According to Protestants, what "new" things has the Eastern Orthodox Church acquired over time? What things in general have been brought with time into the Eastern Orthodox Church that the mainstream protestant Christianity considers as not being able to be traced back to the times of the church of the first century?

To clarify, my question is about what kind of things the mainstream Protestantism sees as new in the today's Eastern Orthodox Church. We know, for example, that the "Sola Scriptura" principle that was put forth by the Protestants has been deemed as something new by both the Roman Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox Churches (meaning that originally there was no such thing as "Sola Scriptura" in the early Church of the time of the 12 apostles). So, my question is about some such "new" things (as Protestant would deem them) in the Eastern Orthodox Church today.

In Eastern Orthodox Christianity certain paintings of Jesus or one of the saints are called Icons. Depending on the church these are venerated to a lesser or greater degree, and such veneration is rejected by Protestants. In and of themselves the paintings are not sinful, but if they are venerated that is considered sinful, just as veneration of relics in the Roman Catholic Church is considered sinful by protestants. Additionally there are associated beliefs which would be rejected by Protestants, like that some of the icons weren't painted by humans but instead appeared miraculously.

It's not certain when icons were first used by Christians, but Irenaeus (c. 130-202) argues against Gnostic use of them. In the Spanish Synod of Elvira (c. 305) the bishops concluded that "Pictures are not to be placed in churches, so that they do not become objects of worship and adoration."

Icons were used before the Great Schism and so could be argued not to be strictly an Orthodox innovation, but today they are very characteristic of the Orthodox church as the other branches of Christianity don't use them.

(Sourced largely from the Wikipedia page on Icons)


Online resources for the Churches of Christ (USA) What are the main online resources for the Churches of Christ (USA)?

I've found this:
http://cconline.faithsite.com/content.asp?CID=39707

I was hoping to obtain a brief introduction and a few resources to get the idea behind this congregation, and perhaps a reliable way to find local congregations which adhere to it's teachings.

Churches of Christ are All Autonomous

A fundamental axiom of any group that refers to itself as a church of Christ in the tradition of Cambpellite Restorationism is that it's an autonomous unit subject only to Christ himself and no human institution. As such, you will not find anything resembling official resources because there's no official hierarchy whatsoever.

There are some efforts to gather data about these individual congregations, but it's difficult to keep the data current.

Here are a few examples:

http://www.churchzip.com
http://church-of-christ.org/churches/United_States/United_States.htm
http://www.churches-of-christ.net/

There are a few colleges and universities that are affiliated with the churches of Christ, and a great deal of leadership comes out of those institutions, although they produce no formal statements of doctrine as to "what the churches of Christ believe." They also oftentimes are the communications hubs among the disparate congregations in the United States. These higher educational institutions may be able to answer questions about what congregations generally believe. Harding University, Oklahoma Christian University, Abilene Christian University, Lubbock Christian University Pepperdine University, Lipscomb University, York College, and Freed-Hardman University are a few.

Another source of information is The Christian Chronicle, a newspaper published out of Oklahoma Christian University.

It's very common for congregations of any size (100+, let's say) will have a website with statements of belief, though they may not provide a thorough delineation of what's accepted by the local leadership.

What They Believe

As for finding congregations that "adhere to its teachings," you're not likely to find any who will admit something like that, because there's no central teaching or doctrine to which to adhere. They're likely to describe what they believe as "what's written in the Bible" without any man-made creeds or confessions added. They believe that just as eternal judgement is personal, so Biblical interpretation is the responsibility of the individual. Because of this deliberate decentralization, there's a fair amount of variation among congregations as to what they believe, although they almost all worship without instruments, have (or prefer) a plurality of elders, and accept sola scriptura as axiomatic. They will usually say that "baptism is essential for salvation" and equate water baptism with becoming a Christian. There are probably some other commonalities among most congregations, but in order to know what a particular group believes or practices, you'd have to go and talk to them, and even then, you won't find uniformity on most issues outside of those common to most evangelical Christian groups.


Why was no one able to recognize Jesus as Messiah using prophesy, yet we believe end times prophesy will be easier to clarify? Unless I am missing something, it seems that absolutely no one (with the exception, in part, of the wise-men) was able to identify Jesus as the Messiah at His first coming, using the prophesy they were given to identify Him.

All the accounts I read, including Jesus' recognition by Simeon and Anna down through the Apostles indicate that these people were only able to recognize Jesus as the Messiah either after a personal introduction by Jesus, or by revelation of the Holy Spirit to them.

I know that all the prophesies concerning the Messiah were fulfilled by Jesus perfectly and those prophesies were used and still are used to validate His identity, but my question/concern is this--

If the best Bible/Torah scholars of all time were not able to correctly interpret the OT prophesies well enough to recognize that the Messiah had come and was in their midst, and the Bible is inspired by God, who is the same yesterday, today and forever, why do we think our best interpretation of the end time prophesies will be as cut-and-dry as we have made them out to be?

To be honest, one can hardly blame the people of Jesus' time for being confused. According to what they saw as clear cut prophesy they were expecting someone called "Immanuel" (not Yeshua), They were expecting the Messiah to come as a King and establish a government that would deliver them from their enemies, and they were expecting Elijah to return before the Messiah appeared. I can see how anyone would be confused considering John The Baptist, Himself denied openly that he was Elijah.

It is important to note the nature of the prophecies themselves. The Old Testament gives very conflicting prophecies about the Messiah. To briefly look over them, here's an outline of a few of them:

He was to be a rejected Messiah
He was to be a betrayed Messiah
He was to be a ruler of all nations
He was to come in power 'on clouds'
He was to come in weakness 'on a donkey'
He was to be a teacher of the Gentiles
He was to be a Sacrifice for the sins of Israel.

If you notice, many of these prophecies seem to contradict each other. So to reconcile these apparent contradictions Christians, who believe Christ to be the Messiah for His fulfillment of so many of these prophecies and most importantly His death and resurrection, hold that these prophecies speak of one Messiah who exists and reveals Himself in two capacities, or at two different points in time, under distinct conditions.

In order to answer your question regarding why most people did not realize Christ to be the Messiah until such was revealed to them, it is important to recognize what prophecies were being fulfilled by Christ in His first appearance, or in other words what type of Christ was to be seen in the first coming; the humble and betrayed or the glorified and praised. The answer to this question is clear; Christ fulfilled the prophecies of the 'suffering servant' who faced rejection, betrayal, death and resurrection. As such, Christ's main purpose in His first coming to this world was not to bring about the final elucidation, peace and clarity (which can be assumed to occur in the second coming, along with other prophecies that have yet to occur) but rather to establish His Church through His suffering and crucified body of ministry and power, so that we might grow in the Spirit and in the way we love what the Savior has done through the mystery of the Sacraments. It is through the events that occur now that the world is being prepared for the final coming of the Savior, who shall come in full recognition to all people 'on clouds' to raise the living and the dead to their respective judgement.

With this understanding in place, one can still question why so many free willed people that Christ crossed paths with did not know Him to be the Messiah, if He indeed was the Messiah, and to answer such a question requires a brief explanation of grace. The only way in which truth of any kind is revealed to any soul is through the will of God. If God wills that we not know a certain truth, it is fully within His capacity to hide such knowledge from people. This, however, does not eradicate nor interfere with free will, for what comes to pass is still essentially through the reality of our free interaction. So it is that prophecies are secured to pass in the way that they do. Christ's purpose for coming was not to be glorified, but rather to be ridiculed, and as such, He was left with the task of avoiding glorification and renown recognition. Thus, Christ encouraged others not to speak of Him as the Son of God:

Matthew 8:4

  And Jesus said to him, "See that you tell no one; but go, show yourself to the priest and present the offering that Moses commanded, as a testimony to them."

Mark 1:34

  Jesus healed many who had various diseases. He also drove out many demons, but he would not let the demons speak because they knew who he was.

Matthew 16: 20

  Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ.

We as a human race did not collectively recognize Christ because it was not in God's will for us to glorify Him. His purpose in the first coming was not to be glorified by all, but to die humbly in submission to the Father for our sins.


Why Catholic Saints are said to be in heaven but not yet given their resurrected bodies? In my understanding, the Saints are part of the Church Triumphant and in the Catholic Church's understanding of the Communion of Saints they help the Faithful on earth (Church Militant) to intercede for us  (Catechism 954-959).
When reading Fr. Armoth's book An Exorcist Explains the Demonic I came across this quote from Chapter 1 "The Victory of Christ over Sin and Death" under "The Consequences of Christ's Victory" (emphasis mine):

...
Here lies the victory over the second condemnation: man is made of soul and body and cannot live with the soul detached form the body.  Body and soul are destined to reunite at the end of time, that is, at the moment of the Last Judgment.  St. Thomas Aquinas -- in my view, the greatest Christian theologian -- affirms that, if in faith we believe in this unity between the soul and the body, even from a rational point of view (using only the power of reason), it is impossible to conceive them separated.  If we think of the saints -- who already enjoy paradise but whose bodies are still not united to their souls, since that will happen only at the end of time -- we can be certain that they already live the beatified state without the body and that they will reach their highest level of blessedness when body and soul are rejoined.  And through the mercy of God, the same can be said of us when we reach paradise.  Only when time is completed, when the soul and the body are rejoined, will there be a true fullness of life.  To say it in simple terms: for the moment, the saints have so much happiness that they can be content with only their souls.  The same can be said inversely for the damned.
...

Does it mean when the Catholic faithful pray to the Saints for their intercession, they are conscious but have not received their resurrected bodies?  If so, why do the Church said (Catechism paragraph 956-957) that the Saints are in heaven?

