restore some balance to the popular
  picture of Luther and Cajetan’s exchange in Augsburg by way of an
  examination of the latter’s own theology as manifest in the documents
  he wrote at that occasion.
  My aim is to show that Cajetan’s negative impression of Luther’s
  theology – taken on its own terms - was not as illfounded, irrational,
  or unbiblical as is often implied. On the contrary, it will become
  clear that in Cajetan’s estimation, Luther’s theology represented a
  radical shift away from mainstream Christian doctrine, and a
  capitulation to the subjectivist, humanistic tendencies of the
  nominalist school of philosophy.

  In reckoning as much, Cajetan may well have been mistaken. I shall
  leave that judgement to the reader. Yet it is only by grasping the
  Cardinal’s deep-seated intuition that Luther’s protestations, embodied
  in the Ninety-five Theses, threatened the very foundations of a truly
  efficacious sacramental theology, that we can, to my mind, make sense
  of the ecclesial breach that followed and recognise, in humility, its
  fundamentally tragic character. I therefore offer this study as one
  small contribution to an ongoing conversation in the hope that, in due
  course, such a breach may one day be righted and the Christ-like
  prayer of the Roman Pontiff for ‘full and visible communion’ answered.

As for the full text of Luther's letter to George Spalatin mentioned in the pamphlet, this PDF from archive.org contains scholarly footnoted collection of Luther's letter (volume 48) covering those years (warning: large file, 26.2MB, high-DPI book scan, OCR-ed).


Why is "Your will be done" not redundant? The question is about the words "Your will be done" (γενηθήτω τὸ θέλημά σου, Matthew 6.10)  in the Lord's prayer. I do not understand the meaning of it. My faith tells me that everything happens according to the Lord's will anyway, so why pray asking for this to happen if I believe that this is the only thing that can ever happen in any circumstances anyway?

The Lord's prayer as our daily statement of purpose and petition for support

My faith tells me that everything happens according to the Lord's will anyway, so why pray asking for this to happen if I believe that this is the only thing that can ever happen in any circumstances anyway?

I know you didn't mean it, but your statement implies fate / destiny, as though we have no role in God's will.  But in Christianity we are active participants, God's hands and feet in this world so to speak, in advancing His Kingdom on earth, battling Satan's forces that want to reduce His Kingdom.  A believer sees a Christian life as a battleground, as many hymns describe such as Onward Christian Soldiers.
Thus, when we say "Your will be done", it is NOT an intellectual statement about God's sovereignty / power, but it's a soldier's decision to enlist in God's army.  The full text is "Your Kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven."  God is fully established in heaven, but not yet on earth since Satan is still allowed to operate.  By saying that, as a member of God's army we declare our readiness to fight TODAY as well stating our petition for "Give us our daily bread" because we cannot fight on our own resources.
It is as though God asks us in the morning: are you willing to fight for me today?  God only asks for willing soldiers, because He respects our free will.  By saying "Your Kingdom come, your will be done on earth as it is in heaven" we declare our stance with God, similar to a pledge of allegiance to a country, that "Yes, I'm with you, and I want to fight your cause in the world for the glory of your kingdom on earth."
In doing this we are imitating Jesus at Gethsemane, at the hardest stage of His own battle with evil:

"Father, if you are willing, please take this cup of suffering away from me. Yet I want your will to be done, not mine."

The other 2 elements of the Lord's prayer are also present in Jesus's Gethsemane's passage as well (see Luke 22:39-46): daily bread (angels strengthening Jesus) and dealing with temptation.  Jesus had a choice: go with the war plan, or quit.  Just as he was successful against Satan's temptation during the 40 day fasting in the desert, he made a decision to align his own will with God's will, relying on God's strengthening.  That's the full meaning when we pray the Lord's prayer.
God's will and Our will
OP Comment (emphasis mine)

We make plans, and we change them occasionally. But God knows what we will finally do, in every case. None of our actions can alter His will, this is one of the things I believe most firmly - nobody's actions can prevent the will of God from being done, it is impossible.

Within Christianity there are different models of reconciling God's foreknowledge, our freedom of will (subjectively experienced), and God's providence (which includes various types of God's will).  Arminian, Reformed, and Catholic theologies each has their own model resulted from each tradition's various level of human depravity as well as various level of determinism of God's will.
Therefore the statement "None of our actions can alter His will" is not strictly true in the Arminian's view of God's providence which I answered here.  In Arminian theology there is a larger role of human's participation in God's plan to the extent that God will work around our free will !  The motto is "God is in charge but not in control."
It's unfortunate that Christianity in the West has degenerated into intellectualism, but if we carefully read the Bible (both OT and NT), God demands an action response, not just intellectual agreement.  Human being consists of reason, will, and emotion and it only makes sense that God doesn't want compartmentalization but our full being.  Jesus keeps asking "follow me".  Paul keeps exhorting "imitate me to be slave of Jesus Christ".  James emphasizes "faith without works is dead".  All believers are then called to purify our character (with the help of the Holy Spirit) and doing service in the world (with God's grace and opening of doors).  So it makes total sense to say the Lord's prayer as a prelude to action, a full human response to God's gift of salvation instead of merely an intellectual statement about God's will.