Souls separated from their bodies understand not from their bodily senses but spiritually.

See:

ch. 12 "Knowledge in the Separated Soul" of Life Everlasting by Fr. Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P., which quotes:

Of the Knowledge of the Separated Soul, Summa Theologica I q. 89 by St. Thomas Aquinas:

  Do these souls know what is happening on earth? St. Thomas replies:In the natural order they do not know, because they are separated from the society of those who are still on the road to eternity. Nevertheless, if we restrict the question to the souls of the blessed, it is more probable to say that they, like the angels, do know what happens on earth, particularly what happens to those who are dear to them. This is a part of their accidental beatitude.*[ibid. a. 8 "Whether separated souls know that takes place on earth?"] Those in purgatory too can have love of us, even though they do not know our actual state, just as we pray for them, although we do not know their actual state, their nearness, for example, to deliverance.

*See Life Everlasting ch. 31 "Accidental Beatitude"


Which Jesus' movie is shown in this image? In many music videos in my language, there is a specific movie that clips are taken out of. I have looked in many places but I cannot pinpoint the specific movie. Here are a couple of images from the movie.

This is from the famous Mel Gibson movie, "The Passion of the Christ". The scenes of Jesus' torture and crucifixion are available in the Youtube clip, The Passion of Christ By His Blood . The full movie can be viewed (for a fee) from a link in the description of the clip, or you can read more about the movie at wikipedia: The Passion of the Christ.


A Christian view of Mohammad I would like to present a summary of the Muslim point of view about Christ and in return I ask for the same: Who was Muhammad according to Christians? It's not about who is right or wrong. I just want to know the general point of view.

According to Muslims:

  Jesus was born to Mary as a result of virginal conception.  To the reaction of people who thought that she had committed a sin, Jesus told them he was a messenger of God and his mother was chaste. He was given scriptures, the 'Injil', and also the powers to heal the blind, deaf, and dumb. He did not die from crucifixion, rather he was raised up to heaven.

What do Christians think about Mohammad and of how the Qur'an come into being?

To our Muslim friends, please do not be offended:

Christianity has no official view on Mohammed or the Quran, nor could it because Mohammed and the Quran came about hundreds of years after Christianity.

Christians do have opinions though. To most Christians, Mohammad is no different than any other non-christian who started a religion. They are false prophets and their revelation was a lie from Satan, a delusion, or non-existent.

There are reasons for this. The primary one is the Muslim view on Christ, right in your question. Plenty of Christian Theologians have evaluated Mohammad as a prophet. As far as I know, he has always been found wanting. Mohammad claimed in his writings, the Quran, that Jesus didn't even die. The death and resurrection of Christ is the central point to 99.999% of the various forms of Christianity. This Muslim claim alone is enough for most Christians to reject Mohammad as a prophet. After hearing that, there is very little chance for a committed and educated Christian to take anything from the Quran seriously.

Additionally, most Christians hold the Bible in as high regard as most Muslims hold the Quran. It is the word of God and is without error. The Quran and the Bible stand in contrast on quite a few points other than Christ. They cannot both be from the same God, and since the Bible was first and is already believed to be from God, the Quran, therefore, cannot be from God. That leaves Mohammad as a false prophet.

Similarly, Jews view Christians and Jesus this way. Some teach that Jesus had some good things to say, but he was not even close to what Christians say he was and he certainly was not the Messiah. The revelations of his disciples who started his religion after his death were either lies from Satan, delusions, or non-existent.

There may be a few groups that call themselves Christian that have a favorable view of Mohammad, but I do not know of any. If they exist, they are small in number and it is likely that your average Christian would not consider them Christians.


Does the Catholic Church consider abortion to be murder? As a Catholic, I know that I am accountable to a higher law than human/positive law.  The natural moral law is the guiding force behind the formation of my conscience and if human laws are not in accord with the current law, I am obligated to deny/change/protest/ignore them.

As such, is it right, for me, to consider the moral crime of abortion to be equal in all instances to the moral crime of murder? Is abortion exactly the same as murder, under the natural moral law and in the eyes of the Catholic Church?

Yes, in the eyes of the Catholic Church, under the guidance of the Pontifical Council for the Family abortion has been likened to murder.

The moral gravity of procured abortion is apparent in all its truth if we recognize that we are dealing with murder and, in particular, when we consider the specific elements involved. The one eliminated is a human being at the very beginning of life. No one more absolutely innocent could be imagined. In no way could this human being ever be considered an aggressor, much less an unjust aggressor!
Pontifical Council for the Family - Children, Springtime of the Family and Society, October 14-15, 2000

And the notion goes even deeper and predates Christian ethics, as tied to the Hippocratic Oath.

the evident synthesis of Hippocratic ethics and Christian morality cannot be contested -both Hippocratic ethics and Christian morality regard all forms of direct abortion or direct (whether active or passive) euthanasia as illegitimate because one is dealing with an act which destroys a prenatal life and with an act of murder which nobody can justify.
The Charter for Health Care Workers: A Synthesis of Hippocratic Ethics and Christian Morality

So, I think in the eyes of the Church, abortion is a form of murder. In fact it is the worst possible kind of murder because it destroys the life of a completely innocent human being.


Distributism and Subsidiarity beyond the counsel of Jethro in the Bible In chapter 18 of Exodus, Moses' father-in-law Jethro instructs him on how to set up a fairly ordered society where Moses doesn't have to burn himself out by answering everyone's questions all the time.

I've heard that this is the basis for a form of government and economics known as subsidiarity and distributism respectively.  Is this the only place in the Bible where these ideas come up, or do other books build on or recapitulate Jethro's scheme.

Jethro very plainly is advocating subsidiarity for Moses.  I don't see any reference to distributism in that chapter though.  Jethro is addressing organization/governance, not economics/ownership.  (However, both terms are relatively new to me so I could be misunderstanding.)

There are several New Testament passages that assume subsidiarity without explicitly promoting it as Jethro does.

In Acts 6:1-6 the apostles realized that they were becoming overwhelmed with their responsibilities and directed the church to select the first deacons to take over some of the hands-on ministry responsibilities so that the apostles could devote themselves to prayer and to the  ministry of the word (v4).

In Acts 13:1-3 the church at Antioch is functioning without direct oversight by the apostles in Jerusalem.  Under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and without consulting the apostles, they send Barnabas and Saul on the first missionary journey.  Later on, in Acts 15 there is a theological dispute that leads the church at Antioch to send Barnabas and Paul to consult directly with the apostles in Jerusalem for a decision.

One of the main purposes of the letter that Paul wrote to Titus was to instruct him in appointing elders/overseers in the churches that had already been established in Crete so that the churches could better function without the need for oversight from Paul or the apostles.


What evidence is there that Jewish weddings staged a mock kidnapping of the bride? Proponents of a rapture sometimes say that Jewish weddings staged a mock kidnapping of the bride, which is a symbol for the future rapture of the church. For example another answer quotes Nancy Missler who writes

The second part of the Jewish marriage was called the nissuin or the marriage ceremony itself. The groom often surprised his bride by his unexpected or early return.
All Jewish brides were said to be “stolen, caught up, or snatched up by surprise.” The bride was then led to the groom’s house by a wedding procession of women carrying lighted lamps, similar to the Parable of the Ten Virgins

This aspect of rapture theology would make a lot of sense if it were true. There would be a strong multi-stage parallel between the Jewish wedding custom and the history of the Church:

an initial betrothal
the departure of the groom for a time to build a house (John 14:2-3), while the bride prepares herself (Rev 19:7)
the surprise return of the groom who snatches away the bride for a short time
the public wedding ceremony and banquet with the families and community (many passages use a wedding banquet as a symbol for the afterlife)

The surprise return of the groom is easy to see in, for example, the parable of the ten virgins/bridesmaids (Matt 25:1-13), but I'm sceptical of the staging of a mock kidnapping of the bride. I haven't seen rapture proponents give any reliable references to ancient Jewish sources describing such a custom.
So is there evidence of such a custom? Or should I conclude that it was made up by rapture proponents?

Given that Judaism does not believe Jesus was the Messiah or that there is going to be a rapture of the Christian Church, then I think it is safe to say that any comparison between what happens at a Jewish wedding and the Christian view of the rapture has been made by Christians.

However, from the information you provided at section (2) in this link http://www.khouse.org/articles/2011/987  I get a distinct impression that the phrase “All Jewish brides were said to be “stolen, caught up, or snatched up by surprise” is not intended to be taken literally, but is simply a figure of speech.  It illustrates how the bride, who has been waiting for her future husband to return (and who might turn up early and unexpectedly) to her father’s house in order to complete the legalities, would then whisk her away after the contract had been signed to commence her new life as his wife.  I doubt Jewish weddings staged a mock kidnapping of the bride.

However, the comparison between the structure of a Jewish wedding and the “Bride of Christ” and the rapture of His Church, is pleasing to those of us who believe in a future rapture.


Identify this story about the end times from the Desert Fathers I heard a story similar to the following at some point, but for the life of me I can't find an authoritative source. I believe that it's one of the Desert Fathers, but I'm not certain of that, either. Here it is, paraphrased from memory:

  A novice asked to the father whether the fathers of ancient days were greater than the ones of today. And the father said, "Those who came before us did greater works than us, and those who follow us will be weaker still. And in the last days men will not be able to do any kind of spiritual labor at all, but those who endure to the end will be saved."

Any help?

The story appears in the alphabetical collection of The Sayings of the Desert Fathers, translated by Benedicta Ward.  It relates to a saying of the 3rd century Egyptian monk (and martyr), Ischyrion.

  The Holy Fathers were making predictions about the last generation.  They said, "What have we ourselves done?"  One of them, the great Abba Ischyrion replied, "We ourselves have fulfilled the commandments of God."  The others replied, "And those who come after us, what will they do?"  He said, "They will struggle to achieve half our works."  They said, "And those who come after them, what will happen?"  He said, "The men of that generation will not accomplish any works at all and temptation will come upon them; and those who will be approved in that day will be greater than either us or our fathers."


What's the justification for believing that God interacts with us today the same way He did thousands of years ago? Most Christians I have come across believe that because

  8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever. Hebrews 13:8

God must interact with people today the same way He did back then. One way this belief is expressed is that God speaks to us only or primarily though the Bible, for example. There seems to be this implicit assumption that humans today are basically the same as humans back then, so what God said to them applies just as well to us. I think is clearly not the case; the way we act and think today is vastly different, as are most of the issues we face.

The way a father interacts with his child changes as his child matures. What I would like to know is how prominent Christian theologians make the case against this possibility. I want to know how great theologians (on the order of, say, Augustine, John Bunyam, C.S. Lewis, John Wesley, and the like) justify this belief that the way God behaves towards humans today is much the same way He behaved towards them thousands of years ago. Widely-accepted sources of theology such as the Westminster Catechism are also acceptable. It seems to me that this sort of belief is fairly consistent across denominations and branches, so I don't think I need to scope it any tighter.

Note: such a justification should not depend on God's character/characteristics being unchanging. A father's character need not change (though it probably will) for his interactions with his children to change as they get older.

Okay, I'm gonna try to clarify my question. The Bible makes it quite clear that God does not change. His nature, essence, and Being do not change in the slightest. However, that doesn't preclude God from changing the way He acts towards us. Many societies today are vastly different from the societies of the ancients. Take the rise of democracy, for instance, or the rise of various economic systems like capitalism and communism. Take the advent of Science and how electronic/computer technology has become so pervasive and significant. The controversies surrounding abortion and contraception absolutely could not have happened two thousand years ago.

So then, is there a good justification for believing that God behaves towards us today the same way He did towards the ancients? I don't want a Biblically-based answer as there are too many varying interpretations of what it says, so I want an answer that derives from a prominent theologian's work. If one of those great theologians actually directly answers that question, that would be ideal.

What's the justification for believing that God interacts with us today
the same way He did thousands of years ago?

In a word: Experience.

Consider the value the following men place on experience:

  “This grace of God is a very great, strong, mighty and active thing. It does not lie asleep in the soul. Grace hears, leads, drives, draws, changes, works all in man, and lets itself be distinctly felt and experienced. It is hidden, but its works are evident.”
  ― Martin Luther

  “The gospel is not a doctrine of the tongue, but of life. It cannot be grasped by reason and memory only, but it is fully understood when it possesses the whole soul and penetrates to the inner recesses of the heart.”
  ― John Calvin, Golden Booklet of the True Christian Life

  “And Festus said with a loud voice, Paul, thou art beside thyself.”
  Acts 26:24.
  And so say all the world, the men who know not God, of all that are of Paul’s religion: of every one who is so a follower of him as he was of Christ. It is true, there is a sort of religion, nay, and it is called Christianity too, which may be practised without any such Imputation, which is generally allowed to be consistent with common sense, —that is, a religion of form, a round of outward duties, performed in a decent, regular manner. You may add orthodoxy thereto, a system of right opinions, yea, and some quantity of heathen morality; and yet not many will pronounce, that “much religion hath made you mad.” But if you aim at the religion of the heart, if you talk of “righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost,” then it will not be long before your sentence is passed, “Thou art beside thyself.” ― John Wesley, Sermon 37 "The Nature of Enthusiasm"

In different ways, they are arguing against a 'dead' orthodoxy that merely consists of intellectually assenting to propositions to be 'believed'; but rather for an experiential faith that makes a profound difference to the life of a believer. As these men all believed in sola scriptura, what constitutes 'valid' experience is of course determined by scripture (i.e. 'how God dealt with the ancients') - this necessarily includes 'how God relates to us today'.

The preceding is the substance of my answer, but for the sake of further clarity: From the sermon quoted earlier, Wesley goes on to say, in warning on the dangers of 'enthusiasts' receiving revelation by...

  ...what is justly called an extraordinary manner: I mean, by visions or dreams, by strong impressions or sudden impulses on the mind. I do not deny, that God has, of old times, manifested His will in this manner; or, that He can do so now: nay, I believe He does, in some very rare instances. But how frequently do men mistake herein! (Ibid., emphasis added)

Wesley at least, affirms that at least some of the 'supernatural' ways God has related to men in the past do still happen, but are not necessarily the norm, rather:

  Perhaps some may ask, “Ought we not then to inquire what is the will of God in all things? And ought not His will to be the rule of our practice?” Unquestionably it ought. But how is a sober Christian to make this inquiry? to know what is the will of God? Not by waiting for supernatural dreams; not by expecting God to reveal it in visions; not by looking for any particular impressions or sudden impulses on his mind: no; but by consulting the oracles of God. “To the law and to the testimony!” This is the general method of knowing what is “the holy and acceptable will of God.” (Ibid.)

So this is the norm (as per the model of the Bereans - cf. Acts 17:11), however just because 'visions...dreams...strong impressions or sudden impulses on the mind' from God are 'very rare', they are not non-existant.

It is actually a reasonably common mistake, upon cursorily reading the Bible, to assume that the way God normally interacts with man is overtly miraculous. Such a view (a seemingly implied premise of your question) focuses on the 'spectacular portions' of scripture ignoring the fact that over the historical period covered by scripture, the miracles, visions and dreams etc. presented are actually few and far between (the periods of the Exodus and the ministry years of Jesus being the exceptions that actually prove the rule).  Scripture is not just a 'highlights package' of God's 'greatest hits', but it does actually record (significantly extensive) periods where nothing much is happening on the miracle front - the people of God are chronicled as proceeding through life in a fashion that is either characteristically obedient or disobedient to earlier revelation, but not necessarily 'encountering' God until (or sometimes, not even when) some crisis eventuates. Prophets receiving their prophetic revelation may be viewed as a significant exception to this, but for the vast majority of people contemporaneous with the prophets, they could easily have viewed the prophets and what they said as just a guy mouthing words unless there was some miraculous confirmation or direct fulfillment of foretold events (which often didn't happen for generations after the fact) - indeed at least in Jeremiah's case, that is exactly what happened.

In regard to some of the other issues you raise -

Many societies today are vastly different from the societies of the ancients.
Take the rise of democracy, for instance, or the rise of various economic systems
like capitalism and communism. Take the advent of Science and how
electronic/computer technology has become so pervasive and significant. The
controversies surrounding abortion and contraception absolutely could not have
happened two thousand years ago.

The Bible itself portrays:

People groups that undergo significant cultural transformations - including, but not limited to, the development of various technologies and operating under different political and economic systems - but God's interactions with those people groups not changing significantly as a consequence of these particular changes, but rather -
God changing the way he relates to people according to how they relate to Him. In the book of Judges for example, viewed at one level, God changes the way He relates to His people from chapter to chapter - alternately allowing them to be oppressed and then delivered (of course, viewed more wholistically, God is completely consistent - it is the people who He deals with that are inconsistent). The Amorites (cf. Genesis 15:6 & book of Joshua) and Ninevites (book of Jonah) are further salutory examples of this.
Significant and lasting changes in the way He relates to people according to 'Covenants' he makes with them (particularly Adam, Noah, Abraham, Jacob/Israel, Moses & the children of Israel, David and of course the New Covenant offered through Christ to all peoples of the Earth).

Summary: the Bible itself portrays a variety of ways that 'God behaves towards mankind'. Theologians who affirm sola scriptura necessarily bind themselves to scriptural (especially New Covenantal) models of this interaction - for them to deny that God would 'interact with us today the same way He did thousands of years ago' would be inherently inconsistent.


What is the function of permanent acolytes and lectors in the Catholic Church? Prior to this motu proprio the only purpose of the order of acolyte or lector in the Catholic Church that I knew of was to prepare permanent deacons for ordination.
So, if the purpose is expanded to all lay people, what function will acolytes perform in the future?  Will we be expecting itinerant acolytes going from parish to parish helping at masses?  Will we be wowed by one superior lector?

What is the function of instituted acolytes and lectors in the Catholic Church?
The following applies to instituted acolytes and lectors. These offices historically are looked on as steppingstones towards ordination and thus are not permanent in nature.
Acolyte

A ministry to which a person is specially appointed by the Church to assist the deacon and to minister to the priest. His duty is to attend to the service of the altar and to assist as needed in the celebration of the Mass. He may also distribute Holy Communion as an auxiliary minister at the Eucharistic liturgy and to the sick. An acolyte may be entrusted with publicly exposing the Blessed Sacrament for adoration but not with giving benediction. He may also, to the extent needed, take care of instructing other faithful who by appointment assist the priest or deacon by carrying the missal, cross, candles, and similar functions. The ministry of acolyte is reserved to men and conferred by the bishop of the diocese or, in clerical institutes of religious, by the major superior, according to liturgical rites composed for the purpose by the Church. Women may be delegated to perform some of the functions of an acolyte.