How was Judas Iscariot, as the son of perdition, able to work miracles and cast out demons? The Scriptures describe Judas Iscariot in terms that certainly indicate that he was never a true follower of Jesus:

The Son of Man is to go, just as it is written of Him; but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been good for that man if he had not been born.  Matthew 26:24 NASB
But there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who it was that would betray Him.  John 6:64 NASB
Jesus answered them, “Did I Myself not choose you, the twelve, and yet one of you is a devil?” 71 Now He meant Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, for he, one of the twelve, was going to betray Him.  John 6:70-71 NASB
While I was with them, I was keeping them in Your name which You have given Me; and I guarded them and not one of them perished but the son of perdition, so that the Scripture would be fulfilled.  John 17:12 NASB

At the same time, however, Judas was sent out by Jesus with the others to proclaim the good news, work miracles and cast out demons.

These twelve Jesus sent out after instructing them: “Do not go in the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter any city of the Samaritans; 6 but rather go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. 7 And as you go, preach, saying, ‘The kingdom of heaven is at hand.’ 8 Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out demons. Freely you received, freely give.   Matthew 10:5-8 NASB

So, if Judas really was the son of perdition, a devil, and one who did not believe, how was it possible for him to work miracles?  How could the Holy Spirit work through him?

Only the Holy Spirit anoints offices in the church with miraculous gifts. It is best to think of 'gifts' as temporary and associated with a calling to an office and sanctification as permanent calling to salvation'. Even those sanctified by faith may not be given unusual gifts unless called to an external office requiring those externally anointed abilities.

The problem with Judas is that he temporarily was assigned the former but did not partake in the latter. Judas was not 'saved through the sanctifying work of the Spirit and through belief in the truth.' (2 Thess 2:13)Jesus seems to clearly mark him out of sanctification while including him in a temporary called office here:Then Jesus replied, “Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!” (John 6:70, NIV)

This does by no means indicate that God often calls people without sanctification to an office in the church with gifts. Rather it is the rare exception where he infrequently calls sinners to an office and gives them gifts, temporarily using them in order to declare his message according to his sovereign pleasure. He does not call and use them while saying a different message, for he will not manifest miraculous support of those who declare the opposite of his purpose and will in choosing them. He used Saul, Balaam and Judas in this way. He is not the author of confusion. That is why while in the office and anointed with special gifts to perform it, Judas could say on behalf of Christ, 'If you do not believe Jesus by my words about him believe the works he is doing through me under his office'.

  But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.” (John 10:38, NIV)

John Owen makes this distinction between sanctification of the Holy Spirit and an office anointed by the same Holy Spirit clear:

  The end of God in election is the sonship and salvation of the elect, “to the praise of the glory of his grace,” Eph. 1:5, 6; and this cannot be unless his image be renewed in them in holiness or saving graces. These, therefore, he works in them, in pursuit of his eternal purpose therein. But gifts, on the other hand, which are no more but so, and where they are solitary or alone, are only the effects of a temporary election. Thus God chooseth some men unto some office in the church, or unto some work in the world. As this includeth a preferring them before or above others, or the using them when others are not used, we call it election; and in itself it is their fitting for and separation unto their office or work. And this temporary election is the cause and rule of the dispensation of gifts. So he chose Saul to be king over his people, and gave him thereon “another heart,” or gifts fitting him for rule and government. So our Lord Jesus Christ chose and called at the first twelve to be his apostles, and gave unto them all alike miraculous gifts. His temporary choice of them was the ground of his communication of gifts unto them. By virtue hereof no saving graces were communicated unto them, for one of them never arrived unto a participation of them. (The Works of John Owen, Vol 4, P430)

Judas could only work miracles and cast out demons by being directly chosen by Christ to an office that the Holy Spirit anointed with gifts to do so. God in scripture rarely does this strange thing (using his enemies to represent him) but only in an orderly way according to his divine purpose. God is not an author of confusion. Miraculous gifts are proof that God has sent and approved the message of his messengers even when temporarily are rarely overwhelming his enemies to be his mouthpieces.


According to Protestants, must clergy be ordained by other ordained clergy? Some of the initial leaders of the Reformation, who presumably ordained  later Protestant clergy, were ordained priests in the Catholic Church. But, in (denominational, rather than congregationalist) Protestant ecclesiology, is this necessary? If no ordained priests had joined the Reformation, would it still have been possible to ordain clergy?

Also, what exactly happened in the Reformation? Were all mainstream (ie non-Anabaptist) Protestant clergy ordained by clergy who had clerical ordinations? In other words, do present-day denominational Protestant clergy have a lineage of ordinations that extend back to the Catholic Church, and thus back to the Apostolic Church?

I recognize that the Catholic Church regards such ordinations by
excommunicated persons as null and void, and that many Protestants
regard Catholic ordinations, in turn, as either null and void, or
entirely irrelevant.
I'm more interested in what what the mainstream Reformers, especially
of the 16th century, believed on the topic.

John Calvin, whose theology heavily influenced every Reformer (here I exclude the Anabaptists and other such groups), has a chapter in his Institutes of the Christian Religion which discusses the clergy generally, and has some paragraphs on the ordination of clergy. I suggest you read the entire chapter for better context (and the entire book for good theology!), but I will quote the relevant section.