Lector

One of the ministries adapted to present day needs in the Latin Church, otherwise known as reader. He functions partially as the subdeacon did previously. He is appointed to read the word of God in the liturgical assembly. Accordingly he reads the lesson from Sacred Scripture, except the Gospel, in the Mass and in other sacred celebrations; recites the psalms between the readings in absence of the psalmist; presents the intentions for general intercessions when the deacon or cantor is absent; and may also direct the congregation in the singing. If necessary he also assumes the responsibility of instructing any of the faithful called upon to read the Scriptures in any liturgical celebration.

Pope Francis’s new document seems to say the offices may be permanent, even though he allows them to be permanently instituted as such, the episcopal conferences may have to decide on this.
Since the motu proprio was dated January 10, 2021, it is still too early to see the actual decisions of how this is implemented.


How is it that an unchanging and omniscient God can have "regret" as He did in Gen 6:7? In Genesis 6:7, we read,

  "So the LORD said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.”"

I have never understood how it is that God can experience regret.  Does this not imply that He made a mistake?

Perhaps it is only because as humans we experience regret frequently associated with a mistake; however, regret simply means "to feel sorrow or remorse".  Remorse is defined as (1) deep and painful regret for wrongdoing; compunction.
(2) (Obsolete) pity; compassion.

I can't shake the sense that regret always entails "I wish I hadn't done that".

God is completely unlike us, so any attempts to describe God using human language are very limited. In this case an attempt is made to express the sorrow of God over the evil and pain introduced into the world, even though he knew it would happen, and he knows he will not only put it right, but make things even better than they were. This passage shows that God is not indifferent toward our problems.


Do the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches observe different dates for Pascha? Someone claimed on another forum that the Roman Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox Church observe different dates for the feast of Pascha/Easter. Is this so? If so, what does this imply about the unity of the Church?

Disagreement about the date for Easter goes back to the very earliest years of Christianity.  Pope Anicetus and Polycarp are said to have disagreed about the correct date, as early as the middle of the second century, both finally agreeing that they could not convince each other to change.  Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons in what is now France, mentioned this in a letter to Pope Victor, as a precedent to press Pope Victor to allow Eastern Christians to continue their tradition when they were in Rome.

Easter continued to be celebrated on different days in the east and in the west, but this was almost the least of the issues that divided Christianity. What today would seem to be a trifling issue, the insertion of the filioque clause into the Nicene Creed was to be the major issue that finally sealed the division of the eastern and western branches of Christianity, in the Great Schism of 1054. Pope Leo XI insisted on inserting the filioque clause, providing a subtle change in the definition of the Trinity, into the Nicene Creed in spite of a requirement that no change could be made to the Nicene Creed other than by a council of the bishops. Another trigger was that the western churches insisted on celibacy for the clergy, whereas the eastern churches regarded marriage by the clergy as acceptable.

While the disagreement about the date of Easter may be about genuine, firmly held views on proper theology, many of the other divisions that occurred in the Christian Church have been about power. Pope Leo was arguably more concerned to assert his authority over the entire Christian Church than whether priests could marry. The secular world talks of the division between Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox as the 'Great Schism', but more often, when the Catholic Church talks of the 'Great Schism', it is the western schism of 1378-1418, in which various claimants vied for the power and wealth that came with the papacy. This western schism was called the 'Great Schism' in order to differentiate it from the several other papal schisms in the Catholic Church, with John W. O’Malley SJ saying in A History of the Popes, page 150 that the schism was certainly not the first papal schism, nor would it be the last.

The earliest Christian writings, from the epistles of St Paul and the apocryphal Gospel of Thomas demonstrate that the Christian Church has never been united. Differences over theology, such as the date of Easter or the providence of GThomas are arguably more noble than the disunity over power and access to the vast wealth of the Church.


Does "Being in schism" merely imply mutual excommunication? (Catholic perspective) In the answer provided to the following question:
Explanation of the bell, book, and candle ritual of excommunication the author states that it is a common misconception that excommunication implies someone has been kicked out of the church, it merely means that they have been barred from the sacraments. In other words someone who has been excommunicated is still part of the church.

I was wondering how this applies to large-scale excommunications, such as the great schism, where the West excommunicated the East and vice versa? Does this mean that the West and the East were actually still the same "undivided" (in a sense) church, but that the West considered Eastern Sacraments illicit and the East considered Western Sacraments illicit?

I ask because this would have interesting consequences for ecclesiology: From the Catholic perspective, other Christian bodies are still within "the one true church", however they are "excommunicated" which simply means that they are barred from the sacraments. In the case of the Orthodox churches, their sacraments are valid, but due to their "excommunicated" status they are illicit.

If this is true, it actually puts my mind at rest in terms of the whole "we are the one true church" position that both the Eastern Orthodox and Catholic churches hold, because it allows them to both be correct: there are not two Churches claiming to be the one true church, there is only one, but there are excommunications at play within it that make it seem as though there are two (or more)

Scoping this to Catholicism.

PS: Potentially the word "anathema" has some role in all of this. Is an anathema different to an excommunication? Does receiving an anathema imply that you have been kicked out of the church?

It is important to note that when we speak of the "schism" between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church that began in the 11th century, that it was not the first time that the Orthodox Church was out of communion with Rome.  In fact, the division was seen as completely reversible until the pillaging of Constantinople during the 4th crusade.

The word "schism" in my mind conveys a sense of permenance and or/finality.  In this sense, I feel that the Great Schism only acheived the status corresponding to its name after no viable path to reconciliation appeared possible.


How do Catholics explain 1 Corinthians 11:21 in light of Transubstantiation? Catholicism interprets 1 Corinthians 11:17-34 in light of the dogma of transubstantiation ( = the miracle of bread changing into Jesus' real flesh and wine changing into Jesus' real blood performed by a Catholic priest in the person of Jesus Christ). (source)

  "For every one taketh before his own supper to eat. And one indeed is
  hungry and another is drunk."

  1 Corinthians 11:21 (Douay-Rheims)

Does this show that in Catholicism, it is possible to get drunk with the real blood of Jesus Christ, to be intoxicated with him?

The bread and wine we offer at Mass do become, in Catholic understanding, "truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ"1, and this is what we consume in the Eucharist.

However, this does not mean—as I mentioned in this answer—that the sacrificial offerings are no longer like the originals in any way. As the term "transubstantiation" should indicate, what is changed in the process is the substance, in the older philosophical sense of "that which makes something to be what it is". The accidents, that is, "those things which happen to be properties of an object", do not change.

In particular, that means that one can measure alcoholic content (an accident of the wine) even after transubstantiation; and thus, at least in theory, it would be possible to become drunk from it. Deliberately doing so, of course, would be a gross impertinence to Our Lord. Canon law provides for an excommunication in this or a similar case:

  Canon 1367. A person who throws away the consecrated species or takes or retains them for a sacrilegious purpose2 incurs a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See; moreover, a cleric can be punished with another penalty, not excluding dismissal from the clerical state.

(emphasis added)

1(Council of Trent, XIIIth session, Canon I)
2Certainly the purpose of becoming drunk off the species of wine would be "a sacrilegious purpose".


What do these verses mean? I was singing in a choir at St. Patrick's Cathedral in Melbourne, Australia. One of the lyrics was as follows:

  God will give him the throne of David, his father.

  The Lord swore an oath to David;
  He will not go back on his word:
  'A son, the fruit of your body,
  Will I set upon your throne.'

  For the Lord has chosen Zion;
  He has desired it for his dwelling:
  'This is my resting place forever,
  Here have I chosen to live.

  'There David's stock will flower:
  I will prepare a lamp for my anointed.
  I will cover his enemies with shame,
  But on him my crown shall shine.'

I felt bad for singing these lyrics without knowing what they meant, so my question is:

What do these verses mean?

These are excerpts from Psalm 132 (in the Catholic numbering), praising the fact that God chose to make His home in Jerusalem. Alternating the verse text with the psalm (in the New American Bible, Revised Edition translation), we get:

  The Lord swore an oath to David,
  he will not go back on his word:
  'A son, the fruit of your body,
  Will I set upon your throne.'

  The LORD swore an oath to David in truth,
  he will never turn back from it:
  “Your own offspring I will set upon your throne."  (Verse 11)

Next:

  For the Lord has chosen Zion;
  He has desired it for his dwelling:
  'This is my resting place forever,
  Here have I chosen to live."

  Yes, the LORD has chosen Zion,
  desired it for a dwelling:
  This is my resting place forever;
  here I will dwell, for I desire it. (Verse 13–14)

Finally:
.

  There David's stock will flower:
  I will prepare a lamp for my anointed.
  I will cover his enemies with shame,
  But on him my crown shall shine.

  There I will make a horn sprout for David;
  I will set a lamp for my anointed.
  His foes I will clothe with shame,
  but on him his crown shall shine. (Verse 17–18)


What's the problem with groves? In Exodus 34:13, Deuteronomy 7:5, Deuteronomy 12:3, God states laws against idolatry, and God says to cut down or burn groves:

  Exodus 34:13 KJV
  But ye shall destroy their altars, break their
  images, and cut down their groves:

  Deuteronomy 7:5 KJV
  But thus shall ye deal with them; ye shall
  destroy their altars, and break down their images, and cut down their
  groves, and burn their graven images with fire.

  Deuteronomy 12:3 KJV
  And ye shall overthrow their altars, and break
  their pillars, and burn their groves with fire; and ye shall hew down
  the graven images of their gods, and destroy the names of them out of
  that place.

Some kings, fighting against idolatry, accomplished that commandment, like Hezekiah
:

  2 Kings 18:4 KJV
  He removed the high places, and brake the images,
  and cut down the groves, and brake in pieces the brasen serpent that
  Moses had made: for unto those days the children of Israel did burn
  incense to it: and he called it Nehushtan.

In my native language (portuguese), "grove" is translated as a "forest". So I thought: What's the problem with some trees? What's related to idolatry on groves?

Using strong, the "grove" word is H842 (happy; asherah (or Astarte) a Phoenician goddess; also an image of the same). God was fighting the idolatry about that goddess?

Sacred groves are a common feature of ancient pagan religion.

A particularly accessible Western example might be Oedipus at Colonus, which is the middle play in the Theban cycle of Sophocles (following Oedipus Rex and preceding Antigone).

A great deal of the action in Oedipus at Colonus takes place in a grove outside Colonus that is consecrated to the "Erinyes" (goddesses of vengeance).

It's also not uncommon in the legends of early-medieval Western saints for the saint to cut down a sacred tree in the presence of pagan clerics and dignitaries, in a sort of recapitulation of 1 Kings 18 -- e.g., Boniface and the Donar Oak.


Why did Jesus say he came to create division? In Luke 12:51-53 Jesus said:

  Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but
  division. From now on there will be five in one family divided against
  each other, three against two and two against three.

There must have been a larger point to this. What was the division that he spoke of? I can't imagine it's as simple as separating the "good" from the "bad" since he often made it clear that God holds no distinction between those two types of people, and loves everyone equally and unconditionally.

Man was created for a loving relationship with God, therefore the first and greatest commandment:

  Mark 12:30 …thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.

Why do we love God?

  1 John 4:19 We love him, because he first loved us.

We know this:

  Revelation 1:5 …from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood

The division Christ speaks of is between those that love God and those that will not.  Those that want what God wants for their lives and those that want what they want for their lives.


What is the scriptural basis for "Love God and do whatever you please"? This quote has been attributed to St. Augustine, referring to what he said in a sermon on 1 John 4:4-12:

  See what we are insisting upon; that the deeds of men are only discerned by the root of charity. For many things may be done that have a good appearance, and yet proceed not from the root of charity. For thorns also have flowers: some actions truly seem rough, seem savage; howbeit they are done for discipline at the bidding of charity. Once for all, then, a short precept is given you: Love, and do what you will: whether you hold your peace, through love hold your peace; whether you cry out, through love cry out; whether you correct, through love correct; whether you spare, through love do you spare: let the root of love be within, of this root can nothing spring but what is good.

It's been paraphrased as:

  Love God and do whatever you please: for the soul trained in love to God will do nothing to offend the One who is Beloved.

I've heard people just use the first half without the full expression, usually in a flippant way, but I think Augustine may be onto something here.   We certainly get enough discussion about what God wants us to do or things along that line. Augustine seems to think that if we love God we aren't going to offend him and so don't need any "rules". Jesus seems to me to agree with him when he said:

  Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the  second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

I'd like to hear the scripture that is used to support this quote of Augustine's.

Firstly, what is "to love God"?
When you love God, probably you won't do things, which can harm him.
To love God really is so big love, that maybe is better to give you another example also.

When you love your kids, you'll try to please them, help them, protect them and so on. Some laws to protect children in your country are totally unnecessary. You need no laws. Because you're trying best as you can. You won't cause bodily injury, you won't let them without food. On the contrary, when your kids are for you just molecules stack, no laws in your country help. You will harm them and they will go to the foster family very soon.

Another example, when you love you wife (or husband if you're woman), you won't rob her, maltreat her, abase her and so on. You'll give her everything you have, without some knowledge about quote:

  Love your neighbor as yourself.

These laws become natural for you, without some knowledge about them. Because you can't know everything what Jesus and all the saints said, probably is better just love your God and love your neighbor best as you can, and each law will become natural for you.


What evidence is there that the Jews thought leprosy was due to sin? Some Jews seemed to think that lepersy was a punishment for sin,
  rather than a sin itself.

This is most probably going to sound like a stupid question either because there is a specific verse or because there really seems to be no other explanation, but where in the Bible is such indicated? That is what my teachers and priests have told me, but I can't seem to find it in the Bible.

I found this webpage, but it gives me only one verse which doesn't really answer my question:

  Incurable by man, many believed God inflicted the curse of leprosy
  upon people for the sins they committed. In fact, those with leprosy
  were so despised and loathed that they were not allowed to live in any
  community with their own people (Numbers 5:2). Among the sixty-one
  defilements of ancient Jewish laws, leprosy was second only to a dead
  body in seriousness. A leper wasn’t allowed to come within six feet of
  any other human, including his own family. The disease was considered
  so revolting that the leper wasn’t permitted to come within 150 feet
  of anyone when the wind was blowing. Lepers lived in a community with
  other lepers until they either got better or died. This was the only
  way the people knew to contain the spread of the contagious forms of
  leprosy.

Num 5:2 says

  Command the people of Israel that they put out of the camp everyone who is leprous or has a discharge and everyone who is unclean through contact with the dead.

There's a comment in the question that points out 2 Ki 15:5 and another verse Num 12:10 (whose relevance I don't understand).

Num 12:9-11 (NASB):

  9 So the anger of the LORD burned against them and He departed. 10 But when the cloud had withdrawn from over the tent, behold, Miriam was leprous, as white as snow. As Aaron turned toward Miriam, behold, she was leprous. 11 Then Aaron said to Moses, "Oh, my lord, I beg you, do not account this sin to us, in which we have acted foolishly and in which we have sinned.

2 Ki 15:4-6 (NASB):

  4 Only the high places were not taken away; the people still sacrificed and burned incense on the high places. 5 The LORD struck the king, so that he was a leper to the day of his death. And he lived in a separate house, while Jotham the king's son was over the household, judging the people of the land. 6 Now the rest of the acts of Azariah and all that he did, are they not written in the Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah?

Some context:

I am trying to clarify the claim I make in this Cognitive Sciences stackexchange question about mental illness:

  In ancient times (or Jesus's time), uninformed people believed people
  who had leprosy had leprosy because they committed a grave sin or sins

Disease in general
Most scholars and Biblical commentaries agree that it was a common belief among the Jewish people of Jesus' day that leprosy and sickness in general was caused by sin.  In the Old Testament, there are a number of passage that say doctors are of little value:

As for you, you whitewash with lies; worthless physicians are you all. (Job 13:4, ESV)
In the thirty-ninth year of his reign Asa was diseased in his feet, and his disease became severe. Yet even in his disease he did not seek the Lord, but sought help from physicians. And Asa slept with his fathers, dying in the forty-first year of his reign. (II Chronicles 16:12-13)

Instead, healing comes from prayer to God:

If there is famine in the land, if there is pestilence or blight or mildew or locust or caterpillar, if their enemies besiege them in the land at their gates, whatever plague, whatever sickness there is, whatever prayer, whatever plea is made by any man or by all your people Israel, each knowing his own affliction and his own sorrow and stretching out his hands toward this house, (2 Chronicles 6:28-29)
In those days Hezekiah became sick and was at the point of death. And Isaiah the prophet the son of Amoz came to him and said to him, “Thus says the Lord, ‘Set your house in order, for you shall die; you shall not recover.’”  Then Hezekiah turned his face to the wall and prayed to the Lord... Thus says the Lord, the God of David your father: I have heard your prayer; I have seen your tears. Behold, I will heal you. (II King 20:1-2,5)

Psalms 110, brings together these idea nicely:

Some were fools through their sinful ways, and because of their iniquities suffered affliction; they loathed any kind of food, and they drew near to the gates of death. Then they cried to the Lord in their trouble, and he delivered them from their distress. He sent out his word and healed them (v17-21)

Here, "fools" are afflicted with illness because of their sinfulness and are cured when they ask God for help.
Likewise, literature of the Ancient Near East usually attribute illness either to sin or black magic.1
In Jesus' time, we have the example of this attitude in John 9:1-2:

As [Jesus] passed by, he saw a man blind from birth. And his disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?”

The idea that illness and disability were caused by sin is so ingrained that Jesus' Jewish disciples assume that being born blind must be the result of sin.  They don't even consider the possibility that his disability was not caused by sin.  Similarly, the healing of the paralytic in Luke 5:17-30 carries a strong connotation that sin and disability were related in the Jewish mindset.  In this passage, Jesus first tells the man his sins are forgiven, but the crowd is not convinced so Jesus proceeds to heal the man. Thus, Jesus is playing off their (false) belief that the man was crippled because of his sin.
The Talmud also supports the idea that this was a common understanding among the Jewish people.  For example, b. shabbat 55a states "there is no death without sin and there is no suffering without iniquity".  Indeed, Genesis Rabbah 63:6 supports the idea that sin can occur before birth.  In this passage, Rabbi Yonhanan interprets the story of Jacob and Esah "this one ran to kill this one and this one ran to kill this one [in the womb]".
tsara'ath (leprosy)
In regard to צָרָ֫עַת/tsara'ath (usually translated leprosy, although as Daniel points out the symptoms don't really match those of leprosy) specifically, the illness usually develops after a person attempts to challenge authority, a strong indication that it is the result of a specific sin.  For example, after Miriam challenged Moses (Numbers 12:10–15) and after Gehazi disobeyed Elisha (II Kings 5:20–27).
When Jesus heals "lepers" in the New Testament, he instructs them to "go and show yourself to the priest, and make an offering" (Luke 5:12-14; see also Matthew 8:3-4, Luke 17:12-14).  This special command, which does not normally follow healings, is further indication that this disease has a special spiritual significance.