  It remains to consider the form of ordination, to which we have assigned the last place in the call (see chap. 4, sec. 14, 15). It is certain, that when the apostles appointed any one to the ministry, they used no other ceremony than the laying on of hands. This form was derived, I think, from the custom of the Jews, who, by the laying on of hands, in a manner presented to God whatever they wished to be blessed and consecrated. Thus Jacob, when about to bless Ephraim and Manasseh, placed his hands upon their heads (Gen. 48:14). The same thing was done by our Lord, when he prayed over the little children (Mt. 19:15). With the same intent (as I imagine), the Jews, according to the injunction of the law, laid hands upon their sacrifices. Wherefore, the apostles, by the laying on of hands, intimated that they made an offering to God of him whom they admitted to the ministry; though they also did the same thing over those on whom they conferred the visible gifts of the Spirit (Acts 8:17; 19:6). However this be, it was the regular form, whenever they called any one to the sacred ministry. In this way they consecrated pastors and teachers; in this way they consecrated deacons. But though there is no fixed precept concerning the laying on of hands, yet as we see that it was uniformly observed by the apostles, this careful observance ought to be regarded by us in the light of a precept (see chap. 14, sec. 20; chap. 19, sec. 31). And it is certainly useful, that by such a symbol the dignity of the ministry should be commended to the people, and he who is ordained, reminded that he is no longer his own, but is bound in service to God and the Church. Besides, it will not prove an empty sign, if it be restored to its genuine origin. For if the Spirit of God has not instituted anything in the Church in vain, this ceremony of his appointment we shall feel not to be useless, provided it be not superstitiously abused. Lastly, it is to observed, that it was not the whole people, but only pastors, who laid hands on ministers, though it is uncertain whether or not several always laid their hands: it is certain, that in the case of the deacons, it was done by Paul and Barnabas, and some few others (Acts 6:6; 13:3). But in another place, Paul mentions that he himself, without any others, laid hands on Timothy. “Wherefore, I put thee in remembrance, that thou stir up the gift of God which is in thee, by the putting on of my hands” (2 Tim. 1:6). For what is said in the First Epistle, of the laying on of the hands of the presbytery, I do not understand as if Paul were speaking of the college of Elders. By the expression, I understand the ordination itself; as if he had said, Act so, that the gift which you received by the laying on of hands, when I made you a presbyter, may not be in vain.

Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book 4, Chapter 3, Section 16

In short, only already-ordained ministers could ordain clergy (whether ministers, elders, or deacons).

The Reformers did not consider themselves to be schismatics creating a new church, but rather considered themselves as the continuation of the true church, with the Roman Catholic Church being the schismatic drifting away from true theology. As such, those ordained as priests under the Roman Catholic Church would not be expected to cease their duties in the event that they converted to Protestantism. This is evidence at the very least in both Martin Luther and Ulrich Zwingli, who were both ordained as priests in the Roman Catholic Church, and who both continued their duties as clergy after taking their stance in opposition to the Roman Catholic Church.

It is most likely that most, if not all Reformed clergy could then theoretically trace their ordination back through to a Roman Catholic ordination at some stage.

It is another matter entirely as to whether they considered it necessary or important to have an unbroken line back to the Apostles (and presumably not just the Apostles, but the Jewish clergy who "became" Christian, as they would also not be re-ordained at that time).


Does Catholicism or any church father make a connection between Eve and Mary in Genesis 2:18 and John 14:26? Genesis 2:18 New International Version (NIV)

  "The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”(Genesis2:18)

  and

  John 14:26 New King James Version (NKJV)

  "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you.

  Footnotes:
  John 14:26 Comforter, Gr. Parakletos

In this particular passages both God the Father and Jesus the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity both mentioned the word "helper".

In Catholicism based on Church Father's Teaching and in the Catholic Article of Faith the New Adam & New Eve is Jesus and the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Would it follows that the role that the First Adam & First Eve in the context of the foreshadowing events in the Old Testament and New Testament, Jesus and Mary would fulfill the new role of Adam & Eve as the Church Fathers teaches.

My question is based on the passages on Genesis2:18 the role of  "helper" is given to Eve to help the First Adam,and in John14:26 the "Helper" to help Jesus the New Adam, would be given to Blessed Virgin Mary the New Eve.

In this context, my question is according to Catholicism, Church Father, Saints and biblical interpretation(hebrew parallelism),;

Is the Blessed Virgin Mary being acknowledge by the Church Fathers and Catholic Church as the New Eve would take the role of the "Helper" in John14:26?

First who are the two famous Church Fathers who teaches that Jesus & Mary was the New Adam & New Eve.

  The two famous Church Father are:

  St.Justin Martyr, who wrote within a couple of generations of the apostles. In his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew (ca. A.D. 150),
  St.Irenaeus, the bishop of Lyons in the second century. In Against Heresies, Irenaeus expounds the doctrine of recapitulation.