1 Encyclopedia Judaica: Leprosy


What is the biblical basis for "spiritual drunkenness"? According to Wikipedia, Spiritual drunkenness

refers to a phenomenon seen in some Christian denominations, particularly those associated with Pentecostalism and the Charismatic Movement, in which individuals who are said to be experiencing intense momentary visitations of—or even possession by—the Holy Spirit exhibit a range of behaviors resembling signs of moderate to severe alcoholic inebriation, including unsteadiness, uncontrollable laughter, silly expressions or gestures, verbal or nonverbal shouting (not typically in the form of glossolalia), sudden intense fatigue, and temporary unconsciousness. The phenomenon typically occurs during Pentecostal and charismatic church services, usually at the prompting of a preacher or pastor, and most often involving multiple members of a congregation at a time, generally after having been "transferred" from one person to another via respiratory blowing or laying on of hands.

You can find several live recordings of this phenomenon on a related question I asked on P&N SE.
What is the biblical basis for "spiritual drunkenness"?

Spiritual drunkenness is an informal or colloquial description of a variety of behaviors.
Briefly, Ephesians 5:18 compares two states of being-  being drunk with wine, which is to be avoided and being filled with the Spirit.  This suggests being filled with the Holy Spirit can also lead surrendering control to God.
"Do not get drunk with wine, for that is wickedness (corruption, stupidity), but be filled with the [Holy] Spirit and constantly guided by Him."
https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Ephesians%205%3A18
In Acts 2, when the apostles, were baptized in the Holy Spirit, which Christ foretold
" '...the Father sends you the gift he promised, as I told you before. 5 John baptized with[a] water, but in just a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.' "
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%201%3A4%2D6&version=NLT
Certainly, when they received the baptism in the spirit, others thought these manifestations were drunkenness on wine.
v.13 "But others in the crowd ridiculed them, saying, 'They’re just drunk, that’s all!'"  So at least twice, the Bible has draws close parallels and contrasts between certain manifestations of the Holy Spirit and alcoholic drunkenness.
Regarding uncontrollable laughter, joy is commanded multiple times in the Bible.  Uncontrollable laughter is most certainly one example of joy.
This being said, I'm not sure "drunk in the spirit" is the best term for manifestations similar to the definition in the question, nor that all of them are strongly supported by the Bible.


Did John Calvin teach that souls 'pre-existed'? My understanding of Calvin's teaching on Paul's expression of foreknowledge, election and predestination is that all of these are within the eternal Deity.

That which occurred within Deity (I understand Calvin to have taught) was within the Person of the Father : a matter of his own foreknowledge of whom he would beget, in Christ, in time : a matter of his own divine will and purpose.

My understanding of Calvin's teaching is that no souls did exist or could exist in the eternal existence of God Almighty, and that souls are created in time.

For souls to 'pre-exist' ascribes to human souls an attribute of Deity, I would say. And I do not remember anywhere in Calvin's Institutes that would condone such a concept.

Am I wrong about what I have understood John Calvin's teaching to be, regarding Paul's doctrine?

Here is an answer in two parts.  The first part deals with information extracted from Book 1 of Calvin’s ‘Institutes’.  The link given opens up at Book 3 so you have to navigate back to Book 1.  https://reformed.org/master/index.html?mainframe=/books/institutes/books/indxbk3.html
CALVIN INSTITUTES - BOOK I. THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOD THE CREATOR.  Discussion of Human Nature as Created, of the Faculties of the Soul, of the Image of God, of Free Will, and of the Original Integrity of Man's Nature: Section 15: STATE IN WHICH MAN WAS CREATED. THE FACULTIES OF THE SOUL - THE IMAGE OF GOD - FREE WILL - ORIGINAL RIGHTEOUSNESS.

Manichaean error of the soul's emanation: It must, therefore, be held as certain, that souls, notwithstanding of their having the divine image engraven on them, are created just as angels are. Creation, however, is not a transfusion of essence, but a commencement of it out of nothing. Nor, though the spirit is given by God, and when it quits the flesh again returns to him (cf. Eccl 12:7), does it follow that it is a portion withdrawn from his essence.

Opinions of the philosophers on the soul criticized in view of the fall of Adam - The soul and its faculties: It were vain to seek a definition of the soul from philosophers, not one of whom, with the exception of Plato, distinctly maintained its immortality. Others of the school of Socrates, indeed, lean the same way, but still without teaching distinctly a doctrine of which they were not fully persuaded. Plato, however, advanced still further, and regarded the soul as an image of God. Others so attach its powers and faculties to the present life that they leave nothing external to the body.

Free choice and Adam's responsibility: At present it is necessary only to remember, that man, at his first creation, was very different from all his posterity; who, deriving their origin from him after he was corrupted, received a hereditary taint.

NOTE: Immortality of the soul does not mean the soul existed from eternity.  Immortal means it does not die, not that it always existed.
Nowhere does Calvin suggest that human souls pre-existed.  On the contrary, he declares that souls are created and have their commencement “out of nothing”.  Souls are created in time, not before God created time, space, matter and all life as we know it.
The second part to this answer has more to do with Calvin’s view of the soul separating from the body at death and how Scripture shows that the soul is immortal, that it continues to exist after death.  Source: http://archive.churchsociety.org/churchman/documents/Cman_105_3_Hallett.pdf

When, in Inst. 1:15:2, Calvin talks of the soul being the ‘nobler part’, he does so arguing from Scriptures which clearly distinguish the soul from the body and emphasize the immortality of the soul. It is in this sense that Calvin then concludes that the soul is the ‘principal part’...
When we consider for example, that in Institutes 1:15:2 Calvin refers to no less than sixteen passages in Scripture which talk of the soul and body separating at death, and that he only uses the word ‘flesh’ when the New Testament uses it, then it is harder to accept that Calvin is Platonic in this area, rather than Biblical.  [p 5]
It is perhaps impossible to ascertain exactly the Platonist influence on Calvin. He was certainly well versed in both Plato and Plotinus and, of course, in Augustine and this may well have resulted in certain tensions in his thinking, reflected, perhaps, in the Platonist language and terminology he frequently used. But, having said that, it appears that his overriding concern was to allow his theology to be shaped by Scripture. [p 6]
The soul, then, is something essential apart from the body and is, argues Calvin from Scripture, ‘the principal part.’  It is the soul which survives when freed from the prison house of the body and it is the soul which bears the image of God. Calvin puts it this way: ‘For although God’s glory shines forth in the outer man, yet there is no doubt that the proper seat of his image is in the soul.’ [p 7]

It is worth repeating that the biblical doctrine of the immortality of the soul does not mean the soul existed from eternity.  Immortal means it does not die, not that it always existed.  There is no attribution of ‘deity’ to the human soul, even though the first man and the first woman were created “in the image of God.”  Neither does Calvin suggest that human souls pre-existed in some heavenly or spiritual realm and were then “transferred” into human bodies at some later point in time.
(NOTE: Emphasis in quotations added by me)


Under what conditions does the Bible support divorce? It seems that Jesus talks out against divorce.  But in other places, divorce is allowed.  How does this all play out and where does the bible really stand on this?  Is it a sin or is it just part of the culture?

I'm seeking the exegesis of mainstream Protestant denominations, since I believe that these will all be similar (if not identical).  If differences of interpretation exist between the different denominations, please let me know and I'll refine my scope a bit.

I think Jonathon started with a great passage for this question, but stopped short of an interpretation that carries the full weight of the passage.

The passage has two different parts. One part addresses marriages between believers, the other mixed marriages.

First, let's take the part between believers:

  1st Corinthians 7:10-11 (ESV)
  To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife.

This is a clear mandate that believers should NOT divorce. There are no conditions given, no ifs, ands or buts. Now if we move on in the passage the group being addressed changes:

  1st Corinthians 7:12-15 (ESV)
  To the rest I say (I, not the Lord) that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her. If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved. God has called you to peace.

Here relationships between a believer and a non-believer are address. Still the charge is to stay together. If there is a divorce it is ONLY to be allowed at the insistence of the non-believer, the believer does not have the option of requesting a divorce, but neither does he have the authority to forbid the other party from leaving. The most peaceful thing to do if you can't convince them to stay is let them have their way.

This should also be balanced with the warning in the next book about not marrying an unbeliever in the first place. It's a situation that should NEVER be entered into:

  2nd Corinthians 6:14-15 (ESV)
  Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? What accord has Christ with Belial? Or what portion does a believer share with an unbeliever?

This leaves the passage in 1st Corinthians making an allowance for marriages where one partner came to faith after the marriage AND the non-believing party is insisting on a divorce.

Lastly I would like to point out that as a God ordained sacrament, all marriage is involves a covenant and God hates covenant breakers. I started out pointing out how the 1st Corinthians passage forbid divorce between believers, but one could also clearly show from Scripture that God hates ALL divorce. For example see Malachi 2:10-16.

TL;DR Based on these and other passages I would say that the literal answer to your question is that the Bible does not support divorce under ANY circumstances.


Immaculate Conception: Why was it necessary for our Salvation? According to many Catholic apologists, like Dr. Robert Sungenis,1 the dogma of the immaculate conception of Mary is not simply binding because it is a divinely revealed dogma, but according to them it is binding additionally because logically speaking without Mary being sinless Jesus could not accomplish the redemptive work in the first place.
What exactly do they mean by this?
The story goes like this, to save mankind Jesus had to be sinless. Therefore Mary had to be sinless to not pass on original sin. But then Protestant apologists just say "the grace could have been given directly to Jesus" or "why wasn't the grace given to the mother and father of Mary, or even further back?"

Accordingly, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, for the honor of
the Holy and undivided Trinity, for the glory and adornment of the
Virgin Mother of God, for the exaltation of the Catholic Faith, and
for the furtherance of the Catholic religion, by the authority of
Jesus Christ our Lord, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by
our own:
We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that
the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception,
by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of
the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was
preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed
by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the
faithful. Hence, if anyone shall dare -- which God forbid! -- to think
otherwise than as has been defined by us, let him know and understand
that he is condemned by his own judgment; that he has suffered
shipwreck in the faith; that he has separated from the unity of the
Church; and that, furthermore, by his own action he incurs the
penalties established by law if he should are to express in words or
writing or by any other outward means the errors he think in his
heart.”
Blessed Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus, 8 December 1854

Questions in formal form is as follows: Why was it necessary for the salvation plan to have specifically Mary the mother of Jesus be utterly without sin?

1. For example, in this video debate at 1:05:18 ("because if she isn't sinless, she's going to produce a sinful Savior") and 1:13:00.

Was Mary's Immaculate Conception Absolutely Necessary for our Salvation?
Before I go on with my answer, I object to that fact that you claim that according to many Catholic apologists, like Dr. Robert Sungenis, the dogma of the immaculate conception of Mary is necessary for our salvation.
"According to many Catholic apologists, like Dr. Robert Sungenis, the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary is not simply binding because it is a divinely revealed dogma, but according to them it is binding additionally because logically speaking without Mary being sinless Jesus could not accomplish the redemptive work in the first place." Can someone please name a few Catholic theologians with this viewpoint. In 2008 his local bishop had instructed him to stop writing about Jews and to remove the name "Catholic" from his blog.
The short answer is no.
Our salvation was guarantied by Our lord Jesus Christ on the Cross.

The Catholic Church believes that it was not absolutely or intrinsically necessary for the Blessed Virgin Mary to be sinless; only fitting or appropriate (God making the choice).
Thus, even a dogmatic belief in the Immaculate Conception does not in any way impinge upon the Two Natures of Christ. We believe the Immaculate Conception happened, and are required to believe this, but we don't believe that it had to happen exactly as it did (in all possible worlds, etc.), in order for God to be God.
All the Immaculate Conception did was make Mary as Eve was before the Fall (precisely why the Church fathers often called her the Second Eve or New Eve): unfallen and sinless; not subject to original sin. As Cardinal Newman remarked: why is it considered such an extraordinary thing that God chose to simply make one person -- the Mother of God the Son, the Theotokos -- the way that all of us would have been, but for the Fall?
Fr. Ryan Erlenbush wrote on The New Theological Movement website (12-8-11):

And this is the great difference between Jesus and Mary: She required a special grace to preserve her from the stain of sin, but our Savior (by virtue of the Incarnation itself, and on account of his divinity) could not possibly have contracted the guilt or debt of original sin in any respect.

While our Blessed Lady, even though Immaculately Conceived, required a Redeemer (namely, her own Son, Christ Jesus), the Lord did not have any need of a Redeemer. No special grace was required (beyond that of the Incarnation itself) to keep the Christ Child from original sin – he could not possibly have contracted it.

In this sense, the dogma of the Immaculate Conception is seen to be fitting and true while (in itself) not absolutely necessary, but the sinlessness of the Lord Jesus is absolutely necessary and super-eminently fitting.

Was Mary's Immaculate Conception Absolutely Necessary?

St. Thomas Aquinas maintains that it was indeed possible for Our Lord Jesus Christ to have been born of sinful woman; Christ's glory would not have been diminished thereby. But, he states elsewhere, it would have been inappropriate:

God so prepares and endows those, whom He chooses for some particular office, that they are rendered capable of fulfilling it, according to 2 Cor. 3:6: "(Who) hath made us fit ministers of the New Testament." Now the Blessed Virgin was chosen by God to be His Mother. Therefore there can be no doubt that God, by His grace, made her worthy of that office. ... But she would not have been worthy to be the Mother of God, if she had ever sinned. First, because the honor of the parents reflects on the child, according to Prov. 17:6: "The glory of children are their fathers": and consequently, on the other hand, the Mother's shame would have reflected on her Son. Secondly, because of the singular affinity between her and Christ, who took flesh from her: and it is written (2 Cor. 6:15): "What concord hath Christ with Belial?" Thirdly, because of the singular manner in which the Son of God, who is the "Divine Wisdom" (1 Cor. 1:24) dwelt in her, not only in her soul but in her womb. And it is written (Wis. 1:4): "Wisdom will not enter into a malicious soul, nor dwell in a body subject to sins."
We must therefore confess simply that the Blessed Virgin committed no actual sin, neither mortal nor venial; so that what is written (Cant 4:7) is fulfilled: "Thou art all fair, O my love, and there is not a spot in thee," etc. - Was the dogma of the Immaculate Conception formulated in response to someone challenging Mary's ability to bear a perfect Son?

If God preserved Mary from all sin, He could have preserved Christ's body and soul likewise without the grace of Mary's Immaculate Conception.

Was it necessary for God to make Mary immaculate at her conception so that she could be Jesus' mother?
No. The Church only speaks of the Immaculate Conception as something that was "fitting," something that made Mary a "fit habitation" (i.e., suitable dwelling) for the Son of God, not something that was necessary.

And hence they [the Church Fathers] affirmed that the Blessed Virgin was, through grace, entirely free from every stain of sin, and from all corruption of body, soul and mind; that she was always united with God and joined to him by an eternal covenant; that she was never in darkness but always in light; and that, therefore, she was entirely a fit habitation for Christ, not because of the state of her body, but because of her original grace. . . .

For it was certainly not fitting that this vessel of election should be wounded by the common injuries, since she, differing so much from the others, had only nature in common with them, not sin. In fact, it was quite fitting that, as the Only-Begotten has a Father in heaven, whom the Seraphim extol as thrice holy, so he should have a Mother on earth who would never be without the splendor of holiness [Ineffabilis Deus].

Can anyone show where in Pope Pius IX's Papal Encyclical Ineffabilis Deus that the Mary's Immaculate Conception was absolutely necessary for our salvation. You can not!
Unless one can show evidence to the contrary, in Pope Pius IX's dogmatic definition of the Immaculate Conception that the Immaculate Conception of the Ever Virgin Mary was necessary for our salvation, the contrary is to be upheld.
St. Thomas Aquinas in his Summa clearly states that it was Adam and not Eve that was responsible  for the transition of original sin. Now if Mary, the Mother of Jesus is the New Eve and Jesus Christ is the New Adam, it is obvious that the Immaculate Conception was not necessary for our salvation for the Holy Spirit can operate in that dwelling place He so chooses to. It the Holy Spirit that made it possible for Christ to be free of original sin and not Mary, the New Eve.

The solution of this question is made clear by what has been said. For it has been stated that original sin is transmitted by the first parent in so far as he is the mover in the begetting of his children: wherefore it has been said that if anyone were begotten materially only, of human flesh, they would not contract original sin. Now it is evident that in the opinion of philosophers, the active principle of generation is from the father, while the mother provides the matter. Therefore original sin, is contracted, not from the mother, but from the father: so that, accordingly, if Eve, and not Adam, had sinned, their children would not contract original sin: whereas, if Adam, and not Eve, had sinned, they would contract it. - Whether if Eve, and not Adam, had sinned, their children would have contracted original sin?


What is the dominant "Other Christianity" of the Members of the US Congress from the Dakotas? According to this map:

the predominant religion of a given region is usually more or less close to that of the Member of Congress who represents it.  Wisconsin and the Northeast are heavily Catholic (Svidgen, Peter Turner, I know you vote!), the South is basically Baptist, and Utah, shocker, is all Mormon.  What intrigues me, however, is the big bunch of white in the Great Plains - specificially the Dakotas and Nebraska. Grant you, these are At-Large districts, but I'm still wondering what "Other Christian" would be there.  What is the stated relgiion of the members from the Dakotas and Nebraska?

According to my obsessive Googling, these three representatives are Evangelical or Pentecostal. This makes some sense, given that neither category is listed separately in the map key. If they followed their state demographics, they'd be more likely to be Lutheran or Catholic, but just because they're Representatives doesn't mean they're representative in all ways.

North Dakota: Rep. Kevin Cramer

Cramer's background is Lutheran, "[b]ut he soon found his politics and philosophy to be too conservative for the church"; his religious affiliation is given by the National Journal (1 November 2012) as "Evangelical Christian". A comment on an article in the Great Plains Examiner (25 April 2012) says "Cramer is a very active member of New Song church in Bismarck". New Song Church is affiliated with the International Church of the Foursquare Gospel (ICFG), an evangelical Pentecostal denomination.

South Dakota: Rep. Kristi Noem

Some blogs (1, 2, 3, 4) report that Noem is a member of the Family Worship Center Foursquare Church (possibly dead link) in her hometown of Watertown, SD. This is also an ICFG church.

Nebraska, 3rd district: Rep. Adrian Smith

According to this 2006 page, Adrian Smith was affiliated with Calvary Memorial Church in Gering, NE. This church is part of the Evangelical Free Church of America. On 15 July 2009, Smith introduced its pastor, Rev. Gary Hashley, to be a guest chaplain of the US House. Later, on 14 March 2013, he did the same for Rev. Dr. Ezekiel Pipher, who is senior pastor of another EFCA church, Heartland Evangelical Free Church of Central City, NE. Buzzfeed (see below) categorize him under EFC.