  The phrase "New Eve"* or similar expressions occur in the early Church Fathers. Take, for example, Justin Martyr, who wrote within a couple of generations of the apostles. In his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew (ca. A.D. 150), Justin explains that Christ destroyed Satan’s work in the same way evil originally entered the world. Evil entered through Eve while she was still a virgin; so too salvation entered through Mary while she was still a virgin. Each woman willingly participated in the act they performed. Neither was an unconscious instrument. Eve listened to the serpent and conceived death. Mary listened to the angel Gabriel and conceived life. Justin sees this clearly in Luke 1:38 when Mary says, "Let it be to me according to your word." Thus, for Justin, Christ’s becoming a man involved his Mother’s willing cooperation in undoing the tangled web of sin that Eve introduced.

  One of the greatest defenders of Christian orthodoxy, Irenaeus, the bishop of Lyons in the second century. In Against Heresies, Irenaeus expounds the doctrine of recapitulation. He teaches that Christ embodied Adam and all his posterity in order to redeem mankind from sin. Basing his teaching on Paul’s inspired doctrine of Christ as the Last Adam (cf. 1 Cor. 15:45), Irenaeus viewed Jesus as reversing the effects of Adam’s sin by bringing the life and righteousness that Adam lost (cf. Rom. 5:17, 18). Irenaeus saw the obvious implication. As Eve cooperated with Adam, the covenant head of humanity, so Mary cooperated with Jesus Christ, the covenant head of the new humanity. Thus Irenaeus says that Eve "by disobeying became the cause of death for herself and the whole human race, so also Mary . . . was obedient and became the cause of salvation for herself and the whole human race" (Against Heresies 3.22.4). Later he says of these two virgins, "Just as the human race was subject to death by a virgin, it was freed by a virgin, with the virginal disobedience balanced by virginal obedience" (ibid., 5.19.1).*

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/how-can-you-say-that-mary-is-the-new-eve

The Catholic Chruch officially declares Mary as the New Eve in CCC975

  975 "We believe that the Holy Mother of God, the new Eve, Mother of the Church, continues in heaven to exercise her maternal role on behalf of the members of Christ" (Paul VI, CPG § 15).

Now let's examine the role God gave to Eve in the Garden of Eden before the Fall the word "suitable helper or ezer in Hebrew".

In Hebrew, the word for “helper” used in Genesis 2:18 and 20 is ezer (pronounced “ay-zer”), and it is always and only used in the Old Testament in the context of vitally important and powerful acts of rescue and support.[2]
The word ezer is used twenty-one times in the Old Testament.

  Twice it is used in the context of the first woman.

  Three times it is used of people helping (or failing to help) in life-threatening situations.

  Sixteen times it is used in reference to God as a helper.

  Without exception, these biblical texts are talking about a vital, powerful kind of help.

  In Exodus 18:4 it says that Moses named one of his sons Eliezer, which in Hebrew means “My God is my helper” (Eli = “my God”; ezer= “helper”). This verse goes on to explain why Moses named his son Eliezer: because God had powerfully delivered Moses from Pharaoh’s sword!

  The word ezer in Hebrew.

  The letters, reading from right to left, are ayin, zayin, and resh.
  Ezer is pronounced “ay-zer”.

  Ezer describes aspects of God’s character: he is our strength, our rescuer, our protector, and our help!

  And ezer was the Holy Spirit’s choice of word to describe the first woman.

  Eve was someone who would provide valuable and vital strength to Adam.[6]

  The word ezer is qualified by the word kenegdo in both Genesis 2:18 and 20. Kenegdo, often translated as “suitable for him”, gives the meaning that Eve was designed to be a corresponding and equal partner for Adam. There is no sense of subordination stated or implied, or even hinted at, in this passage in Genesis 2.[7]

  Ezer kenegdo—”a helper suitable for him”—is used in reference to the first woman without any narrow qualifications, prescribed limits, or carefully crafted cultural restrictions. In other words, it is not specified anywhere in Genesis 2 how the first woman was to express and apply her help towards her husband but, presumably, it was to alleviate the man’s “alone-ness” and partner with him in their joint commission, given in Genesis 1:28.

file:///C:/Users/Acer/Downloads/A%20Suitable%20Helper%20(in%20Hebrew)%20_%20Marg%20Mowczko.html

Now let us look in the scriptures passages on aspects of God’s character: he is our strength, our rescuer, our protector, and our help!

  I lift up my eyes to the hills – where does my help come from?  My help comes from the LORD, the Maker of heaven and earth.  (Psalm 121:1-2)

Eve role as suitable helper looking at the verses attribute to God are: (defender,helper,shield,support,deliverer,warrior, etc.)

  . With his own hands he defends his cause. (Deuteronomy 33:7)
  help against his foes.”  (Deuteronomy 33:7)
  He is your shield and helper and your glorious sword.  (Deuteronomy 33:29a)
  He send help from the sanctuary and grant you support from Zion (.  Psalm 20:2)
  He is our help and shield.  (Psalm 33:20)
  You are my help and my deliverer…  (Psalm 70:5)
  “I have bestowed strength (ezer) on a warrior; (Psalm 89:17)

Now what can we see the from the scripture passages Eve Role was not a domestic role, Eve was to fight the serpent as She will be the subject of attacks of satan in the Garden of Eden not Adam.