"Other Christian" generally

The list form of the Buzzfeed map says exactly who they categorized as "Other Christian", with several subcategories. In summary:

Assemblies of God (2)
Christian (11, including Cramer and Noem)
Christian Reformed (1)
Christian Scientist (2)
Congregationalist (4)
Churches of Christ (2)
Church of God (1)
Disciples of Christ (1)
Eastern Orthodox (5)
Evangelical Free Church (2, including Smith)
Fellowship of Evangelical Churches (1)
Nazarene (1)
Non-denominational Christian (3)
Pentecostal (1)
Protestant (10)
Quaker (1)
Seventh-Day Adventist (2)
United Brethren (2)
Unspecified Christian (5)

Aside from the three already mentioned, the other "Other" representative in the same general area is Michelle Bachmann of Minnesota's 6th district. Buzzfeed classifies her as generic Christian. Reportedly, she attends Eagle Brook Church, an evangelical megachurch.


Is this quote actually in the Gospel of Mark? In a chapter heading to Tom Cheethams The World Inside Out: Henry Corbin & Islamic Myticism the following is quoted:

He who believes a lot
Experiences a lot
-- Peasant woman from the Gospel of Mark

I'm not overly familiar with the this Gospel but it sounds rather too colloquial to be Biblical language. Is it actually a reference and who is this peasant woman? If not, how do I make sense of this?
(Its pointed out in a footnote that this was quote was taken from Hans Peter Deurer Dreamtime: concerning the boundary between wilderness and civilisation).

No, the only women who talk in the Gospel of Mark were:

Woman with hemorrhage
Herod's sister-in-law
Maid asking St. Peter if he knew Jesus

If this is just someone being philosophical, but not specifically Biblical, I'd imagine they're talking about the first person, whom Jesus healed when she touched "the hem of His garment".  As Jesus said "her faith has healed her".

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+5&version=NASB


Why do Mormons/LDS refer to God as "Heavenly Father" rather than "Our Heavenly Father"? I have noticed a very subtle distinction in the way Protestants and LDS refer to God.  When  Protestants pray to God, he may address Him as "Heavenly Father", but when they speak about God, they seem to refer to Him as "Our Heavenly Father".

However, the LDS people that I have known and met seem to refer to God as "Heavenly Father" (without the Our) in both situations--as a direct address and as an indirect address.

I really don't know if there is any reason for this.  Perhaps it is just cultural to each group, but I thought I would ask anyway as it does make me curious.

It's not significant. It could have to do with anything from how they're raised, to how they prefer to speak, to language and dialect, to setting, or to anything else. Mormons will say both "Our Heavenly Father" and "Heavenly Father" interchangeably.


What's God's justification of not allowing the choice of personal annihilation? Question: God is just, so what would be God's justification according to the Bible of Not allowing the choice of annihilation of yourself if you found out Jesus actually never knew you after death?

This question is in my Baptist church view

This is so you would not be in complete doom and torment for eternity in hell. In Baptist and many other dominations you get once chance on Earth to repent and that's it. Then you either go to heaven for eternity or hell for eternity.

The reason I ask this is I don't see how someone can be 110% sure they are saved on this Earth unless something miraculous happened such as an angel coming down and telling me I'm permanently saved for example. (I need 110% confirmation if I'm ever to have peace and depression removal).
Also, you have no choice in being born. The decision of being born is by your two parents (conception) so it's not your own choice. I also don't believe in Calvinism (So I don't believe God creates most of the worlds people just to allow them to be in torment for eternity).  Matthew 7:13

(Post was Edited to give a more unique Question so it's not similar to: "Why should a sinner suffer forever in hell fire?")

When God created Adam, Genesis 2:7 He breathed in his nostrils His breath. Since God cannot die so does our soul. For that reason God created eternal hell. He has given us ample opportunity to correct our way of life even sacrificed His Son that we can have redemption through.

  I understand everyone deserves hell because of sin, but God allowing eternal suffering of the very humans God loves so much who never truly knew Jesus makes zero sense to me.

Jesus said that

  ‘This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all the nations, and then the end will come.’ ( Matthews 24:14 )

So everybody will know about Jesus whether they accept this message 1 Corinthians 1:18-25 or not.

Isaiah 29:21 We cannot complain that God why did He made me? We are part of His plan. Just keep in your prayers and God might show you, your purpose of life. And regarding getting confirmation, you just need to have faith in Christ scarifice.

  For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;  ( Ephesians 2:8)

And this verse confirms the redemption and salvation.

  For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life . John 3:16


Salvation by good works alone? Is the idea of salvation by works alone considered by any branch of Christianity? Consider a person one would describe as good or doing a lot of good, but who doesn't believe in the supernatural. Like Adam Savage, for example, but pick your own example if you don't like him. Why would a good God condemn someone like this to torture? In fact, why would God care more if someone is worshipping him than if they're doing good? In my opinion, such attitude doesn't even pass the test for a good person, and it's the chief reason why I will never believe in God. How is this justified in Christianity?

God's Justice and Mercy

To start off, it should be noted that doing a lot of good things does not exempt any of us from human law.  I give a lot of money to charities, treat people well, pay taxes, etc.  It could well be said that I am a good person.  However, a few years ago, I received a speeding ticket.  I did not go before the judge and plead "I'm a good person."  I simply acknowledged that even though I am, by this world's standards, a fairly good person, I still broke a law.  I realized there was a penalty for breaking the law, so I willfully paid the penalty for myself.  No amount of good deeds that I could volunteer make up for my offense.

There are, indeed, a whole lot of people who live very good and exemplary lives.  However, we are not judged for the good that we do, but for the offenses we commit.  A doctor who saves a million lives is not exempt from the penalty if he murders only one person.  Neither are we exempt from our offenses just because we do many good things.  Before God, all of us have sinned and are subject to penalties for that.  That is basic justice.

It is very important to note, however, that even though God's holiness is so great that He requires justice for even the slightest disobedience, His love and mercy are so great that even the greatest offense can be forgiven.  Thus, there is forgiveness offered not for only the best people who live the most exemplary lives, but also for the worst of us who have sinned the greatest.

God's Judgment

It needs to be stated that God's justice righteously punished people for their offenses, yet He has done everything necessary to offer people forgiveness, taking upon Himself the penalty that we ourselves deserve.

You asked how could God condemn "good" people to torture?  We should also ask how God could take the penalty for the sins of evil people?  His justice can certainly be seen as harsh, even if it is righteous.  His love, however, is quite extravagant, opening forgiveness for all people--not just the best ones.

That is why salvation is not of works, but of faith.  Salvation by works could only be attained by a few.  Salvation by faith opens the door to all people, and that is much more loving, gracious and merciful.

One more comment

I would suggest, however, that your belief on whether or not there is a God should not depend on whether or not God lets people earn their way to heaven.  In doing so, one would have to charge God with a moral wrong, but implicit in the acknowledgement of a moral standard is the recognition of a moral lawgiver, which is God.

Also, someone once said, if I had a deadly disease, I would not be angered to find out there was only one cure that would heal me--I would be most appreciative.  We are all sinners--those who have broken God's law to various degrees.  Yet, God longs to see all people receive forgiveness that He has provided through the greatest of sacrifices.


Repetition of "and he begat sons and daughters:" While reading Genesis 5, we can read the development of human race from Adam to Noah, bridging the gap between the two.

During that passage, there's an expression mentioned often

  (...) and he begat sons and daughters:

What's the purpose of such repetition?

That repetition is called epistrophe which is an optional repetition to make a point.

This comes in a context where humans were expelled from paradise (where they were given a clear command we can read in Genesis 1:28, "fruitful and multiply. Fill the earth and govern it. Reign over the fish in the sea, the birds in the sky..."), fear and shame entered the world and there's a sign of redemption.

Even though we can't be sure or know what's in human hearts, i believe by reinforcing the idea humans are now following what God commanded while they were in paradise and not questioning Him, they are either trying to please Him to compensate for their wrongdoings or simply because they trust that's the best.

Quoting Thomas Brooks (1824). “The select works of ... Thomas Brooks".

  Till men have faith in Christ, their best services are but glorious sins.


Is there any Biblical prophecy about Damascus? Recently I saw a video clip with pieces of an Christian lecturer telling about a Biblical end time prophecy about Damascus. And it may have some connection with the recent chemical attack happened there. Is there any such prophecy in Bible?

If you partake in in-depth study of the Bible's use of city names, you will realize that each city that comes under judgement symbolically refers to a specific idea or relational context. For example, Damascus, the city you cite, is used in scripture to represent man-made civilization (usually in the context of God judging the errancy of our attempts to define our own sense of civility). Damascus, Syria, is historically the oldest civilization and city on Earth, representing the core of social justice, and how it stems from us making our own rules about how society should operate. God had already set his rules through the 10 commandments, however, man in his sin, has suggested other, more injust means of living.


When should we not receive holy communion? As we are all sinners, saved by grace, how do we decide if we should take communion?  As a born again believer we still have times in our lives when we carry a particular sin in our heart or mind or deed.  According Baptists, during those times should we not receive communion?

Most Baptists deny the existence of Venial sins, while at the same time declaring salvation permanent.  Some support for that statement can be found here, though this is far from an authoritative source for all Baptists.  Compiling an authoritative statement of faith on the subject for every Baptist denomination is left as an exercise to the reader.

Nonetheless, as you have shown, there are some requirements Baptists are called to respect when receiving their symbol of Communion.  You can read a discussion of what these requirements entails on the forums here, and I would recommend asking your question there as well as here.

In essence, Baptists believe only those walking in obedience to God should receive Communion.  Any Baptist who has committed any sin, then, ought to forgo participation in Baptist Communion until such time as they have reconciled themselves of that sin.  This position is a synthesis of what I perceive to be the majority position based on transcripts of discussions amongst various Baptists, but it is far from the only major Baptist position.