After the Fall of Adam & Eve, which we know that Eve was the first cause, Eve was "beguiled" by the serpent.

Now with the scriptural passages defining the role of Eve as combatant warrior before the fall we can now understand why God the Father said the words on Genesis3:15. "I will put enmity". God is the one who declares war 'Woman/Mary vs.serpent/satan.

Douay-Rheims Bible

  "I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel." (Genesis3:15)

The Catholic Church teaches that Mary is the Woman in Genesis3:15, so we can see that Mary's role like the New Eve according to Church Fathers is a combatant one.

As St. Jerome Latin Vulgate translation is "She" because God given role to Eve in the Garden of Eden was to fight the serpent.

Now,If Christ is the New Adam and Mary was the New Eve.

Is Jesus praying for the New Eve as the "another helper/advocate" in John14:16 & John14:26 pointed to Mary?

The Three Great Marian Saints testifies and had written books to support the Role of Mary as Advocate,Helper,Comforter etc.

With the Teaching of this Three Great Marian Saints all point to Mary as the Advocate and the Fifth Dogma.

1. St. Alphonsus Liguori
2. St.Louis De Montfort
3. St.Maximillian Kolbe

With the above references, scripture passages and Church Teaching let us ponder this passages from Hosea.

  "You are destroyed, O Israel, because you are against Me, against your helper."  (Hosea 13:9)

From the Church Fathers teaching that Mary was the New and from Catechism of the Catholic Church teaching Mary as the Woman in Genesis3:15 (ProtoEvangelium), and God attributes of "a suitable helper" as a warrior to fight Satan/serpent in the Garden of Eden.

We can say that Mary as the New Eve will take over the Role Eve left behind as the "suitable helper or ezer".

In closing the the word "HELPER" pointing to Mary can be traced it's origin from the Patristic Father.

Patristic origins

  There are two inscriptions of the first centuries of Christianity in Greek related to the Virgin Mary: : θεοτοκος (Teotokos, Theotokos, Mother of God) and βοηθεια (Boetheia, the Helper). The Fathers of the Church referred to Mary as "βοηθεια". John Chrysostom used the title in a homily of 345, Proclus in 476 and Sebas of Caesarea in 532. After the Patristic period (5th century), other persons used it like Romanos the Melodist in 518, the Patriarch of Jerusalem, Sophronius in 560, John of Damascus in 749 and German of Constantinople in 733.

In the view of Fr. Johann G. Roten, SM, the invocation of Mary as Help of Christians is part of the oldest prayer addressed directly to Mary, the Sub tuum praesidium, which was found on a papyrus dating, at the latest, from the end of the 3rd century. Praesidium is translated as "an assistance given in time of war by fresh troops in a strong manner."1

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Help_of_Christians

  Truly, Mary is the "HELP" of all Christians.

Godbless


What does Matthew 13:11-12 mean? He replied, “Because the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of
  heaven has been given to you, but not to them. Whoever has will be
  given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have,
  even what they have will be taken from them. (Matthew 13:11-12)

What does it mean by that?

The basic idea is that when Jesus spoke in parables, they were great in drawing people with open hearts to him while driving those with hard hearts into deep confusion.  Parables were a common mode of teaching among the Rabbis, but Christ used them in such a way that heaven shined down upon the most mundane every day practices of life. He also used them almost exclusively, which was not normal at all. Especially the more people began to reject him, the more he spoke strictly in parables and his parables took a greater tone of warning. They were deeply illuminating to the heart open to God. They were foolish nonsense, provoking mad frustration to those hard of heart. Therefore, they had a winnowing effect. They divided people. Some were left asking questions, seeking and knocking, others left stumbling and cursing questions.

In general, Christ's parables spoke about the nature of his kingdom.  How one was in it, or not, based on their nature, which would eventually show itself good or bad. Everything was about the nature of a person, not their works, but a good nature would grow up good, and a bad nature grow up bad. To enter into this kingdom of life, one had to believe in Christ, receive his seed, believe his word and be a new creature. In the end, the bad creatures, weeds, fish, would be tossed, burned, weep and gnash their teeth, etc. The good creatures by virtue of their being in the kingdom, would be congratulated, rewarded, etc. The language was vague enough to confuse anyone who was self righteous not knowing they needed faith and re-birth, but anyone who longed for forgiveness and felt the strings of their heart moved and warmed by Him whose words were eternal life, the same  were drawn in.

We can see this play out as when Christ started to say things hard to understand and receive, such as the need 'to eat his flesh', it was too much for many and they left him. The disciples were also confused but their hearts were drawn in and they could not leave him.

  From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.
   “You do not want to leave too, do you?” Jesus asked the Twelve.
   Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. (John 6:66-68, NIV)

The same thing is at play when Jesus spoke to a religious leader who seems a bit on the fence between having what he had taken away, or entering into what he had being multiplied into new eternal rebirth:

  Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You must be born again. ’ The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.”
   “How can this be?” Nicodemus asked. (John 3:6-9, NIV)

Again Jesu spoke to a woman at a well who is on the fence and being drawn in.  Jesus implies that what she has will be multiplied into living waters of new eternal life:

  Jesus answered, “Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again, but whoever drinks the water I give them will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give them will become in them a spring of water welling up to eternal life.” (John 4:13-14, NIV)

In other words that which was a blessing to those open to God became judicial in judgment to those who were not open to God.  Like a magical filter his parables bought his sheep into the gate, and closed it in confusion to those who were not his sheep. His sheep were introduced into the gospel obtaining an eternal new birth. His enemies had no idea of anything he said and thought it was just meaningless babel. Even the form of knowledge they had of God was taken away when rejecting Christ, leaving them to cross their eyes is utter confusion.


After how long is a JW called inactive? Does anyone know for sure after how long of being inactive is a Jehovah's Witness announced officially as being inactive?

Inactive means the person has stopped sharing in our primary vocation, the preaching of the Good news of The Kingdom (Matthew 24:14)
This means they are not talking to non witnesses about their faith. There is no announcement made regarding this.

I can’t find a shareable source  right now but if a baptized witness fails to report any witnessing activity for 6 consecutive months he is considered inactive.

The subject of inactivity is addressed in the about us section of our website.
Here we find that the number of Jehovah’s Witnesses reported in a given year comes from each country’s peak or highest month of persons reporting participation in the preaching activity. So if an individual is not reporting preaching activity during their country’s peak month they are not part of that years total number of active JW’s.

Whether one has stopped preaching for months or years, after being baptized, the only time an announcement is made regarding a person no longer being one of Jehovah’s Witnesses is if they are disfellowshipped for unrepentant serious sin or they disassociate themselves by requesting to no longer be identified as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Being inactive does not mean the person is no longer one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. In fact special effort is made to reach out to those who have drifted away like this brochure entitled Return to Jehovah


According to the Book of Mormon, D&C, Pearl of great price and/or prophets, what prohibits lust? What does the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price, or prophets say about the prohibition of lust as a sin?

The LDS believe in chastity or in being sexually pure. The Law of Chasity describes the commandment to not commit adultery, or to lust.

Scriptures from Doctrine and Covenants:

D&C 42:22-23 - lust causes you to lose the Spirit and deny the faith
D&C 59:6 - don't commit adultery or anything like unto it
D&C 63:16 - lust, or adultery in the heart, loses the Spirit

Scriptures from the Book of Mormon

3 Nephi 12:28 - lust is adultery in the heart
Alma 39:9 - don't go after lust of eyes

Scriptures from Pearl of Great Price

Article of Faith 13 we believe in being chaste

Prophetic teachings

We Believe in Being Chaste by Elder David A Bednar
Personal Purity by Elder Jeffrey R Holland


How was John the Baptist, as a child, protected from Herod's soldiers? At Matthew 2:16 (RSVCE) we read:

  Then Herod, when he saw that he had been tricked by the wise men, was in a furious rage, and he sent and killed all the male children in Bethlehem and in all that region who were two years old or under, according to the time which he had ascertained from the wise men.

Now, the village of Ein Karem  (also Ain Karem) where John the Baptist is believed to have been born, is in the neighborhood of southwest Jerusalem. Naturally, his place would have also been targeted by Herod's soldiers. Are there any authentic writings, say in the collections of Catholic Church, on how the child John was protected from the soldiers?

There is a document called the protoevangelium (prequel to the gospel) of St James, the earliest copy of which is said to be third century.

This describes it in more detail.

Chapter 22 verse 3 says

  But Elizabeth when she heard that they sought for John, took him and went up into the hill-country and looked about her where she should hide him: and there was no hiding-place. And Elizabeth groaned and said with a loud voice: 0 mountain of God, receive thou a mother with a child. For Elizabeth was not able to go up. And immediately the mountain clave asunder and took her in. And there was a light shining alway for them: for an angel of the Lord was with them, keeping watch over them.

It goes on to say Zacharias, John's father, was subsequently killed for refusing to reveal John's whereabouts.

This is not regarded as canonical.

Ein Karem is about five miles from Bethlehem though, so would not necessarily have been included in the death zone.


Does Christ explicitly say that this was his first time on Earth? Is it possible that other historical figures like Buddha and Krishna could be prior incarnations of Jesus? Note I'm specifically asking if Christ said it was exclusive, not other Biblical texts.

No, Christ never said it was His first time on earth.  As a matter of fact, many denominations believe that he appeared several times in Old Testament Scripture, often referred to as the Angel of the Lord.

As far as whether Buddha or Krishna could be prior incarnations, it would go against everything Jesus taught. The teachings of these other religions are very different from Christianity.  Christianity is quite unique in several ways, and certainly isn't compatible with Buddhism (which emphasizes man's journey to enlightenment) or Hinduism (a pantheistic religion).  The idea that these figures could be "other appearances of Christ" would need to completely ignore huge differences in philosophy, and teachings on the nature of man, and man's relationship to the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (a completely different God than the gods of non Abrahamic religions).


In a Catholic viewpoint, is it possible for Rome to fall? I was wondering if the Roman Catholic Church is subject to complete institutional corruption, or total destruction, according to Catholic thought.

Now this would not necessarily be the fall of the Catholic faith, but instead that of its earthly headquarters and global authority.
I want to know because it may play a role in personal view of the end times, and the view of Catholics as well of course.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

  754 "The Church is, accordingly, a sheepfold, the sole and necessary gateway to which is Christ. It is also the flock of which God himself foretold that he would be the shepherd, and whose sheep, even though governed by human shepherds, are unfailingly nourished and led by Christ himself, the Good Shepherd and Prince of Shepherds, who gave his life for his sheep.Lumen Gentium 6; Cf. Jn 10:1-10; Isa 40:11; Ezek 34:11-31; Jn 10:11; 1 Pet 5:4; Jn 10:11-16.

The Church is a community established by the Lord Himself, and He unfailingly nourishes and Leads her; if she were subject to "complete institutional corruption," as you put it, then it would mean that the Christ failed to nourish and lead her.

  765 The Lord Jesus endowed his community with a structure that will remain until the Kingdom is fully achieved. Before all else there is the choice of the Twelve with Peter as their head.Cf. Mk 3:14-15 Representing the twelve tribes of Israel, they are the foundation stones of the new Jerusalem.Cf. Mt 19:28; Lk 22:30; Rev 21:12-14 The Twelve and the other disciples share in Christ's mission and his power, but also in his lot. Cf. Mk 6:7; Lk 10:1-2; Mt 10:25; Jn 15:20 By all his actions, Christ prepares and builds his Church.

The structure of the Church was endowed by Christ and will remain until the completion of the Kingdom, and therefore isn't subject to complete corruption unless the Kingdom has already been fully achieved.

  768 So that she can fulfill her mission, the Holy Spirit "bestows upon [the Church] varied hierarchic and charismatic gifts, and in this way directs her."LG 4 "Henceforward the Church, endowed with the gifts of her founder and faithfully observing his precepts of charity, humility and self-denial, receives the mission of proclaiming and establishing among all peoples the Kingdom of Christ and of God, and she is on earth the seed and the beginning of that kingdom."LG 5

The Holy Spirit is responsible for directly guarding and protecting the Church by dispensing His gifts, both hierarchical and sacramental. It is the Holy Spirit who guarantees both Conciliar and Papal Infallibility, by preventing them from teaching in their Canons or ex Cathedra, respectively, anything which will corrupt the Church.

In any case, there is also the Biblical promise in Mt 16:18:

  18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Here Christ clearly says that the Church shall subsist until the end of time, so we are justified in believing that she will not fail.

Now, regarding the city of Rome itself, or the temporal power of the Papacy, that might (and has, at times) fallen, but the point of the Vatican existing is so that the Church isn't seen as an Italian institution, and the Pope isn't seen as a subject of the Italian State. For contrast, recall that the Ottomans would not allow a foreigner to occupy the Patriarchate of Constantinople after they conquered that great city.

In any case, the fall of the Vatican City State does not imply the fall of the Pope's global authority, though it might affect his standing among the diplomatic corps of the world. Even if he were chased out of the Eternal City and had to take up residence in Pisa, Avignon, Dharamsala or New Jersey, he would remain the Supreme Pontiff, Vicar of Christ, and the Rock upon which the Church is built.


What evidence do we have that Blind Bartimaeus approached Jesus naked? In Mark 10:46-52, we have the story of Blind Bartimaeus Receives His Sight

  So they called to the blind man, “Cheer up! On your feet! He’s calling you.” 50 Throwing his cloak aside, he jumped to his feet and came to Jesus.

I've seen some treatments of the story that claim Bartimaeus would have been so poor as to possess nothing but a mat and a cloak, so would have come to Jesus naked. Thus, extra theological meanings are drawn about coming without any works or individual merits, the scandal of free grace etc.

A google image search turns up many inspiring depictions of the event from historical paintings or woodcuts, but none hint at nakedness. But many hardly depict a desperately poor person who's thrown off anything.

What evidence do we have for this? What prominent theologians have made this claim?

I do not know who else has said this, but one prominent commentator who is of this opinion is the
Venerable Bede (672-735), in his commentary on Mark.1
He does not offer historical reasons for why the blind man might have been naked, but presents
his nudity in the context of the doctrine of being "born again" in Christ. As you say, this
involves casting off the old ways, like taking off ones old clothes (compare Mark 2:21).
In imitation of Christ, for which Bede cites John 12:26, we must re-enter the world (metaphorically)
naked and vulnerable, knowing that we may face terrible hardships; and we choose to humble ourselves
rather than submit to false worldly comforts.

My fairly free translation of the key passage:

  Since there are many, who so they may merit the treasure of eternity in heaven, cast off worldly ways
  and follow naked the gospel of life, it is rightly said of the illumination of the blind man:
  Who throwing his garment aside, leaped up and came to him.
  He indeed throws aside his garment and leaps, coming to be illuminated by Christ, who,
  with the snares of the world discarded, hurries with bold and eager steps to the granter of eternal
  light. [...] See, how the Lord and creator of the angels, in his taking up and joining with our
  nature, came in the womb of a virgin. But he did not wish to be born in this world from the wealthy,
  but chose poor parents.2

Latin nudus may not mean precisely "naked", but at least refers to a condition of vulnerability or destitution. Even if Bartimaeus was not strictly naked, he was at least making a "leap of faith" in throwing his cloak aside: discarding what little comfort he had in order to follow Jesus.

1. In Marci Evangelium Expositio, book 3, chapter 10. In Migne's Patrologia Latina,
vol. 92, p238-239.
2. Quia [...] ut plurimi, relictis mundi facultatibus, nudi evangelicam vitam sequerentur,
quo aeternum in coelis mererentur habere thesaurum, recte de illuminando caeco subditur:
Qui projecto vestimento suo exsiliens venit ad eum. Projecto quippe vestimento exsilit,
ut adveniens illuminetur a Christo, qui abiectis mundi retinaculis, expedito mentis
gressu ad largitorem aeternae lucis properat. [...]
Ecce cum sit Dominus et creator angelorum, suscepturus naturam nostram quam condidit,
in uterum virginis venit. Nasci tamen in hoc mundo per divites noluit, parentes pauperes
elegit.


Byzantine Chant vs. Gregorian Chant: What are the differences in goals as far as attitude and concepts between these two chanting styles I'm NOT interested here in the difference in musical structure and rules here, per-say, between the Byzantine and Gregorian chanting styles.

What I'm more interested in is the difference between them in the goals of expression in each chanting tradition?

For example, what is Gregorian mode 1 trying to convey compared to Byzantine mode 1?

Or also, more generally, what is Gregorian Chant as a whole trying to accomplish compared to what Byzantine Chant?

When I say Byzantine Chant, I mean the Greek Byzantine Chanting tradition used by the Greek Orthodox Church on Mt. Athos and throughout the Churches in communion with Constantinople.

When I say Gregorian Chant, I mean the Gregorian Chanting tradition used by the Roman Catholic Church that is most often associated with Gregorian monastics.

This is purely subjective, and others may feel differently. I'm not claiming
this to be an absolute truth, but here it goes:

I believe that Catholic theology is centered around exaltation and Orthodox theology is centered around humbleness.

I see this in the different architectural approaches. Catholic churches with their tall, narrow and pointy windows instill a sense of exaltation, of going upwards towards the Heavens while the huge central Pantokrator icon of Christ on the ceiling of every Orthodox church is extremely humbling.

The iconographies speak the same thing to me as well. The Catholic canonical depiction of the Resurrection depicts Christ triumphantly rising from the grave, sometimes alone sometimes with two angels bowing down to Him, again, very exalting. The Orthodox canonical depiction of the Resurrection shows Christ rising triumphantly from a defeated Hell (gates and keys broken), dragging Adam and Eve out of their graves, again, humbling, as we, the sinners, identify with Adam and Eve.

And finally, I perceive Gregorian chanting to be exalting and Byzantine chanting to be humbling.

However, I may be wrong, the perception of music is a huge academic field, but I've pointed out the unrelated examples of architecture and iconography to validate my (again, subjective) consistency.


Is BDSM dealt with in Scripture? The Bible seems to be very specific about when sex is or isn't a sin. From my understanding, The Bible's stance on sexual activity could be summed up as "Any sexual activity unless it is consensual and in the context of a heterosexual marriage is a sin." This includes pre-marital sex, homosexual activity, adultery, pornography, lust, etc.

But does the Bible say anything specific about BDSM? How do the various denominations and Christian doctrines interpret the issue?

It depends
The two big things to keep in mind are these:

God judges our hearts
There is no set definition of BDSM

Romans 14:23 ESV But whoever has doubts is condemned if he eats, because the eating is not from faith. For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin.
1 Corinthians 10:23 ESV “All things are lawful,” but not all things are helpful. “All things are lawful,” but not all things build up.

The Lord judges the hearts of people. Someone can have crazy, tantric sex with their wife and glorify the Lord and another can share the gospel with a heart that's entirely devoid of the Spirit. The question isn't "Isn't BDSM a sin?" the question is "What does BDSM do to my heart?"
Having said that, there's not a set definition on what BDSM is. It typically involves bondage and role-playing, but those are also subjective things. The dark aspects of tyranny, slavery, hatred, anger, etc... are thing Christians should avoid under any circumstance. But can a married couple perform BDSM while avoiding these things? If your definition of BDSM is just doing it with a whip, then sure.
So it's a matter of the heart. If you doubt in your heart whether you should be engaged in such an act then you probably shouldn't (Romans 14:23). At the same time, you can't look into another person's heart and objectively say it's sinful.
Here's an excellent article on this


Why is Cain afraid when he is driven away from God? When God punishes Cain, he replies:

  Gen 4:14 Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from your presence; I will be a restless wanderer on the earth,
  and whoever finds me will kill me. (NIV)

All are his brothers and sisters? And he is the elder brother of all of them? So who is Cain fearing?

Cain was likely afraid of one of his brothers or sisters taking revenge by killing him.  Yes, he was the older brother, but he was also guilty of murder.  If Cain was willing to kill one of his brothers (Abel), then it is reasonable to think that someone else was willing to do the same.  And, as you mentioned, there was no one else around to fear, so Cain did fear that his siblings would take revenge for Abel's sake and take his life.